Skip to main content

Dear Pro-Gay Christian Friend

[Response to the letter Dear Non-Affirming Christian]

Dear Pro-Gay Christian Friend,

Thank you for taking the time to write meSadly, it seems you misunderstand why I met with you for coffee. Please let me explain my motives by defining the words in my salutation above. Would this be too terrible a way to go about it?
Let’s start with ‘friend’ shall we? You rightly question this term as an accurate description of our relationship. For now, let's simply say I mean it as an expression of good will - but will return to it again at the end of the letter.
Then there's this term, 'pro-gay'. By this, I don't mean your personal sexual urges. There have historically been – and are today – countless godly leaders in the church who have deep sexual and romantic attractions to people of the same gender. In spite of their desires, they remain celibate and teach orthodox views of gender and sexuality. In your letter, you repeatedly refer to me as a ‘non-affirming Christian’, but I affirm these people and their teaching on sex.
What I do mean by 'pro-gay' is the teaching you now promote through personal conversations and social media. The articles you share, the comments you leave, and the blogs you write all teach that active sex between two people of the same gender is acceptable to the God of the Bible. It’s not that you are merely wrestling with questions. You promote a particularly Western, 21st Century view of sexuality that is counter to what God's people have historically believed and faithfully taught for millennia for by affirming sexual activity outside the Orthodox understanding of marriage.
Now, this wouldn’t be a problem if you were one of my non-Christian family members or friends that hold to this view. I see this teaching appear in memes and sound bites from them every day. But you do all this while naming Christ. That's different. Paul makes this distinction in 1 Cor 5,

I have told you to avoid sexually immoral people, but I didn’t mean the immoral of this world. You would have to leave the world for that! I mean anyone who calls themselves a believer and does so. Avoid them! I should only judge those in the church, not outside the church.’

And this is where we come to the third term in my salutation, ‘Christian’. How do you define this? I’m sure you’re aware that for over 98% of Christian history the idea that our faith is in any way compatible with homosexual practice would’ve been unthinkable. ‘Pro-Gay Christian’ would’ve seemed as outrageous a term as, ‘pro-thievery Christian’ or ‘pro-pornography Christian’.
And this is why it’s sad just how profoundly you misunderstood our coffee date. Your letter suggests that I met you to garner acceptance points with the cool kids. That’s an unfortunate interpretation. Rather, I wanted to warn you that you’re in risk of rejection from the only One whose opinion actually matters.
Tragically you wrote things that misrepresent what Christians actually believe. Your letter states that the whole discussion on gay sex in the church is about arguing ‘on behalf of my existence’. Really? It's troubling enough to think that you base your existence on whether you get to engage in sexual activity with other women and still call it ‘Christian’. But your reasoning suggests that if I don't join you in sanctifying your sexual immorality, then I somehow deny your right to exist. Really? This is nowhere near the truth.
The misrepresentations do not stop there. In addition to your letter, some of the articles you have been sharing on social media refer to Christians as ‘homophobes’ and ‘haters’ for simply believing what Christians have almost always believed – that marriage is a sacramental covenant between a man and a woman. Even in your letter to me, you refer to this aspect of Christian faith as a ‘murderer’. I expect such hostile pejoratives and misrepresentations from the world around me. I don’t expect that from someone who names Christ.
By being willing to ‘hear your story’ (as you say in your letter) you imply that I was disingenuous and only wanted to use you for some insincere end, to gain social capital. No. I was trying to give you every possible chance to explain why you would be promoting an ideology that is an enemy to our faith. I was hoping against hope that you had somehow misunderstood the issue. But as you explained over your latte how you now see the Bible as a ‘general guide and not as a strict rule book’ it became clear that you understood the issues just fine.
In Revelation 2 Jesus speaks of a woman in Thyatira who is promoting an ideology of sexual immorality in his name. He gives her time to repent, but if she doesn’t he promises to remove her harshly. I care for you and don’t want you to come under this type of judgement. That’s why I wanted to meet – to plead with you. But all I heard from you were the same lines I hear from my non-Christian friends every single day. I was looking at you as a person, but all I heard was the spirit of this age.
You said that you cannot be my ‘gay Christian friend’. You rejected me for my orthodox views. Sadly, I must now say that I can’t be your Christian friend. At least not 'friend' in the classical sense of the word. It's not because I don't care for you and it is not because of your wiring or inner desires. If you had inner doubts, that would be fine. We could talk. If you were one of my unbelieving family member or friends that happen to be gay, there would be no problem. If you were same-sex attracted, that would be fine too. I would never reject you on that basis. But you are going public with fake teaching that promotes immorality and openly acting out in sinful, sexual behaviour. I must now obey Scripture and distance myself from you for the sake of those in the church that you are trying to influence.
But if you ever want to really talk, if you want to reconsider, the light is always on for you. I pray for your repentance.
You repeatedly refer to me in your letter as ‘non-affirming’. I’ll accept that label, but so must you. We are just non-affirming about different things. You won't affirm Christian sexual orthodoxy. I won't affirm your attempt to baptise buggery.

-Joshua
_________________

Please Share

bkHow can Christian Men and Women have meaningful friendships without scandal? Please check out  Forbidden Friendships 

Comments

  1. Good stuff, again. And undoubtedly unpopular too!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The only time Jesus appeared to get violently angry was with the Temple money-changers. Jesus was able to eat with crooks like this at other times. What angered him in the Temple was that they were desecrating the holy temple.

    Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. Our Western culture has made incontinent sexuality into a basic human right. We have a low view of sexuality and are incapable of understanding the high view of sex taught in the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "You promote a particularly Western, 21st Century view of sexuality that is counter to what God's people have historically believed and faithfully taught for millennia for by affirming sexual activity outside the Orthodox understanding of marriage."

    There lies the central tenet of your argument and it is utterly nonsensical.
    Do you really believe that it is homosexuality that does that?

    Heterosexuals have been affirming sexual activity outside the Orthodox understanding of marriage since well before Jesus yet you place it squarely on the homosexuals.

    Pure hypocrisy and deliberate blindness to the multitude of heterosexual sinning.

    Motes and planks.

    Stop preaching what your ardent followers want to hear as they exercise their hatred and start preaching the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure you've actually grasped the context in what Josh has written?
      Does he not follow the comment you have highlighted with a quotation of Pauls from 1st Cor ch 5?.... that's not "Pure hypocrisy and deliberate blindness to the multitude of heterosexual sinning."
      That's condemning all sinful sexual activity regardless of who are the participants.... hardly "hypocrisy"

      Surely that passage confirms the position Josh is advocating?
      Nowhere in the article do I read that he is solely blaming Homosexuals

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jezebel: Our Whorable Queen

[Extract from the bookElijah Men Eat Meat]

Ahab married Jezebel, then he proceeded to worship Baal.’ -1Kg 16
Queen Jezebel is a Baal-snogging, fake-teaching, boob-flaunting, pride-marching, man-manipulating, Yahweh-blaspheming, prophets’ blood-drinking monstrosity of a female.
And that’s being nice.
This daughter of Ethbaal, the Phoenician King, grows up surrounded by power, education, luxury, and evil. Of course, she doesn’t think of it as evil. No one sees their culture’s sins for what they are. It is like air to a child or water to a fish: it’s so much a part of us that we don’t even know it is there. She thinks her culture is the rule by which others should be measured. Yes, Israel is used to being surrounded by pagan neighbours and their debauched royalty. But now we have a problem. The problem is that this ghoulish gal now has a throne in the midst of God’s holy nation. It’s one thing for a boat to be in the sea. It’s quite another thing for the sea to be in the boat. And the nati…

Driscoll Returns, ‘Christian Today’ Melts.

Sometimes in the course of events, a peculiar thing happens that then triggers a response more peculiar still. This is what we now see with the return of Pastor Mark Driscoll to the church scene.
For those unfamiliar with the drama, Mark Driscoll was a church planter and Bible teacher who made a big impact in the least churched city in the USA: Seattle. Thousands professed faith in Christ through his ministry. But he left the church that he had started under dark circumstances. No, it wasn’t adultery as is so often the case with some of these big-name preachers. Rather, it was heavy-handed leadership―resulting in many spiritually crushed church members―that drove him to resign.
Now, three years later, he is leading a new church and many are downloading his sermons once again. This is not without some valid controversy―for reasons we’ll mention soon. But what is most noticeable is not his peculiar return. It is the reaction among those who lean left of classical Christian teaching: the …