Protestants, do you know that Franklin Graham said this?

[Peter_J]

Yes, you could define Protestant as those who participated in the formal protest at Speyer in 1529. Mr Graham’s theology was probably not present

True. But I’m interested in the perspective of anyone who calls themselves Protestant.

 

[JonNC]

Protestants – more specifically, American Protestants who are familiar with Franklin Graham – do you know that he said the following? “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian. You can’t do it.”

Yes, that’s right. He did not say that, to be a Christian, a gay person has to be chaste, or even that he/she has to stay in the closet, but rather that the gay person has to become ex-gay in order to be a Christian.

Can we say that if we stay in adultery and we can’t continue to call ourselves Christian?

There is too much circumstance to completely answer the question, but as a general rule, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive…

If Graham means continue to BE gay, instead of acting on it, I would strongly disagree with him. But then, there’s lots I disagree with him on, starting with the sacraments

 

[Peter_J]

Can we say that if we stay in adultery and we can’t continue to call ourselves Christian?

Red herring. Franklin Graham’s statement said (emphasis added) “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian.” Defend it if you want to, but that was his statement.

 

[Peter_J]

Can we say that if we stay in adultery and we can’t continue to call ourselves Christian?

Red herring. Franklin Graham’s statement said (emphasis added) “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian.” Defend it if you want to, but that was his statement.

Also, I wonder if it has occurred to you that your juxtaposition of being gay with being an adulterer might say more about you than it does about Franklin Graham?

 

[JonNC]

=Peter J;14798796]Red herring. Franklin Graham’s statement said (emphasis added) “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian.” Defend it if you want to, but that was his statement

Oh, I’m not defending him at all. My point was specifically that he has to justify what seems to be a different standard for gays than for straights. Being gay is not a sin, anymore than being straight is. And neither is an excuse for actions outside God’s commands.

Also, I wonder if it has occurred to you that your juxtaposition of being gay with being an adulterer might say more about you than it does about Franklin Graham?

It probably does, since he’s not here to defend/explain his comment. Hopefully, above, I just explained mine

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, you could define Protestant as those who participated in the formal protest at Speyer in 1529.

You could…

Although that definition is not the given one in most dictionaries nor is it the definition as roughly 99.99% of Protestants would give it.

 

[JonNC]

You could…

Although that definition is not the given one in most dictionaries nor is it the definition as roughly 99.99% of Protestants would give it.

“500 years ago, you could define ‘Protestant.’” - Po18guy

That’s the quote I was responding to.

 

[Vonsalza]

Franklin Graham’s statement said (emphasis added) “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian.”

I gotta say again, I think this is a pretty typical evangelical response. It fairly accurately reflects the groups that would strongly support Graham. You gotta “Pray the Gay Away” and what not.

But it is shocking that many can be so uncharitable over something that folks seem to have little choice over.

 

[JonNC]

I gotta say again, I think this is a pretty typical evangelical response. It fairly accurately reflects the groups that would strongly support Graham. You gotta “Pray the Gay Away” and what not.

But it is shocking that many can be so uncharitable over something that folks seem to have little choice over.

 

[meltzerboy]

I gotta say again, I think this is a pretty typical evangelical response. It fairly accurately reflects the groups that would strongly support Graham. You gotta “Pray the Gay Away” and what not.

But it is shocking that many can be so uncharitable over something that folks seem to have little choice over.

Many Evangelicals think that gay people DO have a choice in their attraction, as some Catholics and Jews think.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Many Evangelicals think that gay people DO have a choice in their attraction, as do some Catholics and Jews.

That’s true—many Evangelicals do think it’s a choice, but many don’t; and many think it may be a choice in some cases but not others. In a board with so few Evangelicals to speak about, or offer other references to, what Evangelicals en masse think about this topic, I’m sceptical that more definitive quantities other than “many…many…many” can be stated here.

 

[Peter_J]

Many Evangelicals think that gay people DO have a choice in their attraction, as some Catholics and Jews think.

Yes, but not very many Catholics ISTM. Heck, I’m a lifelong Catholic but I don’t even recall ever hearing a Catholic endorse the ex-gay movement except on the internet.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s true—many Evangelicals do think it’s a choice, but many don’t

Good point.

One thing that comes to mind, I think it’s a credit to Evangelicals that Exodus International reversed its “ex-gay” stance and apologized.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Good point.

One thing that comes to mind, I think it’s a credit to Evangelicals that Exodus International reversed its “ex-gay” stance and apologized.

Yes, but I personally fall into the category of “it may be a choice sometimes and not other times” so I don’t think it truly serves people to insist that being gay is never a choice (conscious or not) so that no gay person can change to become genuinely heterosexual. We would agree that chastity is a requirement if someone is gay, and for some people that itself feels like a harsh life sentence to physical and emotional loneliness. So then what if a portion (an unknown portion) of those people might, in fact, have unconsciously developed same sex attraction from harmful experiences but no professionals are willing to explore the question with them because it’s thought too uncharitable to even consider?

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Protestants – more specifically, American Protestants who are familiar with Franklin Graham – do you know that he said the following? “You cannot stay gay and continue to call yourself a Christian. You can’t do it.”

Yes, that’s right. He did not say that, to be a Christian, a gay person has to be chaste, or even that he/she has to stay in the closet, but rather that the gay person has to become ex-gay in order to be a Christian.

The trouble with using the word “gay” is that people mean different things by it. **Therefore any time you have this discussion, you absolutely have to define your terms first, or you will get nowhere. You cannot assume others mean the same thing by “gay” as you do. **In discussions on this subject among Catholics, people usually make an effort to distinguish between the attraction and the action. This of course is because we recognize that unwanted attraction to the same sex is not a sin in and of itself; rather it sexual actions with someone of the same sex that are disordered and immoral. (I.e., a person has little or no control over who he is attracted to, but he can control his actions.)

Catholics also tend to be aware of the fact that there are many devout Catholics and other Christians who experience same-sex attraction and yet live chastely. However, to most of the rest of the world (including Evangelicals), there is no presumption of chastity with the word “gay.” To most people, if you are “gay,” you either have or are looking for romantic or sexual partners of the same sex.

I am sure that Franklin Graham was referring to people who live a homosexual lifestyle. I very much doubt he was referring to people living chastely. Honestly, I am not sure how many Evangelicals realize that there is such a thing as same-sex-attracted people who choose to live in chastity, although awareness on the subject may be growing.

 

[Peter_J]

… So then what if a portion (an unknown portion) of those people might, in fact, have unconsciously developed same sex attraction from harmful experiences …

Agreed. I don’t doubt that sometimes straight people become “ex-straight” (and apparently gay), just like I don’t doubt that sometimes gay people become “ex-gay” (and apparently straight).

 

[StudentMI]

I am sure that Franklin Graham was referring to people who live a homosexual lifestyle. I very much doubt he was referring to people living chastely. Honestly, I am not sure how many Evangelicals realize that there is such a thing as same-sex-attracted people who choose to live in chastity, although awareness on the subject may be growing.

As I said before, Franklin Graham is educated enough to say ‘gay lifestyle’ or ‘homosexual actions’ or any mixture thereof. He didn’t, and the only logical inference from what he said is being attracted to one’s own sex is a sin and makes it impossible to be a Christian. Thank God I’m a Catholic and don’t have to listen to a self appointed preacher pontificate on such issues.

 

[AbideWithMe]

The trouble with using the word “gay” is that people mean different things by it. In discussions on this subject among Catholics, people usually make an effort to distinguish between the attraction and the action. This of course is because we recognize that unwanted attraction to the same sex is not a sin in and of itself; rather it sexual actions with someone of the same sex that are disordered and immoral. (I.e., a person has little or no control over who he is attracted to, but he can control his actions.)

Catholics also tend to be aware of the fact that there are many devout Catholics and other Christians who experience same-sex attraction and yet live chastely. However, to most of the rest of the world (including Evangelicals), there is no presumption of chastity with the word “gay.” To most people, if you are “gay,” you either have or are looking for romantic or sexual partners of the same sex.

I am sure that Franklin Graham was referring to people who live a homosexual lifestyle. I very much doubt he was referring to people living chastely. Honestly, I am not sure how many Evangelicals realize that there is such a thing as same-sex-attracted people who choose to live in chastity, although awareness on the subject may be growing.

That last is a very good point. I think the larger culture has little idea that someone could have SSA but choose chastity, and many Evangelicals go on that cultural premise.

As a sorry example, I did look up the rest of what Peter quoted, and it was from an interview with James Dobson. Graham’s fuller statements made me think he probably means “gay lifestyle”, though I can’t be sure. However, Dobson, who really, really should know better, said something ridiculous: that bisexual means a person who has “lots of sex” with both sexes. I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

As I said before, Franklin Graham is educated enough to say ‘gay lifestyle’ or ‘homosexual actions’ or any mixture thereof. He didn’t, and the only logical inference from what he said is being attracted to one’s own sex is a sin and makes it impossible to be a Christian. Thank God I’m a Catholic and don’t have to listen to a self appointed preacher pontificate on such issues.

I am not necessarily defending him, or at least not his choice of words. This is why I said above that if you are going to have this discussion with anyone, you first have to define what you mean by “gay,” because to most people, the word implies sexual activity as well as attraction.

The Catholic Church’s teaching is really a voice of sanity and balance on this issue. From what I have seen and experienced in the evangelical world, there is more confusion on this issue and a tendency to embrace one extreme or another, partly due to the fact that it has never occurred to many of them that there could be such a thing as a chaste gay (same-sex-attracted) person.

 

[AbideWithMe]

As I said before, Franklin Graham is educated enough to say ‘gay lifestyle’ or ‘homosexual actions’ or any mixture thereof. He didn’t, and the only logical inference from what he said is being attracted to one’s own sex is a sin and makes it impossible to be a Christian. Thank God I’m a Catholic and don’t have to listen to a self appointed preacher pontificate on such issues.

Look at my example of James Dobson’s mistake above.