Failure to Communicate
(originally posted to a discussion forum that I help moderate.)
In my experience, Christians and homosexuals have a misunderstanding when it comes to talking about sexuality and sin. Christians, in general, use the term "homosexuality" to mean the actual practice of sodomy, and the term "homosexual" to mean an individual who actively participates in homosexual intercourse.
However, because of their situation, homosexuals define terms differently. They tend to use the term "homosexuality" as simply the state of being attracted to a member of the same sex, and "homosexual" as any person who experiences that same-sex attraction. Therefore, when we as Christians say that homosexuality is sinful, homosexuals believe we are condemning them for the attraction that they undeniably (and uncontrollably) feel.
Of course, this is not so. Christians do not (or at least, should not) condemn anyone in the first place. Secondly, feeling a homosexual attraction is no more sinful than feeling the urge to lie, or more relavently, the urge to masturbate. The temptation to sin, whether it is same-sex attraction or the urge to masturbate, is NOT sinful.
Furthermore, you will never catch me saying that homosexuality feels unnatural to homosexual individuals, or that they have some innate "knowing" or "feeling" deep down that it is wrong. It is what is known as a "signature sin": a particular sin that an individual struggles with more than others. Homosexual activity is sinful according to the Bible and a perversion according to nature, but no amount of preaching about this will change a homosexual's urges. It's the same as if you were to confront a compulsive gambler about his gambling addiction (as gambling would be his signature sin); laws of God and nature may be set against him, but words alone will not change his ways because he struggles with this particular issue more than with any other, and has begun to cope with it the only way he knows how. Namely, accepting the sin.
Now, I have already stated my case elsewhere that homosexuality (even homosexual activity) and Christianity are not mutually exclusive; however, it would be (as C. S. Lewis would put it) rather difficult to be a practicing homosexual and a *good* Christian simultaneously... but a homosexual can be a Christian just like a practicing liar can be a Christian, because lets face it, we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
posted by jacob.thrasher @ 4/20/2006 05:37:00 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:COMMENT POLICY
Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.
Okay then, I don't really know where that discussion came from Neo. But I guess it's as good as any. Ye are correct, there's not much ye can say to a homosexual to change 'em. Which, with all that I can really use in my experiences for a short fourteen years. The best thing to do is to befriend the individual. And to accept that they 'ave chosen this. Should the oppurtunity to talk to them about it arise. Then go for it, just remember that ye can't yell at a job to fix it. Ye must work carefully and most assuredly. Also for those that would try, it's best to keep a "friendly" distance between the both of ye.
Just a thought,
Maverick
I agree with you here, this sounds like an issue Don Miller might cover. I think that Christians have blown the issue of homosexuality out of the water, personally, and that's not to say that it's not an issue--it is. However, it's not really that much more important than say, premarital sex, which you implied. It's just that to straight, conservative people it just seems gross , so much so that all the Conservative can think about as they talk to or about homosexuals is how grossly perverted they are...
So, Neo, you've presented the issue to us...how do you think would be a good way of resolving it? And also...would you mind providing me a link to that forum? I'm curious how the discussions going. :)
Ok, thats logical. I think this would be the 'live and let live' additute that many adopt.
Now gay marriage is s different issue, I hope.
I really need much more time than I have right now to go in-depth on this one;
I only have time for a brief observation. Think about referring to a person using the term "homosexual", as if that is their identity. Remember that God uses the terms "Liar, thief, adulterer, sodomite," etc. as descriptive terms in the Bible for those who will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
Now remember, we ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. In some way, shape, or fasion, EVERYONE could be described at some point in their life using one or more of these terms.
Now, as believers in the atoning power of the blood of Jesus, we are no longer bound by the descriptions we have rightfully earned; instead, we are adopted as children and fellow heirs with Jesus. That means that whatever descritive label once applied to you, it is no longer valid if you've decided to repent form the practice, and resist the pull of temptation towards whatever your weaknesses are. When the woman caught in adultery looked around, relieved, after Jesus confronted those who would stone her, he simply said "go, and sin no more".
I guess what I want to communicate is that sin has no hold and no power to identify people, once they repent.
I now it sounds stilted, and really, it is only semantics, but words mean things, and have power in our lives. God SPOKE, and there was light.
Myshkin,
I'll e-mail you a link to the forum.
And... a solution for the problem which is the Christian/homosexual communication barrier? At this point, all I can point to is my own experience, which tells me that we as Christians should be specific when talking or witnessing to a homosexual. If we mean "homosexual activity," we should say just that, and if we mean "homosexual attraction," then we should say that. Any ambiguity can easily be misunderstood, at least initially. It also helps to explain this difference in definitions in the beginning...
The only large-scale solution would be education. I think Christians must be educated on how to preach the Gospel with their actions and their words, and they should learn how to best preach the Gospel to people from various situations. Is that the answer you were looking for?
David,
"See, homosexuality (both the act and the feeling) is grounded in one thing: lust. Jesus said that whoever looks at anyone with lust has already committed adultery in his heart...which makes them guilty of the commandment."
No argument there. However, I was trying to separate the issues of lust and homosexuality for the moment, because it is a complicated issue indeed for a homosexual to understand. You see, I posted this while in a discussion with a homosexual, and he had been getting his fill of the "perversion and sin" argument for quite some time. Instead of focusing on all the other sins that come as a byproduct of homosexual attraction (or heterosexual attraction for that matter), I instead chose to address the sole issue that is attraction, independent of lust. I may not have been engaging the deepest complexities of the issue, but I believe that if I had, it would have confused the individual rather than helped him.
"Everyone knows - innately - what is right and what is wrong...that's part of human nature...God's Laws have been written on the heart of every individual...whether they are supporessed by culture (in Greece, for instance, man-boy relationships were encouraged) or by the individual (how many ancient leaders defied their society to pursue these unnatural relationships?)."
Well, I guess this was just a "failure to communicate" on my part. Again, I was trying to simplify the issue temporarily so that our friend on the forums could understand it. My point was not so much about the "knowledge of good and evil," which we all undoubtedly have as a result of Adam and Eve's sin in the garden; rather, I was trying to convey the point that homosexual attraction feels every bit as natural to a homosexual as heterosexual attraction feels to a heterosexual. I don't contest the fact that they most likely understand that it is, in fact, wrong on some level, but since it feels so natural to them and they have no other feelings of attraction to judge it by, their only choice is to suppress that feeling that tells them it is wrong. So, again, had I told this guy in the forums that deep down, he knows it's wrong, then I would have lost his attention, because that deep-down "knowing" is something he's already dealt with, and is not willing to bring back up.
So to summarize that obscenely long block of text, I was trying to convey the point that homosexual attraction feels perfectly natural to homosexual individuals, and though they do know that it's wrong on some level, homosexual attraction is all they know, so any dealing with what they know to be "right" and "wrong" tends to get kinda fuzzy.
These are the problems with second-hand posts...
"Now gay marriage is s different issue, I hope."
You bet! I do not defend gay marriage at all. However, I completely understand why they continue to seek it so single-mindedly. I'll post that later.
Is it truly pure lust? Only if heterosexual attraction is pure lust. This is not the case though, as there is a difference between attraction and lust. Attraction is something unconscious, which we have no control over. It is what draws you and me to the opposite sex, and it is not inherently sinful. It can lead to sin though... especially lust. Lust is the wandering eye, that conscious decision to think on things and people you shouldn't. It is, I suppose, attraction without self-control. It is a gluttony or excess of sorts. That is the nature of heterosexual lust.
Homosexuality, then, I would define as homosexual attraction, or the homosexual inclination. I fully believe that it is possible for a person to experience homosexual attraction without lusting. This isn't to say that many or most homosexuals abstain from lust, but then, not many heterosexuals practice that kind of self-control either.
Continuing on, homosexuality is a perversion of heterosexuality, just as lust is the excess of it. Heterosexuality, aka heterosexual attraction, is not something we control and is not inherently sinful, but it can easily lead to sin. The same goes for homosexuality, or homosexual attraction, because attraction is simply the inclination toward one gender or the other, and the individual has not taken action upon it to sin yet.
Now, with lust being excess and homosexuality being perversion, that would make homosexual lust the excess of a perversion. Now if you are dealing with an individual that struggles with this, which is he more capable of understanding, the fact that he struggles with a perversion, or the fact that he struggles with an excess of perversion? For you cannot deal with the concept of excess without telling him what it is an excess of, but you can deal with the perversion independent of the excess, and then explain the concept of excess once the perversion is under control.
The reason I usually address homosexual attraction rather than homosexual lust is because non-Christians have a difficult time understanding such a complex issue. Homosexuals have little concept of lust because they've always been told that their problem lies in their perversion. If we lecture them about lust, it will be useless for them because the perversion wil remain. If, however, we deal with the issue of their attraction first, we can then deal with the issue of lust later, unencumbered by their persisting attraction for the same sex.
Sure, it would be nice to stop them from lusting before dealing with the perversion, but how can someone who doesn't accurately understand sexuality to begin with POSSIBLY understand the excess of it? For this reason, I believe it is vital that we address one issue at a time.
Good thoughts, guys.
Good post.
Alright then, I think that we all understand some basic form or another of what ye are saying Neo. And if we don't then I'm sure ye can please start another post. Homosexuality is wrong, quite simple really, however dealing with someone who practices it isn't so easy. That is me understanding of it. Now let us move on.
Maverick
This was a great post, and I think you hit the nail on the head, all the way up until your last paragraph. I would agree with you that a homosexual can become a Christian, but once that happens and the Holy Spirit comes to live within him, it will immediately begin to convict him that his acts are wrong. If he continues in his sin of homosexuality unabated, then serious doubts must be raised that he was truly saved in the first place.
And I also must disagree with David and agree with Neo. Attraction and lust do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. When a man is attracted to a woman, that is not inherently sinful unless he begins thinking adulturous thoughts in his heart. I would argue that homosexual attraction is the same thing. Now, to think lustful thoughts in the heart is just as sinful for a homosexual as for a heterosexual, but the attraction itself is not sinful (although it needs to be controlled).
And in reference to David's comment about masturbation, the whole problem with masturbation is lust. If the urge to masturbate is inherently sinful, then so is homosexual attraction. If, though, as I see it, the urge to masturbate is not sinful in and of itself, but only if carried out, then it is the same way with homosexual attraction. Does that make sense?
Sam,
Glad you liked the post! :-)
"I would agree with you that a homosexual can become a Christian, but once that happens and the Holy Spirit comes to live within him, it will immediately begin to convict him that his acts are wrong. If he continues in his sin of homosexuality unabated, then serious doubts must be raised that he was truly saved in the first place."
I understand where you're coming from, but my feeling is that whenever we try to judge a person's salvation based on their actions, we're on rather shaky ground. A person can become a Christian, and flatly ignore the conviction of the Holy Spirit, but they are still a Christian. Not a good Christian, mind you, but still a Christian, and if they fail to change their ways, I do not see that as evidence that they aren't truly saved (considering that the Holy Spirit's conviction does not eliminate our free will).
"Christians don't condemn anyone"
What planet are you on?
Are you saying masturbation is a sin addressed in the new testament in the bible?
Are you saying homosexuality is a sin addressed in the new testament of the bible?
When you say being a good christian and a homosexual at the same time is not possible I think you mean that being a christian and being rich at the same time is not possible. At least thats what that guy Jesus said, he didn't say anything about gay people.
Do you remember that song that says something about "jesus loves all the children of the world"? What happened to that?
David,
Attraction to the opposite sex outside of marriage is certainly not of God, if lust and attraction are so inextricably interwtined.
Toad,
"Are you saying masturbation is a sin addressed in the new testament in the bible?
Are you saying homosexuality is a sin addressed in the new testament of the bible?"
Are you saying that Christ's sacrifice destroyed the old Law?
And please read what I said: "Christians do not (or at least, should not) condemn anyone..."
Not to go too far in the direction of defining Sin as addressed in the NT, (I, agree that we are not to condemn) but to say that homosexuality is not addressed in the NT is either ignorance or a lie.
Romans 1 22-32 is quite plain in denouncing the practice of sexual perversion.
There are other examples, but this one is clear enough for an example.
As far as Jesus' attitude toward the rich, he made it quite plain that riches themselves will not keep one from fellowship with him; it is the attiude of the heart that decides that. Jesus even made clear through many parables that it is good to profit from wise endeavors.
Yes, Thats why Christians don't go to Church on Saturdays, Why they can eat pork, why they don't stone their children, why they don't observe passover, why they can shave their faces, why women who are "unclean" (menstruating)can associate with society, why you no longer have to chop babies foreskins etc.
Those were the old laws.
The old laws were more than just the 10 commandments you know.
Post a Comment
<< Home