Protestants, do you know that Franklin Graham said this?

[AbideWithMe]

Ah yes, the heterosexuals are looking for the objective good while those of us less fortunate are just hooking up. Except for the rare faithful gay relationship.

There is a middle ground. Thankfully.

I want to say, too, that I hope I’m not seeming either adversarial or pitying to any one who is gay. I happened to see, being an art student, a boatload of opportunistic, promiscuous gay sexual
activity. If the heterosexual students had been so opportunistic, too, I would have been equally disliking it. And some of the students were like that, but most were looking for long term exclusive relationships. Heterosexual 20-something students had that hope in front of them, that a long term relationship was waiting for them if so desired. While, back then, a gay student didn’t have anything better, intimate relationship-wise, to hope for beyond taking whatever opportunities presented themselves at the time.

I’m a happily single woman with no wish to change that, but, though I’ve been in serious relationships where I’ve felt I’m peering through a door down another potential pathway, it’s been my choice to close that door. While some gay people would make a similar choice towards celibacy if they could have an open door, others seem to long for the potential to form a lasting marriage if they were allowed to do so. And I’m being candid but not pitying when I say I feel kind of bad for people in the midst of that tension. It’s a tough road to follow. If it were up to me I’d be in favor of same sex marriage.

 

[ATraveller]

I think he was referring to those sexually active although I could be wrong. There’s still an issue with terminology. For example, this UK Evangelical group ministering to gay people prefers ‘same-sex attracted Christian’ over ‘gay Christian’ :
livingout.org/why-not-say-you-re-gay-

 

[ltwin]

While it’s important to carefully define our terms, some people (even high profile people) don’t. Should Graham have used precision in his language? Yes. Does his lack of precision mean that he thinks it is impossible for God-fearing same-sex attracted people to go heaven? No. According to this site, he says the following:

He continued, “Listen, I’m not here to bash gays, I don’t want to do that – and God does love them. I have people ask me, can a gay person go to Heaven? Absolutely, sure.”

“But the gay person is going to have to repent of their sins and turn from their sins, leave their sins,” said the reverend. “And they have to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and trust Him as their Savior. They have to be willing to follow him as their Lord.”

So, basically, all gay people have to do to go to heaven is the exact same thing straight people have to do: repent of their sins (so don’t do gay sex and resist homosexual thoughts and temptations rather than lusting in one’s heart) and receive Christ as Lord and Savior.

Of course, I’m not defending everything Graham said. Some of it seemed really muddled and tone deaf. Like the part where he basically said Christians should not try reach out to gay kids because if you invite them into your homes and churches and allow them to interact with your kids then you will not influence them but they will influence you to be gay-affirming (I suppose).

I hope what he was trying to say that any outreach to the “gay community” needs to be done in ways that we do no affirm homosexual acts as good, and the church needs to guard against subtle influence that can lead to doctrinal compromise.

But what he actually says seems to be that we should not invite gay people to church. Which begs the question, if sinners can’t go to the church to find grace, where can they go?

What about the Christian parents who have gay kids and bring their kids to church? Should they be shunned? My church has teenagers who its an open secret that they identify as gay, but we don’t write teenagers off just because they openly engage in sin or embrace identities contrary to the Christian faith. We pray for them and counsel them and teach them the truth in love.

Graham seems to be worrying more about contamination than he is about ministering to people who need the church.

 

[Peter_J]

Wow, Peter. I think of you as a reasonable poster, too, but, holy cow, how was I making excuses for Franklin Graham?

Well maybe you could let me know if it’s unacceptable to call this “making excuses” too:

I think he was referring to those sexually active although I could be wrong.

In any case, I would refer you back to the two questions to posed to you already,

how would it be if I said “All Protestants are led by the Devil”
…
and then justified it by saying that anyone who’s not led by the Devil doesn’t fit my definition of “Protestant”?

and

So how many times has it happened that you’ve told a fellow Protestant that you’re straight, and had him or her tell you “You must repent of being straight before marriage if you want to call yourself a Christian”?

 

[reggieM]

So how many times has it happened that you’ve told a fellow Protestant that you’re straight, and had him or her tell you “You must repent of being straight before marriage if you want to call yourself a Christian”?

The gay inclination itself is “ordered to an intrinsic moral evil” - it is an “objective disorder”. Can you see where the equivalency you’re posing is wrong?

At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Additionally:

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[meltzerboy]

While it’s important to carefully define our terms, some people (even high profile people) don’t. Should Graham have used precision in his language? Yes. Does his lack of precision mean that he thinks it is impossible for God-fearing same-sex attracted people to go heaven? No. According to this site, he says the following:

So, basically, all gay people have to do to go to heaven is the exact same thing straight people have to do: repent of their sins (so don’t do gay sex and resist homosexual thoughts and temptations rather than lusting in one’s heart) and receive Christ as Lord and Savior.

Of course, I’m not defending everything Graham said. Some of it seemed really muddled and tone deaf. Like the part where he basically said Christians should not try reach out to gay kids because if you invite them into your homes and churches and allow them to interact with your kids then you will not influence them but they will influence you to be gay-affirming (I suppose).

I hope what he was trying to say that any outreach to the “gay community” needs to be done in ways that we do no affirm homosexual acts as good, and the church needs to guard against subtle influence that can lead to doctrinal compromise.

But what he actually says seems to be that we should not invite gay people to church. Which begs the question, if sinners can’t go to the church to find grace, where can they go?

What about the Christian parents who have gay kids and bring their kids to church? Should they be shunned? My church has teenagers who its an open secret that they identify as gay, but we don’t write teenagers off just because they openly engage in sin or embrace identities contrary to the Christian faith. We pray for them and counsel them and teach them the truth in love.

Graham seems to be worrying more about contamination than he is about ministering to people who need the church.

As always, a reasonable, well-crafted comment. I think you hit the mark regarding Franklin Graham’s intentions: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

 

[Vonsalza]

The gay inclination itself is “ordered to an intrinsic moral evil” - it is an “objective disorder”. Can you see where the equivalency you’re posing is wrong?

At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Additionally:

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

I would agree with some restraint here. The biggest divide here seems to be over the role “will” plays in homosexuality.

 

[reggieM]

I would agree with some restraint here. The biggest divide here seems to be over the role “will” plays in homosexuality.

I think that’s right in the sense that one’s will can be (and has to be) trained towards the good. If it is oriented towards evil actions for any number of reasons, there has to be on-going work to direct it towards the objective good. So, an inclination can be disordered through compulsion or physical factors (children of alcoholics) which make it harder to adjust and control.

 

[ATraveller]

Well maybe you could let me know if it’s unacceptable to call this “making excuses” too

I’m not intentionally making excuses for Franklin Graham. I want to presume he’s innocent until he’s proven guilty.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Well maybe you could let me know if it’s unacceptable to call this “making excuses” too:

In any case, I would refer you back to the two questions to posed to you already,

and

Hey, PeterJ, I’m working late, but I’ll be back tomorrow. My short answer: "No, no “making excuses” there.

I looked up the history of usage for “gay”. Briefly, it started out to mean bright or showy, then came to include showy heterosexual licentiousness, till it began to include obvious (showy) homosexual lifestyles, then more recently just became a broad synonym for homosexual. And meanwhile, of course, it never lost its original meaning. So, to me, it still carries that original picture of something obvious laid over the latter meanings, more so than a picture of a person privately (for the most part) managing their attractions in the sight of God within the realm of chastity. I think it’s reasonable to guess Graham may be thinking of “gay” somewhat similarly, since he’s older and up to recently an obvious gay lifestyle was the more common meaning, as opposed to just SSA.

 

[lanman87]

Hey, PeterJ, I’m working late, but I’ll be back tomorrow. My short answer: "No, no “making excuses” there.

I looked up the history of usage for “gay”. Briefly, it started out to mean bright or showy, then came to include showy heterosexual licentiousness, till it began to include obvious (showy) homosexual lifestyles, then more recently just became a broad synonym for homosexual. And meanwhile, of course, it never lost its original meaning. So, to me, it still carries that original picture of something obvious laid over the latter meanings, more so than a picture of a person privately (for the most part) managing their attractions in the sight of God within the realm of chastity. I think it’s reasonable to guess Graham may be thinking of “gay” somewhat similarly, since he’s older and up to recently an obvious gay lifestyle was the more common meaning, as opposed to just SSA.

I would agree with this. For many being gay doesn’t mean having homosexual desire, it means being an active homosexual. So when he says to repent of “being gay” I would assume he means turning away from homosexual activity.

For anyone over 50 is you ask them what makes someone gay they would probably say having sex with someone of the same sex. That it is the act of being gay that makes someone gay instead of the desire. Think of in the same mindset that a thief is someone who steals, not someone who is tempted to steal.

Is what he said politically correct? No. Could someone who is gay but chooses to not practice homosexual sex be offended? Probably. However, I doubt he had malicious intent.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi again. I felt like I should pop back in once more, to say that I’m not planning on participating on this thread any further. (I’m glad to see that AbideWithMe has also returned, since we’ve known each other through many past threads and it wouldn’t seem right to disappear with saying goodbye. Plus maybe it will be a good reminder of the two questions that I tried to get you to think about. )

 

[StudentMI]

I would agree with this. For many being gay doesn’t mean having homosexual desire, it means being an active homosexual. So when he says to repent of “being gay” I would assume he means turning away from homosexual activity.

For anyone over 50 is you ask them what makes someone gay they would probably say having sex with someone of the same sex. That it is the act of being gay that makes someone gay instead of the desire. Think of in the same mindset that a thief is someone who steals, not someone who is tempted to steal.

Is what he said politically correct? No. Could someone who is gay but chooses to not practice homosexual sex be offended? Probably. However, I doubt he had malicious intent.

Utter nonsense. My parents in the seventies had gay friends, a male couple. They never associated ‘gay’ with active relationships and actions. They had those friends and only used the word gay as designating those who were attracted to the same sex. And my parents are well over 50 and very strictly Christian.

As I’ve said numerous times in this thread, Franklin Graham is educated enough to differentiate in a statement between actions and orientation. That he had to backtrack in the full statement shows he knows he goofed. The statement as it is is stupid and not in line with Catholic teaching. Deal with it.

 

[lanman87]

Utter nonsense. My parents in the seventies had gay friends, a male couple. They never associated ‘gay’ with active relationships and actions. They had those friends and only used the word gay as designating those who were attracted to the same sex. And my parents are well over 50 and very strictly Christian.

As I’ve said numerous times in this thread, Franklin Graham is educated enough to differentiate in a statement between actions and orientation. That he had to backtrack in the full statement shows he knows he goofed. The statement as it is is stupid and not in line with Catholic teaching. Deal with it.

Well, personally, I’ve never met someone who said they are gay but wasn’t active in either seeking or having a homosexual relationship. I’m glad to know that there are people who are homosexual yet choose to not act on the desires out of a desire to serve and follow Christ.

 

[Wannano]

Well, personally, I’ve never met someone who said they are gay but wasn’t active in either seeking or having a homosexual relationship. I’m glad to know that there are people who are homosexual yet choose to not act on the desires out of a desire to serve and follow Christ.

And probably most of these people have no need to announce to the world that they are homosexual either.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hi again. I felt like I should pop back in once more, to say that I’m not planning on participating on this thread any further. (I’m glad to see that AbideWithMe has also returned, since we’ve known each other through many past threads and it wouldn’t seem right to disappear with saying goodbye. Plus maybe it will be a good reminder of the two questions that I tried to get you to think about. )

Thanks for letting us know your plans.

I’m sorry, but I’m just not getting the point of the now-infamous two questions. I suspect we’re thinking about this too differently, so we’re talking past each other.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Utter nonsense. My parents in the seventies had gay friends, a male couple. They never associated ‘gay’ with active relationships and actions. They had those friends and only used the word gay as designating those who were attracted to the same sex. And my parents are well over 50 and very strictly Christian.

As I’ve said numerous times in this thread, Franklin Graham is educated enough to differentiate in a statement between actions and orientation. That he had to backtrack in the full statement shows he knows he goofed. The statement as it is is stupid and not in line with Catholic teaching. Deal with it.

It’s not utter nonsense. You can relate your experience and other posters can relate theirs.

 

[Faith1960]

I don’t pay much attention to what Franklin Graham says. Usually what I hear, I do not like or agree with. I don’t think he is much like his father, even when the latter was younger.

I agree with you, Billy is a likable man, Franklin – not so much.