Sometimes around dusk (I was probably six or seven years old), I would look out my bedroom window and see the sky turning orange and purple, and the setting sun turning red like blood, and I was sure the end of the world had come upon us, and soon graves would be ripped open, and reanimated corpses of the dead in Christ would rise to join a zombie army in the sky, led by Jesus riding on a white horse. Other evenings, I tried not to fall asleep for fear that demons would rip the flesh of my arms open, like the traveling preachers said. I was sure that if the Christ arrived while my heart was heavy with sin, I would be left behind to face the wrath of the Antichrist, who would chop off the heads of any last-minute Christian converts on the guillotine, the way he did in the 16mm film we watched at the church potluck dinner on New Year’s Eve the year I turned five.
Not everyone at the Southern Baptist church believed so strongly in these things, but no one spoke up to say anything against them, either. And no one spoke up when the football players at the Christian school began to assault me daily in the school locker room. Sometimes I went home with blood in my underwear, which I hid from my parents out of shame, and several times a week I went home with my ears ringing because there is a way you can shape your open palm so when you slap somebody with it, their ears will ring, and all the other sounds will soften.
By the time I turned fourteen, I was in the market for a kinder variety of religion, and I was in the market for some friends, and I wanted to meet some girls who would pay attention to me. I found all three when my best friend invited me to Church in the Gardens in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. I was welcomed and embraced by the people there, not least the three young pastors—Greg Sempsrott, the senior pastor; Greg McCaw, the music pastor; and Jon McDivitt, the youth pastor. Within a year, I was spending all my free time at the church, and as much time as I could with all three pastors. I attended the college they had attended—Anderson University, in Anderson, Indiana—and I spent the summers interning as part of their pastoral staff. When I graduated from college, and Jon McDivitt left to work at another church, I took his place at age twenty-two, as an associate pastor overseeing youth and young adult ministries at the church.
My tenure there was very short—less than two years. My college religion professors were good and responsible teachers, and what I had learned from them about the history of Christianity, the canonization process of the Christian Scriptures, the rigors of formal logic, the competing philosophies of religion, and, most of all, the ugly and contradictory history of the American version of Christianity I had been raised to believe was the one unimpeachable variety, troubled me as I began daily work in the church. What I saw and did while I was a pastor—encounters with illness, death, behind-the-scenes shenanigans, the troubling internal and external politics of the higher tiers of the national evangelical establishment to which I was being newly exposed—further complicated my view of things. (I wrote in greater detail about some of these experiences in my first major literary publication, “You Shall Go Out with Joy and Be Led Forth with Peace,” which appears in Random House’s Twentysomething Essays by Twentysomething Writers anthology.) I began to wonder if I really believed in the things I knew I was expected to say by way of comfort and instruction and as part of my job, and I began to wonder if I could reconcile them or even keep them in sufficient tension to enable myself to continue to call myself a Christian.
What I did was walk away, and not in any sort of brave way. I did not want to inflict my own doubts on others who seemed to be bolstered by their faith, so, in the language particular to that community, I said that my calling seemed really to be writing, and that I was going to leave pastoral ministry in order to pursue it. Then, over the next ten years, I made myself into a writer. In order to keep myself afloat, I did work for a time in religious publishing and in an admissions office at a Christian college, but I never did return to church, and in time I made my peace with my distance from faith, which was good, because by then I no longer had any.
What I didn’t want to do, however, was divorce myself from all the good relationships that remained from my years in the church. The congregation I served in Palm Beach Gardens, in particular, was full of good-hearted and relatively broad-minded people. Many of the uglinesses which were made so public during the years of the Bush Administration seemed far from that place, which was mostly populated by pragmatic, working-class people who, like me, had found a place to belong.
Foremost among these relationships was Greg McCaw, the music pastor, under whose tutelage I had learned in part the craft of ministry, how to play guitar and bass in an eight-piece band, and how to speak publicly in a way that made people feel the things you wanted them to feel. I spent two summers with him in high school, touring the country in a traveling music show, and I spent two summers alongside him in college, as a staff intern at the church. He was known for the lavish productions he staged each Christmas and Easter, which drew standing-room-only crowds to multiple performances that often featured live horses, an angel choir near the ceiling, and a bank of subwoofers sufficient to shake the cars in the parking lot.
He was also known for his willingness to conduct frank conversations about such near-taboo matters in that time and place as teenage sexuality, dating, masturbation, oral sex, and pornography. He was frequently criticized for this openness, but I would imagine the criticism mostly happened when he was not around, because Greg McCaw was and is a big man with a deep and commanding voice, and outsized personality to match—he was a traditionally masculine force—and he could be as intimidating when he was angry as he could be gentle and understanding when he was of a mind to be gentle and understanding.
On a couple of occasions, he confided to me that he struggled—that was the word he used—with attraction to other men. (He was, in fact, the primary model for the closeted preacher in my novella “A Love Story,” which appeared—to the chagrin of many people we both knew—in my debut book In the Devil’s Territory.) This attraction was something he kept close to the vest, because there were few things more threatening in the evangelical community of the time than same-sex attraction. Our church was considered especially broadminded (or weakminded and near-heretical, depending upon whom you asked) on the subject of homosexuality, because our senior pastor publicly welcomed gay people to worship at the church, the theory being that if they entered into a right relationship with God, in time God would enable them to “change their hearts” and be therefore delivered from their sexual desires. To be homosexual, the logic went, was no different in the eyes of God than to be an alcoholic or a drug addict or a liar or a cheat or a gossip, and let he or she who be without sin cast the first stone.
It is troubling to me, now, to enter into the consciousness of the person I was then in order to type these words which I hope will give you, Rumpus reader of whatever background, adequate context to understand the conversation that follows, because what I must confront in typing such words is that the person I am now is not separable from the person I was then. I will always be a person who was once a person who listened without comment or even emotion to talk such as: “They ought to round up all those faggots in San Francisco and stick them on that Alcatraz island and nuke it.” To the ears I have now, the comparison of a person’s sexual orientation to their heroin problem or their embezzlement problem, or even the casual invocation of the old archery term sin to describe the complexities of human behavior, is different only in degree, not in kind, from the faggot talk and the nuke talk. But I cannot deny that the process of coming out from under a couple of decades of indoctrination in what the world is and how it operates is a process, for most people, that is incremental.
This is one of the reasons that I wanted to interview my old pastor Greg McCaw. I wanted to get a sense for why it took him over forty years to come to terms with his sexuality, and I wanted to find out what it cost him. I already knew that his process of coming out had lost him close friendships, his closest relationship in the world (with his ex-wife Lori), and his livelihood—churches of the sort he spent his adult life serving not being terribly open to hiring a gay and divorced pastor. But I also wanted to learn something about how he got here from there, and what it felt like to make such a significant life change, especially since in many ways his story seems to be one of the representative stories of our time. When I called to ask if he would agree to the interview, he was very happy to receive the call. He said he was working for slightly more than minimum wage as the night-time desk clerk at a chain hotel in Wilmington, North Carolina, and that he had become a volunteer leader in the local GLBT community and in a local church.
It was difficult for me to imagine him in a position so relatively powerless, but after we talked, I was reminded again that there are varieties of power that come not from one’s position in the world, but instead from one having something meaningful to say, and then having courage enough to be willing to say it.
***
Kyle Minor: I learned that you had come out on Christmas Day 2005. I was at my brother’s house in Nashville. My parents were there, and my wife and baby, and my brother’s wife. We opened the presents, we ate the Christmas meal, we did the Christmas ritual. Then my parents grew very solemn and asked us to sit down and said they had something to tell us. This was naturally very concerning. We thought someone had cancer or my parents were getting a divorce or some similarly unexpected thing. Then one or the other of them said: “Greg McCaw is gay.” Then we—me and my brother—started laughing. Because it was a relief. It wasn’t the big thing we thought it was going to be. But to my parents, the news was devastating, especially because you had been our pastor for so many years, and because it was unthinkable to them that you could be gay, and because you were leaving your wife Lori, a person we all loved and cared about. I’m thinking that if it was this difficult for my parents to take, it must have been even more difficult to people closer to you, from similar religious and cultural backgrounds, to accept the news, and it must have been difficult for you to share, knowing that you might be in for some difficult scenes. What was that time like, for you?
Greg McCaw: I expect similar scenes were being played out in quite a few households around that time, given the way the news carried. I honestly believe that the most difficult part of my coming out for most people was the breakup of my marriage to Lori, and that would include the many younger friends, students, etc., who have been quite supportive of me in the years since. Lori and I represented to all who knew us well a good and cooperative collaboration. We were very close and very dear friends, and we were very good together as far as that part went, as well as our work and creativity together. We made pretty cool stuff happen in collaboration. What most people didn’t know, however, was that we weren’t lovers. That part was my fault. Not my choice—I honestly wanted to be her lover—but I was not able to be. Without a doubt, for many, perhaps like your parents, especially friends, family and patrons my age and older, my news also felt like some kind of betrayal. I’m aware of that, painfully. Facing each “scene” or “moment” of “coming out” to each person, family or group, was extremely difficult and stressful for me. I was racked with fear in each circumstance.
Minor: Is there one such scene that was particularly difficult?
McCaw: Outside of coming out to Lori, the next most difficult conversation was with my own immediate family. Of course, Lori and I have no children, so that wasn’t a concern for us. I also wanted to make something clear from your initial question: I never “left” Lori, in the sense of one spouse taking leave and the other being left alone. After she learned I was gay, we tried everything we could to stay together and make it work, for three more years. We finally reached the decision to part mutually. In December of 2005, we sold most everything we owned, then she loaded one car and headed to be near her family in Indiana, and I loaded my truck and headed to North Carolina to be near mine. I did not tell my family, my parents, that Lori was not coming with me. I showed up in their driveway in my truck, pulling a small trailer, and got out alone. I know that sounds a little cruel, perhaps, but I honestly couldn’t stand to tell them on the phone. I wanted to be with them, face to face. It was hell, quite literally. I had been the son who actually followed in the footsteps of my father, my grandfather (mother’s father) and my uncles (my mother’s brothers) into Christian pastoral ministry. And, I was quite successful in it. It was hard news for everyone, but, hardest of all for my parents. They were devastated, to say the least.
Minor: What did you tell your parents that day, and what did they say in response?
McCaw: I got out of my truck, they met me on the front porch, with odd looks on their faces, and they asked where Lori was. I just said, “Let’s go inside and sit down.” I reminded them that Lori and I had been in therapy for two years. We had never been specific about the reason for the therapy. I said, “Lori has gone to live in Indiana. We are separated, pending divorce. I take full responsibility for the reason we’ve made this decision. Mom, Dad, I’m homosexually romantically oriented.” They were of course stunned and speechless, for a bit, then I saw both of their eyes well up in tears, and mom started crying outright. I don’t fully recall what all was said next. I recall Dad asking how long I felt that way, and, when I answered, “All my life,” my Mom declared: “No you haven’t!” There wasn’t really much more talk that first night.
Minor: Who did you tell next? My first thought, when I heard the news, was that I wondered how your colleagues in pastoral ministry would respond to the news—old friends we both used to work alongside and with whom you were close like Greg Sempsrott and Jon McDivitt.
McCaw:I went on to tell my brothers and their wives next. I actually had opportunity to tell Greg and Jon before, on my drive up to Charlotte, North Carolina, to my parents home. I was leaving Miami, Florida, my last pastorate, which I had recently resigned, and my path took me through Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, where you’re from, and where we all worked together in the past, so memories flooded me the entire drive north. I wept constantly. Then, north of Palm Beach, is Vero Beach, where both Greg and Jon were now pastoring. It was a Wednesday evening, actually, and I didn’t call either one of them, because I knew they would both be at the church. So, I just went directly there, arriving shortly before the evening’s activities were to begin. I arranged to go get some dinner with both of them afterwards, then I sat in on Jon’s youth group service. Many of the youth and workers there knew me well, and were all greeting me, hugging me, asking me why I was there. It was pretty tough, and I avoided any direct answers. Afterwards, the three of us went into Greg’s office at the church and sat down and I told them everything there. We all wept. It was a pretty dramatic scene. Greg made it clear to me that he was disappointed to hear the news, and was very sad, but, loved me no matter what. Jon actually was not completely in the dark. I had shared with him in the past that I struggled. But, I guess he was pretty sure I’d never do what I was doing now. Then we got something to eat, and they prayed with me, and I left and headed on north on I-95. I got about an hour up the road and Jon called me. He was still crying. He was very worried about me. He said he hadn’t even gone home yet. Didn’t know what to tell Carey, his wife, and really didn’t want me to leave.
Minor: You said that they were weeping, and it’s not difficult to imagine why. They no doubt believed that you were in grave sin, and also they were probably weeping for the loss of your marriage, for Lori, and for worry about what would become of you professionally, since pastoral ministry is the thing you have done for a living your whole adult life, and since you would no longer be welcome, as a gay man, to continue doing that work in the religious communities where you had been doing it. Why were you weeping?
McCaw: You are correct in summing up how they were feeling. I would add that there was a lot of history among the three of us. Jon was my best friend throughout our college years and beyond. We were extremely tight. Greg and I had developed our friendship as professional partners, and good ones, too. We had also become very, very tight. So, for all of us, I think there was this fear of a looming distance between us, far more than geographical. And to some degree that has come to pass. There is no enmity between us, we all still love one another dearly, but, there is very little communication. Jon and I have recently made some attempts.
Why was I weeping? Wow… it was, of course, an extremely charged moment in my life and history, not just that night, but the nights preceding it and the coming nights I was facing. I’m not sure if I can ferret out my exact emotions then and there, but I’m always most deeply moved by relational distress. The potential loss of their love was overwhelmingly felt. The loss of my career, as you mentioned, became a huge economic issue in my life, but, I don’t think that was where my feelings were at that moment.
Minor: Were you able to retain your ordination? What was the process with the church with whom you were affiliated? Did you even want to continue to be a pastor?
McCaw: The last part of your question is easy. I am a pastor, and I don’t believe by choice as much as it truly is who I am and will always be, in the true sense of the word, as a shepherd. I pastored for over twenty-five years in my faith family of origin. My grandfather was a pioneer pastor in the Church of God; my father is still a pastor and national leader; three uncles and six cousins are pastors, theology professors, and national leaders in the same movement. I will always love my faith family of origin. I resigned the actual congregation I was pastoring before Lori and I separated and before I came out. I didn’t want to drag them through any pain and controversy. As far as my ministerial credentials are concerned, I actually never heard from any official from either the national headquarters or from the Florida headquarters, which held my credentials at the time. I came out officially, via letter, to all the official parties and to my ministerial colleagues in June of 2006. Sometime in late 2007, I finally got a letter from the Florida headquarters asking if I desired to “defend my credentials.” I wrote them back saying that it would only prolong the inevitable, but that “I would always love them and hold them in my embrace even if their embrace was unable to hold me.” My credentials were simply not renewed in 2008.
Minor: Did you respond in that way because you believed that your declaration of your sexual orientation would disqualify you from getting your credentials renewed? Was that a stated policy of the church, or was it a matter that might have been up for debate?
McCaw: I can’t recall the year, but, pretty sure that it was in the summer of 2003 or 2004, I was a delegate at the annual national assembly where a doctrinal statement was presented and was ratified. This was two or three years before I came out, and I, and a handful of others, stood up to vote against the statement. I can’t quote it here, but, it basically made policy the standard evangelical/fundamentalist stance that homosexuality was “an abomination” and not only disqualified one from ministry, but also from citizenship in the Kingdom of God.
Minor: What is your history with that question? Have you always been able to reconcile your religious beliefs with your sexual orientation, or did you come to this reckoning later in life? I remember when I was in high school that we would occasionally have conversations about these matters, and you would offer sort of vague opinions that something wasn’t right about the way we were thinking about gay people, but to me, then, it was a conversation that was too threatening to what I thought I knew about how the world works and who God was and so on, and probably to my ideas about my own sexuality, as well. And certainly you were married to a woman and lived with her for many years…
McCaw: Yeah, well, that is the great struggle of my life. My own sensibilities about God, the world, what I saw, what I experienced, what I read, what I was taught, who I knew, what I felt, what I knew that others felt, were always working on me. Oddly, firstly, my faith family of origin (although maybe it’s not evidenced by the statement I spoke of in my last answer) is a rather open, theologically “liberal” group, when measured against other evangelical groups, except on this particular issue, and, of course, depending upon what area of the country you live in, to some degree. And my family, as leaders in that movement, were generally even more so theologically “liberal,” whatever that means. So, in most other areas of life, I had few hangups. Even my sexual learning was advanced at a young age, my parents being exceptionally open and communicative in that area. Name a social issue and my family was pretty progressive for from whence they came. Through junior high and high school, for instance, I went to schools that were nearly all black in student population and teachers. My parents didn’t take me out of the system and place me in all white private schools like most other white families did. I was taught to respect and love all persons.
Still, I guess homosexuality was one progression too far. It was tough. I was tough on me about it. I was never tough on anyone else. I never thought or taught that being gay was evil, even though I was pretty convinced it was evil for me. I never treated any person who was gay any differently, and I even stood up for them against bullies in school, which got me in trouble with my friends, but I couldn’t show myself the same level of grace. I began to study everything I could get my hands on from the time I was about fourteen years old. While in college, I took classes that I thought might help me gain a better perspective, or help me find the way to get rid of the feelings I was dealing with. I was deeply convinced, and taught others, that Christ’s love was for all, no matter what, but I feared that if I was gay, Christ would not be pleased with me. I worked for years to rid myself of my “tendencies.” I was engaged twice, to two different women before Lori, and I rightly decided against marrying either of them because I knew I was still struggling. After breaking the second engagement, I entered into a covenant with God to put off any kind of romantic activity, with men or women, for an entire year. A fast, so to speak, from love and sex. I kept that covenant, explicitly. During that year, I did everything imaginable to convert myself into a “normal” heterosexual male. That was in 1988-89, during my first year pastoring in Palm Beach Gardens, FL. I counselled with more than one addictions therapist, I fasted, I prayed, I went on spiritual retreats, I even had an exorcism performed. You name it, I tried it. Toward the end of my covenental year, I attended the Promise Keepers conference in Atlanta, GA, my second Promise Keepers. A great preacher spoke the first night, and I had a very unusual and moving emotional experience. I interpreted it to be God’s healing of me finally. I came home from that event completely psyched and convinced that I was no longer gay. I married Lori a year later.
Minor: What changed your mind? What was the process that moved you from the position that you were no longer gay and that you would get married, to the position that you were in fact gay, and that you could no longer live honestly while married to a woman?
McCaw: I’m a very strong-minded guy. When I make a decision, I stick with it. If I’m convinced, I’m convinced. So even though, in retrospect, there were immediate signs that nothing had really changed, I was determined that it had. Lori and I had dated before. She was the only woman, ever, that I truly did mostly feel “right” with. She was the only woman, out of many “friends” of the female type, who I really felt close to, and really wanted to share with. We connected on every level, almost, and I had never felt that way with any other woman, even though I had dated many different women. All my dating of women had been purely because that was what men were supposed to do. Not that I didn’t like women at all, I did, and I enjoyed dating, but I never felt moved in any romantic or deeply intimate way. I did feel some of that with Lori. She is an amazing woman. Still, it was not long after we were married that I was became certain that I had fooled myself. It was an awful feeling too. And I didn’t know what to do about it. Bottom line was that I had made a commitment and I was going to do everything in my power to stick with it.
Minor: So what changed your mind? Was it something theological about which you refined your opinion, or had you just grown tired of the tension you might have felt within yourself? What enabled you, I mean, to push past the choice you had made to stick with the commitment you had made to Lori, and to make the new choice to part ways?
McCaw:I think it was the coming together of many pieces. Late in 1999, we moved to Indiana so I could begin work toward my Master of Divinity degree [at the Anderson School of Theology]. First of all, my studies opened my mind and enabled me to begin to contextualize the gospel and my own spiritual framing story in ways I had never allowed myself before. Secondly, I was introduced to a far larger tent of faith, especially via interaction with Dr. Stanley Grenz, who was a visiting lecturer in 2001, and whose books I began to read, as well as other books I was led to via reading his books. Nothing in any of that addressed my orientation directly. Rather, my discoveries were significant for my growing ability to reconcile the inconsistencies I saw between my belief systems and the way the world really was. Thirdly, and sadly, after eleven years of resisting any kind of temptation to stray, I met a guy who I had a short affair with. He too was a Christian, and it didn’t last long because he ended it because I was married. I was devastated not only because he ended things, but more so because I allowed myself to get there in the first place. I went to one of my professors for help and he got me connected with a professional therapist who was also a Christian. Over the next 8 months or so, he helped walk me into a place of acceptance of myself. As part of an exercise in letting go of the guy I had an affair with, he had me write a letter to him. It was never to be delivered, just to be read to the therapist, and then destroyed. I, however, kept the letter, and Lori found it, which led to the necessity to go ahead and get honest with her, which the therapist had been preparing me to do at the time anyway. We decided to try to stay together, and entered into therapy together, which we attended for two more years with a professional that Lori found through James Dobson’s network, believe it or not, but who turned out to be superb in his discipline. Over two years he helped me come to a peace with myself as a gay man, and I think he helped Lori to begin a process of healing too. After three years of trying, I think we both just came to the realization that we were really just working way too hard just to try to keep a promise. And, a promise that was made under false pretenses, which is, in my mind, my greatest sin. It was my responsibility to at least let Lori know of my struggle before she married me. I did not do that.
Lori and I always found ourselves in ministry with younger people. Younger people always ask questions about sex and marriage. Lori and I both have always been people who strive for honesty, integrity and authenticity. However, this was the one area that we didn’t feel free to answer with complete honesty and authenticity, and it just really got too stressful to keep up with. We also came to the realization that we would most likely never find a faith community where we could both serve and be completely honest and feel supported. In the end, we were both convinced that divorcing was the best of all the poor choices moving forward.
Minor: What kinds of consequences have you faced in the aftermath of your divorce and the end of your career as a full-time pastor?
McCaw: Many of the fears I had which delayed my coming out in the first place have come to pass. Not as badly as I feared, but, still, in very difficult ways. Most friends my age and older have apparently found it difficult to relate to me, and there is obvious relational distance. I have received some very uplifting support from a few members of my extended family, and limited support from one brother and his wife and my parents. But my other brother is very angry with me, and I’ve had little contact with him over the past three years. We were very close before. My parents are honestly trying to understand, I think. They’ve made recent gestures that I never thought would come. As for younger friends and former students, and there are many, very few have reacted negatively. Most have been wonderfully supportive and affirming. [Discrimination against gay people] is definitely a generational problem.
My largest practical consequence has been economic. I lost a long, successful, and rewarding career, and, with it, a substantial income, for a pastor. As you said earlier, I’ve never done anything else. My resume is not enticing to potential employers. I was completely out of work and unable to find work for an entire year and a half. And, now I’m working hourly for a little above minimum wage.
Minor: Do you think evangelicals are starting to change their minds about issues related to gay, lesbian, and transgendered people? Do you think the evangelical movement as a whole will ever change its positions?
McCaw: Yes and no. Yes, in that institutionally churched people always mimic the general population. Look at any social issue: abortion, divorce, etc., the rate of incidence is the same in churches as it is in the general population. Of course, there are as many LGBT persons, percentage-wise, in the church, as there are in the general population. The increasingly strong trend is no doubt in favor of acceptance of LGBT persons at all levels in the West, and this is trickling into the churched population as well. The truth is that the entire world is changing around them, and they will have to change as well in order to survive. And that is the bottom line of any institution: Survival. Some people and some churches will, of course, never change, but they will be the vast minority. In fact, some of the best motivation toward change in faith is coming from inside faith groups themselves. I am encouraged by the attitudes of younger persons. Within the next ten years, these same younger persons will begin to take the leadership positions in all faith groups. This will lead to enormous changes. The modern mindset [ed.: It is common in contemporary evangelical discourse to speak of the “modernist” evangelical mindset giving way to the “postmodernist” mindset. These categories are mainly used to describe competing dominant generational ideas about the relationship between the church and the broader world, and they don’t seem to have much to do with the way these terms are ordinarily used in discussions of, say, T.S. Eliot or Robert Coover], while fighting to the death, is slowly giving way to a new era of thinkers. That is why I remain encouraged and dearly hope to be influential in this kind of change, not just about LGBT issues, but also about poverty, hunger, homelessness, violence, and creation care. I believe that younger people of faith will begin to lead us back to some good news.
106 responses
Kyle,
Thanks so much for having written this article about the struggle the American church faces as it addresses the issue of sexuality. What I appreciate most about this piece of work is the compassion you show both for your former church and those who have been injured by it. As a member of the Episcopal church, I’m distressed to see the hate and intolerance coming from both sides of the debate as our denomination struggles to compose our stand. Our call to charity and godliness seems to have disappeared beneath the desire to be the ones who are “right.” I think it is easy for conversation to devolve whenever something so intensely personal becomes an institutional matter. Thank you for this story of how the institutional has affected the personal. And may God bless and lead Greg McCaw.
Hope you’re well,
Rachel
Having been brought up in the CHOG and having gone through the same journey of reconciling my internal discomfort with our position on homosexuality, this article strikes such a chord for me. My husband and I are staunch in our belief that members of the LGBT community are part of God’s Kindgom and really drew a line in the sand since we have had kids about only attending a church that recognizes that. I am always so heavy-hearted to read about the experience of an individual who has struggled like this and felt pain and guilt over who they are. I am sure I have met Greg along the way in one of my many youth conventions, youth choir trips or Anderson days. I applaud him for his brave decisions and I am humbled by his strength.
I am the best friend that introduced Kyle to Church in the Gardens and Greg and Lori were immensely influential in my life. (quick aside: I am fearless when it comes to public speaking and that trait has been the catalyst for my advancement in corporate America. I give Greg 100% of the credit for teaching me not to be afraid to perform in front of people no mater how large the audience. ) I struggled with this entire story for a couple of years. I have only begun to understand and empathies with Greg’s situation since my own faith underwent drastic changes. I now understand the fear that ones friends and family will reject you. I understand intimately what Kyle calls “coming out from under a couple decades of indoctrinationâ€. I understand the lingering feelings that you might go to hell for outgrowing certain beliefs. For me, no longer being a “good evangelical†has been difficult and I can only imagine how much more difficult Greg’s journey has been.
In my authoritative and always right opinion, this is the most important thing my friend Kyle as ever written. I can’t thank Greg enough for being open. The next time I’m within 100 miles of Wilmington you and I have a date at the Cracker Barrel…..ok maybe not a date, call it an appointment.
This is wonderful, thank you to Kyle for writing and Greg for sharing so much of himself.
…I was kinda curious to hear more abt the LGBT-friendly church community Greg participates in now? Is it MCC? (I was imagining that I guess b/c what little I know abt it, MCC folks are a little more theologically conservative and little bit more familiar-feeling for evangelicals and charismatics than some other LGBT-friendly congregations and denominations).
I think coming out of a pretty blatantly leftist mainline protestant experience, I am really interested in, like, what a lgbt/queer-friendly church would need to be like/feel like to feel like home for folks coming out of more evangelical traditions.
What about the wife’s story? He gets to be okay, and she has to just act like she wasn’t wronged?
Well written Kyle. I think you and Greg both know where I stand. I really wish you would have included some opposing view into the narrative…especially since it seems you are both on the same page.
Between this interview and last week’s Dear Sugar, the Rumpus keeps making me tear up! Thank you, Kyle, for writing this with such honesty and tenderness (and to Greg for agreeing to the interview). I too grew up evangelical and am saddened to watch friends who feel they have to choose between their faith family of origin and their sexual orientation. I’m saddened by homophobic language I used to use — language remains acceptable within the church. Though change is slow, it is happening.
Hey Mr. Anonymous, is it possible to not take a side? As much as I have come to understand Greg’s point of view, nothing in this story sucks more than what it did to Lori and part of me wants to be pissed off over that. Lori, by the way, has only shown what an amazing person she is by how she has handled all of this. Who said she had to act like she wasn’t wronged? She could easily tar and feather Greg and I’m not sure many people would falt her, but she hasn’t.
Thank you, Kyle, for telling this story. We all, at times, feel like the outsider or outcast. Who we are at the core of our being is sometimes different from what we do.
I know Greg as I was a member of the church at which he ministered in Wilmington. Greg and I became friends during his tenure. This time was difficult for both of us, yet I honor Greg as a man of God.
I was raised in the Nazarene church, very similar to the Church of God, and also felt the repression of who I was. When I came out to my parents, my mother told me she had always known, yet hoped she was wrong. I am fortunate that my parents have embraced me as I am, and have even invited boyfriends over to Sunday dinner. BIG STEP. I was 35 and the single father of two before I accepted who I was fully and completely.
What I want everyone to know is that I am gay. PERIOD. It is a part of who I am. My relationship with God grew deeper once I accepted myself, because I believe God needs me as I am, not as other need me to be. God asks that we surrender to Him, and He will lead us.
My journey has been diffficult, but only when I resisted God’s plan. I have reinvented my life over and over to fit in. I have finally found the path of God’s light and He is leading me to be a part of His plan. I wrote a poem years ago and in it I found my path as a writer, Christian, man, all of which I have sometimes resisted, but it is all I have when I am alone.
All I Have
Looking ’round for hidden truths my eyes, they could not see,
The splendor of God’s deepest love Suspended deep in me.
I couldn’t find the lasting truth which ached within my soul.
My fears and guilt from prior years had kept me from the fold.
I hadn’t always felt like this God spoke to me one day.
His message floated to my ear I turned and ran away.
The changes were too many, my weaknesses too great.
“My life isn’t so awfully bad,” those bitter words I ate.
While looking for my destiny I saw more than I should,
It wasn’t til I hit the dark that His light produced my good.
The light of God encircled me as He held me with His hand.
I listened very carefully as He told me of His plan.
His gentle talk and tender words helped guide me to the light,
The clarity He led me to just made the message bright.
For oft I’d felt so coarse, so lost, so justly filled with fear.
He told me of one basic truth which made the changes clear.
His plans were quite illogical for I hadn’t had a clue.
That I would use my pen to write my thoughts for you to view.
He honed my art and let me see that I had had it all along.
For God had only given me His only path from wrong.
His plans are made from miracles on which we may not see.
A hidden purpose given us to you, and yes, to me.
But all I have is all He needs, to keep His plan intact.
His purpose and His promise, His part of our own pact.
But in the greater scheme of things I’ll let Him take the lead.
For God will tell me where I err, and where to plant the seed.
I grew up in a fundamentalist tradition, and graduated from a Nazarene college. I am still struck by the disparity between what the educated Theology/Religion faculty understood and taught, which was progressive, and what pervaded the local church level, which is well-described here (serious, caring, fucked). This distinction seems to be what Greg encountered when starting work on his MDiv, as he says “my studies opened my mind and enabled me to begin to contextualize the gospel and my own spiritual framing story in ways I had never allowed myself before.”
It’s sad when people who have studied the Bible are pushed to the fringes by people who maybe don’t understand it.
This is a provocative interview, and I am encouraged by the hopefulness at the end.
I would like to add one comment regarding Lori’s story. I did not know her, and from what Greg told me of her, she is a loving, generous, amazing woman. However, as is the fact with many Christian men and women, she sacrificed her happiness for what she believed was ‘right’ and inside a promise she made. Though she may not have known the facts or ‘truth,’ she knew something was not ‘right.’ Faith sometimes blinds us to truth, as it did with Greg, me and thousands of others.
Fear of acknowledging the truth is a part of the acceptance process we all must face when we acknowledge what we do is not who we are. If we can stop looking at things as right and wrong, good and bad, we can see that we are either standing in the will of God or outside it.
Lori’s choice may have been God’s choice. Her partnershp with Greg provided her with a life she might not have known with his presence in her life. Her impact on thousands of believers and non-believers was inside of God’s will.
God does not promise freedom from pain, just grace.
Thank you for sharing this life-story. For evangelicals who “come out”, I have not understood how they justify this lifestyle with the Bible. Is scripture ignored, re-translated, re-intrepreted, is there a work-around for allowing something not allowed in scripture? Thanks in advance for helping me to understand.
Thank you Kyle and Greg, for this interview. I have known Kyle and Greg for the last 18 years. He and Lori both played a huge role in my lief as directors turned colleagues turned friends. I joined COG in 1991 and was very active in the church, interning as a youth minister for a short time. I battled with my own sexuality for much of my time with the church and have to admit, I too used the slurs and made the jokes that Jessica mentioned above. I see now that it was a poor attempt at self protection. I feared someone seeing into my heart and knowing what I was really thinking and feeling. Somewhere along the line I found the strength to be honest with God, myself and over time, my family and friends. My brother once said to me that there is your walk with God and then there are “club rules.” I liked this analogy because ultimately I belive that our walk with God is our own walk, our personal journey and private relationship. Being part of a larger body of people who share their own walk with God is a blessing and certainly one that offers additional strength and support along the way. However, since the Christian walk is a personal one, no two are the same.
It saddens me that some are so wrapped up in other people’s spiritual walk or salvation. I believe that all are welcome to believe and think whatever they want…that is the simple right of being human. If you want to believe that the earth is flat, fine, go for it. But when you insist that I believe it to, than we have a problem. The church, COG or any other for that matter should be a place for people to gather and gain strenth and support from each other and from the spirit of God not to point fingers and be beaten down. Unfortunately, finding a body of believers who are there for simply being part of a Christian body is not an easy task. Somehow, the old clicks of middle school come to play and church ultimately becomes a place to defend who you are….. no at all what it should be.
I am a very proud Christian woman. I have a partner of 8 years. We share a son, a home, a business and our own walk with God. May God bless those who cannot see others through the same eyes and Christ.
Christi, I appreciate your comments. I can address your question about “It saddens me that some are so wrapped up in other people’s spiritual walk or salvation. I believe that all are welcome to believe and think whatever they want…that is the simple right of being human.”
1.) An example of why we are and should be interested in one another’s personal walk with God is I Corinthians 5.
2.) It is the right of humans to believe and think whatever they want; one loses that right if he wants to follw God on His terms and conditions (I Corinthians 6:19-20).
My point is not to seem uncaring or less loving, but to be a Christian,by definition, is to conform to God’s standards. My question is how does one live by the Word of God and then purposefully ignore certain parts.
I would like to see Fox News, a previous poster’s favorite channel, share some opposing viewpoints; we don’t always get what we want when it comes to journalism. With that in mind, however, I do hope Lori’s perspective is shared soon, as well. It would make this sad, yet hopeful, story much more three dimensional. I doubt she would do it, but hers is also a story of both pain and hope. This amazing woman is overcoming obstacles that, as Greg will readily admit, are not of her own creation. Hers is also a moving story of starting over and reconnecting with who she really is. As someone who used to frequent their spare bedroom in Palm Beach Gardens, and who used to eat Lori’s potato soup and then stay up all night talking with Greg about the meaning of life (and his normative views about how we should redesign the educational system from the ground up), I am saddened by the breakup of a good team. I’m sad that I can’t visit them both at once. More importantly, though, I am excited about what the future holds for each of them . . . as individuals who are now able to be true to who they are. Lori is an amazing, beautiful, intelligent, and disgustingly creative woman. And her greatest body of work has yet to be written. I can feel it in my bones. 🙂
Low blow, Brad. Just address me directly. Fox news has nothing to do with this…
Just so you know, I actually don’t watch Fox news all that much. My favorite channel is HDNet. You’re always welcome to come visit and hang out with me to see I do watch on a regular basis.
My whole point on my first post was to help draw more of a distinction on Greg’s choices and stance. While Kyle wrote this very well, and Greg stated his side very clearly…it felt very much like a trash Christianity and ChOG piece. While I was raised in the ChOG myself, I don’t claim membership to any particular denomination. I actually have major issues with some of the doctrine and especially how they have treated LOTS of people…like Greg and T.H.
You can notice that I said I wished the narrative contained opposing opinion. I did not demand it or state Kyle should rewrite the article.
I don’t understand your constant criticism of my honest and earnest search to understand this issue, especially with OUR friend, Greg. I understand you have been hurt by Christians, you have been mistreated and changed your belief system. This breaks my heart, because I honestly enjoy you as a person and your talent. It just seems that your efforts might be better spent trying to help further the discussion instead of attacking Fox News and people you disagree with.
Thank you, Brad, for posting this for others to view. It certainly is a moving piece.
It can be heart-breaking whenever any family divides, and I’m sure in this case even more heart-wrenching for God, before Whom they vowed. I hurt for Lori – not just for the end of her marriage, but for the beginning, and the middle. There is great pain in feeling sexually unloved by a spouse, and I am sure that she was torn up by this. They BOTH hid the truth for too long.
I am anxious also to see her perspective.
I have to wonder, if in the focus “being true to himself” was God bumped to the #2 spot? I wonder this while reading this article, as well as when having discussions with homosexual friends and family. Should not being “true” to God’s Word in the Bible come first?
Jesus said in Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I say?” He expects us to follow His Word – that’s why He gave it to us! It is not a buffet line of pick and choose what you will follow and what you will ignore.
God also knew that even though we were created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27) we would need a Savior. And He sent His Son to be that forgiveness of sins that we all need. Sometimes one of my 4th graders will ask me, “When were you saved?” I always say the same thing, “When Jesus died on the cross for my sins!” I believe that is the greatest gift that Christians have – knowing that though the sins we commit may be viewed as ‘greater or less’ in the eyes of the world (ie. swiping a pencil from your classmates desk probably won’t land you in prison, but stealing a car would) but the forgiveness of sins came the same way – through Jesus’ death and ressurection, if you believe.
My prayer is for the church to unitedly welcome ALL to worship, study, pray, love, and grow, and change to become more like HIM. NO ONE is without sin. And NO Christian can be snatched from His hand! (John 10:28)
Thanks for your response, Marc, and I may take you up on that offer to watch TV at your pad. My criticism: the lack of honesty and openness in the search process. The confirmation bias is a powerful filter that we often do not realize is there until we have escaped a worldview. I’m glad that we can all hold differing opinions, though, and still live in harmony, though social media sometimes allows us to turn that harmony into a tritone. 🙂
As previously stated, I also wish for other viewpoints to be heard, though not those of the mainstream church . . . but I hesitate as I say that, because this piece is very important, and this topic quite worthy of consideration.
Side note: To assume that someone has changed a belief system due to mistreatment by humans is to insult that person’s intelligence. Yes, I have been mistreated by certain people, just as I have mistreated others. Fact is fact. That’s the price of interacting with human beings — people hurt people. My distaste for a certain institution is attributed to my experiences with its inhabitants; my de-conversion was based purely on years and years of open-minded reflection based on the examination of evidence, the study of history and context, and the systematic review of previously held assumptions with an eye for truth — truth for the sake of truth, that is. Now, let’s focus this discussion away from us and back on the topic at hand, which is much more worthy of discussion than we are.
Powerful story, thanks so much for sharing. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian religion, and … this may sound silly, but … leaving it felt very much like “coming out;” the fears about losing relationships, respect, etc. So, in my own little way, I understand, and wanted to tell you how much I admire your courage — to not only do what you did, but to share your experience. This is such an important story at so many levels.
And, P.S. to all the Bible quoters, don’t you think Jesus was pretty good about saying exactly what he meant? The things he “said” about homosexuality are so peripheral compared to the things he beat people over the head with — mostly what he seemed to hate was hypocrisy, for all the air time he gave to condemning the Pharisees. And when he wasn’t condemning hypocrisy, he was telling people to love each other. And, for that matter, he also said tax collectors and rich men were going to hell. How did Jesus become the poster child for hating homosexuals? Pretty sure he’d be pissed about that.
It’s strange that so few of these comments seem to engage with the conversation in the main article. Most of these people want to talk about themselves or put forward their own ideas. The article is about hearing somebody’s story. This is the main problem with the “debate.” Too much debate, too little listening.
Kyle and Greg,
Thanks so much for sharing part of your journey. Your stories are deep and heartfelt. As one who still pastors as a CHOG minister, it breaks my heart that we have acted in ways that are contrary to the Gospel. I remember sitting in the General Assembly when the homosexual resolution was discussed. I was shocked at how David Hall joked around in the presentation of the resolution. Either he was nervous or…I really have no idea. But the impression it made on me was that the CHOG doesn’t care. In David Hall’s defense, he is kinda goofy and fun-loving, but nonetheless, this was my impression. It is my hope and prayer that the CHOG will authentically discuss this out of love and care of God’s creation.
Kyle and Greg bless you in your callings. You story has impacted me greatly. I pray your story reaches many for comfort and discomfort and that we will all be better children of God because of it.
Betsy: This article is about Greg’s perspective and experience; it’s okay that you disagree. It’s great that you read the article and engaged in the discussion. 🙂 You have a good point — Christians tend to take the buffet line approach.
If we truly follow the Bible, we will: not punish slave owners who beat their slaves, as long as the slave survives for at least a day or two (Exodus 21); kill witches (Exodus 22); put homosexuals to death (Leviticus 20); put priests’ daughters to death if they are adulterous — man, that would be a huge body count, haha (Leviticus 21); not allow disabled people — and there is an exhaustive list — to enter the presence of god (Leviticus 21); allow people to buy slaves from neighboring countries (Leviticus 25); commit a mass murder of war conquests rather than writing peace treaties (Deuteronomy 7); acknowledge that a man who is missing parts of his reproductive system cannot enter the kingdom of god (Deuteronomy 23); etc. — there’s plenty more where that came from. Plus, in Deuteronomy 31, Moses predicted that the law would be tampered with, and in Jeremiah 8, it’s apparent that this may have been the case. This is assuming we believe that the scriptures are authoritative to begin with, which is highly debatable. Let’s not even address things Kyle mentioned, like the canonization of scripture, authorship issues, etc. — the scope of discussion would be immeasurable.
Some may say, “That’s the Old Testament. We’re under a new covenant, yada yada yada.” Well, first of all, doesn’t the Bible claim that Jehovah is unchanging? Yep. It does. So the god who murdered or called for the murder of masses of people — way more than all American casualties of war combined — throughout the course of the Bible is the same god who now presides over Christianity & receives 10%, or more, of the income of his followers. Furthermore, let’s examine some wacky stuff in the New Testament that we don’t like to acknowledge . . . we need to be certain that we know exactly what items are on that buffet line (and we’ll avoid Revelation, because we will assume most Christians believe it is purely figurative, though many do interpret it literally): if you call someone a fool, you are in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22); Jesus praised a Roman Centurion for his faith — one who was asking for healing for his same-sex child sex slave (Matthew 8:5-13, considering the Greek meaning of the slave boy’s title — look it up — not to mention the contradiction between the story here and the one in Luke 7:2); the inclusive John 3:16 stands in competition with scriptures like I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:9-10 — is it “whosoever” or “whosoever except in these cases?” . . . etc., etc., etc.
The point? Some Christians are red letter, only accepting the teachings of Jesus. Some don’t believe as you do for other reasons, often very well-informed by study. Greg falls under these categories. The two can live in harmony, just not if they interpret things as the contemporary church does. I choose not do believe any of it. I’m also happy that you are free to believe, just as I am free not to. Perhaps we should be able to justify the authority of scripture, without using scripture itself, and justify a literal and all-inclusive interpretation, before judging others for their well-informed interpretations and the life choices that come from such a worldview. I respect Greg for looking deeply into these issues from age 14, and feel this makes his a well-informed decision.
Wow I think that’s the most I’ve ever gotten you to talk to me. Not for lack of trying becasue of my crush on you in HS…but don’t feel special, I had a crush on pretty much everyone in HS.
I’m not going to tell you I’m sorry to hear about your de-conversion, because, I agree with your statment, “I’m happy that you are free to believe,” and “the two can live in harmony.” That is the great thing about freedom of speech and the right to have an opinion.
Therefore, I believe (OPINION) that there are things considered sinful by some and acceptable by others, and some people base these considerations on their interpretations of Bible, or life experiences, or what their mommy told them etc. If someone does choose to use the Bible as a guide for how to live, is there a guarantee that he or she will understand and interpret it 100% as God intended 100% of the time? If so, where do I sign up? I’ve struggled immensely in Bible study. For example, during the flood, what happened to the fish? Wouldn’t they just keep swimming? I don’t know, and that’s why I don’t want to explain EXACTLY what “confusing” verses of the Bible may or may not mean.
You certainly have studied the Bible in depth, as evidenced (or you used a great online concordance) and you are entitled to your opinion too, and I appreciate that you openly do not claim to be a Christian. I totally agree there are lots of parts of the Bible which, to my simple mind, might appear to make no sense, whether canonization etc is WHY – we may never know. And that does cause me to have doubts, questions etc. In the same way that your study led you to choose de-conversion, my studies and life experiences lead me to want, and need, and accept the forgiveness that I believe is offered, though I admit I sometimes do not understand.
Please know that I wanted more to convey my belief that we all sin, and are all forgiven. I apologize for not stating that clearly. I really don’t think (of course you know the author/speaker obviously much better than I) that the intention of the article was to stir the debate of right vs wrong, but to show the life changes and growth of this individual and family. My intention was to convey that in my (again) opinion ALL people sin and need salvation. No one follows the Bible perfectly, whether you want to look at Old Testament laws (Do not wear clothing woven from two kinds of material – WHAT??) or New (Love your neighbor). Either a person is ok with that, or if not, they accept forgiveness. There is no option for following the Law perfectly. And, sometimes, there will be disagreements.
I keep a handwritten log of the things that interest me about the church, the Bible, and the formation of both. Online resources are helpful, as are libraries full of dusty books. Greg McCaw is partially to thank, because of the many late night discussions about life and God; conflicting beliefs aside, he truly is a pastor — a shepherd — at heart. As stated in the interview, it’s who he is. That’s what makes his part of this story so interesting. It’s now much harder for him to do the good things that he is wired to do, and that he loves to do, yet he is finding ways to continue doing them. Lori is still a shepherd, as well. She just isn’t a pastor’s wife any longer. Now she does it her own way. Pain and hope . . .
The comments section here shows how far evangelicals have to go when dealing with others. Few of these commenters have done much to engage the issue. Those who have are defensive or jokey. Meanwhile, a whole generation of gays and lesbians stay closeted so they won’t lose their relationships with these people who will surely reject them or think less of them if they are honest about their sexuality. It’s a damn shame.
I don’t understand why anyone would want to court the favor of these evangelicals in the first place. They treat people so badly. There is something masochistic about GLBTQQ people returning for their beatings, and without any safe words. It is dangerous.
Fundamentalists are irked when gay ppl come out and still want to be leaders and part of their communities the same way we were before. It’s easier to take us if we follow their narrative that we’ve given ourselves over to the devil and his ways and a stereotyped life of lewdness. It is confusing to them if we just want what they say they want, a family, children, a home, a peaceful coexisting with others, a church to worship and pray.
This is an important piece that speaks to many. It is an article about one person’s continual journey, and the journey will be continual. I don’t believe it is so much about one man’s sexual orientation as much as it is how he is constantly coming to terms with who he is in God and who God is revealing God’s self to be. Well done, Kyle! And, if I might embrace the biblical hope, “Well Done, Greg!”
Thanks, Kyle for writing, and Greg for exposing your heart.
I find the most encouragement from Greg’s story springs from the fact that he’s not given up on following Christ through all this. Greg, you’ve had every opportunity to just bag it all and say, “I don’t want to even try to be in this club anymore,” but you haven’t. You are still following Jesus and pointing others to Him as well. As a co-follower myself, I value you for the unique position you are now in, and for the people you’ll be able to help that few of the rest of will.
If I were Rev. McCaw, I would just give up the religion as a last step toward living authentically.
Mr. or Ms. Spider: Would you be willing to clarify your statement just a bit? Is it not authentic to continue to embrace the religion when one truly believes in it, as Greg does?
The religion itself is a distorting mechanism. Whether or not one truly believes in something is no measure of whether that thing enables a person to see oneself and the world clearsightedly. Plenty of true believers live in a fairy tale world precisely because they “truly believe in it.” This is one reason why people were willing to die in the Crusades for the sake of killing Muslims and taking back the “Holy Land.” This is one reason why people today are able to reconcile the idea that they operate out of “God’s love” while at the same time hating (fill in the blank: Jews, gays, blacks, Muslims, people who don’t go to church, people who go to the wrong church, Democrats, Greenpeacers, etc.)
It’s the religion that was the problem for Rev. McCaw in the first place. Without the religion, he would not have gone through these contortions to please the people he loved. They put the ideas of the religion above their love for him. When he got real about his sexuality he lost at least a degree of that love because of the religion. So why does he continue to embrace the religion?
None of that is a slam on Rev. McCaw, either. He seems like a decent fellow. I would be happy to have a friend like him. If he were my friend, I would just say why not be a decent humanist and spare yourself the pain the religion brings.
(And by golly move to San Francisco where you can get a good job and where people will take better care of you.)
Lori makes a good point. Very few of the earlier comments actually engage the interview with Greg. Evangelicals (and ex-evangelicals?) seem to be so insular that they have become tone deaf to the idea that someone with a different worldview might be reading their comments–not recognizing that there is a much larger conversation than the petty bickering within their community. Greg has taken a bold step to speak so honestly about his experiences. His courage is to be applauded; his story should be contemplated on its own merits.
Jayne, you can’t fully contemplate Greg’s story without considering the context in which the story takes place. This religion, and its culture, are obviously an important component of this story. That’s why Greg and Kyle discuss it. I don’t see why some people are trying to separate two things that cannot be separated.
Spider: You make a good point — thanks for clarifying.
Spider, you mean move to San Fransisco so he can become part of their social welfare mindset?
As far as your comments on religion, I actually agree. Not that Greg, or anyone else should just thow it away, but we do need to realize that for most of us raised in the church we have been programed with a set of ideals that often cloud our view of the world and those ideas heap guilt and condemnation on us when we beging to step outside of our narrow frame of reference to look at things objectively. Never is that more true as when we begin to question the religion itself.
Let me begin by saying that I know several of the people who made comment on the article as well as Greg and Kyle. I have a great love for each of them and I am very proud to say that they have been part of my life.
Taking the time to read and reflect on this article and the ensuing comments has raised so many emotions and thoughts, and in all honesty, my heart breaks for where my friends have landed in their pursuit of truth. My heart also breaks over the number of people who have either been led astray from the truth, or who have yet to submit to the authority of God’s Word.
There seems to me, to be a thread that continues through both the article and the comments that follow – it is the negative influence that our educational system has had on several of my friends.
It reminds me of a speech that Dr. Charles Malik, a Christian native of Lebanon gave some 35 years ago. He spoke about the negative influence that North America was having on the rest of the world.
Now, before I tell you what he said, understand that Dr. Malik was no lightweight by human standards. He was raised in the Eastern Orthodox Church in the midst of an Islamic world. He was one of the founders of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948. He was the ambassador of Lebanon to the United States and to the United Nations. He also served the United Nations as president of the general assembly and president of the Security Council. He was a graduate of Harvard University where he earned his master’s and Ph.D. and then returned to Lebanon as a resident professor at the American University in Beirut.
Dr. Malik said the number one problem facing the world is the Western university system. It was his opinion that it is a devastating problem in the world because so many of the world’s policymakers have been educated in Western universities. He then listed the things about our educational system that he believed would have a negative impact on the world in the years to come. He said the American educational system is humanistic, Freudian, naturalistic, secularized, atheistic, cynical, and to top it off, knows nothing about absolutes. Further, he clarified that our system knows nothing about the affirmation of God or of a divine standard of truth. And therefore, knows no commitment to that truth.
And this is what came to mind as I read the article on Rumpus, written and discussed by my friends, that the best that our western university system can produce is a relativistic mind that is ill-prepared to deal with absolute truth.
I only feel sadness for those that I love and pray that their eyes would be opened – that they would look beyond their own experience and not only see God’s nature of grace, but submit to His infinite and absolute truth.
“Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, Because He delights in unchanging love.â€
“Submit to the authority of God’s Word.”
I’ll do that right after you answer this question. Which one?
I’m absolutely certain I know which version of God’s Word you are talking about. You’re talking about the Bible that western Christians view as some magical book that fell from heaven perfect and whole. Just so we are clear though, if I asked that same question in Ethiopia, Rome, Russia, or dozens of other places in the world, they would be referring to a different (sometimes drastically different) collection of ancient writings.
I’m completely open to the possibility that my current viewpoint is wrong, and maybe God will reveal that to me in the years to come. I would welcome that revelation, but it would be dishonest for me to keep towing the line of evangelical dogma when years of careful thought and study leads to me to NOT believe it. You can’t effectively argue absolute truth using the Bible, because you have “faith and belief†when it comes to the Bible, you don’t have “fact and certaintyâ€.
I’m open to the possibility that I am wrong, the question is, are you?
The openness to questions is so necessary. Thank you for this good discussion.
Anonymous,
Your position is that university educations have caused people to be gay? I don’t understand.
Anonymous, one other thing? Why would universities be interested in positing absolutes? Universities have always been interested in advancing questions. If there aren’t any more questions because everything is absolute, why would we need universities? We could just consult the single guidebook to everything and then all of our problems would be solved. But where is that guidebook? The Bible surely hasn’t solved all our problems to date. It has probably made some of them worse, including the subjugation of women, nasty nationalism, the upholding of slavery as an institution, strife among racial and religious groups, and the uncritical support of the abusive policies of George W. Bush by American right wing Christians, which I am sure almost everyone would agree has us in a fine mess today, the world over.
If I have the idiom right, we German Christians scratch our heads at the way so many Americans approach the Bible literally and uncritically, as though it were a book written by an American five minutes ago, rather than a collection of ancient documents gathered over a long period of time, and written in different contexts for different purposes and in dialogue with a long tradition, to people who shared common assumptions which were being undergirded or challenged by the various writers. Where is your regard for historical context? I think that the people who are truly disrespectful of the Scriptures are the ones who have decided what the Scriptures mean before they actually enter into a rigorous study of them on their own terms, without forcing 19th century American frontier fundamentalism onto ancient Christians and Jews who didn’t even know there was such a thing as North America.
Spider, who did you vote for? I’m confused.
Chris, I’m confused. What does that have to do with this discussion? As it happens, I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, thinking Bush and Gore were both moderates in the pocket of big business. Boy was that a mistake! Bush surprised us all with his strange turn to the right in some ways (the warhawking) and away from the right in others (his crazy overspending.) But none of that has anything to do with what I said. I said that American rightwing Christians empowered his rise, both terms. That is a historical fact and I will stand by it. It has nothing to do with who I voted for.
Well said Jurgen.
Thank you to Chris.
the hardest part of this to read is where the mother says no you weren’t to the son. well written my story too and many others.
Anonymous: grow some jewels and identify yourself. Those who pay attention during their “western university educations” will realize that an appeal to authority, such as the one you just used when you quoted a diplomat with a Harvard Ph.D. (neither of which qualifies this individual to rationally justify a religious belief), is not a valid argument. This technique may work when trying to persuade people who are not interested in spending time in the ol’ books, but such is not your crowd here. Your use of a document that is not accepted by the rest of us is, also, invalid. That post looks like some low quality witnessing to me. What good does it do to quote your scripture to people who don’t have any reason to consider it authoritative? That is complete nonsense. Revisit Philosophy 101, my phantom friend; think critically. Before you can whip out the Biblical quotes without sounding ignorant, you must establish that all-important baseline of validity. No human being has been able to pull that off as of yet, and these questions have been under consideration for around 2000 years. Good luck!
Many great leaders and great thinkers throughout history have held various religious beliefs. That does not make the beliefs any more (or less) valid. Examine the documents you base your life on with an eye for historical context. This will mean studying the history of those documents, the cultures in which they originated, etc. — and one must find sources outside the Christian bookstore to really do this correctly. Good luck on your journey, should you choose to accept it . . . though I doubt you will, because you have more important things to do than figure out what truth is in a systematic, logical, and rational way. It’s only something that establishes the foundation of your worldview, which influences your interactions with others, your financial decisions (tithes and offerings — ouch), and your political involvement (either you read the Bible and see that Jesus was a bit of a socialist or you follow the subcultural norms and vote accordingly; either way, this will be influenced by your worldview). Just remember that the burden of proof is on you, not those who don’t believe as you do. Your Bible tells you to “witness” to us and — SHOCKER — to offer a solid case when you do. The cases presented by every evangelical so far in these posts have not been worth considering, because a complete lack of regard for history and context has been the common theme. WARNING: If you happen to be a pastor with a six figure salary (we can’t know this if you don’t identify yourself), you just may find yourself in a career quagmire much like Greg’s after you have begun a search for truth (for its own sake, not to confirm what you would like to see confirmed). Prepare to downsize.
Anyone want to talk about Greg’s experience? The god talk is getting dull. Let’s either talk about Greg and the experience of religious homosexuals, or let’s recruit some knowledgeable and educated followers of Jesus to give us points worth considering.
Anonymous: One more thing for your consideration . . .
The scripture you read, if you share the same background as Kyle and Greg, is not the same scripture the Eastern Orthodox Church follows. They add apocryphal writings (I don’t know which ones) and even attribute scriptural power to “Holy Tradition.” So the authority to which you appealed actually follows a somewhat different set of guidelines. If he is someone you would like to know more about, perhaps understanding the basis of his point of view would be a great place to start that open-minded quest for truth.
“the number one problem facing the world is the Western university system…. He said the American educational system is humanistic, Freudian, naturalistic, secularized, atheistic, cynical, and to top it off, knows nothing about absolutes….”
This comment sounds like the typical conservative rants against “the elite” which downplays education and expertise, thought and contemplation for gut and dogma and would return us all to the dark ages. The reality is that the western educational system has doubled the human lifespan and improved standards of living throughout the world…look to the least educated nations in the world and you will find they are among the poorest with the greatest rates of starvation, child mortality, crime, ….and interestingly enough…radical religious fundamentalism.
The reality is we do not live in a world of absolutes and to believe that we do is simplistic at best. I would reiterate Jurgens comment that the attitudes toward sexual orientation espoused by many based on the Bible are first, based soley on individual interpretation which obviously varies widely, and second based on texts and oral tradition that date from bronze and iron age civilizations that had no concept of biological factors, heredity, hormonal influences, neuroscience and neuropsychology, or even frankly, human development…to apply those dogmas in light of our current knowledge would be no different than physicians continuing to practice “bloodletting” or “homeopathy” simply because it was done in the past.
I also am a former CITG member and know many of the parties involved and I want to thank Greg and Kyle for posting this. Thankfully, many mainline denominations including the Epeiscpalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists are moving forward with respect to how they treat issues of sexual orientation and my hope is that openness and a willingness to discuss all aspects of these issues will lead others to do so as well.
Very well said Brad. In this particular context (Greg’s homosexuality) I think it is almost impossible NOT to get into a discussion of the Bible, it’s authority, and all the various rabbit trails that can send you down. Greg spent the majority of his life, as did most of us, in the Evangelical subculture. As you pointed out so well, that group of people bases everything on the authority of scripture. Nevermind that committed Christians throughout the world sometimes use a different Bible.
I think one of the things that makes this such an emotional topic is that by “being Gay” Greg has gone against one of the traditionaly held beliefs that most Western Christians have. You can dress it up with nice words, but the bottom line is that most of Greg’s old friends and loved ones believe he is going to HELL.
The thing that pisses me off (and you too by the sound of it) is the unwillingness on the part of Western Christianity to accept any nuance or varying viewpoints. I still remember being taught as a child that Catholics were going to hell because they weren’t Chriistians. You can’t make that claim unless you are completely ignorant of the history of your own religion.
I for one, would love it if we could get Professor L. Spencer Spauling to join this conversation.
Spencer Spaulding is the man.
Okay all you ex-evangos. Do you think anything is changing? When you talk to your peers or the people you went to church with do they still talk about gay people so meanly? Do your parents? What do they say about Rev. McCaw since he came out? I am very curious as an outsider looking in.
The main source of intolerance and hate on this thread seems to be coming from the liberal posters who can’t stand to hear even remotely conservative view points and seem to glory in bashing dissenters. Typical open (or not) minded liberals!
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.†– William F. Buckley
Bobby, I have an honest question for you: I’m a liberal, and I’m a guy who sleeps with guys sometimes. When I hear people say that I am going to hell, or that my actions are an abomination, or even that they wish they could nuke me or kill me, it’s hard to answer that with anything besides anger. I try not to. And Greg has done an amazing job of not being angry here. But a lot of us aren’t as strong as he is. To be told I’m not open minded because I object to people attacking an intrinsic part of me just doesn’t make any sense. That’s like me saying you’re (who I’m assuming is a Christian) not open minded because you don’t want to hear me talk about how atheism is the shit. So how should I react? What part of this am I supposed to stay open minded about? I’m not a Christian anymore, so biblical arguments don’t really work on me, and even if I were to go back to the religion I was raised in, I don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. So how can we start the conversation when both of us at our very core believe the other wants to destroy us? I’m asking you what, specifically, I’m supposed to be open minded about.
Bobby,
I’d like to hear your answer to Seth’s question.
Bobby, I voted a republican straight ticket last election, aside from one seat. Nice try, big fella. One need not be a liberal to acknowledge that homosexuals are people, too, and deserve equality.
Clarification: One can hold conservative views on most issues and liberal views on others. This is not as uncommon as you might assume. Greg McCaw, as a matter of face, openly calls himself a “Progressive Lincoln Republican.”
Dammit. That was supposed to be “matter of fact.” Time to lay off the whiskey.
I find the accusations of hate and intolerance interesting. Is it hate and intolerance when Muslims are called out for discrimination against women? Burkas? Honor killings? Stoning? Is it hate and intolerance when the KKK is called out for discrimination against blacks or jews? Slavery? segregation?Most Christian conservatives would be quick to deny that it is and claim that their indignation and condemnation of discrimination is just. Yet somehow when these same Christian conservatives are called out for THEIR discrimination against homosexuals …it is hatespeech?
Reply to Seth:
Seth said: “When I hear people say that I am going to hell, or that my actions are an abomination, or even that they wish they could nuke me or kill me, it’s hard to answer that with anything besides anger. I try not to.”
Seth, please show me where any of the people representing a traditional view on this issue wished you or any gay person dead, or to be nuked, or even condemned you to hell, and I will join you in condemning those words. I won’t condemn them personally because I believe judgment is ultimately God’s job. I certainly never expressed that sentiment. Do I believe the bible and, since as a Christian I believe the Bible to be God’s word, God call homosexuality a sin, yes. Saying that I believe an act to be sin based on my understanding of the Bible and my personal belief in God, doesn’t in any way mean I condemn you or anyone personally. I certainly never said I condemn you or gays and I don’t believe I read any posts calling anyone an abomination or condemning them for their life style choices. I did read plenty of posts condemning and cursing anyone who dared repeat what the Bible had to say about whether homosexuality was a sin or not, in reply to an article and subsequent supporting comments, where Greg’s faith and profession made discussing the religious implications of his “coming out” a perfectly relevant part of the discussion. Whenever any comments even gently stated a mainstream traditional view on these issues, posters responded with bashing and swearing replies.
Seth said:
“To be told I’m not open minded because I object to people attacking an intrinsic part of me just doesn’t make any sense.”
The Christian faith teaches that the predisposition to sin is an “intrinsic part”, as you put it, of all of us. You may not believe anymore that Christianity or the Bible are true, and I do, but we can respectfully disagree. If homosexuality wee being singled out as sin, then you could have a reason to be hostile, but the Bible does not say that only certain sins are God and others are okay, the Bible teaches us (Christians) that we have ALL sinned and come short of God’s glory and that we can be redeemed through faith in god and repentance. If you have a problem with the idea that we are predisposed to sin of all types and that God can deliver us from that sin, then you are going to have a problem with the Gospel because that my friend is a central theme. If your particular sin that you are predisposed (again we are all predisposed to sin) to is one you are unwilling to turn from then that is between you and God. I never claimed and never heard anyone else claim that you owed them anything or that they had to approve of you, for you to be forgiven.
Seth said:
“So how should I react? … I’m asking you what, specifically, I’m supposed to be open minded about.”
In general, you should treat people you disagree with, more or less the same way you treat people you agree with. If you say that Atheism is terrific, then I will disagree, but I won’t curse at you and verbally beat on you because that makes people shut you out. If I say I believe that eating meat is murder, and you disagree, you can make your case, and we can go back and forth. there is no rule that says we have to hate each other over it. If someone gets abusive with you, then you should stick up for your self and I wouldn’t blame you for responding in kind, but that is not what I observed.
Reply to Brad Minor:
Brad Minor said:
“One need not be a liberal to acknowledge that homosexuals are people, too, and deserve equality.”
I agree. There is nothing about believing homosexuality to be a sin in God’s eyes that dehumanizes a person or denies them a right they should have. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Christians believe that predisposition to sin is a natural human trait and is precisely the reason God sent His son to pay our sin debt on the cross.
Brad Minor said:
“One can hold conservative views on most issues and liberal views on others. This is not as uncommon as you might assume.”
First, I am glad you are a political conservative; I think we are going to have a good November! You are right about my generalization. In fact Dick Cheney who the left loves to hate, is a perfect example of this, as he is indeed quite conservative and yet also a member of the Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight alliance group in the GOP.
Bobby, I appreciate you taking all that time to answer. And you’re right about most everything you wrote (the nuke part was a reference to part of this interview, btw, not the comments section, but if you can honestly look around yourself and not see many conservatives wishing LGBT people real harm, or at least nodding their heads and thinking they’re going to hell, then I’m not sure if we’re living on the same planet.)
But what’s happening, here, is we’re talking past each other. My anger doesn’t make sense to you, because you say it’s between me and God. But that doesn’t make sense to me, because I’m going to guess you don’t like gay marriage, or any legal protections for LGBT people, or any of those things that really, in the end, serve to make gay people a real part of the community and protect them from violence (a shockingly high percentage of hate crimes are against gay people, and most states don’t even report them). If it’s just between them and God, then why do you care if they get married, especially when its just state-sanctioned marriage? Why do you fight laws that serve to protect them from being killed and bullied in schools? Why do you do everything possible to keep them from being real citizens? I’m really asking. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
So a lot of this anger, Bobby, comes from this subtext. I hear Christians saying that they don’t understand why gay people don’t like them for saying gay acts are a sin. Imagine if I was a Muslim and I told you you were going to hell for being a Christian. And even more than that, you being a Christian was something you couldn’t change. No matter how hard you tried. And then, on top of all that, when you were discriminated against at work and some of your people were beaten and killed on the streets and we wouldn’t give you benefits that we would give the rest of the population, I said to you that you just weren’t being open minded enough.
And I agree that many commenters shouldn’t react with anger, because in general, anger isn’t usually a helpful emotion. But I have to ask you, my friend, how would you react?
PS Bobby, I realize I never spoke to your second point, but that’s because I had trouble with it. It didn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. And I don’t think that’s because you wrote it poorly or anything. I’m not saying that. It’s just that part of my original point was that you are saying that being an LGBT person is a sin. You say you see performing a gay act as a sin. I see it as something inherent in people. And we could go back and forth quoting scientists to prove our point. I could quote scientists who you think are quacks. You could quote scientists that I think are quacks. In the end, nothing would change. But let me tell you that I have been attracted to men since I was 8 years old. I’m also attracted to women, so it’s more complicated for me. But I fought my attraction to men for most of my life. When I finally accepted who I was, I became a much nicer, a much kinder, a much more tolerant, really, many other aspects of the religion thrown aside, a more Christian man, if you want to look at it that way. Who was I hurting? Because I don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, I don’t think of it as a sin. Not at all. In fact, I think it’s a good thing. So again, we’re talking past each other.
I did a thought experiment in the comment above. But I do want to understand where you’re coming from. I really do. Can you try one for me?
It’s wild that this discussion comes concurrent to Prop. 8 getting struck down yesterday. The Prop. 8 proponents lost because their argument was basically the evil gay fear stuff, and the other side came equipped with loads of information, science, expert testimony, statistics, and so on. The preponderance of the evidence is that people are predisposed to be gay or straight or whatever in between because of their genetics, and that gay people who are provided with the same resources as straight people do pretty well in being good citizens, raising children decently, and contributing to society. The only anti-gay argument left is really the appeal to a religious authority, and even our religious people are pointing out the problems with that one. In time, this is going to be a dead issue all around, except in your crazy places, such as today’s Westboro Baptist/Bob Jones University/Islamic jihad/Raelian cult/FLDS types.
P.S. – Seth Fischer you are very reasoned and I like what you say.
Thank you, Spider! And yes, it is interesting timing.
Americans, help me understand. Will Proposition Eight make this discussion go away because the churches will have to recognize the gay marriages around them and ordain the gay clergy?
Jurgen it’s just for California, it’s just gay marriage, and nobody’s going to make the clergy do the weddings or ordain gay people. They are free to be as petty and mean to gay people as they want for as long as they want. This is America. Your right to be ignorant is more than protected. Don’t worry.
Spider,
I’m just going to add that it wouldn’t even matter if being gay was a lifestyle choice as opposed to being part of a person’s genetics. A gay person is still a person and a gay citizen is still a citizen, and should be able to access all the same rights and privileges under the law as a straight one can. The only logical ways to argue that a gay citizen shouldn’t be allowed access to the same fundamental rights that a straight one can is to say, in essence, that a gay person is either not human or is not a full citizen, at least so far as I can tell. But you don’t see too many people willing to go that far, and those who are willing to deny the basic humanity of gays and lesbians are becoming fewer in number and influence every day, which is a good thing in my eyes.
Being somewhat conservative also does not mean I can stomach a-holes like Cheney and W who spend money we don’t have to invade sovereign nations under false pretenses . . . they’re not fiscally conservative, despite what they say . . . now back to the subject at hand . . .
Pardon Brad, but why the political attack on Cheney and Bush in this thread? The one and only reason I mentioned Cheney was to agree with your point. Besides, Obama has added more to the national debt in his short time than Bush did in his entire eight years. You must really be convulsing over his performance, and he still has two more years left to add more debt. I responded to your political attack on Bush-Cheney to balance your broadside, but personally I don’t for the life of me understand why you had to get political in an unrelated way since as I said, VP Cheney’s mention by me, was ONLY in agreement with your point about how political philosophy and attitudes towards gays doesn’t necessarily correlate. To further make that point, look at Prop 8 which someone else just brought up. It would never have passed, were it not for the huge turn out of black voters for president Obama. A majority of Hispanics also supported it, who also went big for Obama. black voters voted for prop 8 by something like 70% in California, one of the most liberal states in the country!
Jurgen,
as Spider points out, it was for California. It was an amendment to the CA state constitution mandating that marriage was between one man and one woman – it passed. It was a response to the state’s supreme court ruling bans on same sex marriage violated the state’s constitution. the people of CA responded by voting to change their constitution. The ruling doesn’t mean anything yet. It won’t mean anything until the issue goes before the US Supreme Court, which will come after the appellate process in the lower court plays out. Since the next court to see prop 8 will be the 9th circuit court of appeals, the plaintiffs (gay rights groups…etc) will likely prevail again, and then it will be off to the Supreme Court for final judgment. Despite overturning the amendment, the judge did not actually lift the ban, at least not yet. He granted a temporary stay and will decide if he will issue a permanent stay so that marriages don’t take place during an appeals process that could eventually see him overturned. It should be noted that CA allows gays to enter into civil unions and clergy from denominations that support gay marriage were free to perform wedding ceremonies and they have been.
Whenever amendments like prop 8 have been put to the vote they have passed even in the most liberal states. Those that would give the impression that the whole country is united on this issue legally and that it is just a few gray old conservatives hanging on to the past that are holding up “progress” are out of touch. Prop 8 passed in 2008, in the face of the biggest liberal surge the 70’s.
Forgive me gentlemen, I was actually on vacation when I wrote my comment and did not have adequate time to reply to the choleric responses.
Chris said, “Submit to the authority of God’s Word.â€
I’ll do that right after you answer this question. Which one?
I’m absolutely certain I know which version of God’s Word you are talking about. You’re talking about the Bible that western Christians view as some magical book that fell from heaven perfect and whole. Just so we are clear though, if I asked that same question in Ethiopia, Rome, Russia, or dozens of other places in the world, they would be referring to a different (sometimes drastically different) collection of ancient writings.
I’m completely open to the possibility that my current viewpoint is wrong, and maybe God will reveal that to me in the years to come. I would welcome that revelation, but it would be dishonest for me to keep towing the line of evangelical dogma when years of careful thought and study leads to me to NOT believe it. You can’t effectively argue absolute truth using the Bible, because you have “faith and belief†when it comes to the Bible, you don’t have “fact and certaintyâ€.
I’m open to the possibility that I am wrong, the question is, are you?
Chris, I’m glad you asked. At the root of your question, what we’re really after, is whether there are God-inspired books given to man and which ones? I personally believe that if a book is God-inspired then it has to be authoritative for life. That in itself is the reason many choose not to believe.
No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired. It was actually not until 367 AD that Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.
Obviously the first five books (sometimes called the Torah or the Pentateuch) were the first to be accepted as canonical. We’re not sure when but it was probably during the fifth century before Christ. Of course, the Hebrews had the “Law” for many centuries already, but they certainly did not pay very good attention to it. It was probably the work of the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah that restored it to general use and fixed it once for all as authoritative.
How about the rest of the Old Testament? The prophets’ writings were also not brought together in a single form until about 200 BC. The remaining Old Testament books were adopted as canonical even later. The Old Testament list was probably not finally fixed much before the birth of Christ. The Jewish people were widely scattered by this time and they really needed to know which books were the authoritative Word of God because so many other writings claiming divine authority were floating around. With the fixing of the canon they became a people of one Book, and this Book kept them together.
Nor is there a single date when we can say that the canon of the New Testament was decided. In the first and second centuries after Christ, many, many writings and epistles were circulating among the Christians. Some of the churches were using books and letters in their services that were definitely spurious. Gradually the need to have a definite list of the inspired Scriptures became apparent. Heretical movements were rising, each one choosing its own selected Scriptures, including such documents as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas.
Gradually it became clear which works were truly genuine and which mixed truth with fantasy. By the end of the fourth century the canon was definitively settled and accepted. In this process Christians recognize the providence of God in providing us with His written revelation of Himself and His Sovereign plan for our lives.
You are right regarding the value that faith and belief play in a Christian’s life. But I disagree that we are helpless and hopeless when it comes to fact and certainty. As a matter of fact, archaeology is constantly confirming the certainty of the Bible. But that’s not why I believe. I would rather just trust the words of the psalmist…
“The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether.â€
You’re final question of whether I’m open to the possibility that I am wrong is a fair question. My answer: No, my years of study have done nothing but solidify my faith beyond question. But I will play it out for your sake. If I believe and in the end and then find out I was wrong, what harm has been done by living according to the greatest principles regarding life. However if you choose not to believe, and in the end find out you were wrong, you will be categorized with a sea of intellectuals who couldn’t bring themselves to acknowledge that God did in fact write a book.
Spider said, “Your position is that university educations have caused people to be gay? I don’t understand.â€
No Spider, I never addressed the homosexual issue in my comment. I was trying to go beneath the surface and deal with a much harder issue which has significant implications on many subjects, including homosexuality. I was trying to establish how difficult it is for a relativist to even discuss the possibility of absolute truth. By the disposition of the responses, it actually proved my point.
Spider says, “Anonymous, one other thing? Why would universities be interested in positing absolutes? Universities have always been interested in advancing questions. If there aren’t any more questions because everything is absolute, why would we need universities? We could just consult the single guidebook to everything and then all of our problems would be solved. But where is that guidebook? The Bible surely hasn’t solved all our problems to date. It has probably made some of them worse, including the subjugation of women, nasty nationalism, the upholding of slavery as an institution, strife among racial and religious groups, and the uncritical support of the abusive policies of George W. Bush by American right wing Christians, which I am sure almost everyone would agree has us in a fine mess today, the world over.â€
The question is fair. Let’s take the law of gravity for example. That is an absolute law on the earth. No one debates it at the university level because you don’t need higher education to understand that the law of gravity is real and absolute – if 100 people jump off a building, 100 people will fall to the earth. And I certainly wouldn’t want to sit under the professor who challenges the veracity of that law with such a ridiculous experiment. However, there has been a great deal of study surrounding the law of gravity at the university level so that we know how to relate to this law and in many cases, how to use it, if you will.
The same is true of the Bible. It’s interesting that the educational system of America in its infancy used the Bible as a text book. It was treated as absolute truth. Interestingly, Harvard University had the same beginning. In the Rules and Precepts observed at Harvard, September 26, 1642, stated: “Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternall life, John 17:3 and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seeke it of him Prov. 2, 3.†In fact, Harvard college was founded in “Christi Gloriam†and later dedicated “Christo et Ecclesiaeâ€. The founders of Harvard believed that, “All knowledge without Christ was vain.†The word Veritas, on the college seal, means divine truth. The motto of Harvard was officially: “For Christ and the Church.â€
Kyle said, “What good does it do to quote your scripture to people who don’t have any reason to consider it authoritative? That is complete nonsense. Revisit Philosophy 101, my phantom friend; think critically. Before you can whip out the Biblical quotes without sounding ignorant, you must establish that all-important baseline of validity. No human being has been able to pull that off as of yet, and these questions have been under consideration for around 2000 years. Good luck!”
Kyle, I would be interested to know your thoughts on Jesus Christ. Who is He from your view?
So quoting the Bible automatically makes a person ignorant? I have to start with the critical questions before I can know truth? No, I disagree. While there is certainly nothing wrong with critical study, that is not the beginning point for me. It never is for a child who trusts his father.
Honestly, I find your judgmental assumptions stifling. You make the assumption that if I study all documentation critically that I will come to the same conclusion as you. How arrogant! Has it ever crossed your mind that you may be wrong and I may be right? Thorough and critical study does not always lead to the same conclusion. That is why there are intellectuals who believe in the Bible as the authorative Word of God and their are those who do not.
Charles Malik is a great example. You again, assume that I really don’t know much about the person I quoted. You made the asinine assumption that I would never quote someone out of the mainstream of Western Christian thought, knowingly. You only reveal how narrow your “intellectual” view really is. Not only do I understand the differences of interpretation and doctrine that Dr. Malik held, I also know that his answer for the world problem is diametrically opposite my own. However, because I study beyond what I believe, I can learn from just about anyone. I’m not sure you are as open minded as you are caustic.
(Note: This is Brad, not Kyle; Kyle has not commented on this thread.)
Anonymous: You seem to be very certain about what you believe, though you still have yet to offer an argument that is not chock full of logical fallacies. It’s getting harder and harder to take you seriously, so please go review the basic fallacies of logic before posting again. A side benefit of that is that you’ll probably be able to use that knowledge to poke holes in some of my arguments and those of others on here. I welcome that, because it will only make me stronger. Furthermore, if you are so certain, why don’t you “come out of the closet” and let us know who you are? Are you scared? Perhaps we know where you live; I assure you that nothing more than toilet paper and eggs will appear at your house. (I’m fairly certain I know who you are already, and if I am correct, I like you as a person and wish no ill upon you or your family.) 🙂 Again, I say, grow some testicles and let us know your lovely, possibly royal name.
It looks like you want to talk about scriptural authority? Let’s get to it. Authorship, historical context, proof that this was “written by god” . . . educate us. We’re listening. Your recent research is impressive, but we still hope to see this synthesized into something valid. You have lots of folks here who would love to have a reason to rejoin their lost communities of faith, if proof (or a valid enough line of reasoning with adequate information to back it up) can be presented. What a great, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!
You referenced the Psalms — again, if you were paying attention, you would recall that you still have the burden of proof on you to prove to us that an almighty being wrote this stuff BEFORE quoting it. Can we stick to valid sources, or can you get us to the point of believing in this authority? Either will be fine.
Now to address your personal comments to me (again, not the author of the article) . . .
My thoughts on Jesus Christ: He was a confused man with a good heart. Prove me wrong. I’m open to it. That’s your responsibility, though, according to your good book(s).
Yes, quoting the bible to those who do not believe it is authoritative is quite ignorant. How do you expect to present a good argument on the basis of something that is not considered authoritative by the audience? Disagree all you want, but it will still be an ignorant and completely illogical act. This is argumentum ad verecundiam (Google it) until you can prove that the scripture is authoritative. (Again, freshman philosophy or search engines will help you here.) If the beginning point for you is, as you seem to say, not the basis of authority, but rather a relationship based on faith without understanding the basis of authority, then your arguments will continue to be illogical and invalid, which means they will be dismissed. They may seem valid to you, and I think we are all okay with you believing as you wish; when it comes to this discussion, however, logic and validity are necessary, don’t you agree?
About my stifling and arrogant judgments: yes, you are correct. I do assume that if you truly study this stuff with an open mind and with an eye for logic, reason, and evidence, without the ol’ confirmation bias lenses on, you will come to the same conclusion OR will have to admit that your belief is without true intellectual merit and is simply a personal decision. That’s cool with me. Just get to that point and admit the lack of valid basis, at which point we can fully dismiss your arguments. Then we don’t have to waste so many keystrokes. There are plenty of wise men, including the great Jiroslav Pelikan, who believe(d) that the bible(s) are (were) the authoritative “word” of a supreme being — but “believe” is the key word here. If the belief is not based on rational arguments and thought processes, the believer’s assertions are dismissable in the eyes of those who do not share that belief. This audience is the very one you are told to reach . . . to save from the eternal torture of a physical hell (or the eternal separation from god, depending on your theology). At least Pelikan understands the possibility of invalidity. He still has the respect of many scholars who do not believe, because he ends up stating that, ultimately, his belief is — well, simply a belief. Might you wish to do the same?
You quote Malik as if he is an authority, yet he is diametrically opposed in some ways to your viewpoints. OK. Unfortunately, you are citing him (in true “appeal to authority” form) as if he is a religious expert. In this case, this is not a discussion of politics or international diplomacy. He’s not a reasonable source to quote.
I am not open-minded, am I? Thanks for opening this one up. I’ll let you know my story and my process. I turned down a fat paycheck as a pastor at a mega-church (one full of great people, I must add) in order to have the freedom to pursue my open-minded search for “truth for its own sake.” You would know this if you knew me well. I turned down a great job working for the good lord and went to work for $12 an hour, instead. I returned to school and finally allowed myself to dig in to sources of information that did not come from Lifeway. I read about logic, reason, philosophy, and critical thinking, so that I would be certain I was doing this the right way; I studied many respected Christian sources — N.T. Wright and his contemporaries, Josh McDowell (lame, I must say), multiple translations of all available scriptures, including the apocryphal writings, concordances, commentaries, you name it; and I studied (more like am studying) the “skeptical scholars,” as well (and, yes, I have issues with their reasoning at times as well). It doesn’t get much more open-minded than that. I invite you to prove me wrong, because then I can get back to my previous life’s work — ministry — and if that happens, my bank account will thank you, as will my mouth, heart, mind, and “soul.” Nice try.
Now — who are you? Stand behind your beliefs. Don’t be ashamed of the gospel . . . don’t be afraid to be counted . . .
Your Harvard comments amuse me. They were founded under certain assumptions, but at some point, this community realized that it needed to practice what it preached (scientific method, logic, reason, you name it). Does this not weaken your argument, rather than strengthen it?
Someone explain to anonymous why his “if I’m wrong, I’m fine, but what if you’re wrong” argument” doesn’t work. I’m getting too wordy. I’ll get to it tomorrow if nobody wants to jump on this one.
Relativism is not a bad word, though I do believe in absolute truth; I, as well as others on here, simply do not believe that we have the information (or capacity?) to know what this absolute truth is. That leaves us with only relativism to work with, I suppose. It goes back to the same old thing, yet again — prove this absolute truth, or at least convince us — and we can go from there with a discussion of the original topic, which is the homosexuality and religion thing, from a shared perspective, which would be world-changing for many of us.
“As it stands, your argument cannot stand on its own merit without relying on your personal frame of reference or your framing of absolute truth. In turn, there is no possible argument against what you say, in your mind, without an admission that the arguer questions absolute truth, which makes the arguer a ‘relativist,’ which means the arguer is condemned to hell, according to certain theological schools of thought; this is quite a convenient, circular argument, based on nothing substantial at all . . . ” — These two sentences are adapted from a great comment once made to me by a friend; this is not my original thought, in whole, but is worth sharing, because I find it interesting and applicable here.
Anonymous, maybe I’m stupid for taking the bait, but here goes.
First off, there is a very small possibility that you could tell me anything about the canonization process that I don’t already know. Let’s be clear, the argument is not about whether or not one believes in inspired ancient text. The true question, the dirty little secret if you will, is whether or not we adhere to the specific interpretation of the western Bible that the majority of evangelicals adhere to.
As for absolute truth. I’m very comfortable in my belief that there IS absolute truth. I’m just no longer convinced that I have it all wrapped up in a nice little package with a bow on it, that will fit into a 30 min. sermon. I’m completely uncomfortable with the idea that I should accept the churches version of absolute truth when my experience and GOD GIVEN INTELLEGENCE can’t confirm that truth.
Now for archeology. Yes bits of 4000 year old pottery and brick serve has wonderful support for tattered incomplete bits of 1800 year old papyrus. (did you catch the sarcasm?)In addition some of the most cutting edge archeology happening right now is in southern Turkey in a place called Gobleki Tepe. Suffice to say that it’s one of the oldest settlements ever found (10,000 – 12,000 bc) and because of its location and age people have started calling it “Eden”. What those people don’t tell you is that there is evidence of human sacrifice involving infants and that the entire sight seems to be dedicated to the worship of various animals. That’s the kind of BS I heard my entire life from people trying ‘prove’ their faith and it does nothing but make me want to believe less.
to borrow a old hymn…
If every stalk on earth were a quill, and the sky of parchment made, and every ocean filled with ink, and every man a scribe by trade, to write the number of reasons your arguments fail would drain the ocean dry.
also, I’m not defending a gay lifestyle. I don’t understand being gay, I’m not gay, and I don’t claim to be come champion for alternate lifestyles. In fact i consider any attempt by the gay community to find theological suport for their lifestyle in the Bible to be amoung the worst examples of scholorly work I’ve ever seen.
I do find commonality with the gay community becuase when you begin to question and in some cases reject the evangelical worldview, there is very much a “coming out” that takes place and I think issues surrounding that are, if not the same, very similar.
Hey everyone, The Rumpus comments rules are pretty straightforward: Don’t be mean. Especially, don’t be anonymous and mean. I don’t want to discourage this conversation, so by all means, continue, but can we hold off on the name calling and maybe allow for a little more two way dialogue instead of just screaming as loud as we can trying to prove other people wrong?
Just a small note as a back up to Seth’s post about being nice. I notice that Brad and Chris seem to include a reference to Anonymous screen name in their responses, Brad several times and Chris most recently. It seems like the only criteria for picking at that name is that they disagree with him/her. We also have people posting under insect names and under first names only, and last I checked, we have no being certain that Chris’s name is not in fact Samantha, or that my name is not in fact Barack. My point is that it is cheap and petty to attack screen names on a thread that has NO VERIFICATION OF IDENTITY WHATSOEVER!
Bobby, my name is Chris Simmons, you can reach me at cs_simmons@yahoo.com
I don’t care if someone is anonymous. That just happens to be the name of the post I am discussing. I personally enjoy the heated discussion and Anonymous has obviously done mroe research and study than the average person.
It is very difficult for gay people to read responses like these and not feel that it will be an up hill battle to being treated like every one else.
Thanks, Bobby. I didn’t mean to single out “anonymous.” I just meant anyone who isn’t traceable, like with just a first name, etc.
And Spider, yes. We have a long way to go. But just remember where we were 60 years ago. The key is to just keep being out there, to make sure that anytime anyone says anything hateful (which is usually done unintentionally), we say, “Hey, that’s me you’re talking about, and I’m not that bad a guy. I promise. Wanna talk about it?”
Speaking of which, Chris. “The gay lifestyle.” No. Just, no. I hear that and I see you guys picturing a party with naked people swinging from chandeliers performing sex acts so depraved you can’t even find them on the Internet. There is no “gay lifestyle.” Or maybe there’s as many gay lifestyles as there are gay people. But rather than just saying, “I don’t understand being gay,” and then saying you can’t defend it, why don’t you try to understand it? How about going and talking to a gay person? Or maybe more than one?
Thank you for the lovely interview; it is both enjoyable and provocative. I asked my gay brother in law, why do you even go to MCC? Aren’t Christians the ones who have told you you are going to hell for being gay, for your entire life? (His family are very observant church-goers.) But he likes church at MCC, who openly welcome the LGBT community. I don’t feel my comment is going to be well-received here, but I want to share how I truly feel, have felt, my entire life of 50 years. I blame religion for everything wrong in the world. Why do you hate a gay person? Bible. Why is it so easy to hate Muslims? For Muslims to hate Christians? Why shouldn’t you marry the love of your life? (He’s Jewish. You are Christian.) I am so sick that in the USA Christianity is forced upon me from birth up until now. I certainly realize that there is wide variety of individuals among any group, not ALL Christians are a pain in the ass, some of my best friends/relatives are Christian and seem nice. Of course in my previous comments/examples, some of my friends are Muslims, Jewish, they don’t hate each other, etc. etc. But in general, I have known many people who think humans cannot behave morally unless they adhere to a dogma. Hogwash. Anything written about the Tao is not the Tao. Let’s be kind to one another now.
Love,
Shawn
My comments were clearly not based solely on the fact that I disagree. The main point is that the bible is not a valid source upon which to base a worldview; when such a worldview is the basis of hate, intolerance, and important political decisions that affect many others (gays, in particular, in the context of this thread), it is fair to say that such a worldview is dangerous to society and is a worthy target of educated criticism and debate.
I didn’t know name calling was not allowed, so I guess I will have to refrain from using the word “capon,” correct?
Shawn I agree.
I’ll just be honest…I’ve been battling some really agressive feelings for a while now, particularly the desire to physically abuse and rob those who are smaller and weaker than me. The way I see it, the advantages are endless: more money with relatively little work, the release of aggression, and that pure satisfaction I get from asserting my will rather than being submissive to someone else’s “rules”. I’m relieved to tell you that there is nothing to hold me back now, since I have concluded that this is what’s right for me, and I’ve come to terms with the way I’m wired. And that traditional “suck it up” mentality is way over-rated in our modern and intellectual culture- no one should have to be something they’re not. Besides, who’s to say abuse and theft is actually wrong?
I love it when people who aren’t as smart as they think they are come up with really stupid comparisons which they believe to be original and post them online for the world to see.
I’m not claiming to be original, or even smart, just pointing out that you don’t want to live in a relative world…you do on your terms, but not on my terms.
Kyle, this is a very well-written article. I know it wasn’t the main point, but it breaks my heart to hear what you went through in highschool; I never knew about that.
Regarding the general contents of the article, it is what it is. I agree with Brad–I’m sad to see a good team part ways. Lori is an amazing woman and has handled this whole thing with immeasurable grace. I had a great amount of respect for her before any of this happened, and I respect her even more now.
I thought your point was well-made, Jason. It makes me sad when people think they’re too smart for God … I hope it is worth it for them when it’s all said and done.
That’s not it, Jenn and Jason. It is not that people think they are too smart for God, gods, whatever. It’s closer to all those arguments above with Anonymous (all the people arguing are more educated, and informed on the religious points than I am). It is this: human beings are all the same. When after we all die, we’re boiled down in a big pot, there’s one diamond chip in place of each of our bodies. Morality is not borne upon the wings of religion. Most people basically are nice. Most humans of no religion and of any religion ARE moral, at birth and at death. If you fall asleep in an alley in communist China with your wallet hanging out, likely an old man will wake you up and offer you a bowl of noodles, hand you your wallet, not accept your American hundred dollar bills unless you talk to him an hour and offer at least three times and finally insist and leave the bill in his mailbox after you leave. I do not want to take your belongings because I am stronger than you–I believe all other human beings deserve to own personal property and it is not my right to take it. What it is, is this: you must take comfort that most of the people in the world will burn in everlasting hellfire…except you and the people in your church who know what is right and that the rest of us are wrong. You have to embrace that. I am a loving father–like your god perhaps, and there is something my daughter Katie would do, say annihilate ever human being on Earth, for the most extremely negative example, now stay with me here, as a loving yet judgemental, petty, punishing god, I would sentence my daughter to burn in everlasting hell. I don’t think so, dudes. That god doesn’t show up in any of my direct, personal experiences of the world and the love I have known in the world. That god would be an asshole of the highest order, not even as good as me, and I’m not the best person in the world. So I’ll meet you there, in death, all of you, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Atheist, Gay people, Anonymous. Everybody goes to heaven in my world. You religious peoples’ world really blows!
I feel sad when I read loving Christians who claim to be lights in the darkness shining for Jesus come to a thoughtful forum such as this one to passive aggressively say “hope it’ll be worth it for you sinners” and (unspoken in that sentence) “when you burn in hell”. Rather than condemn others’ worldviews out of fear in order to feel more righteous, why not intelligently engage with this thoughtful and heartbreaking testimony? I thought Christianity was less about condemnation and more about compassion.
I left the church because the paradigm of fear and sexual shame were too much, and I’m not even gay. Heaven for everyone, I say! Especially us sinners.
1. This quote: “What I want everyone to know is that I am gay. PERIOD.” So, you are defined by your sexuality? I’m not. I don’t care if anyone knows I am heterosexual. I don’t feel the need to toot my sexual orientation horn. If I were gay I’d have the same attitude. I don’t think most people’s issues are with the fact you are gay. The issue is when you lie and deceive and lead astray others because you’re uncomfortable with yourself, for whatever reason. I find the “Look at me, I’m gay!” thing to smack of Pharisaism.
2. It seems the wife should be commended for her bravery in all this. She was targeted, deceived and abused for over a decade by this man. I am certain she still lives with the scars. She did NOTHING wrong except love a man who came to her under flase pretenses, married her under false pretenses and led her on under false pretenses. The “other side” rarely gets a forum because veryone is too busy focusing on the offender and all the “hell” he went through over the years. That’s great he had a sense of guilt, but the truth is, his greatest sins were the lying and the adulteries and deception. Some hero. I would be skeptical of this guy before parading him as a “hero”…
He needs to deal with MUCH MORE than the fact he’s gay. Sounds to me like he has much worse issues to deal with, such as habitual lying, emotional manipulation, and blame shifting. (I’m sure there’s a psycological term for all those, but they escape me at the moment.)
Rog,
It’s real easy for you to say that you aren’t defined by your sexuality because your sexuality is what society deems “normal.” There’s no downside for you to be open about your heterosexuality–you’ll never pay a price for it–so for you to assume that you’d act the same if you were gay is more than a little arrogant, and frankly, stupid.
Tannery: Your comments make it clear that you assume your rulebook is authoritative, as one would expect from a pastor. This is getting old, but as previously discussed with others, the underlying assumption of your argument is invalid. Everyone does not play by the same rulebook. We’re not even talking about a set of widely accepted societal norms here, such as those violated in your fictional situation. We’re talking about a subset of moral standards that are immoral to some and acceptable to others. Fundies and absolutists can argue all they want about the evils of relativism, but morals are relative. Period. If there is an absolute standard, this has not been made clear to mankind. Even within Christianity, moral relativism thrives; the very rulebook you follow requires a hefty amount of interpretation before a moral code can be extracted. Some Christians don’t give authority to the entire Bible. Some only follow the words of Christ. Some follow other Bibles.
As for me and my house, we will follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Although we may disagree, Tannery, I still hope He touches you with His noodly appendage, and that many strippers and a huge beer volcano await you in the afterlife. We are all the same; we are all descendants of pirates.
RAmen.
Since it is Talk Like a Pirate Day — and since we are all descendants of pirates — I invite my colleagues on this thread to learn more about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Those looking for an absolute standard may find this church’s scripture book to be a solid alternative to the Christian bible(s). They have a fairly similar likelihood of infallible and supernatural authorship. Maybe someone on this thread will begin to reference the moral codes presented in this church’s founding documents as authoritative, since our evangelical friends seem to think such a practice is acceptable, and that we are capable of knowing what absolute truth looks like. Any takers? The link is below . . . they even offer FSM emblems as an alternative to the smelly ICTHUS fish we often see on the back of the vehicles in which CCM stations blast:
http://www.venganza.org/
Very sad that we are still debating “absolute truth” in the twenty-first century. Christians can’t even agree on what it is. Why is everyone else held to it?
By the way, Rog, it’s very cruel what you insinuated about the reverend. Coming out back in his day meant basically losing everything. All though maybe it still does for people from your faith. I guess that is what the article was about.
Brad – and that post on Sept 20th is the exact reason why I have loved you for so many years!
I’m late to the party (took me a few months just to read through the comments) but I’m here.
Regardless of where you land on absolute truth, or religion, or pirates, this is a great piece. I’m honored to call Greg a friend and appreciate an honest look into his (at times) painful journey.
I still ascribe to the faith that at times has taken a beating in this discussion. To be honest with you, I can’t make sense of a lot of pieces of my faith. There are contradictions in the Bible that I (still) believe is true. I certainly don’t subscribe to all the black and white standards that are found in both the Old and New Testament. The problem is, I’m holding two undeniable truths in my hands. Two truths that don’t seem to easy fit together at times… And I’m ok with that. I know there are many who are not.
Just like logic and faith – I know Greg and trust him. I believe that he has gone to great lengths to work out this faith.
I must admit – I’m also interested in learning more of this Flying Spaghetti Monster…
I know I’m late to the game here, but I just stayed up all night reading the comments after this interview, and I have something to say so I will.
First, I suppose that I am not *really* a Christian, and that calling myself one would offend many people…because I don’t think I have to follow what all the guys in the Bible said in order to have everlasting peace and communion with God when I eventually die. And I don’t think that by purposefully pursuing respectful relationships with women, facing something that took me a long time to come to terms with (I am a 27 year old woman), I will go to a fiery painful place, or even a lonely one, when I die.
Regarding some of the later comments: acknowledging that you are gay is not the same as acknowledging that you are straight. And, respectfully, it’s not the same as questioning your faith either. I didn’t grow up in the evangelical community (though friends of mine did), I grew up Catholic in a small town in North Dakota. But, it seems to me that only a small group of Christians reject you when you question your religion. A much larger group of people, Christian and otherwise, reject you when you embrace who you are, as a gay person. Greg McCaw did both of those things, and I think he is exceedingly brave.
My point…my point…oh yes. I don’t give you all permission to decide what Christian is, because I don’t think God has given you permission either. I think the stuff Jesus talked about was pretty darn smart, and if people would just try to do what he said (love people, accept people, help people, tell the truth, accept your faults, accept others faults, forgive them, forgive yourself – yes I’ve read the Bible, and yes, I do think that’s what he was saying), the world would be a better place. He had a very simple message. You all are confusing the heck out of it.
Also…
Given that the most direct path to learning about what he said seems to be to participate in the religion that carries his name…I really wish that someone else was making the rules about who can and can’t be Christian.
I’m starting to think that Christianity is mostly interested in salvation for those who “do it right” (maybe a poor choice of words, not trying to make a pun)…rather than interested in the uplift of everyone to live in a better world – now and forever. And that seems selfish to me. And I don’t think that’s what Jesus meant.
Melissa
I just read that again…I didn’t mean to imply that God requires us to be Christian when I said we aren’t qualified to decide who is or who isn’t Christian. Just that I think learning about Jesus and his teachings is a great way to get right with God, and also to get right with humanity; so less barriers to that would be good. And that us humans splitting hairs are missing the point.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.