Gay Christian?
One of the first acts of dominion Adam had was naming the animals. That process involved recognizing certain God-created qualities about the animals and then giving them a name that corresponded to those qualities. Naming was an exercise of authority that set animals in their proper relationships with one another and the man. Names set boundaries, giving the animals and man their respective cultures in which to live. Adam recognized this from the beginning as he was naming all of the animals and realized that among them there was no helper comparable to him. It is not until God creates Eve from Adam’s side that he names her with a name that corresponds to his own. She is ‘issha because she was taken out of ‘ish (Gen 2.23). Indeed, male and female are ‘adam (Gen 1.27).
Names tells us who we are. They tell us our cultural boundaries at macro and micro levels. As humans (or “man”) our name is “image of God.” That name sets the boundaries of our relationship to God, to one another, and the world around us. “Image of God” establishes the God-ordained culture in which we are to live and which we are to cultivate.
To accept another name for ourselves other than “image of God” is to seek to redefine reality, setting boundaries and developing a culture that is in opposition to our creation. If I am, for instance, the chance product of an evolutionary process, that sets a very different set of boundaries for relationships with God (if there is one), others, and the world around me. If my name is “evolution-by-chance,” then that name with all of its culture baggage tells me who I am, what my purpose in life is, and, therefore, how I am to relate to the world around me. That name becomes my master.
This is the reason why Paul was so insistent that Christians get their name right. Their entire lives had to be re-defined in terms of their union with Christ. They were not “under law Christians” or “in Adam Christians.” Certainly, there were aspects of their before-Christ lives with which they had to fight. But sin didn’t have dominion over them because they were not under law but under grace (Rom 6.14). They were to accept the name God had given them in Christ and with that the dominion of that name; an entire culture of being enslaved to righteousness and mortifying sin. When they submitted to the name given to them, the course of life would follow. They would do and wouldn’t do certain things because their name set cultural boundaries for them.
Understanding this is vital to your Christian life, especially when you have come from a past dominated by different sorts of sins you have committed or having suffered sins committed against you. You are tempted to accept the name given to you by your sin: sexually immoral, thief, drunkard, or some other sin. If you have been abused in some way, it is tempting to let your abuser “name” you as worthless, dirty, or victim. While not denying all of those horrible realities that have happened and recognizing their continuing effects on your life, you have been given a new name. Those sins and abusers don’t tell you who you are. Submitting to the name God has given you in Christ as “forgiven,” “justified,” “holy,” “adopted,” and others, you come under their dominion and your thoughts and actions begin to follow suit.
It has become popular in recent years for Christians to submit to names that aren’t healthy for themselves and, consequently, for the church. The most recent name is “gay Christian” (or one of its variants). Many who have adopted this name are people who are trying to deal with an ongoing battle of same-sex attraction. They have realized that this will be a lifelong battle, so they have accepted this battle and are seeking to remain faithful to Christ. That is to be applauded. The problem is that they don’t understand the power of “naming.” “Gay Christian” is not any more acceptable than “in Adam Christian,” “under law Christian,” “pedophile Christian” or “zoophile Christian.” Names adopt cultures; ways of thinking, speaking, dressing, et al. The “gay” culture is not consistent with the Christian culture. To try to synthesize the two is to blur the antithesis between them. What happens is that this becomes a sub-culture in the church that is at odds with the rest of the culture. Their name sets up boundaries between them and the rest of the church. Consequently, they will always be or feel as if they are outsiders, the struggling victims who can never find acceptance. They wear their rainbow accouterments and feel a greater bond with the LGBTQ+ community than they do with the church. They have accepted their name, so they come under that name’s dominion with all of its cultural baggage.
The church must understand the power of names. The church cannot, in the name of compassion, allow its members to try to syncretize that culture with the culture of Christ. The gay culture is flawed root and branch. The church should welcome those who fight with same-sex attraction just as it does those who fight with opposite-sex attraction, pride, envy, greed, and other sins. But the church, and specifically pastors, must not capitulate to allow people to submit to a name that keeps them under the dominion of sin, a culture that is opposed to the city of God.
The post Gay Christian? appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.