About the previous post…

{Note to self: Firing off a one-and-done post on a heated debate needs to include some sort of statement clarifying the intentions/thoughts behind said post.}

Just to clarify:

1) Christian celibacy is to be celebrated. I wish all single Christians, regardless of sexual orientation, would practice celibacy in the absence of marriage.

2) The Church has no caste system. Those who battle homosexual desires are not lesser Christians, and same-sex attraction will be a lifelong struggle for some Christians.

3) Scripture never identifies the Christian by inordinate desires and/or “besetting sins.” In fact, the biblical witness consistently stresses the Christian’s identity is found “in Christ” (not in the flesh).

The previous post didn’t mean to denigrate a legitimate struggle (i.e. same-sex attraction, homosexual desires). It does, however, question the legitimacy of elevating any struggle to identity status.

In short, I’m just not convinced that the human condition has changed so much over two millennia that the Church now needs a taxonomy of the saints.

Neither Jew nor Greek…but gay?

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)