On Negativity, Baptists, & Homosexuality
I probably shouldn’t be writing this.
First, because I’m widely viewed as negative. So this is sort of the pot calling the kettle black.
Two, I vowed not to write anything today and instead focus on work. But I’ve got 4 sets of proofs out and I’m sitting and waiting.
Third, this will probably start stuff with people who I am really tired of fighting with.
Fourth, I’m not sure how constructive it is.
And if the fact that I’m going to go ahead and write this despite the above doesn’t show my ignorance, then I don’t know what does.
So here goes.
Last month, I wrote an editorial to a local community paper. I was thinking about placing an advertisement for Red Cowboy and one for Anna’s new photography business (site forthcoming). In the month’s of April and May, a local pastor and the former pastor and my “boss” at our last church wrote two articles in his regular religion column sharing his view on homosexuality. I didn’t write my artile to be antagonistic or to ram my views down anyone’s throat. I didn’t once attack the pastor or even his position. Instead I tried to simply articulate something different.
The pastor’s April article bothered me, but also didn’t because although I don’t necessarily agree with the position, I respect his right to say it and ironically enough, understand his arguments (since it was my argument for most of the entirety of my “Christian” life). But when I got the May paper and the pastor was harping on the same subject for the 2nd month in a row and this time upping the rhetoric by saying homosexuals were the same as pedophiles or child pornographers and calling them perverts . . . I decided to email the editor.
My editorial didn’t begin as an article. Rather I wrote the editor of the paper and shared my new concerns about placing an ad for our businesses in his paper, when I felt that the paper was taking a very polarizing position in the community. This is a free paper that gets distributed in the mail to households in 4 local counties. I shared with the editor that I was concerned that a local, community paper would deliberately take such a staunch position knowing that many people in the community are practicing or struggling homosexuals.
After exchanging emails back and forth for a few days, he asked if I would be willing to write a response to the pastor’s two articles. The editor graciously gave me 600 words or less (a daunting task to try and articulate a proper posture towards homosexuality) to give an alternative position . . . so I accepted and wrote this article.
First the good news. I got almost a dozen emails (some Christians and some non-Christians) from local readers who applauded me for taking such a positive and hopeful stand. These readers said very nice things about my piece. And I was glad that at least another perspective, albeit the less popular and held to perspective, got shared in such a public forum. I was thankful that if nothing else, that at least non-Christians got to hear a more moderate voice in the whole debate.
Now the bad news and my reason for writing. I got a lot of negative emails and letters. All of them obviously disagreed with my position, but at least some were respectful in tone such as this one by Eddie Jones, while others were much more negative in content and tone such as this one by Jack Lawson, pastor of White Plains Baptist Church.
The negative ones didn’t bother me really. Again, because I at least can understand their perspective since I shared it with them in the past. And I respect their right to express their opinion. But some of the letters I got were extremely hateful. One lady sent me a handwritten note poking fun at my age, my education, and intelligence. Using words like “stupid”, “ignorant”, “apostate”, and a few other choice words. Maybe I’ll scan it in one day.
I also got multiple emails quoting Tozer and talking about Sodom and Gomorrah and animal sex. All the while saying I was a peace-loving hippy. I guess I’ve been called worse.
What makes it even funnier, is now I’m starting to get comments left on my blog from some of these people. I’ve moderated/spammed a few. But one guy left me a comment on this post, again poking fun at my education, simply because I mentioned that the same pastor was giving away and plagiarizing his sermons to promote his new website. The only funny thing is that the guy didn’t have enough guts to post his real name or real email address. Instead relying on fake names for both. I know this because I tried to email him and share something softer. After the email bounced back and checking it’s IP, aware now that it came from the same city that the pastor lives in, I said something harsher. Oddly enough, the guy also left anonymous/fake comments on this blog, where many Baptist leaders were debating plagiarism.
I write all of this to land here.
I find it odd that I get called the “apostate” one. When my tone was soft, gentle, loving, and respectful in my editorial - kind of like that Jesus guy. Instead I get sent scathing, hateful emails and letters from “Christians” who call me names and insult my intelligence and faith. I also find it odd that I’m now getting comments from people with fake names and fake email addresses.
And supposedly I’m the one who lacks integrity.
I’m open about my drinking. I’m open about my cussing. I’m open about my theology. I’m open about my friends.
Meanwhile, there are others who hide their drinking. Hide their attitudes. And hide their agenda with fake names and veiled attacks.
So with that being said . . . I know who you are. You know who you are. Why don’t you act like a man and say what it is you need to say instead of hiding behind a “name”. And that’s a double entendre for those of you who are witty enough to pay attention.
Josh - good for you. Good article, and good response to the crap you are getting.
And does the podcast really have 125,000 subscribers!?!?!
It is strange to me how Christians can get so angry about this kind of thing. Even if someone disagrees with you, the discussion should be one of love. But there are two issues that get Christians riled up today: homosexuality and abortion.
And the strong responses go both ways, from those in approval of either to those who are in disapproval of either, and vice versa. The negative response should not be associated with the subject, as much as it should be associated with our general sinful nature.
On the whole, reading Merritt’s original columns as well as the Jack Lawson letter, I’m not sure I see the same level of negativity in them that you do. Perhaps your response to Merritt had more to do with your background with his churches. But many reasonable, loving, and humble Christians would find little to disagree with in what they’ve written.
Your original point about treating the issue with delicacy is true no matter what sin it is that we’re talking about. But if we’re going to take a stand against sin (and the Bible is clear that we should, particularly within the church), we have to treat the Word of God as authoritative in its description of sin. Which includes negativity. And homosexuality.
Josh, you are who you are. They are who they are. It’s easier to worry less about them and more about things that matter. Jesus said something to the Pharisees about making their followers “twice the sons of hell that they are.”
It’s better to discuss sustainable development. You’ve GOT to buy Collapse by Jared Diamond. Right now, this moment. Or email me your address and I’ll do it for you.
josh- i’d like to suggest for the sake of this discussion that it might help if you went into more detail re: your reasoning behind questioning whether it is sin or not. in your article, you deal primarily with taking a posture of compassion toward homosexuals along with the parallel aspect of the church’s general fascination with being right. while those are two very valid issues, neither really seems to me to deal with the core issue you are treating, namely, whether it’s sin or not. i assume this is the core issue bc the piece is titled “is homosexuality sin?” to me, your piece points out why this is a terribly difficult social issue for the church but doesn’t really offer an answer as to the question in the title.
this is a hard discussion because it seems to me that what results is that one camp is arguing that “it is a sin” and the other camp is arguing “we need to treat people graciously”, and neither side really deals with the points of the other.
i do not think you are being negative, and i also feel comparing sins like pedophilia or whatever is uncalled for. and i certainly have my own beliefs about this question, but mainly i’m trying to offer some thought for a helpful discussion.
but i see there’s a lot of room for interpreting what you’re trying to get at from different perspectives. and, i see several parallel issues running course here that certain have interplay but to me seem to be fundamentally different questions. maybe it’s a good idea to separate them a little for the sake of discussion?
My thoughts:
The fact that the filename for your letter is “Letter is homosex.html” made me giggle alittle. In a straight way. I guess it’s like… why not just spell it out? I doubt the letter itself is homosex… whatever that is.
Oddly (or not oddly, depending on how well you know me), I’m drawn to rap lyrics to best express what you said in the last 6 paragraphs of this post. Let me brew further on the best block of slang that appropriately expresses what you said.
Third, I would say Merritt and JB’s articles don’t seem particularly negative to me, but Eddie Jones’ does. He uses scare quotes (quoting terms in a way to associate them negatively or sarcastically) a few times (see “relationships” and “tools of hate”) which is simply unnecessary. The whole paragraph where he explains how awesome he is at relationships (compared to Josh, of course) seems to indicate that Eddie thought Josh wrote this article to him alone, and not the general body of American Christendom… as if Eddie’s singular response refutes the fact that plenty of other Christians are detached from the issue.
The paragraph where he brings up terrorism/murder/sexual offenses is odd as well - it ignores the key difference that people who commit those 3 above acts do violence to another human being against their will, a key detail that homosexuality lacks. Obviously we condemn the above three actions, and its a poor argument to try and bring up any question to the otherwise. Say whatever you want about homosexuality, but the blatant lapse of logic there is too large to be ignored.
All this to say… Josh, buddy, not sure what you were expecting to happen. If the Internets disagrees with you, it speaks up, and occasionally someone who feels like poppin’ off comments on here. Is it likely to be any different on print?
oh yeah. d10. thanks. i didn’t write the title for the editorial. the editor of the paper did. i just sent him the piece and he added the title.
that wasn’t something i wanted to get into.
derek. good points. and you’re probably right. i didn’t think merritt was negative at all. again, i disagreed with it. but wasn’t upset at that. i just didn’t like the pedophilia and pervert comments. i guess i’ll have to scan in the hateful, negative letters i got. those were more of what i was referring too.
eric. again, every now and then when you’re not talking about ponies, you say something wise.
dave. 151,000. or so says our host. but i think they’re wrong. it’s got to be less. way less.
joe. don’t have the book. but will request it at the library shortly.
it always strikes me as interesting when people get really defensive and spiteful, usually when they have been proven wrong, under the guise of their “rightness”. since i started reading your blog i have really enjoyed the way you phrase things. i do not always agree with you, but i respect your opinion and it is always wise to try to see things from a second point of view than our own. somepeople cannot handle that. as from experience, i grew up with homosexuals as friends and they respected me and Jesus more because I never treated them any differently than the great friends we were. he can argue “relationships: all he likes, but it matters what kind and with who. ok. done ranting now. have to get ready for work.
also, keep doing what your doing. some people will always disagree with you no matter what you do.
Baptists are the epitome of cup-polishers. Gotta make that outside look good…
And according to Ezekial 16:49-51, Sodom & Gammorah were destroyed because they were arrogant and ignored the poor. But, maybe it WAS because they had gay sex…?
Damn … how come none of this fun stuff happened when we were there??? we could of done some toilet papering or something!!!!!!!!!!!!! gee whiz
well jessica. i wanted to fork the ladies yard. i googled her name. then googled mapped it. it’s only 5 minutes away. if you guys ever visit again we can fork it.
agent b. are you sure it was gay sex. maybe it was some type of animal sex.
Genesis 19. When the men of Sodom demand to have sex with God’s angels, it’s kind of the last straw. At least, that’s the general interpretation. But there are plenty of other references to the overall wickedness of Sodom, so the argument can be made that it wasn’t just homosexuality that pressured God to destroy Sodom. But there’s no denying what is described in Genesis 19.
Anyway, it’s much more important for churches to take a stand against sin within their congregations. Right now I’d say that Christians are too worried about telling all the non-Christians what is sin and what isn’t, when we should be looking at ourselves and our communities and removing the sin in our midst. The Bible has a lot of things to say about sexual immorality (including adultery and homosexuality), but it also has a lot to say about things like gossip, which is more of a problem within churches than homosexuality is…
are you sure it was gay sex. maybe it was some type of animal sex.
Josh… it was probably both. because gay sex leads to animal sex, remember?
Maybe you should just post about your lawn mower again.
By the way, where are you moving to, if you’re selling your house?
Josh - I think they were destroyed because of how they treated the poor, not sexual activity.
But most bible readers think it was gay sex. I don’t know.
[...] ยป Josh on Negativity, Baptists, & Homosexuality [...]
[...] asked a great question in the comments of this thread in regards to homosexuality. And I probably can’t begin to give a good an answer to that without providing some broad [...]
another highly destructive episode where the cross is used not to point others to the love of christ but instead as a weapon with which to jab into the hearts and souls of those who live right next to us.
how did the church become its own worst enemy?
I’m not sure I understand this. Is homosexuality a sin? With no disrespect intended, that’s a ridiculous question. Of course it’s a sin.
Should I love homosexuals? It’s another stupid question. Of course I should.
There’s no way I can read the Bible and, without serious linguistic and ethical gymnastics, reach any conclusions other than these.
The problem that I see in the church today in terms of this issue is that we seem unable to reach a balanced view based on these two answers together. Either we talk about it being an abomination and we try to find a way to coax down the waiting lightning or we want to love them so much that we explain it away as being natural (whereas all other sins are ones that we really need to work ourselves up for…?) and so not really a sin at all.
Your article doesn’t seem to be about if homosexuality is a sin at all. It’s about how we should treat people. Not a bad topic, Josh, but it seems like a bit of a sham to pretend to be addressing one thing when, in fact, you are talking about something related but very different.
you should probably read the comment where i address that by saying that i didn’t create the title rather the editor of the paper did.