The Gay Agenda

It saddens me that so many evangelicals believe in the existence of and are committed to fighting an undefined force they title “The Gay Agenda,” but many of them are unwilling to acknowledge a very real force for evil in our nation, named by Dwight Eisenhower as the Military Industrial Complex.

It saddens me that I, along with all my fellow God-image-bearers, am responsible for marring that image day after day. We distort His image; we poison our relationships, we pollute our hours with frivolity, we pervert our sexuality, we publish our vanity, placating our pitiful lusts with poor choices, proud words, and general poopiness. It saddens me that there are times when my personal agendas are far more devious than the Gay Agenda is purported to be.

It gladdens me that God, when he took on flesh, spent most of His time with poor failures like me. It gladdens me that, just as He’s committed to healing my gay friends, He’s committed to healing me. It gladdens me that God loves the world, and invites me to love it with Him.

This entry was posted in Nathan and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Gay Agenda

  1. thelyniezian says:

    I suppose the “gay agenda” is simply what the rest of the world calls “the gay rights movement”- which has been known at times to use plenty of clever PR tactics and other methods to convince people their views are a good idea.

    As does lots of other things, quite likely the military-industrial complex.

    And much like the ways we convince ourselves and one another that sin is fine…

    It’s easy to pick on one small matter, one small area of sin, and neglect the rest- you are too right. And there are probably far worse things in the world than same-sex marriage and the like… though does that make it a non-issue? I doubt it. I’d sooner tackle *all* the issues.

    Then again, maybe I’d better start with me. (And start by going to bed which I should have done 2 1/2 hours ago…)

  2. Anthony says:

    Imagine if at the moment Jesus told Peter to put down his sword, Peter responded, “No.” That’s pretty much what I feel Christians do when they blindly support the wars and the military industrial complex.

  3. Alex Haiken says:

    Nearly every person who acknowledges an aversion to homosexuality does so on the basis of what he or she believes the Bible has to say. In their mind, there is no doubt whatsoever about what the Bible says and what the Bible means. Their general argument goes something like this: Homosexuality is an abomination and the homosexual is a sinner. Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, if we are to be faithful to the clear teachings of Scripture we too must condemn homosexuality. Needless to say, this premise is being widely debated among evangelicals today and seriously challenged by biblical scholars, theologians and religious leaders everywhere.

    It rarely occurs to any of us that our reading of Scripture is profoundly colored by our own cultural context and worldview. In light of the post above and since I happen to speak and write on this topic, I thought you might find some of these posts of particular interest and relevance. I would particularly recommend the following:

    “Genesis 19: What Were the Real Sins of Sodom?”
    “Leviticus 18: What Was the Abomination?”
    “Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About?”
    “Romans 2: Paul’s Bait and Switch”
    “Genesis 1: Turning the Creation Story into an Anti-Gay Treatise”
    “Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality”
    “Exegesis: Not For the Faint in Heart”

    (Links to these and more posts may be found by simply clicking the link below and then selecting the “Archives” page.)

    -Alex Haiken

    • I would add that nearly every person who asserts the Bible’s acceptance of homosexuality does so on the basis of what he or she believes the Bible has to say.
      I’m not of those who believe that homosexuality is within God’s desire for a person; I believe it is among the many manifestations of our brokenness. I wrote this post because I think Christians ought to be more honest about all of the brokenness that we manifest, not just the ones that we, the majority (heterosexuals), don’t find within ourselves. I want us to be honest about greed and animosity, selfishness and lack of self-control, and sexual perversions of every flavor (including those that may exist even within a monogamous heterosexual Christian couple). And I want us to reckon those all to be the same in God’s eyes, and I want us to be willing to embrace the Spirit’s power to re-form and redeem those things.
      It seems that, in our age, the progressive side of a debate is always presupposed to be the right one. The culture has long ago embraced homosexuality…eventually the Christians will see the light – that’s the mindset. So then the Christians that begin to embrace homosexuality are the movers and the shakers – the force for good among a sea of conservative homophobes who say they love Jesus (among those: the Pope). I think that presupposition is harmful.
      One of my biggest problems with professing Christians who attempt to defend homosexuality is that the activity always appears to be retrogressive. A person feels a certain desire – to have a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex. They’re told by the Church that this is one of those manifestations of our brokenness and that they must seek God’s redemption from this desire. At some point, such a prescription becomes onerous to them, and they begin to seek ways to read the scriptures that might legitimize their desire. If a Christian were to do this with any other desire that goes against God’s redemption, they would (or should) be exhorted and loved back to repentance!
      It’s beyond my ability or desire to debate here the possible interpretations of various scripture passages that may or may not deal with homosexuality. As you and I have both stated, nearly every person who believes that the Bible says something about homosexuality is quite certain that the Bible says just that. I’m not saying that those kinds of debates are useless…I think I’ve just lost faith in their efficacy lately. We all seem so polarized about everything, and the more we polarize, the less chance we have of finding the Truth.
      The Truth is Christ.
      Christ is love.
      Christ tells the sexually broken woman in the dust that He does not condemn her. Then, in the context of His unconditional love, He commands her to no longer live this way.

      • That said, I do appreciate your comment, and have looked at one of the posts you mentioned – I’ll continue to read them. I know that we stand on opposing sides of this debate. I trust that the Spirit of God that unifies us will lead us to His Truth.

  4. Alex Haiken says:

    I would agree that Christians ought to be more honest about all of the brokenness that we manifest. But if we were to REALLY be honest, we’d have to admit that there is absolutely nothing in nature that has not gone awry (or broken) since the fall, including heterosexuality. If this is indeed true, then why would we single out homosexuality for additional taboo unless, of course, we can demonstrate that the antigay doctrine many profess is truly exegetically supportable?

    I don’t hold the position I do because it’s “the progressive side of a debate.” Fact is I love the Bible and I love God. I would also say that in my handling of Scripture, I am as in other areas of my life and outlook, very conservative. As a Christian, I consider myself both conservative and evangelical. If I were accused of twisting the Scriptures to justify sin, it would cut me very deeply. My love for God’s Word will not let me twist it or otherwise do it any harm.

    I hold the position I do because I, like the steadily growing number of Bible scholars, theologians and other evangelicals who have done their biblical and theological homework, discovered that when the few passages of scripture that generally get appealed to in this debate are examined more closely and in context they simply do not hold up to scrutiny.

    And when our doctrines do not hold up to scrutiny and are in the final analysis not exegetically supportable, then we need to be willing to let them go, no matter how long-held or personally treasured they may be.

    -Alex Haiken

  5. Sara says:

    I’m sorry I stopped reading! I think I forgot when I got off FB. I’m catching up and still loving every post from the farm. This was a good one.

    • Thanks for rejoining us! I (Nathan) got off Facebook, too (you may have seen my post regarding that), and have found that there very truly is a noticeable lack. I’m still glad I did it, but I do find that information goes around to which I am no longer privy.

Your thoughts here. As long as they're not vulgar. Or spam.

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s