Must a gay man go straight?

Under another post, a longtime reader named Jay asks a question that seems worth answering on the main page.

* * *

Dear Jay,

Answering a question like this by writing rather than in person is very difficult, pastorally. How can I show you I love you and am very concerned that you know the mercy of God for your particular set of temptations, especially in a time and place when any condemnation of sodomy is seen as at least shrill, and likely smug, insensitive, and grounded in self-righteousness, to boot?

Still, I will work to answer you because you say others are unwilling to do so, and because you are a precious soul belonging to the Lord of us all Who bought us each with His Own Blood and has called us to be holy as He is holy. If you want, I can put you in touch with those struggling with your particular set of temptations who are a part of our church here in Bloomington and you may ask them if what I write here is from love or censoriousness? You may ask whether you’d find our church to be loving of all regardless of their particular besetting sin, or loving only of those with more acceptable besetting sins?

So on to the difficult work others have avoided.

You wrote, “I would not consider myself heterosexual at all. Is being straight a requirement?”

Let’s clarify the question. The opposite of straight is gay, so another way of asking the question would be, “My psychological and emotional identity and inclinations are completely homosexual, so can I be give in to them as long as I don’t go all the way?” Or another way of saying it would be, “May I give myself to gayness rather than straightness in everything but physical intercourse, and will this please God?”

The answer is...

no—you may not give yourself to gayness whether in bed, in the kitchen, at church, or at work. This would not please the God Who made you man. So yes, you must be straight not just by avoiding same-sex physical intercourse, but also by avoiding same-sex psychological, emotional, cultural, artistic, musical, vocational, affectional, sartorial, and spiritual intercourse.

You have already confessed it is sin to give yourself to gayness in physical intimacy and you have said you flee from that sin. May God bless you in this hard work of sanctification.

Now it is your next step of obedience to learn to confess the sin of giving yourself to gayness in your relationships and dress and talk and thoughts and affect and psychological and emotional life, also, and may God bless you in this work of sanctification. too.

Sexual identity is of God—not man. Like all of His good gifts to us, it is our joyful obedience to embrace them. So whether man or woman, the only godly response to God’s gift to each of us of manhood or womanhood is to live out His gift by living in a manly or feminine way—which is to live, as you put it, “straight.” By living straight we celebrate and embrace and love and live out loud the manhood or womanhood God decreed and gave to us.

As obedience and fruitfulness are submission to the physical marking God gave us in our Baptism into the Mother of us all, the Church, so obedience and fruitfulness are submission to the physical marking God gave us in our sexuality at the moment of our conception in our biological mother. For those whose desires have been perverted by Satan through the molestation they suffered at the hands of their parents and pastors who refused to teach and discipline their sexual identity, or at the hands of child-destroyers who twisted their sexual identity by sexual attacks, living in such a way as to maximize one’s sexual identity will be very, very difficult. It will require many tears and desperate prayers and all the love of fellow Christians standing with us as we resist our temptations and begin to live as the man or woman God made us. Yet we give ourselves to this discipleship with great joy knowing it is the first step of Christian faith and fruitfulness for every man or woman born again by the Spirit of God.

For this reason, it’s impossible to even begin to fulfill the Great Commission without preaching and teaching Biblical sexuality—Biblical manhood and womanhood. And thus, almost no church or pastor in the Western world, and precious few anywhere, are fulfilling the Great Commission. The Apostles fulfilled it—read the New Testament! The Early Church fulfilled it—read the Early Church fathers. The Reformers fulfilled it—read our Reformed fathers. But although we blather on and on about being evangelistic and missional, we refuse to take the most basic steps toward making disciples of all women and men.

From the Garden of Eden, sexuality has been foundational to personhood, and therefore the first and most basic step of faith and obedience is to jump into the crystal-clear waters of who God made us, doing so with joyful and faithful abandon. God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but Adam instead listened to the voice of his wife, Eve. And right there at the Beginning, Adam wasn’t an unfaithful person. He was an unfaithful husband. He was an unfaithful man. Thus God dealt with him and his wife sending the curses, not to two human beings as persons, but to one man and one woman. Thus too, it was through the man—not the woman—that the corruption of Original Sin flowed to all mankind.

You see, from the Beginning God never dealt with us simply as persons, but as man and woman. And still today, living out our sexual marking is the foundational step of each individual’s confession of his Christian faith. When God says “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,” He isn’t denying that each of us have been placed in certain stations of life that we are to embrace. There are still races and nationalities that we embrace as Christians, and it’s not sin. All of us are either servants or masters, employees or owners, workers or bosses, enlisted men or officers, slaves or freemen, and it’s right for us to give ourselves to these stations, too, as an act of Christian faith. In the same way, we are made male or female, and it is our privilege to learn these callings too, and to embrace them.

But don’t despair as if God has asked something impossible of you. Our desires are formed by single acts of faithful obedience and God is pleased to strengthen the weak and encourage the sad and love those who despair and lift up the humble. It is sinners for whom Christ died—not those who naturally find themselves heterosexual and believe this makes them clean. No man or woman is ever clean, sexually, and your dirtiness is only one more form of the dirtiness every last one of us is led into, sexually. Thing is, though, none of us is clean when he simply looks and doesn’t touch. The godly heterosexual man will discipline himself not to look. He won’t lie to himself telling himself that to look is to be man, and that he finds in himself no principle or desire of non-looking. He will see the calling of God to continually extend his obedience ever further in the direction of Christ’s absolute fidelity to His Bride, the Church, and he will turn against touching, then looking, then thinking; and then he will turn himself toward loving his wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for Her.

Sadly, Christians today don’t think of their sexuality as a gift to be embraced. Instead, we think proper to squelch and repress this foundational identity given us by God. We bind our daughters’ breasts and geld our sons. We congratulate ourselves on giving dolls to our sons to play with and preparing our daughters for graduate degrees and professions that will keep them from motherhood and being devoted to helping their husbands, being keepers at home, and raising a godly seed to their Heavenly Father. We change our language and speak of “gender,” relegating every man’s sexuality to being subordinate to his perverse and sinful heart which may or may not like the sex God gave him. This is wrong. Sex is not gender and it’s no choice or social role. Other than election to redemption in Jesus Christ, sex is the most basic decree God has made about each of us from the very beginning of our lives, and for us to refuse to work towards joy in that decree is sin.

It is simple faith to look at our genitals and say “I’m a man” or “I’m a woman,” and then to live man or woman as God made us, turning away from man/man/woman or woman/woman/man or man/woman or woman/man or man/woman/man or dyke or fairy or queen or transsexual living in the body of a dyke/queen/man and so on. It is simple Christian faith to have joy in whom God made us—our sexual station in life—and to maximize that diversity.

Yes, our sinful nature will seek to defy God. We will try to tell ourselves and others that God didn’t get his story straight—that He made us a man biologically and a woman psychologically. But no, it cannot be. Who we are in our bodies is who God made us. It is our station in life and we obey Him by giving ourselves to that station joyfully, seeking to embrace it and celebrate it and live it out loud because doing so is to be obedient to God.

There is much, much more to be said on this subject, but the sum of it is this: every man is born with a sexual identity that is God’s decree and is to be loved and lived out loud to His glory. For a man with male genitals to live queer or like Little Lord Fauntleroy is to rebel against his station and to seek to eviscerate God’s gift. So all those who say that being gay is fine as long as a man doesn’t copulate with another man are conniving at sexual rebellion. Being gay is not fine. Man and woman are to live straight down the line God placed them on, disciplining their rebellious inclinations whether those inclinations are towards the sexual perversions of adultery, pederasty, fornication, bestiality, feminism, or sodomy.

God is not a god of confusion, but order.

One final note: some people will immediately give at shout-out to hermaphrodites, pointing out that God makes them so, and thus their confused physiology is normative for every man’s sexual identity. Since God makes some abnormal, abnormality is the new normal and to be embraced. The reasoning could go like this.

”Look, God made her part woman and part man, physiologically, and me part man and part woman, psychologically. She can’t change what God did to her physically so why should I change what God did to me, psychologically? Bifurcation is simplistic, sexually. Most people are a combination of man and woman, psychologically, and this is good. God made us this way and we should embrace all aspects of our identity—not simply our physical or genital station in life.”

The problem with this is that God our Creator made Adam and Eve, and thus decreed for all history that there are only two sexes—not three or four or a thousand. Furthermore, He told us that those who seek to defy the station in life they have been given by lying with their own sex are committing an abomination in His sight. And as copulation with a member of one’s own sex is an abomination, so is spiritual and psychological and personal rebellion against one’s own sex. Scripture’s commands are synecdoches, which is to say we are to obey the spirit of the law, and not simply the letter. God’s Word says it’s to defy God for a woman to wear a man’s clothing; for woman to teach or exercise authority over man; for man that it’s shameful for man to be a womanly warrior; for man to refuse to provide for his family; that it’s right for man to be manly in his understanding of God’s truth; and so on. In other words, for man to embrace manliness is simple obedience of God’s decree, and similarly with woman.

Thus, if a young boy has a perverse heart that is inclined to desire his dog, sexually, he is to be disciplined towards wanting sexual intimacy with woman, instead. If a young girl is inclined to desire to play the man, sexually, she is to be disciplined towards playing the woman, instead. Fathers and mothers, both in the home and church, are to be vigilant to discipline the sexual desires and identities of those children under their care. And if a man has grown to college age without anyone loving him enough to discipline him towards his proper male sexual identity, it’s never too late for the church fathers to step in where others have failed (which is what we do here at ClearNote Church in Bloomington next to a large public research university with a tone of young students, undergrad and grad, among us).

It’s the modern morbid habit to sacrifice the normal on the altar of the abnormal, and hermaphrodites and the push toward androgyny and sodomite marriage must be viewed in that context. Normal is Adam and Eve. Hermaphrodites are abnormal and are to be no standard for anyone. It would be extremely perverse if the fact of God making some men blind were to be used to justify a psychological perversion that caused some men to desire to live blind despite having eyes that see, wouldn’t it?

It’s the same with sex. We are to be compassionate and gracious by covering the defect of hermaphroditism with love. We are not to use this defect as justification for defying God’s decree of sexual identity, lifting up psychological hermaphroditism as the new norm. Get it?

While recognizing the existence of those who are defective, God made us Adam or Eve and we are joyfully to bring out hearts, minds, and souls into the station in life God gave us. This is godliness.

What’s wrong with Evangelicalism?

We’ve created, lifted up, and worship an idol utterly devoid of manhood we call “Jesus.” He’s got long womanly hair, a pretty face, smiling and gentle eyes, only caressing touches, only happy nostrums. He has no muscles, no anger, nor aggression, no wrath, no zeal for justice or the honor of His Father, and absolutely no authority. The Church doesn't submit to Him--He submits to the Church.

It’s my conviction that if we ever expel the Jesus-idol from our churches, returning the Son of God Who goes forth to war to His rightful place in our adoration and worship, the glut of men/women and women/men filling our churches and homes will cease. And God be praised when it happens!

One final thing: why would others have avoided answering this question? Any mature Christian should know and be able to answer a struggling sinner that it is as wrong to be gay in identity as it is wrong to be gay in physical intimacy. This is not rocket science. So again, why have others avoided giving you a straight answer to this question?

There are several reasons that combine to be more than the sum of the parts.

Start here:

Sodomites have made it a point of strategy to browbeat everyone into affirming that psychological and emotional sexual identity is incapable of change. So calling someone to be straight, emotionally and psychologically, is almost universally seen as a hate crime of uncharitable intolerance that is responsible for AIDS deaths and teen suicides. Rob a man of his sexual identity and that’s tantamount to telling him to kill himself. His sexual identity is the very heart of who he is, much as the Jew’s Jewishness is the very heart of who he is. So it’s a crime to call a womanly man to be manly just as it’s a crime to call a Jew to Christ. One is gendercide and the other genocide.

Add this:

Most Christians don’t want to get dirty helping sinners with besetting sins, whether those sins are the love of pornography, bondage to our belly, the love of wine, or the temptation to same-sex intimacy. Francis Schaeffer pointed out that the beginning of true Christian love is opening our homes to a drunk puking his guts out on the carpet of our guest bedroom. (He was speaking to Presbyterian Christians who usually can afford guest bedrooms.) Christians don’t want to get dirty, and sinners are dirty. So when we get down in the trenches to help them, we get dirty, too. We get their dirt on us. We begin to smell and stink and have bad dreams and temptations we never knew before. Standing against sin with brothers and sisters in Christ, we ourselves are tempted and fall. So we avoid any sin we can possibly avoid. We act as if we’re clueless to any struggle of any brother and sister in Christ we can possibly manufacture plausible deniability concerning. We are monkey see no evil, hear no evil, do no good. We give ourselves to having nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness while refusing to have anything at all to do with exposing them (Ephesians 5:11).

Add finally, this:

We work on extending that plausible deniability to other places. We start with Augustine’s loving the sinner but hating the sin and slide over to loving the homosexual but hating homosexual copulation; then finally, we embrace homosexual orientation while trying to keep the condemnation of homosexual intimacy from slipping out of our graps. You see, the sinner is homosexual; his personhood cannot be seperated from his gayness; and yet we know that God has condemned homosexual practice of some sort. So we must condemn what He condemns—you really can’t claim to honor God’s Word if you don’t condemn something that homosexuals do, can you? But we must love the sinner, you see, and this sinner can be loved in his gayness as long as he doesn’t give in to that gayness in bed. He can wear it in the living room and at the restaurant and at work and when taking walks on the park and on internet forums as long as he doesn’t wear it in bed. There his body parts must fit together or God will be angry.

That’s it.

Combine those three reasons—that the gender identity of the gay man or woman is fixed for life and cannot change, and that those calling the gay man or woman to change are arrogant, self-righteous murderers; that we want to avoid the yuck factor of twisted lives; and that we think hating the sin but loving the sinner is the same as hating gay sex while affirming gay orientation and desire—and it’s clear why no one wants to answer this question.

But if God is the Father from Whom all fatherhood gets its name; and if it was His love that sent His Only Begotten Son to pour out His life as a sin-offering for sinful man; and if His Son calls to us all, “Come unto me all you who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls;” and if we have faith that the blood of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, cleanses us from all sin; surely that includes the most entrenched and perverse sins such as gossip and sodomy and greed and adultery.

We must not sell the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ short. It is more than powerful enough to save the most wicked to the uttermost, and it is the work of God we were made for to call the gossip and sodomite and greedy to take up their crosses next to us, and follow Him.

With love in Christ,

 

Comments

Wow... this was as pastoral a piece as you have ever written brother! May God bless and keep you.

al sends

I think I just have a million more questions I want answered now, but I guess that's why you said doing this in written form is pretty difficult. Thank you.

I guess the only one that deserves space here -- and not privately -- is this: I do know other men and women who struggle with homosexual temptation, who not only reject copulation but also gay identity and culture, but who do not have any heterosexual desires. Are they saved? I'm only 23, so I'm young, and I know things could change in the future. But many of these people are older, and have been at this fight just as long...

I don't know if it's right to ask this here, or if it was answered in the letter somewhere and I missed it, but what of them? It's not so much the presence of homosexual temptations that bother me. It's the absence of the heterosexual desires that would make marriage and child-bearing possible. I know some men who have attained them, and others who haven't. I guess I just wonder if there is something wrong with those who haven't, and what my life would look like in the church if I was one of those. Can one reach the fullness of the sexual identity God intended for him as a single man for life?

That might lead to another letter. Haha. Again, thank you for your time, and for this letter.

Jay, if indeed you know a number of homosexual men who have repented of that sin, and in addition a number who have "gone straight," I think you've got a story to tell. Can I ask that you tell that story to someone wiser than I, namely someone like our gracious host?

And to answer your question, look at the "Add this" paragraph carefully. If someone who--in mind or body--can be tempted to fornicate can be saved, can not the homosexual? As you noted in your response, one can achieve a Godly mindset towards sexuality, even if it's been severely damaged prior to Christ.

Well, I don't think any of the ones who have "gone straight," would necessarily call themselves "straight." They may have wives, but they are still homosexually tempted occasionally (in the same way other men are tempted to adultery, I suppose.) I guess, for me, "straight" means "being attracted to women, and only to women." I honestly haven't struggled with homosexual temptations too much in awhile, but I don't have any heterosexual thoughts or feelings. So I guess I'm asexual? I prefer to just identify as "celibate," but that's what prompted the question. I wanted to know if I am saved and washed even though I have no desires for women, and still battle desires for men.

The response just opened up a lot of other questions.

Interesting. I suspect that too many pastors have aimed for getting the behaviour fixed, and put the orientation question in the too-difficult basket - or have perhaps hoped that fixing the first would fix the second.

Repenting from the behaviour, and staying repented, is one thing; work on the orientation questions may prove to be a lot more complicated. As usual, comment and criticism of my question welcome.

I honestly haven't struggled with homosexual temptations too much in awhile, but I don't have any heterosexual thoughts or feelings.

In some ways I think a lot of straight men would envy you. Living as a straight single guy with strong temptation for over a decade I could really do without the heterosexual desires until (if) I am to get married. It can be hard as hell at times.

"Now it is your next step of obedience to learn to confess the sin of giving yourself to gayness in your relationships and dress and talk and thoughts and affect and psychological and emotional life, also, and may God bless you in this work of sanctification. too."

Can you elaborate on this please? I get "gayness" in relationships and thoughts. But dress and talk and affect? I'm not wearing anything that my straight friends don't wear. I don't use obnoxious abbreviations. I don't flip my wrists around or talk with my hands. Could this instruction be summarized as "Don't be a stereotype" - or is there something more? I feel like there is, if we're talking about emotional/psychological stuff, but how are people like College Jay and me supposed to fix that? Is therapy the answer? Do I just pray about it?

Thanks.

Jay, Re #3, I'd say look at Paul, who never married or had children. My bible study leader is fond of telling us that if we're attracted to women, God's probably calling us to marriage. Maybe for you, since you are not, God is calling you to be celibate. As Paul says, marriage isn't for everybody.

TB, you write that "So yes, you must be straight not just by avoiding same-sex physical intercourse, but also by avoiding same-sex psychological, emotional, cultural, artistic, musical, vocational, affectional, sartorial, and spiritual intercourse." But College Jay never said that he had a problem with these things and in fact it sound like he has that pretty much handled, only that he didn't have opposite sex attractions. To me, there is a bit of a disconnect between what he asked and your response, though your response is still valuable.

So, I'll simply ask again, must College Jay develop attractions to the opposite sex? For some, this issue will not be settled this side of heaven.

Forgive me for duplicating my efforts, but College Jay writes in comment #5 "I honestly haven't struggled with homosexual temptations too much in awhile, but I don't have any heterosexual thoughts or feelings. So I guess I'm asexual? I prefer to just identify as "celibate," but that's what prompted the question. I wanted to know if I am saved and washed even though I have no desires for women, and still battle desires for men."

You can see that even he is repeating his initial question that prompted our host's essay. After rereading the essay, I get the feeling that the answer is yes and no. Yes, College Jay is saved, an no, it is not good enough to reject the practice and identity, but not strive toward fullness of true manhood. If I were the one responding to College Jay, I would probably say that sanctification includes these these good things, and to not write them off just yet.

I would love to hear from our gracious host on this, but quite frankly, I am flat out blessed to hear of dear brothers who have, by the Grace of God, managed to mostly eliminate same-sex urges.

And Jay, while I cannot know your heart and whether you are walking in faith--which is of course the real answer to "can I be saved"--one sign of the Spirit's working in your sanctification is very likely the removal of one's sinful desires. It is every bit as real as when a person tempted to fornication of the heterosexual type finds that he can walk away from the "sexy and seemingly available" girl, or when the man tempted to pornography is no longer attracted to that.

Well if it's not inappropriate to make a joke, my thoughts about sexual temptations have always been thus: Use it or lose it. Except in this case, you actually want to lose it. I don't know what sexuality is like for men who have never experienced same-gender attractions, but I'd assume that desires to fornicate, commit adultery or look at pornography diminish in proportion to the amount that one doesn't indulge in them, mentally or physically.

>>I do know other men and women who struggle with homosexual temptation, who not only reject copulation but also gay identity and culture, but who do not have any heterosexual desires. Are they saved?

Sorry for the lack of response. The post took all my time for the blog yesterday so I'm playing catch-up.

I've responded on the main page with another post.

Love,

Oh, wow... Thank you. I'm going to stop asking questions for now. I'm very grateful that you've taken the time to answer all these questions, though. Shocked, too. Thank you. I'm really glad this had led to such an interesting, edifying discussion, too. Too bad I can't attend your church!

College Jay,

I can't help reading your posts without wanting to offer you some hope. I too never had a single heterosexual attraction my entire life, until my mid 30s. When I hit puberty, I was only sexually attracted to guys, and as I got older, I felt hopeless to ever emulate my (Christian) friends and get married and have children. It took a lot of sound Biblical theology, a ton of repentance and hanging out with some wise, godly men, but I realized, after the fact, that for me, and maybe for you, women were an "acquired taste". There's lots more to the story, but when I found a beautiful, godly, sweet, affectionate, loving woman who obviously loved our Lord in a big way, the sexual attraction toward her kicked in, in a big way (by the grace of God). The first girl/woman I ever wanted to kiss was the woman I married. We have been married for a while now and have beautiful, covenant children. I don't know exactly what God has in store for you, but I do know that our God is rich in mercy, grace and power, and He loves to give good gifts to His children.

God be with you.

College Jay,, there is a great book by a Christian who struggles with many of your issues that was recommended by many Godly men and women on solid doctrinal blogs called "Washed and Waiting>".. It is the story of a young man who has struggled with homosexual desires but has remained celibate throughout his life and he answers quite a few of your questions.

I have to confess I'm bothered by the idea that the fullest expression of manhood for a former homosexual is marriage. Jesus was the most fully man-ish man (to borrow Francis Schaeffer's phrase) who has ever lived. I'm uncomfortable with that notion for heterosexual single people also. It was precisely the reason I struggled with my singleness until I married at the ripe old age of 27. The world and the church perpetuate the false notion that lack of physical sexual expression equals a less than whole person. We were created with the need for several things outside ourself to sustain life. Sexual intercourse is not one of those things.

I'm also really bothered by the notion that higher education is detrimental to a woman's ability to love a husband and children well, rather than beneficial, but that's an argument for another day. :)

I have to confess I'm bothered by the idea that the fullest expression of manhood for a former homosexual is marriage. Jesus was the most fully man-ish man (to borrow Francis Schaeffer's phrase) who has ever lived, and he was single. The world and the church perpetuate the false notion that lack of physical sexual expression equals a less than whole person. We were created with the need for several things outside ourself to sustain life. Sexual intercourse is not one of those things. Perhaps the issue is that we conflate sexual identity with gender identity. There is more to being a man or woman reflecting the image of God than sexual expression.

I'm also really bothered by the notion that higher education is detrimental to a woman's ability to love a husband and children well, rather than beneficial, but that's an argument for another day. :)

#18/#19 - concur; /do/ people here think that the highest expression of Biblical manhood for a former homosexual (Biblical womanhood for a former lesbian), is marriage and family?

College Jay,

I can't remember when but I think we "spoke" via your blog a year or more ago. At that time you were giving advice to many men some of whom sounded very effeminate.

I asked you if your pastors knew about your blog and you said no.

Your blog and the fact that you were teaching without the guidance of the church set off warning bells for me.

I got the impression your identity was a happy suffering celibate - some of the posts on your blog and the comments caused me to think you were still far to close to the gay culture (even in the form of ex-gay culture) to truly see any real healing and fruit of repentance.

Maybe you don't have heterosexual desire because you are living as a gay celibate ministering to men in such a way that your intimacy is with them and not toward women.

If that's the case, you'll never have heterosexual attraction.

Men feel the most Godly attraction to women when they protect and nurture them and they relate to other healthy men as peers and not outsiders.

>>I'm bothered by the idea that the fullest expression of manhood for a former homosexual is marriage.

And well you should be. Rather, single men and women should find their fulfillment as men and women in being Christian men and women. What does it mean to be a Christian man?

To take loving responsibility for others as a Christian father.

What does it mean to be a Christian woman?

To take loving responsibility for others as a Christian mother.

Keep in mind that every man and woman should find their manhood and womanhood growing in significance as they are sanctified. Neither men nor women need to be married to be fathers and mothers--to take compassion on, and bear responsibility for--others. As I've often noted, look at Mother Theresa for single motherhood. Look at the Apostle Paul for single fatherhood.

Call single fathers--and I'm most certainly not speaking of single men (or women) adopting when I speak of single fathers--in the church "nursing fathers" and the idea becomes clear.

Love,

#22

Thank you for the clarification, very timely.

I agree. This book is probably the best, most helpful book on the topic I've read to date. The only complaint i've heard is that the author continually labels himself a gay christian - which for some is a failure in understanding the "in Christ" identity we are called to. For me, use what is helpful in the book - which is pretty much all of it - is the story of the authors struggle, along with a very candid reaction of "so far, this hasn't changed, but I must live as a new creation - avoiding sin, being involved in wise counsel, seeking to glorify our Father in every way I am called to." (paraphrase, me) And for those who might be quick to jump on the "just repent, turn, and walk uprightly" it would be a helpful book for you in understanding the struggle.

I've never met a gay guy who said "yeah, i really wanted to be gay - different - pidgeonholed." Those of us who have struggled didn't take the first hit of a joint, drink the first bottle of beer, etc - we just never desired women. Just kind of woke up and realized there was no attraction to women. None. Don't want to kiss them, date them...fill in the blanks on your own. I've never struggled with lust for a woman. Guys, another story. Read the book "Washed and Waiting" and understand that while it may have flaws, you will be moved to compassion, and challenged in your holiness. It is moving, and engaging, and thoughtful. I applaud its author and praise the Spirit at work in his life.

#24 Interesting.

One mistake that some people have made, myself included, is to assume that a gay orientation is analogous to a straight orientation. At one level there is a parallel: in that the disciplines that the author of "Washed and waiting" has had to maintain, are essentially the same disciplines that I have had to maintain as a single man.

However, I realised that there were two major flaws in my thinking that a gay orientation for a celibate Christian, was analogous to a straight orientation for myself. First, there is the dysfunction of a homosexual orientation in the first place, in that it is "against nature" in a way that a temptation to casual or not-so-casual fornication is not "against nature". Second, gays (especially men) define themselves by their behaviour in a way that I have never seen from anyone who wasn't gay. Criticisms of this line of reasoning welcome.

Add new comment