Excellent, thoughtful post. I have often thought of what you are proposing as walking that razor’s edge between “Truth and Grace.” As I have often reminded myself and others: “It is possible to practice a truth, which lacking grace, is not truth. And, it is possible to practice a grace, which lacking truth, is not grace.”
I am reminded of the question posed by Letha Scanzoni years ago: “Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?” We might also ask: “Is the brother or sister whose convictions differ from my own my neighbor?”
Incidentally, I had a little trouble with one of your statements. Did you intend this? “Hold your views with clarity and with conviction, but we dare not let ourselves become so committed to our views that we can engage the person as a person.” Or did you mean, “…that we CANNOT engage the person as a person”? Wasn’t sure.
Thank you for you always thought-provoking posts.
Peace!

Jim, thanks for that correction. I fixed it.

Scot-
Good thoughts by you and Mouw. It sounds similar to what Os Guinness has been stressing as well.
“Until we get let the other person say “I think you are wrong and I have legitimate grounds for thinking so” we cannot genuinely sit at the table. ”
I think that is part of the problem: there is even disagreement on where that “table” should be. Even for those on both sides who want calm dialogue, some think the discussion “table” should be in and part of the church, while others think that the discussion “table” should take place outside the church. The Anglican Communion is showing signs of that type divide on the “table”.

The problem is that this endless discussion resolves nothing and in resolving nothing the end result is moral confusion in society at large. If we believe there are moral standards that are objectively and universally true then endless conversation only benefits the side who believes that moral standards are relative of “contextual” or “determined by the local community”. At some point, society has to decide that at least a few things are going to be endorsed and a few things are going to be set aside as not helpful to that society.
And Rick mentions the Anglican Communion. Odd that where the endless conversation without resolution has been tried it has led to nothing but endless confusion without resolution. The Episcopal church is an absolute mess. I fear that is exactly where the evangelical world is heading – moral, ethical and theological chaos.
I am completely and totally wearied and disillusioned by the type of conversation advocated here. No wonder young men are seeking something solid in movements like the new Calvinism. This conversation is nothing but a dizzying feedback loop the goes around and around end never ends, never arrives at any answers. “Come to me all ye who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you – more questions.”

Very thoughtful and relevant. Consider the
internet implications on any number of issues.
I hope “Third Way” becomes a noun,a combination word understood by the culture as coming from the Christian community, the definition meaning
conviction and civility.

I think civility is no goal unless by that you mean something like considerate speech and behavior borne of genuine Christian humility and love.
I guess it gets tricky for all of us, because Jesus, Paul, and Peter all used some pretty spicy verbiage at times. So we have models of language that we use, but we cannot always perceive the righteous (certainly in Jesus’ case anyway) manner in which these words were delivered (because they’re words printed on a page).

My struggle with this is the idea seems to imply an equality of ideas. That your idea is on equal footing as mine. I have a hard time accepting this, not just on this issue but on all sorts of issues. I think it is a modern fallacy that all ideas have equal force. This is the same as Plato’s “democratic soul” and he showed how terrible that could be. Am I reading into this conviction and civility idea incorrectly?

Ben S.,
Good to hear from you again. As for equality of ideas … not really the point. Civility is needed in a world where there is competition for ideas and for the best idea, where ideas are not seen as equal. The question here is how to deal with one another in that kind of world. I hope you agree that each of us is entitled to believe what we want (that is what a liberal democracy is about when it comes to freedom of thought). I want to respect that, and to ask how we can best both affirm and defend our own convictions, with passion, and still respect the right of the other person to do the same.
I disagree quite markedly with Tony Jones on this issue of homosexuality (he’s been posting about this). I read the Bible differently and I give more weight to the church’s historical tradition on this, and I think that God’s Spirit is at work in fidelity to that interpretation and tradition. But in the West, I am asked to be respectful of his view as I ask him to be respectful of my view.

This is a great post.
I think this kind of civility, especially in the gay/lesbian issue, must come from “sermon on the mount” type thinking;
“You’ve heard it said that homosexuality is sin, but I say to you that lust is the issue”… We let ourselves off the hook by calling homosexuality the sin, instead of seeing the real issue. Is a man’s lust for a man a worse sin than his lust for a woman? Or a woman’s lust for a woman worse than her lust for a man?
Convicted civility comes from a deep realization of grace, no?

Dan @ 4, “Come to me all ye who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you – more questions.”
Yes, exactly. It’s called binding and loosing. Jesus almost always answers a question with a question. And I fear many who are turning to the new Calvinism are doing so out of fear or reluctance to do the hard work of Christian discernment. Maybe the conversation is wearying at times…but to run from it, to refuse to engage with people unless they are already in agreement, is not love.

I couldn’t agree more. But I do have a question.
What do you do with II Peter, Jude, I John as well as Paul and Jesus (as ChrisE points out) which seem to be full of binary oppositions and line drawing.

thanks for this, scot.
i have begun to try to take a radically different approach to how i read blog posts and how i read comments on blog posts.
anyone who’s words expose bad fruit is automatically wrong, no matter what their doctrine or theology may be. if your convictions do not lead you to produce good fruit, then you are wrong. period.
someone recently asked on twitter if people felt they had a right to demand respect from others (i think they were focused largely on men in asking). my response was that i’d given up trying to get respect given how nearly impossible it was to even get civility, these days.
as for Ben’s question, the issue is less about equal force or equal footing and much more about the equality of the people who hold those ideas. i may be a rhetorical midget with the IQ of a fence post and the writing skills of a turnip. my views on a topic may be utterly indefensible. but i am still a child of G-d made in the image of G-d and so valuable that G-d made manifest in flesh and died so that i could be reconciled. and that means that no matter what stupidity comes out of my mouth, you need to respond appropriately.
to nit-pick. it is not a modern fallacy that all ideas have equal force. modernity believed very much in exactly one right and a whole universe of wrong. if anything, it is a fallacy of POST-modernity that all ideas have equal force. but i would argue that this is a misrepresentation of post-modernity that people like to use as a straw man for dismissing the necessary and hard work of accepting the fact that we all see through a glass darkly.

I wonder if part of the struggle is the discussion of “homosexuaLITY” as opposed to how we relate to this or than homosexual.
HomosexuaLITY is an abstract philosophical construct which no one is called to love but this or that particular “homosexual” is a different matter. (Ditto “this or that brother/sister who disagrees with me”.)
I wonder how this conversation would go if we grounded it in the practice of friendship with a particular flesh and blood homosexual? Whatever my point of view and however I might approach that topic with him/her it seems to me that the friendship can endure.
At least that’s the way it has gone with the handful of real live homosexuals with whom I have ministered over the years. We let friendship frame whatever discussions we were having and that friendship was untouched by where we came down on the issues at hand.
Sort of like marriage that….

Was there a Third Way to the discussions on ending slavery? It split the Methodist church in half. I have often wondered if those ministers in the south who stood on scripture as permitting it came around or if they preached a bitter message afterwards.

I don’t know why I’m writing this, because I’ve pretty much given up on these sorts of discussions, but, here goes: If I am an Orthodox Jew, and I don’t eat pork products for moral reasons, you wouldn’t see me picketing ham at the local supermarket chain, saying NOBODY should be allowed to eat ham. I wouldn’t start a letter writing campaign to congress to shut down the pork industry, because my scriptures, as I understand them, say eating pork is blasphemous. No. I would live by the courage of my convictions as I understand them, and I would not force my religious convictions on others. Many (not all) straight evangelicals, on the other hand, attempt to impose their religious convictions on the LGBT community, to the point of taking away their civil rights. I don’t care if XYZ Church doesn’t want to allow gay marriages by their clergy and/or in their sanctuary. But why, in a country founded on the separation of church and state, should XYZ Church be given license to organize to discriminate against an entire class of people on the basis of how they read their scriptures?

Scot I like the Mouw quote, and the Third Way approach. At the same time I struggle with the implications when you say:
“folks must be given the freedom to believe what they want.”
In society, yes. As human beings, yes. As dialogue partners, friends and family, yes.
As members or (more so) leaders in a church? On many issues, yes.
But are there some issues about which a church has to (civilly) say “We respect your freedom as a human being to believe what you want but if that is what you believe then your belief in that area disqualifies you from leadership” or, “we have to ask that you not advocate within this body for that belief” or even, “continuing to hold that belief keeps you from being able to be a full member in good standing within this body?” Is it possible to say “I love you and respect your right to hold that belief, but in our fellowship that belief disqualifies you from [X]” in a way that is Third Way?
Forget homosexuality for a moment – aren’t there at least some things to which the above would have to apply (divinity of Christ, historicity of the incarnation and resurrection, agreement with certain other moral teachings)? If so, then how does the traditional/orthodox believer or congregation deal with her/their conviction that the revisionist teaching on the purpose and use of sexuality falls within that same category? Relatedly, will those on the other side of this issue *ever* be able to see exclusion from membership or leadership, no matter how nicely worded, as anything other than uncivil disrespect?

I think that Karl makes a good point; this is all very well (in some ways) for our liberal democratic society as a whole, but what about the church? We are commanded many time in Scripture to expel those who are unrepentant and gross sinners. What do we do with a member of a church who comes out as a homosexual? According to Jesus, Paul, and Peter, we should excommunicate them; not even eat with them.
How do we deal with that in this “third way” of civility?

Karl and Ben,
Thanks for this. Your point is well taken and needed: the civility I’m talking about is public and concerns liberal democracies and we are not talking about the local ecclesial level. Local churches have the need and right to exercise discipline regarding erring members.
Do I think opponents here will ever see the other side as anything but uncivil disrespect? I hope we can achieve civil respect to some degree.
One of the issues here is that the local church has become public. Two issues have led to this: the classical Sunday gospel/evangelistic service and, its newer format, the seeker service. Frankly, this creates problems for these sorts of issues. When non believers are “welcome” in a Sunday service, then “discipline” becomes doubly problematic: not only does it require great sensitivity, but it now will involve using language that does not unnecessarily offend.
So my question: Do you think Sunday services should permit nonbelievers? That leads to the issue of gay and lesbian attendance: would you permit openly gay and lesbian folks to attend your Sunday service?

Ben Wheaton,
Are you sure Jesus says we should excommunicate them, and not even eat with them? He says to treat them like pagans. However, Jesus’ message to Israel was to remember her vocation to be the light of the world to the Gentiles (pagans), and he symbolically enacted this by eating with sinners. So, I find it very hard, if not impossible, to say that Jesus supports not eating with members of the church who come out as open sinners.

In response to the rather amazingly uncharitable post up at the beginning: In my Bible, I seem to recall Jesus making the holy folks of his day extremely upset by making a point of eating with the ritually unclean.
As a gay Christian, and as a mainline, non-Evangelical Christian, I am very conflicted about continuing to post here at all, since some of you seem to regard my presence here as part of the latter-day “uncleanness” you wish to purge from your own churches. I frankly do not feel welcome here, despite what I think are our host’s sincere attempts to create a welcoming atmosphere. I’m starting to feel like my dog, a little eager-to-please rescue pooch who desperately wants to be friends with our friends’ dogs, but whose presence is usually rebuffed in various ways — pointed ignoring here; a snarl there.
On one of the other topic threads the difficulties of ecumenism were being discussed. These discussions make me wonder how possible it is, really, to reach out ecumenically with people whose ultimate theological concern seems to be maintaining self-perceived boundaries of “holiness.” An educator in my denomination once noted that in the Gospels, whenever lines were drawn between “us” and “them,” Jesus walked across them. Apparently some of you, reading the same Gospels, hear exactly the opposite message. I’m not sure that’s a conceptual bridge that can be crossed, which begs the question of why I’m even here.

Adding on to #16 (Karl) and #17 (Ben)
Both Karl and Ben make an excellent point– it’s well and good to apply the “third way” in society, but does it work different in the church, and if so, why?
Application within the church (seminary, parachurch, etc.) is different because, while institutions draw their life from individual beliefs, institutions ultimately function by an overarching principal.
As pastor of a church that has wrestled with homosexuality, we’re on the tail end of a four year process. I’ve said, “How we decide is just as important as what we decide.” In the beginning, we strived to hear all opinions and be on the side of all people. Eventually, the church had to decide what would guide its common life. Though we will always remain in dialogue, the institution can not remain in limbo. Our institution decided that such practice grieves God and we are making decisions based on the majority’s conviction.
It’s often said that a husband and wife don’t agree on everything, but they still remain in covenant. That’s true when the couple remains unified in core values– there’s room for needed tolerance. But when the core values are violated, the covenant falls into jeopardy. With respect to homosexuality, there is no middle ground, That’s what makes “convicted civility” difficult, but necessary.

Scot:
Good discussion. Two observations. People get so caught up in being “right” they forget about the being “redeemed”.
Second of all, seems to me that the discussion ought to morph into the real issue behind all the jabbering — the subject of promiscuity in the church.
I think the heterosexual church community is afraid of the homosexual community because they believe that
- homosexuals have multiple partners and are always on the lookout for “prey”
- they may use the church as a place to recruit new members
I think the homosexual community is afraid that the church is going to
- demand that they make the switch
- or remain celibate
We have a lot of misconceptions about one another. But the real issue, as I see it, is that rampant promiscuity that exists in both the heterosexual and homosexual community. But nobody wants to talk about that, at all. Much easier to say it’s “their’ fault that judgment is coming to America, blah, blah, blah.
BTW: We use the terms Christians and Homosexuals, as I just did, as if being one excludes being the other, which, of course it does not. Salvation isn’t dependent upon the “rightness” of our sexuality, thankfully.

Scot,
Thank you for the thoughtful response. In answer to your questions I would say “yes” Sunday services should permit nonbelievers to attend, and “absolutely” I would encourage openly gay and lesbian folks to attend the Sunday service and to keep attending – and I would hope that they would be treated in a way that would make them feel welcomed and loved. But for many gay and lesbian folks the mere knowledge that the church took a traditional stance on the issue of sexuality would be enough for them to feel unwelcome and unloved, regardless of how well they are treated otherwise. And I can understand their feeling that way.
The problem I am talking about presents itself (for me) not at the level of attendance, but the level of either membership or leadership. On many issues we can agree to disagree and even have disagreement among leadership. On some other issues one can disagree with the church’s stance and still be a member, but not be a leader. But certain issues are considered significant enough that if one has an avowed stance that is contra what this body believes, then you can attend but not be a member as long as you hold that belief. For most orthodox/traditionalists in the area of sexuality, disagreement on whether sex is intended solely for expression in a marriage between a husband and wife rises at least to the level of preventing someone from being in leadership and perhaps from membership. The closest analogue in my mind would be to ask how a church would treat a cohabiting heterosexual couple. Attend, yes. Lead, no. Membership – maybe a tougher question and it would depend how strong or lax you treat membership issues in general. But the very fact that this dilemma exists (how to treat them vis a vis membership and leadership) is deeply hurtful and insulting to many gay folks.
As I told our Episcopal bishop when we discussed our disagreement over this issue, one of us is deeply in the wrong. Not just in terms of being factually incorrect but in terms of perpetrating and perpetuating great damage upon real people. If I am wrong in taking a traditionalist stance, I am the moral equivalent of a deep-south segregationist during the civil rights era. That is sobering and scary, and I wish I could with integrity interpret scripture in a way that would allow me to take a different stance. At the same time our bishop, if he is wrong, is somewhat the moral equivalent of a drug dealer or the enabler of an alcoholic, peddling something that will lead to spiritual death or at least spiritual disease, telling soothing lies that everything is fine to people on an unhealthy path. We can meet and be nice to each other and treat each other with respect, but there’s not a lot of middle ground and for a church or denomination to say that these two should (or even can) coexist under the same roof for any length of time as equally valid options, doesn’t do justice to either position.

I don’t know that the issue of unbeliever is at all related to the issue of openly permitting gays and lesbians to attend.
If we begin defining believer as someone who is not a sinner then the entire Gospel falls. Jesus should’ve stayed home and saved himself a crucifixion.
I taught Sunday School with a lesbian, just as I would with a rich person or an alcoholic. She wasn’t “openly” lesbian but neither was she in the closet. She was just another human being.
And also what she was is a person full of the Holy Spirit, a true believer, and much more a follower of the teachings of Jesus than many “Christians” who I have known.

Joseph at #23, I did not mean to make that connection. Sorry.

LutheranChik,
It is because we want civility, even when we disagree (which we do), that we want you to be at this table.
Let me ask two questions for you: Yes, Jesus offended his contemporaries in welcoming tax collectors and prostitutes and sinners to the table. Did he expect them to repent and change? Or, did he affirm them in their ways?
It is one thing to say that Jesus crossed the line; it is another to talk about his intent in crossing that line. His intent was kingdom transformation.

Karl #23-
“The problem I am talking about presents itself (for me) not at the level of attendance, but the level of either membership or leadership. On many issues we can agree to disagree and even have disagreement among leadership. On some other issues one can disagree with the church’s stance and still be a member, but not be a leader. But certain issues are considered significant enough that if one has an avowed stance that is contra what this body believes, then you can attend but not be a member as long as you hold that belief.”
Well said. That is what I was referring to by mentioning the “table” in #3, but you stated it much better.
Michael Spencer (Internet Monk) recently did a post (with interviews) regarding the seeker service question.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-evangelical-untouchables-2-seeker-sensitivity
Karen #22-
Is the issue promescuity (not to say that is not an issue), or is that a symptom of a bigger question and divide regarding authority (Scipture, Church Tradition, etc…)?

This converstion has not started well. I would like to ask Ben Wheaton how you think Jesus would relate to LuthernChick and ask LuthernChick how you think Jesus would react to Ben Wheaton? I’m trying to find common ground and wonder if you and others think civility and community is possible?
Doug

LutheranChik–what I think we’re seeing here is the cognitive dissonance of many evangelicals. They know that, in theory, they are supposed to love everybody, but their understanding of scripture precludes their acceptance of certain kinds of people. So they have this schizophrenic way of dealing with this–”I love you, but I can’t accept you as you are.” Which is tantamount to saying, “I love you, AND you disgust me.” Or, “God loves you unconditionally, but God would love you more if you weren’t the way you are.” This, combined with the (in my opinion) rather flimsy case against gays that they knit together from scripture, makes it very difficult for most evangelical folk to allow GLBT folks in their churches (or anywhere). Fascinating. At least, from a distance it’s fascinating. Upclose and personal it’s hurtful and infuriating.

Okay, Scott, so here’s the problem. Gay people don’t think of themselves as sinners because they’re gay, anymore than straight people think they’re sinners because they’re straight. So, the “Jesus wanted prostitutes to change” argument doesn’t wash with the LGBT community.

Scot (26),
> That’s a good question that we probably can’t answer to everyone’s satisfaction. I think it most likely that He merely said, “follow me,” with the knowledge there would be various outcomes. Your question brings up another. Many members of conservative and liberal churches I’m aware of have members who are divorced and remarried and therefore living in sin (adultery). Would Jesus ask them to repent and change by breaking up their family? Do most churches. Are gays able to change? These are all difficult questions, and I think we do the our brothers, our sisters, ourselves, and our God injustice by thinking that they are easy.
Doug

KateM-
Which goes back to Scot’s purpose of the post: how can we have civil discourse about this?

Rick #32,
“Which goes back to Scot’s purpose of the post: how can we have civil discourse about this?”
Um, I think that’s what we’re doing, isn’t it?

Scot: I don’t understand homosexual relationships to be a sin. Neither does my local faith community, my pastor and any number of other faith communities and pastors, theologians and other people whom I trust as faithful, thoughtful people of God. Katem’s thoughts reflect my own. So entering into this discussion feels like entering into very hostile, foreign territory outside my home base within Christendom. Your expectation that my relationship with Jesus necessitates a “change” in my sexual orientation, if that were even possible, I find repugnant, unloving and insulting to my partner and my gay friends– a rejection of part of who we are, just as if you were rejecting me because of my eye color or age or gender or German heritage.
Let me try to find a parallel position. I believe that warmongering outside the very narrow classic definition of just war is sinful. I believe that our country “missed the mark” in its aggressive neocon tinkering with geopolitics; by extension, I think that people who promote this type of ideology, and who by extension support the type of warfare, treatment of prisoners and other consequences of same, are missing the mark. But — I can live with the fact that many neocons who are Christians have a sincere belief that they’re somehow furthering the Reign of God; they have a hermeneutic that somehow supports that idea. So to me the idea of denying someone access to worship or the Sacraments in my church, or denying someone a lay or pastoral leadership role in my church, because they hold to neocon ideas about the uses of the military…even though I disagree with them very much; even though I see their ideology as causing a great deal of harm worldwide. I think perhaps because of my Lutheran theology and its general pessimism about the ability of human beings to get it right, as well as the idea of Deus absconditus I don’t place a lot of value in anyone’s, including my own’s, pretensions to personal or collective holiness or rightness in the grand scheme of things. We do what we can with what light we’ve been given, with the understanding that in the end we’re all beggars before God, solely dependent upon God’s grace and mercy.

There seems to be a break in the discussion so I wouls like to ask you all if you went to the link provided by Scott M five days ago during the first part, “A Letter,” of this ongoing discussion-
http://www.cor.org/worship-sermons/sermons/show/sermons/When-Dealing-with-Sinners-Anti-Homosexual-Judgemental/
It’s a sermon beutifully consructed, among other things, that very civilily presents the liberal position by a KC Methodist pastor. I would be interested if someone here could post an equally civil sermon presenting the conservative side, and if then we all could try and find common ground.
Doug

KateM
Um. Is it?
(“cognitive dissonance”, “schizophrenic way”, etc…)

Are we as icons to be identified by our desires no matter what they are? Or are we to be defined by them when no one else knows them? Are we to be defined by them at all? Is desire about personal identity or is it something else? Can we define ourselves by a label? Or is not knowing who we are part of the problem?
If we hold on to our desires as who we are, no matter what the desires entail, in order to define ourselves, perhaps we are all simply walking in the garden, eating the fruit, and deciding our own destiny…I can’t speak for anyone else. But I am a tarnished icon, not a homosexual or a heterosexual or a bisexual..for any of those identitities is incomplete and broken by definition. Thankfully, my identity is not in my desires but they do characterize me in this life. And they do make a difference in my relationship with Christ.

Hey guys, sorry for not including my full name above. And LuthernChick. I know from three years of being here that you and Scot share many ideas on just war as well as what he calls broken ikons, our fallen state and difficulty in getting it right, so it grieves me to see your harsh remarks. I agree with Tony and not Scot on this issue, but they both represent the charity and openmindedness that is missing from so much of Christdom, and they both are the targets of the conservative church as I learned while watching the 90 minute discussion of the emerging church which you can find on Tony’s blog.
Doug

Okay, Rick. I think we’re getting to the crux of the matter here. I do think there is some cognitive dissonance. Can you see where, to someone like me, evangelicals do look like they’re struggling with cognitive dissonance? Doesn’t the Bible tell you to love everyone? And yet, you yourself seem to draw the line at leadership and membership. I think, and correct me if I’m wrong, you are saying to the gay person, “yes, I love you, but your basic approach to life is sinful and unacceptable, so I can’t accept you until you are more like me.” Do you see where it looks schizophrenic? I mean, I was trying to be charitable. I didn’t say all evangelicals hate gay people, did I? I was merely trying to describe one reason why this is a difficult discussion for evangelicals.
That homosexuality is a sin is your perspective, and it is your church’s perspective, I assume. But the average LGBT person doesn’t see their homosexuality as a sin. In fact, it is possible that they have struggled to accept and love themselves in the face of a society that has repeatedly and forcefully declared them to be unacceptable. Their understanding of the intimate relationships in their lives, and of scripture, is different from yours.

Hi Scot….as an evangelical, traditional-interpretation of Scripture heterosexual person who lives in a very well known gay neighborhood in the States, your words so perfectly sum up what is to live out the evangelical Christian ethic regarding gays and lesbians. I live in this neighborhood because my job relocated me here, and it was very difficult for a long time because I didn’t know how to live as a Christian when everthing around me was anti-what I believed. It’s been 5 years now, and only now am I trying to enjoy my neighborhood and my surroundings because at some point I did realize that regardless of where others are scripturally coming from, I can still beleive what I believe and interact with my gay neighbors with civility (as I believe in God’s eyes they are just as much of a child of His as I am). I am very blessed by what I read in this post, and I was also very blessed by what Andrew Marin posted last week. I can’t wait to read his book and follow the forthcoming discussion on this blog. I can only pray the forthcoming commenters in May read today’s post first. All of this is confirmation to me that there is indeed hope for a more productive future! Thanks Scot – and thanks Andrew.

To LutheranChik and others,
“whenever lines were drawn between “us” and “them,” Jesus walked across them.”
Yes and no. This is at the heart of the “do we let unbelievers come to church” argument above too.
Jesus would go to any length to reach the lost. But He taught that a certain standard of behavior was expected among His disciples.
Jesus would eat with the prostitute who needed to hear the call to repentance and faith. But a practicing prostitute in the Church? He taught us to treat an unrepentant sinner in the Church “as a tax collector.” If anyone was confused, Paul clarified, “with such a person do not even eat.”
The attempt at civility first starts with not assuming people who disagree with you are doing so for hateful reasons.
KateM,
“I love you, AND you disgust me”
When my daughter says or does something improper, my correcting her is not saying “you disgust me” but “I love you and want better for and from you than this.” It’s saying, “This behavior is not good for you, the family, or society, and it will not be tolerated.” There is nothing hateful in that.

Doug: I’m a veteran of both the Christian-Christian Debate forum here and Ship of Fools…so I’m a little surprised at having my comments desccribed as “harsh”…particularly when it’s other respondents who are telling me that, in their perfect church, I’d be denied any kind of fellowship other than attendance at worship, maybe, if I sat down and shut up back in the weepers’ section until I was sufficiently “transformed.”

This behavior is not good for you, the family, or society, and it will not be tolerated.
My partner and I are still waiting for a cogent explanation of why our relationship is not good for us, our extended family or society. Our extended biological family and our church family would disagree with you.

ChrisB
Interesting analogy. Comparing an LGBT person to a wayward child who needs correction. Did you mean to do that? If we’re trying to be civil here, I would avoid that comparison. That’s the sort of thing that might offend a gay person.
And your assumption, which I would say is a false assumption, is that the gay or lesbian person needs to be corrected, like your daughter needs to be corrected. You are assuming that the LGBT person’s approach to life is somehow damaging to them or to society. What if it isn’t? That seems to be the consensus of sociologists and psychologists outside the church.

You wrote, “I cannot understand why strong-convicted Christians, on either side of this debate by the way, refuse to act with civility. Perhaps it is because they are so passionate about this issue, so convinced it is a matter of ultimate justice or ultimate fidelity, that they think they must become strident and fight this issue to the ground until it gives up the ghost.”
Rhetoric is a form of warfare (cf. Eugene Peterson’s rendering of Matt. 5:23 in The Message). Our modernist educational system has taught us that it is morally acceptable to kill one another’s ideas, demean one another verbally, and chop up one another’s understanding; but, it is morally reprehensible and somehow baser to inflict physical harm. This is a form of gnosticism; it is a pretense that a battle fought merely in words with no consequences in heart, body, and spirit. Christians who engage in this type of warfare undermine their profession that the Holy Spirit is the only One who can change hearts, and are seeking to win wars with carnal weapons (however intellectually wrapped they may be).
#1. If we’re claiming reconciliation to God and one another in Christ Jesus, OTOH, and verbally bashing people w/ the other hand, we’ve become law-breakers of the very law we claim to uphold.
#2. Likewise, IMHO, a gay person seeking to follow Christ who can’t perceive that their sexual action physically embodies *lack* of reconciliation, and evidences ongoing alienation from the created /other/ in humanity, has elevated their body’s inclination above God’s creation. Whatever inclinations we have are products of our totality of laws, processing and experiences.
We’re legalistic and legislative beings *because* we’re embodied – mind, emotions, body, spirit bundled together inseparably. Everything, everything, everything we do, speak, think, taste and see, is affected by our subjective and individualized laws.
The human “law” according to #1 is that we can win spiritually by verbal, fleshly warfare. The human “law” according to #2 is that we’re not called to conform to Christ, die to ourselves (in every area), and embody reconciliation in all our behavior toward one another, male and female, rich and poor, American, African, Asian, or European.
The only way out, we profess, is that of death and resurrection. Let’s act, in all ways, on that profession, so that we may know _bodily_ what we claim intellectually.

I hesitate to wade on this because these discussions are usually fruitless.
But attempting to compare someone in a monogamous committed gay relationship with an alcoholic, tax collector or adulterer isn’t going to wash with gay people either. We are just going to turn this off completely because to the gay community, it is a comparison of apples and oranges.
Alcoholics do obvious and measurable damage to their relationships and their psychological and physical health. Heavy alcohol use over the long-term leads to observable problems on the job, broken marriages, neglected kids and measurable health problems like cirrhosis of the liver and brain damage. There is no dispute that alcoholism is sinful because it hurts people, breaks trust relationships and tears apart the community.
The tax collectors of Jesus’ day were abusive and corrupt. They shook people down for money and embezzled it. They took money that didn’t rightfully belong to them, which destroyed their relationships with others. It involved theft and a breaking of trust. It also was sinful because it hurts people and tears apart the community.
And, adultery obviously involves a break in trust. The party involved made a pledge to her husband (or his wife) and the community to be faithful and the two people in that marriage built a life together and raised children based on that covenant and the established trust relationship. Adultery involves a wilful breaking of trust, of lying and of deception. It is sinful because it hurts people and tears apart the community.
Gay people who choose to come together in a committed monogamous relationship are not doing anything that causes measurable and documented (at least by mainstream science, not the pseudo-science of ex gay ministries) physical or psychological harm, it doesn’t involve lying, theft or a breaking of a trust relationship with others. Gay people in monogamous relationships perceive themselves as living out what they have been given to them in the most moral way possible. They are honouring their neighbour by forming a relationship based on mutual respect and love, and choosing to live openly and honestly with others in community.
You may believe that homosexuality is a sin, but it is a breaking of a purity code rather than an interpersonal sin. No one is being measurablely hurt, no one is being lied to, nothing is being stolen, no one is being abused and no measurable physical damage or psychological damage is being done. Homosexuality is a sin “because the Bible says so” and that is really it.
So when you make comparisons between gay people in monogamous relationships and alcoholics, adulterers and tax collectors, you will immediately lose your witness to the very gay people you are trying to reach. We are going to assume you have no idea what you are talking about and turn off the rest of the message.
You may believe that all sins are the same and that distinctions between interpersonal morality and purity codes aren’t important, but it doesn’t mean the people you are trying to reach will see it that way.

Ann, #45
I believe your point #2, above, is a great example of the sin you so boldly deride in your point #1. That’s amazing. Wow. This is why I don’t go to church anymore.

Likewise, IMHO, a gay person seeking to follow Christ who can’t perceive that their sexual action physically embodies *lack* of reconciliation…
Sort of in the same way that a left-handed person seeking to follow Christ can’t perceive that her/his left-handedness physically embodies *lack* of reconciliation with the dominant right-handed human majority?
Can you not see why this sort of remark is very un-civil?
Not to mention of questionable logic. What one can argue embodies “lack of reconciliation” another can argue as “example of natural diversity.”
BTW — if I were a female separatist your argument might make sense. But “separatism” doesn’t describe my partner and me or any of our gay friends. We have many friends of the opposite sex. We just don’t want to have a sexual/marital relationship with our male friends. Not wanting to have a sexual relationship with someone is certainly not equivalent to animosity.

LutheranChik, where did anyone post this:
” . . . in their perfect church, I’d be denied any kind of fellowship other than attendance at worship, maybe, if I sat down and shut up back in the weepers’ section until I was sufficiently “transformed.”
One of the starting points in civil discussion is repeating the other person’s position back to her in a way that she will own it as indeed being fairly representative of her views, and respond “yes, that is a fair summary of what I believe/mean” as opposed to her repeatedly having to tell you that you are mischaracterizing and distorting her position. Both your and KateM’s posts are so full of close-but-oh-so-far-off mischaracterizations and misstatements regarding where I stand, that it’s hard to even have a conversation. I know many conservatives do the same when arguing against your position. But I think Scot is suggesting that we stop doing that to each other.
I also know many conservatives have done and said things that are as bad or worse than any straw man you could erect. But I don’t think you are dealing with those folks here. For the most part anyway, these are people who like Scot and Doug Allen, are looking for ways to respect one another as people while disagreeing about something we all think is pretty important.
Unfortunately I think this discussion is confirming what I suggested above. It is nearly impossible for there to be “Third Way” dialogue on this issue because it is the orthodox/traditional conviction itself that many homosexual people find uncivil and hateful and react against with great anger – regardless of the attitude or spirit in which it is expressed.

Hey! LutheranChik #43 !
Here is a moment of grace for you and your family: God loves you AND your partner like crazy! God has lots for you to do to support and further the cause of Christ. Hungry people to feed. Churches that need leading. Worship services that need planning. Peace to make. Diseases to cure. People everywhere who need your love and support. So, you and your partner together, go out and have a wonderful time serving Christ!

KateM,
“Interesting analogy. Comparing an LGBT person to a wayward child who needs correction.”
I did that to side-step another old argument. By basing the analogy on my child, I hope to prevent the accusation that I only try to “correct” someone because I secretly hate them.

KateM-
Thanks for your response. You wrote: “…we’re getting to the crux of the matter here. I do think there is some cognitive dissonance.”
Because of how many have poorly responded to the issue (throughout history), I understand how you see that as the crux. As in the theme of this blog’s title, we are to follow the Jesus Creed, love God..love others. We don’t always do a good job of that, and have regularly repent at the feet of God. We are all broken eikons. That being said, loving others does not mean always agreeing with everything they do or believe.
However, you also wrote: “That homosexuality is a sin is your perspective, and it is your church’s perspective, I assume. But the average LGBT person doesn’t see their homosexuality as a sin.”
For many, that (and the related basis for one’s beliefs) is the “crux of the matter”.

Scot et al,
What is the best way to handle the situation we’re see here where one group is convinced something is sin and the other is absolutely convinced it isn’t.
This isn’t the usual theological debates — eg, the nature of election, the correct mode/age of baptism — but something that deeply matters to how people live their lives. We don’t get a lot of these issues (e.g., slavery).
How do we debate and discuss when we cannot even begin the discussion in the same place?

Thanks for hosting this discussion, Scot; and in keeping with the theme of this post, I will strive to be as civil and loving as I can be in my responses.
Scot’s question in #18 raises a good point. I believe that such ‘seeker sensitive’ services can be a valuable tool, and that all–regardless of their sins–ought to be welcome to attend. The same goes for normal services, where the category of “regular attender” has become common; such “regular attenders” are not accountable to the church as a whole. It is members who are accountable, and it is members who can be disciplined if they are unrepentant. This is one of the main points of membership, of course; we become members of a local body so that we have a community of believers who can hold us accountable. And I think that all Christians should be challenged to join such a body–and if they refrain from doing so, they should be reminded that the early church did just that. Frankly, I think there are some parallels to baptism in being part of a church; not that it is a sacrament like baptism, but that being indwelt with the Spirit ought to make one want to join such a fellowship.
On the question of being sensitive in your language when in the main service with possible gay or lesbian regular attenders, I think that the pastor ought to challenge them with regards to their sins. After all, a pastor should seek not only to comfort the afflicted but to afflict those who are comfortable in their sins, to modify the old cliche a bit. This does not mean being deliberately cruel, but sometimes medicine can taste sour to those who need it.
BenB in #19 is (I think) mistaken; Jesus did not say, “treat them as I have treated them,” but rather “treat them as you would a tax collector…” This seems to indicate that he is using a common practice as an example; the disciples WOULD shun tax collectors and sinners, so they ought to shun the unrepentant.
Doug Allen in #28: What is the pattern of Jesus’ interactions with those who are the outcast sinners of society? I think it is one where he responds in love and welcome when they come to him seeking after him and in repentance; take Zaccheus for example. Jesus called to him and told him that he had to eat at Zaccheus’ house, but he did this after Zaccheus had climbed the sycamore tree so that he could see Jesus. Zaccheus is the eager seeker that Jesus responds to. And I think that Zaccheus is a good example of repentance; he promises to stop doing his wicked deeds, promises to make up the damage that he had done and also promises to start doing good in the future. I think that Jesus would want the same response from LutheranChik, if she truly seeks him as Zaccheus did. And he has promised to joyfully welcome into the kingdom all who truly repent.
LutheranChik, I’m sorry that you feel rejected by evangelicals. Certainly many of us (and I include myself here) can be callous towards lesbians and gays, and for this I apologize. Yet we do believe that holiness is vitally important to the Christian life, not as we perceive it but as God has commanded it in his Scripture, which is fairly clear on the point at which we are currently at odds. It is because of love that we condemn the homosexual lifestyle, because we know that it does tremendous damage spiritually to a person. It offends God and can be one of many reasons why we are kept from being reconciled with him; shouldn’t we want to tell people how they can be fully reconciled to God and meet the inexpressable One who makes us complete?

Here’s my idea of one place where civility could start in the public square:
Instead of evangelicals being outraged at the annual day of silence in Highschools across the country that aims to bring about awareness of the violence that LGBTQ folks still face…
work in solidarity to end the violence, just for one day recognize that our community still feels the pain of REAL violence, then maybe the rest of the dialogue wouldn’t hurt so bad.

ChrisB (I think #53),
Your questions gets to the heart of what is meant by civility in the post today: I respect the right of LutheranChik to say that she feels my post/etc is unloving, and I would ask her to respect that I can say that I think homosexual relations are contrary to God’s designs.
The opposite of civility is to push someone from the table or to walk away to another table where one’s views are affirmed. Public civility is not needed in that case. Civility is the willingness to express differences without name-calling or without threats, but to look one another in the eye and say “We really do disagree. We’re in this world together and we value one another enough that we need to stay at the table and listen to one another.”
It is uncivil, though, to say someone doesn’t have the right to say they think something is wrong. It is uncivil to say someone’s calling you wrong is impermissible.
It’s tough friends, and I’d like to stick this one out.

It is because of love that we condemn the homosexual lifestyle, because we know that it does tremendous damage spiritually to a person
How exactly does it do “tremendous” damage spiritually? Be specific. Give me an example. Something concrete.
Because my relationship with God was tremendously damaged when I was trying to be straight. I was living a lie to God, my friends, my family and myself.
So please. Be specific. How exactly am I damaged by being honest?

And I have to ask this: What exactly is the “homosexual lifestyle” you’re condemning anyway? Be specific. Be concrete. Is a gay person who self-identifies as gay but is celibate living a “homosexual lifestyle”? Do you condemn them too?

C. S. Lewis says the modern public discourse owes its roots to (mythical) Ezekiel Bulver who at a young age observed his parents arguing. His father was trying to convince his mother that the hypotenuse of a right triangle will always be longer than either of the other two sides. In frustration, his mother finally ended the argument by declaring, ?You just say that because you?re a man.? At the moment young Ezekiel discovered that it is not necessary to refute an opponents reasoning. The way to win an argument is to assert the opponents silliness (or evilness) and make that the subject of the debate, all the time avoiding refutation of the actual reasoning. Restating the opponent?s argument in incomplete or caricatured terms can be of great aid in bulverising someone.
Civility would be greatly enhanced by two disciplines.
One would be striving to state my opponent?s argument in terms that my opponent can affirm. This limits the tendency toward caricature and misunderstanding.
Second, assume the best intentions of the opponent (sometimes even with evidence to the contrary) and avoid making disparaging assessments about the opponents motives (i.e., stupid, mentally imbalanced, or evil). It is interesting that 150 years ago Robert?s Rules recognized that highly critical statements about ideas and motions under debate was appropriate but any statements about a debater?s motives were strictly considered a breach of decorum. Not everything we have evolved into has been for the better.
I don’t always do this well but I’m trying.

Yet we do believe that holiness is vitally important to the Christian life, not as we perceive it but as God has commanded it in his Scripture, which is fairly clear on the point…
No, it is not “fairly clear,” as evidenced both by scholarship and by the discernment of churches that are open and affirming of gays and lesbians as welcome partners in the life of the church. If it were “fairly clear,” we’d not be having this discussion.
KateM: Thank you so much; “And also with you.” Ironically, after I sign off now I’m getting ready for my Evangelism Committee meeting at church this evening. I love doing lay ministry work in my parish.

It is uncivil, though, to say someone doesn’t have the right to say they think something is wrong. It is uncivil to say someone’s calling you wrong is impermissible.
What is uncivil is that you are making a demand on us, that doesn’t affect you at all.
What you are demanding is that we, by virtue of being gay, must go through our entire lives without the emotional and physical companionship that you, by virtue of being straight, take for granted. Have you given much thought to what they means? Some people are called to celibacy and can live as hermits successfully, but even Paul acknowledges that most of us aren’t. You are ordering us to do something that causes us great pain and hardship, but doesn’t affect you at all. Do you understand how that would strike someone? Do you? How many time and reflection have you had on this?
After all, if the right woman comes along, you can get married. We are supposed to turn away even if the right person comes along for us.
What makes it uncivil that you (all) have made no effort to actually get to know us, understand our lives and understand how important intimacy is to human health and happiness. For you, this is an abstract issue, but for us, it is our lives.
If you are going to ask me to do something that is going to cause me, but not you, great pain and suffering, don’t you think you should fully understand the impact of this? Don’t you think you need to get to know me before making such a demand? Don’t you think you need to take a look at my Christian walk before making such a demand? Don’t you think you need to be absolutely sure the demand you are making is really of God?
You are asking me to go through great life long pain and suffering after all.

So, Scot, Let me get this straight (no pun intended!). There is no way I can convince you to see LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ as fully functioning members of Christ’s body. I accept this as sort of a sad fact, but, okay, whatever. Your prerogative. Self-respecting LGBT people who do not believe as you do about the sinfulness of their sexuality are supposed to stay at your table because . . . why? They are supposed to come to your seeker services because . . . why? You have good news for them if they repent of a sin that to them is no more a sin than a straight man having relations with his wife?
And when many evangelicals who believe that somehow being LGBT is socially harmful (against 99% of the professional literature out there) get together, as they did in California, and actively work so that LGBT people are denied their civil rights, they are supposed to say what when they sit at your table? Why would any self respecting gay person stay at this table?

One more point before I get ready for my church meeting:
Our parish, like most in our denomination, practices open Communion — in other words, we invite all baptized believers to join us in the Eucharist. That includes Christians from non-sacramental traditions, who might find our own sacramental theology problematic at best, superstitious/idolatrous at worst; Christians from traditions which find our theology perplexing or objectionable; Christians who for whatever reason may not pass a standard catechism test. Our invitation still stands: If you commune in your own church, and you are open to doing so here even knowing our own understanding of the Sacrament, you are welcome as a fellow sibling of Christ/child and heir in the Reign of God.
So is it possible that this model of Communion can somehow be extended toward dialog with Christians who have a different p.o.v. on this or any other social issue? (Like the issue of waging war previously mentioned?) I mean, I am pretty angry with some of you right now, but if you came to my church, I would join in extending our invitation to the Eucharist to any one of you, and mean it.

LutheranChik, KateM, toujoursdan
My views are similar to Soct’s on these issues. I know of any number of people who are affirming of homosexual relations who I partner with in ministry but I believe they are in error on this issue. I don’t find them stupid, schizophrenic, or evil.
I do not have the sense from you that someone could hold my position and be a reasonable person. Simply holding the position is irrefutable evidence of a maladjusted person unworthy of seriously understanding or engaging. True?

I don’t think it is your place to judge whether my relationship with my spouse is acceptable. If I am not hurting him or the community, it is between us and God, just like you are your spouse. How is that unreasonable?

#61 toujoursdan
I don’t follow how your comment relates to Scot’s quote but you wrote:
“What makes it uncivil that you (all) have made no effort to actually get to know us, understand our lives and understand how important intimacy is to human health and happiness. For you, this is an abstract issue, but for us, it is our lives.”
And the way will know that I “understand you” is when I hold the same view you do. Otherwise, I do not “understand you.” Correct?

I think that Jesus would want the same response from LutheranChik, if she truly seeks him as Zaccheus did.
Ben Wheaton: I find your suggestion that I’m somehow not “truly seeking” Christ astoundingly presumptuous and hurtful to a sister in Christ, and one called/equipped by my parish to serve it. How would you feel if I accused you of the same thing because you didn’t agree with me? (Which, BTW, I don’t think for a moment.)

If you don’t follow how my comment relates to Scot’s quote then you really haven’t walked a mile in our shoes and considered it from this side of the fence – those who are actually affected by your view. And that is a big part of the problem.
When I say “You are making a demand on me, that will cause me lifelong pain and suffering, that you don’t have to follow yourself” what am I saying?

toujoursdan, what the orthodox/traditional believe isn’t that *they* have the right to judge you, but rather that God has designed sexuality in a certain way and with certain purposes and parameters, and has spoken to that in scripture. They are in agreement with Duke Univ. New Testament scholar Richard Hays and Gary, his gay friend from Yale whose story Hays mentions in the intro to the chapter on homosexuality in Hayes’ work on New Testament ethics titled “The Moral Vision of the New Testament” as follows:
“Gary came to New Haven in the summer of 1989 to say a proper farewell. My best friend from undergraduate years at Yale, he was dying of AIDS. While he was still able to travel, my family and I invited him to come visit us one more time.
“During the week he stayed with use, we went to films together, we drank wine and laughed, we had long sober talks about politics and literature and the gospel and sex and such. Above all, we listened to music. As always, his aesthetic sense was fine and austere; as always he was determined to face the truth, even in the shadow of death.
We prayed together often that week, and we talked theology. It became clear that Gary had come not only to say goodbye but also to think hard, before God, about the relation between his homosexuality and his Christian faith. He was angry at the self-affirming gay Christian groups, because he regarded his own condition as more complex and tragic than their apologetic stance could acknowledge. He also worried that the gay apologists encouraged homosexual believers to “draw their identity from their sexuality” and thus to shift the ground of their identity subtly and idolatrously away from God. For more than 20 years, Gary had grappled with his homosexuality, experiencing it as a compulsion and an affliction. Now, as he faced death, he wanted to talk it all through again from the beginning, because he knew my love for him and trusted me to speak without dissembling. For Gary, there was no time to dance around the hard questions.
“In particular, Gary wanted to discuss the biblical passages that deal with homosexual acts. Among Gary’s many gifts was his skill as a reader of texts. After leaving Yale and helping to found a community-based Christian theater group in Toronto, he had eventually completed a master’s degree in French literature. Though he was not trained as a biblical exegete, he was a careful and sensitive interpreter. He had read hopefully through the standard bibliography of the burgeoning movement advocating the acceptance of homosexuality in the church. In the end, he came away disappointed, believing that these authors, despite their good intentions, had imposed a wishful interpretation on the biblical passages. However much he wanted to believe that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality, he would not violate his own stubborn intellectual integrity by pretending to find their arguments persuasive.
“The more we talked, the more we found our perspectives interlocking. Both of us had serious misgivings about the mounting pressure for the church to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate Christian lifestyle. As a New Testament scholar, I was concerned about certain questionable exegetical and theological strategies of the gay apologists. As a homosexual Christian, Gary believed that their writings did justice neither to the biblical texts nor to his own sobering experience of the gay community that he had moved in and out of for 20 years.
“Gary and I agreed that we should try to encourage a more nuanced discourse. Tragically, Gary soon became too sick to carry out his intention. His last letter to me was an effort to get some of his thoughts on paper while he was still able to write. By May of 1990 he was dead.”

toujoursdan,
You are absolutely right that getting to know folks who are homosexual makes an abstract issue personal very quickly. But I think you’re wrong in arguing that it’s nobody’s business who people are in relationship with. In terms of society, I agree, and I support gay marriage as a civil matter. But in the church, it matters to me who my fellow Christians sleep with. I hope it matters to them who I sleep with.
Oh, and LutheranChik and others, the reason you stay at the table is that some of us are still sorting through these issues, and we need to hear all sides, not just the echo chamber. You don’t help your case by dismissing the other side as automatically uncivil for being the other side.

I do not have the sense from you that someone could hold my position and be a reasonable person.
Well, admittedly it’s hard for think of people as “reasonable” who think that my partner and I should summarily divorce one another and become “eunuchs for the Kingdom.” How would you feel if an old-school Roman Catholic told you that your marriage was invalid in God’s eyes because it wasn’t solemnized in a Roman Catholic marriage ceremony? Would you have a hard time dialoguing with that individual as a reasonable person? How do you feel being told by another Christian that your marriage is not good and holy, but actually an act of rebellious fornication?

toujoursdan,
Two points please: first, it is unwise to presume what others know and feel and what their relations with others might be.
Second, your comment at #65 is really part of the QED, right? Aren’t we assuming that there are differing moral views and how best to engage one another in a contentious issue?

You don’t help your case by dismissing the other side as automatically uncivil for being the other side.
I don’t see that I’m doing that “automatically.” If you read my responses they are directed at specific examples of comments I find uncivil.

LutheranChik #67:
I believe that those who truly seek to follow Christ will want to obey his commands, as revealed in the Scriptures. All of our judgments and feelings should be put under the scrutiny of divine revelation. I don’t know you nor do I know your story, but I do believe that if Scripture condemns homosexuality (and I believe it does), and if someone such as yourself does not feel that what is condemned in Scripture is wrong, then Scripture triumphs over your moral perception (and mine!).
It is not presumptuous in the least to state that a spiritual walk which disobeys a clear moral command of Scripture is in serious trouble.
#57 toujoursdan:
It damages a person spiritually because it causes them to offend God, which results in alienation–which is rather a serious matter.

toujoursdan, what the orthodox/traditional believe isn’t that *they* have the right to judge you, but rather that God has designed sexuality in a certain way and with certain purposes and parameters, and has spoken to that in scripture.
There are a few problems with this. One is that the jury is out on exactly what is spoken about in Scripture and what the cultural context those verses exist in. There are opinions all over the fence on this held by equally sincere people. You may disagree with some of them, but they are there. You have your interpretation and other people in the body of Christ have theirs.
Secondly, this is ultimately about MY relationship with God. Why is it so hard to trust that if God has a problem with MY sexuality or my relationship, the Holy Spirit will tell me without YOUR intervention. Honest. I pray and listen to God’s still small voice every day. Why don’t you let God speak to me instead of you putting yourself in God’s shoes? That isn’t your r?le.
If I am abusing someone or disrupting the community, then by all means intervene, otherwise trust that Holy Spirit is working in me, like the Holy Spirit is working in you.
Thirdly, posting a story where someone doubted that you can be gay and Christian isn’t going to change anything. I am sorry the poor gay man experienced “homosexuality” as a compulsion and addiction. It sounds like he never had a change to heal and experience it like most of us do, just like you do as a heterosexual. It sounds like he has been damaged by anti-gay messages and needs therapy.
I am not sure how that speaks to me. There are many heterosexuals who experience their sexuality as an addiction and compulsion, but that doesn’t mean everyone does.

@ KateM #43 and Lutheranchik #47: I’ve not derided or verbally bashed either you or your partners. My words and my attitude toward you are not un-civil (as characterized by lack of courtesy). I’ve not judged you or condemned you with my choice of words. Perhaps your experiences and the pain of others deriding you may be coloring the way you read these posts? Please give grace to those who disagree with you over this matter. Points #1 and #2 in my first post are behavioral and body-based actions. The main question here is, “how do we submit to the Word of God in Christ Jesus?” We know every one of us is loved by God. We also confess that humans are wounded and broken, yet called to die to ourselves, be conformed to Christ, take up our cross and follow Jesus.
IMHO and in my reading of Scripture, female-female and male-male intimacy do not example “diversity”, but homogeneity. Such intimate relations cannot evidence the reconciliation we may know in Christ Jesus, which reconciliation is characterized by new life. As those of us who are married can attest, intimate relations greatly differ from friendships, and men and women surely are created differently!

Two points please: first, it is unwise to presume what others know and feel and what their relations with others might be.
Are you gay?
Second, your comment at #65 is really part of the QED, right? Aren’t we assuming that there are differing moral views and how best to engage one another in a contentious issue?
For the last time, this isn’t an issue. How many times do I need to say it?
This is a judgment about how I am supposed to live MY life by someone who isn’t personally involved.
#57 toujoursdan:
It damages a person spiritually because it causes them to offend God, which results in alienation–which is rather a serious matter.
But I WAS alienated from God when I tried to be straight and had to be dishonest with myself, my family, friends and community and am less alienated now that I can be honest with everyone.
Again, be concrete. HOW exactly is my relationship compromised? I pray to God every day and listen to His voice. My relationship with God leads me to love and serve each other deeply. How exactly am I alienated?

Michael #64
Would I spend an inordinate amount of time on this blog today if I thought you were stupid or unworthy? I do think that there is a cognitive dissonance about this issue for many evangelicals. They want to love everybody and accept them for who they are, but they struggle to accept gay people who are okay with themselves as they are. So, no, you aren’t LITERALLY schizophrenic, Michael. I think you realize that I was using a figure of speech.
As for rationality, Michael, we are dealing with a religious belief here, not a rational one. Which is why I have little hope that reasoning will change anybody’s mind here. Unfortunately, this particular religious belief has very harsh consequences for LGBT people. But, y’all come by it honestly. Like LutheranChik, if I had communion, you could have it with me. I wouldn’t turn you out for your beliefs, even if I disagreed with them.

IMHO and in my reading of Scripture
So you understand that not everyone in the body of Christ reads it this way?
female-female and male-male intimacy do not example “diversity”, but homogeneity. Such intimate relations cannot evidence the reconciliation we may know in Christ Jesus, which reconciliation is characterized by new life.
Explain how the 2nd point follows the first. Exactly how can they not evidence reconciliation? Are you saying that they don’t have the fruits of the Spirit? Because I can show many that are.

Ben, post 74.
“It damages a person spiritually because it causes them to offend God, which results in alienation–which is rather a serious matter.”
What do you do in those situations where God commands that you stone your wife or daughter?

Ben Wheaton: It damages a person spiritually because it causes them to offend God, which results in alienation–which is rather a serious matter.
Our SDA neighbors down the road from our church sincerely believe that our Sunday worship, sacramental theology and numerous other issues offend God, and are likewise alienating us from God.
I appreciate their concern, as I appreciate yours…but I disagree, and I’m not going to change my own beliefs and praxis because it would make them feel better.
Do you see a parallel?

LutheranChik #71
“Well, admittedly it’s hard for think of people as “reasonable” who think that my partner and I should summarily divorce one another and become “eunuchs for the Kingdom.”"
Don’t think I said that anywhere. But what if it turns out that this is indeed the appropriate response? It would be very painful and disruptive would it not?
What if I’m the CEO of the major cigarette producing corporation in the world, with most of wealth tied up in the corporation. Suppose I become convicted I must quit my job and dispose of all my assets, accepting no profits. Suppose I’m a polygamist who becomes convicted that God wants only monogamy. Suppose I’m soldier who becomes convicted that pacifism is the only answer. Would not each of these be painful and disruptive to my life?
If we are not open to the Bible challenging us at the deepest and most important aspects of our lives, and if we dismiss all civil messengers who might challenge our comfort zone as unreasonable, then is there really any need for scripture and Christian community?

Ann post 45:
“a gay person seeking to follow Christ who can’t perceive that their sexual action physically embodies *lack* of reconciliation, and evidences ongoing alienation from the created /other/ in humanity, has elevated their body’s inclination above God’s creation. Whatever inclinations we have are products of our totality of laws, processing and experiences.”
Okay, while we’re trying to be civil here, let me explain just what is offensive in this post. You seem to be suggesting that somehow the gay person’s sexuality lacks reconciliation and that he or she has somehow elevated his or her body’s inclination above God’s creation. I am pretty sure I am not putting words in your mouth, since I copied them right out of your post. I read that as an arrogant assumption. First of all, who are you to tell anyone that they lack reconciliation or that they are alienated from God?
Second, your reading of scripture seems to imply that procreation is necessary in order to legitimize sexuality. So, an infertile straight couple who have sex are in the same boat as gay and lesbian couples? And any woman who has entered menopause shouldn’t have sex anymore because she can’t procreate? I mean, there’s no baby that’s going to arrive under these circumstances, so are they sinning, too?

You are absolutely right that getting to know folks who are homosexual makes an abstract issue personal very quickly. But I think you’re wrong in arguing that it’s nobody’s business who people are in relationship with. In terms of society, I agree, and I support gay marriage as a civil matter. But in the church, it matters to me who my fellow Christians sleep with. I hope it matters to them who I sleep with.
I disagree. Again, if I am abusing, exploiting or using someone to get my rocks off with no commitment that is a concern of the Christian community, because that speaks to the larger issue of truly loving others as we love Christ. But the Church doesn’t micromanage who marries (or sleeps with) who unless you’re in some fundamentalist cult. We choose our own partners. That isn’t arranged or vetoed by the Church. Sometimes the church tells people they aren’t ready to get married yet, through pre-marital counselling, but that is it.
Oh, and LutheranChik and others, the reason you stay at the table is that some of us are still sorting through these issues, and we need to hear all sides, not just the echo chamber. You don’t help your case by dismissing the other side as automatically uncivil for being the other side.
You seem to miss what we are saying. YOU are intervening in OUR lives and telling US how we should live. YOU are making demands on US that you don’t have to follow yourself. YOU are demanding US to go through lifelong pain and suffering.
It is uncivil. You would be completely offended if I barged into your home and started rearranging your furniture and tore down your wallpaper. You are doing the same thing with our lives.

Ann: IMHO and in my reading of Scripture, female-female and male-male intimacy do not example “diversity”, but homogeneity. Such intimate relations cannot evidence the reconciliation we may know in Christ Jesus, which reconciliation is characterized by new life.
I’m glad, Ann, that you added the qualifier “IMHO.” Because I know any number of Christians (and not just gay ones) who come away from Scripture with no such conclusion. And not to be gross, but to take your analogy further one might argue that “open marriage” would exemplify “reconciliation” exponentially. (If I recall my Intellectual History of the U.S. class long ago, a few fringe sects in mid-19th century America held to that belief, much to the consternation of their neighbors.)
I also think arguments in that vein are akin to the OT purity codes regarding “clean” and “unclean” animals, which were often based on animals going against type. I don’t meet too many Christians these days who object to eating shrimp because they have gills but also legs, or to eating flightless birds because they haven’t “gotten with the program” as far as what birds are “supposed” to do. And the whole right-hand/left-hand issue, which I think I mentioned in my first response to you as an example of human diversity, was also serious religious business until, sadly, fairly late in history…children used to have their hands burned in order to “cure” them of their “evil” left-handedness. There is a certain hardwired fear of “the other” — I say hardwired, because recent psychological studies seem to confirm that it’s inherent in our species — that maybe helped our ancestors when they were running for their lives from enemies, fellow primate and otherwise, on the savannahs, but that don’t serve us well now.

Post #83 is mine, sorry!

Michael: Believe me that I’m not trying to be sarcastic when I tell you that participating in this discussion, and others with conservative Evangelicals, is painful and disruptive to my life. Believe me, I’d rather be somewhere else right now.
Can you entertain the possibility that my presence here is at the behest of the Spirit giving witness to my own Christian faith in the context of my own life, and that a consequence of that is going to be pain and disruption in your own thought processes regarding this issue?

#78 KateM
“As for rationality, Michael, we are dealing with a religious belief here, not a rational one.”
So gay-affirming is reasonable but other positions are just irrational religious belief. Sigh… Sounds like bulverism (see #59) to me (i.e., failure to address substance of a position while imputing deficient rational qualities to the opponent, this justifying dismissive acts.)
“Like LutheranChik, if I had communion, you could have it with me.”
And you would be welcomed at any communion I was a part of as well.

Okay, This is about all the “civility” I can handle for one day. Toujoursdan, LutheranChik, hang in there, friends! To the rest of you, if you can’t accept us in your pews, at least have the decency to leave us alone every place else. Even that might be too much to hope for.
Bye!

What if I’m the CEO of the major cigarette producing corporation in the world, with most of wealth tied up in the corporation. Suppose I become convicted I must quit my job and dispose of all my assets, accepting no profits. Suppose I’m a polygamist who becomes convicted that God wants only monogamy. Suppose I’m soldier who becomes convicted that pacifism is the only answer. Would not each of these be painful and disruptive to my life?
Uhhhh… no. You’re kidding about this right. You really think these things are as painful as going a lifetime without ANY special companionship and intimacy for those who aren’t given the gift of celibacy?
Secondly, all these things happened because those individuals CHOSE to do this out of PERSONAL conviction. In other words, God told them to do this, not you.
If we are not open to the Bible challenging us at the deepest and most important aspects of our lives, and if we dismiss all civil messengers who might challenge our comfort zone as unreasonable, then is there really any need for scripture and Christian community?
Who dismisses all civil messengers who challenge us? Certainly not gay people. But are all messages from civil messengers legitimate? Aren’t those civil messengers held in bondage by sin, which may affect their message, too?
And what is the message? If is it to love and serve others deeper than we have already, then that is exactly what God tells us to do. That is the role of scripture and the community to do.
But that isn’t what you are doing here.

So gay-affirming is reasonable but other positions are just irrational religious belief. Sigh… Sounds like bulverism (see #59) to me (i.e., failure to address substance of a position while imputing deficient rational qualities to the opponent, this justifying dismissive acts.)
You seem to be projecting something into her statement that isn’t there. I suggest you try reading it again. She was saying ALL this is religious – one way or another – not just your position.

I am calling it a day as well, but only because I need to get to church for my Evangelism meeting. (My pastor always tells me I’m “missionary to the Christians.” I tell him I want to be reassigned.)
If I can ask other participants to go away with one thought today, it would be that you consider that we partnered gay Christians hold our committed relationships in the same spirit of sanctity and gravity that I assume you treat your heterosexual relationships. Please keep that in mind before you presume to judge ours.

#77 toujoursdan:
I think that you are basing your judgments about whether or not you were alienated from God upon your own perception. My main point in the comment that you are addressing was that we can’t ultimately trust our own perceptions; we are fallen creatures. We need God’s revelation to correct our erroneous moral judgments. You did not solve your alienation from God just because you “feel” less alienated; how can you know God’s judgments outside of Scripture?
How do you know that you are listening to God’s voice? How do you know that you are praying from a sincere heart? We can only ultimately discern these things if we subject them to Scripture. Serving others is wonderful, but horizontal relationships are not the most important relationships in our life, the vertical relationship is; if you are a second Mother Theresa and still disobey God’s commands, you are just as alienated from Him. “Love your neighbour as yourself” is the second greatest commandment, not the first. They are not in opposition to each other, but they are in a hierarchy.
To be blunt: your relationship with God is compromised because you remain in rebellion against him, refusing to submit to his revealed will. The spiritual damage may not be shown on a superficial level, such as serving others or your experience in prayer, but at the most fundamental level–how if affects God–it is a gaping wound.

Okay, as I was posting I saw Michael’s post #88 to me, which ticked me off sufficiently that I feel the need to respond. As far as addressing the “substance” of your position:
What you don’t know about me is that I have agonized for a lifetime over the so-called “substance” of your position, Michael. And this is my conclusion: Your position has no rational substance. As for getting a full, inclusive welcome at your church, or at most evangelical churches, been there, done that, and I know better.

I have to bail too. I have a commuter train to catch at 1700. It was an interesting conversation, but one have had hundreds of times over the past 20 years of being “out”. I attended a Nazarene school in California (Azusa Pacific University) and had numerous conversations like this with conservative schoolmates after I graduated and came out. Some could never accept my witness and testimony, but others did over time.
I am thankful to live in Qu?bec, Canada nowadays where being gay isn’t an issue and I am also thankful that I now go to a gay friendly church where people actually regard me as a fully human brother in Christ, rather than a pesky issue to debate. I am glad that they trust that I can work out my own salvation with fear and trembling, just like they do.
I pray that the rest of the Body of Christ and the U.S. will come to the same conclusion and remain optimistic that as this next generation matures, we will.
Blessings to all.
Dan
http://www.gaychristian.net/

I think that you are basing your judgments about whether or not you were alienated from God upon your own perception. My main point in the comment that you are addressing was that we can’t ultimately trust our own perceptions; we are fallen creatures. We need God’s revelation to correct our erroneous moral judgments. You did not solve your alienation from God just because you “feel” less alienated; how can you know God’s judgments outside of Scripture?
How do you know that you are listening to God’s voice? How do you know that you are praying from a sincere heart?
I know that I am listening to God’s voice because I have been baptized and marked as Christ’s own forever and receive his nourishment of bread and wine every week.
I trust that God answers all prayer; sometimes I don’t like the answer and sometimes I do. In this case, God’s voice has led me to be more Christlike, loving my neighbour as myself (Romans 13:8-10).
If a voice has led me to be more honest with myself, my neighbour and my community and leads me to love other people as Christ loves me, I know it is of God. Coming out as gay has achieved all of that, so I know it is God’s voice speaking.
May God’s voice speak to you too.
Dan

LutheranChik #87
I do appreciate you being here. I wish at least two or three more folks with your views would show up so you did not have to carry such a load in this discussion. If I were you, I’d expect I might be pulling my hair out. But isn’t this precisely the point where loving our enemies, or at least our opponents, is most important.
As I’ve read about Martin Luther King, Jr’s. life, his struggle was not only to gain rights for an oppressed minority. He sought very intentionally sought the transformation of the oppressor. Seeking the shalom of the other out to be our mission in all these discussions. I take you at your word that you are on a missionary venture, but as one of those to be converted I’m saying that it feels to me like there is no way to enter conversation with you unless I’m willing to agree with your position first. And that makes the whole exercise rather pointless.

toujoursdan, I can see why you would single out the “affliction and compulsion” language and the internal struggle of Dr. Hays’ friend Gary, but that wasn’t why I included that quote. I previously mentioned that rather than being motivated by a desire to judge you, most traditional/orthodox Christians are motivated by a belief that they are personally to be submitted to (aspiring to follow) the moral teachings of scripture and that they should people in leadership in church should likewise at least aspiring to obey the moral teaching of scripture. Most of the people on this site anyway, wouldn’t be about pursuing you personally, chasing you down on the street and telling you how to live your life. But if you came to their church you would at some point be confronted with their understanding of this issue as described in this thread, yes.
As for the jury being out on this issue, in spite of the fact that some now believe the church has been wrong about this issue for 2,000 years, most traditional/orthodox folks disagree that this issue is nearly as unclear as the new interpretations would suggest. Mere disagreement by some doesn’t mean everyone has to act as though “the jury is out” on overturning what has been the teaching of the church for two millennia. Having read much of the pro-gay scholarship on this issue it strikes me the same way it did Dr. Hays and his friend (which is why I included the quote).
“. . . these authors, despite their good intentions, had imposed a wishful interpretation on the biblical passages. However much he wanted to believe that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality, he would not violate his own stubborn intellectual integrity by pretending to find their arguments persuasive.
” . . . Both of us had serious misgivings about the mounting pressure for the church to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate Christian lifestyle. As a New Testament scholar, I was concerned about certain questionable exegetical and theological strategies of the gay apologists.”

Sigh…
There is more I would say to the most recent comments but I sense a weariness with the discussion. I sense my statements are not being read well, or maybe I’m just not writing well. Whatever the case, I just want to say the following to all, especially to LutheranChick, KateM and tojoursdan:
The LORD bless you and keep you;
the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you;
the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

I think at the heart of a lot of this is whether one takes scripture to be the literal inerrant word of God, or if one takes it to be inspired by God but revealed to us even today through our reason.
If one believes the book is closed and God has spoken, then no amount of logic or reason will convince that person otherwise.
If one believes that Jesus is the Word made flesh, and that He lives and guides us even today through prayerful study, then no amount of scriptural quotation will convince that person otherwise.
Person #1 says the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Case closed.
Person #2 says if Jesus were alive today, we might get His words written for our time and culture.
My take is that Jesus condemned greed and religious hypocrisy more than anything, and as long as we’re OK with that we ought to be OK with just about anything. Not all Christians are greedy or hypocrites, and I suspect even fewer are gay.
I have real issues with placing Paul’s letters on the same level as the gospels and the words of Jesus, but that’s just me. Paul may have been a good writer/marketer/theologian, but he wasn’t the Son.

You all are having a very interesting heated discussion. As someone who grew up evangelical and attended a very conservative evangelical college, and now am in a somewhat liberal seminary, I have to say that you cannot wrestle with this issue in your theology unless you have really invested the time and energy to read the theology of the other perspective and hear the stories of Christians who are LGBTQ. It’s been a three year journey for me and I’ve definitely come to understand a couple of things although many things are still unclear:
1. You cannot force, coerce people into believing YOUR theology. Whether you are pro-gay or anti-gay you cannot disrespect the other person’s theology. You CAN have mutual respect and love for people who don’t agree with you.
2. Regardless of what your position is about gay rights issues IN the church, everyone, EVERYONE, is entitled to the same kind of civil rights. Church rights and civil rights are two different things. That’s why I agree with KateM #89- if you don’t want to welcome them in your church at least leave them alone everywhere else. I don’t see why our theology must be enforced on everyone else. We get all upset and up in arms about Christians being persecuted in other countries, aren’t we basically doing the same to LGBTQ people in America?

It was a nice idea anyway, Scot.

Joseph #100-
No, Paul was not the Son, but his writings were impacted by the 3rd Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, as he pointed people towards the Son. But that is a topic for another day.
Rick in Texas #101-
Your comment may be the best one of the day.

KateM #62: your question was why should any self-respecting GLBT person stay at the table?
Because systemic culture shifts regarding people’s mind-sets and approaches don’t happen overnight. Each community is entrenched in their “correctness” and therefore, there is no way for either to convince the other to give up their believes. It won’t happen…ever. But I look at your comment as:
It’s not about you continuing to go just to evangelical services/churches, it’s also just as much about evangelicals going into yours – for the exact same reasons of what it means to tangibly show and live out (instead of just talking about it) a belief not confined by church walls, but rather the Kindom of God.
And for that I couldn’t agree more.
By all experiential and cognitive reasoning, you, or any other GLBT person shouldn’t stay at the table….not after how you/the topic of homosexuality has been handled in the Church.
But there are a few out here, ready and willing to come to the table regardless of who else is there (GLBT or straight); humble, apologetic and wiffully excited to immerse ourselves in uncomfortable places with the realization that there can be a difference in theolgical belief systems and something significant can still happen for the Kingdom. My belief is that Christians must finally admit the cutlure war is our fault (I expand on this in an article I wrote for Relevant Magazine to be published in May 2009), and then intentionally seek out our gay brothers and sisters to learn and listen about something straight folks can never understand: what it means to be, and live attracted to someone of the same sex. This is the place I believe constructive and productive dialogue must start.
For too long Christians have been placing their metric upon the GLBT community and expecting them to succinctly work within those boundaries of understanding rather than being the come-as-you-are culture (note that there is a difference between validation and affirmation) by intentionally placing the GLBT community’s metric of understanding upon ourselves and working within the metric we are given. This is not an easy road, nor is it one for the person not willing to be taken way out of their comfort zone, but one that must be undertaken none the less.
I feel your words, and the thoughts of LutheranChik as well, have been very enlightenting, and hopefully the numerous straight Christians who read your comments (including myself) will take your thoughts and expereinces as a wonderful piece of learned information in knowing how to better understand something we’re not able to – and in turn better understand how to peacefully build a bridge.
Much love.

LOL @ Rick #102! I agree with Scot, though, that all of us have to work at discussing difficult issues gracefully.
@Dan #79: I’m not going to try to force my ideas or scriptural interpretation on anyone because to me, human force indicates the presence of human judgment (even human word-warfare). Re your next question: Our reconciliation to God and to one another create new life in a multiplicity of ways. The problems lie where we diverge from one another in gender, in ethnicity, in wealth, in culture, and in experiences. In heterosexual, monogamous, faithful and loving marriage in Christ, both genders may reveal acceptance, value, love, and encouragement of the diversity created in the other. In the spirit of 1 Cor. 9, a woman puts no obstacle in the way of a man who seeks God, who reveals her love for her husband in healing and holistic relationship (as undermining or manipulative women do not). Vice versa, a man who treats his wife with honor, builds her up in Christ, and encourages her to use her gifts fully, reveals good news to women (as bullying or oppressive men do not). New life is literally created via heterosexual relations. New life is metaphorically created in the nurturing of one for the other. It may not be impossible, but it is harder for women to hear good news through men who won’t affirm women in their primary relationship (either because of homosexuality or because of violence toward women). IMHO, the faithful church needs to embody good news to every person, which is why I believe leadership needs to value male and female, equally, too.
@ Lutheranchik #81 and #85: Perhaps you don’t realize this – your notes sound to me (I can’t speak for others, here) as indicative of overruling or demeaning rather than serving and giving grace to those who don’t agree with you? Is it possible that those of us who believe monogamous heterosexuality best reflect God’s image and reconciliation are expressing sincere concern for you, your partner and those whose lives you touch directly? For the testimony that your lives embody? We do believe that God’s law is for our good, not to harm us, and that new life proceeds from faithful worship in every area of our lives. We’re certainly imperfect, but loved by a perfect God. Your remark about “open marriage” is surely a red herring, from my POV, because true reconciliation is revealed in intimate relations and lasting loyal covenant with one other, not in shallow, superficial, multiple intimate relations. As singular beings, we cannot be truly “one flesh” with more than one person, and serial heterosexual monogamy is not the biblical ideal, either.

Esther #101
“I don’t see why our theology must be enforced on everyone else.”
From a civil law standpoint I don’t think the state (for the most part) should be messing with people’s private consensual sexual behavior. But when we begin to redefine a central societal institution of society (marriage and family) as merely a private contract between any consenting adults, we have move beyond “live and let live.” We are making decisions that affect all of us. There may be legitimate reasons for some sort of civil unions but same-sex relationships are a different category with different societal implications from hetero-sexual relationships. It isn’t marriage in any historical sense of the word.
Should the definition of marriage and family change? That is the debate. But those advocating the change can’t fault opponents for championing a moral position in the law and act as if their position doesn’t do the same. There is no “live and let solution” to the problem. Someone’s morality is going to prevail.
So how do we have a civil approach to the problem? That is the challenge.

#104 Andrew
Great comment.
We who are not GLBTQ can’t ever fully appreciate what it means to live in that reality. The church has been a terrible failure at relating to these questions. I have a PCUSA friend who considered herself gay for more than ten years before coming to a conclusion that God had something else in mind for her. She says she gives thanks for GLBTQ advocates because they will never let the church ignore the questions that have confronted her all her life. We are going to have to deal with it.

Is it possible that those of us who believe monogamous heterosexuality best reflect God’s image and reconciliation are expressing sincere concern for you, your partner and those whose lives you touch directly…
As long as you imply that my relationship with my partner, and our relationship as a couple with the people around us and our faith community, are morally and/or otherwise defective — are somehow not an embodiment of the mutually respectful, mutually serving mutually loving relationship of the Godhead — your “concern” feels more like condescension and judgment. And I believe that you are in error.

Wow . . . too many posts to keep up with. I have a couple of things to add:
1. My reading of various passages in the NT is that we should excercise judgment when we think fellow members of the body of Christ have fallen into sin, but that we should avoid judmentalism toward members outside the body. I am very concerned that for years, through the present, the dominant Christian position has been one of judmentalism toward the GLBT community outside the walls of the church. Even if we think they are in sin, we need to take the log out of our own collective eye before we even begin to accuse them of sin. We can’t insist on them being civil as some sort of initial condition to conversation; we need to clean our own house first.
2. Even within the body of Christ, I think we straight folks need to do a better job of understanding and sympathizing with the anger and bitterness our GLBT brothers and sisters in Christ feel. The uncivility has tilted pretty heavilty in one direction for many, many years. Its easy to understand defensiveness on their part; right or wrong, we’re attacking an essential element of the way they were born, much like their sex or race.
3. As to whether homosexuality is in fact sin, I find it a much harder issue than either side lets on. I hold to a strong view of the autority of scripture — much like that in Scot’s Blue Parakeet. I think that the interpretative method outlined in that book could lead you to either position (although I understand Scot’s own conclusion that it is sin). For me, I think that Paul, in his culture in his time, believed that the conduct he was aware of was unnatural, so it was sinful. Today, from what we see, its fairly clear to me that many folks are simply born gay. (Please don’t interpret this as an argument that anything natural can’t be sinful — that would be wrong, and its not my point. My point instead is that Paul seemed to deem it as sin because he thought it was unnatural in his experience in his culture; that’s just not true for many gays today).
4. I also believe strongly that God gave me a conscience, prayer and the Holy Spirit to discern truth. My conscience strongly tells me that its wrong to condemn homosexuals in a monogamous relationship as engaged in sin; that just strikes me at the core as making no sense based on what we know. And after a lot of thought, I don’t think that’s our postmodern culture talking in me — I’m heterosexual and was brought up in a very conservative church, so I had a lot of indoctrination the other way; so my default should be to think it is sin. After a lot of soul searching and prayer, it just strikes me as fundamentally wrong to call it sin. I respect those who disagree, but I just can’t square calling it sin with my conscience.

After the Rockies opening day ballgame, a worship committee meeting at church, and part of the Cubbies game, I’m up to date on the posts here. Did anyone, anyone at all go to the link
http://www.cor.org/worship-sermons/sermons/show/sermons/When-Dealing-with-Sinners-Anti-Homosexual-Judgemental/
that Scott M first mentioned and that I earlier asked you to comment on? It is a very good example of civility, a beautifully crafted sermon, like a fine sonnet, that anyone interested in the art of communication would find instructive. It also expresses my point of view (and that of some others here) with skill that I am incapable of. It is a wow sermon, scholarly and personal without being slick. It will also ask you to stretch your understanding and maybe your compassion. I am particularly interested in how Scot, Ben Wheaton, Chris B, and Karl react to its thesis? Why do you or do you not find it persuasive? Contrary to Rick in Texas, I think the community here has attempted to be civil and understanding with pretty good success when you compare it to how the argument often progresses in other venues. And oh, besides the several non blog things mentioned earlier, I also watched Larry King interviewing Rick Warren who is another very good example of civility and compassion.
Doug

Mike at #106-
Don’t you think we are already there? The way we define marriage is no longer the way it has been historical. In fact it has always evolved.
Polygamy was once accepted in various Christian communities as an acceptable practice. Obviously, it no longer is.
No fault divorce began in California in 1970. Before this no-fault divorce law, divorce could only take place if one party could prove that the other was at fault for something. Since this law, Americans have been able to get married one day and divorce the next day. Does this constitute what we Christians would uphold as “sanctity of marriage”? If we upheld the sanctity of marriage as law, divorce laws would be different in this country.
My point is that we as Christians cannot act like we “own” the morality of this nation. We own our own morality, the moralities of our institutions even, but not this nation. Our job is to figure out how we are going to interact with people who are different than us. Yes, same-sex unions or marriages (which ever you prefer to call it) will once again change what marriage means for society at large but change cannot be an excuse for Christian to keep insisting that people live our way. Either we have to figure out how to live in harmony with others or CONVINCE others to join our way of life by the power of our example. But coercion is not a method that we Christians should use.

Yes, same-sex unions or marriages (which ever you prefer to call it) will once again change what marriage means for society at large but change cannot be an excuse for Christian to keep insisting that people live our way.
Just a reminder, again, that there are gay Christians, and that there are straight Christians who support equity for gay folks in all areas of the life of the church. Living “our” way is not synonymous with “opposing homosexual relationships.”

Just a reminder that comments about Christians living “our way” seem to imply, incorrectly, that all Christians agree with socially conservative Evangelicals.

LutheranChik
I love that you are here. I value/need your input on these sensitive issues. I have one question however. You compared homo-erotic orientation to being as innate as left-handedness. What implications, if any, do you see for people who have innate orientations to alcoholism or even obesity? These are all a natural part of who these people are just as is one’s left-handedness. However, the former are not condoned and the later is. Do you see homo-erotic orientation in the later category of neutral innate orientation and not in the former morally questionable category if acted upon, and if so why? Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this issue, as I have not found a thoughtful answer to this issue yet. Your posts so far have demonstrated restraint and thoughtfulness, so I have no doubt that your response will be equally as stimulating.
Just traveling the journey…

Fascinating discussion. I am completely on the fence on this issue and waiting to be persuaded by both the character and civility of, as well as the basis for, each argument or view. I have a high regard for the bible and not as high of a regard for historical church traditions and positions.
The first 25 years after my conversion to a faith in Jesus were influenced by conservative theology and simple, modern readings of the scriptures. My last 10 years have been marked by a disenfranchisement with the lack of congruency or depth in the selectiveness and application of those scriptures. Also a reaction against the toxic nature of petty church politics and brazen leadership power abuses and self-serving chicanery, scandal, and hypocrisy. Anyway, I’m no longer convinced that interpreting the scriptures in my former fashion is the correct approach. I still am very diligent at reading the bible and studying it, discussing it, and listening to multiple viewpoints.
My personal benchmark for deciding issues such as these is how much of Jesus I can recognize in a position and in its presenter… both the Jesus of the bible and the Jesus I met before I ever read the bible. I realize none of us fully reflects the image of Christ and I’m factoring that. Please keep in mind as you present your arguments, despite those of you who go out of your way to make sure the gospel is an offense, that Jesus is attractional to some of us. And to those of you who are functioning as pillars and bulwarks of the truth… don’t forget how people ought to conduct themselves in the household of God; among other attributes… temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money, not arrogant, and holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
Thanks for your consideration.

I’ve never posted here before. I’ve read all the posts in this thread. I am astounded that no one has mentioned what, to me, is the obvious point: there is a major issue, on both sides, of ego and pride…and that is sin. And, speaking as a straight Christian, I have to say that the greater offenders in this regard, are the straights.
I worked for many years in a major public research university. Early on, as I pondered how to be salt and light in that very secular community, I was struck by a simple principle: If I engaged a peer in conversation, and if I shared with them my understanding of God’s plan of salvation, then, from MY perspective, I was sharing absolute truth with eternal consequences. But from THEIR perspective, I was just sharing my opinion on my preferred world view. And the corollary of this is that, if I am not willing to listen to their world view, why, in Heaven’s name, would I expect them to be willing to listen to my world view?
I would suggest that most of the things we think we know, we will probably be embarrassed about how far off the mark we were, when we get to the other side. So, if only for the sake of saving face once we get to heaven, a little intellectual humility might go a very long way toward achieving the goal you desire, Scot.
But for a lot of straight Christians: They simply don’t give a damn. And sadly, they will care more about someone using the word ‘damn’ than they care about showing Christ’s love to gay brothers and sisters.

Doug Allen (#110) — thanks a lot for the link to the Adam Hamilton sermon on this issue. I found it very helpful. I think Hamilton is the author of the “Third Way” book Scot recently featured on this blog.

@Lutheranchik #108 — This is what I understand from your argument: to follow your logic through, those of us who care for anyone who is GLBT should, first, agree completely with their sexual praxis (i.e., obey that “law”). Only then, will the GLBT person be able to receive love and hear concern from someone. I’ve heard similar logic from heterosexuals in multiple relationships, too. It is clear that “standing under” a certain understanding of scripture offends you into judging another as being in error. How does your response exemplify that which you’d like to receive? My understanding of God-in-Christ is that, notwithstanding our complete rebellion and enmity, God loved and loves us, _and_ never agrees with our alienation, destructive behavior and sin. There is a disconnect between that godly “love” and the conditions you’re placing on the “love” you want to receive, from my POV. I can and have loved people in my life who have identified themselves as GLBT, and I don’t make that love dependent on them agreeing with me. In fact, I don’t see “agreement” as one of the attributes or precursors of love, at all, in scripture. Do you?

Esther #111
There is no way a religious group can ?impose? its morality on society. Any group, religious or otherwise, must compete in the arena of ideas and persuade enough votes for any law. As citizens, Christians have a responsibility to bring their moral sensibilities into the political arena just as much as any person who got their sensibilities elsewhere. If they are persuaded that traditional marriage is preferable, then they should make their case in the public square. As a tactical matter, arguing from the Bible or Christian belief is ineffectual and even counterproductive, in my opinion. If something is to be made public policy it should have justification beyond purely religious preference.
You wrote:
?Either we have to figure out how to live in harmony with others or CONVINCE others to join our way of life by the power of our example. But coercion is not a method that we Christians should use.?
I?m not sure what you have in mind when you say ?coercion.? Doesn?t convincing others by my example lead them to eventually think differently about public policy and likely to vote the way I would on issues? My Christian values influence my morality on theft. I vote a certain way on theft issues and persuade others to vote along me. Am I imposing my religious beliefs or using religious coercion on others? Why is voicing my take on marriage and bringing my moral sensibilities into the public square impugned as religiously coercing others? I don’t think Martin Luther King, Jr., would subscribe to the idea that bringing our moral convictions based on Christian values into the public square, and seeking to make them prevail, is a bad idea.
Yes we have wandered from marriage as a societal institution toward being a purely private contract as you note. Should we accept or seek to reverse it? There are sound public policy reasons for reversing that have no relation to whether or not homosexual behavior is moral.

I think this debate is rooted in making judgements about others. I think a good way to look at this is “hate the sin, not the sinner”. I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I will not judge some one for it! Their soul’s journey is not mine-I can only be responsible for my thoughts, feelings and actions. If I come across as too fanatical, it might actually turn some one off and have the opposite effect-rather than making pursuit of religion appealing, it looks frightening or ugly. I can only set a good example and hope that it inspires change. No one wants to be told they are wrong, they want to be understood and loved. People do not change unless they feel the inner spiritual conviction to do so. This can be brought about by external circumstances and fellow humans, but it still has to be an inner drive, which can be credited to God’s guidance. You can lead a horse to water..
I have strong convictions, but that doesn’t keep me from being civil-after all, we are all part of the same human family. Every last one of us is definitely related, even if it is somewhat distantly from a genetic point of view.
Jesus’ greatest commandment was for us to love one another as we would like to be loved. We cannot let the fact that we are all sinners get in the way.

Let me start by asking every believer involved in this discussion the most pivotal question: What if it were you?
Forget “which side of the fence” you are on. Forget (for a brief moment) what the Bible says. Imagine yourself as a homosexual person, a person “on the other side of the fence”, and ask yourself how you would want to be treated.
I am 23 years old. My entire life, I have felt an attraction exclusively to men. And my entire life, I have also been involved in church in one form or the other (as well as attended a Southern Baptist college for 3 years). Numerous times in my life I have asked myself why I haven’t just given up on church. Why I haven’t just turned my back on God and embraced the homosexual lifestyle. The only answer I have ever been able to come up with to that question is this: God is madly, passionately pursuing me with his relentless love and grace and He will not give up on me.
I have told God numerous times to “F*** off”, to leave me alone and let me live my life the way I want to, and I’ve attempted to embrace the homosexual lifestyle to its fullest in order to feel accepted and welcomed, to find a person (or a few) who love me.
See, (until recently) I have never felt welcome in a church. I have grown up my entire life, both in church and at a Christian college, having it pounded into me that homosexuality was a sin–hearing messages of hate and condemnation poured out upon gays in the name of God. Ultimately, that message shaped my view of myself. My logic went thusly: “If I am homosexual (and its not something I chose [suffice it to say this is true, I DID NOT choose it, but I'm not automatically saying that it is genetic either]) and God hates homosexuals, then I must be worse than even the worse sinner. Is there any hope at all for me if I am condemned by God?” I have truly felt at times that I was predestined for hell because of my lifestyle, one that I (for all intents and purposes) had no choice in or control over.
As for Biblical texts, I have scoured every text recorded in Scripture which discusses or alludes to homosexuality and I have studied them from every angle, looking for some way to justify the lifestyle I have lived. Ultimately, I realize that the sometimes, the plain, simple reading of the text is the correct reading. I realize homosexuality is a sin. And yet, my desires for men do not automatically disappear. I’m not an “ex-gay” who has suddenly found a suppressed attraction for women and has “turned straight”.
But my identity is no longer found in the fact that I am “gay”. My identity is found in Jesus Christ, and him crucified. I place my trust in Jesus knowing that, for whatever reason he has appointed me to live with this burden, it will be used for his glory.
I can’t say for sure whether or not I will ever be attracted to women or whether or not I will get married. At this point, I have resigned myself to (and welcome) the prospect of a celibate life, if that is what God has in store for me.
As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:7b ff, “Therefore, so that I would not become arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to trouble me ? so that I would not become arrogant. 12:8 I asked the Lord three times about this, that it would depart from me. 12:9 But he said to me, ?My grace is enough for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.? So then, I will boast most gladly about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may reside in me. 12:10 Therefore I am content with weaknesses, with insults, with troubles, with persecutions and difficulties for the sake of Christ, for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.”
I have cried out to God more times than I can count for him to remove this burden from me, to make me straight (it WOULD make my life much easier and more “normal”), but for all the years that I have prayed for my homosexual desires to be taken away, they still remain. Does this make me less of a Christian than you? Does this make me any less fit to proclaim the gospel to the world, or to lead a church? By no means!
Let me share one more passage with you: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 6:10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
That’s quite the grocery list of sins! As it relates to the society we live in, I see many sins in this list that are rampant. Sex outside of marriage, prostitution, idolatry/greed (we worship money, consumerism, even the American flag/military/politics as our god), theft, embezzlement, alcoholism (just step onto any college campus…), verbal abuse of a husband by his helpless wife (or vice versa…just watch one episode of Jerry Springer)…and homosexuality.
Now take a look back at that list and tell me which one of these sins is polarized and stigmatized MOST by most Christians in America. Homosexuality. But do we preach about worshiping American capitalism as our god in our suburban, well-to-do churches, where our children are dressed in Abercrombie and Fitch clothing and driving a Lexus to church and school? No. And many times, this behavior is encouraged. So why do we pick homosexuality as the stigmatizing sin?
My point here is not to lessen the magnitude of homosexuality by comparing it to these “more accepted” sins in our culture. My point is that homosexuality is no greater of a sin than these, and homosexuals should be treated by Christians the same way that a person should who sins in any of these other ways.
Let me put it one other way. In many churches in America, particularly the more conservative, less mainline churches, the debate rages on whether a homosexual should be allowed to be a member of a church, participate in ministries, etc. And granted, if it is a person who is blatantly flaunting his/her lifestyle, then the issue is a moot point. But I’m talking about a person like myself: one who strives to live a “called out” life of holiness and mission. If I am excluded from participating in the life of the church, then shouldn’t the man who comes home from his posh job in the suburbs, drinks a 40 and beats his wife up, then comes to church on Sunday as the image of a perfect family? NO. The church is a place for SINNERS. It is a place for the imperfect, the weak, the broken, the beaten up, the poor. It is not a place only for those who have “got it all together” or who “only struggle with minor sins”. It is a place for all of us to live and share and commune in the grace of God and to share that grace with others. Otherwise, the only people who would be allowed in the doors of the church would be those who are self-righteous and allowed to cast the first stone.
Last I checked, no man on earth is entitled to cast that first stone. Last I checked, only one man to ever walk the face of this earth is able to do that, and instead, he allowed his body to be beaten and bruised beyond recognition, then he died a shameful, embarassing death, so that I can stand in freedom and proclaim that–even in my weakness (in this case, homosexuality in particular, sin in general–I am strong. Not because of what I have done, but because of what he did.
So, like Paul, I will boast in my weakness. I have asked God to take it away from me, and he says “My grace is enough for you, Matt. And I will make my power known through your weakness.” So I will boast in the Lord.
I ask again, What if it were you?

Matt: Thank you for being here. I don’t think that many of the people here fully understand what a burden is carried by gays and lesbians who, against all odds and against the beliefs and, yes, prejudices found in this discussion, still choose to affiliate with a faith community; I would think that’s particularly true of persons who for whatever reason choose to affiliate with socially conservative denominations.
I’d just remind you, Matt, to not internalize the negativity that’s thrust at you by the people around you. For instance, when you speak of embracing a “homosexual lifestyle” — my partner’s and my lifestyle is that of working, study, volunteering, being active in our church, enjoying the outdoors, enjoying good food and conversation with a variety of other people, being good citizens and taxpayers…I’m not sure what it is about our “lifestyle” that should be particularly troubling or frightening to anyone. A friend of mine and his partner are both church professionals — a pastor and theologian, respectively — who have chosen to follow the Benedictine Rule as a lay household; their “lifestyle” includes disciplines like daily prayer and worship together, hospitality, work. Which sounds an awful lot like other Christian friends’ gay “lifestyles.” See what I mean?
I’d also point out that “clobber verses” like the one you cite in your post need to be read in the context of a society in which homosexuality was seen not as in inherent orientation but as a behavior usually engaged in in the context of general sexual promiscuity related to ecstatic worship of pagan gods, the sexual exploitation of boys/young men by older men (usually with the added context of economic/social exploitation, in the same way that female slaves were generally expected to be sexually available to male masters) or the sexual humiliation of the losing side in warfare. In these societies the idea of persons pairing off for love and companionship was foreign; families arranged marriages, often when at least one of the parties was very young; anyone born with a homosexual orientation, when old enough to act upon those feelings, was already betrothed or married to another, which in itself would create a situation of unfaithfulness/breach of trust. When these authors were penning these texts, they didn’t have in mind “couple next door” gay folks in monogamous lifelong relationships because the society didn’t support that scenario, the way that it didn’t support heterosexual households created via mutual self-directed courtship and marriage. “‘Tweren’t no such thing.”
Finally: Please know, if you don’t already, that there are faith-based support groups for gays and lesbians in the Evangelical tradition the way that there are such groups affiliated with other Christian traditions/denominations (in my denomination, Lutherans Concerned). Even if you cannot find a happy church home in your community, you can still find religious fellowship/support through these groups.

Matt,
Because of the “coming out” part of the gay “agenda” that so many decry, most of us now know gay people, if only on the internet. Sadly, in the past, many Christians didn’t even know their gay child or grandchild, and some who did, threw them out of their house and life. I think it’s very wise to soulfully listen to the life struggle that Matt and toujoursdan and others have volunteered here. One of the graduate programs I took included a course in human sexualality where I learned that gay adolescents and young adults are three times more likely than straights to commit suicide, and gay adults are much more likely to become alcoholic. If you listen to Matt and toujoursdan and others here, you will, I hope, have empathy for their struggles, and understand the role that Christianity has played in the self-destuctive behaviors of those who have internalized the hatred they have met, not here on the Jesus Creed blog, but at so many other places in Christiandom. One of my college friends committed suicide before I understood much of this. More recently, one of the kids I coached for two years in cross country and track committed suicide, and I was heartbroken by my failure to make a difference and communicated that to the two pastors at his mainline Presbyterian Church who felt the same.
Doug

A couple other comments:
To the individual who asked about a parallel between homosexuality and obesity or other inherent predisposition. The examples you give are examples of pathological conditions — conditions that are physiologically or psychologically harmful. Homosexuality is not harmful except in the context of living in a society prejudiced against homosexuals — in the same manner that possessing the “wrong” skin color in a bigoted society can have harmful physical and/or psychological implications for a member of a racial minority, or in the way that being born female has harmful physical/psychological implications in a patriarchal society like Afghanistan’s. (And can I add — sigh — that having a part of my inherent makeup as a an individual human being compared to a congenital disease — is not only hurtful, but tiresome over time. I wish some of you could truly hear what you write.)
Ann: There’s love between mutually respectful peers and the sort of patronizing, pat-on-the-head type of love that, say, a male-supremacist patriarch might have for “the little woman.” IMHO, I don’t feel your love, which I don’t doubt you possess on some level, as that between two peers in Christ. And your repetition of the idea that my sexual orientation is “rebellion” against God’s ordained order is not a shared understanding, just as I don’t understand lefthandedness in a majority righthanded human society to be “rebellion” against the way it ‘sposed to be. I understand that persons with a more literalist hermeneutic have an interest in making the Bible “come out right” in a way that those of us who aren’t literalists/inerrantists do not. We are not going to agree on this explanation for homosexuality any more than I am going to agree with a male supremacist or a monarchist that gender equity or democracy represent “rebellion” against the created order.

Scot,
Let me say that I am also heartbroken over your stance on this issue although the civility you model and the space here we all have to express our thoughts makes up for some of the sadness I feel about that. You are in a position to make such a difference, and you know and write that this will be a crucial issue for evangelicals these coming 10 years. You also know and write of where the younger generation mostly stands on this, which makes the future of evangelicals problematical with the neo-reformed the eventual winners of a much smaller evangelical church, I suppose, if people like you don’t come around. Wellcoming gays to the community as just one more variety of fallen icons seems entirely consistent with my reading of your JESU CREED and THE BLUE PARAKEET. I’ve prayed about this.
Doug

LutheranChik-
The terms “literalists/inerrantists” have to be unpacked since they mean different things to different people. Therefore, the terms are not helpful in this context.
Scot, the author of this blog, would probably not consider himself either.
Here is a summary of his thoughts from a long series he did on the subject a few years ago:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2006/02/jesus-and-homosexuality-the-en.html

Wow, what an insightful conversation.
Frankly, I don’t know what to do with the blog post. It seems to say (rightly) we shouldn’t shout at people and be jerks. I completely get that. It also seems to suggest that we should affirm others positions regardless of their sin state. I (respectfully) disagree with this.
Scripture seems to be clear, particularly the New Testament, that we do away and put out rebellious and overtly sinful people from our membership. With the decentralization of church authority this is hard because anyone can walk around the corner and find an accomodating church.
Perhaps I’m one of those crazy fundamentalists but I don’t see sexual intimacy ever championed outside of the marriage relationship with a man and woman in Scripture. Of course Scripture is my authority.
The homosexual conversation is a hard one. It is fraught with misconceptions and hurt. Yet in ministry to homosexuals I try to be tender in my reply and demonstrate Christ’s love without pretense. We all approach the Cross broken, but Christ demands that we not stay that way in our journey with Him.
You are the Church!
R.A.

@Lutheranchik #124:
That whole section directed to “Ann” indicated serious misunderstanding and misuse of the context of my words, and distorted what my convictions are as an egalitarian woman, biblical scholar, and justice-worker. If that distorted person is who you’d *like* to believe that “Ann must be” so that you can dismiss anything I write, that’s your choice; however, from my POV, your personal pain, anger(?) and related assumptions about those who disagree w/ you are obscuring your perceptions – at the least, of me. FYI, when I wrote of “rebellion” the pronoun was inclusive, “our.” That’s the biblical understanding – we’ve all sinned. The difficult and painful path of Christ is dying so that we may live according to “the obedience that comes from faith”? Your struggle is yours, but don’t minimize others’ crosses and journeys, please. FWIW, I don’t pat anyone on the head, and I won’t fit nicely into your enemy stereotype.

I carefully ready all these comments and have come away saddened but not suprised. But I will say that there seems to be a serious dichotomy going on that as a Pastor I often run into in the Bay Area.
If I say i love you but disagree with homosexuality then I am really being unloving. This just really bothers me and makes it impossible to have a good diaogue.
LutheranChik,
I hate it that you have been hurt (and if i am jumping to conclusions then I am sorry but it sure does sound like you have had some harmful conversations)but you do continue to go against the very things that you profess and many folks here have pointed this out. You are wanting people to “walk in your shoes” so to speak but refuse to hear anyone else plea to “walk in their shoes.”
I just feel like you are doing the very thing that has brought pain to you. You are mad that anyone could disagree with your stance. In your eyes it is a no brainer. In my eyes it is a no brainer on the other side of the argument. So does that make me un loving or you un loving? I just want to know what you think.
If I disagree with you am I unloving? If I think that scripture is clear on homosexulity being outside of God’s design am I being un loving?
It just seems like a very post modern argument that says if I have an absolute stance then I am close minded and un loving to those who have more “open” views. This is common and doesn’t suprise me but still seems to make my eye brows raise when I see people arguing in this way.
Help me out here LutheranChik. So I am going to pose this question again.
Am I being un loving if I disagree with your stance on homosexuality being a part of God’s design?

Ann,
I thought you were unfairly treated by LutheranChik and your views have been unfairly judged for beign different.
I think you did a wonderful job explaining yourself but some were “un loving” in their response to you for that I am sorry.
I just thought that needed to be said since no one seems to be apologizing to anyone who holds a conservative view of scripture even though through out these comments there have been plenty of “un loving” comments towars that view.
Grace and Peace!

“Am I being un loving if I disagree with your stance on homosexuality being a part of God’s design?”
Ah, but here’s the rub: If you mean “outside a part of God’s design” you mean a variable outside the human norm, like lefthandedness or an extra toe or farsightedness, then you get no argument from me; even if you persist in thinking of it as a negative defect like a predisposition to obesity or diabetes — obviously I don’t agree, but because your hermeneutic forces you to interpret Scripture in the way that you do I don’t think I can assume that you don’t love me. But it is the constellation of assumptions (“Homosexuality is rebellion against God!”) and “if-thens” (“‘Unrepentant’ homosexuals should be excluded from/restricted in the life of the church until they get with our program”; “Good Christians should organize to bar those ‘unnatural’ gay couples from enjoying the same rights and protections as heterosexual married couples”) that conservatives like yourself build around this idea of “outside a part of God’s design” that I do find unloving; that I find to be unreconciled bigotry and exclusion baptized with what my Ship of Fools friends would call “Christian luv.” Even if you embrace the “medical model,” I’d remind you of the old Lutheran (and I suspect other traditions as well) guideline that “cripples,” (along with women and “idiots”), were de facto barred from the pastoral office…a notion that we’ve abandoned because it is at heart bigoted and unloving and bars the called and equipped for service in the church.
And while you may “love” my partner and me in some abstract manner, you obviously don’t love our relationship. Try to translate that into your own marriage, if you’re married. Imagine someone, or many someones, saying that they love and respect you and your partner, but…they just can’t love or respect or approve of your relationship. Be honest; how would you process that? How would that make you feel about the person(s) telling you this? Would you interpret that as an attack upon the person you love most in the world, and upon a partnership that you find to be a good gift of God? Don’t theologize this; get real; live into this scenario for a few minutes and then tell me how you’d react.
You’re a pastor within a particular faith tradition, and I understand that you need to operate from within those parameters as far as the theology and praxis of your faith community. My partner and I have our own theological milieu, our own pastor and our own faith community that has both befriended us and entrusted us with various community responsibilities. I think we ultimately need to respect those boundaries. And the longer I participate in this discussion, the less rapprochement I believe is possible between con-evos and mainliners regarding this issue, on anything other than an individual, person-to-person level in the context of a real friendship; as soon as we put our “party” hats on, which is inevitable in a discussion modality like this, it all goes south.

“those who love others will never exclude from the table those who differ from them simply because they have a view that they think wrong.” AMEN!
“For one side, this will mean living with those who are gay or lesbian with a view toward transformation.” On this I would add, that we should not allow the hoped for transformation of people to dominate our relationships. You know, some are only in a relationship with others for the sole purpose of converting them. That defines the relationship. Rather, we should hope for others’ transformation, but realize that that transformation is a work of the Spirit and we should leave that work to Him. Obviously, we may have a hand in that transformation but only as the Spirit leads. So many times Christians’ sole purpose for being involved with others not like them is to see them changed and they get so discouraged when that change does not happen. But are we called to only be in relationship with people for the sole purpose of changing them? What about the richness that comes just from the relationship itself? For some, I think the teaching of avoiding the appearance of evil and watching the company that one keeps is do deeply ingrained, some have taken that to mean that as little exposure as possible to those of errant views is God’s best. And yet, how do we effect change if we’re never in relationship?

Late to the party, but…
It is difficult to get beyond the impersonality of the medium. It is frustrating for me to read some of the comments decrying ‘an unwillingness to befriend or include gay and lesbian people’ when (speaking for myself at least) I have gay friends, and we have gay people in our church (both celibate and/or exploring change, and those who are loosely connected and ‘checking things out’ while continuing in their homosexual behavior).
Lutheranchik: your insistence on the specific way in which your sexual behavior is ‘damaging’ is beside the point. It doesn’t matter what you think (or I) but what God thinks. I am not assuming you don’t care about that, simply pointing out that we are expected to trust what God says to be true even if we don’t understand it; if you have something to say to that effect, I would love to hear it, but my ears are closed to a simple appeal to ‘my personal pleasure comes from this and I can’t see any drawbacks.’ This is a major criticism on this issue, but also for our culture at large.
The question of the cost expected of homosexuals is one worth considering…
I am aware that what is being asked is synonymous with my embracing homosexuality or celibacy while denying my heterosexuality; I agree that many are unaware of the cost of denying ones sexuality, but I would argue that this is much closer to the cost for ALL christians; Boenhoffer’s words are appropriate, when Christ bids a man, he bids him come and die.
Sex is not the definition of who we are, Christ is. This is a critique of many in our culture (and church) not just homosexuals…

Aaron,
I think that fruitful dialogue on this topic requires us heterosexuals to understand something: When we say we love the homosexual, but don’t accept homosexuality, it sounds similar to saying something like we love the black person, but don’t accept his race, or love the woman, but we don’t respect her gender. People don’t choose to be gay; its just part of who they are. So, yes, as a straight person, I can understand why a homosexual takes offense at a lot of the language used by conservatives, and why it seems very uncivil.
LutheranChik,
To what extent do you think it would help the dialogue if conservatives at least acknowledged the sort of hurt you identify (and that I’m trying to identify), even if they disagree with your conclusions? To me, this would go a long way toward allowing for productive dialogue, but I’d be curious to hear what you think.

Lutheranchik: your insistence on the specific way in which your sexual behavior is ‘damaging’ is beside the point. It doesn’t matter what you think (or I) but what God thinks.
So in other words, Steven S, even though I’ve identified myself as a practicing Christian and lay leader in my church, because my hermeneutic doesn’t agree with yours I don’t care what God thinks?
This is a wonderful example of the arrogance and patronization I’m finding here. Thank God I have the Christian witness of my friends and colleagues in ministry elsewhere.
It’s also why this is my last post on this thread and on this blog. I’m finished here.

Scot,
Perhaps the answer to your original question is that many of us “Christians” discussing the issue, aren’t.

LutheranChik
Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough, but you need to reread what I wrote…

LutheranChik
So again what you are saying if I disagree with your stance and yes believe it is outside of God’s design then ultimately I am unloving.
And you have assumed a lot about me from the little that I wrote a few nights ago. So again you have done that which you despise. You have stereotyped me and then you accuse the same about me. You accused me of having a “constellation of assumptions.” How is coming to a biblical conviction a “constellation of assumptions?” You clearly have come to your own biblical convictions on the “other side” of mine. That is not assumption to me.
Biblical convictions are not assumptions to me just like they aren’t to you. They have clearly impacted you in such a way that you now live your life in light of those convictions.
Again just because I don’t think that your relationship with your partner is God’s design it in no way makes me unloving. It just means we are clearly in two differnt camps when it comes to scripture interpretation on this particular issue. But I still think it goes back to the fact that if I disagree that it goes against God’s design then I am un loving. It means the only way I love you is when I agree.
I think I am done with the conversation not because I don’t want to discuss it but rather you have already painted me as someone and it is hard to get past that since the “DNA is set” so to speak. I am un loving, married, barbaric in my interpretation of scripture, and apparently conservative like your “Ship of Fools” hiding under the banner christian luv.
Unfair from what little I wrote I think but it is all good!

Steve (133) we are expected to trust what God says to be true even if we don’t understand it
If this sounds fine and reasonable to you then you’ve probably never been hurt by someone else’s certainty about ‘what God says to be true’.

I like what you wrote. We could get all involved in the “they started it” bit and it would be of no use whatever.
My mom use to say, “I have the strength of my convictions; your stubborn and THEY are pig-headed.” That seems to often be the gist of many such discussions. Personally I am conservative and understand what you’re saying. I know of the times I’ve failed to act civilly.
Let me suggest that we take a look at the interaction of Jesus with the people he ran across. There were times, like the party at Matthew’s where we may assume not everyone was a follower yet we don’t see Jesus getting out a whip at them. However there were times when he was less than civil with those who dissed God and God’s temple and what was truly valuable.
I am afraid we’ll find evidence from Jesus to support our own viewpoints. Let me challenge us to find evidence that supports the viewpoints of others when it comes to civility and move from there.
Have a good Easter
Alan

If I knew that sweeping the gay marriage debate under the rug would it make go away, I would do it in a heartbeat. The lack of civility drives me nuts. My preference would be to focus our intellectual and political resources on the economic crisis, global poverty, climate change, Darfur, health care access, education, energy independence, abortion reduction and a host of other areas where much more is at stake.
Ironically, the vicious cycle of backlash and nastiness will continue even longer if we continue to allow the issue to be framed by all-or-nothing activists and protesters who dig their trenches deeper each year. This much is clear to me: gays cannot be expected to reverse their orientation any more easily than conservatives can be expected to sit idly while the historic understanding of marriage is redefined.
Calling for a culture war ceasefire would be noble, but also unrealistic without a forum for respectful disagreement and dialogue. As I see it, the only way out of this briar patch is through the thorns. Our best option might be to actually sit down and have a sober conversation about the touchy stuff: sex, religion, fear and anger. Slogans and sound bites won’t work in a thicket this tangled. So with the pie-in-the-sky objective of civility in mind, I’ve come up with a few recommendations to help each side argue their case more persuasively (for a change):
http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-not-to-argue-about-gay-marriage.html

A problem that inhibits civility on this issue is that Christians should bear a heavy burden of guilt for the brutal treatment of homosexuals. As late as 1860, England was exectuting people for homosexuality. In the 1950s Alan Turing committed suicide after being chemically castrated for a sexual encounter with a man. Until 1961, every American state had laws that could send homosexuals to prison for decades simply for consensual sexual relations in their own homes. These laws were not ruled unconstitutional until 2003, when 13 states still had such laws on their book. Before the Supreme Court many Christian groups defended such laws. The number of gay people who have lost jobs and been persecuted in various ways due to Christian beliefs cannot just be forgotten. The fact that Churches (primarily Roman Catholic and Mormon but by no means limited to them) have poured millions and millions of dollars into efforts to deprive homosexuals of equal rights also cannot be forgotten. Happily, however, some Churches have recognized the injustices done to gay people and families and are now working to redress them. That, I think, will more than anything help foster civility in talking about gay rights. It will make it more difficult for gay people to simply dismiss all Christians as the lunatic “God Hates Fags” fringe.