Reddit reviews Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate

Hi! Can you make it to Columbus, OH for the upcoming Parents' Conference of GCN? Meeting lots of other parents would probably be an amazing experience for you. I think you'd also get a lot out of Torn by Justin Lee.

> We have been looking into conversion therapy, but it is quite out of our budget.

That's a relief, since it's known to be ineffective, destructive, and sometimes fatal. I assume you love your son too much to want to bring about his death. I hope you feel similarly about his relationship with Christ; that you won't decide that driving him away from God is a fair and reasonable sacrifice for the hope of somehow making him straight.

Do you realize that Exodus, the largest and longest-running organization to attempt conversion therapy, ultimately concluded that they were only doing harm, and so voluntarily closed down? Neither your youth pastor, nor anybody else, has anywhere near as much experience with conversion therapy and seeing what it does. If the most experienced experts in any field tell you that you should not do something to your son because it would do him harm, I assume that a loving parent will not then shop around for a less scrupulous amateur willing to experiment on him.

Many committed Christians believe that the anti-homosexual passages in the Bible can be argued to refer to specific kinds of abusive, adulterous, or promiscuous relationships of the time. They are clearly anti-homosexual, but is this intended to be a Law for all time, or does it merely reflect the culture it was written in?

This is a question that involves interpretation. The traditional interpretation is based on taking these passages and applying them directly to modern situations. This is an interpretive choice. There are many other rules and instructions in the New Testament that even the most traditional Christian will choose to consider to be a reflection of its culture. I don’t see many conservative evangelicals telling men they cannot cut their hair, or that woman must wear hats in church, even though this is clearly stated by Paul. I don’t see even the most traditional Christians protesting against the eating of black pudding, even though eating blood was clearly prohibited by a unanimous decision of the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem. So there must be a decision being made here, based on what people understand the underlying principles of the Gospel to be.

The affirming argument is based on following several principles that are outlined within scripture and applying them to the specific situation. The first is Romans 13:10:

>The commandments… are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

This teaches us that all sin involves harm caused to our neighbour. There is no sin in loving our neighbour, only in harming them. Therefore, if we are to prohibit anything, we must do so because it causes harm. If there is no harm caused, then we should not prohibit the action. I would challenge anyone to explain the harm that is caused when two Christian men who love each other decide to commit their lives to each other in matrimony.

The principle is further outlined by Paul in Colossians 2:20-23.

>Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Here we see the use of the underlying principles of the Gospel at work. Paul is figuring out the application of the Gospel to various situations throughout his letters, and here he shows a glimpse of his working. The customs and traditional rules of the world are not binding on us. The moral prohibitions against various actions are no longer the ones we are to follow. All the prohibitions and restrictions may seem good, since they restrain our behaviour. But are they? As Christians we are to follow a different principle. The principle of Christ. We have seen this principle in Romans, and in Galatians 5:13-14 Paul also says:

>You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

And in Philippians 2:3-4 Paul writes:

> Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

What is the sinful nature; it is that which causes us to harm others, and to pursue our own interests over theirs. To indulge our own desires at the expense of other people. What is the opposite of the sinful nature; it is that which causes us to love others, to put their interests above our own. To restrain our own appetites for the benefit of others. This is the fundamental principle of the Gospel. How can this principle be applied to prohibit same-sex marriage? I do not see how it can.

Where else does Paul tell us of this principle. He writes in Galatians 5:6

>For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

He is talking about a specific thing here, but he finishes with the general principle to show us how he reached his conclusion. How can he justify that Christians shouldn’t be circumcised? He points out that because of the principle of the Gospel, following laws, even laws from God, means nothing. The only thing we should be concerned about is expressing our faith in God through our love for others. How is this love demonstrated when we prohibit the love of two men for each other?

This is only a short summary of my position. But if you want to know more the best and clearest presentation of the Biblical argument for Affirming Christianity is Justin Lee's article here and if you want to read even more then he has written a book called Torn.

Hey bro, I'm so sorry to hear that this happened. Don't know where you are now (school and away, living at home while working, etc?) Regardless, it's probably really tough. But know that there's a ton of support out there! In terms of popular literature you could give your parents, there's Torn by Justin Lee and God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines. I wish you the absolute best of luck on traversing this next step in your coming out journey. It won't be easy, but you've made it this far. Here if you need an ear. Sending you positive vibes and a giant brohug :)