You Are Viewing

A Blog Post

Episode 18 – How Did We Get Here with Kathy Baldock

We talk with Kathy Baldock, a blogger, Christian LGBT ally, and author of “Walking the Bridgeless Canyon: Repairing the breach between the Church and the LGBT community.” We talk about the history of LGBT perception in American society and religion.

Kathy’s Suggested Reading Order:

  • Torn – by Justin Lee
  • Walking the Bridgeless Canyon – by Kathy Baldock
  • God & the Gay Christian – by Matthew Vines
  • The Bible, Gender, and Sexuality – by James Brownson
  • Changing our Mind – by David Gushee

Links from the conversation:

Join the conversation:

JOIN THE PARTY
Be the first to know the latest with the film!
4 Comments
  • Tracy on September 2, 2015

    This interview was spectacular and I did go to her Facebook page and speak with her and she is just downright awesome! THIS is the type of Christian that I love to hear and read from. She handles all the negativity sent her way with grace and dignity. She doesn’t belittle anyone for their beliefs from the comments I’ve read. Really impressed with her and immediately bought her book!

    • Tom on September 27, 2015

      She doesnt belittle anyone for their beliefs?

      I may not have the wording exact, because I wrote these quotes while I was listening to the podcast, but did you miss where she said –

      “they’re evil enough to say we can get some of these unregistered voters into the Republican column”
      “flat-out evil merger of conservative voters”
      “you had these conniving people who would use and abuse these things for power”
      “my enemies”

  • Tom on September 27, 2015

    I see (IE hear!) that Kathy has totally bought into what the gay activists have said about why the Bible opposes gay sex. IE that to be the receptive partner in gay sex was to take on the role of a woman, which was culturally shameful and abusive, while taking on the role of insertive sexual partner was not. And that we didnt understand until the 20th century that some people are born attracted to members of the same gender, of equal status.

    But the difficulty I have with this theory-presented-as-fact is that it doesnt seem to be reflective of Scripture, and it doesnt make sense to me. Today gay people tell themselves and others that they were born this way. Why? Because from around puberty, those are the sexual attractions that they have always experienced. Is Kathy telling us that the ancients never felt that way? Why wouldnt they have felt that way? Why wouldnt they have told others how they felt? Did they never confide in their mothers or fathers or siblings or religious leaders? Why the heck not? Did the mothers and religious leaders never confer with each other about it? Why the heck not? Sure, homosexual relationships were more commonly between non-equals, but gay men must still have accidentally fallen for their classmates, their workmates, and other equals. If they had understood the prohibitions to be only about unequal abusive relationships, then surely they would have pursued gay relationships with equals. But according to the activists, they didnt. Which doesnt make sense. We now how strong that attraction can be. Kathy, Im thinking like you tell us to, but Im not seeing answers.

    And then there is the issue of Scripture. Kathy’s theory is consistent with Sodom & Gomorrah, but only because it’s a story of abuse. That’s where it ends. Leviticus 18 is a list of forbidden sexual partners, and it includes some commentary about why those partners are forbidden. EG “that would dishonor your father.” When it comes to sex between males, we are not told that it is forbidden due to it being abusive or shameful to the sexually receptive partner. Rather we are told it’s abomination. That sounds quite different to Kathy’s theory-presented-as-fact. And in fact Leviticus 20:13 basically contradicts Kathys theory-presented-as-fact, by not just pointing the finger at one of the sexual partners, but instead stating that “both have done what is detestable.” Both. I thought Kathy was saying it wasnt shameful for the insertive partner? Then later in Romans 1, we again see some reasoning expressed about why the male on male sex was rejected. Does St Paul say it’s because it’s shameful for the receptive, subjugated and abused partner? No, St Paul doesnt mention subjugation. Instead, he presents much more of a sense of mutuality, in his wording that men “were inflamed with lust for one another.”

    But ok, maybe it was a very stratified society at the time. But then in Galatians 3:28, St Paul announces that there are no such distinctions within the body. All are one. So do they suddenly recognise that gay relations between equals are ok, as you might expect from Kathy’s theory? No, we see from Ephesians 5, that the sole acceptable romantic relationship model continued to be male with female.

    So I guess you are going to tell me that St Paul just didnt understand. Ok, I get that some people think that. But if you do, please dont call yourself evangelical. Evangelicals believe that Scripture was God-breathed.

Leave a Reply

FF Para Logo-01-01