The Resolute Panther

Reviewing my last post on the infamous “40 questions,” I realized that I wasn’t very clear in my answer to #3, “How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?”  Here’s a better answer.

The Bible does not explicitly speak positively of homoerotic acts.  While that is worth noting, it would be an argument from silence (a logical fallacy) to assume disapproval from the absence of a statement of approval. “The Bible doesn’t say yes,” is one of the weakest arguments in favor of non-affirming Christians.  At best, it is a question mark.  In no circumstance is it conclusive.

Is it silly that I would dismiss the importance of absent positive mention when the Bible seems to answer that with explicit condemnation?  If you haven’t taken the time to understand the most fundamental claim of LGBT-affirming theology, it would indeed seem silly.

The fundamental claim of LGBT-affirming theology in a nutshell is that the Bible only addresses homoerotic acts within exploitative and licentious scenarios such as gang rape, master/slave relationships, pederasty, and prostitution—scenarios in which we would condemn heteroerotic acts as well—and does not address loving, committed, monogamous same-sex relationships at all.  The evidence for this claim comes from our knowledge of sexual attitudes and practices in ancient times.  By far the predominant forms of homoerotic behavior in Bible times were master/slave relationships, pederasty, and prostitution, accepted by secular culture because the acts adhered to social status.  That is, a man of higher status penetrated a man or boy of lower social status.  The authors and recipients of the writings in the Bible would have immediately thought of these exploitative practices but would not have had the idea of a same-sex marriage within view because sexual relationships between social equals (remember that women were of lower status than men) were scorned by secular culture. In fact, we have no record of committed relationships between same-sex equals during Bible times.

In short, the Bible is not addressing what did not exist.  God can only talk to people within the bounds of their understanding. So it is no surprise to or contradiction for an LGBT-affirming Christian that the Bible lacks positive examples of sexual same-sex relationships and condemns the homoerotic acts that it has in view.

Our job as Christians today is to look to the moral logic of the Bible’s teachings and apply it within the new knowledge that we have.  We know that sexual activity is not sinful per se, and we see in Genesis 2:18-24 that the central function of our sexuality is intimate connection to each other and ultimately the formation of the kinship bond (becoming “one flesh”)—family. These values—intimate connectedness and family—are strongly affirmed throughout scripture.  In fact, many theologians would argue that our desire for intimate connectedness is a primary embodiment of the image of God in us.  Lastly, we can also consider the Bible’s description of love and the fruits of the spirit (1 Corinthians 13, Galatians 5).

The sexual relationships that we mean to exonerate today abundantly facilitate and embody intimate connection, family, love and the fruits of the spirit in the same contexts that opposite-sex relationships do.  If these are the virtues that make opposite-sex relationships a blessing to be celebrated, then same-sex relationships are also blessing to be celebrated.

Many people have responded to last week’s post on The Gospel Coalition’s website titled “40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags” in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in the United States granting State recognition of same-sex marriages.  Some have answered the questions, some have refused to answer the questions, and some have responded with alternative questions.  Sometimes I feel like the blogger that responded with just one question: “When are you going to listen to the answers to your questions?”

Indeed, I doubt that most people who shared the original post were the slightest bit interested in listening to any answers to the questions.  The purpose of the post is clearly to convict LGBT-affirming Christians of falling astray rather than to gather feedback.  This may all be for naught, but I am compelled to try because it is a tragically rare and exciting opportunity.  So few non-affirming Christians ever want to know why we believe that we do.  There are important people in my life who have never asked me these questions nor allowed me to posit them anyway in lieu of silence.  I hope that this might be a more palatable venue-- a paper slid under the closed door.

Here are some answers, not to be mistaken as a comprehensive treatment of LGBT-affirming theology.

How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated? 8 years.  Intelligent, thoughtful, Bible-believing Christians have been supporting gay marriage in gradually increasing numbers for more than 50 years.

What Bible verses led you to change your mind? This question means to show LGBT-affirming Christians that they have erred by placing their life experience or personal interests above scripture.  This assumption is a very common misconception.  Christians that have a high view of the Bible and are also affirming believe that the Bible does not condemn loving, committed, monogamous same-sex relationships in the first place.  So our stand is not one against the Bible; it is one for a particular interpretation of the Bible that we believe is a more accurate one, and profoundly so.  We stand FOR the Bible and believe that it is imperative that we understand it and apply it correctly. I was forced to reexamine my own understanding of the Bible’s teachings as I learned more and more about the realities of LGBT people and their lives, and that new information created irreconcilable contradictions between some of my strongly-held beliefs.  When finally I could no longer ignore those contradictions, it became clear that my understanding of the Bible was flawed somewhere. Specifically, the church’s teaching that exclusively same-sex attracted people must remain celibate stands in contradiction with many of the Bible’s teachings about human sexuality including the imperative and fundamental nature of our sexuality (Genesis 2:18-24), the reality of celibacy as a gift given to very few (Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 7), and the danger of forcing celibacy on those to whom it has not been given or denying marriage to a group of people (1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 4).  Further, the church’s teaching stands in direct contradiction with Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 19 that good teachings will bear good fruit and bad teachings will bear bad fruit.  When I observe all of the warnings within these verses playing out in the regular destruction of gay people’s lives and faith under the church’s traditional teachings, I find ample reason—responsibility, in fact—to reexamine those teachings. In all of this, when our life experience comes into play it illuminates scripture rather than supplanting it.  When we allow our experience to inform our understanding of scripture, that should not be mistaken for allowing our experience to trump scripture.  The latter may be treacherous, but the former is essential, for it is God’s creation that we encounter in our life experience, and as Paul says in Romans 1, “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.” Additionally, see John 16:12-14 and Galatians 3:28.  There are also many resources available that answer this and other questions in great detail.  Dr. James Brownson’s book Bible Gender Sexuality is probably my favorite for the intellectually minded.  Or Matthew Vines’ book God and the Gay Christian is a lighter read that does a good job of distilling the scholarly literature on the subject down into an accessible form.

How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated? [EDIT: See my revised answer to this question here.] This question flirts with a rhetological fallacy: an argument from silence.  It suggests that the absence of a sentiment indicates God’s opposition to it.  While the Bible’s mention of same-sex erotic acts are indeed negative, culture in Bible times did not understand sexual orientation as we do today.  Sexual roles were defined by social status rather than by gender.  (Since women were inherently of lower social status than men, gender was still woven in but under a different conceptualization than we have today.) Further, they thought that same-sex erotic behavior was born of sexual excess through a gluttonous loss of self-control, and indeed at the time, we have no record of socially accepted loving same-sex relationships between social equals.  So it is no surprise that the Bible does not discuss same-sex erotic behavior within the kind of relationships we know today. Given the new information we have about the existence of sexual orientation, we must apply what we know about the broader witness of Scripture on human sexuality and morality in general.  We know that sexual activity is not sinful per se, and we see in Genesis 2:18-24 that the central function of our sexuality is intimate connection to each other and ultimately the formation of the kinship bond (becoming “one flesh”)—family. These values—intimate connectedness and family—are strongly affirmed throughout scripture.  In fact, many theologians would argue that our desire for intimate connectedness is a primary embodiment of the image of God in us.  We can also consider the Bible’s description of love and the fruits of the spirit (1 Corinthians 13, Galatians 5). The sexual relationships that we mean to exonerate today abundantly facilitate and embody intimate connection, family, love and the fruits of the spirit in the same contexts that opposite-sex relationships do.  If these are the virtues that make opposite-sex relationships a blessing to be celebrated, then they also are a blessing to be celebrated when realized in same-sex relationships.

What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church? What is it specifically about a man and a woman that makes them exclusively able to reflect the relationship of God to the church?  This one also flirts with the fallacy of an argument from silence (see Question 2). It refers to Ephesians 5 which teaches that marriages ought to follow Jesus’ example in his relationship to his people.  While cast in the example of a male-female marriage, that is no surprise (see Question 3). Further, the relationship of Jesus to the church is the relationship of a divine being to a group of men and women. This concept is entirely gender-neutral. The assertion that only a man and a woman can adequately depict Christ and the church suggests that only a man can depict Christ and only a woman can depict ...men and women. Paul goes on to say that our deeply rooted need for intimate connection described in Genesis 2 is a profound mystery that refers to Christ and the church.  We also have the story of Hosea, whom God told to marry a prostitute to depict God’s relationship to Israel (where the unfaithful prostitute represented Israel’s unfaithfulness to God).  Same-sex couples experience all of the desire for intimate connection, faithfulness through hard times, mutual submission, and selfless love that opposite-sex couples do and so have every opportunity to experience and bear witness to God’s relationship to us as opposite-sex couples do. If you find the gender hierarchy within Paul’s description in Ephesian 5 to be essential, then I could see how you might wonder how two people of the same gender might achieve that hierarchy.  There’s nothing stopping a same-sex couple from establishing a hierarchy in their relationship, but indeed most same-sex relationships are egalitarian.  But consider two things: (1) Of the many aspects of a marriage and the mystery of human sexuality that might help us understand God’s relationship to us, the concept of God as the head of the church with a church submitting to God seems by far the least profound or mysterious and even patently obvious. (2) There are many (most?) straight Christians that believe the Bible points us on a trajectory away from gender hierarchy entirely (Galatians 3:28).  These Christians form egalitarian marriages, yet Christians that subscribe to patriarchy don’t consider such marriages null and void simply because they are egalitarian. To hold same-sex marriages in question for their typically egalitarian nature is purely a double standard.

Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship? Absolutely.

If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman? He didn’t.  The purpose of Jesus’ comment in Matthew 19 is to answer a question about divorce and not to define gender boundaries in marriage.  It is no surprise that he speaks in terms of a male-female relationship when that is exactly what the Pharisees asked him about and when he is speaking to a culture that doesn’t even have same-sex marriage within their customs. Description is not prescription. Similarly, the Bible “reasserts” the order of the universe in Joshua 10, 1 Chronicles 16:30, and Psalms 96:10 where we see clearly that the Earth is fixed, and the sun moves around it. Galileo caused a major uproar in the church for claiming otherwise, unseating our firmament—God’s creation—from the center of everything.  But solely from our experience we know that geocentrism is not in fact a reality and that these verses merely reflect the knowledge available to the people of the time.

When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding? Adultery, fornication, rape, pederasty… I’m not sure what the purpose of this question is.

If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1? There is a lot to say about Romans 1, but the most important concept for me is in fact reflected in the language of an “exchange” in this passage.  As I described a little bit in my answer to question 3 and unlike our knowledge of sexual orientation today, people in Paul’s time thought that everyone in their “natural” state (with self-control and moderation) was attracted to the opposite sex and that same-sex erotic desire and behavior was likewise within everyone’s capacity, brought out and added to a person’s usual desires when lust spiraled into excess (beyond nature). This view of human sexuality is reflected in Paul’s language as he describes people who have been previously satisfied with opposite-sex acts but are now consumed with lust and exchanging those acts for same-sex acts in a fury of passion. This scenario is very unlike homosexuality but reflects very real practices of Paul’s time as well as his understanding of human sexuality.  My point here is not to say that “Paul got it wrong!”  As with everything in the Bible, we need to know WHY Paul wrote what he did just as much as we need to know what he wrote.  Paul sees the orgy-like scenario he describes as something apart from God because it is licentious sexual excess.  And I completely agree that sexual gluttony is apart from God’s will for us.  I do not question Paul’s moral lesson; I question his knowledge of human sexuality much as I question ancient culture’s knowledge of orbital mechanics (see Question 6). For sources and a much more in-depth discussion on Romans 1, see Dr. James Brownson’s book Bible Gender Sexuality.  For more about sexuality in ancient Rome, see Roman Homosexuality by Craig Williams.

Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven? Since it is self-evident that sin is sinful, I’m assuming this is a rhetorical question.

What sexual sins do you think they were referring to? Both of these verses employ a “vice list” to generally conjure up all manner of sin in the reader’s mind.  I believe the authors meant to evoke all manner of sexual sin.  I of course do not believe that gender has anything to do with sexual morality and so obviously don’t include consensual sex between married people of the same gender within the concept of “sexual sin.” 1 Corinthians 6:9 requires further comment, however.  The two Greek words malakos and arsenokoites that appear here have more recently been combined and translated together as “homosexuals” and similar.  I believe this is a translation error in the form of a gross over-generalization.  There’s quite a bit I could say about that, but I’ll stick to the basics here. First, if the idea of a translation error seems offensive, consider that the translation of these words has in fact meaningfully changed over time already.  They cannot all be right, and some are closer to capturing the moral logic of the authors than others.  One might say very gently that “some translations are better than others.” The use of the word “homosexual” in newer translations is immediately suspect since the concept is relatively new and does not align with ancient understandings of human sexuality.  Even if Paul had explicitly written “men who have sex with men,” we would still need to understand that Paul was under the impression that all same-sex erotic behavior was born of sexual gluttony by people who were no longer satisfied with their usual, pedestrian sexual conquests with the opposite sex.  Put another way, Paul is not commenting on that which he doesn’t have in view: loving, committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. For a great treatment of translation in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, see Dr. Brownson’s book “Bible Gender Sexuality.”  In a nutshell, our best information suggests that malakos and arsenokoites harken to sexual exploitation consistent with the most common forms of same-sex behavior in Paul’s time: master/slave scenarios, pederasty, and prostitution, which is also consistent with several older translations of these verses before the concept of sexual orientation emerged in the last century.

As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp? First, I’m sorry to say that I didn’t figure these things out on my own.  I learned them from biblical scholars that have lived since our understanding of sexual orientation has emerged. Martin Luther once railed against Copernicus, calling him a “fool” for flouting holy scripture by advancing his notion that the Earth moves around the sun.  I imagine Luther failed to grasp orbital mechanics.  This question sits on a rhetological fallacy: appealing to authority. While these men were all great thinkers, that does not mean they were always right.  The question is not whether I am more cleaver than Luther or any other scholar of old or what I might understand about the Bible.  The question is whether we have new information about God’s creation available to us that they did not have.  The answer is a big yes. These scholars failed to fully grasp human sexuality and could not, therefore, begin to see the interpretation of the Bible that LGBT-affirming Christians see today any more than Luther could have seen a heliocentric interpretation of the Bible without a telescope and an open mind.

What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned? I would use exactly the same arguments I would use in America and that I have been introducing here.  They are based in factual observations that transcend culture.  Our American missionaries taught most of these people to abhor homosexuals and encouraged or remained complicitly silent about legislation in some of these countries prescribing the death penalty and sparking witch hunts for gay and lesbian people. We are responsible for allowing our cultural conditioning to color our teachings in opposition to gender and sexual minorities, and we need to step up, confess our error and implore them to re-examine sexuality with new information and new eyes.  Then we need to fall on our knees and ask forgiveness for the sin that we have visited upon every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender person who has lost their livelihood, their faith, or their life because of our error.

Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman? That’s not my call to make.  I do not know their motivations throughout this progression in their lives.

Do you think children do best with a mother and a father? No.

If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion? I point to the entire body of research on same-sex parented families.  A recent study--the largest of its kind--conducted by researchers at the University of Melbourne found that children from same-sex families were just as happy and healthy as those from opposite-sex families.  In fact, the children in same-sex families scored a little bit higher on measures of general health and family cohesion. As reported by Reuters, another recent "study-of-studies" co-authored by two professors at the University of Oregon and the University of Colorado "reviewed 19,000 studies and articles related to same-sex parenting from 1977 to 2013."  They found that there was some disagreement among studies in the 1980s, little disagreement in the 1990s, and a clear consensus emerging by 2000 "that there is no difference between same-sex and different-sex parenting in the psychological, behavioral or educational outcomes of children." For an excellent review of the historical progression of cultural, medical, and political attitudes toward gender and sexual minorities, see Kathy Baldock’s book Walking the Bridgeless Canyon: Repairing the Breach Between the Church and the LGBT Community.

If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad? N/A

Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment? Yes. First, as discussed in Question 4, the Bible teaches that marriage helps us understand God’s relationship to us, and I find no reason to believe that only the union of a man and a woman can represent that gender-neutral concept.  Second, marriage is the seat of the family unit: the one-flesh bond to which we are driven by our sexuality (Genesis 2).

How would you define marriage? Marriage is a life-long commitment between two people before God.

Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married? This is irrelevant to the question of gender within sexual morality.

Should marriage be limited to only two people? This is also irrelevant to the question of gender within sexual morality.

On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married? The purpose of this question is fuzzy to me.  What sort of preventing are we talking about here? If we’re talking about legislation, I believe that the role of government within a democracy is to protect the freedoms of its people and to restrict the freedoms of one person or group only where they would violate those of another.  I do not support legislation against any act that causes no collateral damage to the well-being of others, even if I have moral objections to that act.  We don’t need sharia law in this country. If we’re talking about personal relationships, I would express my concern to anyone in whose life I had the privilege to speak if I thought they were bringing ruin upon themselves, but I would always listen first and last and never assume that I couldn’t be wrong.

Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license? This also is irrelevant to the question of gender within sexual morality.

Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage? This question is very strange to me.  What does it mean to “have [a] relationship defined as marriage?”  Is someone submitting a petition to the Oxford English Dictionary?  If a person wants to make a life-long commitment to a brick and call it a marriage, that’s their prerogative.  It doesn’t fit within my definition of marriage, but we don’t get to play Language Police. I assume the author means to question the Supreme Court’s recent decision requiring all states to treat same-sex unions the same as they treat opposite-sex unions.  First, we really must distinguish between marriage and government recognition thereof.  If marriage is a life-long commitment between two people, then the government has no say in that.  No law can prevent two people from making a commitment to each other, and no law ever has in the United States so far as I know.  The government decides whether to accept registration of same-sex marriages thereby granting those couples the associated legal benefits. Equality means that everyone gets “equal protection under the law.”  The Supreme Court says that means that heterosexual people get various legal and tax benefits if they register their committed relationships with the government, and homosexual people get the same benefits if they register their committed relationships with the government.  If the person that marries a brick wants to register that commitment with the State, I’m sure s/he will enjoy the hospital visitation and inheritance rights when the time comes.

If not, why not? See previous.

Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion? (An ironic request coming from the group that has fought so hard to prevent LGBT people and their allies from exercising their religious beliefs…) Should my brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with interracial marriage and racial equality be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion? Should Islamic extremists that believe they need to kill Christians be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs? Some Christians believe that gay people should be put to death.  Should they be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs?  Your right to exercise your religious beliefs stops where that action harms other people. You may think these examples are nothing like the denials of service that some Christians want to retain, but that disconnect between us is an embodiment of a more fundamental disconnect: many non-affirming Christians still insist that homosexuality is some kind of twisted mental disorder or reprobate desire while a growing majority of people look at gay people as a natural variation of the human species that deserves—that needs—to be able to form meaningful, intimate relationships in order to flourish (just like everybody else) and cannot do so with the opposite sex.  The growing majority finds that the real harm lies in attempting to force celibacy on gay people or, heaven forbid, in attempting to “fix” us with reparative therapy. The laws of this land identify certain protected classes that have been marginalized within our society and make it illegal to discriminate against people for being within any of those classes. We can discriminate against incompetent people when hiring employees and discriminate against people with poor money management skills when offering loans, but once a majority of society agrees that discrimination against a certain people group is without merit, we all have to follow the laws that result.  I believe that anti-discrimination laws should be passed nationwide adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes, and I believe that everyone, including Christians that don’t like it, should have to adhere to them within the public realm in exactly the same way that our racial and women’s equality laws work.

Will you speak up for fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue? See previous answer.  I advocate equal protection under the law.  Food for thought: Did Christians speak up for LGBT people when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms were threatened because of this issue in the past decades?

Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics? Another irony, considering all the years that Christians have shamed LGBT people. I will handle those who have disdain for same-sex attraction the same as I will handle those who have disdain for dark skin color.  I will endeavor to treat them with dignity and respect where possible, but I do believe there is a line at which society needs to say, “Shame on you for harming this people group.”

Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles? The purpose of this question is not clear to me.  I teach and encourage the same sexual morality for all marriages regardless of gender.

Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline? This is irrelevant to the question of gender within sexual morality.  Should straight couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?  Whatever our answer, it should be the same in both cases.

Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage? Again, this question has nothing to do with the morality of gender within sexuality. If it is a sin for straight persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage, then it is a sin for LGBT people, too.

What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found? This is another question that has nothing to do with the morality of gender within sexuality.  It seems to be based on the misconception that LGBT-affirming Christians have decided to strategically ignore the Bible’s sexual morality where it is inconvenient when in fact we believe that we have improved our understanding of the Bible’s teachings and are following God’s will more closely than we were before we became affirming.  The morality of divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery are questions separate from that of gender within sexuality.  LGBT-affirming theology demonstrates only that gender is not a part of God’s sexual morality.  It does not dispose of sexual morality as a whole, and it does not imply any mutual exclusivity between affirmation and the authority of the Bible.

If “love wins,” how would you define love? In my own words, love is selflessness.  In the apostle’s words: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude.  It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” –1 Corinthians 13:4-7  (Verses 8-13 are illuminating, too.)

What verses would you use to establish that definition? See previous.

How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love? We’re back to the misconception that affirming Christians don’t want to be obedient to God’s commands when in fact we believe that we are better following God’s commands. Answering nonetheless, the New Testament teaches us that the end goal of the law is fulfilled by love. (Matthew 22:36-40, Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14)  So love is obedience to God’s commands, and obedience to God’s commands is love.  Where our actions harm our neighbor, we have departed from obedience to God (Romans 13:10).

Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make? Of course.  But stonewalling the pleas of another that our teachings are harming them is not loving.

If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith? Quite a lot over the years.  I’ve grown in ways I never would have without this challenge to my faith.  Mine is a far more mature faith than it was eight years ago, and I’d never want to go back.  If I had to pick just one example: it has been humbling.  My faith used to function within an arrogance that I was blind to.  Now after realizing that I could be so wrong about a belief, I am lower and God is higher. I now grasp more vividly the inherent separation between my understanding of God’s word and God’s word.

As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost? This question is very strange to me.  It seems like the author means to suggest that supporting gay marriage necessarily undermines these “evangelical distincitves” when that is by no means the case.  Otherwise I don’t see increased passionate commitment to these principles as any kind of measure of the truth of a belief.  Instead, we should measure the outcomes of our beliefs and actions against the fruit of the spirit described in Galatians 5:22-23 as well as the “fruit of the tree” as Jesus instructs us in Matthew 7:15-20.

What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgement and called to repentance, and missionaries are being send out to plant churches among unreached peoples? Lots of them.  But see previous question.  Again, there is only one difference between the beliefs of an affirming and a non-affirming Christian, and that is the role of gender within sexual morality.

Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead? Once again, LGBT-affirming theology does not require a Christian to be less committed to the Church, Christ, or the Bible.  At the most basic level of this conversation, we really must have this mutual understanding and respect for each other.

A good friend of mine, relatively new to the realm of LGBT affirmation, was lamenting today the emotionally taxing process of having a conversation with a non-affirming Christian leader.  She described how this leader’s easy confidence in his beliefs and his appeals to the plain sense of Scripture dredge up her latent fear of having arrived on the wrong side of this conversation.

Even I, well steeped in and resolutely passionate about LGBT affirmation and advocacy in the Christian church, can see a certain appeal in non-affirming theology. I was at a conference hosted by a PCA (conservative Presbyterian) seminary in St. Louis last weekend, and listening to them talk about honoring scripture and standing firm for Truth in the face of popular culture and the semblance of self-sacrificial devotion to God that Wesley Hill exuded as he talked about finding hope in his unfinished story... it all seems so noble. It's simple in a way, compared to this uphill battle we fight to unravel and reshape so much about our culture's perceptions of gender. What are the chances that we have such a profoundly revolutionary vision of truth that's been lost on the world until now? I felt that pull last weekend. Apparently there's still a corner of my mind that hears the siren's call of the comfort and security of established tradition.

The worst day of Monte Vines' life, or so he thought, was Jan. 2, 2010, when his son Matthew told him he was gay.

Here's an interview with the Vines family.  Check it out.  The personal side of these conversations are just as important as the intellectual side.

------------------

"Two years ago, Matthew created a video in which he told his story and pointed out what his own studies of the Bible found. Monte began to monitor the hundreds of comments posted.

"He was shocked. One wrote, 'On the day that they stone you, I want to be there.'

"He reached up with a finger and wiped tears from his eye.

Non-LGBT-affirming Christians: do us all a favor and check your sources and have some intellectual integrity. Don't read a rebuttal to Matthew Vines' book without reading the book, and don't read Charisma without checking the BS meter.

Restored Hope Network (an ex-gay ministry) posted this from Charisma, saying "Stating the obvious..."

"People Are Not Born Gay, Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists" http://www.charismanews.com/world/43990-people-are-not-born-gay-affirms-royal-college-of-psychiatrists

RHN followers and others are now enthusiastically sharing the "news."

Read Charisma, then read the actual statement here (it's not very long): http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf

This is the level of scholarship I've come to expect from non-affirming Christians. It's not just sad; it ruins people's lives.

----- Quotes from the actual statement:

"The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors." --This means biological conditions IN THE WOMB as well as some postnatal environmental factors.

"There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation."

"The College holds the view that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are and should be regarded as valued members of society, who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to healthcare, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership/marriage, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practise a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation."

"There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Systematic reviews carried out by both the APA5 and Serovich et al9 suggest that studies which have shown conversion therapies to be successful are seriously methodologically flawed."

It is important that I remember that my demographic isn't the only one hated so much that some want us dead. It is easy to respond with simple condemnation, but I believe that we must do something a good deal more difficult: we must ask, "Why?"

"This is wholesome."