Reading an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof titled, “Learning from the sin of Sodom,” I was reminded of the biblical passage, written by the prophet Ezekiel where the nation of Israel was judged by God. Here is the paragraph from Kristof:
In one striking passage, Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn’t so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49.)
The Stearns he references is the CEO of World Vision, Richard Stearns, who last year published a book, The Hole in Our Gospel. The book calls Christians away from the culture war into a war on apathy and poverty. The passage in Ezekiel is well worth the read for evangelicals just sure that defeating homosexuality is the highest bullet point on God’s agenda.
Chapter 16 begins with a recitation of the sins of Israel with particular scorn for their idolatry and sacrifice of children. Then God through Ezekiel has an interesting commentary on the relationship between Israel and Sodom (Ezek. 16:46-48)
Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom. You not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
On the scale of sin, Israel tops Sodom. But what sins are we talking about? The next verse may surprise those who are calling for a ban on sodomy.
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.
The real sodomite is the arrogant person, the overfed and apathetic person who ignores the poor and others in need. The sexual sins of Sodom are second rate compared to the sins of pride and greed. Ban Sodomy, anyone?
Sodomy, vie
wed from God’s perspective, is practically the American way. I guess we have been exporting sodomy to Uganda.
The sins of Sodom mark the American church in ways that are very uncomfortable to confront. Defined biblically, I hope we can unite against sodomy. Defined biblically, we have all been sodomites, have we not?
Ezekiel goes on to put things in perspective and offers hope (Ezek. 16:52-53).
Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.” ‘However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them.
We are all in this need-of-redemption thing together. Rather than pick out sins and sinners to protest, it appears we would do better to walk humbly, and take heed, lest we fall.
Correction to my last post…Michael hadn’t yet posted his second response of the morning connected to the mega-detour that he is ‘done with’.
Not a ploy. Not a lie. I just can’t seem to help myself. Gimme a break Eddy.
How many times have you done the VERY SAME THING? Have I EVER accused you of using a “ploy” or not telling the truth when you decided to re-enage with me? NOPE. I assumed you wanted to quit bickering with me and couldn’t resist the temptation.
You have also announced at times that you are DONE and have changed your mind. I would appreciate it if you would STOP accusing me of ploying or lying when I change mine.
Regarding “love and redemption” Exodus preaches it, but their refusal to officially denounce criminalization and forced “treatment” gives me some serious doubt about just how “loving” they really are.
I don’t agree that all homosexual behavior is sin, so I DO see the message that it will get you Hell if you don’t renounce it as “ANTI-gay” in that respect. The “PRO-gay” position is that it is not always sinful — just as straight sex is not always sinful. If Exodus taught that all straight sex was “sin” and would get you hell, I would call that an “ANTI-straight” belief.
This IS our basic disagreement — the sinfulness of gay sex. It always has been and I suspect that it always will be — just as I told the reporter when Mary accused me of twisting Exodus’s position. She implied that I was being less than truthful. You just did to. Don’t appreciate it.
@ Michael,
In a public forum, with a public identity with political implications…these are all descriptors that your public identity was “made to wear.” It is one of the more corrosive arts of political debate.
It is not true of the clinical office…which presumes a collaborative, affiliative and respectful focus. Applying the values of the clinical office to the political world handcuffs well-meaning people with good intentions.
Secondly, and this is big politically: if I can get you to wrestle with the clothes I make you wear, I can change your message and weaken your effect.
To repeat:
1. There are fundamentalist Christians who are made to wear hateful attitudes by others in order to politically marginalize their views.
2. There are hateful people who dress up as Christians in order to use Christianity to marginalize others politically.
add
3. There are immature Christians, improperly taught, who believe becoming like Pharisees is what Christ wanted…who are preoccupied with the sins of others.
4. Jesus warned us about all of these people in the Kingdom of Heaven…like you He is angry about those who masquarade….
I suggest we create a program in the church similar to Exodus: Converting Tares into Wheat.
It is the Tares who are going to Burn….(if we are going to talk about hell).
I get it. You are using it as a figure of speech. I still don’t like it. We will have to leave it at that.
Believe me, having been the target of it myself — from both sides — I fully get that people use this tactic — mis-representing their opponents — as a political ploy to marginalize others and weaken the effect of their real message. And I object to it as strongly as you do. I just don’t want to give them any power by saying that they “made me wear” anything. Makes me sound wimpy.
MIchael – He said and I will back this up that being gay is not the sin that acting out on it is the sin and not following God’s intention is sinful. You use inflamatory language and then expect the rest of us to mind our p’s and q’s.
I am a hypocrite and admit that. There are things in the bible that I follow more closely than other things.
But you Michael are just playing games with yourself and your words.
@ MIchael,
No way you are a wimp.
Still would like a recovery group for TARES.
FIGHT TARERISM!
Where is Sempa in this discription?
Where is Exodus in this discription?
Where is BTB in this discription?
Where is TWO in this discription?
Where is NARTH in this discription?
Where are we?
Yes, Michael, I did say that you left out a part of the whole truth but I did not imply that you were lying…in fact I defended your assessment…Exodus does speak of sin and hell. I explained the part of the whole truth that you don’t often speak of…speaking the judgement part of the message without the Gospel…because of it’s implications to the problem that you seem to lay squarely at our feet…the misperceptions that gays have of Christians. If you only speak of the judgement, then of course it comes across as hate. And, we’re all victims of sound bites. I have heard you, at times, speak of the more complete message that Exodus and others speak and I commend you for that. But I fall back to the ‘never’ speak of the judgement without coupling it with the promise of redemption. I don’t think well of that no matter who’s doing the talking.
And yes, I have left a few conversations and come back. Sometimes, I left only to be drug back in. Someone would post seriously twisting or misinterpreting words I’d spoken and I felt the need to straighten that out. Several times, my promise was that I wouldn’t continue to speak in the current vein and I tried to honor that…I came back to the conversation addressing some other point. This time, you didn’t say you were leaving the conversation…you said you were done with this detour. And then, before anyone else even said anything, you were right back in speaking to the detour. So, in that sense, you weren’t dragged back in…you simply weren’t done like you said you were.
And even this morning, the first part of my early post was directed to Mary…so I didn’t drag you back in there.
And the second part was a response to your words but you’ll notice that I agreed with you given your take on the word ‘made’. I did, however, once again reiterate my support and belief in what David said as well. I didn’t misquote you or misinterpret you. So, I didn’t drag you back in.
I did express my views as to why I felt you bore responsibililty for the detour…sticking to the rigid definition of ‘made’ and not responding to the essence of what David was saying. But, you accused me of responsibility for the detour, why would it be wrong of me to explain it from my POV? We both put our views out there, explain them as best we can, and allow others to judge our reasoning for themselves. Did you not consider that when you made deprecating remarks about me in your ‘I’m done with this detour’ statement that I’d likely respond? And that you would, in turn, feel compelled to respond to me?
I’ve had more than a few times when I’ve typed ‘I’m done with all of this’ and then deleted those words before posting because I knew deep down that I’d be right back in. “I’m done with this” when coupled with a negative remark towards someone is usually intended to give extra weight to the negative remarks. “The ‘whatever the negative thing is’ is SO offensive that I’m DONE!”
Mary, Talk about trying to “make someone wear dirty clothes”! You are doing it right now. I am not lying, twisting or playing games. I am being honest and serious with myself and with you.
You might find my views inflammatory, but I think I am pretty much (pardon the pun) a straight shooter. I didn’t twist anything I said to the reporter (as you insisted) and Eddy concurred that what I said was accurate. If I have been untruthful, please supply the evidence.
.
Loving it! If I owned a car, I’d make it a bumper sticker! Think of how many people might ask you “What does that mean?” –and, in answering, you might already be engaged in the fight!!!
That is correct. I wasn’t done. I thought I was done. I wanted to be done. Completely frustrated and wanted to quit.
I was half tempted to throw the computer out the window because I was tired of being accused of saying that ALL fundamentalist Christians were racist, woman-hating homophobes — something I NEVER said. NEVER.
I also NEVER said I as “dragged back in”. I came back voluntarily. MY CHOICE. No one “made me”. I decided I wasn’t done. You blame me for the detour by fixating on David’s figure of speech. I blame you and Mary for the detour by trying to imply that I believed all Christians were racist woman haters — or that all of them were haters and homophobes if they believed gay sex was sin. That is NOT my position and it NEVER was.
I think we BOTH bear some responsibility for this detour. After all is said and done (and I don’t think it ever will be no matter how much I wish it could be) I STILL object to it. I stand by the original comment. We are not “made to” wear dirty clothes and some of the disdain is earned.
If you had some doubt, you COULD have asked,
I would have said “No, of course not — and don’t try to pin that on me!” I very deliberately used the word “some” in my response to David because you and Mary have pointed out that without that word — without that VERY important qualifier — that my comments could be taken as generalizations that apply to ALL.
But I said SOME — and still caught hell for it. Damned if I do., Damned if I don’t. I spent hours now defending myself against the false accusations and implications that I do believe they are ALL racist, misogynistic homophobes. I think I understand now why David would say “made to wear: The efforts to “make me wear” those things has exhausted and frustrated me. So I wanted to quit — but I am still so angry about it that I chose not to.
Now, I am done. For now.
Isn’t that what you believe, too? Or are you not a Christian?
Yes, I am a Christian. But I am becoming more and more what one might call a “liberal Christian” I don’t think I believe in Hell in the same way that SOME other Christians do. I tend to think “hell” as a here-and-now experience of living a life without God, without love and without hope.
I don’t believe in a literal Hell and eternal torment, lakes of fire, unending pain, etc. I don’t know if I ever did. I find it hard to reconcile such an idea with my concept of God. Frank Worthen, Alan Chambers and others may think that it’s true. I don’t.
I also don’t think God really commanded the slaughter of babies, that non-virgin brides or adulterers should be stoned or that a woman who tries to help her husband by grabbing another man’s testicles should have her hand cut off without mercy.”
Some do. Christians differ on these things.
You might have qualified your statment when you were being quoted and added that the those at the LWO conference or Exodus don’t see being gay as a sin but the act of engaging in it as a sin – as well as many other societal norms are seen as sin.
You inflamed your statments to sound good for the press.
I know it must sound rather strange — even completely contradictory to some — that I consider myself to be a born-again, saved-by grace, evangelical Christian on one hand — and that on the other hand I don’t believe that everything in the Bible is the word-for-word, straight-from-God’s mouth, inerrant, infallible, literal truth.
It must be very confusing for those who do that the Bible is all those things.. Some believers have told me I can’t be a “real” Christian unless I believe exactly as they do. Even some gays who don’t believe in Christianity at all have told me I can’t bea “real Christian” if I don’t. But I won’t wear those clothes.
LOL. All I had to was ask?
Michael Bussee ~ Mar 6, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Christian fundamentalism has been made to wear the ugly clothes of racism, misogyny and now homophobia. (quoting David)
I of course, disagree. I don’t think they were “made to”. I think they put one some of these clothes themselves.
Eddy ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 12:19 am
I of course disagree. I’ve seen enough examples on this blogsite to see that Christian fundamentalism has been grossly mischaracterized and it’s members judged not for who they are or what they say but by the stereotype. As with most stereotypes, you can always find an example or two to support your claim and conveniently overlook anything that doesn’t support the stereotype.
What is most frustrating, though, is that most of those who blog here who hold to Christian fundamentalist beliefs ARE NOT racist, misogynistic or homophobic…and yet we have to endure the verbal bashing continually. And oddly, the bashing comes from those who absolutely HATE being stereotyped themselves. Very, very curious.
Mary ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 12:30 am
Very curious.
Michael Bussee ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 1:51 am
It’s not bashing. I said “some”. Some of it, like it our not, is deserved.
So, I mention the charges of racism and misogyny by name…and I reference the bashing that fundies with respect to these charges…and Michael answers ‘It’s not bashing. I said “some”. Some of it, like it or not, is deserved.” Did he say anywhere that the charges of racism and misogyny didn’t fit in the same way that homophobia did? So when I went on and elaborated about the weirdness of presuming fundy women to be misogynist and belabored racism as well, let’s see if Michael addressed that.
Here’s what follows:
Michael Bussee ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 10:46 am
Eddy: You will insist that the hegative reputation is largely un-earned or over-stated. I will insist that it is not.
What negative reputation was I referring to? The one that included racism, misogyny and homphobia. I even cited the agenda of lumping the other two in with homophobia. But Michael still speaks to the entire negative reputation and doesn’t separate out homophobia. And so, I try again:
Eddy ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 10:54 am
Yup. Just that I’ll tend to back mine up with logic rather than feelings. (Please see my comments re those misogynist Christian fundamentalist women.)
This time I make a very brief comment and once again request that he ‘see my comments re those misogynist Christian fundamentalist women.’…just in case he missed what I was getting at.
Let’s see the response:
Michael Bussee ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 12:29 pm
David made a blanket statement that “Christian fundamentalism has been made to wear the ugly clothes of racism, misogyny and now homophobia”, implying that this negative reputation was completely undeserved. I disagree. Some of it, like it or not, has been earned.
And he’s still not addressing racism and misogyny separately from homophobia.
Yup. All I had to do was ask.
I did not “inflame my statements to sound good for the press.” I won’t “wear”that. He asked if I thought the major difference was Biblical — whether or not gay sex was sin. I said, yes. He asked where we differedm — where the major Biblical difference was.
I told him that Exodus believes that gay sex is always sin, I quoted a few of the passages that Exodus uses in support of that opinion and I correctly stated that Exodus believes that continuning to have gay sex puts the person at risk of Hell if they don’t repent of it.
I told him that I do not approach the Bible the same way they do and that I do not believe that gay sex is always sin. He already had Alan’s take on it. I gave him an accurate and honest answer on the question of gay sex as sin. For some reason, you seem bent on painting me as a liar. Knock it off.
AS Eddy confirmed, Exodus does believe the things I told the reporter. His article contained only a brief quote of a five minute conversation. The focus of his question was how we differed on gay sex as sin. I gave him a trutful, non-inflammatory response.
Unless you have a recording of the inteview, I would appreciate it if you would stop suggesting that I am lying, twisting or inflaming. Eddy agreed that I did state Exodus’s position on the matter of gay sex as sin. If Alan had been standing right there, I think even he would have told the reporter that I was stating it correctly.
SOME of THAT is earned too. Not just the homophobia. SOME of the characterization of fundamentalist Christians as racists and misogynists is ALSO earned. SOME — dammit — SOME. I stand by that. I think history supports it.
I believe we have another oversimplification here. Perhaps not. I suppose there are ‘some believers’ who insist that everyone who doesn’t believe ‘exactly as they do’ aren’t real Christians but I’ve always found some diversity re baptism, biblical inerrancy, certain behaviors (dancing, and all that), our role in the Great Commission, our responsibilities as Christians to other Christians, the way we relate to ‘the world’. I have trouble believing that ANY Christian would judge another be a non-Christian because they didn’t believe ‘exactly as they do’ in ALL of those areas. I’m thinking that if the statement were “Some believers have told me I can’t be a ‘real’ Christian unless I believe ‘exactly as they do’ regarding homosexuality“, then it would be much easier to accept without question.
Then you should go back and ask for a correction because that is not how they quoted you. And you know it.
SOME OF ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN EARNED. How many times can I write the word SOME before you get that? You want try to argue that NONE of it is earned? Give it your best shot. Do SOME try to paint ALL Christians as being one or ALL of those things? Yes. Is that fair or true? NO. And I have never, ever — EVER –said otherwise. KNOCK IT OFF.
Funny, I wanted to say that to you but felt that it would be ‘over the line’ and rude.
I was fine when you finally acknowledged that a portion of what David said was true. This latest side detour is simply explaining how the other mega-detour developed. You said ‘all you had to do was ask’ and I demonstrated all the efforts I made to say it clearly and how you responded.
But, I’m getting dizzy from going around in circles with you and need to head downstairs for a late lunch.
The quote is accurate. I have no reason to ask the reporter to change it. I would give him the same answer if he were in the room with you and me right now. He asked very specific question on how Alan Chambers and I differed — whether or not it was “mainly Biblical” — a question of the moralityof gay sex, not a question of orientation change. I said yes. I accurately described Exodus’s position on the sinfulness of gay sex. That was the focus of his question and of my answer.
He said, “They seem to admit that they don’t make people straight, but they think gay sex is sin — and you don’t right?” I said “Yes, they seem to be admitting that otientation does not change and I give the credit for being more honest about that.” I also said, “Yes, they believe that if you don’t repent of it that you are risking eternal damnation and I don’t ” No spin. No lie. Nothing inflammatory. It IS what Exodus believes. That’s what he asked, that’s how I answered. It’s TRUE and I stand by it.
I don’t know why you feel you have been going around in circles. My point has been OBVIOUS and REPETIVE — at least it seems that way to me. I don’t think people are “made to” wear the ugly clothes and SOME — SOME, SOME, SOME, SOME, SOME, SOME – of it IS deserved. Are you completely THICK or just trying to seem like it?
I think this thread has gone on long enough on what Michael means and what he doesn’t. I don’t see much new coming out of it.
The leaders of Exodus probably need to deal with this directly. I don’t think they believe that a believing Christian who is homosexual miss heaven. But we can speculate all day. If someone wants to write and ask, that would be great. Otherwise can we move on?
God, I sure hope so!!! I think I know now why David used the words he did. I feel like I have been trying (for over a day now) to take off the “ugly clothes” of “liar, twister and game-player” or the “ugly clothes” that I believe that ALL fundamentalist Christians are homphobic, woman-hating racists. I deeply resent it. It is not true. It is not fair.
I am frustrated, angry, fed up. I stand by what I said as (1) TRUTHFUL, (2) that SOME of the negative opininion held by BOTH sides is EARNED and (3) that no one can “make you” wear something that is not true — no matter how hard they try.
Warren–
Please honor your most recent post and shut this puppy down. I was in the midst of drafting a comment when I saw your appeal for us to let it go and I scrapped my comment. I thought you meant all of us–Michael included.
I know you didn’t say ‘shut down’ but I hope that, at the least, you’ll put all new comments into moderation and decide if they are worthy of getting through.
Careful Eddy, he might filter you.
I didn’t need the reminder…was fully aware of that when I posted to his attention. Since your most recent posts to me were rather harsh in tone, I’ll take this latest one as a sarcastic jab and ignore the smiley face.
Do that. I take your “LOL’s” the very same way.
LOL!
To be held to a higher standard. Okay.