Webmaster (or Webmistress) of Inherit The Kingdom

Being gay, being Christadelphian	I am gay, and I still believe

About this Entry
Posted by: gaychristadelphian Original: 5/31/2007 11:04 AM Comments: 70 eProps: 16 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Blogrings
Christadelphians

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: jon_e_bee rickymorgan jil316 DragnBreth Conan_atax jsg58 julw acceptance1 0 eProps from: cdelph

Read or Post Comments

Thursday, May 31, 2007

And today on Being Gay, Being Christadelphian we have an interview with a minor celebrity: the webmaster (or maybe webmistress) of the gay Christadelphian website, Inherit The Kingdom.

Gaychristadelphian: Hi, welcome to my blog, and thanks for doing this interview.

Inherit The Kingdom: My pleasure.

Gaychristadelphian: Apart from the obvious, your site is notorious because you are anonymous. Why the anonymity?

ITK: Mainly to protect my family. When I started Inherit The Kingdom, I knew I was going to get a hostile reaction. I didn't want people attacking my family because of what I believe.

I got an email that said I was anonymous because I knew my parents were ashamed of me. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whoever wrote that email also implied that my parents were the only family I had. At the time I got that email, I was thinking of closing the site, but the implication that gay people don't have a family or family life (apart from their parents) annoyed me. That was enough 'encouragement' to make me keep the site open. I realized there was still so much ignorance about who gay people are, and I was doing my bit to combat that ignorance.

Gaychristadelphian: Why do you think the anonymity annoyed people?

ITK: There are a lot of people out there who don't want to discuss the issues on Inherit the Kingdom. They would like me to be disfellowshipped, and they can't do that unless they know who I am. My arguments don't become any easier to refute because you know my name.

Gaychristadelphian: How often have you thought about closing the site?

ITK: In the early days, I often thought about it. Once I decided I had had enough, and tried to shut it down. For some reason, I couldn't log on to my ISP's control panel. I don't know if that was a random glitch, or if it was God's guiding hand. I haven't thought seriously about closing it for ages now.

Gaychristadelphian: Getting back to anonymity, there is more to your anonymity than you said, isn't there?

ITK: Yes. Where I live there is a slight but real danger to gay people. Gay people have been hounded out of their homes, and there are homophobic attacks which are sometimes fatal. There is a similar danger to people, like Christadelphians, who don't belong to one of the major churches. I have, in a very real sense, put myself into physical danger because of standing up for what I believe. Being anonymous on the website helps reduce that danger. This isn't really a reason for being anonymous. Its just a welcome consequence.

Gaychristadelphian: Another criticism was your use of Google ads.

ITK: I can't understand that one either. Lots of Christadelphian sites use Google ads. When I run my ads I have a fairly low budget, so I'm not using my vast riches to swamp other Christadelphian sites. I think I spend about half a day's salary in the course of a year.

Gaychristadelphian: How many gay Christadelphians are there? How many Christadelphians support your point of view?

ITK: I don't know. I know several gay Christadelphians through the website. There are more than you would think. I estimate that about 40% of the email from non-gay Christadelphians is supportive. Make of that what you will.

Its much easier for someone to email me privately and say they support me than it is for someone to say something supportive on your blog. If someone makes a supportive comment here, the neo-cons jump all over them.

Gaychristadelphian: I'm quite fond of my neo-cons. Besides, if they are ranting here, they aren't ranting somewhere else.

ITK: That's true.

Gaychristadelphian: You hardly ever respond to email.

ITK: Yes. If a question is worth answering, I answer it on the site. If a question is already answered on the site I ignore it. That might seem harsh, but if I answered in detail every question I received I wouldn't have time for anything else.

The ones I do answer tend to be more personal, or requests for interviews on gay Christadelphian blogs.

I really appreciate the messages of support. I should reply to more of them, particularly the ones who give me good ideas for improving the site. I want to say thank you to everyone who has said something supportive to me, and I'm sorry that I've not replied to you all. Thanks guys!

Gaychristadelphian: One Christadelphian left his ecclesia because someone thought he was you. How does that make you feel?

ITK: I feel sad that it came to that, but I know the guy you are talking about. His faith "remains strong", and he doesn't harbour any resentment towards me at all.

Gaychristadelphian: What opposition have you faced?

ITK: I don't know of any formal opposition from any of the Christadelphian groups. I think there was an article about the website in The Christadelphian in 2005, but I never saw it, probably because I don't read The Christadelphian.

There has been public opposition from two Christadelphians, Mike Kragman and Chris Maddocks. Mike lead an international hunt for me, and Chris set up www.gay-christadelphians-a-response.co.uk in response to an early version of my site.

Some of the most virulent opposition has come in emails from gay but closeted Christadelphians, or gay Christadelphians who believe same-sex relationships are wrong. That's to be expected though. 15 years ago I would have opposed Inherit The Kingdom myself.

Gaychristadelphian: What do you think about Mike Kragman and Chris Maddocks?

ITK: I think Mike has damaged the Christadelphians quite badly. His reaction was so extreme. Someone said your blog was damaging the good name of the Christadelphians. I think Mike's behaviour has damaged the good name of the Christadelphians far more than your blog or my website.

I actually have a lot of respect for Chris Maddocks. He is the only one to have had the courage to respond to my site publicly, although he does seem confused about who I am. Hi Chris, if you are reading.

Gaychristadelphian: What about closeted Christadelphians, or gay Christadelphians who think same-sex relationships are wrong?

ITK: I feel sorry for people who feel they have to stay in the closet. It's not a good place to be. I also feel sorry for gay Christadelphians who thing celibacy is required, because they are unnecessarily denying themselves a beautiful part of life.

Gaychristadelphian: And "Gareth Chambers"?

ITK: That was a pseudonym I used in the early days of the site. I thought it would make things easier if people had a name to write to. I was wrong to use that pseudonym. It was probably the biggest mistake I made. I just made the name up. It wasn't because Gareth Chambers and Gay Christadelphian have the same initials.

Gaychristadelphian: In your article "Two Years On" you said you had had only one response to the challenges. Do you find that surprising?

ITK: When I first published the challenges, I was expecting to be inundated with responses. There was so little response that at first I thought the feedback form was broken. It seems there are a lot of Christadelphians who will write to me telling me that I am wrong, but very few who will explain why I am wrong. You seem to have the same sort of problem on your blog.

Gaychristadelphian: Any regrets?

ITK: My biggest regret is not doing it sooner. At the same time, I think I did it too soon. My initial version of "What the Bible Says" was way too brief. It would have been better to launch with something more substantial. And there is the "Gareth Chambers" thing.

If I could do it all over again, I wouldn't make my anonymity so prominent. People might not have noticed if was anonymous if I hadn't pointed it out.

Gaychristadelphian: What advice would you give to other gay Christadelphians? What about ecclesias with gay members?

ITK: That's a tough question. I wouldn't encourage anyone to come out, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to stay in the closet either. That's a decision you have to make on your own. Ecclesias with gay members should say "we loved you as a brother/sister in Christ before we knew, and we still love you as a brother/sister in Christ now we know."

Gay Christadelphians, and members of ecclesias where there are gay Christadelphians, should read what I wrote about What the Bible Says, especially All One in Christ and the Conclusions.

Gaychristadelphian: And finally, what is your favorite musical?

ITK: Who says I like musicals? I could be a sensible-shoes gay person rather than a musical gay person!

Gaychristadelphian: Good point. Thanks for your time, and I hope your site continues to grow and develop.

ITK: My pleasure, and I wish you every success with your blog.

Posted 5/31/2007 11:04 AM - 70 comments

recommend
recs0
give stars
votes0
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

70 Comments

browse comments: next › | last »

It seems to me treacherous and hateful to lead people, particularly young people, astray by telling them of things that are not acceptable to God are acceptable to God.

Posted 5/31/2007 12:18 PM by jon_e_bee - reply

jon_e_bee,

"It seems to me treacherous and hateful to lead people, particularly young people, astray by telling them of things that are not acceptable to God are acceptable to God."

I agree completely.

Posted 5/31/2007 12:23 PM by gaychristadelphian - reply

Absolutely disgusting. You're making it sound like homosexuality is something acceptable and people should be happy with it. The Bible thoroughly condemns it, no matter what the biased views on ITH put forth.

I was particularly upset by this: "they are unnecessarily denying themselves a beautiful part of life". You think indulging in something which the Bible says is an abomination and unlawful is "beautiful"? You are calling sin beautiful! Do you realize what you are doing? You are elevating the flesh, making sin attractive in complete opposition to God.

You have to at least admit that homosexuality is a perversion - it isn't something that was designed in God's creation. There is nothing that can be said against that. Yet you say this perversion is beautiful? How can you say that?

What people who have homosexual leanings need is support and guidance, not this nonsense. You are doing every person who has this problem a huge disservice and are leading them away from God's way. You are doing the opposite to what you think you are doing - helping people. Nobody ever helped someone by saying "it's ok, that sin is perfectly fine - in fact it is beautiful".

This is one of the most ungodly web sites there is - leading people into sin when they need love and support. Sickening.

Posted 5/31/2007 12:26 PM by rickymorgan - reply

If you truely did agree with me, then why even promote this site???

Posted 5/31/2007 2:04 PM by jon_e_bee - reply

Also if homosexuality is so right, Why does it have to be justified so strongly? only one that commits a sin justifies it in his own mind to make it seem right. and that's what leads us further from God. How many times have you justified your actions?

Posted 5/31/2007 2:10 PM by jon_e_bee - reply

jon_e_bee,

I was agreeing with you when you said the thing I quoted.

Generally I have only justified myself when people have asked me to. Conversations go something like this:

Me: I'm a gay Christadelphian.

Someone: "That goes against all our beliefs!"

Me: No it doesn't. Here's why.

And there is a vast amount of anti-gay "Christian" material out there, so it is only natural that there is a lot of material that expresses the pro-gay position.

Posted 5/31/2007 2:18 PM by gaychristadelphian - reply

rickymorgan,

"You have to at least admit that homosexuality is a perversion - it isn't something that was designed in God's creation. There is nothing that can be said against that."

There is quite a lot that can be said against that. True, gay sex doesn't lead to reproduction, but sex isn't just about reproduction. Sex-for-fun is part of God's creation too. Gay sex-for-fun is not more perverted than straight sex-for-fun. In fact, they are essentially the same range of activities. If you are going to insist that gay sex is a perversion, then you should also insist that straight sex-for-fun is a perversion too.

Why do you think gay sex is a perversion? How would you define a perversion?

Posted 5/31/2007 2:27 PM by gaychristadelphian - reply

do you belive homosexuality was wrong under the law of Moses?

Posted 5/31/2007 2:42 PM by jon_e_bee - reply

It is so obviously a perversion I don't know why you are arguing against it. God did not design the body for two men or two women to have sex together. It's as plain as anything. Therefore to indulge in it is a perversion, a perversion the Bible speaks against without ambiguity in a number of places and this web site has now become just plain disgusting.

Posted 5/31/2007 3:25 PM by rickymorgan - reply

jon_e_bee,

I believe that under the law of Moses some - not all - homosexual activity was outlawed.

rickymorgan,

"It is so obviously a perversion"

That is your prejudice speaking again. First same-sex relationships were disgusting to everyone, now they are obviously perverted.

"the Bible speaks against without ambiguity in a number of places"

Where? 1 Co 6:9-10, and 1 Tim 1:10 are most definitely not clear-cut references to homosexuality, Romans 1 describes same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in a very negative way because of their associations with idolatry, and the prohibitions in Leviticus aren't general references to homosexual sex. All of these things are explained on Inherit the Kingdom, so if you are going to cite one of those passages, please explain, in detail, how Inherit the Kingdom is wrong about them.

Posted 5/31/2007 4:07 PM by gaychristadelphian - reply

You know, rickymorgan's last comment got me thinking. Perhaps now is the time to start a discussion on the first principles of being a gay Christadelphian. If the Bible really does speak without ambiguity against rickymorgan should have no trouble showing that is the case.

Thoughts anyone?

Posted 5/31/2007 4:10 PM by gaychristadelphian - reply

Prejudice? It is o b v i o u s.

Posted 5/31/2007 4:17 PM by rickymorgan - reply

"Prejudice? It is o b v i o u s."

I'm going to get that printed on a t-shirt.

Posted 5/31/2007 4:28 PM by gaychristadelphian - reply

If you think for even a moment that God designed the human body with same-sex unions in mind you're obviously not thinking straight. This is the point of Romans 1 - it is simply not natural for a man to burn with lust towards another man (or a woman towards a woman). Therefore if that lust exists it is a perversion since the human body was not designed to have those desires. Something has gone wrong.

By the way, the idea that it's heterosexual men going against their nature (i.e. attraction towards women) who indulge in homosexual sex is patently ridiculous since no heterosexual man in his right mind would burn in lust towards another man. What Romans 1 is saying is that homosexuality is against nature, against God's natural laws, a perversion of what God intended, and to be avoided because it was an abomination under the Law of Moses and continues to be in New Testament times.

Posted 5/31/2007 4:43 PM by rickymorgan - reply

Hi, everyone – another situation where I didn’t think I’d have time to continue a conversation (my spouse is working on an important project that takes up the computer most of the time), but here’s something I felt I should comment on. (Gaychristadelphian, I’m still in the process responding to your previous comments.)

Okay, purpose of sex: you can tell what the purpose of sex is by knowing what the sexual organs were meant to do. In medical school, we learn that they were meant for reproduction. Pleasure is a by-product of sex; an important one, but still a by-product. How do we know? Because if someone lost their pleasure-associated nerve function in their genital organs, they could still perform the major function of those organs; reproduction.

Of course God made sex pleasurable, and of course He meant husbands and wives to enjoy that pleasure – Song of Solomon, for example, is a book all about the very pleasurable sexual intimacy of a husband and wife (note that homosexual relationships don’t get any of these detailed, obviously pleasurable descriptions in the Bible whatsoever - if God sees them as being equal, He certainly doesn't give them equal treatment in the pages of His word).

But to say that pleasure is the purpose of sex – to say that it’s the reason God invented sex – is quite another matter. You can get pleasure from misusing God’s gifts, as well as using them as He intended. If pleasure was the purpose of eating, what would you do if I offered you a great-tasting poison? You would eat it, and get sick, because the only real purpose for eating, as you saw it, was pleasure. But if you knew that the real designed purpose of eating was nutrition, you’d pass up the poison and ask for real food instead, even if the poison caused pleasure – because you would recognize that pleasure is only a byproduct.

Some people get sex-pleasure from children, from cadavers, or from physical pain. Pleasure wouldn't justify those behaviors, would it? Then why would it justify homosexuality?

Part of Biblical sexual morality is that God designed us to marry and reproduce according to His will. We can see that way back in the Garden of Eden, where the helper Adam needed when he was all alone wasn’t a copy of himself, of his gender – God created a new gender who would compliment Adam as no one else could. If a male could have filled that same role, God wouldn’t have needed to create Eve in the first place.

The first purpose of sex is procreation — having children. To say that sex isn't about having babies is like saying that eating isn't about nutrition. You may be thinking, but what about those couples that can’t bear children? Well, just because some couples, by disease or accident, can’t reproduce, doesn’t disprove God’s design for reproduction – just as someone born with a faulty heart doesn’t disprove the fact that God designed the heart to pump blood healthily.

The mating of same with same isn’t accidentally sterile, as the mating of a particular man with a particular woman might be; it’s inherently sterile. A husband and wife who are unable to have a baby have not set themselves against their own inbuilt purposes; a man and man who have sex together have.

Posted 5/31/2007 4:53 PM by red257 - reply

rickymorgan,

If Romans 1 is about how wrong gay relationships are, what does "receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" mean?

And for it to be an unambiguous condemnation of homosexuality, then there can only be one interpretation of the passage. Can you explain why the exposition on Inherit The Kingdom is wrong?

Posted 5/31/2007 5:02 PM by gaychristadelphian - reply

Thanks. Said much better and nicer than I could say it

Posted 5/31/2007 5:03 PM by rickymorgan - reply

red257,

Once again you have made some good points, and I think they deserve a post of their own. I'll do a long post about the purpose of sex in about a month, if that's OK? In the mean time, there is an article called "Why Have Sex?" on guess which website.

Posted 5/31/2007 5:07 PM by gaychristadelphian - reply

rickymorgan

"Thanks. Said much better and nicer than I could say it "

But you still haven't shown that "the Bible speaks against [same-sex relationships] without ambiguity in a number of places".

That was a pretty big claim - I don't think you should comment on this blog again until you are ready to post your proof.

(I'm going offline for a few hours now, see you all tomorrow.)

Posted 5/31/2007 5:11 PM by gaychristadelphian - reply

Hmmm... it seems to me that it might be useful to get into the specifics of the Bible verses involved, at this point.

I guess we could begin this wherever Gaychristadelphian wanted, as it's his xanga... but if we're going to be thorough, I would suggest that we start at the beginning and work through the relevant verses - starting with Adam and Eve, I mean. Together, we could explore many of the passages that can be used for or against homosexuality. It would take a while, that's for sure - but I think it would be a much more profitable discussion than talking about anonymity (as fascinating as that is) or Christadelphian writings (which most Christadelphians see as vastly inferior to the Word itself).

And if we do start examining specific verses, Gaychristadelphian, could I request explanations from you on each passage? I mean, as opposed to always going back to Inherit the Kingdom. You could even quote Inherit the Kingdom if you wanted - but it would be helpful, I think, if we each thought through the verses on our own, instead of just referring one another to various books and web sites.

This would be a brave undertaking, and definitely more difficult than talking about God's design of the human body (which is fairly obvious to anyone who has read a biology textbook). But the Bible should be our home territory. A penny for everyone's thoughts. :)

Posted 5/31/2007 5:20 PM by red257 - reply

Oops! *red257 looks embarrassed *

Gaychristadelphian, I just realized I refered to your xanga as "his" xanga!

I have been trying to avoid doing that - so I'm posting this as a pre-emptive strike against your "Why do you assume I'm a man?" :)

Answer: I don't. It was an accident. I plead not guilty by reason of fast typing!

:)

Posted 5/31/2007 5:27 PM by red257 - reply

I can't bear to look at that ITH site, makes me want to vomit (not just because of the picture of the two gay men on it either

)

Posted 5/31/2007 5:37 PM by rickymorgan - reply

But anyway, Romans 1 talks about leaving the natural use of the woman. What is the natural use? Look it up in a biology text book (don't want to go into it here) or read what red257 said above. Therefore homosexuality is against God's natural laws.

Q.E.D.

When are you going to admit that you are leading people away from God into sin with this blog?

Posted 5/31/2007 5:41 PM by rickymorgan - reply

how can some homosexuality be wrong well others right under the Law of Moses?

If it was wrong under the law of Moses then it is still wrong today, For our God is a never changeing God 'What he says he stands bye. he doesn't justify himself to sin, he destroys it, and he expects us to raise our morals to his standings, and not twist his words to justify something in our minds that is so disguestingly wrong like you promote.

Posted 5/31/2007 8:08 PM by jon_e_bee - reply

jon_e_bee,

"If it was wrong under the law of Moses then it is still wrong today"

Are you saying that it's still wrong to eat shellfish, or wear a cotton-polyester shirt, (both of which are described as "abominations") or eat bacon. They were wrong under the Law of Moses, so I guess you'd have to say they are still wrong today.

Posted 5/31/2007 11:11 PM by jil316 - reply

browse comments: next › | last »

Choose Identity

Xanga Network

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)

Give eProps (?)

2 eProps

1 eProp

0 ePropsComment Only

Post a Comment

Add Link | Preview HTML

comment help

Say it with Minis! (?)
- You're Sweet!
- Congrats! (And they lived happily ever after...)
- These Were Expensive
- Well done! :)
View All Minis »
[mini text]

[mini credits]

reset

Profile Pic:

Default | Choose » (?)

Back to gaychristadelphian's Xanga Site!

Note: your comment will appear in gaychristadelphian's local time zone:
GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)

Webmaster (or Webmistress) of Inherit The Kingdom

Say it with Minis! (?)

Welcome to Xanga!

Stay connected!

Say it with Minis!