When Christians Adopt Sinful Identities
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2024
- The idea of sexual orientation as a primary marker of who we are has swept through the churches. How are we to evaluate this phenomenon?
Full interview: • Sin, the Self, and the...
Sorry, this is a little long in response…
I agree to some extent , but I do think that this misrepresents what faithful Christians who are same sex attracted, or who battle with same sex attraction, might say.
Many faithful Christians are not using the term "gay Christian" because that is an identity based on their sexuality. Therefore, SSA makes far more sense in the way that (as long as they don't lead with their sexual identity) it helpfully describes their own struggle.
Perhaps the issue is that the speaker here believes that people can change their sexual orientation and therefore must mortify the flesh in the power of the Spirit to change. We can encourage that, yet pastorally if people have sincerely tried that and still land in the same position where do we go from there?
If someone has sought to mortify their flesh and no longer have homosexual thoughts or desires but still have them then what hope can we realistically give them as pastors? Moreover, doesn't it lead to total despair and continual condemnation if they cannot get rid of their thoughts.
I agree that a gay Christian is not a helpful identity to embrace, but this side of heaven, I think we need to lovingly engage with people where they are at and call them to live celebrate and holy lives. Perhaps the biggest challenge for many is not in SSA but in living celebrate lives as heterosexually attracted people and not yet married. If we are calling those who battle with SSA to holiness then surely the call needs to be clear to all that ANY form of sexual immorality must be put to death by the Spirit, as we live holy lives for Christ.
In terms of illustrations, I think the illustration of coveting a neighbour’s wife isn't an exact equivalent to SSA. Perhaps an "angry Christian" would be similar. To say it's just “who I am” is not helpful or accurate but to say that I am in Christ and a new creation but occasionally battle with my temper is surely a more accurate illustration. It’s the reality of the Christian life. To be an "angry Christian" as an identity is an anathema, but to be a Christian who may at times lose their temper is to be human.
It means to be holy pure and righteous and yet still sinful and awaiting perfect sanctification in heaven. Surely that is the more accurate description of what faithful Christians are trying to do today as they battle with their emotions and yet STILL despite their unwanted desires, long to live for their Lord Jesus in every way because he is worth it.
Jesus is worth it.
Hi Colin, thanks for your comments. They are several and varied and perhaps this is not the best setting to trace each one. There's a danger of assuming too much about how Matthew or others would respond to different pastoral situations. The basic point made in the video is that the concept of 'sexual orientation' is a highly problematic one for Christians seeking to order their Christian lives and pursue holiness according to the Scriptures.
@@banneroftruth thanks for your response.
I appreciate that however I think pastorally we need to be careful not to condemn our brothers and sisters who are striving to live for Christ with the often unwanted desires they may have.
I think separating those who identify themselves primarily with their sexuality ie a “gay Christian” versus those who know who they are in Christ yet battle with unwanted SSA desires is an important distinction to make. It avoids confusion and pastorally I believe it’s important to distinguish the two. One is identifiying themselves with their sexuality the other is identifying themselves with Christ.
To describe a person as 'gay' or 'same-sex attracted' is not to create an identity, but merely to accurately describe one feature of that person. To 'identify as' gay is not necessarily synonymous with finding one's 'identity in' being gay. The very celibacy of a celibate gay Christian ought to tell you that they see their primary identity as being 'in Christ', and not in their sexual orientation.
The speaker seems to deny the category of homosexual orientation altogether, but this is to deny the lived experience of people whose exclusive attractions since puberty have been to members of their own sex. Many categories of human experience that we recognise today (e.g. neurodiversity) are not found in the Bible, but this is because the Bible does not give an exhaustive account of the human condition or of life in a fallen world.
The speaker would do well to read some of the accounts written by same-sex attracted Christians.
There are perhaps two issues here: the use of the language of 'gay' or 'same-sex attracted' to refer to Christians, for one, and then the effect of the use of such language on our theology/self-understanding, for another. On the first issue, you suggest using such language does not 'create an identity'. But that seems overly hopeful. The use of such language (and all LGBTQIA+ designations) is invoked in the culture precisely to create identities, and the language does the same thing in the church (cf. the way in which the Revoice conference, for example, caters for 'sexual minorities in the church'). On the second issue, the effect of such language is helpfully described by Matthew above: among other things it sets people up for a lifetime of frustration and hopeless contradiction between who they believe themselves to be and who they are commanded and empowered by the Holy Spirit to be. This is very different from a conception in which the new birth opens the door to hope-filled donning of the new self and the putting off of the 'old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires' (Eph. 4:22). While you rightly observe that the Bible doesn't provide us with an exhaustive account of the human condition, there are conceptions of our humanity that materially undermine how the Bible speaks of our condition, our sin, and our sanctification. The contention here is that 'sexual orientation' is just such an conception which harms people and obscures gospel hope.
WE ADOPT A SINFUL INDENTITY WHEN WE INSIST ON DISOBEYING THE WORD OF GOD.
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7-8 ESV)
The idea that we can't acknowledge something that is true about us while also believing that God's standard is right seems strange to me.
If I were an alcoholic I could say 'I am an alcoholic, but I am called to live a self controlled life."
Or would Paul saying "I am the chief of sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15) set him up for an 'impossible' life given Jesus' command to be perfect in Matthew 5:48?
This seems to me an over-realised eschatology at best and a renewal of the Pelagian heresy at worst, expecting our sinful nature to be completely conformed to the image of Christ here and now. I doubt the gentlemen in this video would claim that for other areas of their life, why are they singling our sexuality here?
Thanks for the comment, Simon. Your response turns on whether identifying as gay or same-sex attracted constitutes merely acknowledging certain sinful desires to be particularly present in us, or rather more than that. The current cultural context loads the idea of 'sexual orientation' with far more than that. At the very least, it encourages us to think of ourselves as identifiable primarily by our sexuality, more particularly by our sexual desires (presumed, normally, to be immutable), and, in the case of same-sex attraction, primarily by desires which are sinful. Such an identity, if reinforced, presents real stumbling blocks to mortification of sin and vivification in spiritual life. The burden of this video is to highlight the pastoral and theological consequences of a Christ-follower adopting such a view of him/herself.
The background music detracts and distracts from the message. It doesn't make the message any more acceptable, rather the opposite.
Hilarious- what a great laugh- please more of this outrageous nonsense