Here is a video that my professor posted. I applaud Matthew for his many hours spent studying this topic. What a hard topic. Honestly, I wish I didn't have to do this blog for my class. The subject is hard to talk about. I am trying to do it in a loving way, and I don't want to hurt anyone. I just want Jesus to be known and his love to shine through these posts. Remember that I am not a seminary graduate. I am a junior in college trying to back up what I believe for a college class.
I believe the traditional view that Matthew describes in the beginning. But I also believe some of his other statements.
I believe it is unfair that gay couples are looked at as they "just want sex". As a Christian, we are called to love, not judge.
I believe that being gay does effect every aspect of one's life.
I believe that gay couples desire love and a family just as much as straight people do.
I believe gay couples can genuinely love each other. I don't doubt the quality of their love.
I believe that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of many sins, not just sexual sins.
I agree that Jesus took the place of the old testament laws, fulfilled the law, and became the new covenant.
I agree that gay people are just as much children of God as straight people.
I agree that straight Christians are not inferior to gay Christians, or any less broken.
I agree that Jesus does love outcasts, but Jesus loves the person, not the action.
It saddens me that Christians have played a role in the hurt and pain in gay people's lives. That is not my goal with this blog.
I understood where he was coming from when he talks about Romans 1:20-27, how they were sinning because they were heterosexual and then turned to homosexuality. I still do not understand if gays are born gay or become gay, that would effect his argument. I also don't understand - if this was the case and Jesus was okay with it than why wouldn't he of mentioned it in the bible? God is all knowing, so he would have known that this was going to be an issue. But instead he had Jesus say, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh." (Mark 10:6-8) Why didn't Matthew list this verse in his speech?
Why did Jesus never say that a man can be with a man and a women with a women?
I see Matthew's desire to have love and a family. I see how much he has been hurt that the church rejects what he desires, marriage between two men. I could never fully understand his pain. I know I desire the same things as him. I want to find love, I want to get married, and God may not have that in his plans for me. If I don't end up getting married, Jesus has to be enough for me. He has to be enough for me even if I do get married. Some things in this world I don't think we will understand until the day we get to Heaven. But I fully believe that if a person is living for Jesus, is running to the cross with all that they can, they will want to do everything they can for Jesus. When a person realizes how much Jesus loves them, when a person realizes how much Jesus has washed them clean, restored them, redeemed them, and gave them everlasting life, how could one not want to obey his commandments. This does not mean it will be easy to obey his commands, and we will all still mess up, a lot. This person will still stumble, this person will still be tempted and have hard days, but Jesus Christ died on that cross for us. For you, for me, for every single person that has lived or ever lived. He loves Matthew, he created Matthew, but he has a better plan for Matthew than this life. We will not know until Heaven why this is true, but we can know God is way bigger than any reason we could come up with.
I recently bought the book of the professor that I posted about earlier, Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. Matthew states in the end that the only people who don't support homosexuality are straight Christians. She is a great example of someone who was so active in the gay community, met Jesus, fell in love with Jesus, and then realized she had to turn from being gay. I am excited to read her book to better understand her point of view. I will be posting my thoughts from her book as I read it.
Many people try to bring up the fact that, since people can be born gay, then homosexuality is not a sin. I would say that the FACT that people are born gay lends credence to the Bible's claims regarding the NATURE of sin: Man (and woman) is born with a sinful nature.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't teach a child to share, he won't; if you don't teach a child that lying is wrong, he will continue to lie. Unfortunately, there are certain sins that are more difficult to overcome, as in they can't be taught away.
I believe that, just as it has been discovered that some people are genetically predisposed to be alcoholics, it may well be possible that some people can be predisposed to homosexuality. Regardless, alcoholism is a sin, and homosexuality is too.
However, the difference between the Christian and the non-Christian is that, while both sin, only one is redeemed by Christ and this state of redemption compels a struggle between the flesh, whose inclination is sin, and the spirit, whose inclination, by Christ's sacrifice, is holiness.
Romans 7 highlights this relationship perfectly.
So can someone be a Christian and have homosexual tendencies? Sure. Just as I am a Christian and I struggle with lying. However, the key word here is STRUGGLE. If there is no struggle, then that is symptomatic of a spirit whose inclination is sin and not holiness, and, as per Hebrews 10:26-30, there is no longer a sacrifice for sin.
On a side note, I would be careful how I use the phrase "Child of God." The Bible is clear that only those who have been redeemed by Christ are children of God.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Thanks for writing this blog! It's awesome and thought-provoking, even if it's hard to write. I think these are some of the conversations that we need to be having but are often too uncomfortable to actually have.