I’m not homophobic in the sense that I find the idea so repugnant I can’t imagine it.  In my twenties I was homophobic in the sense that I watched the guy I was most likely to have sex with change from slightly effeminate to flaming queer in a matter of weeks.  I was afraid that might happen to me if I acted on my impulses.  Subsequently, I’ve been mistaken often enough in my assessments to know that men can be both homosexual and manly, but I haven’t revisited that youthful curiosity.  Recalling these things to write this essay I realize I was probably homophobic in another sense.  In my late teens I never even broached the subject with the guy I most wanted to have a sexual relationship with.  And he wasn’t even particularly physically attractive.  It was his mind and personality that appealed to me—to us.  My girlfriend and I talked about what it would be like to have sex with him.

As I write this, sitting in a crowded airport waiting for a flight, I realize that I may still be homophobic in the sense that I’m not entirely comfortable with people next to me looking over at my screen and seeing what’s written there.  But I want to get this written, and now is as good a time as any.  I’ve certainly gone round and round in my own mind concerned that if I acknowledged these things people might think I’m a latent homosexual.  I finally decided that even if I am it hasn’t caused any serious issues.  I’ve had my share of homoerotic fantasies, but all and all it has been relatively easy to write off those thoughts as sin in my flesh.

I was single for twenty years after my first divorce, half of my twenties, all of my thirties and the beginning of my forties.  Since I wasn’t pursuing women most people assumed I was gay or a pedophile.  Actually, I stayed single so long because soon after my first divorce I met the “only woman I would ever consider marrying again.”  She, of course, was already married—to a good friend.  So I had twenty years of intensive training in self-control.  (“Self,” by the way, has nothing to do with it.  It is ἐγκράτεια an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit.  Bible translators, I assume, are loathe to coin theological words like Holy-Spirit-control.)

So while I haven’t experienced the dilemma of homosexuality as part of my identity and self-image, I’m not completely unsympathetic either.  I began to really appreciate this dilemma through a film.  I enjoy movies as a way of experiencing things and people I may not otherwise experience.  Mostly I prefer R-rated dramas because when they deal with issues of sin and vice they tend to deal with them more honestly than PG comedies.  A PG comedy will often touch on all the same issues of sin and vice but it’s just for laughs, and everything works out in the end.  (It seems there are a lot more PG comedies with an R-rating these days.)

The movie that helped me experience the gay Christian dilemma is Save Me.  Chad Allen was one of the producers and principal actors along with Judith Light.  I first heard of Chad Allen because he played the dual role of Nate and Steve Saint, both the martyred missionary and his adult son confronted by the man who killed his father, in End of the Spear.  Searching online for others who enjoyed End of the Spear I learned that Chad Allen was a gay Christian. [December 10, 2014: I didn’t source “Christian” at the time and can’t find it now.]  The blog sites I read were full of debate, some from the filmmakers trying to justify themselves for using a gay actor in a Christian film and others from angry, indignant Christians who felt betrayed, some of whom never saw, and would never see, the movie.  When I stumbled across Save Me and recognized Chad Allen’s name I wanted to see it, even if it was his angry rebuttal and knee jerk response to the way he was treated by Christian bloggers after End of the Spear.

I say “stumbled across,” but I do look for out of the way films.  They are often much more interesting than blockbusters.  Don’t get me wrong.  I like blockbusters, too, and see them with my kids.  The Avengers, apart from being a comic book action adventure, is the best comedy I’ve seen all year.  But there are only so many wars between Autobots and Decepticons I can take before I need to see a movie about people.  Comparing and contrasting The Island (another Michael Bay film) and Never Let Me Go, for instance, is part of the joy of watching movies.  Part of the beauty and poignancy of the final line in Never Let Me Go, is that I expected, and maybe even hoped, that it would be more like The Island.

Still, I hesitate to recommend movies.  I come from a very conservative fundamentalist Christian background.  Some people just shouldn’t watch films; it’s like meat sacrificed to idols to them.

Frankly, I was blown away by Save Me.  What Chariots of Fire was to Christians and Jews Save Me is to gay Christians and those who aren’t so gay.  But that is not a recommendation to anyone unaccustomed to this kind of movie.  It opens with a sex scene intended to be as erotic as any heterosexual sex scene in R-rated movies.  It succeeds.  Then a few moments later the memory of that steamy sex scene is intended to ring hollow and empty and ultimately as unsatisfying to the viewer as it was to the protagonist played by Chad Allen.  Again, it succeeds.  Then the protagonist is forced into an Exodus-International-style gay rescue mission where we meet the antagonist played by Judith Light.

In a Michael Bay film with a setup like this, all movie buffs know the uppity Christian lady is about to get her comeuppance.  Not so in Save Me.  The antagonist is treated with as much respect as the protagonist.  (This is my “Spoiler Alert” for those who would find the movie ruined if they already knew the ending.)  Ultimately the protagonist is grateful for the antagonist’s love and concern that did rescue him from a life of drug and alcohol fueled promiscuity as he embarks on a new journey, hoping to love and live monogamously with a man he met at the rescue mission.  The antagonist crosses a great divide in her own heart to affirm her love for him even as she fears and regrets his choice.

The final thing the movie did for me was introduce me to the Gay Christian Network, people learning to coexist and commune with one another despite their division into “Side A,” those who believe God blesses same-sex marriages, and “Side B,” those who believe that God calls gay Christians to lifelong celibacy.

I don’t care much for arguments that attempt to justify homosexual acts by law, but I am constantly reminded of James’ enigmatic saying, My¹ brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone turns him back, he should know that the one who turns a sinner back from his wandering path will save that person’s² soul from death and will cover (καλύψει, a form of καλύπτω) a multitude (πλῆθος) of sins (ἁμαρτιῶν, a form of ἁμαρτία).³  Then I am reminded of Peter’s similar saying regarding love.  Above⁴ all, Peter wrote, keep your love (ἀγάπην, a form of ἀγάπη) for one another fervent, because love (ἀγάπη) covers⁵ (καλύπτει, another form of καλύπτω) a multitude (πλῆθος) of sins (ἁμαρτιῶν, a form of ἁμαρτία).⁶

Will love cover the multitude of homosexual sins?  I don’t know.  Apparently there are gay Christians who are all-in, as it were, conducting that faith experiment for me.  I can certainly appreciate that to one who came out of a life of drug and alcohol fueled promiscuity, a stable, committed relationship might look like the promised land.  I certainly know that “Further” isn’t always written on my bus.  I’ve reached many plateaus in my journey.  Twenty years lusting after a married woman isn’t something I’m particularly proud of, but the Lord was always patient with me, and eventually I learned a lot.  And yes, many people attempted to dissuade me from staying there so long.  But it’s hard to give up on the “only woman I would ever consider marrying again.”

To get back to Paul’s letter to the Romans I want to jump ahead just a little and say something about the wrath (ὀργὴ) of God…revealed (Ἀποκαλύπτεται, a form of ἀποκαλύπτω) from heaven.⁷  Paul wrote, For while we were still⁸ helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.  (For rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person perhaps someone might possibly dare to die.)  But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous (δικαιωθέντες, a form of δικαιόω) by his blood, we will be saved (σωθησόμεθα, a form of σώζω) through him from God’s wrath (ὀργῆς, another form of ὀργή).⁹

Had anyone else written these lines anywhere else I would assume that the writer meant some future wrath.  But Paul wrote these lines in his letter to the Romans after spending so much ink discussing the wrath of God revealed from heaven: God in his wrath gave me over to impurity, to dishonorable passions, and to a depraved mind.  Is this the wrath He intends to save me from?  It encourages me to pray again, God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!¹⁰ and to reach up, figuratively speaking, to the destination marquee of my bus and twist the dial to “Further.”¹¹

Addendum: May 21, 2020
NET note 24 indicated that Peter quoted Proverbs 10:12.   He didn’t quote the Septuagint.

Here is a table comparing English translations of Proverbs 10:12 from the Masoretic text and Septuagint.

Did Peter do his own translation into Greek from Hebrew?  The Hebrew word אַהֲבָֽה (‘ahăḇâ; Tanakh: love) in the Masoretic text was the noun φιλία in the Septuagint but ἀγάπη in Peter’s letter.  The rabbis who translated the Septuagint chose the verb ἀγαπᾶν (a form of ἀγαπάω) for another form מֵאַֽהֲבַ֨ת (ʼahăbâh) in the following verse.

The Hebrew word פְּ֜שָׁעִ֗ים (peshaʽ; Tanakh: sins) in the Masoretic text was φιλονεικοῦντας (a form of φιλονεικέω) and ἁμαρτιῶν (a form of ἁμαρτία) in Peter’s letter.  The rabbis chose ἁμαρτήματα (a form of ἁμάρτημα) for another לְפִשְׁעֲכֶ֖ם (peshaʽ) in the following verse.

Peter’s quotation gives me confidence that the Masoretic text is closer to the original Hebrew than the Septuagint here.  In this proverb the rabbis didn’t understand אַהֲבָֽה (ʼahăbâh) as God’s love, but as human affection.  They couldn’t see then any way that human affection covers (Masoretic text: kâsâh, תְּכַסֶּ֥ה; Septuagint: καλύπτει, a form of καλύπτω; Peter’s letter: καλύπτει) all sins, only all that do not love strife.

The word all is interesting.  It was כָּל (kôl) in the Masoretic text, πάντας (a form of πᾶς) in the Septuagint, yet Peter chose πλῆθος (NET: a multitude).  Peter, after some had called the Holy Spirit Beelzebul (Matthew 12:22-32), had heard Jesus say: people will be forgiven for every (πᾶσα, another form of πᾶς) sin (ἁμαρτία) and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.¹²

I won’t spend any more time here trying to understand why the contemporary translation of the Masoretic text into English in the Tanakh is more like Peter’s translation than that of the rabbis who translated the Septuagint.  I’ll simply thank God for it.

Tables comparing Proverbs 10:12; Deuteronomy 7:8 and Joshua 24:19 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and comparing Proverbs 10:12; Deuteronomy 7:8 and Joshua 24:19 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor) follow.  Tables comparing James 5:19, 20; 1 Peter 4:8; Romans 5:6 and Matthew 12:31 in the NET and KJV follow those.