FSTDT

TGC recently published a fascinating interview with Becket Cook, a former Hollywood set designer in the fashion industry who was living an openly gay life. Cook left all that behind when he met Jesus — or, rather, Jesus met him — and now he is in Christian ministry as a recent graduate of Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. This summer he published the story of his conversion, A Change of Affection: A Gay Man’s Incredible Story of Redemption.

As with every Christian (cf. Rom 6:11; Gal 2:20; 1 Cor 6:9–11; 2 Cor 5:17), the issue of identity stands at the center of Cook’s testimony. When asked in the TGC interview about “gay Christianity” and whether he thought it was possible to reconcile following Jesus and having a “gay identity,” Cook answered emphatically:

"They are irreconcilable. It’s strange to me to see these attempts. I had such a clean break from it, and it was entirely God’s grace upon me to see that it was necessary. Would you call yourself a greedy Christian? Would you call yourself a tax-collector Christian? It seems strange to identify yourself with sin. It’s a square circle. Defining yourself as a “gay Christian,” even if you are celibate and not active in a homosexual relationship, is wildly misleading. And it’s almost like you’re stewing in your old sin, hanging onto your old self in a weird way. It’s not helpful to have that moniker over you and to continually identify as such. Why would you identify with your old self that has been crucified with Christ? So I flee from that term as far as I can. It’s not who I am at all. If people ask me how I identify, I’m just like, “I don’t identify by my sexuality. I’m a follower of Christ who has a lot of struggles, including same-sex attraction.”

These attempts at reconciling gay identity and following Jesus which Cook refers to are being made by those who call themselves Side B “gay Christians.” While they confess the incompatibility of homosexual sexual desire and so-called “gay marriage” with historic, orthodox Christianity, they still identity as “gay.”

One of the reasons Side B “gay Christians” give as to why they continue to identify as “gay” or as “gay Christians” is because the word “gay” uniquely describes their experiences in this world, their particular struggles with temptation and sin, as well as their outlook on the world that grows out of these realities. Since these experiences are unique in the lives of same-sex attracted Christians, how else can they relate their testimony of God’s grace in their lives? They believe the Bible is true and right when it forbids same-sex sexual relationships. But shouldn’t they identity in a way that is true to their particular struggles?

I can sympathize with this line of reasoning, and I know how powerful it can be when believers share the work God has done and continues to do in their lives, particularly where they have struggled, where they continue to struggle, and how God’s grace is sustaining them even in the midst of these struggles.

In other words, I can imagine a possible world where the words “gay” and “Christian” may find themselves in proximity to one another in a believer’s testimony. But when such a testimony is shared, I think something that is not always clear among Side B “gay Christians” needs to be made crystal clear, as Cook does above. The modifier “gay,” is it describing the old man or the new man?
Paul teaches in a number of places that there are two “I’s” or “selves” in the believer this side of glory. For instance, in Ephesians 4:17–24 Paul writes about the “old self” and the “new self”:

17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

While those who do not know God have hard hearts that are marked by sensuality, greed, and every kind of impurity, this is the opposite of what marks those who are in Christ.

But notice what Paul does in verse 22 above. He says that the old self of the believer must be associated in the mind and life of the Christian with their former manner of life that had more to do with the ungodly Gentiles than Christ. In place of the old self, the new self must be actively put on, actively associated with and owned as an identity that is, as Paul says, “created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”

In other words, hostility toward the old self and hospitality toward the new self should characterize the Christian. Why? Because the old self is no longer the true self, the authentic self. The old self has been crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6) and therefore we are called to mortify it and its desires (Col 3:5–10). The new self is who we are.

Which brings us to the concern for how Side B uses “gay Christian.” When they use and embrace this identity, what — or who — do they map the modifier “gay” onto? For this person, is the old self “gay,” or the new self “gay”? Unless this question is answered unequivocally with the former, I believe Side B “gay Christianity” will continue to be suspect and inconsistent not only with the teaching about mortification of the old self and sin in the New Testament, but also with God’s purposes in creation and redemption. If Side B uses “gay” to describe an aspect of the new self in Christ, as many in the movement have insinuated, then we are no longer dealing with how the orthodox have everywhere and always spoken about temptation and indwelling sin.

I am thankful for Becket Cook’s clarity on Christian identity. It is a faithful application of Scripture to who we are in Christ as redeemed sinners. I hope many more will follow his lead.

Americans, conditioned by our history, are very concerned about “our rights.” So before looking at what a Catholic America might look like, let us establish that all human rights are given to us by the Creator. As our Declaration of Independence rightly explains: “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Human rights, then, are not arbitrary but conform to what God has given and allowed. The right to life is one such right. Freedom of speech is a right, but it is limited so as to exclude blasphemy of God. God does not give us a “right” to acts which are contrary to His nature. He gives us a free will and we can sin with it, but He does not give us the protected “right” to sin. Nobody on Judgment Day will protest, “But I had the RIGHT to curse you and commit mortal sins!”

So then, God does not give us the “right” to curse Him, the “right” to kill innocents, nor the “right” to commit sodomy. The rights given by the Creator always conform to the law of the Creator.

With all this mind, what if America were a fully Catholic country, here is what it might look like…

* The newly elected president would recite his oath of office, not only with his hand on the Holy Bible, but kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance held by the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, DC. within the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. In other words, the President would make his oath directly to Christ.
* January 21, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, would be a perennial day of national penance.
* Holy Matrimony would be honored and recognized as the most fundamental unit of American culture.
* Large families would be encouraged and assisted through the US tax code.
* The White House would no longer have a basketball court or bowling alley, but a glorious and beautiful chapel where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be celebrated daily by a presidential Catholic chaplain.
* Abortion, contraception, sodomy, euthanasia, and divorce would be illegal as these sins are contrary to the natural law. Of course, abused wives would be protected and assisted under law.
* Public blasphemy and the abuse of the most holy name of Jesus would be forbidden in film, television, and music. Think about it: why is not okay to say the F-word on TV but actors are allowed to mock and blaspheme Jesus? Which is worse, abusing God’s name in vain or the F-word?
* The United States would have the greatest foster care system in the world.
* The Catholic Church, not the State, would organize and perform the Seven Corporal Acts of Mercy (feeding the poor, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, etc.)
* US courtrooms would have both the Ten Commandments and a Crucifix of Christ on the wall to proclaim the Justice of God and the Divine Mercy of God.
* All Holy Days of Obligation would become federal holidays and Days of Obligation would not be transferred to Sundays since they would become holidays for all citizens. Ash Wednesday and Good Friday would also become nationally recognized holidays.
According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, the natural law prescribes that parents, not the State, are primarily responsible for the education of children. Saint Paul says: “And you, fathers…educate your children in the discipline and correction of the Lord.” It is the job of fathers, not the State, to educate. This truth of Saint Paul would be recognized by law and encouraged through homeschooling, educational co-ops, parochial schools, and locally governed public schools on the pattern of subsidiarity.
* Mary under her title “Immaculate Conception” is currently the patroness of the United States. She would become featured on our national seal and on our currency.
* Streets, landmarks, parks, national monument, and our currency would be marked by the names and images of great American saints (St Elizabeth Anne Seton, St Katherine Drexel, St John Neumann, St Francesca S. Cabrini, St Rose Philippine Duchesne, St Damien of Molokai).
* American foreign policy would conform to Catholic teaching regarding just war and prohibiting global policing and so-called “preventive wars.”
A cross would be placed on top of the Washington Monument.
* The solemnity of the Immaculate Conception would be a day in which the American bishops and all the faithful annually consecrated the nation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
* Under the patronage of the Immaculate Conception, the United States would become known for its Marian devotion in a way that would rival medieval France and England.
* The principle of subsidiarity would apply to our economic and political arrangement – which would include things like the encouragement of local natural food, local water, local governance, etc.
* The sin of usury in form of credit cards, school loans, and other disadvantaging lending policies would be criminalized as contrary to natural law.
* Our immigration policy would be firm, merciful and just by including a clear and regularized process for citizenship.
* Pornography and even unwholesome advertisements and billboards would be outlawed.
* America would be known as a place where the dignity of women, especially motherhood, is celebrated.
* The bishops nationally or locally could ask civil leaders to appoint certain days as days of national thanksgiving or as days of penance or mourning.
* The clergy (but especially our archbishops and bishops) would not live like royalty in mansions as in previous years but would live penitent and poor lives like great bishops of old such as St Martin of Tours, St Francis de Sales, St Augustine, and St Bonaventure.
* The meetings of the Senate and Congress would begin with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and with prayers and benedictions from the clergy.
* Red Masses invoking the aid of the Holy Spirit would be celebrated regularly to beg prudence for judges, attorneys, law school professors, students, and government officials.
* Those of different religions would be tolerated and by no means forced to convert to Catholicism. Conversion, as the Popes have taught, is an act of the will and people should not be forced through political coercion.

This is what I’m praying for and this is what I’m working for. Not by force, but by patience, penance, and kindness. As Saint Paul wrote:

Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4)

It’s not enough to be on defense. It’s not enough to “fix” the HHS debacle. It’s not even enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. We have to be like the early Christians. We have to think like Saint Paul who wanted to convert not only individual souls but the entire Roman Empire. As the Apostle once wrote: “To re-establish all things in Christ!” (Eph1:10), which much later became the motto of Pope Saint Pius X: Instaurare omnia in Christo!

Welcome to Fundies Say the Darndest Things