!["Love is an Orientation" by Andrew Marin](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_lightbox/hash/11/1e/111e105fe1295d1dee78d39edddac015.png ""Love is an Orientation" by Andrew Marin")
Evangelical Christians are known for being, more than anything else, opposed to homosexuality. At least, this is what recent studies by Barna research reveals.
Whether or not evangelicals deserve such a reputation is beside the point. The question facing those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus and the teachings of His Apostles is "how do we respond to such charges?"
Author, minister and Foundation President Andrew Marin's proposal is one that many may dismiss at first: ARGUE LESS and LISTEN MORE!
Marin is the author of "Love is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community" (InterVarsity Press, 2009). In the book, Marin--who lives among and ministers to the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender) community in the Boystown area of Chicago--takes his fellow Christians to task in how they have often approached the entire subject. Marin is Biblically orthodox in his view of same-sex sexual relationships as among those Scripture declares to be sinful...which is why his message is one that evangelicals and conservative Christians ignore at their own peril.
The following excerpt from chapter 1 of the book gives a feel for where Marin is coming from:
“Even if Christians don’t agree with the GLBT community of what they might stand for, believers in Christ are supposed to know how to find real empathy for those who are going through things we can never understand. When we get our first glimpse of that genuine empathy, let it soak in until it becomes a real expression of our appreciation of what GLBT people face twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
The GLBT community shouldn’t have to demand that from Christians. We should demand it of ourselves as faithful stewards of the responsibility that they have given us by letting a straight, conservative Christian into their world. Let us then learn and listen and validate the reality of their stories as to what did actually happen in their life. Validation is different from affirmation, and it is an essential starting point to take gay people at their word. The more skeptical we are, the more we doubt the validity of a gay’s or lesbian’s life, the more shallow and ineffective our relationships become.” (p.35)
Evangelicals must realize just how poorly we as a whole have dealt with the issue of homosexuality. Co-opting, instead of combating, gay stereotypes. Arguing and demonizing instead of listening and validating. Marching and protesting, instead of relating and sharing. Of course many within the GLBT community are equally as guilty of these actions, but "judgment begins with the house of the Lord."
Marin's call to his fellow Christians is courageous, poignant, and much-needed. He will likely be condemned by many who claim "uphold truth" and "exercise discernment" in order to proclaim the Gospel in an "uncompromising" manner...
...But he'll be in good company, as both Jesus and the Apostle Paul were deemed guilty of the same thing in their ministry.
For more information on elevating the conversation, visit The Marin Foundation at www.themarinfoundation.org
Comments
James, I am the Religion and Society Examiner. My comment here is strictly an appeal to the intellectual aspect of this debate, not a critical comment. I think you might find a piece (not published here) I wrote recently arguing against the "equality argument" the GLBT community uses in this Political discussion. I completely destroy that argument, thoroughly, and it's pretty simple, yet original stuff.
email me for an attachment, it's about 15 pages. I think you'll find my arguments interesting, if nothing else.
BTW, I opposed the anti-Gay Marriage constitutional amendments,though religiously I oppose gay marraige, I was in the original group of 20-30 men the FRC and other PACS consulted prior to launching that campaign in 2006.
I take the position that civil freedom conflicts at times with our conservative religious ideals, and this is one of those issues.
Anyone interested may also write to me for that paper.
sonnyc@inbox.com
“Even if Christians don’t agree with the GLBT community of what they might stand for..."
And just what might the GLBT community stand for in Marin's opinion? I'm also curious how he feels about the other taboos from the Bible? You know, things like not letting your cattle graze with any other kinds of cattle or not wearing clothes made with more than one fabric?
Oh by the way JM, I mentioned our debate in my latest article.
:^)
A lesbian friend asked me this question: "What do you think of my life style?" I told her that God does not oppose intense love and affection between two women, but does oppose the acts that "cross the line." I asked her if she knew the line I meant. She did. She said being a lesbian was her only sin. I assured her it was not. We were very close, but I made it clear that she must stop crossing the line. She agreed. Her partner did not.
Hugh, you should go to www.themarinfoundation.org and read the summary of what they believe if you haven't yet done so. Marin is held in fairly high regard by many GLBT organizations and leaders in the community precisely because he does not try to stereotype, pigeonhole or overgeneralize them as many have done in the past.
I read the debate shout-out as well. Nicely done. (Though of course I still think Dawkins is attempting to plant his feet in thin air when it comes to morality!) ;)
Hi James-Michael. Let me begin by saying that the position you espouse is undoubtedly preferrable to the virulently hateful rhetoric which all-too-often frames the evangelical opinions of LGBT people. That being said, I think that there is something inherently condescending and deeply corrosive to the humanity of gay and lesbian people who are subjected to "converstaions" with even well-meaning christians who "don’t agree with the GLBT community." No matter how empathetic you might be, the theology of your religion includes a pervasive denegration of love that gay and lesbian couples share. I grant that I would always prefer to have a disagreement with someone who is willing to be nice about it than someone who is not, but I simply cannot abide the illusion of friendship with someone whose theology commands my death. Even if that commandment is not actively pursued, its unrepudiated presence in the holy texts of christianity is, for me at least, and insurmountable obstacle.
Blackout,
You really need to read Marin for yourself and interact with his approach. Otherwise you risk becoming as closed-off to opposing views as to whom you are referring.
Hi James-Michael. I took your advice and visited Andrew Marin's website (www.loveisanorientation.com/). Andrew seems like a really nice guy, and if more christians were like him, then it is almost unquestionable that the relationship between the evagelical and LGBT communities would be much less destructive. However, if one REALLY starts to dig deep into Andrew's theological position (something that he is actually someone evasive about), he seems to accept without question the idea that homosexuality is sinful. He does seem sincere in his refusal to judge gay people personally, and reminds other christians that they are ALSO sinful, but nothing that I saw in his writings rejected the fundamental dehumanization of the core theological assertion that being gay is intrinsically wrong. So, no matter how "nice" Andrew might be, his position still condescends by categorizing the gay experience as something that can be excused, but not truly affirmed.
Isn't there a big difference between gay/lesbian and bi-sexual/transexual? It seems to me bi-sexual is just an excuse to experiment and transexual is (well I guess I can't even wrap my mind around it). Thoughts...
Me, I would suggest you spend time talking with and listening to those whom you can't wrap your mind around. It may help you in formulating your thoughts better.
Blackout,
It seems that you are unwilling to accept anyone who does not openly agree with the idea that certain sexual behavior is morally acceptable. You seem to require that those who side with their religious beliefs give those beliefs up in the area of sexuality in order to not be considered "condescending". How is this itself not condescending and dehumanizing?
Thank you, James-Michael, for providing us with a perfect demonstration of exactly what I was talking about when I stated that there is something inherently condescending and deeply corrosive to the humanity of gay and lesbian people who are subjected to these "converstaions." The reason that I view your point-of-view to be condescending is really very simple. In one of your previous comments, you said that, "Marin is held in fairly high regard by many GLBT organizations and leaders in the community precisely because he does not try to stereotype, pigeonhole or overgeneralize them." But when you categorically judge the entire LGBT community as "sinful," that is EXACTLY what you (and he) are doing. The reason that your position is dehumanizing is that it requires me to accept as non-negotiable the assertion that there is something inherently disordered about my life, and more specifically about the emotional and physical love that I feel for my husband.
(continued)
Nothing about my position judges you in a similar way. I do not tell you that your life is inherently evil. I do not require that you to debase yourself in order to have a conversation with me. I'm not even telling your that you can't believe that being gay is "sinful." But I AM telling you that if you TRULY want to converse with a gay person as a EQUAL, then you can't really expect to approach them with the attitude that your relationships are inherently good, but their relationships are inherently wrong. You also have to drop the attitude that you are doing gay people a "favor" by putting aside (most of) your prejudices by deigning to talk to us. That's what I was talking about, before. For any gay person to accept these terms would require them to deny one of the most fundamental elelments of their humanity, and that is a deeply self-destructive thing.
"Though of course I still think Dawkins is attempting to plant his feet in thin air when it comes to morality"
Which of course was the same point he was making about theists who buy some of the moral strictures presented in the Bible but not others. Obviously even for them, the "absolute" nature of biblical morality isn't the only consideration. Does that mean those other considerations come from "up in the air"? No. Societies evolve and learn and their morality evolves along with them. That doesn't mean that all the basics change much. The Golden Rule will always be around but not because it's a moral absolute. It's just a sensible rule for people who want to live together in groups without inordinate stress. The sensible stuff tends to persist. The rest, the arbitrary or the conditionally sensible, fade away or change as conditions do. Are Christian morals the same as they were 500 years ago? Hardly, and the Bible's not what's responsible.
Blackout, it seems you've defined the entirety of the conversation beforehand and brought all of it to bear on this conversation. I'm sure your experiences with Christians has been painful and I have no desire to defend them. Nor do I have a desire at this time to get defensive and try to defend my acceptance of Gospel ethics, as that will only serve to alienate you further, I'm afraid. I guess feel like it's a lose-lose situation to discuss the issue at all with you. Show me if I'm wrong on this though.
I'm sorry, James-Michael, but I was just taking you at your word that you really wanted to "elevating the conversation between Christians and the GLBT community." That elevation simply cannot occur so long as you insist on approaching the LGBT community with the insistence that we accept your assertion that our lives and relationships are evil. If you think that the idea of having a converstation as EQUALS is something that you cannot accept, then I agree that further discussion of the subject is unlikely to be productive. But don't kid yourself into thinking that you are really trying to understand or empathize with LGBT people. Your presentation may be nicer, but ultimately you are offering the same theological assault on the basic humanity of LGBT people as the most virulently hateful bigot who uses the bible to justify his prejudice. To use a perhaps too colorful metaphor, you can dip a turd in chocolate, but when you take a bite it still tastes like s***.
"your assertion that our lives and relationships are evil"
Blackout, honestly, where are you getting this from? You haven't even inquired as to what I believe. I don't see you even trying to find out the actual position I hold. You're picking a fight that I'm not interested in having.
Hi James-Michael. Let's review...
I said, "nothing that I saw in [Andrew Marin's] writings rejected the fundamental dehumanization of the core theological assertion that being gay is intrinsically wrong." In response to this, you said, "It seems that you are unwilling to accept anyone who does not openly agree with the idea that certain sexual behavior is morally acceptable." You also said that you did not, "have a desire at this time to get defensive and try to defend my acceptance of Gospel ethics, as that will only serve to alienate you further." Based on these comments, I suspect that you are being a little disingenuous when you say that I "haven't even inquired as to what I believe." You haven't said so directly, but the implications of your statement seem pretty clear.
(continued)
But just so there is no furhter confusion, let me ask you directly.
Do you or do you not beleive that homosexual relationships, including both the emotional and physical expression of thsoe releations, is inherently "sinful," intrinsically wrong, or morally evil?
JM, I got a copy of "Love is an Orientation" earlier this year after hearing about it during our church's "UnChristian" message series last summer. I was SO excited to delve into the book and Andrew Marin didn't disappoint. Marin has written an engaging, honest, yet sobering look into the reality of Christians' (mostly) volatile relationship with the gay community. I found myself crying, shocked, and even angered by what Marin shared about the stories from various gay people about their (mostly negative) encounters with Christians. You're really drawn into getting beyond politics and drama that gays are like other everyday people we (as Christians) need to reach for Christ. However, we must take the initiative to mend the gross wrongs we have done to these precious people (as Marin especially pointed out in the book). "Love is an Orientation" is a book that needs to land in the hands of every Christian in this country if we're gonna turn this thing around! This is a must-read!
I have interviewed Andrew Marin about his book, which can be found on gayagenda dot com and I've also interviewed Shirley-Phelps Roper which can be found there as well.
I feel it's important to understand the power religion, or more importantly, the fear of God that some people have. I truly believe that many Christians who stand against homosexuality do so, because of a deep seeded fear that if they accept that difference, they won't make it to heaven.
I believe that if you listen to both interviews, it would give you some great insight.
Speaking as someone who spent fifteen years in reparative therapy, I can honestly say that I have seen first-hand how the church feels about this particular group of people. The only reason the church has to feel that way they is a book that is not scientific: doesn’t understand biology, sociology, or psychology. The Bible condemns a lot of things that we no longer even recognize. The whole Levitical law has been pretty much passed on as being irrelevant to us now. We don’t even keep the Sabbath anymore which is one of the Ten Commandments.
Homosexuality is biological, and it’s not going to go away. We know from evolution that when a characteristic or trait no longer serves a species, that trait disappears. However, as far back in history as we have records, we also have records of homosexuality, and it always seems to stay consistent between ten to twelve percent of the population.
(Continued)
Nature seems to think it helps the species. Thanks to scientists like Georgetown University biologist Janet Mann, we’re discovering that homosexuality is pervasive in many animal species as well.
In your article you ended saying that Jesus and Paul were sympathetic to those they disagreed with. This is true of Jesus, but it is not the case for Paul. Most theologians agree that Paul had some serious issues around sexuality. In Corinthians, when he listed his ban against homosexuality, he also listed a ban against marriage, but said that it would be better to marry than to burn in lust.
I hope you do listen though. I hope you really listen… with your heart. Maybe then you will step back from this “sin” thing and start to realize that it’s no more sinful to be gay, than it is to be Asian, black, Italian… ultimately, God isn’t the one who has the problem with it… we do.
Hi James-Michael. Just in case you missed them, we are currently waiting for your response to the following questions:
Do you or do you not beleive that homosexual relationships, including both the emotional and physical expression of thsoe releations, is inherently "sinful," intrinsically wrong, or morally evil?
Blackout, when you read Marin's book you'll realize why I'm not going to engage you in this manner. I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere for a fight and the condemnation you seem so intent on getting me to heap on you. Sorry my friend, I'm not gonna play.
Hi James-Michael. I think that your refusal to answer this very simple question is very telling. You claim that you want to "elevate the conversation between Christians and the GLBT community," but you refuse to address the single most central point which makes that elevation impossible. If you aren't willing to openly and honestly discuss your negative judgments of gay people--which I think I can safely assume since there would be no need for your to be so evasive if in fact your opinion of gay people was positive--then your "conversation" is unlikely to be anything more than a sugary lure to get gay people through the church door and into a position where you can proselytize from a position of false moral superiority.
Well Blackout, at least you refuse to stereotype people you don't know and aren't judgmental towards them...kudos for embodying tolerance, grace and consideration toward those you oppose!
;)
I am sorry, James-Michael, but I am judging you based on your articles and comments. And, I think it is very disingenuous for an Examiner to suggest that his readers know nothing about his views or attitudes. At the beginning of this conversation, I indicated that I was skeptical of the goals expressed in this article. You advised me to read more about Adrew Marin, which I did. I then relayed to you what I found (and what I did NOT find) while researching his body of work, and specifically noted that he seemed to adhere to the concept that being gay was intrinsically wrong, though he attempted to refrain from expressing that judgment overtly. I stated that I felt that this position did not actually "elevate" the discussion between christians and gay people at all, but simply placed a superficial veneer over the same old bigotries.
(continued)
You have implied REPEATEDLY that you share this point-of-view. You then critized my position, saying that, "You haven't even inquired as to what I believe. I don't see you even trying to find out the actual position I hold." I thought that was a fair criticism, so I asked you directly to provide us with the very information which you criticized me for failing to ask. But when I did this, your refused. If you are uwilling to share your position, then it seems HYPOCRITICAL in the EXTREME for you to criticize me for failing to ask for it. Thus, I can only conclude that my original assumptions about you are correct, and that your behavior is directly contrary to the kind of "elevated" discussion which you CLAIM that you want to have. It will never be possible for the LGBT and christian communties to have a REAL discussion, so long as you refuse to address the core theological judgment which informs the pervasive bigotry against gay people that your religion promotes.
Blackout,
What you're asking for isn't improper or unreasonable...it's your entire demeanor throughout this exchange that has made me want to avoid discussing it with you. You seem to have approached things looking for a fight. Using words like "bigotry" and "assault" and "dehumanization" to describe what you believe my position to be does not show a desire for genuine conversation. Rather, it shows a desire to debate, combat or denounce. I have no interest in doing this with you as you continue to use such language and posturing. In short, everything you've written in the comments on here seems hostile and condescending. Why would I want to respond? The entire point of Marin's book (and my posting a review of it) is that such approaches often do more harm than good and generate far more heat than light.
Hi James-Michael. I think that it is interesting that you are refusing to answer questions which you admit are not "improper or unreasonable." And, I think you are interpreting my comments as "looking for a fight" not because of my "demeanor," but rather because it makes you uncomfortable to be confronted with the uglier parts of your theology. I can understand why having words like "bigotry," "assault" and "dehumanization" associated with your beliefs would make you feel that way, but the simple fact is that those words are both accurate and appropriate appellations. I mean, c'mon...the bible instructs its readers to KILL gay people, and I don't think you can reasonably expect to have an "elevated" conversation with the LGBT community if you aren't willing to put all of your cards on the table and honestly address the.
(continued)
I admit that I am a bit hostile towards the christian religion and its followers, but frankly, I think I have a right to be. Try putting the shoe on the other foot. If I belonged to a group based on a book that said that Methodists should be killed, how would you react if I came and wanted to talk to you about joining up? Even if I said, "oh, well we don't REALLY want to kill Methodists any more, so just ignore that part of our book and let's be friends," would that immediately dispel your suspicions about my motives? Somehow, I doubt that it would. Your article and subsequent comments have thus far only told me ONE thing, which is that neither you nor Andrew Marin really understand WHY so many gay people react to you with hostility.
Blackout, you've already formed your opinions of what I believe and come out rhetorical guns a blazin' in this entire exchange. YOU came in swinging, not me. YOU came in looking for an argument, not me. YOU stated what you think Christianity teaches, not me. When you're open to suspending your suspicions and having dialogue in a productive manner I'll be happy to engage (and actually, I think Marin's okay with being yelled at and called names, so you may want to contact him directly and fire away). Until then there's really nothing I can say it that will magically erase your past experiences with Christians and allow you see me not as a stereotype, but as a human being, as I see you (even if you don't believe me when I say that).
Hi James-Michael. If I may be so bold and to characterize your position in one word...BULLSHIT. You are correct that I DID make some assumptions about your beliefs. And while I think those assumptions are valid (after all, I HAVE read the bible and you DID say some things which supported that assumption) I did admit that perhaps my assumptions were incorrect and gave you the opportunity to tell me what you do actually think on the subject. Before that point, you seemed perfectly willing to engage me. Choosing THAT particular point of the conversation to suddenly clam up tells me that my earlier assumptions are correct. I also think that is LAUGHABLE that you accuse ME of "coming in swinging." After all, YOU are the one will the book that tells you to kill ME. I have nothing similar in my world-view that tells me to do the same to YOU.
If you aren't willing to tells us what you personally believe (even after criticizing me for not asking you exactly that), then you really leave me no choice but to assume that those beliefs are in alignment with the specific christian denomination which you have declared your associated, i.e. Methodism. The United Methodist Church stated position is that "The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." (From the UMC Book of Discipline). If your beliefs are different, then PLEASE tell us so. But if not, then at least demonstrate a little integrity by not being so evasive about it.
Blackout is right, JM. You were being evasive. Christians MUST stop JUDGING others, and start worrying about themselves. This teaching (against homosexuality) MUST be thrown out the same way other old ideas such as slavery, divorce, and others "custom-oriented" beliefs should go!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!