I had a tedious discussion with Dr. Christopher Yuan about his experience as a same-sex enticed Christian and his new record , “ Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by God’s Grand Story” . Make sure to read part 1 first! Here in part two, Dr. Yuan feeds his notion of’ righteous sexuality.’ To hear the whole interview, subscribe to my podcast here !
Ethan: So, you touched on something I only read in your record, which is that we have adopted these secular nomenclatures where we conflate ontological lists — saying, “I AM homosexual. I AM heterosexual, ” as if the issue is’ types’ of human beings. This is not a biblical framework for discussing sexuality. Can you expound on that a little bit ? b>
Dr. Yuan: Definitely. And when I say this, I’m not only applying this to people who experience same-sex magnetism, I’m applying this to everyone. Even the terms’ directly, ’’ gay, ’’ heterosexual, ’’ lesbian; ’ I think we need to separate that from who a person is. We could use those expressions, but I would prefer simply’ opposite-sex or same-sex captivated, ’ because it’s not so closely associated with personhood. Those periods, however, define our experience and our entertainments, the direction of our sexual desire. They don’t describe who we are.
The reason I think that’s so important, and how I got there, is just say through Scripture, especially in the New Testament, how over and over, we get the terms talking about how we are “in Christ, ” “in him, ” et cetera. This usage is all throughout the New Testament. It’s what the Reformer called’ Union with Christ.’ That concept are extremely complex, but it is an essential notion and I think it’s rooted all the route back in Genesis, how we are created in God’s image. I develop this in my diary, how this concept of sexual orientation, our virility, shall not be required to be represent who we are, but how we are. If we really should be considered it, if you ask a person what it means to be gay, it ever distills down to hungers, entertainments, inclinations related to the direction of our intimacy, the course that we want to be intimate with others, so it’s still related to our beliefs. I strongly believe that our sensations shouldn’t be who we are, but they should more accurately describe our experience and how we are.
So if sexuality doesn’t characterize us, then the issues to grows, “Who are we? ” Then we get into some rich theology, talking about the image of God and how that likenes has been contorted, but then Christ came to restore that likenes. That’s which is something we get into this whole idea of us being “in Christ” because Christ is the perfect image of God. He is not merely came to forgive us of our sins, or to impute( or make) us His righteousness, but also to restored that epitome which has been misrepresented by the fail. That’s why we are to be like Christ.
Yah, I obstruct thinking of 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul makes a big schedule of sinners and says’ this is what many of you were, ’ i> as if those thoughts used to define your identity, but now you are something new . b>
Would you say that your work is aimed specifically at Christians? Would you not recommend it for a non-believing friend ? b>
Yah, I wrote this with the Church in head. I wanted to lift up the neighbourhood religiou. I see currently there are a lot of other ministries that are focusing on how to be a good friend[ to the LGBTQ community] and doing it at the expense of the regional church. I would say that if you have an unbelieving love, maybe my first notebook, “ Out of a Far Country “, would be more helpful for the purposes of an unbeliever. Holy Sexuality i> has the presupposition that a person predicting this believes in God, takes the Bible as authoritative, and has a high idea of Scripture. It could also be for people who have a lower notion of Scripture and think that same-sex affinities are okay with God; those gay-affirming Christians. This volume could be given to them. Of direction, they won’t agree with it, but I would love to see more of them engage with these concepts I’m bringing up.
One thing I noted as I was reading is that I went roused about your notebook because it’s the excellent fusion of thinking, theology, and sexuality, which is like a communicative utopia for me. Every epoch I appreciate the word ‘ontology, ’ I get a little excited . b>
Geeks unite! That was my hope. I actually wanted to fuse psychology, logic, theology, and sexuality, and that was my goal. I’m specific addressing homosexuality, same-sex allures, the lesbian parish and so on, but I missed parties to be surprised and realize that this is actually for everyone , not JUST my lesbian love. I wanted it to be wide-ranging fairly that anyone could read it and have some personal takeaways, specially because I included not one but two periods on marriage. Both of them are some of the larger chapters and for good reason.
Yah, as I was reading it, I found myself attracting a lot out of it for myself! I found that a lot of it applies to me, as somebody with opposite-sex attractiveness. You can even see that on the extend of the book — there is absolutely nothing about homosexuality; it’s just about virility for everyone,’ faithful virility, ’ as you call it. And that’s what I want to get into next. Can you describe what you symbolized by’ holy sexuality’? What does it mean for parties with same-sex attraction and for beings with opposite-sex lure ? b>
Yah, obviously. Holy sexuality really came out of my first volume. My first bible was 32 small-time fast-paced sections about my own fib and there’s a small period toward the end called’ Holy Sexuality.’ I was sitting in my prison cell, they were doing their confinement weigh, and I had to sit in my cell for an hour and just wait. During one of those ages, I was sitting there and contemplated virility. I would say that most Christians have fallen into this bunker where we’ve pigeonholed ourselves into the secular paradigm of’ heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, ’ and we think that’s the only framework for us to recall or to be in when it is necessary to our sexuality. That’s why you have people who say,’ well, if homosexuality is not God’s will( whether it’s same-sex relations or same-sex lust which is guilt, whether it’s the lure which is not guilt but certainly should contribute to guilt) is not God’s will and it’s a signal of the drop-off, then heterosexuality MUST be God’s will.’ So I had to think that through. I’m kind of a thinker.
I said, let’s not just take that at face value, let’s think that through and critique it. And the more I did, I realized that there’s no way that heterosexuality as a whole is also possible God’s will. Why? Because it’s more wide-reaching. Yes, wedlock between a man and a woman is considered heterosexual. However, there are a lot of other forms of heterosexual relationships that are clearly sinful. For lesson, an adulterous rapport, a sweetheart and lover sleeping together, or a mortal who is very promiscuous with countless wives. Those are all heterosexual, more they’re unholy in God’s eyes.
So I knew that there needed to be something much precision to get rid of all the ambiguity because candidly, the administration is swimming in a sea of ambiguity today. You noticed the mask of my record; I intentionally became it black and white because we live in a macrocosm that has infinite colors of grey-haired( not only 50, but infinite !), and I want to be really clear that God’s vision of sexual morality is not beautiful, it’s black and white, it’s clear, and it’s for our own good.
So I was frustrated with that paradigm. I pondered, okay, well if that’s not it, then what is it? I went back to God’s Word and began seeming. From Genesis to Revelation, I recognized that there are only two roads that God has allowed us to live in reference to our virility. One, if “you think youre” unmarried, which would be you and me, we need to be faithful to God. How do we do that? We are loyal by being sexually abstinent. Nonetheless, if we get married and are no longer single, then we are faithful to God by being faithful to our spouse of the opposite copulation in wedlock. This is how I can find a holy virility: Chastity in singleness or faithfulness in wedlock. It’s quite simple.
Unfortunately, there was no term or jargon that they are able to express or planned those two things, so I felt like I had to create a term, so I coined it as’ sacred sexuality’ to juxtapose against the old-time secular fabric of’ lesbian/ heterosexual.’ I think that is the most accurate route to describe what God is announcing us to.
One thing I likewise wrote down is that there’s no other sin that beings tend to say’ this is who I am, ’ rather than’ this is what I do, ’ like homosexuality. You don’t plagiarize a sugar rail and say,’ now the core of my name is a thief.’ You don’t tell a lie and then say,’ I am a liar! ’ I think that one of your goals is to shifting that paradigm so that people with same- and opposite-sex attractiveness can both come to see that my sexuality is not WHO I am, irrespective of who I’m attracted to. God’s vision for humanity is much bigger than that. Is that right ? b>
It’s exactly right. I know of no other blasphemy topic where we have completely conflated the sin clash or longing with who the administration is. I think we need to separate it. Not to say that guilt can’t have forks on who we are, and of course, it does contaminate and feign that, but it’s not the core of who we are. That’s what’s really important to distinguish.
How much of that is a response to a culture which is so saturated in gender? It’s everywhere and we see it all over the place. It’s unavoidable. The religiou initially reacted by bucking against the culture with circumstances like the Purity Movement in the 90 s, which I caught the tag end of. It seemed to do a lot of damage to a great deal of people I know by sort of shaming them for even having a sex conclude. There hasn’t been much in-between, but now the pendulum is also available fluctuating the other method where faiths are beginning to embrace all manner of sexuality and call them’ good.’ You seem to be fighting for a balance where you’re saying that God stirred sexuality to be a good circumstance within the suitable bounds, however, it’s not the be-all, end-all of our reality . b>
That’s right. I became a Christian in 2001, all over the fag end of the Purity Movement, and of course, people intend well, saying we are not able appointment as countries around the world times. I altogether agree with that. But they sway the pendulum very far and I belief one of the biggest mistakes that was obliged was elevating wedlock so high-pitched. It’s like the carrot that you hold out in front of the mare. You deem marriage out — but it’s not only union that you hold out, but it’s also accommodating out immense gender in marriage as a carrot. And that will not only put too much pres on marriage and give you an improbable image of gender and union, but genuinely pervert what marriage is for. When we do that, we still originate fornication and matrimony out to be all about ME.
When you look at 1 Corinthians 7, what Paul talks about is that your body is not your own, your figure is your wife’s, and same for the spouse. We[ the Church] are all one form. Paul isn’t saying that you should be some kind of slave or anything like that, but in the sense that we have to stop “ve been thinking about” fornication as gratification for ME; sexuality is for the other. You should think,’ I love my partner so much better that I want to do this for her, ’ and vice versa. That’s a key hypothesi that I think is much more helpful.
However, I also feel like the implication of something like True Love Waits is that they are suggesting: … waits for what? I imply, what if it’s God’s will for a young man or maid to be single for their entire life? Or for a big part of it? If that whole day is spent’ waiting, ’ well then, what are they waiting for? It implies that they’re not yet ended because they’re waiting for something. I believe you can be entire in Christ right now as a single person or a married person. That applies it a much more biblical, holistic understood it homosexuality.