Common Myths about Gay Christians

[Aquila]

I'm so thankful God has been so patient with me and my wonderings, struggles, doubts, backslidings, ups, downs, you name it. I'm an undeserving prodigal.

If God has been patient and long suffering with you... say "Amen".

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

True. One cannot walk with a Holy God with the slightest sin in their life.

One must walk with a Holy God robed in Christ's righteousness alone.

Truth.

[The Matt]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm so thankful God has been so patient with me and my wonderings, struggles, doubts, backslidings, ups, downs, you name it. I'm an undeserving prodigal.

If God has been patient and long suffering with you... say "Amen".

amen. He's never stopped.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So you don't believe these "gay Christians" should reach out to their friends and family who might still be in the gay community?

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean when I say "disassociate from all previous orientations". That is an internal disassociation. That's not saying someone who has been delivered from homosexuality can't or shouldn't be a witness to others. But caution must be used. Just as we wouldn't encourage an ex-alcoholic to go back into a spiritually-unhealthy environment (think bar) to witness if they were still battling temptation with alcohol, so we would not encourage an "ex-gay" to subject themselves to an environment where they might feel they would succumb to temptation. Paul said, "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." (Rom 13:14)

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean when I say "disassociate from all previous orientations". That is an internal disassociation. That's not saying someone who has been delivered from homosexuality can't or shouldn't be a witness to others. But caution must be used. Just as we wouldn't encourage an ex-alcoholic to go back into a spiritually-unhealthy environment (think bar) to witness if they were still battling temptation with alcohol, so we would not encourage an "ex-gay" to subject themselves to an environment where they might feel they would succumb to temptation. Paul said, "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." (Rom 13:14)

That, I fully agree with.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The point is that we subconsciously hate and reject them on such a deep level we can't get beyond arguing over the terminologies they use and get down to the real issues they face and how to minister to them. We're going to have to mature past arguing over the terminologies and address the reality that there are sincere born again believers who struggle with this area and might struggle their entire lives long. We can't demand that they be different or write them off. We can't demand that they silence themselves and their testimonies. We can't squabble over terms used. We can't ignore them. We have to accept that this is a reality for many truly born again people.

Brother, you're creating a False Dilemma here where none exists. According to your assertion above, either we're lovingly supporting someone in a label they've chosen for themselves, or we "subconsciously hate and reject them on such a deep level". What??

Again with the labels: in 1Cor 6:9-11, Paul applied many "labels" to those in the Corinthian church based on what they used to be (and all under the category "Ungodly"): fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. These all were labels that used to apply to them. He went on to say, "and such were some of you". He then proceeded to label them according to their transformation in Christ Jesus: "washed", "sanctified", "justified". IOW, they had become Christ-like and could now wear an entirely new label which demonstrated the old labels no longer applied: "Christian".

Let's not marginalize and obviate those who believe the label "Christian" actually means something, who believe no other adjective or modifier needs to be applied to that one label, for it identifies and encapsulates the process of transformation which has taken place in the life of a believer.

And, once again, that's NOT saying Christians won't continue to struggle with temptation. Yes, Paul had his thorn in the flesh, but he didn't identify himself with it. He didn't call himself a "thorn-pricked Christian". He simply called himself "Christian".

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro... you're comparing apples and oranges.

oh, it changes now? hhmmmm

[Truthseeker]

for the record I believe bible teaches we are to kind to all men for Christ died for all. Being a nurse I've worked to homosexuals and not one can say I've treated them unkind. Just because someone is not for the gay christian thing doesn't mean they hate gays.

To me none of this is that complicated.

[The Matt]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

for the record I believe bible teaches we are to kind to all men for Christ died for all. Being a nurse I've worked to homosexuals and not one can say I've treated them unkind. Just because someone is not for the gay christian thing doesn't mean they hate gays.

To me none of this is that complicated.

.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Brother, you're creating a False Dilemma here where none exists. According to your assertion above, either we're lovingly supporting someone in a label they've chosen for themselves, or we "subconsciously hate and reject them on such a deep level". What??

Again with the labels: in 1Cor 6:9-11, Paul applied many "labels" to those in the Corinthian church based on what they used to be (and all under the category "Ungodly"): fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. These all were labels that used to apply to them. He went on to say, "and such were some of you". He then proceeded to label them according to their transformation in Christ Jesus: "washed", "sanctified", "justified". IOW, they had become Christ-like and could now wear an entirely new label which demonstrated the old labels no longer applied: "Christian".

Let's not marginalize and obviate those who believe the label "Christian" actually means something, who believe no other adjective or modifier needs to be applied to that one label, for it identifies and encapsulates the process of transformation which has taken place in the life of a believer.

And, once again, that's NOT saying Christians won't continue to struggle with temptation. Yes, Paul had his thorn in the flesh, but he didn't identify himself with it. He didn't call himself a "thorn-pricked Christian". He simply called himself "Christian".

Semantics. You're assuming that just because they use a terminology you disagree with that there is something wrong with them. lol

If a born again Christian who still struggles from same gender attraction wishes to call themselves a "gay Christian"... what right have you to tell them they can't and question their walk and motives? That's my point. While you and I might disagree and feel that simply calling one's self a believer or a Christian is good enough... they don't. They've felt the pressure, the shame, the hate, the discrimination, the suspecion, the being called reprobate, and the list goes on and on. Like must unpopular groups who eventually want to be heard... they claim the identity and refuse to be ignored.

So, I have no issue with the terminology. I don't hike my dress up like it's gross and twaddle away screaming and accusing. I'm just saying... listen to them. Take the time to hear them. Hear their pleas. Their concerns. Their struggles. Their temptations. Their fears. Even if they call themselves.... *gasp!* "gay Christians".