The article below appeared in 'The Times' newspaper on Sunday. Kevin is a very close friend of mine. He and I have worked together on a number of projects. Most recently he has written two chapters for two of the books that Wessel and I have worked on.
I am proud to call Kevin a friend, and I am proud to testify to his Christian conviction and love for Jesus Christ and ALL people who Christ loves!
I'm with you Kev! Your courage inspires me.
For the readers of this blog - Please read the last paragraph in the article! You will notice that the whole point of Kevin's 'God is gay' breakfast is to show that God is not gay.
It is so sad that this is one of the reasons why Kevin had to resign from our Church. What he is aiming to do is Christian mission - sharing God's love with persons that the Church seldom reaches out to... Yet, sadly because of this missional emphasis he was misunderstood. He has been badly treated as a result. I find this so sad. Sadly, I fear that this article will cause him to face further misunderstanding and struggle among Christians. Personally, I am proud that we have persons who are bold and courageous enough to take a stance of conviction to reach to those who are marginalized in society, and even the Church.
A FORMER Methodist minister who rocked the church when he questioned its stance on gay rights is now encouraging people to find God in food, pubs and even poker games.
Kevin Light and 18 other ministers questioned the Methodist Church's position at a synod in September last year — to no avail.
He left the church a month later, after Andrew Hefkie, the Cape of Good Hope district bishop, banned him from talking to the media after he hosted a talk called "God is Gay".
"About 30 minutes before I was to be interviewed by a radio station, the bishop called me and instructed me not to speak to the media," said Light.
Now his vision of being able to bless same-sex marriages is about to be realised. He is set to receive his licence to marry gays and lesbians next month.
According to the Department of Home Affairs, 935 gay and lesbian couples tied the knot in South Africa last year, when there were only 35 religious officers licensed to conduct same- sex marriages.
Ministers can only obtain a licence to bless same-sex unions with the consent of their denomination and the Methodist Church, like most mainstream churches in the country, has chosen not to endorse these marriages.
When approached for comment, Hefkie was tight-lipped.
"It is not the policy of the Methodist Church to make any comments on people who resigned. He (Light) finished off, and that was that," he said.
Said Light: "As a minister for 19 years I wanted to honour the church. On the other hand, I needed to honour my own clarity on the matter ... My position on same-sex unions is a matter of human rights.
"I thought I was caring for the marginalised — and then the church went and marginalised me."
Today, he refers to himself as a "spiritual facilitator", with a growing following who seek an alternative to institutional religion on mountains, in forests and even in pubs around Cape Town.
"Cooking is very spiritual for some people. Other people encounter God while gardening or while having a drink.
"We also have 'poker for the poor' nights. Poker can be a very spiritual experience; it's all about getting to know your dark side ... your ability to bluff.
"But poker can be greedy, so we have the winner spend his or her earnings on poor people," he added.
Light is hosting another "God is Gay" breakfast later this month. "The talk merely makes the point that God is neither gay or straight ," he explained.
Technorati tags: God is gay, Kevin Light, gay Christians, same sex unions, friend
Monday, February 11, 2008 at 2:05PM 
Reader Comments (7)
Dion
I came across this as you linked to it from that comment you made on facebook.
How can you justify supporting this?
This is the opposite of what Christ did and would have us do, He calls all people to repentance. Telling a homosexual or any person in a sinful lifestyle that their lifestyle is OK shows that you do not care for their soul or have a very skewed understanding of the clear teaching of the bible on sin and repentance.
Hi Grant,
Thanks for the quote, and please forgive my slow reply!
It has been a rather hectic first week back at work!
I would love to engage you on this topic - please could I ask, however, that before we start the discussion you do me the courtesy of reading through the other posts that I have made on this subject?
On this particular issue, let me say that I am in favour of a minister who cares enough to put himself and his credibility on the line in order to reach people on the margins of society. If you read the last paragraph of the press release below you will see that Kevin does not believe that God is gay! Rather he used the headline to engage with persons who would never attend a regular Church service, bible study, or evangelistic outreach. Many people arrived for the talk intrigued by the topic. I am certain that as Kevin shared the Gospel many hearts and minds were touched.
I'd love to hear more from you!
Rich blessing,
Dion
Dion, thanks for the reply and choosing to discuss this issue.
I did a search and read through most of what you have written on the subject I scanned some articles to read the relevant parts pertaining to same sex unions and I had a look at the article you posted, unfortunately the link to the original article no longer works so I could not read that.
God is neither Gay or Heterosexual as God is not a sexual being and has no need to procreate so I don't see the point of making that statement as it confuses the issue. Maybe it is harmless and Kevin just used it to get more people to come and listen to his talk well fair enough. But I would strongly disagree if he is implying that God does not mind if you are Gay or Heterosexual, because God's word clearly teaches that the Homosexual lifestyle is a sin.
In your reply you said "I am certain that as Kevin shared the Gospel many hearts and minds were touched." However reading a review of one the talks this is how it was described by Gary de Klerk
At that meeting where it was debated whether God is gay or not, Kevin’s love of people and life became obvious and his high regard for each person’s right and responsibility to make sense of their own living in their own way, identifying and expressing their own unique spirituality. We all left with our own correct answers.
You can find the review here: http://www.labyrinth.co.za/web/Default.aspx?tabid=135
That does not sound like the Gospel was preached to them. Remember in Acts 2:37-38 and how the crowd reacted after Peter's sermon:
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
You also said
"On this particular issue, let me say that I am in favour of a minister who cares enough to put himself and his credibility on the line in order to reach people on the margins of society."
I agree with that statement but once he has those people there what message is he preaching to them and how much does he care for them if he does not love their souls enough the preach them the truth of the gospel, that calls all men to repentance and faith?
Here are a few quotes I have pulled from your other blog posts about this issue:
It shows that our Church does not yet accept that there ALREADY are gay and lesbian members and clergy! While one is dealing with the concept of homosexual Christians you can objectify them as individuals.
I cannot think of anything more pastoral than seeking God's gracious acceptance and blessing of persons of any gender or sexual orientation who lovingly commit themselves, and all that they are and do (including their relationships) to live under God's blessing.
I know for a fact that in my congregation at Bryanston there are a number of gay persons.
As many of you know, I am an inclusive and affirming Christian. In short, I believe that scripture says much more about justice, love, and grace, than it does about sexuality. Moreover, Jesus clearly shows that we as Christians need to reach to those who are marginalized, rejected, and on the fringes of society. Moreover, Megan and I have come to know and love many friends, and some family, who have a same sex orientation and are deeply committed to Christ. For some years now I have been part of a group within our denomination that has been trying to encourage the Church to have a far more open and affirming stance towards persons of a same sex orientation. I do sincerely believe that Christ would want all persons to be part of the body of Christ. It is a sad indictment upon the Gospel when we exclude anyone from Christ's love and grace! I do not expect every other Christian to feel the same as I do. However, I certainly would want to have the freedom and privilege of extending Christ's grace to, and not be curtailed or stopped from doing so by the Church itself.
Now based on these statements you have made please read these verses:
1 Cor 6: 6-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
This is one of the many places that the Bible teaches that Homosexuality is a sin, just like other things are sins like idolatry, stealing, alcoholism, slandering and swindling etc. And yes I will agree you do find people in the church (small c) who sin like this, but can these people be Christians? (part of the Church(big c)). Paul here said "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified". So he is saying that was what they were before they came to know Christ but they turned and repented from this lifestyle.
So if you are saying and I think you are. That a person can be a practising Homosexual and be a Christian, then I think you are not teaching something that is taught in scripture and if you are indeed saying this then you must also believe that as a Christian it is ok to commit adultery, to steal, to be a drunkard, a slander, a swindler, the list is endless.
Yes we as Christians are to go to the fringes of society to those marginalised and rejected just like Christ did, remember they called him a drunkard because he ate with sinners and tax collectors but why did he go there, it was not to tell them that they were OK and that their sin was how they were born so they do not need to change, no he called them to repentance.
Luke 5:30-32 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
I had better stop now and post this before I go on for too long.
Hey Grant,
Thanks so much for taking the time to trail through my posts in this subject! That shows a great deal of commitment to the topic, and I appreciate the respect that it shows me!
Grant, the first challenge that I see in your responses above is not one that has to do with sexuality, but one that has to do with way in which you use the Bible. Proof texting can be quite difficult. It shows me that you treat certain passage in scripture as eternally valid, while you disregard others. That is not a consistent or responsible way of using the Bible.
For example - would you be willing to sell your idle daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 (and what would be a good price for one's daughter these days)? Or, Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Zimbabweans, but not Namibians. Can you clarify which is more acceptable in this day and age...?
I particularly like this humorous example: I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Or, can I hare someone else to do the dirty work for me?
OK, I think you get the point... You are unlikely to condone any of the above actions since most Christians understand that there are section sections in scripture that must be understood with some contextual background. This DOES NOT mean that the Bible is devalued, or relativized as some would suggest. Rather, it means that the Bible is taken VERY, VERY seriously! It is a text that is inspired by the Holy Spirit and so one needs to deeply and firmly in a living relationship with God in Christ in order to treat the text with care and respect.
Frequently I hear persons quoting texts from scripture to support a particular point of view, when in reality the text that they are using has very little substantial connection with what they are using it for.
Might I suggest that you look at another one of my posts on the interpretation of scripture before we approach the topic of sexuality from a Biblical point of view? I am serious about using the Bible! However, my research (a paper published in 2004 on this issue) showed that South Africa's largest denomination had diametrically opposed perspectives in the matter of same sex relationships. Both sides of the argument quoted verses from the same Bible! Both, however, showed a lack of insight into how they were using the text and how their sisters and brothers were using the text.
Here's the link to check if you have the time: What the world really looks like.
I have published two chapters that discuss this matter. The first is in my book 'What are we thinking' (ch. 5 which is entitled 'Why you can't simply trust everything you read' - it argues that we need to be careful that we don't place ourselves ABOVE scripture. The second is entitled 'Reading the same Bible and arriving at different ethical conclusions: The Bible and ethics' and it is in the book 'What is a good life'?
I leave you with a quote from the second chapter listed above. It is the conclusion of an argument that shows how the 5 common texts used in this argument are understood very differently by people from different theological backgrounds:
“Despite the complexities outlined…, we must not forget that there are common theological and ethical strands that run throughout the whole message of the Bible…. When one considers these passages together one can still discern common insights on human sexuality and morality for sexual behaviour. Among these values are respect for one’s own body and the bodies of others, freedom from lust, not engaging in sexual acts that are abusive or demeaning of other persons, not using sex as a weapon or punishment and ensuring that love and trust are central values in human sexuality” (Forster in Bentley, Kretzschmar and van Niekerk 2009:139)
Apologies for the time it has taken to reply to you post but I have been busy and as you can imagine I needed a fair amount of time to focus on this response and to answer your questions, some of which I see have been asked somewhere else before by a person who clearly is antagonistic to God and His word.
I must say I was quite shocked to have these questions come from someone who says he is a Christian, who has studied Theology, who Preaches and teaches the bible and who should know the answers to these questions.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I believe that the Bible is God's Infallible and inerrant word:
And believe that all of scripture is eternally valid:
And this is the reason that I took issue with your position on Homosexuality, because it is not inline with what the bible teaches nor is it what Historical Christianity has ever taught. You say "Frequently I hear persons quoting texts from scripture to support a particular point of view, when in reality the text that they are using has very little substantial connection with what they are using it for." I agree and both disagree with this statement. While it is sometimes true I think that in this situation you can't write off the argument that I am a making against Homosexuality so easily. Sure I have quoted a few verses on the subject but they are not out of context nor do they have little substantial connection to the subject and I believe they are in line with the Bible's broader teaching on sexuality. This quote may be helpful:
Your argument boiled down is this: Because we don't follow the dietary laws or apply these things that apply to slavery today therefore the Homosexuality laws do not apply to us in the same way. Dion I think that this jump you are making is unreasonable and a very simplistic one dimensional approach to scripture. I would also go as far as saying that as a teacher of the Bible you need to have a look at James 3:1 and Matthew 18:6 and that you need to turn from teaching and approving of such heresy.
You thanked me in your reply for reading all the posts and said it showed a lot of respect but the main reason I have taken the time to read them and also the time to post on this as it is an issue that is extremely important and peoples souls are at risk of an eternity in Hell if they do not repent of theirs sins and turn to Christ and it grieves me to the core to see people standing up and teaching a lie that will condemn them. Harsh words? yes I know but when so much is at stake they have to be.
If you tell people who are living in the sin of Homosexuality that their lifestyle choice is ok and not a sin, you will have their blood on your hands. These people are living in a wretched lifestyle and you only need to do a little research to see that this is true. A homosexual relationship is in no way shape or form equal to a normal God ordained relationship.
In order to answer your last reply I want to show you that there are some passages that were only meant for the nation of Israel and there are some passages that continue to apply to us today. When we look at these Laws it is very clear that they were given to govern Israel in a very particular way and they were punished if they failed to obey them. But there were also punishments for Israelites who took human life, so what we can't do is say that because we don't punish people for breaking the Sabbath today so we don't have to punish people for taking human life. We need to look at the individual statements in the OT and see if we have reason to believe that some things do apply to us today and some things don't. This is, I believe the most appropriate way of studying the subject.
First I want to mention the dietary laws. I know you did not bring them up but it is a very good example of the principle that I am explaining to show how some things that Israel were called to were later abolished. The dietary laws were only ever given to Israel and never to the Gentiles and in the New Testament we see in Acts Peter gets a vision in Chapter 10 which does not call the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law but abolishes it for the Jews and later on in Acts we see the Jerusalem council deciding that the Gentiles must not be taught to follow the OT Law. Jesus had taught about this earlier as well saying "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” So here we see that the dietary Laws were given in the OT but nullified in the NT.
You mentioned Exodus 21:7 and Leviticus 25:44 which refer to slavery. Firstly we know that the bible never spoke against Slavery and we even see provision for it in the OT. In the NT we see slavery mentioned but it never says it is wrong. What may help you to understand it for you to remove out of your mind all knowledge of the African slave trade that clouds our thoughts when we think of slavery. This was not the slavery that is mentioned in scripture and if you read more of the context of Exodus 21 you will see that the conditions were nothing like the Slave trade that we think of that I may add was fought and abolished by Christians in government like William Wilberforce. Another point to mention, in NT times in Rome the slave population was one third of the population and so very similar to how I myself am a slave in a sense to my boss or how your house maid is a slave to your family, they were paid and some had good jobs some were even the Doctor of the household. Strange thing is you can hear more of this in a sermon my Minister preach on this a few Sunday evenings ago from 2 Peter 2:18-21.
You also mentioned Exodus 35:2. This we see is a law that was only ever given to the nation of Israel and we never see this repeated in the NT, in fact it is the only one of the ten commandments that is not mentioned in any form in the NT. We also see Jesus going out of his way to do things on the Sabbath, from healing to even picking grain which rubbed the Pharisees the wrong way because they had added so many other rules to Sabbath observance but remeber what Jesus said in Mark 2:27
Another thing that shows us that the Sabbath law is not for the Church it that the disciples met on the Lord's Day the first day of the week the Sunday and not on Saturday which is the Sabbath. Now I take it that you attend your church on a Sunday like most of the Christian church does with the exemption of the Seventh Day Adventists who meet on Saturday which is the Sabbath the same day that Jewish people still go to synagogue. So we see some of the Mosaic law does not apply to us, so does that mean that the NT Christian is not under any law?
What does the Old Testament say about homosexuality?
If we look at Leviticus where God gives the law to Israel we see that the Condemnation of homosexuality is sandwiched either side with condemnation of adultery, incest with your father's wife, incest with your daughter-in-law and incest with your mother-in-law, bestiality between a man with animal and bestiality between a woman with animal. Now you made the jump from saying that we don't follow certain OT laws so homosexuality is OK, so what gives you the right to ignore these other sins, surely they are also OK for us to do today according to your reasoning?
Dion I asked you a similar question in my last reply with regards to the passage 1 Cor 9-11 but you did not answer it. I wonder if you could tell me how you justify picking and choosing certain passages from scripture to believe while disregarding others?
I think another very important thing to note on the OT view of Homosexuality can be found in Genesis 18:16 - 19:29 Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? In 18:20 we see the Lord calling their sin "very gravenow this is very important because we see God has decided to judge them before they try to gang rape them in 18:5 "know them" (yada') which sometimes denotes sexual intercourse. We can see that in this context when Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the men which was a "shocking, cowardly, and inexcusable act . The reaction of the crowd only confirms the truly evil nature of their intentions."(ESV Study Bible)So we see that God condemns the these cities who's name Sodom has since become synonymous with the sin of Homosexuality (Sodomy). But that is not the last we hear about Sodom and Gomorrah as there are many references to it in the NT. Lets look at them.
So we see the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah seen from the NT is a sin that is sensual, lawless, sexually immoral and has and unnatural desire which puts to rest the ridiculous idea that some people have put forward namely that the sin of Sodom was "Inhospitality" and clearly shows that it was the sin of Homosexuality. Before we leave Sodom and Gomorrah I think it is also helpful to mention that this city is condemned before the Mosaic law was given but God still saw this was a sin very much in the same way the Murder of Able was a sin which also took place before the command "Thou Shalt not Murder" was given to Israel at Sinai. So it is very clear to see that this is a sin to people who are under the Mosaic laws and those who are not. And so as we both agree certain Mosaic laws were not meant for today this clearly does not apply to homosexuality.
What does the New Testament say about Homosexuality
First I want to look at what Paul says to the Romans
In this section we see the greater argument of God's natural revelation "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." So we see God has made Himself know to all people through the natural world so they are without excuse giving all people a conscience and a sense that there is a God and that there is more to life than this world Ecclesiastes 3:11. And we see God has also given mankind specific revelation in the form of His word in Both the OT and NT.
In this passage we see God is mad about sin "For the wrath of God" (orge). Man's sin has lead God to an "orgy" of anger. We also see that mankind after been given this revelation of God "suppress the truth" and exchange the truth for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. We then see that "God gave them up to dishonorable passions" and as a result they gave up their natural sexual "function", this is what the original greek word means. So it refers how the parts of the men and women's sexual parts function together. So there is no excuse men have been given male sexual organs that are designed to function with the opposite sex and visa versa.
Another very important point to note that this letter was written to the Roman Gentile church which was made up of Roman Gentile believers who had never been under the Mosaic covenant so again there is no way of getting away from the fact that God still sees Homosexuality as a sin and the Christian church is called to live pure lives where the only outlet for human sexuality is in a marriage between a man and a woman Matthew 19:4-6.
We could also go back to the passage I mentioned 1 Cor 6: 6-11 or 1 Timothy 1:10 but I feel for now I have said enough to show the clarity and the consistency in which this topic is taught in God's word.
So Dion, Christians do not pick and choose the passages and Laws from the OT that they want to obey but there is a clear scriptural reasons for the things that we do and believe. You ended your reply with a quote from (Forster in Bentley, Kretzschmar and van Niekerk 2009:139) which I would strongly disagree with and have shown that the Bible is very clear on what it says on the subject of Homosexuality.
So if you or anyone else don't like this teaching from God's word you are free to disagree with what it says but you are not free to distort it or to deny that this is what the Bible clearly teaches.
I was not sure how to finish this response but I was reading Don Carson little book 'From the Resurrection to His Return' and I think his sentiments sum what I think about people who say that people can be Christians and continue in unrepentant sin with no change to they way they live their lives.
Carson is referring to 2 Timothy 3: 1-7
Anyway I will close off now and hopefully you will do me the courtesy to answer some of the questions I have asked in this reply and the last one before you respond with any more questions.