Revoice Evermore

The controversy over the upcoming Revoice conference continues to resound through social media. To catch up a little, read my first post on the matter.

Revoice is an organization composed of people who seek “to encourage, support, and empower gay, lesbian, and other same-sex attracted Christians so they can experience the life-giving character of the historic, Christian sexual ethic.” The group encourages same-sex attracted people to be open about their orientation in traditional church structures but to remain celibate.

In essence, it looks like those opposed to Revoice don’t like it that Revoice supporters refer to themselves as gay or queer or as a sexual minority person. Both sides believe gay people should be celibate, but the anti-Revoicers don’t think it is right to use gay as a self-description.

Evidence is compelling to me that same-sex attracted people demonstrate a variety of essential differences which justify a descriptive difference even if they decide their beliefs don’t allow same-sex sexual behavior.

At the heart of the discussion is biblical exegesis of I Corinthians 6 suggesting that Christian converts not only leave their behavior behind but also their identity and state of being. Recently, Rev. Owen Strachan made this point in a Patheos post, writing:

 In layman’s terms, Paul views the Corinthians as having broken decisively with their old identity and practice. They were thieves, but are not any longer.  They were drunkards, but are not any longer. They were homosexuals (whether the malakoi or the arsevokoitai, the passive or active homosexual partner, respectively, according to the Greek) but are not any longer.

Strachan adds:

David Garland says it well in his own exegetical commentary: “The implication is that Christianity not only offers a completely new sexual ethos and a new ethos regarding material possessions but also brings about a complete transformation of individuals. God’s grace does not mean that God benignly accepts humans in all their fallenness, forgives them, and then leaves them in that fallenness. God is in the business not of whitewashing sins but of transforming sinners.”

The verses in question are I Corinthians 6:9-11:

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Assuming these words are translated correctly,* I wonder if there could be another way to understand this passage. Strachan wants us to believe that spiritual conversion changes a person from gay to not gay. His exegetical partners set up a complete transformation standard for conversion.

However, empirically speaking, this is rare. Most same-sex attracted people who have converted to Christianity remain same-sex attracted many years after conversion. Since Strachan and his Revoice critics view same-sex desire and attraction (not just behavior) as sin, then they leave the same-sex attracted Christian without hope. I don’t know what they think changes at conversion for a gay person. I know this is an inconvenient observation, but it is a true one. I asked Strachan in a comment at his blog to address this issue but he has not answered.

In the list above, some of those traits are more likely to change completely with conversion than others. For instance, I have little trouble believing a thief will completely transform but not all converted alcoholics do.  Relapse happens.

Will Covetous Believers Go to Heaven?

In my view, the I Corinthians 6 passage affirms that God can reach anyone with forgiveness and redemption. Even swindlers, thieves and adulterers can be justified, and once justified, one is always justified. Once you were not justified, but now you are. Some of those Corinthians were pretty far gone but God forgave and justified even them. To say that God requires a complete transformation standard defies human experience. If covetous believers aren’t going to make it, then very few are going to make it, including many preachers.

As far as I can tell, the Revoice approach is quite traditional but recognizes the reality of human experience. To them, “gay” doesn’t signal a rejection of their beliefs but rather is a matter bearing true witness.

 

*It is no secret that the translation of several of the traits described as sins in the I Corinthians 6 passage has been disputed. I am not taking a position in this post on the accuracy of the translation.

 

 

64 thoughts on “Revoice Evermore”

  3. “In essence, it looks like those opposed to Revoice don’t like it that Revoice supporters refer to themselves as gay or queer or as a sexual minority person.”

    It’s a ‘white’ conservative American Evangelical tradition, I guess, to demand that a minority group be silent and invisible, thereby becoming complicit in their own oppression.

    1. It’s all about controlling other people’s identity and expression. You see this a lot with race conversations.

  4. As a Christian man married to a man, I strongly disagree with any theology that demands celibacy from gay people – forbidding us from living fully into the person God created us to be. There is certainly nothing “life-giving” about the traditionalist doctrine.

    That being said, I think the Strachan’s of the world hold the traditionalist view with more integrity than the folks at Revoice. Jesus tells us that our interior lives matter. Hate is murder. Lust is adultery. If same-sex sex is sinful, then same sex attractions (with the attendant sexual fantasies) are necessarily sinful.

    1. Do you support celibacy for single people? Serious question. Please don’t read anything negative into it.

    2. Are general attractions to other women sinful for a married man? And why must sexual fantasies be “attendant” with any attraction?

    3. Are general attractions to other women sinful for a married man? And why must sexual fantasies be “attendant” with any attraction?

  5. “the anti-Revoicers don’t think it is right to use gay as a self-description.”

    They prefer self-deception instead.

  6. I find it interesting how activists like Dr. Michael Brown say Christians shouldn’t identify as gay, yet he calls himself a “Jewish believer in Jesus” even though Paul said in Christ there is “neither Greek nor Jew.”

  7. I have rheumatoid arthritis. It’s genetic. It is, according to what I believe, a result of the fall, and is an unwelcome and broken distortion of what God designed. Being born again in Christ does not make my rheumatoid arthritis go away, but it does change everything about how I relate to my arthritis and how I live my life with that reality. Those who think there is no moral dimension to having a disease could not be more wrong. I am CONSTANTLY tempted to give up on certain responsibilities, to be self-pitying, to be grumpy. The Holy Spirit tells me to be grateful, to have hope, to focus on serving and helping others, to show others that pain does not have to make one bitter or unhappy.

    I confess to being baffled at what is important about retaining the label “queer” as it relates to matters of faith. Utterly, completely baffled. But if these Christians are undertaking the hard task of living faithfully to God whatever their circumstances, then I am going to support them. I know they need a place to stand and a way to be part of churches that share their traditional stance on sexuality. The church HAS to step up on this front.

    The only facet that concerns me is that there is a well-worn trail of denominations adopting a stance of embracing open gay or lesbian identification on the condition of celibacy, which has proven to be nothing more than an intermediate step towards a change in doctrinal position on human sexuality and God’s design. There’s no denying that, but I hope that’s not the trajectory here.

    1. “I confess to being baffled at what is important about retaining the label “queer” as it relates to matters of faith. Utterly, completely baffled.”

      I suspect it has to do with being honest. For years the ex-gay movement used dishonest language to hide the fact that the people they “helped” where primarily sexual and emotionally attracted to members of the same-sex, i.e. gay.

    2. “I confess to being baffled at what is important about retaining the label “queer” as it relates to matters of faith. Utterly, completely baffled.”

      I suspect it has to do with being honest. For years the ex-gay movement used dishonest language to hide the fact that the people they “helped” where primarily sexual and emotionally attracted to members of the same-sex, i.e. gay.

    3. Yep, Warren is an enabler of humanity. How dare he. What’s next. Women are actually beings with thoughts and feelings not to be ruled my men, specifically their husbands.
      It is a slippery slope.

      1. Wow, Robert actually deleted one of his comments? There is hope for his redemption yet.

    4. Yes, that’s probably why I bristle at it. I view it as a pretty political term, but I have to be honest and say I don’t know much about the pedigree of the term. I assumed it was adopted as an act of defiance.

      1. I assumed it was adopted as an act of defiance.

        To some extent, it has been “reclaimed” yes. As a term that was used so often as an insult or term of derision, it was taken by those who were being derided as their own. It’s not a process unique to LGBTs as you probably know.

        I believe “Queer” is used as a general category for all things associated with the subject. It is political only in as much as the subject matter has become so, just as Evangelical Christian has become political. I used to “bristle at it [queer]” because that was the common slur for homosexuals in my teens and early adult years. Anyone who didn’t act like everyone else could get that label. The sting carried on for a long time with me, though it has faded now.

      2. I assumed it was adopted as an act of defiance.

        To some extent, it has been “reclaimed” yes. As a term that was used so often as an insult or term of derision, it was taken by those who were being derided as their own. It’s not a process unique to LGBTs as you probably know.

        I believe “Queer” is used as a general category for all things associated with the subject. It is political only in as much as the subject matter has become so, just as Evangelical Christian has become political. I used to “bristle at it [queer]” because that was the common slur for homosexuals in my teens and early adult years. Anyone who didn’t act like everyone else could get that label. The sting carried on for a long time with me, though it has faded now.

      3. I assumed it was adopted as an act of defiance.

        To some extent, it has been “reclaimed” yes. As a term that was used so often as an insult or term of derision, it was taken by those who were being derided as their own. It’s not a process unique to LGBTs as you probably know.

        I believe “Queer” is used as a general category for all things associated with the subject. It is political only in as much as the subject matter has become so, just as Evangelical Christian has become political. I used to “bristle at it [queer]” because that was the common slur for homosexuals in my teens and early adult years. Anyone who didn’t act like everyone else could get that label. The sting carried on for a long time with me, though it has faded now.

    1. Au contraire, came to the text (in the Greek as well, which I studied for three years as an undergrad) with a puzzle. As I noted in the post, I just can’t square the circle with the way things seem to be in the real world and the way Strachan’s experts render the text. My mind still isn’t made up as you put it.

      1. DocThrock… When a married homosexual couple have sex are they sinning? Yes or no?

          3. A little civility, thoughtful discussion or evidence based conclusions, and one has to constantly reaffirm one’s Evangelical Christian bona fides. Ironic, really – I thought we were supposed to be the thought police. I guess all things are justifiable if done in defense of the Kingdom.

            This is exactly why Nouthetic counseling is essentially useless.

          4. Perhaps because he knows you are asking in bad faith and therefore thinks it is more appropriate to let you twist in the wind. It certainly is more entertaining.

        2. “Oh, icky icky poo poo.”

          What I find immoral and a grievous sin is someone like Bugs presuming that he can dictate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

          1. So it’s okay for consenting Husband and adult daughter to do the hibbity-dibbity?

            Why just two? Upon what basis do you make this restriction?

          2. “…Husband and adult daughter to do the hibbity-dibbity?”

            It’s biblical, and therefore moral: Genesis 19:30–38
            /s

        3. When a married gay couple engage in lifelong mutual self-sacrifice, care-taking and fidelity in the service of community, are they sinning? Reducing gay relationships down to sex betrays a pathetically shallow understanding of human relationships.

      2. The resurrection is as real as your Noah’s Ark and made up predestination.
        Your super smart on the APA, yet you believe your book literally. Maybe if you questioned the bible like you do Warren and the APA, you might be so arrogant with your opinions.
        Also, read Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind. You might find some interesting questions at the beginning of it. You would have to think deeply which may stretch your thoughts beyond, Jesus, God, Bible, and your true Gods, Paul and Calvin.

    2. I see we’re still up-voting our own posts, eh, Bugs?
      Somebody needs some love…

Comments are closed.