I suppose I should also concede that the so-called bridge-builders could accidentally actually hear and consider some gay people’s perspectives, which might possibly begin to change their views. But that would be an unintended outcome, although welcome nonetheless.

I’ve seen it happen more than a few times.

That’s actually one irony about the conservative Christians who set out to show Teh Geys that they don’t hate them. It changes the conservatives more often than it changes the gays in any way.

That is also true of conservatives who set out to study the facts to prove to the world that Teh Geys are a threat/unGodly/changeable/whatever. The sincere and honest ones often find that they are they going back and arguing with their own crowd.

One of the more amusing examples is when Mark Yarhouse set out to prove (with Stanton Jones) that gays could become heterosexual. Now that they’ve done their study and the follow up, Yarhouse’s language and position has changed completely. Yes he still has a conservative sexual ethic, but he now no longer thinks that gays can become straight and is supportive of bridge building.

I completely support building bridges to the conservatives, but not for trying to turn them gay. Rather I know that the more they come in contact with us (when there are no picket signs or angry screaming on either side), the more they are likely to come to stop fearing us and instead support us.

When these folk stop seeing us as “people who choose to sin” and start seeing us as “people who are just like us other than that they are attracted to persons of the same sex” it changes them. Maybe not always as far as we’d like, but I welcome all steps in the right direction.

I suppose I should also concede that the so-called bridge-builders could accidentally actually hear and consider some gay people’s perspectives, which might possibly begin to change their views. But that would be an unintended outcome, although welcome nonetheless. I think those bridges are designed to be one-way streets.

In the physical world, bridges are normally seen as beneficial by people living on both sides of the gap. But in the sense we are talking about here, gays are not asking for these bridges, and nor are we beings asked if we want them. We are just the target of their crusade. At the end of the day, these bridge-builders have no intention of accepting our gayness.

How would they respond if gays were building unsolicited bridges to them with the hidden agenda of turning them gay – with love and compassion for their well-being, of course?

As I’m sure you will agree, it doesn’t make much sense to say “when Christians…” followed by anything. There are a lot of Christians and they are a pretty diverse bunch.

No doubt some have nefarious motives and some have poorly contrived ideas of “helping the homosexual” that are little more than exercises in self congratulation.

But some Christians truly are sick of the culture war and tired of seeing gay people that they know and like being treated like crap and want to find a way to bring about peace.

Personally, I think that Marin misses the boat in a lot of areas. I think his underlying premises are based in presumptions about gay people and their spiritual condition that are not held up by reality.

But I do truly believe that Andrew is seeking to wage peace and trying to sincerely to bridge the gap through honest affection. I don’t think he is all of the things that you are accusing him of.

Whether one agrees with his theology, I’ve read enough and talked enough with others about this guy that I do not doubt his sincerity.

When Christians “build bridges” to gay people, the purpose is to carry a Trojan Horse to the other side. Their ultimate objective is to gain the power to control our lives. Any perception we have that they may be trying to understand and accept us as we are is an illusion. The warm friendly loving smiles we see are just tools from their toolbox.

The purpose of a bridge is to cross over a gap, but the gap is still there, and everyone knows it and can see it. The difference here is that Christians have created the gap, and then want to pat themselves on the back for building a bridge across it.

Churches that are truly welcoming and affirming toward gay people don’t speak in terms of “building bridges,” they simply accept them as they would anyone else.

It is true that Christians sterotype LGBT people, and it is not bad to admit that; in fact I think it’s a step in the right direction. However, I think that one of the ways in which Christians stereotype LGBT people is by saying things like “Christians stereotype LGBT people” without also acknowledging the existence of gay Christians. Please let me explain.

There is a stereotype among both Christians and LGBT people that LGBT Christians don’t really exist, or aren’t really important. When people fail to mention that LGBT Christians exist, this lack of mention contributes further to the invisibility of LGBT Christians.

Mentioning the existence of LGBT Christians is would be especially appropriate and topical in a discussion about tensions between LGBT people and Christians. Indeed, such a mention is almost called for, as LGBT Christians often negotiate those boundaries and tensions between non-Christian LGBT folks and straight Christians daily.

But straight Christians writing about LGBT people and Christianity often just seem to not realize that LGBT Christians exist, which in and of itself is a stereotype. I’ll never forget the time I saw an video for a church asking parishioners to donate against gay marriage claim that Christians would win because of the money they put into the collection plate: it was just assumed that gay people were not Christians, did not gave to churches, and that there were no gay Christians elsewhere giving to the opposite side of the cause. My life, and the lives of many others, puts the lie to that.

In my more flip moments as a gay Christian, reading comments such as “Christians stereotype LGBT people” make me wonder if I should flip a coin to figure out which part of myself I ought to stereotype, since such statements assume that Christian/LGBT is a fundamental dichotomy–which simply isn’t true.

It’s not just people like me or Priya who think that Marin isn’t actually talking about what he truly “thinks, feels and believes.” Marin himself admits the same:

“I can still dignify someone’s story and humanity and experiences as totally legitimate” he said. “Without giving away what I theologically think, feel and believe.”

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/August/Missionarys-Message-to-Gays-Im-Sorry-/

Priya Lynn, thanks for your responses. I’ll try to reply to your comments. In regards to ‘my suggestion’ that seeing someone as an equal is the same as finding full agreement is absurd, I agree. That is a point that Andrew tries to make repeatedly. We (all humans) may not agree but we need to see each other as equal. However, as I am recognizing in your comment, that line is not so clear because it changes on either side of an issue. Conservative Christians and the LGBT community (and supporters of either one) will define ‘equality’ and ‘agreement’ differently then try to speak to each other before walking away angry, frustrated and feeling unheard. Now, I am a Christ-follower who does support gay marriage. I’m okay with stating my position. However, I struggle when people on both sides of this discussion demand that someone equate acceptance and equality on their terms only. As Andrew has made his lifestyle, discussion and dialogue are where relationships can be developed and understanding is birthed. However, to give binary choices (e.g. ‘are you for us or against us?’) does not assist in that. Andrew gets asked the same five questions from Christians and the LGBT community but they want him to give a one word answer that tells them he is on ‘their’ side or else he gets shut down. That’s why, as was raised previously, I think we should look at his life and the people with whom he is engaged. If they tell us that he is a dick, that he is all talk and no substance, let’s make it public and then ignore his claims of ‘building bridges’. But if we get evidence of love and compassion, of true support of people, let’s get behind that and not focus on his refusal to give answers to certain questions. His life will demonstrate his character because we all have known people or seen them on TV who talk a great game but then do not back it up.

I notice that you did not like my ‘either/or’ question. Hmmmm… Andrew doesn’t like those either but people were tearing him apart for not answering such questions. You also hypothetically suggested that no one could be supportive of their gay friends if they did not agree with gay marriage. Let’s hold such a conclusion loosely since we do not know that with certainty. We can guess and have good reasons for our position. But I think we get ourselves in trouble if we claim we know the character of all people in all situations. Stereotyping is wrong, no matter to whom it relates. Christians stereotype LGBT people. Let’s not stereotype conservatives.
Furthermore, what if we found someone who was gay but did not support gay marriage? Would we say they weren’t really gay? Would we offer some other explanation and then ditch them because they did not believe the right to marry was the same as equality? Again, another hypothetical.

Oh, as well, you took a route I didn’t expect. I guess because I made it a binary question. You said you WOULD stop being someone’s friend if they did not agree with gay marriage. That is interesting. Man, I’d probably lose quite a few friends if I took that route. And who would they have to speak into their lives, offer them a different perspective, show them another way if I was to write them off? It is the enlightened oppressor who must teach his/her fellow oppressors about their behaviour. Do we want people to change their minds or do we just want them keep going on in their prejudice and bigotry?

Lastly, you wrote, “So, now the people who want someone to be honest about his position are the bad guys and the guy who wants to hide his true goals is the good guy. Riiiight.” Is silence dishonesty? It can be but I would hesitate to say it must be at all times. It’s not about ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’. It’s about appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, about reasonable and unreasonable arguments. If you ask Andrew what his goals are and he tells you but then insist they are not his “true goals” and he is “hiding” something, how can he convince you otherwise? (I’m using ‘you’ universally, to include myself as well.) It seems to me that you will not believe anything he says. Sure, we could say, ‘Well, tell me what you think of A and then I’ll believe you,’ but maybe you won’t. Conservatives are doing the same thing to Andrew on the other side of the discussion. They are tearing him down, blasting his character and condemning him because he will not give them the one-word answer they demand so they can label him ‘for’ or ‘against’ them.

We might think, ‘Sure, but if he is on our side, that is the right side and then forget the others.’ From what I can see in Andrew’s posts, he is way too compassionate and sensitive for that. Just as the LGBT community experiences rejection on a regular basis and Andrew abhors this, my sense is that he views Christians (conservative, moderate and liberal) as his family, whom he loves. How can he write them off? How can he not spend his energy to bring them to greater insight and understanding of the LGBT community, whom he also loves. Some Christians give him the same grief about the LGBT community, saying all the hateful garbage that has been spoken for far too long (and is the exact opposite of what Jesus says), telling him to forget about them. But then he gets involved in peoples’ lives, meets them where they are and becomes friends with them, and the real relationship takes place. We’re just making arguments (in the philosophical sense) because the real life is happening and we can debate whether Andrew loves people or not but it only matters if those people say that they feel loved, not our debate about whether or not they should or can.

I think that the LGBT community is an amazing example of what true community can and should be like. There is great disagreement within the community about many issues but there is also acceptance. I think it is a beautiful example to Christ-followers of how community should be occurring, particularly if they say they are trying to live the love of Jesus.

Thanks for getting me to think about these things, Priya Lynn. I appreciate any comments, questions or challenges as I’m trying to become a better version of me and I need community (even if it is through this anonymous machine).

So, now the people who want someone to be honest about his position are the bad guys and the guy who wants to hide his true goals is the good guy. Riiiight.

Obviously not. No one has a friend that agrees with everything they think. Its absurd of you to suggest that expecting a friend to see you as an equal is the same as expecting them to agree with everything you think.

Bart said “What if you found out that your best friend thought that gay marriage was unconstitutional? You’ve had no other inclination that your friend thought that way. They have not acted in a homophobic manner and they are supportive of all their gay friends. Would you stop being their friend? Or would you engage in a discussion to figure out why they think that, maybe even try to convince them they are wrong?”.

It doesn’t have to be an either/or scenario, it can be an “and”. I would stop being their friend and I would try to convince them they’re wrong. Any “friend” that thinks gays don’t have a right to equal marriage most certainly isn’t supportive of all their gay friends.

Bart said “If you decide a person’s value based on a single opinion, you are a hypocrite because lots of people you know disagree with you but they do not write you off.”.

BS. Someone else doing something I wouldn’t can’t make me a hypocrite, only me doing something I preach against can make me a hypocrite

“