A Word of a Different Feather

I know, I know, I do this a lot. I talk about the meanings of words and how they're changing. But how can I not? I am a wordsmith, you know?

So there is this phrase, "gay Christian", that is throwing itself around the Internet these days because Matthew Vines has released a new book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. There it is right there, you see? "Gay Christian". Now, there have been excellent responses to Vines, both to his book and to his video¹, so I'm not attempting to respond to his claims here². What I'm pointing out (as I am wont³ to do) is the whole problem of words.

Is there such a thing as a "gay Christian"? The problem here, you see, is, again, the problem of words. And we often miss this problem because we think we are using words we understand. So let's examine it for a moment. First, there is "Christian". What does that mean? Well, biblically it refers to disciples (Acts 11:26) -- followers of "the Way" (Acts 19:9; 24:22). It isn't "whatever I want it to be" like so many today seem to think. It refers to those who are pupils of Christ. "Ah," some will argue, "but Jesus never said anything about the subject." Is that true? He did say, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" (Matt 5:17). That would suggest that He favored them, and that would include Leviticus 18:22 as well as all the other restrictions on sex outside of marriage. He did say that marriage was between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-6), making sex in "marriage" impossible for two women or two men. So why didn't Jesus speak against it explicitly? Well, of course, He didn't speak about bestiality, pedophiles, rape, or any number of other sins on which we all agree. Why? Because we all agree. Because no one in His time had any question about it. So if a Christian is a follower of Christ and if the Bible is inspired by the Spirit Christ sent to lead us into the truth, then Christians, followers of Christ and His Word, have a specific meaning, not an undefined, ambivalent definition.

But then there's this whole term, "gay". We as a society have so embraced it as to mean something completely new by it. As it happens, the concept of "gay" as it is used today didn't exist prior to the 19th century. The term, homosexuality, didn't exist prior to the coining of it by German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert. The notion of defining someone by their sexual desires (opposite sex, same sex, minors, animals, whatever) is new. So people will argue that the Bible didn't say anything about homosexuality because the concept didn't exist at the time (as if God had no idea). It's true. The idea of defining a person by their sexual desires is something recent. But today we hear and use the term "gay" as a definition rather than an act. And we buy it without checking it for accuracy. That's a problem in terms of word usage. Does such a definition of a human being actually exist? No one is actually able to prove it⁴, but we're going to go with it anyway.

Now we put them together ... like it means something we'll all understand. "Gay Christian." Like that says something. As it turns out, there are two possible yet opposing meanings that can be understood from the term. One is the one Matthew Vines et. al. wants us to buy. It is a genuine Christian who embraces his or her sexual desire for someone of the same sex. That is a possible definition of the phrase. Or it could mean someone that experiences same-sex attraction but who, as a genuine follower of Christ and His Word, is seeking to be holy as He is holy and that includes in the arena of sexual relations. This person agrees with Scripture that we have desires that are sinful -- and the desire to have sex with those of the same sex is just such a desire -- and that disciples of Christ need to flee sinful desires (1 Cor 6:18; 2 Tim 2:22). Obviously this definition of the same phrase is directly opposed to the other. In fact, the first definition is self-contradicting. And yet we use the phrase like it has a common, understandable meaning.

This is one of my regular sayings: We are two people separated by a common language. It is, again, the case. We know "gay" and we know "Christian" and we know "gay Christian", but we seem to rarely know them in the same way. Words of a different feather, so to speak. Because, you see, you cannot stand in opposition to Christ and His Word and claim to be a follower of Christ and His Word. You can claim to be a Christian while seeking to eliminate the sin in your life. Embracing your sin while claiming to embrace the One who called it sin is clearly problematic.

________
¹ Just so you know, that rebuttal by James White to Matthew Vine's video back in 2012 is comprehensive -- 5 hours long. I've listened to it (I have a lot of driving time available for such things) and benefited from it, but it's not likely something you can do in a sitting. You can right click and save it for listening at your leisure.

² I am fascinated, however, as I often am, by these two opposing notions. First, there is the argument from consensus. "Well, a consensus of scientists believe in global warming, so it's true." They carry that over to "A consensus of Christians today believe that homosexual behavior is okay, so it's true." They do this ignoring 2000 years of Christian consensus that said the opposite. The first notion, then, is "Consensus is valid as long as it agrees with us." And this is the opposing notion. "We've figured out the truth about this issue after 2,000 years when no one else could." Again, a colossal failure of the Holy Spirit. Something that no one from that side of the aisle seems to be addressing.

³ "Wont", as in "accustomed or likely to do something", because a wordsmith is likely to talk about words, right?

⁴ By "prove it" I mean the notion that someone is "born that way" or the absolutely certain claim that it cannot be addressed treated, or controlled.