The ‘gay Christian': an oxymoron

I read in the Pink News that a “Christian council worker sues after being sacked for homophobic email.”

Denise Haye, 25, worked at Lewisham Council’s legal services department.

Last September, she used her work email address to send an email to Rev Sharon Ferguson, head of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (sic).

She wrote that Rev Ferguson should be “ashamed” of herself and that homosexuality was “not normal” and a sin. Citing the importance of repenting in the “last days”, Haye added, in capitals, “the wages of sin is death”.

This is absolutely correct. The very fact that so many now view homosexuality as normal is a sign that we are in the last days. The Bible tells us that “the wages of sin is death”. Is it now a crime for a Christian to quote from the Bible when emailing another alleged believer? Or just via the council’s email system?

If this ‘reverend’ really were a Christian, she would surely have tried to settle her concerns in private with Denise Haye rather than going straight to the Council to complain. I’m sure she knows there is increasing persecution which Christians are experiencing in their places of work, so why would she want to subject a fellow believer to this?

She (Rev Ferguson) told “I’m not questioning that she thought she was doing the right thing. But there was no love and compassion in her email. It was full of death and damnation.

This ‘gay Christian’ lives in la-la land. It’s a very dangerous place to be when dealing with matters of the soul. She thinks that she can sin and sin and never repent. She doesn’t even concede she is sinning. She’s a gonner at present.

What I have found by discussing matters on the internet with self-labelled ‘gay Christians’ is that they seem to be ‘gay’ first and have tried to reform Christianity around their sexuality.

You see, this wasn’t a difference of opinion (and that’s what it was, but blown up into a major ‘hate’-related incident, as usual) between two Christians, but between a homosexual and a PC dissident.

Haye is now taking Lewisham Council to court for unfair dismissal. She was suspended for six months and then dismissed.

What amazes me is that homosexuals have become such a selfish, pride-filled tribe that they don’t have a shred of understanding or compassion for this woman losing her job.

I have read the reader comments on the Pink News article. These are quite typical responses:

The only concern this bigot is showing by stating such drivel, is for herself

Says David North. They just don’t ‘get it’ that people are genuinely concerned and that is why we get involved. Why bother otherwise?

Regular Pink News commentator Adrian T chips in with this:

Good riddance to scum like this, sending such e-mails from the workplace. There should be no room for hate fuelled bigotry in the workplace.

See what I mean? They just cannot see the folly of their ways.

Iris says:

Disgusting. “the wages of sin is death”? That sounds like a threat to me.

It is a threat. From the Almighty. The Bible is full of threats, because the wages of sin is death. That’s why you need a Saviour.

Lee is unforgiving too:

Her email was full of death and damnation – I hope this matter has been passed onto the police for investigation as a hate crime.

What punishment would you like to see, Lee? Feeding her to the lions?

Jennifer Hynes writes this.

Can people stop calling these people Christian please? It gives the millions of queer Christians (like me) a really bad name.

This is mind-blowing in its ignorance.

Rose says:

Silly cow. Not only homophobic but as usually dragging Christianity down with it. As I have said before, I am a Christian

Yeah, it really sounds like it.

At this time, The Halcyon seems to be the only one concerned:

Sacking was a bit harsh

But it doesn’t cut ice with the others.

Homosexuals have been mollycoddled so long now that they are becoming like the street thugs who refuse to be ‘dissed’. On this evidence, they have become cruel and uncaring; totally unable to see the other person’s point of view. Worse than that, they think the other person should be treated as a ‘hate’ criminal.

It is actually a tragedy for our country. It would have been avoidable if we had a government that knew the difference between right and wrong and acted in the best interests of our country. It’s clear we’ve not had one of them for quite a while.

What Denise Haye did was out of love. I know, because that is also my motivation. The hatred is clearly expressed in the comments section of the Pink News. Black is now white and two plus two equals five. Everything is made to make sense, except reality.

My hope and prayer is that people will see that the sins of the flesh war against the spirit and so will repent, believe and be saved. The alternative is grim beyond our wildest imaginations.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

138 Responses to The ‘gay Christian': an oxymoron

  1. English Viking says:

    Jim Baxter,

    The Old Testament is a picture, a shadow if you will, of the New Testament. There are lots of promises (from God) in the OT which are fulfilled in the NT, and still some yet to be fulfilled. What is important, when asking what are perfectly reasonable questions about the OT and NT, is to remember that they are both written by the same God (If you believe mainstream Christian doctrine, which I do). There was not a change of God, nor of His attitude toward sin and the sinner between the Testaments (a period of approx. 400 years).

    There are many Christophanies (pre-incarnate appearances of the Christ, Jesus) in the OT. These confirm the eternal nature of The Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ did not come into existence when He was born to Mary, He has always existed. If one looks at the words of John 8 v 58, we find a very striking, eye-witness account of the words of The Lord Jesus Christ. He answered a question about Himself with the words ‘I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I am’. Note He did not say ‘I was’. Abraham had been dead for over 1500 years before the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, and yet He claimed to have existed before Abraham, He claimed to have always existed (this is even more of a profound statement when read in the Greek, the original language of most of the NT, because of the strength of the tenses in Greek). The fact that the crucifixion had not taken place in OT times did not mean that those who had already been born and had died were of any less importance to God than those alive today in post-crucifixion times, nor that they had no method of salvation, nor that that method was different.

    The people alive in OT times, who became aware of their sinfulness, and who sorrowed over it, and who sought forgiveness for their sins, had a way to obtain what they sought. They needed a priest, of The Most High God, to make a sacrifice (of an unflawed animal, usually, but not always, a lamb) in order to confirm the transaction between man and God, i.e. confess, repent, make a sacrifice in the way ordained by God = forgiveness. They were unaware (most of them, but not all) of the fact that the animal sacrifice was representative of something better, something not yet revealed. It was their faith in the instructions of God, nay, simply their faith that God was faithful to keep His own words, which saved them.

    The same is true today. My good works will not save me, nor my good words, nor my sorrow over sin (although a Godly sorry is the beginning of repentance, which is an INDISPENSABLE beginning of salvation). My FAITH in God is the trigger of God’s salvation. Eph 2 v 8, 9 KJV (NT) confirms this – ‘For by grace are ye saved through FAITH; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.’ (My emphasis)

    My faith in His faithfulness and His ordained method of salvation, (confess your sin, repent of it and then believe that full payment for your terrible deeds has been made by the execution of one who owed no debt to God whatsoever, The Lord Jesus Christ, Romans 10 v 9, NT, KJV) is the trigger to salvation. I no longer need a priest to make my sacrifice (it has already been made, once and for always, on the cross of Calvary, beside the fact that Christ is THE High Priest). I repeat myself, but it bears repeating, I do not need to sacrifice a sheep to cover my sin, the sacrifice has already been made. This is the reason that John the Baptist said of Jesus ‘behold, THE LAMB of God, which taketh away the sin of the world’. John 1 v 29 KJV

    In short, Mr Baxter, faith is the trigger to salvation, now, yesterday, NT, OT, always. Faith in God and His word, which brings about a desire to be obedient to His words and commands.
    Faith which is preceded by repentance, because of my sorrow over my failings, not just those that the world will condemn, (which nowadays are not very many) but those which God himself will pin-point, and His standards are high – Romans 3 v 23.

    There are differences between the standing of those children of God who were saved by Him before The Christ and those which were saved after The Christ, but eternal salvation is not one of them.

    Those who disobeyed God on this matter, both then and now, most regrettably, were lost.

  2. English Viking says:

    Mr Baxter,

    I have re-read my previous post and fear it may be slightly unclear.

    The thing which was shadowed, pictured, pre-figured and representative of in the animal sacrifices of the OT was The Christ, commonly known as Jesus. His death on the cross was the final and ONLY payment for sin, now, yesterday and tomorrow. The obedience to God’s word, and the faith which this obedience demanded, remain unchanged.

    If I am still unclear, please post again.

  3. Jim Baxter says:

    Dear English,

    Many thanks for that very full explanation.



  4. P Gibbs says:

    H.L. Mencken said: “Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.”

    Thomas Paine said: “The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.”

    If science disappeared from the world, we would still be living in caves. But if theology disappeared from the world, no-one would notice.

  5. Jim Baxter says:

    I agree with all of that, Mr G.

  6. P Gibbs says:

    Pleased to hear it Jim.

    (English Viking wrote:The people alive in OT times, who became aware of their sinfulness, and who sorrowed over it, and who sought forgiveness for their sins, had a way to obtain what they sought. They needed a priest, of The Most High God, to make a sacrifice (of an unflawed animal, usually, but not always, a lamb) in order to confirm the transaction between man and God, i.e. confess, repent, make a sacrifice in the way ordained by God = forgiveness. They were unaware (most of them, but not all) of the fact that the animal sacrifice was representative of something better, something not yet revealed. It was their faith in the instructions of God, nay, simply their faith that God was faithful to keep His own words, which saved them.”)

    It reminded me of what someone wise once said “Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?”

  7. English Viking says:

    Mr Gibbs,

    Another anti-Christian post.

  8. P Gibbs says:

    Another desperate personal attack from English Viking who has no argument and nothing to add to the discussion.
    So what do you think EV, what’s your opinion…could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?

  9. Stewart Cowan says:

    Mr Gibbs,

    The Bible says that the Almighty doesn’t rejoice in the animal sacrifices. They were instituted because of man’s weakness.

  10. P Gibbs says:

    Sadly this goat burning lark is happening even now in some parts of the world…

    “No police! Rescue 1122 relying on sacrificial goats to ‘ward off’ terror”

    LAHORE: The Punjab Emergency Services Academy – or Rescue 1122 – is sacrificing a goat every day to prevent terrorists attacks, after police refused to provide the academy sufficient security amid threats from terrorists, Daily Times leant on Monday.)

    Full story here:

  11. Stewart Cowan says:

    That’s completely different, Mr Gibbs. Do you have a first name? It always feels so formal replying to you.

  12. English Viking says:

    Mr Gibbs,

    Not desperate, not personal, just factual.

    To answer your question (if you think yourself a Christian, you really should know the answer), The Bible teaches us:

    ‘And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savor, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.’ Exodus 29 v 25 Old Testament KJV

    The above is proof that The Lord God WAS indeed pleased when His obedient servants carried out His instructions and sacrificed burnt offerings to Himself, and the reason for His pleasure was not the burning odour of the animal itself, but that it pointed to a better, perfect, once and for all sacrifice. That sacrifice was The Lamb of God, The Lord Jesus Christ. This truth is revealed in the New Testament, in various places, the following being one of them:

    ‘And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour’. Ephesians 5 v 2 New Testament KJV

    I trust this answers the question to your satisfaction.

    BTW Mr Gibbs, 50,000,000,000 galaxies? Are you sure? You wouldn’t name them for me, would you? Just so that I could check, I know you like to be able to substantiate your numbers.

  13. Jim Baxter says:

    50,000,000,000 galaxies?

    Probably an underestimate. What good would naming them be? You may as well name grains of sand on a beach. The beach is still there, whether you do or not. Anyone can check for themselves though. You just need to look through a big telescope.

  14. English Viking says:


    I was being sarcastic. Remember the denomination thing?

  15. Jim Baxter says:


    I do. And therefore I know. I was merely adding a bit of a ponder.

    Actually I quite like the idea of being obliged to name at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies in order to justify the figure. PhD students need SOMETHING to do.

  16. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    How many Doctorates does one man need?

  17. Jim Baxter says:


    Some of the self-important berks like to be a doctor at both ends. You know these types who call themselves Dr S. Important-Berk, PhD.?

    That’s for the ignorant (all of us, in their view) who might not know that they’re dealing with a doctor just from the PhD bit.

    No, your idea is growing on me. Many a true word, etc. May as well start now. Got a bit of a task ahead after all. Let’s see, We’ve got Andromeda (M 31 indeed – how mind-numblingly prosaic). Now, we can call its near neighbour M32 ‘Dolores’…

    (M32 will be OUR near neighbour soon enough. We’re on a collison course with Andromeda).

  18. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    You don’t need to worry about galaxies colliding, Christ will have returned long before then, and new heavens and a new Earth will then be in place. Isaiah 65 v 17 KJV :-)

  19. Jim Baxter says:

    Now look what you’ve dmne. You’ve got me all cosmological. My wife reads Cosmological sometimes. I just look at the pictures. Phworr, look at the globular clusters on that!

    Yes, our collison with Andromeda, due, I think at 25 past 4 billion years. What a sight will be in the night sky for a billion years before that, as it approaches.

    Not to us here in Glasgow, of course. No doubt it will be p****** down as usual the whole time.

  20. Jim Baxter says:

    She’ll be late of course, Andromeda. Looking at herself this way and that, wondering ‘do me red giants look big in this’.

  21. Sarah Miller says:

    Oh Wow.
    This is the most awful, hate filled blog I have ever read.
    Time to pull your head out of your arse, Mr Cowan.
    If you really believe what you preach, why not leave the judging up to your god.

  22. Stewart Cowan says:

    There isn’t hatred for homosexuals in my mind, Sarah. If I really hated them I wouldn’t care if their sins take them to Hell.

  23. Sarah Miller says:

    There’s no such place as hell.

  24. Stewart Cowan says:

    Of course there is, Sarah. You reap what you sow, and without the saving grace of Christ, you receive your just punishment, which is eternal exclusion from all that is good. The soul cannot die, so it’s either joy or misery – forever!

  25. Jim Baxter says:

    Then again, if you believe the Bible, Christ had two fathers.

  26. Dennis says:

    “There isn’t hatred for homosexuals in my mind, Sarah. If I really hated them I wouldn’t care if their sins take them to Hell” – Isn’t that pretty much the same line that the Spanish Inquisition used to justify torture and murder?

  27. James Langstone says:

    My time is scarce and I can not engage in a long diatribe with all the people on this site. Nonetheless , I will leave you with something with which you argue at your peril. Several decades ago I was a fundamentalist Christian before I developed the big picture understanding I now have and the realization that what is behind the majesty and complexity of the universe far transcends the infantile contradictory and splintered man made religious nonsense that appears to pass for “truth” on this site – the bible alone being a book about the precise contents of which (in terms of subworks) no one is in any agreement (hilarious). (I won’t comment on Islam it’s so worthless there’s no point).

    My point is this – homesexuality is neither an orientation confined to our current era or just the human species – not only it is found among most animal species – it has now been confirmed to exist in the insect kingdom as well. While my understanding about our purpose and what is behind the universe differs from all the religionists here , we are in agreement that we are not atheists and that there is indeed a purpose – this means that those who seem to be hysterically exercised by homosexuality on this site have an issue not with homosexuals (as they patronisingly assume) but with the big picture and program behind everything itself – I wish them luck because they exhibit not only ignorance but extreme arrogance and would do well to try to grasp the real reason we are here…….

  28. Dennis says:

    @James Langstone

    Well said!

  29. Jim Baxter says:

    Mr Langstone,

    Succinct and to the point. Thank you.

    ‘would do well to try to grasp the real reason we are here……’


  30. Stewart Cowan says:

    James Langstone,

    There’s no ‘bigger picture’ than looking at Creation from the Almighty’s POV.

    I would politely suggest that “several decades ago” you started falling prey to the lies of the world. You have shown this to be true by comparing human sexuality with animals’.

    Homosexuality is a very negative trait as far as evolution is concerned (if you believe in the TofE). If it was genetic, it would have been bred out. Peter Tatchell admits it’s a complex issue. Surely the proliferation of homosexuality is contrary to natural selection?

  31. Tyler Durden says:

    Stewart Cowan – “Homosexuality is a very negative trait as far as evolution is concerned.”

    Not true, blatantly false and is strictly a *religious* view of homosexuality, not a biological view, nor a scientific one, and not certainly one held by any anthropologists. In terms of natural selection, homosexual behaviour is a benign trait in most instances and becomes adaptive within certain social contexts.

    “Surely the proliferation of homosexuality is contrary to natural selection?”

    No, and again, not true. Look at the evidence. There are many purposes of sex, far more complex than procreative concerns. It is a common fallacy to assume that all components of a behavioural act are under equal selective pressure in natural selection.

    In terms of the biological distinction between sexual and somatic reproduction, homosexual behaviour is a survival strategy, not a reproductive strategy. You’re blinded by the “non-reproductive” nature of homosexuality (not to mention your dogmatic adherence to scripture, but I digress) and once genes are passed on biologically, they then need protection/nurturing aided by reciprocal altruism tendencies within the environment.

    Heterosexual behaviour serves non-conceptive functions such as the maintenance of long-term bonding. After all, natural selection should favour homosexual behaviour, irrespective of the participants’ motivation (or morals), if the behaviour promotes fitness-enhancing alliances. Also, natural selection allows for genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an *environment* to survive, reproduce etc. Over the eons of time (on which we disagree), homo/hetero both allow for this environment to exist – so your comment “homosexuality is contrary to natural selection” is false, look at the biological evidence (not your scripture).

    Stewart, you do realise that gays/lesbians/bisexuals can actually have children, yes? Because one is gay/lesbian/bisexual does *not* rule out the propagation of one’s genes i.e. female egg + male sperm = zygote – regardless of whether the female egg is from a bi/lesbian and the male sperm from a bi/gay man. Evolution by natural selection is exactly that, *natural*. There is no “moral censor” within.

    You may not agree with it, but, once again, all the evidence from research shows you to be wrong.

  32. Stewart Cowan says:


    Why has homosexuality been taboo in most societies? Fit young males’ genes not being passed on to benefit the tribe? Disease? Not benign.

    Do you believe homosexual attraction is genetic – mainly or partly?

  33. Jim Baxter says:

    Homosexuality is neutral as far as natural selection is concerned. If you keep spouting this ignorant stuff Stewart I’ll keep correcting you. For the record – not for your benefit – you are beyond salvation.

    As for taboo in most societies. Rubbish. It wasn’t taboo in ancient Rome and they did awfully well.

  34. Tyler Durden says:


    Before answering further questions, would you please acknowledge that you have actually read my post above and understand the process of natural selection with regard to homosexuality. I don’t think you do. Unless you have actual peer-reviewed evidence to state your “case”.

    Do you accept that gays/lesbians/bisexuals can actually conceive/give birth to children, yes? i.e. egg + sperm = zygote… regardless of whether the female egg is from a bisexual/lesbian and the male sperm from a bisexual/gay man.

    “Disease? Not benign.”
    Your opinion does not count.

  35. Stewart Cowan says:


    It always comes down to ancient Greece and Rome? Even then, isn’t it the case that it was more pederasty than anything else. Name me one other culture, pre-1980s, where there was same-sex ‘marriage’.

    The stated purpose of the modern homosexuality cult is to change the values of society and that means devaluing true marriage and thus society itself will fall.

  36. Stewart Cowan says:


    I have reread your previous points. Let me be clear on where you’re coming from. Are you dismissing any genetic influence in same-sex attraction?

    I say homosexuality is a negative trait – as far as society is concerned (although also for the happiness and fulfilment of the homosexual) – due to a) the ‘tribe’ is weakened when men don’t act like it and are consumed by lust; b) society is deprived when good genes don’t get passed on; c) increase of disease; d) hedonism brings down nations, because normal family life is what binds and strengthens society.

    Of course homosexuals are able to reproduce. I maintain that homosexual behaviour is caused by temptation/mental illness. Probably due to the sexual desires of the ‘sinner’/’victim’ not having properly matured, which could be caused by various factors.

  37. Tyler Durden says:

    Hi Stewart,

    Homosexuality is not catergorised as a “mental illness”.

    And, no, I’m not dismissing genetic influence in same-sex attraction, on the contrary, I’m saying you’re confused about the purpose/behaviour i.e. the non-reproductive nature does not mean homosexuality is “contrary to natural selection”, or “a very negative trait”, as I explained above.

    As for the rest of your insidious, delusory, fallacious post… words fail me. Seriously.

  38. Stewart Cowan says:


    Homosexuality was considered a mental illness up until the 70s. Then the militant homosexuals got it removed from the list. Perhaps a better explanation of homosexuality is that it is a developmental problem which results in an immature and flippant view of sex and renders the sufferer unable to fulfil their potential through raising a family.

    My view of homosexuality as a negative trait is also with regards to the wider society. Are you denying that the homosexual lifestyle is typified by disease and dysfunction?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>