Last month the Washington Post (WP) ran an article on a “small but growing movement of celibate gay Christians.” The story stoked the discussion concerning the Christian and homosexuality; namely, whether or not a Christian can/should self-identify as gay.
For my part I can’t help but wonder why homosexuality is the only sin granted an attributive use when we discuss Christian identity. So as a simple thought experiment I tried to imagine how the WP story might read if the identity centered on a sin like lust or promiscuity:
When Bob converted to Christianity in 1998, he thought he might be the world’s first [monogamous] Christian [womanizer]. . . .
Today, Bob is a leader in a small but growing movement of [monogamous womanizing] Christians who find it easier than before to be out of the closet in their traditional churches because they’re [monogamous]. . . .
The reaction among church leaders themselves has been mixed, with some praising the [monogamy] movement as a valid way to be both a [womanizer] and Christian. . . .
Bob urges [men] not to focus so much on the [women] they can’t have and instead find other places to pursue intimacy, such as deeper friendships [with single women] that could be seen as spouse-like, [double-dating], and [working someone’s honey-do list] as ways to express intimacy. . . .
“I use the image of a kaleidoscope — the jewels inside are desires. If you turn it one way, it’s [lechery]. If you rearrange them it can be [ministering to women] or devotion to [Christ],” he said during a recent interview. . . .
You can see love, solidarity and beauty in [promiscuity] and still believe there is even more love and beauty in Christianity,” he says.
Try as I might, this approach just doesn’t seem to work. Having escaped sin as our master are we to keep it as a moniker? (1Cor 6:11; 2Cor 5:17)