gay jesus

wwjd gay

What Would A Gay Jesus Do? What Jesus does!

Since “in Christ” there is no male or female, then that makes “in Christ” radically inclusive of all sexualities. Just like since “in Christ” there is no Jew or Greek it makes “in Christ” radically inclusive of all religions and spiritualities.

It really is as simple as that. Why complicate it?

Get my books on Amazon in paperback or Kindle: HERE!

"Nice vid David - hilarious! We'll miss you and wish you all the best! (and ..."

nakedpastor’s goodbye video to patheos
"Good idea! I look forward to exciting developments at your own site. I like Patheos, ..."

nakedpastor’s goodbye video to patheos

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Heidi Durham

    a darn good question in a society that tends to complicate everything. Please make this into a tshirt. People need to think. :^)

  • Jennifer Hynes

    I’ve often thought about it, the inclusiveness aspect that is, from St Paul’s words. I like teh way you put it.

  • Jacquie Kernick

    You’ve just made my day, David. It had not occurred to me the significance of the scripture you quote…enlightened once again by NP 🙂

    It really isn’t complicated at all…thank you.

  • Nancy T.

    Thank you!

    Since about 1 in 2000 people are intersexed:

    Biologically neither completely ‘male’ or ‘female’… a range that can go from full hermaphrodite to someone who would never know unless they had DNA testing, that they have an extra chromosone beloning to the opposite ‘sex’ of how they have been categorized.

    It was actually the understanding of intersexed people (which at the time I didn’t even know was that common, or varied in range) that was the final ‘straw’ that had me reject completely the ‘biblical’ notion of homosexuality.

    I figured if god couldn’t make us clearly defined physically, and who knows what sorts of differences were in our brains due to chemistry/hormones, than I was just not going to go with culturally mandated norms that aren’t even shared amongst all cultures. Besides, for people so hung up on what the old testament has to say about it, it never came up as a concern of Jesus.

    Also, like Jacquie, I hadn’t thought of that particular scripture in that light before.

  • Sarah

    He would make love with his boyfriend and have a lovely time.

  • A gay Jesus wouldn’t have been the sinless Jesus, and therefore couldn’t have paid the price for those of us who are sinful.

  • Gary

    “A gay Jesus wouldn’t have been the sinless Jesus, and therefore couldn’t have paid the price for those of us who are sinful.”

    What the hell? Are you are suggesting that it is impossible to be gay and it NOT be sinful?

  • Erp

    How many Christians are happy with the idea of Jesus being sexually attracted to anyone, male or female?

  • Gary

    I am. Of course I do not believe sexuality is sinful so why should it bother me? In fact…I would be greatly disturbed by the idea of the creator of the universe making sexual desire and attraction such a core part of our being, and then not being subject to those feelings Himself. This would make no sense to me.

    We were created in His image. This does not mean in all ways but sex, one of our strongest urges.

    In fact I’ll go a step further. Though I have no reason to believe Jesus engaged in sexual activity…I also have no reason to believe He didn’t. I would be fine with finding out He had a healthy and loving sex life while here on earth. In fact I would like to think He did. Of course I do not believe sex is sinful in any way unless one is violating the law of love in the act.

  • Vie

    People confuse it because they want to feel superior. Hardly a Jesus-like attitude.

  • marcie

    Gary I’m confused are you saying being gay is sin. I’m missing you here?

  • fat radical

    On the basis that “neither Jew nor Greek” means all are welcome to find the way to the Father through Jesus so are all sexualities, but it doesn’t mean that anyone can come on board with all their baggage does it, unless you have become a universalist in your dotage, dave. I am a believer in belong first ,but I am expecting believe & behave to follow in due course

  • I am one of those gay men who believe that the strictures around same-sex relate to temple prostitution, so no, I don’t find it as sin. I realize that very few folks are willing to consider that.

    I also believe that the only time I will be “baggage-free” will be as I kneel at the savior’s feet. In the meantime, I’m simply looking (as the song from “Rent” says) for baggage that goes with mine.

    Thanks, Dave, for the welcome and inclusion. May we both live long enough to see the day when such an act of inclusion does not roil the waters quite so much as it does these days.

  • Gary

    Marcie – No I was questioning Steve’s comment which seems to suggest that it is. I should have been more clear that I was quoting him as I see it could easily look like that was my comment.

  • Connie

    I think I’ve matured.
    It doesn’t make any sense to me any longer to debate the issue of sin(s).
    It’s like we were once babies,,,,needed a diaper change. Then we grew to toddlers and controlled the urges, learning to use the toilet.
    Eventually we use the restroom when needed and don’t fault ourselves for the acts of defecation or urination.
    So….let’s all live up to what we’ve already attained.
    Yes, we all poop and pee. So what? Yes, we all like sex? So what? Yes, we all, for whatever reasons, do and say and act like we do at odd times. And you know what? God almighty knows WHY we do do such things. There are hurts and wounds and misunderstandings within each of us that produce these odd behaviors. In this we are all alike, it’s in the individual acts that we sort of differ. Doesn’t make one a worse sort of character than another. We all fall short. SO WHAT????

    Let’s simply marvel at Christ, what he has done for us and try to get the good news out. Sin is NOT an issue. Why do we keep going back to it as if it is one?

    Let’s get over ourselves and the poop we all produce, shall we? 🙂

  • marcie

    Damn Connie that made me want to dance and shout. Sin is no longer an issue!!!!! Victory!

    And Gary I didn’t think that sounded like you LOL

  • Gary

    Marcie you know me better than that. Glad you mentioned it though because if your read it wrong than others might have as well and thought I was a homophobic bigot. LOL

  • Kent

    Bravo Steve Martin!

  • Gary

    OK Kent seriously…what about the comment are you applauding? Do you believe simply being gay is sinful?

  • Christine

    Paul actually writes “there is no longer any slave or free, Jew or Greek, male *and* female”. It’s been argued whether the “and” (instead of an “or”) is just a gramatical error – and so edited out of some translations – or, whether it is actually an allusion to Genesis’ “male and female He created them”. An allusion would indicate that divisions between the sexes were removed going back even to creation.

    Generally, Christians do view Jesus as having no sexual attraction. (I take your point, Gary, that this significantly hampers the idea of Jesus experiencing what we do as humans.) This would mean that Jesus wasn’t heterosexual either, but asexual, and still a sexual minority. (Just saying.)

    @Steve Martin: Your comment really does suggest that you think even *being* gay is sinful, rather than gay sex specifically. Are you still assuming a celibate Jesus when you make that statement?

    @David: I’m interested about the “no Jew or Greek” part being about all religions and spiritualities. My first instinct would be to say it makes it radically inclusive of all ethnicities. But, given the context, the Jews Paul is writing to probably would not have made a distinction between being ethnically or religiously Jewish? But, at the same time, I certainly wouldn’t take Paul to mean that worship of Greek gods was equally valid or even acceptable. Purely my personal take or what Paul would have actually meant.

    @fat radical: I think “neither Jew nor Greek” in this case means that it doesn’t matter if you were born as a Jew or a Greek – we are included the same and the expectations of us are the same. Similarly, I take “neither male nor female” to mean that it doesn’t matter if you were born a woman or a man – we are included the same and the expectations of us are the same. Which does mean that if a woman can have sex with a man than a man would be equally free to have sex with a man, as the genders “male and female” are treated the same (i.e. interchangeably).

    @Nancy T.: Best science to date, as I understand it, has sexual orientation being a combination of genetic predisposition and hormone levels in the uterus during fetal development. The hormones affect development and become permanent, physical features in the brain by the time of birth. (Something about forming us even in the womb…?) Further changes in hormanes and brain chemistry in life do not alter sexual orientation as determined before birth.

    Interestingly, gender is determined in much the same way. While DNA does most of it, all fetuses start out female and the combined influence of DNA and the fetal environment turns about half pf them male during the pregnancy, and some only part of the way between the two.

  • @Dave: great one. Love it.

  • @Gary: you have all kinds of reasons to believe that Jesus DID have sex, just nothing directly written to that effect. Isn’t it entailed by him being sharing flesh and blood and being “made like His brethren in all things?” Given that WITHOUT the Churchian fetish against sin, he at least would have liked to. Drop the Churchian/state doctrine of sex restricted to marriage (instead of sex restricted to love) and I’d say odds are good he did. Steve and Kent apparently “worship” another Jesus who couldn’t.

  • @Gary: haha, my blooper, that should have read, “Given that WITHOUT the Churchian fetish against sex…”

    Churchians have a FETISH WITH SEX! HA HA. They are obsessed with it. The fact that they make such a big deal out of being AGAINST sexuality in any but the most tightly Churchian-state controlled circumstances, i.e., marriage, PROVES their attachment to the issue, not their “freedom from sin.”

    People who demonize lifestyle choices are the entrance point for the “demons,” NOT the so-called sinners that they treat like devils.

    I assume Steve Martin and Kent would demonize gay lifestyles. Am I correct you guys?

  • @Connie: I’m totally with you, and thanks for that. Obsession with sin is a crock of shit.

    I challenge you to go a little deeper than, “So what?” though. There are reasons, formidable reasons, why generations of believers over thousands of years have identified with Churchian teaching about sin and guilt.

    Part of it has to do with Churchian exploitation of the resources of its followers. Part of it has to do with our psychology as “followers” and our need to follow something rather than become self-sufficient and independent from other people, (not God.)

    All of it has to do with a co-dependent, abusive, exploitative phenomenon most call “Christianity,” which to me is blasphemous, so I call it what it really is: Churchianity.

  • @Everyone: as I read the comments here and elsewhere and discuss with people interested in Jesus and the Bible, I realize how deeply ingrained the major tenets of Churchian doctrine are and how they restrict our thinking.

    Remember where you learned the basic concepts you base your thinking on: from the very same folks who brought you the hypocrisy which is the primary reason that David’s site even exists, let alone that makes it ring so true.

    We learned advertising from hypocrites who told us it was truth. Churchian teachings are designed to support and spread systems of thought and material resource control that are HYPOCRITICAL BY DESIGN.

    We won’t get anywhere trying to resolve the problems posed by teachings designed to mislead us. We were lied to. The Bible does NOT say what Churchianity says it does.

    It isn’t easy to pull our heads out of our brainwashing, but we’ll certainly never do it unless we recognize that we were brainwashed and need to come up with something completely different. Don’t try to patch the old garment. Get a new one. The old one stinks to high heaven.

  • marcie

    Being gay is NOT about sex it is about love sex is the ultimate expression of love. Sex without live is primal and feels dirty (my experience) but where love is it is perfect even when it is between two of the same gender. Ignorant straight people don’t understand because they have not been there, but they could if they would listen without standing in judgment.

  • marcie

    Typos ugh

  • Richard C Brown

    Who is to say that god wasn’t female or male/female.When the creation story began clay then as now is used to create.Whatever happenened it appears that she got it right.

  • Ransom

    As much of an abomination as this one is I will hold my tongue at the obvious. But my question is this, if being gay isn’t about sex, then a “gay” couple would have no problem abstaining from any sexual act and just love the hell out of each other. Shouldn’t be a problem.

  • shelly

    Obsession with sin is a crock of shit.

    IMO, if you’re obsessed with sin, you’re a slave to it. *nods*

    A gay Jesus wouldn’t have been the sinless Jesus, and therefore couldn’t have paid the price for those of us who are sinful.

    Do you believe in “sin by propitiation”, Steve? As in, the concept of Christ “becoming sin” on the cross? If you do, and you believe being gay is a sin, then you have to believe (by extension) Jesus DID become gay on the cross. So as far as I’m concerned? Your argument is invalid.

  • The Good News is not about sin, heaven, hell, any kind of post-mortal existence, or Jesus coming again to militarily conquer earth and violently eliminate evil.

    The Good News has 3 inseparable messages:
    1) The universal accessibility of the personal and persistent unrestrained love and unconditional grace of God; and
    2) The feeding quenching clothing healing visiting welcoming compassion and the reparative rehabilitating restorative justice of the Community; and
    3) The inclusive hospitality and joyous generosity and healthy service of the Individual.

  • Gary

    “Abomination” Ransom? How so?

    And as for your silly statement about the gay couple having no problem abstaining from sex…if you believe what you are trying to imply…then your relationship with your spouse or significant other (if you have one) is not about love but rather simply about sex. That is…unless you have both determined to live your lives celibate and simply “love the hell out of each other”.

  • Gary,

    It is impossible to be breathing…and not be sinless.

    But Christ Jesus had no sin.

    Premarital sex, homosexual sex, gluttony, gossip, lying, speeding on the highway, etc. etc. etc. ….all sin.

    Jesus forgives all those sins. But they are sins, nonetheless.

  • Christine,

    You are right. Being gay is not a sin. But engaging in gay sex, is a sin.

  • HA HA! Any thread that makes me laugh out loud is a GOOD THREAD! 🙂 This one is GRRRRRREAT!

    @Shelly: #1, RIGHT ON! #2, TOUCHÈ! Great logic depretzeling.

    @Gary: perfect conclusion to Ransom’s lack of follow through.

    @Doug Sloan: ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY! I’d just add:

    4: Joyful, vibrant, and powerful elimination of all sources of opposition to #1-3, (as per the four “Hallelujah!”-s of Rev. 19.)

    The fact that we tend to leave #4 off the list is yet more evidence of Churchian brainwashing: we avoid it because we don’t have a clue how to do it without becoming like the abusers that we should already be in the process of eliminating.

    Most people I have ever known don’t want to touch #4 with a ten-foot pole. That’s almost as masterful a stroke of Churchian brainwashing as making us feel dirty about our bodies and sex.

  • Gary


    Pre-marital sex…not once identified in the bible as sinful. Sex outside of marriage period…not defined as sinful unless the law of love is being broken. Homosexual sex…consensual and loving…not even mentioned in the bible. NOT sinful.

    Sorry man…but there is simply no way to back up these views biblically without reading into the text.

  • My apologies in advance for using stereotypes:

    Following his baptism, the dove would descend and then “Everybody Dance Now” would be projected from Heaven’s sound system.

    The first temptation would have been to turn stones into brie and crackers.

    The Beatitudes would have been The Fabulous 8.

    The Sermon on the Mount would have included elements of music and interpretive dance.

    But all kidding aside, I think the question should rank up there with what would a left-handed Jesus do? What would a blonde Jesus do? What would a gentile Jesus do? What would female Jesus do? What would farmer Jesus do? What would a fisherman Jesus do? What would black Jesus do? What would albino Jesus do? What would tall Jesus do? What would skinny Jesus do?

    I think everyone wants to think Jesus is like them, be they gay, straight or into sheep. The import thing is Jesus acted in love. So no matter how you mix his physical and psychological makeup, if Jesus was/is the Christ, s/he would do it with love.

  • marcie

    Oh hi ransom I think we have met. Knew you were a creeper lmao. No reasoning with you would be a waste. But to point out the obvious your an idiot.

  • @Ben: LOL! Thanks. And thanks to everyone! Many laughs from this thread. 🙂

    And Ben, I think you hit the nail squarely with the sweet center of the hammerhead.

    Making lifestyle choices an issue of any sort is a defensive posture adopted when people want to separate and insulate themselves from each other. If Jesus REALLY did what Churchians say he did, they would feel safe to EXPOSE THEMSELVES to each other. (People can take that on any level that they like.) Instead, they huddle together in “safe places” and try to have “fellowship” while they hide behind masks and airs and false personas, hiding dirty secrets while foisting impressive/seductive/intimidating/abusive behavior to keep people at a distance, even their “brothers and sisters.”

    Love seeks exposure that leads to connection. Hiding is the opposite of loving. Vilifying lifestyle choices is inspired by fear and loathing. I’m pretty sure that fear and loathing have nothing to do with love. 😉

  • Christine

    @Millard: To follow-up on an earlier comment, thanks for splitting up your responses. I read them all. (Perhaps I should have done the same.) Enjoying your contributions much.

  • Christine

    But my question is this, if being straight isn’t about sex, then a “straight” couple would have no problem abstaining from any sexual act and just love the hell out of each other. Shouldn’t be a problem.

    @Gary: That was exactly what I was thinking.

  • Christine

    @Gary: I’m I also seeing you over at John Shore’s? That you?

  • My guess is he would do the same sort of loving compassionate things that the straight Jesus did. That is, if in fact the historic Jesus was straight as I am not aware of anything in the bible or elsewhere that would in any way indicate that he was. We are not told anything about what sorts of sexual attractions Jesus did or did not have, which suggests to me that perhaps Jesus (and/or those who recorded some of his words for us) either didn’t consider the matter very important or else figured it was non of our damn business…

  • Renny

    David, you devil you (sorry, had to say it ;). Of course, it does not really matter what Jesus did, gay or otherwise. It is only important to those who think (thought) that he was the son of god, son of men, saviour of the world, and all that jazz. This – of course – required, that somehow someone needed to be saved from “sin”. Sin…aaahhh….sin. A concept invented by men. I now have a totally different view of it. Of course we do wrong and sometimes even bad (not me and you of course!) Therefore mankind needs “saving” and therefore we need a “saviour” who was blameless. Hence….Jesus….and what he would do. How silly. How unlikely.

    David, can you believe I said all of the above? My friends and family are shocked!

    Thanks so much for the shockingly provoking cartoon!

  • @Christine: Thank you! PS, your note was easy to read.

    @Cindy: DAMN STRAIGHT! I love it. It’s supposed to be a private affair, isn’t it? One reason I can’t read Augustine’s Confessions. I’m left with one of two options: spiritual voyeurism or it was all for show. Either way, not interested.

  • Gary,

    Sex outside of marriage is fornication, and the Bible condemns fornication in no uncertain terms, and in many places.

  • I ought to know. I think I could’ve won the prize for fornication in my younger days.

  • @Steve Martin: OK, you’re on.

    Chapter and verse, please.

    Where EXACTLY does it say that sex outside “marriage” is fornication? Put up or shut up.

    Well, I don’t REALLY want you to shut up. But I do want you to put up, (seeing as how I’m sure you won’t put out. haha, sorry, couldn’t resist. Sex devils made me do it.)

    Seriously, cite a little scripture, please, or do you and other Churchians just make this shit up?

  • @Steve: haha, well I’ll never accuse you of not being frank! 🙂

    Was none of that sexual activity about love? If not, I can better understand your view on extramarital sex.

    Still, give us chapter and verse, please.

  • Millard,

    There may have been “love” , or something like it involved in some of it…but that doesn’t get me off the hook.

    And for most of it, I was no better than a dog roaming the sreets. Sure, I was nice, and respectful, and witty and kind…and then…I was a dog.

    Fornication is in many places in Scripture. I’d look it up for you (google it)…but I have get up early for work (4am PST)…so I am gonna hit the hay.


  • OK…one last one for the road…

    “Fornication typically refers to consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other.”

    – from wikipedia

    Some Bible verses that mention fornication:

    1 Corinthians 6:18 reads:
    “Flee from fornication. Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body.”

    Matthew 15:19-20 read:
    “For example, out of the heart come wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thieveries, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things defiling a man; but to take a meal with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

    Mark 7:21-23 read:
    “‘…for from inside, out of the heart of men, injurious reasonings issue forth: fornications, thieveries, murders, adulteries, covetings, acts of wickedness, deceit, loose conduct, an envious eye, blasphemy, haughtiness, unreasonableness. All these wicked things issue forth from within and defile a man.'”

    Galatians 5:19-21 read:
    “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom.”

    There are more…but I’m going to bed now.

    Alone 😀 (my wife is out of town)

  • Steve, haha, I appreciate your wit.

    I’m aware of the Bible verses about fornication, but those are not what I asked for.

    So at this point, you still have not answered my question or addressed my challenge. I’ll restate it:

    cite a verse from the Bible which states that sex outside of marriage constitutes fornication. Not Wikipedia. Not a verse that cites fornication.

    Show us a verse that states “fornication = sex outside marriage”

    I know you can’t because there ain’t no such verse. I’d love it if you could prove me wrong.

    Your whole contention about fornication is based on a non-scriptural definition of fornication.

    I don’t know what the Bible scholars are saying these days, but my working definition is “fornication = unloving sex.” IOW, sex solely for the sake of self-gratification (at the mild end) to sex for the sake of exploitation (at the abusive end.)

  • General Kafka

    You have your own definition of Fornication to suit your view.
    In fact, the word Fornication is not in the Bible. The word has an etymology traced back to French / English in 1300 AD.
    If you want to know the heart of God about sex, you’ve got to go beyond the English dictionary.

    Verses that have been translated in English with words close to fornication: has a few.

    It seems to me that the Old Testament doesn’t have a real clear definition of marriage that we relate to because of polygamy, widows that get pregnant by their brother in law etc.
    However, the New Testament is pretty clear that the heart of God is for couples to be one flesh “for ever” – until death do them part. Anything beyond that is falling short of the grand design.
    There are of course extraordinary circumstances where the “one flesh” model is tough. For example, after a war, with 2 females for every male. Polygamy may be charitable to the 2nd wife, but might not be for the 1st wife.
    I would assume that polyandry leads to a lot more mess, and murders.

    “Unloving sex” ? Would a husband who no longer loves his wife be fornicating with her when she asks for a little bit of sex? You probably mean “self-gratification / exploitation”. The sex between a widow and her brother in law would be lawful even though you can see it as exploitation.

    Anyone who is engaging in sex with a person they are not married with are exploiting this person for self-gratification.
    You can consider yourself married only after some human sponsored ceremony. Marriage without sex is not marriage at all. This is long term dating.
    Hence, marriage starts with the sex act and breaking the marriage makes the sex act “fornication”.

  • Sarah

    Steve, Jesus didn’t think you were a dog.


  • Gary


    We can know that fornication does NOT mean sex outside of marriage simply on the basis of other scripture. There is a lot of sex outside of traditional marriage in the bible…some of which God even provided for. Much that He had absolutely no problem with. Sex when the law of love is broken…that is where God chooses not to remain silent.

    None of your verses addressed the challenge Millard gave you which was to show us where the bible itself defines fornication as sex outside of marriage. It does not because it is not.

  • Gary


    Yup…you spotted me. I love John Shore’s blog.

  • Gary


    For someone who starts off by accusing another poster of using a definition that simply supports their view…you sure used a lot of assumption and silly rhetoric. My favorite on though is this choice piece you wrote…

    “Anyone who is engaging in sex with a person they are not married with are exploiting this person for self-gratification.”

    Wow – Anyone who engages in such stereotypical nonsense reveals a severe lack of objective reasoning ability.

  • Gary,

    The definition I gave of fornication was from wikipedia.

    But you seem to know everything, so what would it matter to you, anyway?

  • OK, as usual, the Christians and their fighting are making the hockey fans look tame. I’m bailing before Rush Limbaugh shows up. /unsubscribed/

  • Gary

    @ Steve,

    I love it when you are reduced to snarky comments rather than intelligent dialogue. LMAO

    Wikipedia is your source of moral authority in the world? Really?

    Challenge stands…show us where the bible actually defines fornication. Wikipedia is nothing more than people’s opinions.

  • Gary

    Steve F,

    Cute…but kind of disingenuous in a blog don’t ya think? I have been trying to have an intelligent discussion. It is not my fault some refuse respectful dialogue. I don’t fight…I discuss. I’ll admit though…others are not capable of such without resulting to personal attacks. This is not the first such time he has taken such pot shots at me. Always cracks me up to.

    None the less…stick around for a while. It becomes pretty easy to spot the difference between the various posters pretty quickly.

  • @Gary: Don’t sweat it. I love how people’s preconceptions about what is and is not allowed sort them out for us. We don’t have to do a thing, just be honest! 🙂 Powerful and liberating.

  • Gary

    Yeah…my “always cracks me up” comment should be an indication of me not sweating it…grin.

    I have enjoyed your comments. Hope you stay around.

  • Very bold T-shirt indeed … can this be actually without getting lynched?

    My great question of the day is why does the God of the religious right and his followers seem ubiquitously obsessed with other people’s sex lives? Aren’t there more pressing issues like why were we created in the first if only to be disdainfully and/or cruelly discarded according to divine whim?

  • oops forgot the word “worn”… can this actually be worn without being lynched…

    re-oops – drats another word missing…. “place” –
    why were we created in the first place

    man I need to go home and rest!

  • Christine

    @Gary: Just read a series of comments with Lymis over on johnshore. Made me think of “fighting the good fight” here for a long time, sometimes feeling like there was little support – and then remembering how it felt that first time it seemed like the cavalry had arrived, like back-up had finally come. And in remembering that, I realized that much of that cavalry is you. Just wanted to say thanks – for finding this place and for being you.

  • Gary


    That may be one of highest compliments I have received in a long time. I have come to respect you greatly as your posts are always balanced and rational in spite of the irrational bigotry you are often forced to deal with. I always sense a spirit of hope in you…as if even though you are dealing with those who represent very personal hurts…you truly hope to have an impact on them for good. This represents some of the very best of what it means to Christian.

    I am honored to call you a friend.

  • Just noticed how close the words cavalry and calvary can be… I guess one of the words can help you when you are faced with the other…

  • Christine

    @Gary: Awww, that’s so sweet! I’m truly touched. Thank you for such a high compliment as well. “Friends” is a title I am glad for also. 🙂

    The hope is something that is hard sometimes, because there is so much that will take so long. But it is also hard to lose, because my own views have changed so significantly. In that thread to Lymis people talked about how you never know who’s reading or what impact your words will have when reflected on in years to come… Well, I *was* that person, and I read and listened quietly, and when I spoke and disagreed, I remembered later what was said in response. It did mean something to me, even though I didn’t realize it at the time. There *were* seeds that changed my life, mind and heart, even when there would have been no indication to anyone else that was happening.

    And the people who did that for me, to whom I am now deeply grateful, were the ones who were kind, patient and gentle. They were the ones who respected the depth and importance of my beliefs, their reality to me. They respected me for who I was (when I *was* actually making a choice), even when I didn’t grant them the same.

    Now, I find comfort in believing that the roles could be reversed and that I could be that for others. I went from being both oppressed and oppressor to both liberated and liberator. What wouldn’t be hopeful about that?

  • Gary

    @Christine – Sounded like you were telling the story of my life. I find it very hard…painful really…to encounter closed minded and hurtful believers because I know they represent what I used to be.

    May we never stop spreading our seeds Christine. We are living proof that some of them do indeed find fertile soil…just as Jesus promised they would. That is definitely something to place our hope in.