1 Question for People Who Won’t Wave the Rainbow Flag

rainbow flag

A few days ago, Kevin DeYoung asked 40 Question For Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags. Because I’ve been waving my rainbow flag for the past 5 years, I thought about responding, but the truth is, others have done a fantastic job of that already.

Here’s the thing. I’m out of patience for this. DeYoung asks his 40 questions, but they all boil down to the same thing. Prove that you’re right. Prove that God is on your side. Prove that you deserve what I already have.

I’m tired of it. I’m tired of the assumption that my gay friends are the ones who need to be answering questions. I’m tired of the assumption that they need to justify their faith to those who fancy themselves the gatekeepers of Christianity. I’m tired of the woe are we attitude from those who have been a part of movements to bar LGBTQ people and their allies from leadership positions in the Church, from people whose words have led to legislation imposing jail time, even calling for the execution of gays.

It’s difficult to work up sympathy for hypothetical persecution when these same people have been instrumental in actual persecution of their gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender brothers and sisters.

I want to turn the questions around. But not really – it doesn’t matter. I know what the proof texts are. I know what studies get pulled out time and time again to “prove” that kids are hurt by gay and lesbian parents. I know the slippery slope arguments about pedophilia and polygamy and marrying your family members.

And they know the responses. Why the verses might not be saying what they believe they’re saying. What studies point to kids with gay or lesbian parents being well-adjusted people. The counters to the concerns of pedophilia and incest.

This dance has been going on for a long time, and I think it’s going to continue for a good while longer.

But here’s the question I’ve been afraid to ask of the people who claim to speak for God for a long time.

When are you going to listen to the answers to your questions?

It takes a lot of arrogance to ask people who have been marginalized for much of history to prove that they don’t deserve that marginalization.

It takes a lot of arrogance to require people in loving, consensual relationships to prove that they aren’t like people who prey on the weak and abused.

It takes a lot of arrogance to assume that people who have waited centuries to enjoy the same protections under the law need to “slow down and think about the flag (they’re) flying.”

It takes a lot of arrogance to ask people who live every day with fear of losing their jobs, losing their families, losing their churches to promise that they won’t be mad at people who support laws and practices that encourage those things.

It takes a lot of arrogance to set yourself up as a martyr when your words have caused parents to turn their children out on the street, when your words have driven people to suicide.

My friends don’t have to answer your questions. I don’t have to answer your questions. They’ve been answered, over and over and over again.

If you don’t want to listen to why we’re waving the flag, that’s your business. But until you’re willing to answer why you won’t listen, I’m done answering your questions.

Advertisements

About Alise

I’m a lot of things, but more than anything else, I’m a woman in progress. I’m finding that out more and more all the time. Knitting is just a series of knots. I hope as my tangled thoughts are put out there, they will weave together into something that adds a little bit of beauty to the world.
This entry was posted in LGBTQ and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to 1 Question for People Who Won’t Wave the Rainbow Flag

  1. Greg Strong says:

    Reblogged this on Following The Way and commented:
    I’ve read the DeYoung piece, and 2-3 different responses from folks along the spectrum of possible responses. This is the one. The one that really boils it down for me. Smacks me in the face. It’s a single simple question. And it’s the answer. Love it.

  2. Pingback: » 1 Question for People Who Won’t Wave the Rainbow Flag

  3. Soli says:

    apologist James White published a response to the questions asked by Matthew Vines at http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2015/07/03/a-believing-response-to-matthew-vines-40-questions/

    • Alise says:

      In the most condescending way possible, yes. I saw that he responded to Matthew’s questions.

    • m@ says:

      I read those responses, and I’m sad that I even did.

    • Kyle says:

      Thank you for sharing.

    • Crystalyn says:

      I read James White’s responses, to Matthew Vines’ questions. Extremely reactionary, accusatory and arrogant. He consistently refers to addressing certain topics in “public” and then does not outline his thoughts, yet calls those he wishes to debate “errant and easily refuted” as well as “anti-Christian” and insists that they don’t debate him because they can’t possibly believe what they assert…. I must say, he certainly does not seem a very good communicative representative of the Christian Right on this issue, he comes across as self-righteous. So many assertions and historical occurrences, but rarely uses his knowledge to make a comprehensive argument. He seems smart and well-read, but these knowledgeable are, seemingly, gained in ignorance and merely to support his already held view rather than inform; education means “removal of ignorance”

  4. stephanielynn75 says:

    Reblogged this on Garden Variety Neurosis Redux and commented:
    One week ago, the highest court in the US determined that gays are people, too, and are therefore entitled to the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals in this country have enjoyed for centuries. They have the right to marry, and can no longer be denied that right. It was a day of celebration for the LGBTQ community, and those of us who are their steadfast allies.

    It has been hear-sickening to me to see the backlash coming from the conservative Christian community. For as far back as I can remember, gays have been portrayed by the conservative Christians as a vast army of militants who are to be feared, maligned at every opportunity, and treated, at best, as second class citizens. Reading the vitriol expressed after the ruling last Friday, this goes well beyond being a moral issue. The words “fag,” “dyke,” and far worse terms and phrases were scattered all over every the commentary on every conservative article I read. This is not an issue of someone’s morality feeling threatened. This is an expression of deep-seated resentment, perhaps even hate. It is my opinion that the conservative Christian community needs to accept that they have had a role in feeding this resentment, even hate, and take ownership of the fact that they did it in the name of Jesus. That is the Jesus they presented to the world in all of this. That is the only Jesus many people know, thanks to the strong and unrelenting efforts of many Christian conservatives to vilify gays and their allies, all in the name of protecting a “sacred institution” that heterosexuals, Christian and non-Christian alike, trashed into near oblivion a long time ago.

    The post I am reblogging here nails it. I hope that those who are so ready to demand from gays and their allies a reasonable justification for treating all citizens of the US as equals will take time to read this beautifully written response.

    The reality is, the state is no way compelled to comply with the wishes of the church on this or any issue. If your religious leanings prevent you from accepting and affirming gays, that is a belief you are entitled to hold. However, do not think it is your right and privilege to impose that point of view on the state. It’s not. This is not a theocracy. You are welcome to your point of view. I do not have to agree with it or even like it, just as you do not have to agree with or even like the SCOTUS decision. However, the hateful rhetoric needs to stop. How do you suggest you are in any way fulfilling Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself, when you are calling your neighbor a fag or a dyke and gleefully awaiting the demise of them and their allies? That’s not love, and you need to get off your moral high horse.

    Not all Christians are of this mind. I have seen many Christians, even those who do not agree with the SCOTUS ruling, express their feelings and thoughts with compassion and respect. They understand that the law is the law now, and it does no one any good to angrily rail against it, maligning those who are celebrating the ruling. Using the Bible as a shield to hide behind as you lob hate-bombs at those who see things differently is not, I am sure, what Jesus intended.

    The time for justifying treating humans with dignity and respect is over. It should be a given at this point. There is no justification needed.

  5. Denise scott says:

    In my mind and faith it is simple, two people love and respect each other that is what matters, to sit in judgement of this love shows you believe yourself to be higher than God who loves all therefore you believe yourself to be better than God, you are not Christian you are a sinner yourself who believes they know better than God therefore negating your right to judge because you are also a sinner.

  6. jeffvcook says:

    This is a masterful response.

    Grace and peace to you.

  7. Kimberly Knight says:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! I added a link to your post in my own from last night. I love your response so very much. Mad love and respect.

    Kimberly

  8. Why aren’t you listening?!? OF COURSE! Why didn’t I think of that? What a masterful and simply thought! Thank you for penning it! I REALLY appreciate it. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

    Peace

    ~V

  9. Eric says:

    FTW! Best response I’ve seen to DeYoung’s concern trolling.

  10. Pingback: Supreme Court Sets Aside State Bans on Same Sex Marriage | Leadingchurch.com

  11. Pingback: Can we imagine an “affirming” church tradition flourish and grow or has “providential deism” made divine irrational demands nonsensical? | Leadingchurch.com

  12. Becca Nelson says:

    While I realize that a comment thread is not always the best place to have a level-headed discussion, I have a question I’ve been wondering about that I want to see if someone can answer.

    I’ve heard about lots of Evangelicals who once held a more traditional view of marriage, but formed relationships with people in the LGBTQ community and really wrestled with the questions until their view of marriage changed. That is essentially what happened to me, and many of my close friends as well.

    But does anyone know if it has ever gone the other way? Like, has someone who was previously LGBTQ-affirming ever really wrestled with these questions, studied Scripture, and come to the conclusion that they were wrong, and that homosexual relationships cannot be God-honoring? If that can happen, it’s a story I’ve never heard before.

    • m@ says:

      Becca, I haven’t either. But I imagine that those of us who identify as allies to the LGBTQ community would treat that person with far more respect than those who view anti-turned-pro LGBTQ Christians as misguided and heretical.

    • I’ve heard of it. I’ve heard stories of people who *identified* as LGBTQ and who, after wrestling with those questions, studying Scripture, and prayer, came to the conclusion that they were wrong and their lives were transformed as a result.

      The problem with these stories isn’t that they don’t exist, but that they are immediately denounced as lies, or the people telling their experience are told that when they identified as LGBTQ that they weren’t really such, or else they wouldn’t have changed. Either that, or they are told that they’re denying who they really are and should change their beliefs or be silent. And so their stories, while not impossible to find, aren’t shared as openly as others.

      Here’s an example of such: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD_-4iSRn6k

      • Becca Nelson says:

        I know that these stories exist–the ones where a person who is attracted to the same sex changes their mindset to be attracted to the opposite sex. Even as someone who is usually opposed to “conversion therapy”, I’ve never denied that this works for some (though I personally believe it cannot be expected to work for everyone).

        However, this isn’t exactly what I was looking for. Someone would only be motivated to become straight if they already truly believed their same-sex attraction was wrong. I guess I’m wondering if someone (either gay or straight) has ever fully changed their mind in favor of traditional Christian belief.

    • stephen jacob says:

      http://truthsaves.org/christian-testimony/my-life-before-jesus-brookes-christian-testimony/
      (Brook also has many you tube videos, and picture proofs of her past life showing how she looked when she was in that scene. All in all there are many, you just have to look for them because you won’t find them on the media which is radically one-sided on who they give a voice. But I promise they exist.) I could give more examples if you would like you would just have to email me at stephen.t.jacob@gmail.com

  13. “It takes a lot of arrogance to assume that people who have waited centuries to enjoy the same protections under the law need to “slow down and think about the flag (they’re) flying.”

    You do realize that now this argument can be used for every other perversion of marriage don’t you?

    I highly doubt that the framers of the constitution had in mind to legitimize sin, and perversion when they wrote the amendment. The homosexual community and its supporters would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that was the intent behind the writing of that clause.

    You should also note that distorting the definition of the words ‘equal protection’ doesn’t help your cause at all.

    • Phil Snider says:

      Dear TheologyArcheology, you do realize that the author of this piece is clearly referring to marriage rooted in love, dignity, respect and mutuality, right? If you want to cry foul on some sort of logical fallacy that says, “Just think what other nefarious things your argument could support!” (i.e., other “perversion[s] of marriage”), yet you don’t honor the actual content of the statement you are attempting to critique, then you’re the last one who has any authority to state that someone must determine “what the intent was behind the writing of [a] clause,” because you clearly don’t even honor the intent behind the statement you are attempting to critique. I mean, at the very least you can do us all a favor and play by the same rules you ask of others.

      Secondly, you do realize that the tables can be turned on you in precisely the same way you’re trying to turn them on the author, right? Not only does your accusation that this “argument can lead to so many other nefarious purposes” (okay, I paraphrased it again) lead you down the path of a slippery slope absurdity with no centralized or foundational ethic (please note that the logic of your accusation, strictly observed, would also have precluded women and minorities from celebrating their newfound protections under the law after being denied them for centuries), but (since your moniker includes the word theology in it, and since you use the word sin), I’m going to assume that you deem the Bible as normative for your perspectives on the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Yet you realize that the “actual intent behind” the writings in the Bible that are related to sex between two people of the same gender, whether in Hebrew Scripture or Christian Scripture, have absolutely nothing to do with relationships between two people of the same gender that are based on love, mutuality, dignity and respect? In fact, the Bible never condemns such relationships…anywhere. And if you try to say that it does, whether in Genesis or Leviticus or Deuteronomy or Paul’s writings or wherever, then you are clearly not paying attention to the intent behind such texts, and are thus not playing by the same rules you ask of others. You would be making the texts say something they do not say, and you can’t have it both ways. You’d also be avoiding what the biblical definitions of marriage *actually* are, but that is a conversation for another time (spoiler alert: it’s not just about marriage between one man and one woman!), as well as running into some major concerns about using a particular as an appeal to a universal, which is part of what you criticized the author of this post of doing. [Side note: I’m not going to get into what the texts actually have to say here in the comments section, as plenty of scholarly resources are available, including Dale Martin’s Sex and the Single Savior or Matthew Vines’ God and the Gay Christian.]

      Lastly, you do realize that the burden of proof is every bit as much on you (as it is on those you attempt to critique) when you ask them to look into the actual intent of the framers? Do you really believe the framers were consciously and explicitly intending (had it primarily in mind) to write language prohibiting mutual, loving relationships shared between people of the same gender? And in your appeal to their writings, even if you do think that this was on their minds, do you really think “the framers” always got it right in terms of “the intents” they had in mind? There’s a lot of misogyny and racism lurking in our founding documents, and it’s no wonder they’ve been reformed through the years to better move us toward freedom and justice for all. (Not to mention the fact that if you invoked the same logic you ask of others, i.e., “do you know what other nefarious things your argument supports,” then you’re hoisted by your own petard here too, because the misogyny and racism in our founding documents leads to no small ethical dilemmas — again, the particular to the universal, which you cautioned us against.)

      One thing is abundantly clear, however, and that’s that the “intent behind” the establishment clause in the First Amendment was to make sure the laws of the land were not partial to one particular religious view, yet you wish to cry foul on a legal definition of marriage that does not fit your particular religious view, and you wish to invoke the framers “intent” for doing so. (Again assuming that your reasons to be against marriage equality are primarily based on your religious views.) In sum, if you’re going to argue against marriage equality, at least from a religious perspective (because you used the words sin and perversion and your moniker includes the word theology I’m still assuming your condemnation of marriage equality is primarily based on religious grounds), please find a much better, more consistent argument in which to make your case, and at least play by the same rules you ask of others. And if my assumptions have been wrong, and your argument isn’t primarily based on religious grounds, but rather on constitutional ones, then I place the burden of proof you ask of others squarely upon your own shoulders.

    • Alise says:

      This wasn’t about the rightness or wrongness of the court’s decision (though I’m obviously happy that it went the way it did), but rather about the response of the Church to the decision. I found DeYoung’s statement that people need to “slow down” intensely condescending. I’ve been wrestling with this for nearly 20 years, and others have been for much, much longer. The assumption that people are just jumping on the gay bandwagon is insulting and in most cases, completely wrong.

      • Theresa says:

        Alise, you need to reread DeYoung’s statement about slowing down. He’s paraphrasing the anti-gay rights argument.

      • Theresa says:

        Ignore my post. I got names mixed up for a moment. smh

    • KellyK says:

      It was also the intent of the framers that slavery be legal and that women not be permitted to vote. We may have matured a bit as a culture since then.

  14. Iestyn H says:

    I don’t think they “don’t listen”; I actually think they “don’t hear” – the switching off comes way before the listening bit, indeed, to the extent that the ears are as closed as the eyes and the mind. There’s an example of it right above.

  15. Pingback: (Not my) Answers to Kevin DeYoung | Christian on the front line

  16. Bob Kundrat says:

    Is it arrogance to speak against any sin regardless of how the people involved in that sin feel?

    I suspect many who read that question wi be “outraged” because I’ve trotted out the “homosexuality is a sin” argument. If that’s your response then you would be just as guilty as the author states those who oppose SSM are.

    Those who have responded to Matthew Vines 40 questions have done so from a consistent biblical perspective where sin is addressed and those who are in sin are encouraged to seek repentance from the Father and experience grace. That has been the case for me personally concerning sin that I had fallen in to. While painful, that is a good and healthy thing.

    The question is not where or not you or others or myself feel marginalized when engaging sin but whether scripture supports the practice as good and healthy or as contrary to Gods will as revealed in His word. If you fail to understand the perspective of those who speak against SSM from a consistent biblical perspective then you cannot escape your own charge of arrogance.

    • Alise says:

      I have seen some very good responses from people to Matthew’s questions, and I appreciate that. I would suggest that many who have responded point by point to Kevin’s questions have ALSO responded in a consistent biblical perspective. I linked to my favorite by Ben Irwin above. I appreciate dialogues that are, in fact, dialogues.

      But when we constantly shut people out for sinning, yes, I believe that is arrogance. I have been asked to leave a church because I support my transgender child and now some in that same church are talking about how they are going to be persecuted because of their position on marriage being extended to gays and lesbians, completely oblivious to the fact that they have been persecuting others because of THEIR positions. It takes a lot of gall to be unable to see that.

      I believe that we can have differing opinions without arrogance, but when you begin to act in ways the exclude people, marginalize people, drive wedges between families, withdraw grace – I have no problem calling that arrogance and sin.

    • KellyK says:

      The arrogance comes in claiming that your interpretation of a handful of Bible verses is the only possible good-faith interpretation, and that people who disagree with you are arguing in bad faith or are just trying to justify their own sin. There’s also a lot of arrogance for a straight person who’s allowed to get married in assuming that a gay person can change their orientation or be celibate for life.

      There’s also arrogance in wanting your particular religion’s definition of sin to affect the standard for legal marriage, in a country that promises equal protection under the law to people of every religion.

      Also, I would like to point out that it’s not about “feeling marginalized.” That’s often used to minimize the actual physical, mental, and emotional harm anti-gay theology does. But, real, tangible harm is done by anti-gay theology. LGBT teens kicked out of their homes, people being turned away from the bedside of a dying loved one, kids getting bullied at school. People in Uganda being murdered by mobs in the name of Christianity—because they were gay.

      If this theology is so good, so healthy, so clearly from God, then why does it produce such evil fruit?

  17. Phil Snider says:

    Reblogged this on http://www.philsnider.net.

  18. Tim S says:

    We are listening. Some of us. And we are changing out minds. You answers are powerful.

  19. Ccw Sparks says:

    I’ve got a few more questions for this poor guy, including:

    [1] What makes you think you know better than the God who called Pete to the pastoral ministry, so he would be there to help my church heal after a time of division as well as to help me personally through one of the worst depressions of my life?

    And the second is like unto it:

    [2] What makes you think you know better than the God who gave Pete and Mark (and Richard and Brad, another clergy couple I’ve known – not to mention numerous LGBT couples I’ve known in all walks of life) to each other in decades-long lives of love and mutual support and encouragement that put many straight couples to shame?

    [3] Do you really think a love that can (and often does) say, “I love you so much – in heart, soul, and mind as well as body – that I’m willing to risk having the whole world hate and hurt me for loving you” can be called evil?

    [4] To be LGBTQI is to be the “despised Samaritan,” the Syro-Phoenician, the centurion, the tax collector, the leper, the “fallen woman” – all of whom Jesus welcomed without reservation or condemnation; indeed, he put them forward as models of faith. Why do you insist on straining out the gnat of difference, even in the guise of “morality,” and swallowing the camel of cruelty to the outcast whom he loved?

    [5] The authorities of Jesus’s day thought they knew better because “it is written” or “it has been said.” Jesus said repeatedly, and continues to say, “But I say to you…” confounding those Powers That Be and turning expectations and conventions on their heads. How can we who want to follow him avoid trying to do the same?

    I fly the rainbow flag because LGBTQI Christians have been a source of joy and inspiration to me, and I’m not about to second-guess their strength to live in faith, hope, and love in the face of those who “think they know better because it is written.”

    I fly the rainbow flag because I don’t believe the God who is Love would send anyone to Hell (if there be such a place) for loving “the wrong person.”

    I fly the rainbow flag because I’m not afraid of what we’ve learned about human sexuality and psychology over the centuries.

    Most of all, I fly the rainbow flag because LOVE IS LOVE, and none of us petty little humans can fully comprehend the totality of that. All I can do is stand back in awe and acknowledge that in the faces of those who continue to love without bitterness against a cruel world, I’ve seen the face of the God who is Love. Amen.

  20. Pingback: The SCOTUS Decision as a “Come to Jesus” Moment for CRC Middlers in the context of Progressive Liberationism | Leadingchurch.com

  21. Kevin Blow says:

    It is interesting that as a christian if I indicate that i believe same sex relationships to be unbiblical and sinful, I must be homophobic and a bigot, never mind that I have genuine reasons for my views, much the same way people do who advocate same sex relationships. It would appear, that I am not allowed to disagree or if I am I must keep such thoughts to myself.

    Jesus is recorded as refering to marriage as between a man and a woman, yet I find that the very understanding of marriage has/is being redefined even by christians who it seems find this to be an inconvenient truth and a challenge to their lifestyle i.e. the way they want to live their lives. It is argued that I or christians are imposing our views of marriage on other people and now ironically the state is imposing its view of marriage on everyone else

    In my first paragraph I made use of the word sin, an archery term I understand, refering to falling short of/missing the target. The bible teaches me that all have fallen short whether that sin be taking some office stationery to murder. There is no qualitative difference, Sin is sin is sin and God has made known his view on sin. None of us, even us christians can justify ourselves before God. We have been justified by what God has achieved through Jesus dying on the cross and his resurrection. Jesus did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but he did say go and sin no more. He did however, have some choice words for the scribes and the pharisees amongst others.

    When you started reading this did the H and the B words spring to mind. If they did, it is a shame because it would appear that like Pavlovs dogs, we cannot help ourselves.

    • Kevin Blow says:

      To continue,

      I fail to comprehend the need by either side to vilify the other. In respect of God’s ultimate judgement on our life choices, I make no comment as some appear to have done because I am not God and do not presume to know better but I will respectfully disagree if I disagree with someone.

    • Phil Snider says:

      Kevin, the words H and B did not spring to my mind; what does occur to me, and what you seem to be missing, is that it is the LGBT-affirming Christians who are put into the accusative time and again, originally by DeYoung and then also by you on this comment thread. For as long as I’ve been in the church and ministry, it is LGBT people and their allies who have constantly been the ones under attack and put in the accusative, with the underlying ground always being based in heteronormativity, and never the other way around. We are the ones constantly having to defend our position as even being a valid one, let alone a normative one. And when we simply state that we no longer wish to accept these terms, then we’re told again why we are wrong. I suppose when cisgender straight men have been on the defensive for at least two millennia, perhaps then they will begin to understand this dynamic.

      • Phil Snider says:

        Also, when the conversation is about what is sinful and what is not, why is it perfectly acceptable for non-LGBT affirming Christians to say that homosexuality is sinful, yet not okay for LGBT-affirming Christians to say that *holding the view that homosexuality is sinful is what is actually sinful* , in the same way Christians should unequivocally denounce slavery as sinful? This talk of sin cuts both ways, you know, and for many of us it just is no longer responsible or healthy to say that homosexuality is just another sin among other sins. For us, that’s as absurd as saying that slavery is just another sin among other sins. At a certain point along the way, when the views of the church are very detrimental to the well being of others, the church has to reconfigure and reform and repent, along the lines of your understanding of sin as “missing the mark.” And when we are told we are sinners, it hurts. We don’t like that. Welcome to the world of LGBT Christians who are constantly condemned.

      • Sawyer says:

        @Phil Snider. I found your 2nd comment particularly interesting. It’s this comment here:

        Why is it perfectly acceptable for non-LGBT affirming Christians to say that homosexuality is sinful, yet not okay for LGBT-affirming Christians to say that *holding the view that homosexuality is sinful is what is actually sinful* , in the same way Christians should unequivocally denounce slavery as sinful?

        I think here that you’re comparing two unlike things and that’s because you’re looking at the Bible from your own western or rather, modern day viewpoint.

        The Bible explicitly, clearly, condemns homosexuality as sin. Several times in the both the old and new Testament. Slavery, however, was not. When you think slavery, you think American slavery which was … just … above and beyond many many forms of cruelty and degradation seen in this world. Slavery in the Bible and even in other parts of the world, was not this way. As a matter of fact, the Bible even gave, on several occasions, slaves the choice to remain slaves if they wished. That’s how different it was. If this option was given, it’s only sensible to assume that it wasn’t the culture stripping, inhumane institution that American slavery was and that it was something that a person would willfully choose.

        Now, did sinful behavior occur toward slaves? Of course, just as it did for freemen, but there were punishments in place for it, unlike in American slavery where slave owners treated slaves horribly with impunity.

        So, in this way, your talk of sin is incorrect. What sin is, is listed quite clearly in the Bible. And, yeah, woman on woman and man on man sexuality is listed along with other things such as envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and a whole host of horrible acts.

        What I don’t understand is when people decided to take the Bible as an option rather than the only straight and narrow path?

        I just honestly want to know. I want us to have an adult, mature conversation without name-calling–I’m so tired of that–I want to know how you justify being a Christian and engaging in homosexual behavior. I’m really curious.

      • Phil Snider says:

        Sawyer, my first response to this is to simply quote St. Paul: “Slaves, obey your masters.” Of course, in order to defend such awful ethics, it was necessary for you to provide background information to me about the context of such quotes (how “slaves had an option to be free” etc. — that’s not entirely accurate, but, nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is). Yet when it comes to homosexuality, none of this background context is offered, when as a matter of fact every reference in the Bible to sex between people of the same gender has absolutely nothing to do with two people of the same gender sharing in a loving, mutual, respectful, monogamous relationship. When the Bible condemns same-sex behavior, it’s not condemning relationships between two people of the same gender based on love, mutuality, dignity, and respect, as has long been known among mainstream scholars. Instead, every one of these references (the so-called clobber passages) is a condemnation of violence, rape, abuse or idolatry, which I condemn as well, in a heartbeat. As John Caputo writes, “My own view is that the outcome of a careful debate about these matters would be to show that
        there simply are no arguments to show that homosexual love is of itself anything else than love,
        and that therefore, since the essence of the Torah is love, it hardly falls afoul of the law. To be sure, when it is not love, when it is promiscuity, or infidelity to a sworn partner, or rape, or the sexual abuse of minors, or in any way violent, then it is indeed not love, but that is no less true of
        heterosexuality.” If you are interested in learning more, I’ve written about this at length, and there are a bunch of resources and books I’ve compiled at this link: https://philsnider.wordpress.com/resources/

      • Sawyer says:

        So … you quoted four words out of the whole Bible to prove your point? Which, it doesn’t really prove a point it just states a command. It proves nothing.

        What about the many other scriptures that regulate slavery? You didn’t quote them at all. Not only that, that still doesn’t mean that slavery is sin. You can’t suddenly decide that slavery is sin just because American slavery was so bad and because you don’t like it. Slavery is not sin. Point blank.

        Also, please don’t cherry pick. I hate that and if all you’re using is those four words, out of context at that, to justify your point then, no offense, you’re already starting off pretty weak.

        Romans 1, and other places, clearly states man on man and woman on woman sexual relations as sin. I’m not sure what you’re reading to believe that this is not so, but what you’re saying is not Biblical. It doesn’t qualify that monogamous same-sex relationships are okay. If it was, the Bible would have been specific about it. The Bible does indeed get specific in regards to marriage or anytime it needs to.

        What you’re talking about has a name. It’s called fornication whose root word is porn. That’s sleeping around with any and everyone. Yeah, that’s sin too. But homosexuality is too which is a different beast. It says explicitly that this is sin. It’s clear as a bell.

        I’m not interested in hearing what scholars say. What does the Word say? Because apparently, God is big enough to make the heavens and the Earth, to open seas, to stop the sun, and to fix a person’s life. But he’s not powerful enough to write a book he wants you to follow? He can’t manage that?

        Look, if you can find a place in the Bible that explicitly states says that homosexuality is okay. I will change my mind right now.

        Right at this very moment.

        Because I honestly think you guys are fooling yourselves. I think you want it to be okay so badly that you’re allowing yourselves to be deceived. But … do you really want to take that chance? If you really believe in God, believe in Jesus, that hell and condemnation waits for those who are not accepted into the fold, do you really want to take that chance? The chance that you’re wrong?

      • Phil Snider says:

        Sawyer, if you’re going to accuse me of cherry picking verses, that’s like the pot calling the kettle black, especially if you didn’t check out the resources I linked to in my first response to your comment. As you will see, there are a bunch of very in-depth resources that respond to each and every one of your concerns in a very thorough and meticulous way. No reason for me to rehash them in the comments section when I linked you to them. And if you say you don’t have time to check them out, or aren’t interested in investigating any of the actual scholarship that corresponds to this conversation, then you’ve become a prime example of the inquisitor the original post referred to — someone who doesn’t affirm LGBT Christians, but isn’t actually taking the time to listen to the responses from LGBT-affirming scholars that are already out there, whether or not you end up agreeing with them or not.

      • Sawyer says:

        Very well. I’ll look at your sources.

        But I’m telling you now. I go to the Bible for how I should live my life and I read Biblical commentaries in order to make it clear. I usually don’t read the views of a scholar with a bias. But I will take a moment to look at it.

        I will give you that.

      • Sawyer says:

        Oh, and please point out where I was cherry picking. I hate to see it, so I’d hate to do it myself.

      • Phil Snider says:

        Also, Sawyer, the reality is that there are a million things in the Bible — both Old and New Teataments — that Christians don’t worry about (in the NT alone, women wearing jewelry, not covering their head while praying, not having positions of authority over men, the practice of not lending with interest, Jesus’ admonition against divorce, Jesus’ practice of non-violence, etc. etc.) So why do Christians continue to hold on to espousing the six or seven verses in the entire Bible related to homosexuality? If you think I’m acceding to “modern day readings,” then why don’t modern day Christians focus on the things Jesus talked about the most (economic injustice, non-violence, welcoming the other, etc.)? These are matters which show up in the Bible literally thousands more times than verses related to homosexuality, but the churches are largely silent on these matters, which makes me think non-LGBT affirming Christians are far more in bed with “modern day culture,” because otherwise they would focus on the historic, traditional themes that dominate the biblical texts over and over (thousands of times), as opposed to just a tiny tiny sprinkling of passages (six or seven) that, when read in context, don’t even relate to what they think they relate to.

      • Sawyer says:

        You’re taking all those things out of context and I’m not sure why. There’s a specific reason for all of those things, things that you’re not mentioning and it would take much more time than I have to enumerate all the things wrong with it. Also, you’re right. God and Jesus talks about poverty, I wouldn’t hesitate to say 3 times as much as homosexuality, but we’re not talking about that. Also you can’t assume that Christians aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do, or aren’t striving to do it. You can’t take an example of a couple of Facebook users and run with it, generalizing to all Christians. And, don’t worry, Christians and everybody will be called into account for not doing the things that God has commanded we do. But we’re not talking about that. Please don’t deflect. We’re talking about homosexuality.

        The fact of the matter is that the Bible clearly says it’s wrong. Of course the other sins are wrong too and are things we should not do. But everyone knows those things are wrong, they’re accepted as sin. And don’t worry, according to the Word, those who do that aren’t getting in either. You, on the other hand, are trying to tell me that what God has called sin is not, in fact, sin. That’s the problem here.

      • Phil Snider says:

        Sawyer, my very last comment: To reiterate, if you say there is behind the scenes “context” that is necessary for understanding why the verses I mentioned are no longer applicable to us today, yet the ones about homosexuality are, I would simply ask you to play by the same rules and please look into the context behind the verses related to homosexuality as well. That’s all I’m asking. Matthew Vines’ God and the Gay Christian is a great place to start.

      • Sawyer says:

        I’m not going to read those books, I can tell you now. But I will read the link you sent me.

        However, I still say that reading these scholars and such in order to twist the word is dangerous. Satan knew scripture too when he tempted Jesus and what he said would have sounded great if Jesus didn’t know the Word as well.

        Rather than take my word for it or another scholar. Why don’t you ask God? Because, since you didn’t answer my question, I’ll ask again: What happens if you’re wrong? If your scholars and papers are wrong?

        Let’s not dance around the issue. What you support has been clearly condemned in the Bible. What is the Bible is, in fact, God’s words, something that cannot be taken away from or added to. Are you willing to take that chance.

        I’ll take it a step further. Will you still love God, be a Christian, if God reveals to you that homosexuality is wrong?

        Just food for thought.

      • Sawyer says:

        Okay, I looked over your references and all the authors are biased and insist that the Bible not be taken literally. They really DO only think it’s a guide. I guess God’s not that big after all.

        *facepalm*

        Okay. You’re right, this conversation needs to end. I looked at your sources and found them wanting. You ignore my questions, my reasonings and send me to writers desperate to approve the lifestyles for themselves and/or their loved ones.

        At worst, they don’t want you to take the Bible too seriously, and at best, there’s no real preferred sexual orientation in the Bible although there is no reference anywhere in the Bible to homosexuality being anything but sin. The Bible doesn’t reference homosexual relationships as being normative at all. It doesn’t even have any named homosexual couples. The only time it mentions homosexuality is to say not to do it. But these people have managed to take that and twist it until the Bible is more figurative than literal, and that something as clear and explicit as what it says about homosexuality isn’t what it says at all.

        Looking that over was like … like … reading racial studies conducted during the era of Jim Crow. There was always going to be one inevitable conclusion.

        I’ll end with this. As a fellow Christian to another and I say this in all love: You’re taking a huge risk. If you struggle with this thing, and you’ve been struggling with this thing for a long time, have you ever considered that it’s God trying to convict your heart? Because as I said before, if you’re wrong, you’ll have a lifetime of Earthly happiness and an eternity of torment. Once again, the Bible made it clear ; if you’re gay, you’re not getting in.

        Perhaps instead of reading “sources” written by people who want it to be true, read Greek/Hebrew accounts and trust God to be able to write a book.

        I’ll ask again, if you discover and it is revealed to you that homosexuality is wrong. Will you still love God? Will you still serve him? Will you stop the behavior and live a life pleasing in his sight?

      • Phil Snider says:

        Oh my, Sawyer, so many things. First, I talk about the Greek and Hebrew in the sermons in the resources link. In-depth. Second, if God sends people to hell because they are gay, then (1) I don’t view such a God as worthy of worship and (2) I’d go to hell in protest of such a God (not in spite of Christ but in the name of Christ). Third, why are you so worried about reading some sermons or books that challenge your view? Is your view really that fragile? You know that you, too, as well as your sources, are already interpreting from a non-objective place, right? And, lastly, I once viewed homosexuality as sinful, and it took lots of years for my mind to change on this matter, and when I see Christian teachings that hurt human beings, that destroy their well-being, then I’m going to always choose that which gives life, not that which takes it, and this because of my Christian faith, not in spite of it. I’ve had to do a lot of repenting for the ways I treated LGBT people, and looking back I feel terrible for it. So, to answer your question, from an epistemological perspective, revealed truth from a proper Christian perspective is that which gives life, not that which takes it away. And to treat LGBT people as utterly sinful and hell-bound, as you state, is the epitome of a flawed Christian teaching that portends toward hurt and destruction (it creates a hell for too many people in the here and now), and as a Christian I want nothing to do with it. God already changed my mind on this, converted me if you will, and I have no desire to go back to perspectives that are hurtful and harmful to LGBT people. Anyhow, I suppose we’ll go our separate ways from here…

      • Kevin Blow says:

        Phil, I am not aware that I have accused anyone of anything. I have expressed my understanding regarding same sex relationships etc. Your response just confirms what I wrote. Its ok if you are affirming these things, but as soon as anyone says ‘hold on a minute’. Its ‘how dare you’ etc etc. It seems I am not honestly allowed to hold a contrary opinion and to do so almost amounts to persecution.

        Would you care to explain how when Jesus affirms marriage as between a man and a woman it is also affirming same sex relationships/marriage.

        It is true that the church at times has got its knickers in a twist on sexual sin. but as I said earlier a sin is a sin is a sin and should be seen within this context. No one sin is worse or less worse than another. I see no difference between heterosexual sex outside of marriage and same sex sex or stealing. God treats all sin the same way. It is unacceptable and is what separates us from him.

    • please stop says:

      ” It seems I am not honestly allowed to hold a contrary opinion and to do so almost amounts to persecution.”

      Oh, please. Of course you can hold a contrary opinion. But the corollary of that is that other people can also hold the opinion that your opinion is bigoted. People criticizing your beliefs is not silencing you. Freedom of speech works both ways. And why is it okay for you to judge other people as sinful, but it’s not okay for people to return the favor by judging you as bigoted? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

      • Kevin Blow says:

        Please Stop, you do appear to be missing the point. We are all sinners and sinful and in need of Jesus and all that he has achieved in and through the cross. Whether or not I held a persons actions to be sinful does not change this fact and I include myself in this..

        Holding that I am a bigot purely because I disagree with some ones view point just proves my point. I am endeavouring to engage in reasoned discussion, I would suggest that such a response is not. I am not blind to the vilification that has been engaged in by both sides of the argument I just don’t see the need to repeat it.

        Would you care to engage with Jesus describing marriage as between a man and a woman. I am genuinely interested in how that is treated/interpreted.

  22. I’ve seen the bunting, the flags of all nations decked in unison, the sunlit smiling faces of infants waving little paper facsimiles, it’s all so innocent isn’t it? Except: those emblems, they’re not just rags waving in the breeze, they’re the symbols representative of division. The butcher’s apron is the vernacular for my flag, in certain parts of the world, not without some justification, how do you reconcile that association with the flag adorned boaters and tee-shirts on display at festive events? There’s a certain star bestrewn blue saltire on a sanguine field, a flag receiving attention from certain quarters. To some it’s a symbol that represents repression, violence and spite, to others it’s the emblem they invest with their pride. Who is right, wrong, I don’t know, I’ve been lied to too many times, I’m thinking though: the last thing we need is another flag.

  23. Pingback: 40 answers for Kevin DeYoung | Ben Irwin

  24. I’m a conservative Christian who is not ready to wave the flag. However, I also have not disregarded answers, because admittedly I have not been that vested in this issue or asked a
    Lot of questions . . . until now. Our 18yo son came out this spring and now I vested! Below is a link to my first public post on this issue – I tried to stay light hearted.

    I am asking legitimately and sincerely, is there any line of reasoning which allows admission of homosexuality (and indeed much of sexuality altogether) as part of our depravity, but the same depravity that Christ died for? In other words can homosexuality and christianity coexist for CONSERVATIVE Christians? Again I’m new to the centuries old discussion and looking for good/clear resources to help frame my faith and encourage my Christian, homosexual son in his faith. I think he thinks he must choose one path or the other. I disagree – I hope!!

    My random thoughts to day for what they are worth:
    https://lookingforchris69.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/happy-independence-day-my-brief-perspective-on-freedom-and-current-events/

  25. Kevin Blow says:

    If I were to wave any flag/banner it would be the blood soaked one of Jesus and the martyrs who have paid the ultimate price for faith in Him. It says look at/to Him. The rainbow flag seems to say, look at ‘me’.

    For me as a christian, the issue is not that someone is attracted to a person of the same sex. It is no different from heterosexual attraction. However, I understand marriage and sexual union as between a man and a women and sexual union within the context of marriage not outside of it.

    The implication of this for a gay person is a life of celibacy. For the heterosexual person it is also a life of celibacy until such time they marry.

    What is there to celebrate about being gay or straight, as it puts the focus on us and not on Him

  26. Chris says:

    One key question that nit too many deal with is the question Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” Jesus Himself responded once earlier when He proclaimed, “I am The Way, The Truth and The Life. No one comes to the Father except by Me.” We have indeed a very shallow definition of love if we only think it means that one must agree with everything I say. Sometimes love means sharing the Truth, even if it says no to what we feel is okay or legal. So I wave Jesus, not a rainbow. Not that I am any better than anybody, so that is why I point to Jesus. What He says goes. His Resurrection is what backs up His claims.

  27. Jon DeVaux says:

    It’s this simple, I’m a Christian. I believe that a woman and a man marry, have children, raise a family and share the love of one another. You want to be Gay, go be Gay. Want to enter into a civil union and enjoy the legal benefits of the state recognizing the relationship, have at it. I owe you no answers and you owe me none as well.

  28. Jarred H says:

    I ran across your post through a Facebook friend. I doff my rainbow-colored trillby to you. You get it.

  29. Dear knitting soul, I was reading another blog, from a guy named Carlos A. Rodríguez and it was a very eye opening and very much I felt the heart of Jesus…. one thing he wrote was
    “This is now the law of the land. And who knows? Maybe because we are not reaching out with love and power and grace to the gay community, God is bringing them to us. And now that we can’t keep them at a “safe” distance, we will have to engage.”
    Amber Brooks wrote, “Laws don’t change hearts, the Holy spirit does.”

    I guess I wrote this all to say is that I’m a follower of Christ that believes in marriage between a man and a woman, but being a follower of Christ means by no means I’m perfect, I fail every day, by the Grace of God I’m forgiven. for that forgiveness and love I have found in my saviour, I’m willing to have an open dialogue. Just because I may not wave the flag in agreement, doesn’t make me any less compassionate.

    To be honest, when everyone said love wins that day, my heart was grieved, not because of anger, but because God has shown me a greater more passionate love than what can be ever be found between two people regardless the gender. The Love that won truly was the day Jesus died for us all. Anyways God bless! And please continue to write for you are gifted and you have a heart for people and talent for words!

    http://www.happysonship.com/will-i-do-gay-weddings/

  30. Keith says:

    sure Jesus loves all sinners, but the Bible is explicit in its opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage. As a matter of fact, these are spelled out. I can quote scripture to back this up. Can you quote scripture to back up that is its okay to be a Christian and live in sin? I am all ears. Or eyes in this instance.

    • Iestyn H says:

      “..the Bible is explicit in its opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage….these are spelled out”. This statement is at the heart of the disagreements. That may be stating the obvious, but it starts from the premise that those things described in the Bible are the same that we witness today, to put another way, that the marriage of Biblical times and the same-sex relationships of Biblical times are the same. The Bible IS explicit in addressing the relationships of its time and place in history – no one I know on either side of the debate has a problem with that. But the model of Biblical period marriage (whereby a man owns a wife, sometimes several) is not the model of today; likewise the same-sex relationships of Biblical times, non-consensual, predatory, are not the same today.

      Read this carefully, then re-read it:

      The condemnation in the Bible is of relationships which are without love. Every time. Time and again, Jesus challenged attitudes which excluded love.

      In complete contrast, no-where will you find condemnation of relationships founded on love. Nowhere will you find a loving relationship or loving behaviour which is in anyway condemned as sinful.

      If those opposed to any same-sex relationship could only get their heads around the fact that they can be and are based on love, then perhaps calling it out as ‘sin’ can change.

      In short, this is not about the gender of those in relationship at all, but about the basis, which is love. Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.

  31. Lucie says:

    Thank you from the bottom of my heart…thank you. I’ve been reading some responses from various “bloggers that I follow” and have been so, so disappointed in their “Christian response” to this whole issue that I’ve been very tempted to “unfollow them”…..I, too, highly respect people’s “differences of opinions”, but to continue the hateful treatment and condemnation of gays and lesbians all in the name of Jesus is starting to sicken me….I’m beginning to get the strong feeling that these individuals are very limited in their understanding and acceptance of others that are not of “their Christian beliefs”…..this kind of ignorance frightens me, especially in light of the fact that these same individuals consider themselves “Educated”…….Again, thank you for expressing some very important points. As an older gay woman subjected to discrimination on a regular basis, I’m sure not quite sure how to respond to some of the more discriminatory writings…makes me so, so sad…We cannot legally change what’s truly, deeply in people’s hearts. We can only pray that with time, these same individuals will acquire the grace, love and acceptance that Jesus truly, truly represents…….Thank you.

  32. Pingback: 40 Eye-rolls from a Christian who’s been waving that rainbow flag for years | Kelly Thinks Too Much

  33. “The reason we are against racism is because a person’s race is sacred. A person’s ethnicity is sacred. You cannot violate it. My race is sacred; your race is sacred; I dare not violate it. The reason we react against the issue of homosexuality the way we do is because sexuality is sacred. You cannot violate it. How do you treat one as sacred and desacrelize the other? Sex is a sacred gift of God. I can no longer justify an aberration of it in somebody else’s life than I can justify my own proclivities to go beyond my marital boundaries. Every man here who is an able-bodied man will tell you temptation stalks you every day. Does it have anything to do with your love for your spouse? Probably not, because you can love your spouse with 100% desire to love the person, but the human body reacts to the sight entertained by the imagination and gives you all kinds of false hints that stolen waters are going to be sweeter. They are not. They leave you emptier. So a disposition or a proclivity does not justify expressing that disposition and that proclivity. That goes across the board for all sexuality. When God created mankind and womankind, it was His plan, not our plan. It is extraordinary what He said. He said, ‘It is not good for man to live alone.’ Well, man wasn’t living alone; God was with him. Why did He say that? He created the mystique and the majesty and the charm and the complimentary nature of womankind in a way that made it possible for her to meet his emotional needs that God, Himself, put only within her outside himself from himself in her in that complimentariness. It is a design by God.” ~Ravi Zacharias

    Concerning homosexuality, Tom Krattenmaker writes, “a matter that receives nowhere near top billing in the Bible.” EXACTLY! If Jesus had been down with homosexuality, don’t you think He would have said so in God’s Holy written Word??? Where, oh where does Jesus endorse, advocate for, make it clear to one and all that He and His Father made homosexuality “good?”

    • Iestyn H says:

      First, if sexuality is a gift of God, we are in agreement; to borrow a phrase, it swings both ways. Secondly if you are asking where Jesus endorses loving relationships, the answer is throughout his ministry. If you would for one short minute concede that modern same-sex relationships can be loving, then you know what it is that Jesus endorses. The love of the Roman Centurion for his servant (Luke 7) is oft-quoted as a probable same sex relationship. It’s not clear in the text of course, but if you know the context, it is highly likely. The key to it however is that it most certainly is loving care, and in healing, Jesus endorses that love.

      Finally, if I’m honest, your reference to extra-marital attraction is a little confusing. We are all culturally conditioned to appreciate people aesthetically – appreciate their physical self and their spiritual (personality) self, and to find attraction. I’m happily married, and I’ve got many close friends who I look forward to seeing, love being with, and appreciate for who they are. I love them all. But loving them extends to respect, mutual respect, for who I am too. To equate our natural proclivity to find others attractive and mix it up with condemnation of a certain type of sexuality is at best a confusion.

      In short, just because promiscuity is often sinful (because it has disregard for the others) and just because adultery is always sinful it does not follow that homosexuality is also. Promiscuity and unfaithful behaviour are not gender-defined.

  34. groenhagen2 says:

    Alise’s “response” is the type of “response” one would expect from someone who cannot answer Mr. DeYoung’s 40 questions. It is clear that support for same-sex marriage is incompatible with the teachings of Christianity. Therefore, we can only expect further attacks on Christianity by the liberals/progressives/socialists in an attempt to marginalize and discredit Christians.

    • Alise says:

      I can answer. And in a conversation with someone who wants to listen. But Rev. DeYoung is not interested in a conversation. And it would appear that you are not either.

      My faith has led me to my views- it is not good for us to be alone. And I see no reason for my LGBTQ brothers and sister to be exempt from that.

      • The homosexual act is sinful according to God’s holy written Word, and marriage is explicitly defined by Jesus, God’s Word made flesh, as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. The majority of human beings living on our privileged planet now, and almost all who ever lived on the planet for thousands of years before us have understood the truth about marriage. Only in recent decades have modern, elite, enlightened, antiChrist liberals come along to explain that error to the unwashed masses who can’t possibly think for ourselves.

      • groenhagen2 says:

        We’ll listen if you answer the questions. Thus far, you have made no real effort.

  35. Steve says:

    Beautiful

  36. Rick Wade says:

    Or maybe he *has* listened to the answers and observed that they don’t wash. Christian gay rights promoters go against the clear teaching of Scripture and millennia of church teaching (not to mention the witness of nature itself). The burden is on those who promote such a radical shift in such matters to prove they are right.

    • Alise says:

      If that’s the case, then the questions aren’t really all that sincere, and are instead just condescending.

      • Rick Wade says:

        I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. Surely we aren’t to think he hasn’t read or heard arguments by Christians who believe homosexuality is legitimate in the eyes of God. DeYoung appears to be providing a collection of very good questions in a genial manner to invite more discussion. Maybe some people on the gay rights side haven’t thought through all the questions he poses. Socratic questioning is a good way to get people to think, but that isn’t necessarily condescending. It’s also true that, even if his position is the correct one (and I’m as sure it is as those who differ think it isn’t), he and those who read the responses can come to a better understanding of the concerns gays and gay rights supporters have.

      • Alise says:

        So has he listened or hasn’t he? Your first comment is that he listened and found the answers lacking. Now it’s not fair to assume that he’s listened? The truth is, if you’re engaged in the gay Christian debate at all, you have to go out of your way to avoid hearing the answers given by LGBTQ Christians and their allies.

      • Rick Wade says:

        And I think it’s likely that he’s heard many of them, just as Matthew Vines had likely heard answers to his forty questions before laying them out in his article. What would be a better way for DeYoung to engage in conversation? If he simply stated his position, that could be called preaching. So he asked questions as Vines did. He could have been trying to accomplish one or both of the two things I stated previously (or something else), but you’d have to ask him what his motives are to be sure.

        Since I seem to be repeating myself, maybe I’m not getting your point. But I’m willing to try again.

  37. Pingback: Actually….You’re Both Wrong (My Response to MC USA’S Decision Regarding LGBTQ Rights) | Zweibach and Peace - Thoughts on Pacifism and Contemporary Anabaptism

  38. j hutch says:

    I cant read the story of Jonathan and David without seeing a direct correlation to what we understand today as a homosexual marriage. We have two members of the same sex, who love each other, want to spend their lives together, and want God to bless that union. Much like gay couples today there are many obstacles trying to keep them apart, yet no matter what they never gave up their love for each other. “Your love for me was wonderful surpassing the love of women.” And before you say, well they were just buddies, i would say, well ive only only experienced that kind of love from one man in my whole life, and thats why im married to him 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s