Hi guys!
The question of how a Christian is to deal with a sexually active homosexual person is a tough one that I find fraught with complications. Beyond vague and over-generalized statements, there is virtually no authoritative directive for how this is to be done. Let’s consider BayCityRickL’s statements one by one.
- I think it’s safe to say we shouldn’t call people ‘homosexual’ or any vulgar alternative.
The word “homosexual” has never struck me as pejorative in any sense. I always considered it more of a clinical description. Now, I understand due to the
clarification what BayCityRickL meant. That we should not address a person as “homosexual” instead of using their proper name. I don’t think anyone talks like that, however. If you are going to refer to a person in such a manner, you would use a slur, like “queer” or “fag.”
Now, tuopaolo
had some interesting things to say about using these words. He apparently dislikes the words “queer” and “gay” because they have other, non-slang meanings in the English language. From a strictly linguistic point of view, one should not use the term “homosexual” either as it is a word clumsily cobbled together from the Greek homós and the Latin sexualis. You also shouldn’t use the word “faggot” based on this reasoning.
Now, to me, it seems that the use of the word “fag” is indefensible for a Christian. The Church spends a lot of her time trying to get homosexuals to identify as something that is more than just the sum of their temptations. For us as Christians to reduce them to the label of “fag” incorrectly confirms in the homosexual an identity based solely on his inclinations. Moreover, I am not moved by those pointing out that the homosexuals use the word to refer to themselves. A homosexual, by his very nature, does all manner of things that are inappropriate.
- A Christian should not threaten a homosexual, verbally or physically.
There is not much of a problem that I can see with this. Only it must be understood what, exactly, would constitute a threat. It is an easy question, but only on the surface. A homosexual may take an instance of evangelization where he is told he risks hellfire as a threat.
- Our general approach to homosexuals should be to uphold their dignity as temples of the Holy Spirit.
Generally speaking, this would be true. But this is the type of vague directive that I alluded to at the start. What does this mean in practical terms? Would this preclude us from, say, evicting a homosexual who, other than his discrete sexual behavior behind closed doors, is a model tenant?
- Scripture tells us to offer correction, if we have the sense to know the right time and place to offer it, and assuming that we might have something to offer, in the first place.
What does it mean to offer correction? There is a wide range of interpretation possible here and that is not good when we are talking about the spiritual welfare of the homosexual. It is too easy in a lot of these circumstances to administer the correction in such a way as to not do the homosexual much good but instead, to make us fell better about ourselves.
- Christians should not acquiesce to ganging up on homosexuals in any way.
This is clearly wrong. If a member of the community is in error and individual intervention does not work, then you must use the rest of the community to confront the individual.
