Just about a week after Ray Boltz, now Clay Aiken, who is referred to as a "born again Christian" admits to being gay. Beyond the label, what do the details reveal?
At this point, the only information I've seen comes from People Magazine: Clay Aiken: I'm a Gay Dad.
Let's look to the details of the article:
Aiken here seems to place all the responsibility on the "code", that is, I assume his genetics, and therefore if it's in his genetics, then it must be okay. So, examine the logic in this, if a person discovers in a particular situation their natural response is to lie, does that make lying okay? Should we then affirm the practice of lying? Suppose a person is born with a nature of malice, or greed, or coveting, or lust, are we then to accept such practices and rather than repent and turn from them not only normalize them but encourage them? This is no more than shifting blame (and if nothing else denying the effects of the fall), which is inconsistent with true Chrisitianity. Whether Aiken is really a Christian but only inconsistent in this area or whether he is not a Christian at all I do not know, but what is clear that that his statement in this area is inconsistent with both biblical teaching and biblical repentance and righteousness.
1. This seems telling as to Aiken's thinking and motivations being grounded upon happiness rather than holiness. Consider the outcome of consistency with that framework. Who could even condone Hitler for was not what he did pleasing to him and did it not make him happy? The same could be said when it comes to the justification of some mothers who abort their children, to some criminals who get satisfaction out of hurting others, etc. This is no basis for ethical living, only an excuse for justifying whatever one wants to do.
2. Note how unnatural and broken the various relationships and acts are when one chooses such a path. Aiken admits he gay, but has a child with Jaymes Foster (a female, and out of wedlock), it's reported this was done by artificial insemination, and now explanations will have to be made to the child, along with additional stresses in life because of entangled and uncommitted relationships.
Here, we find, it's not Clay, but the mother who has the "problems"... how interesting a twist!
While on one level this is good, and while on one level it also seems to set Clay in a good light; at the same time:
1. Clay himself is failing to live in keeping with his own upbringing (gender recognition relationships)
2. Clay fails to go beyond truthfulness to teach and demonstrate repentance. (i.e., while upholding one virtue is good, denying another is not)
Some may leave hating, but Christians ought to have pity and pray for his deliverance and redemption.
Not true. Parents serve as role models, and while individuals can choose for themselves, that doesn't deny our influence by the repeated things of what we say and do.
====
I wish Clay the best. By that, I mean I mean him no harm and have written this only for the following purposes:
1. To distinguish between Christian truth and the inconsistency shown in his practice and statements.
2. In the hope that Clay himself might come across it and reexamine his thoughts, practice and the basis he uses to justify them, and that he might come to repentance
3. That others might either be prevented from blindly following his example or be rescued from the same predicament or the same thinking and lifestyle.
4. To display the excellence and sensibleness of the Christian way.
At this point, the only information I've seen comes from People Magazine: Clay Aiken: I'm a Gay Dad.
Let's look to the details of the article:
Says Aiken: "I have no idea if he'll be gay or straight. It's not something I'll have anything to do with, or that he'll have anything to do with. It's already probably up inside the code there ...
Aiken here seems to place all the responsibility on the "code", that is, I assume his genetics, and therefore if it's in his genetics, then it must be okay. So, examine the logic in this, if a person discovers in a particular situation their natural response is to lie, does that make lying okay? Should we then affirm the practice of lying? Suppose a person is born with a nature of malice, or greed, or coveting, or lust, are we then to accept such practices and rather than repent and turn from them not only normalize them but encourage them? This is no more than shifting blame (and if nothing else denying the effects of the fall), which is inconsistent with true Chrisitianity. Whether Aiken is really a Christian but only inconsistent in this area or whether he is not a Christian at all I do not know, but what is clear that that his statement in this area is inconsistent with both biblical teaching and biblical repentance and righteousness.
As for his own child, Aiken tells PEOPLE that Parker – who was conceived via in vitro fertilization with his best friend, music producer Jaymes Foster – will be raised in an environment that is "accepting and allowing him to be happy."
1. This seems telling as to Aiken's thinking and motivations being grounded upon happiness rather than holiness. Consider the outcome of consistency with that framework. Who could even condone Hitler for was not what he did pleasing to him and did it not make him happy? The same could be said when it comes to the justification of some mothers who abort their children, to some criminals who get satisfaction out of hurting others, etc. This is no basis for ethical living, only an excuse for justifying whatever one wants to do.
2. Note how unnatural and broken the various relationships and acts are when one chooses such a path. Aiken admits he gay, but has a child with Jaymes Foster (a female, and out of wedlock), it's reported this was done by artificial insemination, and now explanations will have to be made to the child, along with additional stresses in life because of entangled and uncommitted relationships.
So what was his mom's reaction? "She started crying. She was obviously somewhat stunned. But she was very supportive and very comforting." Even now, Aiken admits, "She still struggles with things quite a bit, but she's come a long way."
Here, we find, it's not Clay, but the mother who has the "problems"... how interesting a twist!
"I cannot raise a child to lie or to hide things. I wasn't raised that way, and I'm not going to raise a child to do that."
While on one level this is good, and while on one level it also seems to set Clay in a good light; at the same time:
1. Clay himself is failing to live in keeping with his own upbringing (gender recognition relationships)
2. Clay fails to go beyond truthfulness to teach and demonstrate repentance. (i.e., while upholding one virtue is good, denying another is not)
He adds that he hopes his fans "know that I've never intended to lie to anybody at all. ... But if they leave, I don't want them to leave hating me."
Some may leave hating, but Christians ought to have pity and pray for his deliverance and redemption.
Says Aiken: "I have no idea if he'll be gay or straight. It's not something I'll have anything to do with,
Not true. Parents serve as role models, and while individuals can choose for themselves, that doesn't deny our influence by the repeated things of what we say and do.
====
I wish Clay the best. By that, I mean I mean him no harm and have written this only for the following purposes:
1. To distinguish between Christian truth and the inconsistency shown in his practice and statements.
2. In the hope that Clay himself might come across it and reexamine his thoughts, practice and the basis he uses to justify them, and that he might come to repentance
3. That others might either be prevented from blindly following his example or be rescued from the same predicament or the same thinking and lifestyle.
4. To display the excellence and sensibleness of the Christian way.
Just read: "Hugh Hefner, other reality TV stars say they're fully supportive of Aiken"
ReplyDelete... I suppose that makes it okay! LOL