Drew Brown has a post
up at assemblyHUB on the subject of outreach to people who call themselves LGBTQ or some variation thereof. (In the interest of greater inclusion, the acronym keeps changing faster than
anyone can keep up, including those who use it to describe themselves. Even the
HUB can’t seem to type it the same way twice.)
Sexually transgressive
lifestyles are the subject of numerous online debates between believers at the
moment, but most are about whether churches should accept individuals who engage in deviant practices as active members. Pragmatic considerations about how Christians can
carry the gospel to people living life out at the margins rarely come up.
When they do, they
seem to veer to one extreme or another.
Avoiding the Extremes
I wrote about one interactive extreme a couple of years
ago after viewing a video clip in which a preacher on campus at Arizona State
had triggered a student with a sign warning that homosexuals will burn in hell.
The effectiveness of such an approach remains doubtful. Over at the other interactive
extreme is the Rachel Held Evans school of complete, uncritical and fawning
acceptance.
Brown successfully
navigates down the middle, which is a nice change. But he also posits a fundamentally
false equivalence and raises plenty of practical questions worth discussing
further.
A Parallel That Isn’t
First, the false equivalence:
“It is true that the Bible says in Leviticus 18 that homosexuality is an abomination. In the Hebrew, an abomination is something that is repulsive, and disgusting, both ethically and ritually. The Bible covers a lot about life and having a relationship with God. So, it seems pretty logical that if God has said a particular act is reprehensible to Him, then He shouldn’t have to give us a lot of instruction about it.This is not all that God hates.‘These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.’ (Proverbs 6:16-19)I don’t know about you, but I’m guilty of several of those charges.”
Fair enough. Me too.
One Abomination, Two Abominations …
But there’s a fundamental flaw in Brown’s reasoning here. It’s fine to compare abominations with other abominations. We’re
all sinners, and we’ve all fallen short of the glory of God in one way or
another. But hands that shed innocent blood
sometimes get caught and go to jail, and those who own them try to make sure we
don’t find out about it. They know we disapprove. The Wormtongues who sow
discord among brethren do their work in secret, or else their manipulations
would be ineffective. The feet that are swift in running to evil are distantly attached
to heads that frequently swivel around to make sure the CCTV camera is not
pointing at them when they arrive at their nasty destination.
Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism
and the rest of the sins that fall under the LGBTQ umbrella are different from
other abominations in this one very significant way: there is no national movement
to have liars’ parades, or to enshrine liars’ rights in law, or to normalize
lying, or to get liars access to the bathroom of their choice, or to marry
liars to liars because they are liars.
The parallel Brown draws is not a parallel
at all.
Unsatisfying Answers
Thus when Brown quotes an actual exchange
he had with someone, his propensity to compare apples with oranges means he isn’t
actually responding to the question he’s been asked:
LGBTQ: Do I have to become straight to become a Christian, or can I be a gay Christian?Me: I’m a sinner saved by grace, you can be too.LGBTQ: But you said, God said it was an abomination.Me: Did I tell you that I’ve lied, I’ve thought horrible acts and statements against my fellow human, I’ve caused fights. I have done all of those things, and Proverbs 6:16-19 says they are all an abomination too.
The first question is “Can I be a gay Christian?” Drew’s answer is what people in our court system call “non-responsive”. It doesn’t address the question as asked.
Another Stab at It
As much as I have trouble thinking on my feet in a witnessing situation (and I do), if I’m going to recommend an answer, it would be something more along these lines: “No, you don’t have to become
straight to tell the world that Jesus Christ is Lord or to trust him for your
salvation. But if you acknowledge him as Lord of your life, you also have to accept
the very real possibility that he does not want you to act on your same-sex
attraction, and that Christians who love you won’t be comfortable with you acting on
it either.”
I agree, that’s too
long and it’s maybe a bit lame. Feel free to do better. But I think it’s also more
honest. Sure, it might end the conversation where Drew Brown’s response kept it
going, but so did the words “Sell all that you have and give to the poor.” They too were offered in love.
The Lord never failed to confront the sin
of those who were interested in what he had to say.
Sinners and Repentance
To be fair, Drew Brown is not recommending
we avoid talking to sinners about sin. He says, “It is unloving to hide or deny
the truth of the Bible.” I absolutely agree. He says, “Identify their sin;
using 10 commandments here might work as a reference: lying, stealing,
honoring parents.” That may be a useful idea. I definitely agree with Drew that
Christ is the real issue, not a person’s LGBTQ leaning.
But I also think we need to answer direct questions as straightforwardly as possible. It really doesn’t matter whether Drew is referring to abominable things he did regularly back when he was an unbeliever or to occasional abominable slips in his performance since coming to know Jesus Christ. The fact is that bringing up our own abominations begs the real question, which
boils down to “Can I continue to practice sin as a lifestyle once I become a Christian?”
You can’t. The Lord told the woman taken in
adultery, “Go, and from now on sin no more.” That’s
one important facet of our message to the world, just as Peter could later tell
the Jews in Jerusalem, “Repent therefore, and turn back, that your
sins may be blotted out.” Sure, Christ was the real issue at Pentecost, just as he is the real issue with
any LGBTQ person we meet. But Peter does not postpone the discussion of sin for
a later date in favor of preaching the beauty and simplicity of Christ.
Sticky Conversations
I do think Brown is on the right track here
in many ways. Conversation, ‘sticky’ or not, is critical. It is admittedly
difficult for Christians to get talking with gays, lesbians and transgender
people in any kind of natural way because our lives so rarely intersect with
theirs. We cannot possibly show Christ’s love to those who desperately need it
without consciously and deliberately choosing to engage with them, and Brown is
encouraging us to do that. Good for him.
But the real takeaway here is not that
there are lots of different kinds of abominations, or even that the commission
of abominable acts can be forgiven. Rather, it’s this question: Do you recognize your particular abomination
AS an abomination?
If you don’t, we haven’t
really got anywhere to start. Not yet.
Hey, brother Tom the I tried to make a connection with the lesbian woman who was passing by as I was preaching in a park. She never stopped really. You're right, and my aim was to get her to acknowledge her abomination as something that separates us from a holy God. Sometimes it works and sometimes or doesn't. Had she stopped...
ReplyDeleteThe Lord knows.
Drew
Was that how you read it, Drew?
DeleteOh well. Carry on, brother.
It seems to me John 4, the woman at the well, provides a good parallel to this. The Lord didn't say, "Let's talk about getting you saved, and then we can talk about your multiple adulteries." He dealt with both issues as of-a-piece. He said, "Go, call your husband." Ouch.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, her moral misbehaviour wasn't a different thing, it was part of the same thing. It was one expression and a key symptom of her deep sickness-at-heart. And Christ was the answer to both problems at the same time.
But he didn't compartmentalize them, did he? He faced the truth about her behaviour and the truth about her soul in the same, single encounter. To deal only with one would have left the other one as a dangling problem, one that would conflict with any possible solution in the other realm. But He got the whole problem solved at once.
That's the kind of integrated approach and discernment we need: not a phoney either-or dichotomy between a person's moral and spiritual problems.
So we shouldn't campaign against sexual deviancy in the absence of talk of salvation, nor deal with salvation as if it required no moral commitments. Either of those is a gross distortion of the gospel, I would say.