Over the past couple days I read “God and the Gay Christian”by
Matthew Vines and “God and the Gay Christian?” edited by R. Albert
Mohler Jr. (a collection of critical responses to Vine’s arguments by
several prominent SBC theologians, released nearly simultaneously with
Vines’ book in free eBook form).
I am disappointed that the response from the SBC
so fully ignored several of Vines’ core arguments. For example, I would
have liked to see a discussion regarding the cultural shift in
understanding related to human attraction (specifically that same-sex
attraction was believed to occur for anyone when pleasure was pursued in
excess, rather than being an orientation in which one either is or is
not attracted to the same sex). They dismissed his points regarding
enforced celibacy point blank without providing any response to his main
point.
However,
the most disappointing aspect for me dealt with a misunderstanding that I
have seen crop up before – the phrase “gay Christian.” This particular
misunderstanding has been on my mind for several years now, and this is
my first attempt to write up an explanation of my thoughts. I apologize
if this ends up being a bit “stream of consciousness.”
The
authors land on the side of the argument that appending the adjective
“gay” to one’s Christian identity somehow indicates a desire to cling to
one’s sinful nature; as if to say “I am a Christian, but being gay is
not something that I am willing to turn over to Christ.” This line of
reasoning is particularly troubling to me as I identify as a gay
Christian, and it attributes motivations to me which are inaccurate
while completely missing my intention in using such identification.
Here is a quick first draft of what “gay Christian” means to me:
It
means I am Christian. I ascribe to the tenets of Nicene and Apostles’
creeds and hold tight to the promises found in Scripture. My faith rests
in the belief the God loves me and provided the means to be in
relationship through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.
It
means I am gay. We’ve probably had this conversation before. If not, ask
me about it or read my previous note about proposition five from March
of 2012 (wow…that was over 2 years ago…wow…).
It means
that I desire to be honest in my interactions with others – I don’t want
to hide the things I struggle with. I may not broadcast them, but I do
want to live life with others and that involves honesty in the hard
things.
It means that I bring baggage to the table when
reading scripture and hearing sermons. My struggle with Romans 1:26-27
has less to do with whether or not I can have sex with a man and remain
true to my faith – my struggle is whether the concept of “against
nature” means that I would be trading truth for a lie if I pursued a
relationship with a woman.
It means that in some sense I
have reconciled being attracted to men with my faith in Christ. I
believe that I am loved and accepted as I am – and that challenges me to
pursue the truth of how I live my life. When I finally turned over to
God the possibility that I would need to remain celibate for life, I
began to have peace with being gay (and I began to have peace about
possibly falling in love with and marrying a man).
It
means that I acknowledge that this particular “thorn in the flesh” may
never be taken away from me. I have no doubt in my mind that a miracle
could cause me to wake up in the morning and be attracted to women and
not men. My faith is no longer contingent on that possibility. For many
years, I prayed that I would be made straight. I have often thought
about leaving the faith specifically because I felt that I was caught – I
never chose to be gay (which seems to indicate God made me that way),
but God didn’t want me to be gay.
It means that I am
particularly burdened for our witness to the LGBT community. I love
Chic-Fil-A, but don’t want to eat there because of the militant response
of the church in supporting the chain. I don’t feel safe at Cracker
Barrel any more because of the backlash they suffered when they removed
Duck Dynasty trinkets from their stores. Franklin Graham wrote in
Decision magazine that Putin is right on “these” issues. In my opinion,
Mr. Graham is either woefully uninformed regarding how gay people are
treated in Russia, or he is broadcasting a message of hate toward LGBT
people.
How can we claim to be speaking the love of God
when our words and actions towards LGBT people push others away from
the church and the message of the Gospel?
***copied from my Facebook account***
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Why I will be voting "Yes" on Proposition 5 in Anchorage on April 3, 2012
There are several things I wish to make clear about Proposition 5 from my point of view.
Let's start by giving perspective on my point of view.
I am gay.
I am physically attracted to men, and I am not physically attracted to women.
I have never been physically attracted to women, and at 25 I do not expect that to change.
There is not scientific proof that humans are born with a sexual orientation; however, I tell you honestly that I have never consciously chosen to be attracted to men and not women.
I am a Christian.
I was born on a Saturday morning, and was at church Sunday night.
I went to a Christian school K-12 (Muldoon Christian K-6, Anchorage Christian 7-12) and attended a private Christian University for my undergraduate work (Olivet Nazarene University).
I first invited Christ into my life when I was four years old, and have since recommitted my life to Him many times.
From the wording of the proposed change which can be found in its entirety on the One Anchorage website at http://www.oneanchorage.com/pdf/initiative.pdf, my understanding of the change is the additions of "sexual orientation, or transgender identity" to the Anchorage Municipal Code list of what is legally protected in the municipality in the realm of sale or rental of property, financing practices, employment practices, public accommodations, educational institutions and practices of the municipality. There are no changes to the religious exemptions listed under AMC 5.20.090.
Next, I would like to respond to the FAQ from the website of Protect Anchorage (http://www.protectanchorage.org/why-vote-no) which is the forefront opponent of Proposition 5.
Protect Anchorage lists 10 reasons to vote no:
1: There is no need for Prop 5.
2:Prop 5 will violate the conscience rights of numerous small business owners.
3: Prop 5 is vague and poorly written.
4: Prop. 5 forces our city government to take sides in the "culture wars."
5: Religious institutions are not adequately protected.
6: Prop. 5 does not exempt individuals who act based on sincerely held religious beliefs.
7: The provision allowing for "gender-segregated" restrooms is meaningless.
8: The provision allowing for "dress codes, work rules, and codes of conduct" is meaningless.
9: Complying with Prop.5 will be expensive for businesses.
10: Tolerance must be a two-way street.
My thoughts:
According to the first point of the Protect Anchorage FAQ, there is no need for Prop. 5. The assumption is that Prop 5 attempts to address a non-existent problem. They quote Mayor Dan Sullivan as saying "My review shows that there is clearly a lack of quantifiable evidence necessitating this ordinance. My review also shows that the vast majority of those who communicated their position on the ordinance are in opposition" in 2009. This statement may have been accurate and fair at the time he made it. In 2012, the Anchorage LGBT Discrimination Survey by Melissa S. Green was published. Although I have not fully digested the report it shows in the Key Findings at the beginning of the report that the description of "non-existent" is at the very least misguided, and quite probably grossly mistaken now. A few of the key findings quoted directly from the survey:
-Verbal abuse/namecalling was by far the most frequently experienced form of anti-gay/antitrans
bias reported by respondents. 76.5% of the total study sample of 268 respondents and
68.0% of the subsample of 50 respondents who have lived in Anchorage for less than five
years have experienced verbal abuse/namecalling at least once while in Anchorage.
-Experiences of various forms of harassment, intimidation, and bullying were fairly common.
Of the total sample of 268 respondents, 42.5% had been threatened with physical violence,
32.8% had been followed or chased, and 29.9% had experienced property damage attributed
to anti-LGBT bias. 18.3% had experienced actual physical violence in Anchorage because of
their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender presentation, and 6% had been sexually assaulted.
-Harassment and bullying were also common on the job and in rented housing. Of the total
sample of 268 respondents, 44% had been harassed by their employer or other employees —
16% to the point of actually feeling forced to leave their jobs. 18.7% had been harassed by
their landlord or other tenants.
-The second most common issue reported by respondents (after verbal abuse/harassment)
was hiding their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender transition in order to avoid job
discrimination. 73.1% of the total sample and 62% of the respondents who had lived in Anchorage
less than five years reported hiding in this way at least once to avoid job discrimination
in Anchorage.
In addition, 20.9% were turned down for work they were otherwise qualified for, 17.5% reported being denied a promotion at least once. 14.6% reported being fired for sexual orientation or gender identity/presentation. If there were too many percentages there, suffice it to say that discrimination happens in Anchorage to GLBT people. It is definitely an issue that needs addressing.
The second point of the FAQ from the Protect Anchorage website indicates a potential violation of the conscience rights of small business owners. Two things about this point bother me: "sincere religious or conscientious objections..." and the reference to a law in New Mexico and ensuing drama. Regarding the first, "sincere religious or conscientious objections" should not be reason enough to not do business with another person. That is essentially the point of freedom of religion – if you sell cars, you should sell cars to Christian, Jew, Islamic and Atheist. The cartoon commercial with a gay bar owner and Christian bookstore owner does not point out that the Christian bookstore owner would have to hire someone of a different faith to them under the law as it stands - which violates their "sincere religious or conscientious objections." Regarding the second, it bothers me to no end to reference a law in another state and not allow me to go read the law myself. They tell a nice story and let you draw the parallel to Anchorage’s change without actually pointing us to the law in NM which it supposedly mirrors.
The third point is that the wording of the proposition is vague and poorly written. I can grant several of the points made here. Bisexual and transgender are difficult terms to define, especially for those who are not bisexual or transgender and for those who have not interacted with others who are either bisexual or transgender. They are difficult definitions in an academic setting, political setting, and personal setting. But that does not remove them from our lives. I have often heard a broad definition of bisexual and transgender as those who cannot decide if they like having sex with men or with women. This is perhaps a misunderstanding, but more probably an outright deceit to influence the opinion of another. Those who are gay, bisexual or transgender are not just thinking about who they can have sex with. For transgender people, the expression of who they are is inconsistent with the societal norms for how they were born. The transition from a man to a woman for a transgender person is as much about finding how they fit into society as it is about justifying who they sleep with. Bisexual people are physically attracted to men and women - they fall in love with a person, not a sex. Again, this is difficult for many people to understand. With that in mind, this may be the most valid point in the FAQ.
The fourth point assumes that the government would be taking sides in a cultural war. The biggest problem with this point is the disparaging and hateful language included in expounding the point. The pop quiz asks "would you hire a so-called 'transgendered' person to care for small children? Would you be comfortable with an openly 'bi-sexual' person teaching your child's Kindergarten class?" The quotes around transgendered and bi-sexual and the use of the word "so-called" is disgusting. Belittling the struggles of another human being is unloving, and I cannot think that Jesus would ever use such descriptions. The hinting that a bisexual person would be less trustworthy around children than a straight person is offensive. It strongly implies that someone who is bisexual would be more likely to attempt something sexually inappropriate with a child.
The fifth point does not even deal with Prop. 5, it deals with the religious exemptions which currently exist in AMC 5.20.090, accusing it of being poorly written and vague. If you want greater protection for religious institutions in law, then propose a change yourself. Proposition 5 makes no change to the current religious exemptions.
The sixth point is a rehashing of the second point but with some added fear mongering for personal rights.
The seventh point is a rehashing of the third point about vague language making it impossible to determine if someone should use the men's or the women's restroom or changing room again with some fear-mongering in the form of stories.
The eight point almost makes a good point - is a transgender person required to dress as the sex they feel most comfortable as, or according to the sex which seems evident from their DNA. However, it ignores the fact that many companies currently have dress codes which make no reference whatsoever to the sex of the employee. Dress codes which I have interacted with do not tend to be in the form of “men do this, women do this” with some exceptions (men be clean shaven or women do not wear skirts about your knee). The idea that there would be a question of whether a transgender man should remain clean shaven or be required to wear skirts past their knee becomes moot – if you wear a skirt it needs to be past the knee, if you have visible hair on your face it needs to be clean shaven.
The ninth point references the potential expense to businesses. Seriously? It's too expensive to do the right thing, let's just not do it? I think not. Companies already spend money on diversity training for race, religion, age, etc; there is no reason to believe that additional training regarding sexual orientation or transgender is so exorbitant as to make it unobtainable.
The tenth point argues that tolerance must be a two-way street. I laughed when I read this. There is currently no street between Christianity as a whole and LGBT people.
My last thought on this for now: as it stands in Anchorage, I could be fired from a job (or not even hired in the first place) or asked to leave a restaurant because I am attracted to men. Not because I have interacted with men romantically or physically (which I haven’t). Allow me to reiterate: I am gay and I have never chosen to be attracted to men and not women (which isn’t to say that I wouldn’t have chosen it – just that I didn’t). Because of this, I feel that this is a protection that needs to pass. In the same way that I did not choose to be white, male of (many, many, many) mixed European background, I did not choose to be gay. I did however choose to be a Christian. Because of these things, I will be voting “yes” on proposition 5.
***Copied from my Facebook account***
Let's start by giving perspective on my point of view.
I am gay.
I am physically attracted to men, and I am not physically attracted to women.
I have never been physically attracted to women, and at 25 I do not expect that to change.
There is not scientific proof that humans are born with a sexual orientation; however, I tell you honestly that I have never consciously chosen to be attracted to men and not women.
I am a Christian.
I was born on a Saturday morning, and was at church Sunday night.
I went to a Christian school K-12 (Muldoon Christian K-6, Anchorage Christian 7-12) and attended a private Christian University for my undergraduate work (Olivet Nazarene University).
I first invited Christ into my life when I was four years old, and have since recommitted my life to Him many times.
From the wording of the proposed change which can be found in its entirety on the One Anchorage website at http://www.oneanchorage.com/pdf/initiative.pdf, my understanding of the change is the additions of "sexual orientation, or transgender identity" to the Anchorage Municipal Code list of what is legally protected in the municipality in the realm of sale or rental of property, financing practices, employment practices, public accommodations, educational institutions and practices of the municipality. There are no changes to the religious exemptions listed under AMC 5.20.090.
Next, I would like to respond to the FAQ from the website of Protect Anchorage (http://www.protectanchorage.org/why-vote-no) which is the forefront opponent of Proposition 5.
Protect Anchorage lists 10 reasons to vote no:
1: There is no need for Prop 5.
2:Prop 5 will violate the conscience rights of numerous small business owners.
3: Prop 5 is vague and poorly written.
4: Prop. 5 forces our city government to take sides in the "culture wars."
5: Religious institutions are not adequately protected.
6: Prop. 5 does not exempt individuals who act based on sincerely held religious beliefs.
7: The provision allowing for "gender-segregated" restrooms is meaningless.
8: The provision allowing for "dress codes, work rules, and codes of conduct" is meaningless.
9: Complying with Prop.5 will be expensive for businesses.
10: Tolerance must be a two-way street.
My thoughts:
According to the first point of the Protect Anchorage FAQ, there is no need for Prop. 5. The assumption is that Prop 5 attempts to address a non-existent problem. They quote Mayor Dan Sullivan as saying "My review shows that there is clearly a lack of quantifiable evidence necessitating this ordinance. My review also shows that the vast majority of those who communicated their position on the ordinance are in opposition" in 2009. This statement may have been accurate and fair at the time he made it. In 2012, the Anchorage LGBT Discrimination Survey by Melissa S. Green was published. Although I have not fully digested the report it shows in the Key Findings at the beginning of the report that the description of "non-existent" is at the very least misguided, and quite probably grossly mistaken now. A few of the key findings quoted directly from the survey:
-Verbal abuse/namecalling was by far the most frequently experienced form of anti-gay/antitrans
bias reported by respondents. 76.5% of the total study sample of 268 respondents and
68.0% of the subsample of 50 respondents who have lived in Anchorage for less than five
years have experienced verbal abuse/namecalling at least once while in Anchorage.
-Experiences of various forms of harassment, intimidation, and bullying were fairly common.
Of the total sample of 268 respondents, 42.5% had been threatened with physical violence,
32.8% had been followed or chased, and 29.9% had experienced property damage attributed
to anti-LGBT bias. 18.3% had experienced actual physical violence in Anchorage because of
their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender presentation, and 6% had been sexually assaulted.
-Harassment and bullying were also common on the job and in rented housing. Of the total
sample of 268 respondents, 44% had been harassed by their employer or other employees —
16% to the point of actually feeling forced to leave their jobs. 18.7% had been harassed by
their landlord or other tenants.
-The second most common issue reported by respondents (after verbal abuse/harassment)
was hiding their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender transition in order to avoid job
discrimination. 73.1% of the total sample and 62% of the respondents who had lived in Anchorage
less than five years reported hiding in this way at least once to avoid job discrimination
in Anchorage.
In addition, 20.9% were turned down for work they were otherwise qualified for, 17.5% reported being denied a promotion at least once. 14.6% reported being fired for sexual orientation or gender identity/presentation. If there were too many percentages there, suffice it to say that discrimination happens in Anchorage to GLBT people. It is definitely an issue that needs addressing.
The second point of the FAQ from the Protect Anchorage website indicates a potential violation of the conscience rights of small business owners. Two things about this point bother me: "sincere religious or conscientious objections..." and the reference to a law in New Mexico and ensuing drama. Regarding the first, "sincere religious or conscientious objections" should not be reason enough to not do business with another person. That is essentially the point of freedom of religion – if you sell cars, you should sell cars to Christian, Jew, Islamic and Atheist. The cartoon commercial with a gay bar owner and Christian bookstore owner does not point out that the Christian bookstore owner would have to hire someone of a different faith to them under the law as it stands - which violates their "sincere religious or conscientious objections." Regarding the second, it bothers me to no end to reference a law in another state and not allow me to go read the law myself. They tell a nice story and let you draw the parallel to Anchorage’s change without actually pointing us to the law in NM which it supposedly mirrors.
The third point is that the wording of the proposition is vague and poorly written. I can grant several of the points made here. Bisexual and transgender are difficult terms to define, especially for those who are not bisexual or transgender and for those who have not interacted with others who are either bisexual or transgender. They are difficult definitions in an academic setting, political setting, and personal setting. But that does not remove them from our lives. I have often heard a broad definition of bisexual and transgender as those who cannot decide if they like having sex with men or with women. This is perhaps a misunderstanding, but more probably an outright deceit to influence the opinion of another. Those who are gay, bisexual or transgender are not just thinking about who they can have sex with. For transgender people, the expression of who they are is inconsistent with the societal norms for how they were born. The transition from a man to a woman for a transgender person is as much about finding how they fit into society as it is about justifying who they sleep with. Bisexual people are physically attracted to men and women - they fall in love with a person, not a sex. Again, this is difficult for many people to understand. With that in mind, this may be the most valid point in the FAQ.
The fourth point assumes that the government would be taking sides in a cultural war. The biggest problem with this point is the disparaging and hateful language included in expounding the point. The pop quiz asks "would you hire a so-called 'transgendered' person to care for small children? Would you be comfortable with an openly 'bi-sexual' person teaching your child's Kindergarten class?" The quotes around transgendered and bi-sexual and the use of the word "so-called" is disgusting. Belittling the struggles of another human being is unloving, and I cannot think that Jesus would ever use such descriptions. The hinting that a bisexual person would be less trustworthy around children than a straight person is offensive. It strongly implies that someone who is bisexual would be more likely to attempt something sexually inappropriate with a child.
The fifth point does not even deal with Prop. 5, it deals with the religious exemptions which currently exist in AMC 5.20.090, accusing it of being poorly written and vague. If you want greater protection for religious institutions in law, then propose a change yourself. Proposition 5 makes no change to the current religious exemptions.
The sixth point is a rehashing of the second point but with some added fear mongering for personal rights.
The seventh point is a rehashing of the third point about vague language making it impossible to determine if someone should use the men's or the women's restroom or changing room again with some fear-mongering in the form of stories.
The eight point almost makes a good point - is a transgender person required to dress as the sex they feel most comfortable as, or according to the sex which seems evident from their DNA. However, it ignores the fact that many companies currently have dress codes which make no reference whatsoever to the sex of the employee. Dress codes which I have interacted with do not tend to be in the form of “men do this, women do this” with some exceptions (men be clean shaven or women do not wear skirts about your knee). The idea that there would be a question of whether a transgender man should remain clean shaven or be required to wear skirts past their knee becomes moot – if you wear a skirt it needs to be past the knee, if you have visible hair on your face it needs to be clean shaven.
The ninth point references the potential expense to businesses. Seriously? It's too expensive to do the right thing, let's just not do it? I think not. Companies already spend money on diversity training for race, religion, age, etc; there is no reason to believe that additional training regarding sexual orientation or transgender is so exorbitant as to make it unobtainable.
The tenth point argues that tolerance must be a two-way street. I laughed when I read this. There is currently no street between Christianity as a whole and LGBT people.
My last thought on this for now: as it stands in Anchorage, I could be fired from a job (or not even hired in the first place) or asked to leave a restaurant because I am attracted to men. Not because I have interacted with men romantically or physically (which I haven’t). Allow me to reiterate: I am gay and I have never chosen to be attracted to men and not women (which isn’t to say that I wouldn’t have chosen it – just that I didn’t). Because of this, I feel that this is a protection that needs to pass. In the same way that I did not choose to be white, male of (many, many, many) mixed European background, I did not choose to be gay. I did however choose to be a Christian. Because of these things, I will be voting “yes” on proposition 5.
***Copied from my Facebook account***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)