When is a Christian Not a Christian?
April 20, 2009
Short answer: I don’t know. For the long answer, read on.
Two weeks ago, Ray Boltz had his first concert in Abilene, Texas since he came out last September. Carol Boltz, Ray’s ex-wife, wrote about it on her blog the next day. It sounds like it was a great concert, if not greatly attended, with no protests or placards to be seen. Maybe we underestimate our opposition’s capacity to love, or at least live and let live.
How many people miss the mullet? It's not just me, is it?
Yeah, right. Enter fundamentalist preacher Mike Redden, and an article published in the Abilene Reporter-News.
I am concerned by the terminology used by Ray Boltz in describing himself as a “Christian homosexual” in a recent Abilene Reporter-News article, April 6. As a pastor for more than 40 years and a believer in an inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God, I find no such term in God’s revelation. Is being a Christian homosexual the same as being a Christian adulterer, Christian fornicator, Christian idolater or Christian liar according to the world’s standards? Billy Sunday, that fiery old evangelist, said, “Some people are going to miss heaven by 18 inches; the distance from their head to their heart.”
I always worry when someone decides that they get to be the arbiter of a person’s salvation, especially when they don’t even know the person. It’s a common tack when the Religious Right talk about homosexuality, and it’s done a lot of damage to a lot of people.
You don’t have a vote on someone’s faith, Rev. Redden. If a man says he’s a Christian, I take him at his word. That’s why you’ll never see me question the faith of Rick Warren or James Dobson. Though their brand is one that I can’t fathom, and I certainly question their goodness as people, I accept their word that they are Christians because I don’t have a say in it.
Yet Rev. Redden is so sure of himself. He’s read the Bible, and he believes in an “infallible, inerrant” Bible (that is, he’s a Biblical literalist). I’m reminded of a quote from Right Reverend Richard Holloway, one of the experts in the fantastic documentary For the Bible Tells Me So.
Biblical literalists are people who “know” the truth absolutely. So they’re not able to engage in a conversation—they’re only able to engage in a pronouncement
Rev. Redden makes a pronouncement in his article and though he’s absolutely wrong, any reasonable attempt to consider the matter begins and ends with him pointing to his interpretation of a few verses of the Bible.
The article goes on, but it’s pretty standard fare. He does throw in a few extra Old Testament verses (which I’d say could be pretty easily applied to Rev. Redden) for good measure. I encourage you to go to the newspaper’s website to read it for yourself.
And so I end today exactly where I began: When is a Christian not a Christian? I don’t know, and it’s not my job to decide.
(Please read the comment tips before joining the conversation.)
People like Redden make me smile. They claim to know the Judgment of God, but fail to act as God through Christ has called us to act, that is, loving and un-judging. He says he finds no terminology within the Bible about Homosexual Christians. Sorry Redden, but you won’t find the term Heterosexual Christian in there either. Better luck next time.
A belief in biblical inerrancy and infallibility is not tantamount to biblical literalism, not by any means. That I may believe the Bible to be inerrant says nothing of how I view the content within its pages.
Andy, I’ve never seen anyone open a conversation with the term “inerrent Bible” who wasn’t a literalist. NEVER. It’s always an indication that the discussion was over before it even began.
Matt, I’ve never seen anyone open a conversation with the term “inerrant Bible” period. Generally, a few words come before.
Regardless, my previous point still stands. Biblical inerrancy and infallibility is not tantamount to biblical literalism.
There was a reason God destroy Sodom & Gomorrah. It was because it was
overtaken by a spirit of homosexuality. It wasn't right then, and it isn't right
now!
The prophet Ezekiel disagrees with you.
“Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.”
If you read Genesis 19:5 it clearly states:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Looking further into this verse you see that the two men were actually angels, and the men of the city wanted to have sexual intercourse with them. Lot even offered them his two virgin daughters and they declined.
That is why Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed. Nice try though Matt!
So Ezekiel was lying?
I can't speak for him.
Read Genesis 18. God already planned to destroy S&G before the incident, for the reasons that Ezekiel outlines later.
The link between S&G's destruction and gayness is not biblically accurate.
I have read Genesis 18 many times and it says nothing about God pre-sentencing Sodom & Gomorah to be destroyed. What does happen is that God has a debate with Lot. God wants to destoy it because of its wickedness (ie: sexual perversion). And what I mean by sexual perversion is simply this. Anything outside the original plan that God had for a sex. This would include, masterbation, sex before marriage (straight or gay), beastality (sex with animals), etc. So Lot bargains with God to find just 10 holy men in the city. God wanted him to find 50!! Lot asked God to take it easy, and God had mercy. But 10 men were not found. So because of there perversion. They were destroyed. You can also see that there was an issue with homosexuality because the men of the city would not even take Lots' virgin daughters. They wanted to have sex with the men, that were really angels.
That was also a nice try Jeremy. Better luck next time!
Several places in the Bible God denounces humans wanting to have sex with angels, or sex between humans and angels. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah did not refuse Lot's daughters and say “Bring us the Angels” because they were gay, but because their sexual perversion was to feel closer to heaven by raping angels. Homosexuality is a tangent to this verse being discussed, and yet block-headed members of the Religious Right continue to use it to denounce homosexuality. You Fundamentalists may want to read it with an open mind first . . .
What does your Bible say in 1 Corinthians 6.9-10?
As Barry Dean said properly: “How should we think about this? There is a simple illustration I can think of. I am unhappy about having to obey the traffic laws, especially when I am in a hurry to go somewhere. It would make me very happy if I could ignore those laws in those times that are not convenient to me. But the traffic laws have a reason, and that reason is to keep us all safe while we are driving. God has given us laws as well. Whether we like them or not they do exist. Unlike state laws, these laws from God are not negotiable or subject to legislative changes. I believe that some of His laws exist to keep us safe as well. Regardless of the reason they exist, God, the Creator, demands that we obey them. These laws have been revealed to us in his scriptures. As believers in Christ we can choose to obey them or not. But please don’t fool yourself into believing there will not be consequences or an accounting for the foolish decision to ignore them.”
What does your Bible say in 1 Corinthians 6.9-10?
wwjd, I apologize. In a recent site-wide design update, I accidentally left out the link to this blog’s comment rules, which should be on every post. I have corrected the error above.
As your comments break those rules and additionally fail to address the subject of the post, I have deleted your later comment. As a courtesy for my error, I am retaining the comment I am responding to for a limited time.
Cheers from the US!
wwjd, I apologize. In a recent site-wide design update, I accidentally left out the link to this blog's comment rules, which should be on every post. I have corrected the error above.
As your comments break those rules and additionally fail to address the subject of the post, I have deleted your later comment. As a courtesy for my error, I am retaining the comment I am responding to for a limited time.
Cheers from the US!