Finding Jesus Christ: "No love of God in your hearts"

Click here for an explanation about this series: "Finding Jesus Christ."

It may have been awhile since you've seen the Gospel of John movie that I recommended you watch for this series. To refresh your memory, watch the first three minutes of this clip (John 5:25-47).



Once again we note Jesus' claim to be the Son of God who was sent by his Father so that we might believe in him. It is the never ending theme of Jesus' teaching. What kind of a person would make such claims, say such things? There are really only two options: he is either telling the truth, or he is more completely out of line than anyone in the history of the world.

Did Jesus really speak to the crowds as unapologetically as this actor (Henry Ian Cusick--who also stars in Lost) portrays? We know that Jesus angered the religious leaders enough to eventually get himself killed, so yes, I'd say this is probably an accurate portrayal of how things went down whenever Jesus got on a roll. People were shocked and offended. Plots against his life quietly brewed. All in a day's work when you walk the streets of first century Jerusalem claiming God is your Father who sent you with a message from heaven.

If someone claimed to come from heaven, I suppose we shouldn't expect anything less. In this speech we cut in right as Jesus is talking about the judgment he will execute at the end of the world. All of us will be dead by then, but on that day he says we will all hear his voice, get up bodily out of our graves, and wait to hear his pronouncement on our eternal fate. I hope you took that in, because then you would have noticed two things. On one hand, it is possibly the most outrageous statement a human being has ever made in the history of outrageous statements. On the other hand, Jesus states it with the kind of vividly-detailed description that someone only gives when they fully expect to say "I told you so" when it actually happens.

He knows the crowd doubts his words, but he plows ahead anyhow. The three witnesses he brings forth to verify his claims are witnesses that the Jewish crowd itself embraces: John the Baptist, Jesus' own miracles, and the (Old Testament) Scriptures. He's basically saying, "Even you guys revere the authority of these witnesses, so why won't you listen to their testimony about who I am?" The logical implication of their own beliefs is to believe in him, so why won't they believe in him? As far as arguments go, this is classic Jesus.

He played the lawyer, making his case, and he concludes by switching to the judge, condemning them for having no love of God in their hearts. "You have not heard his voice or seen his face," Jesus says, referring to his own intimacy with the Father. He implies that he is bringing God's own message when he pronounces them to be spiritually blind, self-serving hypocrites who care more about themselves than the God they claim to worship.

Again, it's about what we would expect from someone claiming to bring a message from heaven--if we were to give serious thought to what God might say to us if he were to send his Son to speak on his behalf. It would be hard to imagine a holy God, who sees the secret thoughts, motives and devices of every human heart, sending down a message telling us that we're awesome folks and he can't wait to meet us--wouldn't it?

Your brother whom you have seen

Denis Haack, founder and director of Ransom Fellowship, responds to the recent controversy in the conservative Christian blogosphere over Wesley Hill's article ("'A Few Like You': Will the Church be the Church for Homosexual Christians?") that appeared in RF's magazine.

Haack writes,

What Wes achieves in his piece is to explain how faithful Christians whose homosexuality is not transformed by regeneration face a life of deep loneliness. And he asks—properly—whether the church will be the church for these believers. This is hardly a radical position, nor should Wes’ piece be unsettling to those who take the Scriptures seriously. He is not asking for compromise; on the contrary Wes submits to God’s Word, even at personal cost. He is not asking that we dumb down our understanding of the faith; on the contrary Wes champions Christian orthodoxy . . .

All these tangents, all these red herrings [brought forward in the controversy over his article], sadly, answer the good question that Wes has raised. Sadly, much of the church will not be the church. It is too committed to the reigning political ideologies of our secular age. At least have the integrity to say so, instead of trying to confuse the issue with all sorts of side issues.

I have to say that I agree with Denis Haack. From what I've seen, the overall response to Wesley's article has been pretty disappointing.

To my fellow conservative Christians: The fact that many of you are so quick to attack a fellow Christian who is making a commitment to lifelong celibacy--who is making the ultimate sacrifice in order to take a stand with you in condemnation of "the homosexual lifestyle"--all because he admits he has been unable to change his homosexual orientation, shows that there is something really wrong with you. Really, really wrong.

1 John 5:20: "If someone says, 'I love God' and hates his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."

"Through My Eyes" trailer

I've found a way to post the trailer for "Through My Eyes," the new documentary by Gay Christian Network:

I also recommend that you read Fiesty Charlie's review of this film. Her excellent summary takes the words right out of my mouth.

"Through My Eyes"

Eight and a half years I've been writing and blogging on "Christianity, homosexuality and the Bible," yet I haven't come across a single resource I could recommend that strikes the exact chord of my concern about this issue until now.

This morning I watched a 46 minute documentary called "Through My Eyes," directed by Justin Lee and distributed by The Gay Christian Network. The film consists of a series of interviews with young Christians in their teens and twenties reflecting on what it is like for them to deal with their homosexuality as Christians. The film was created by Christians for a Christian audience. There is no inappropriate language or content. There isn't any music or narration to manipulate the direction of your emotions. In fact the whole presentation of these interviews is fairly raw and direct. I could easily see this film being shown to a Sunday school class or a campus youth group as a springboard for discussion.

I'm glad I've already watched it once through so I could get my crying done and out of the way before I share it with anyone else. Since I've met and corresponded with so many people over the years who have expressed the exact same sentiments as the subjects of this film, I know that what they're talking about is real.

So, for the first time in the all the years I've been writing on this subject, I'm going to really, REALLY recommend a resource to you, which is this documentary.

The trailer for "Through My Eyes" is here.

You can buy the DVD through Amazon here.

They are the warriors

I'm impressed that Dr. David Powlison, adjunct professor of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) and faculty member at Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation (CCEF), has responded with compassion and openness to Wesley Hill's article on being a celibate homosexual Christian. Justin Taylor's interview of Dr. Powlison today demonstrates that in Reformed Christian circles people are willing to discuss this issue thoughtfully in light of the truths of the gospel.

The only point I would add to Dr. Powlison's comments is that I think his approach to Wesley Hill's situation doesn't need to be so complicated. Dr. Powlison talks about the challenge of being both "fierce" in our "advocacy of a Christian sexual ethic" and yet showing "tenderness toward strugglers." "Can we be tenderly fierce and fiercely tender?" he asks. He uses the analogy of "the trumpet" and "the cello," one a call to righteousness and the other a call to sorrow and sympathy. And so the challenge, according to Dr. Powlison, is in trying to bring these seemingly opposing forces together into a harmonious balance when dealing with this issue.

And I agree that we must have both, which is why I wholeheartedly support my brother Wesley every step of the way in his struggle to remain celibate. By supporting him I am being fierce in my stand against homosexual sin, because I am supporting Wesley's fierce struggle against his homosexual sin. Is there anyone who is taking a more fierce stand against sin than Wesley and others like him? Is there anyone whose life trumpets the call to righteousness more loudly than Wesley's life, when he struggles and struggles each day to bear his cross amidst scoffers both within the church and without?

Supporting our celibate homosexual brothers and sisters with tenderness and compassion is the fierce stand we take for righteousness, because they are the warriors. There is no dichotomy. Pour your ministry into them and they will become fiercer still. Play your cello with passion and their trumpets will sound more clearly.

What it's like to be you

Some interesting discussion has cropped up on Justin Taylor's blog regarding Wesley Hill's recent article, in which Wesley talks about the need for celibate homosexual Christians like himself to be supported by the love of brothers and sisters in Christ.

From reading this discussion, I'm encouraged to see that there is a new generation of straight, conservative Christians who want to be compassionate toward those who struggle with homosexual desires. They don't want to act like Pharisees, callously dismissing fellow Christians as if they don't share the same struggles. They really desire to minister effectively to Christians like Wesley. When I look at this group, I see hope for the future of the church.

However, there is still some disconnect between even this well-meaning group and the homosexual Christians they desire to minister to. And I think it stems from an (also well-meaning) idea that has been lately floating in the church, namely, that "the sin of homosexuality is just like any other sin."

I can appreciate this latest idea because it is intended to be a corrective to get Christians away from notion that homosexual desire is a special sin of particular depravity. Instead we need to get off our self-righteous horse, look inward, and seek to identify with the struggles of someone who is just like ourselves.

But the downside of "homosexuality is just like any other sin" is that this naturally leads people to say to someone like Wesley, "Well then, why can't you deal with your sin the way I do? Pray for victory, seek God's face, put off the old man and put on the new. And why do you 'need' love from the church body over this? Isn't the love of God in Christ sufficient for you? And aren't you being defeatist by calling yourself a Homosexual Christian? I don't identify with my sin by calling myself an Angry Christian or a Lying Christian."

For this reason, I have never completely agreed with the "homosexuality is like any other sin" approach. Among those desires and compusions that we call sin, I believe homosexuality belongs in a unique category of its own. And while it often helps to understand the involuntary nature of homosexual attraction by comparing it with lust, anger, covetousness, and so forth, at the same time it is critical to understand homosexuality as more a condition than merely a desire or compulsion. "Condition" as in: we are all born into this world in a fallen condition in Adam, which no human effort is going to alter prior to the bodily resurrection

I've become convinced that people's experience of finding themselves homosexual is something that was completely beyond their control. In fact, the experience is nearly parallel to finding oneself heterosexual. From childhood there was never a moment when you laid claim on it, rather it seemed to lay claim on you. You found yourself relating one way to kids of the same sex and another way to kids of the opposite sex, before you even knew or cared what sex was. The whole thing was bewildering to begin with, but when puberty hit it went off the charts, and it became clear what orientation you were.

If you were lucky enough to be straight, your healthy adult life was just beginning, and you could channel your sexual energies into acceptable social relationships with the goal of marriage. But if you were gay, you knew you were headed smack into a world full of people who would never stop questioning you about the moral direction you apparently took back when you never knew you were heading in a moral direction. Back when you thought your world consisted only of McDonald's shakes and riding your bike without training wheels. The question becomes particularly disturbing for kids who grew up in terrific, nurturing Christian families who had always made good moral choices in every other area of their lives.

No wonder when someone asks a gay person, "What makes you think you're gay?" they answer rather lamely, "It's just something I've always known about myself." "Well, can't you change?" "I've tried but nothing works." "Well, can't you try harder?" "You mean, harder than obsessing about it 24/7 for the past 25 years of my life?"

Dealing with homosexuality is not like struggling with just any other sin. In my opinion there does seem to be something hardwired--biological if you will--about homosexuality, because many people report having inklings of self-awareness about their "difference" as early as ages 4 or 5. (In our modern scientific world, would it be fitting to speak of original sin as "the gene of Adam"?) And yet the Bible teaches that acting upon one's homosexual orientation is a sin. This presents a practical problem for the homosexual Christian: While thoughts, emotions, behaviors and attitudes can be suppressed or controlled, such methods only treat the symptoms of what seems to be at the core of his or her sexual make up, so that in order to make the "treatment" work, suppression and control must take place at every waking moment until the day he or she dies.

If every straight person were to stop for five minutes and truly consider the extent to which their own heterosexual orientation has permeated every aspect of the way they have been thinking, feeling and relating to the world since the second grade, and then imagine what it would be like to struggle to suppress every aspect of their heterosexuality all day, every day for years on end, no one would be asking homosexuals questions like, "Why can't you get a grip on your loneliness?" "Can't you ever get over labeling yourself 'gay' or 'homosexual'?" "Why can't you just turn to God for love?"

Instead more people would be saying, "Tell me what it's like to be you." "What can I do to help you make it through today?" "Do you have a free evening to go grab a burger with me?"

The wound that won't go away

If you are a straight conservative Christian, I highly recommend that you read this article by my good friend Wesley Hill, published this week in Ransom Fellowship's Critique magazine. Wesley describes the lonely struggle of remaining celibate as a homosexual Christian, and how having the support of even a few Christian friends can make a seemingly unbearable situation bearable.

If it weren’t for other people, I don’t think I’d make it. For me to live faithfully before God as a sexually-abstinent homosexual Christian must be to trust that God in Christ can meet me in my loneliness not simply with God’s own love but with God’s love mediated through the human faces and arms of my fellow believers.

For all of us who have criticized the immorality and sexual irresponsibility practiced by many in the gay community, how much more earnestly should we support those homosexual Christians who have taken a stand by embracing this highest, most difficult calling of lifelong sexual abstinence? Supporting these brothers and sisters in Christ would demonstrate that our compassion is genuine, that our stand against sexual immorality is true, and that like Jesus we aren't afraid to embrace those whose struggles can only be despised by the self-righteous.

A proposed compromise

Check out this op-ed piece in Sunday's NY Times co-authored by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch, two people who have sharply disagreed about gay civil marriage in the past. Here is their proposed compromise:

Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

So the federal government would recognize civil same-sex unions, but would only recognize state level civil unions on the condition that religious conscience protections are in place. In other words, only if religious organizations get to retain the right to discriminate against civil same-sex unions will such unions be recognized at the state level by the U.S. government.

What I like about this idea is that it makes a rigorous respect for religious freedom the condition for granting gays and lesbians their legal rights, so that the freedoms and protections of both groups are tied together. Furthermore, if there were significant gay support for such a proposal, it would undercut the religious right's claim that the sole political agenda of the majority of gays is to trash the rights of Christians. This is the lie that helped get Prop. 8 passed here in California. Wouldn't it be nice to put that lie to rest?

Finding Jesus Christ: "I have come down from heaven"

Click here for an explanation about this series: "Finding Jesus Christ."

One sitting through the movie The Gospel of John should have made it obvious to you that Jesus continually exhorted his followers to believe that he was who he claimed to be. That wouldn't be such a big deal if it weren't that Jesus made so many radical claims about himself.

Now, any religious charlatan knows that when you're trying to gain a following, you should make claims that at least sound plausible. Say that you're a prophet, or a wise teacher. Say that you saw a vision, or that you once healed a man. Don't aim too high, and for heaven's sake make sure nothing that you say can be verified one way or another. You certainly don't go around claiming that you're the Son of God, that you came down from heaven, that your own flesh and blood are the true food and drink of the world, that you will resurrect all believers from their graves on the last day, and then back up your words by publicly healing people, raising the dead in broad daylight and finally raising yourself from the dead too. Yet according to John's gospel Jesus did all that. He wasn't exactly playing it safe, and neither was John by reporting these things.

If Jesus really was the Son of God who came down from heaven, it would all make sense. But what about this claim, and what did he mean by it? He didn't mean he dropped bodily out of the sky, did he? He wouldn't have gotten away with it anyhow, since a lot of the time he was talking to people from his home town with whom he grew up. You might recall one scene where Jesus was teaching a crowd at a lakeshore and a man stood atop a boulder and said, "This man is Jesus, son of Joseph isn't he? We know his father and mother. How then does he now say that he 'came down from heaven'?"

Point taken. What Jesus actually meant was that he existed in heaven before his birth as a human being. He existed the way God has always existed, which means he was claiming to be equal with God--which, by the way, is the same as claiming to be God. And yet he came down from heaven to take to himself a human body and a human soul, and to be born into this world as an infant through a regular human mother. In other words: the Christmas story. The Son of God became the son of man so that he could live among the creatures that he himself made.

The question is whether this claim is true.

How can you know? It's impossible to have absolute, scientific proof about whether someone really has come from heaven, mainly because you are on the earth. You've never been to heaven. You don't know what heavenliness is like. You can't travel up there to investigate, to interview the beings who live there. The one claiming to be from heaven can only come down and try to convince you. He will try to reason with your earth-bound mind, give modest displays of his heavenly abilities without freaking you out too much, and demonstrate that no earthly powers--not evil, not suffering, not even death--can defeat him.

If that much credibility can be established, then the rest--the part that is beyond your mind to comprehend--can be taken on faith. Not a blind, wishful-thinking, stab-in-the-dark type faith, but a faith that is the natural trajectory of what reason, love, morality, sanity, gut and need are already telling you about the one who is making this claim.

Whether such faith can be demanded of us is something I'll talk about next time.

The voice of the other

In case the Prop. 8 results have convinced you that all Mormons are anti-gay fundies, here's a story in today's L.A. Times showing how one Mormon filmmaker took the teachings of Jesus more seriously than the pressures of his church.

"As a Mormon, I have a responsibility and commitment to listen to my church leaders," [Douglas Hunter] said. "At the same time, listening to my church leaders does not absolve me of the ethical responsibility to listen to the voice of the other."

Finding Jesus Christ: What he claimed about himself

Click here for an explanation about this series: "Finding Jesus Christ."

Now that you've watched The Gospel of John movie (see my recent post in this series), you've been exposed to the entire contents of the New Testament's Gospel of John word for word. I hope it was enlightening for you to hear the story about Jesus straight from the source. Just be aware that there are three other gospels in which other teachings and miracles of Jesus are recorded. We're going to stick with John for now because we've got to start somewhere.

At the very end of the movie we learn the reason why this story is called the Gospel of John. It is because one of the disciples, John, is the storyteller who claims to be giving an eyewitness report of Jesus' life on earth. (You may recall that he is guy the movie freeze-framed just before the credits rolled.)

So that's great. Another disciple of a charismatic leader makes fantastic claims about his leader's exploits, with the result that a lot of simple-minded, superstitious people buy into it and, behold, a religion is born!

Maybe. But I think what John reports about Jesus' teachings is utterly unique because of one important thing. According to John, Jesus' primary demand was that his followers believe in him, and believe the things he said about himself. That came across pretty clearly in the movie, didn't it? Jesus demanded that his followers believe that he came down from heaven. That is, that he preexisted his life as a human being. He also said that he was sent from heaven by God, whom he claimed was his Father. When you combine the sent-by-his-Father claim with the preexistence claim, you can only conclude that Jesus is claiming to be the Son of God with a capital "s."

In case you have doubts about whether you heard him right, you might also recall the scene where Jesus was teaching near the construction site. Workers were hanging off the scaffolding and handling loose stone. Jesus held up his hand amidst the crowd and said, "I am telling you the truth! Before Abraham was born . . . I am." People were enraged and sought to stone Jesus because he was quoting from a famous passage in the Old Testament, where God revealed himself to Moses as "I am." (Exodus 3:13-14) "I am" means "I am the one who simply exists. I never had a beginning and I won't have an end. I just am." It is a claim that can only be made by someone equal to God. That's why many of these devout Jews sought to kill Jesus for blasphemy.

These were the claims Jesus asked his followers to believe about himself. In doing so he made clear what kind of response he did not want. He did not want to be patronized. He did not want to go down in history as another mythological figure or patron saint about whom cute stories are told, so that people could say, "Well, who knows whether the stories are true, but that's beside the point! The point is that when I think of him I feel so much hope, so much love, so much inspiration!"

Jesus was not going to let people get away with that nonsense. He called them to a calm, sober belief in himself. And not an easy belief either. His followers had to believe that he was the revelation of God in human form, that his miracles testified to the truth of his identity, and that he not only raised others from the dead but in the end he raised himself. The challenge is the same for those who seek him today.

Criticizing "evangelicals"

Recently a couple of gay journalist friends, whose writings I read regularly, asked me if took offense whenever they publicly criticize "evangelicals" for being anti-gay. Should they be using a different term so that evangelicals like myself aren't included? What can they do to be more sensitive to my feelings when they talk about evangelicals in this way?

My response: Actually, I'm not offended. Go ahead and criticize "evangelicals" even though a few individuals like myself do identify with that term. The reason is, until we see evangelical leaders publicly repent of the slander and misinformation that they have perpetuated in our church circles about homosexuality the past few decades, and until we see leaders who are willing to lead a visible movement within evangelicalism to combat prejudice against gay and lesbian people, then I think evangelicals deserve to be criticized as a group.

Let me illustrate the problem as I see it. I've noticed that evangelical leaders have toned down some of their anti-gay rhetoric in recent times. For instance, I don't hear sermons proclaiming that "AIDS is the judgment of God on homosexuals" anymore. That's great. Now, does anybody care to give an explanation for why they've changed their tune? Is AIDS no longer God's judgment on homosexuals? What has changed about their interpretation of Romans 1:27 since 1989?

If you are one of those church leaders who hasn't changed your view but has toned down the rhetoric, are you just being politically correct and withholding from us the full counsel of God? And while you're explaining yourself, could you also explain how the current AIDS epidemic in Africa fits in with your view of Romans 1:27?

But if you have changed your views, how about explaining why? And how about making your explanation just as public as you used to make your condemnation of AIDS victims some years back? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of families in this country that have lost loved ones to AIDS, under the cloud of shame to which your sermons contributed, would probably like to hear such an explanation.

There are other examples. How about the claim that homosexuals are pedophiles? Or that homosexuals "recruit" because they can't have children of their own? Or that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice"? Evangelical leaders used to be so outspoken in making these claims. Some still are, but many aren't anymore. If that is you, why aren't you? Is it because you've changed, because you've repented of your slander? And if you have, why aren't you as outspoken about your change, and about the need for all of us to repent of the way we've sinned against the gay community by perpetuating these hurtful and destructive lies? Why aren't you making an effort to undo some of the damage you contributed to?

It's great that many evangelicals are beginning to realize that they need to change their attitude toward gays. They have more gay friends and acquaintances and are being forced to rethink old prejudices. But at the same time, since when are we justified in sinning loudly and repenting in secret? If we have spoken lies about our neighbor, aren't we obligated to make it right by being equally outspoken about the truth that would bring healing to those wounds?

For the most part, many of our evangelical leaders have taken the following tack: 1) Pretend you didn't publicly say all those horrific things against homosexuals in the past. 2) Quietly adjust and moderate your views without acknowledging your sin or apologizing to anyone. 3) Then get all indignant and offended when an outsider mistakes you as one of those anti-gay "extremists," even though that's exactly what you used to be not long ago.

Until our most visible evangelical leaders drop the old derriere-covering act and lead a significant movement of repentance in our midst, evangelicals do deserve to be portrayed as collectively anti-gay. Because wounding somebody deeply, then refusing to make apology or restitution to them is a form of hatred. It's not love, is it?

The Christian Bubble

Alan Ng, a fellow conservative Christian, reflects upon a future in which gay marriage is legal in California, and what it would mean for his children.

One thing that we can agree upon is that when gay marriage is finally legal, our children will be taught that same-sex marriage is just as normal as marriage between a man and a woman. Along with evolution, communism and liberalism, our Christian morals will come under attack once again. My response is SO WHAT!!!

Read the rest of Alan's excellent post on My Pal Al.

Finding Jesus Christ: "The Gospel of John," the movie

Click here for an explanation about this series: "Finding Jesus Christ."

Point, click here, and buy. That's all you have to do for today.

The movie "The Gospel of John" is what we'll be discussing in our "Finding Jesus Christ" series. This is a dramatic presentation of the actual word for word text of the Gospel of John of the New Testament. The narration, cast of characters and (at times extensive) dialogue is served straight-up. There is no politically correct editing out of Jesus' conflicts with the Jewish religious leaders, nor any embarrassed censoring of some of the bizarre claims that Jesus made ("I am telling you the truth! Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves."). You can open up the actual Gospel text and literally follow the movie all the way through chapter by chapter. The film also manages to steer clear of Mel-Gibson-type emotional manipulation or Oliver-Stone-type speculation. You are left with plenty of room to come to your own conclusion about Jesus, his claims and his life.

All the actors' performances must be based upon some kind of interpretation of their characters, of course. But these performances, in my opinion, stay within the bounds of being both appropriately restrained and yet emotionally compelling. Normally I could never sit through a performance of Jesus by an actor, but Henry Ian Cusick's portrayal here is the first I've seen that I am genuinely pleased with.

You may be wondering whether the dialogue will be in some unfathomable kind of Shakespearean English ("Say not ye, there are yet four months and then cometh harvest? Behold!"). Rest easy. They used a modern English translation that was taken from a version of the Bible called The Good News Bible. You'll be able to follow what's going on just fine.

I'm guessing the movie will take about twelve days to arrive at your house by standard shipping, and it'll take another week before you get around to watching it. That means we can start discussing "The Gospel of John" in about three weeks. Talk to you then.

Finding Jesus Christ: What do you seek?

Click here for an explanation about this series: "Finding Jesus Christ."

I had planned to delve into the Gospel of John right away, but I just realized there is something important I need to mention first. Before you embark on a venture as serious as finding Jesus Christ, it is critical that you first look inward ask yourself why you want to bother. I'm talking about motives. What's your reason? What brings you here?

As we begin looking at this Gospel account of Jesus' life and ministry, we will soon discover that Jesus weighed the motives of those who sought him out. He did not waste time with people who came to him with an agenda. That is, people who only wanted him to do stuff for them. Jesus wanted people to seek him to learn the truth about who he was. He wanted them to follow him only because they believed he was the person he claimed to be.

Seeking the truth is different from wanting to be right. It is different from wanting to prove someone else wrong, such as your mother, or the religious right, or your former pastor. It is also far different from wanting to clean up your life or feel better about yourself. If you decide to follow Jesus your life may or may not get cleaned up, and I can guarantee that you certainly aren't going to feel better about yourself.

The only good reason to seek Jesus Christ is that you want to know the truth about him. Desire for the truth is like an ache inside of you. You think it will go away over time but instead it just grows. Maybe it grows because you're getting sick of everything: of your life, of most of the people in your life, and maybe even of yourself. You don't dare tell anybody, of course. But you are getting to the place where you want some answers to the questions that are making you ache, and you no longer care about where it leads you or what the consequences will be or what you may suffer as result of finding out those answers.

You want to know with all your heart: Is Jesus the "answer" that I'm looking for?

Finding Jesus Christ: Intro

To kick off the New Year I'm planning to start a new thread of posts for this blog. For anyone gay or lesbian who feels alienated from the church, yet who nevertheless desires to investigate the teachings and claims of Jesus Christ for the first time, I will try to point you to accessible resources or give simple advice on how you can go about learning what it means to be a follower of Christ. It's not all I'll be blogging about this year. With Proposition 8 coming before the CA Supreme Court this spring, there will be plenty else to talk about. I just plan to intersperse posts on this particular topic for the benefit of those who are interested.

Normally churches are the main resource for dispensing spiritual advice. But given how uninvolved conservative churches are in reaching out to gays, and the fact that many liberal churches are more involved in social activism than in serious Bible study, I figure this is a need that has to be met in some small way. Regrettably, a modest blog like this one is no replacement for the friendship, loving care and collective wisdom that a local church congregation can provide. I believe that ideally one's Christian faith ought to be centered around the life of the church. I don't know what to say to gay people who are seeking to know Jesus Christ, yet find themselves excluded and turned away by Christ's own followers. It is a sad contradiction. And even as I embark on this blogging commitment, I know that whatever friendship and advice I have to offer is an extremely poor substitute for being taught, loved, prayed for and embraced by the actual body of Christ. I believe that someday things will change. In the meantime we have to make do.

In my next post I'll talk about the Gospel of John, how you can get started there in understanding Jesus' life, ministry and teachings. Stay tuned.

* * * * *

Click here to read all the posts in this series.

A church that did it right

When I look at the current mess we're in, I take comfort in knowing at least one church did it right this election season, and I'm happy to report that it's the one I attend.

Our church is a conservative congregation in a Reformed denomination. We are Calvinists. In our worship services we sing mainly traditional hymns with a few modern tunes thrown in here and there. I would guess that most members are Republican. But then, I wouldn't know exactly because politics is not an obsessive topic of conversation at our gatherings. We are much more concerned about caring for one another and keeping up with each other's lives: someone battling cancer, an infant undergoing surgery, a difficult pregnancy, a death in someone's family.

My pastor has never preached a sermon on Proposition 8 or even once mentioned it from the pulpit. I have no idea how he voted on Prop. 8 and I don't care to know. I have no doubt that his silence was a conscious decision to honor the church as a spiritual institution and to respect the consciences of his congregants.

Likewise, I never took it upon myself to bring up Prop. 8 with anyone in church, never sent out a group email to my church friends pushing my views, never asked anyone how they planned to vote. Many people at my church don't even know about this blog, and those who do have no obligation to read it as far as I'm concerned. I suppose I can't take full credit for my restraint. It just never occurred to me to do otherwise. I think it is because I have been unconsciously following the leadership of my pastor and elders who have diligently kept all political talk out of our worship services. When I'm at church I become focused on spiritual things. I become aware that I have left the things of the world behind to unite with my spiritual family in Jesus Christ.

That doesn't mean I have shied away from giving my political opinions when church friends have approached me with questions. I remember one Sunday in particular, it was three weeks before election day when the pro-Prop. 8 campaign sent out a slew of amazingly nasty mailers. Out of the blue and all at once, I had numerous people seek me out during our fellowship/refreshments break for my take on Prop. 8.

That's when I learned how diverse our congregation was on this issue. A surprising number of people told me they were voting no. Others said they were genuinely torn. Even for the ones who ended up voting yes, this was no light matter, no small struggle of conscience. Just the struggle encouraged me. It is again a credit to my pastor. His silence from the pulpit gave people room to struggle and soul search. He did not obliterate the complexities of this issue and attempt to bind people's consciences with authoritative calls for obedience to God and loyalty to church. None of us felt like our relationship to him or to any of our brothers and sisters in Christ would be imperiled by making an unpopular voting decision.

If only more church leaders took care to treat their congregation members as citizens of a heavenly kingdom, and left them alone to figure out how to vote as citizens of this passing earthly society. Our witness to the world would be immensely brighter.

Believe it or not, there is nothing that most gay and lesbian people want more than to see the church acting like the church should. They know the world to be a hostile, lonely, and oppressive place and that the church is supposed to be a beacon of hope and light. I am leery of the anger that is fueling the current protests and I fear it will lead to increasingly worse behavior. But I also know the anger wouldn't be so bitter if it weren't an expression of people's disillusionment with the church and its leaders. It is a disillusionment that once hoped, that expected better, and now vows to never hope in us again.

Suffering as Christians or as meddlers?

Consider my husband's recent post in which he examines the meaning of "troublesome meddler" in 1 Peter 4:15. Are our churches really being "persecuted" right now by the anti-Prop. 8 protesters? Or are we simply seeing the consequences of our own disobedience to God's scriptural command to take care that we do not suffer as meddling moralists?

By no means let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or troublesome meddler [NASB footnote reads: "one who oversees others' affairs"]; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God. (1 Peter 4:15-16)

Again, just asking.

At what cost?

In spite of a smear campaign by the Christian Right that was so vicious and boldly dishonest it appeared to take even gay activists by surprise, Prop. 8 won by only a narrow margin of 52% to 48% this year. Compare that with the victory of Prop. 22 eight years ago by the huge margin of 61% to 38%.

I myself voted for Prop. 22 in 2000. I'm one of those voters who swung to the other side, accounting for the nine point gain we are seeing now. Despite the fear-mongering, lies, misinformation, prejudice, ignorance, and yes, sincerely held religious beliefs that homosexual unions go against the moral teaching of the Bible (which I myself hold to), 48 percent of Californians somehow waded through all that and saw a simple truth: when it is placed in your hands to vote on somebody else's marriage, somebody else's life, somebody else's dreams, have the decency to let them be.

The pro-Prop. 8 campaign may have won, but at what cost? As I've done my own amateur research into the claims this campaign has made and the propaganda they've disseminated, the majority of it appears to me to have been constructed from an editing and pasting job that I can only describe as a deliberate deception of the public. Let me put it this way. If I were in charge of writing those campaign mailers, I would have had to engage in a level of maliciousness and calculated dishonesty that would, in my view, render my Christian profession of faith utterly meaningless. I might win the campaign, yet I'd have to sell my soul to do it.

So was it worth it? Guys?

Rising above the culture war

The past couple of weeks I was feeling somewhat frustrated that the anti-Prop. 8 campaign hasn't done more to answer the lies and misrepresentations of the opposition. It only takes a little research to refute each claim, and anyone who's been reading this blog the last two weeks has gotten a sample of my amateur findings. So why hasn't the No-On-Prop-8 campaign done more to respond to the accusations of the religious right?

Then I came to realize something. The anti-Prop. 8 campaign is not about screaming, accusing, and engaging their opponents in a fruitless, all-out shouting match. They are not trying to twist our arms, convince us of their moral views, or make us feel guilty or obligated. Instead they are appealing to our decency, and in doing so they demonstrate how much more respect they have for us than the other side.

The anti-Prop. 8 campaign is simply asking us to do what is fair and right. They are assuming that we already know a friend, family member, or acquaintance who is gay. They are assuming that whatever disagreements we may have with that gay or lesbian person, we ought to be intelligent enough and fair-minded enough to realize that he or she deserves to be treated as an equal member of our society. And they are trusting that when the critical time comes, when no one is looking, when we are alone in the booth with our ballots and our consciences and no one's eyes upon us but God's, we will do the right thing.

In other words, the anti-Prop. 8 campaign has been making a tremendous effort to rise above the culture-war ugliness even as the pro-Prop. 8 campaign has been attacking them with all the usual tactics from the playbook of 1985. Aren't the differences between these two campaigns telling? The fact is, the gay rights movement has grown up and gone to college, while the religious right continues to roam the playground looking for someone to bully. After all, it's the grown-ups who want to get married. The adolescents, with their limited imaginations, sneer at talk of committed love, always thinking it has be a cover for some baser agenda.

The whole first-grade-field-trip-to-gay-wedding deal

I'm sure you've heard of the latest hype about "First Graders Taken to San Fransciso City Hall for Gay Wedding." A pro-Prop. 8 mailer I received yesterday says:

Just recently in San Francisco, first grade students were taken on a school-sponsored field trip to a gay wedding. The school's principal called it 'a teachable moment.' Gay marriage WILL be taught in California public schools if we don't pass Proposition 8.

A public school took a first grade class to see a gay wedding to indoctrinate children on the moral equivalence between gay and straight marriages! We have to vote for Prop. 8 or else this practice will become widespread!

Breathe, breathe. All right, now let's consider some facts that will help us better understand what was going on here:

1. The wedding the children attended was for their school teacher, Erin Carder, who was marrying her partner, Kerri McCoy.

2. The field trip was not arranged by the teacher or the school principal. It was arranged by one of the parents, with the school's permission.

3. The trip was meant to be a surprise for Ms. Carder. The students took a Muni bus then walked a block to City Hall. They surprised their teacher by blowing bubbles and throwing rose petals as she and her partner emerged from City Hall, then they mobbed Ms. Carder with hugs.

4. It appears that some of the parents attended the wedding with their children. Take a look at these photos and decide for yourself.

5. As with all school field trips, parents have a right to opt their children out. Two families did.

6. The school is Creative Arts Charter School. I think of charter schools as sort of a hybrid between a public and private school. Like a public school they are government funded, but like a private school they are allowed a certain amount of freedom to chart their own educational course. Creative Arts Charter School uses innovative teaching methods, relies heavily on parental involvement (parents are required to volunteer 40 hours a year at the school) and refers to experience-based learning as "a teachable moment" (a phrase that is mocked by the pro-Prop. 8 mailer). They are a small, community-based, K-8 school with only eleven classroom teachers and less than 200 students. In other words, they are far from your typical public school.

So . . . will voting for Prop. 8 prevent charter school parents from arranging surprise field trips to the weddings of well-loved first grade teachers? The difference is maybe a parent will arrange for the school kids to surprise their teacher at her civil-union ceremony instead of her wedding ceremony. Is it worth amending the state constitution to deny an entire segment of the California population their marriage rights to achieve this difference? Just asking.

Rebuttal to pro-Prop. 8 campaign claims . . . by a Mormon

Here I've been sinking the few hours of the day I have left in my schedule into investigating the claims of the pro-Proposition 8 campaign, and someone has already done it for me!

Morris Thurston is an active member of the Mormon church, a graduate of BYU and Harvard Law School, and a recently retired senior partner of a global law firm. He is every bit as interested in the preservation of religious freedom as many of us are. But he is also very concerned that the falsehoods and misrepresentations of the pro-Prop.8 campaign will tarnish the reputation of his church, which has contributed heavily to this campaign.

Check out his sensible, readable essay:

"A Commentary on the Document 'Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails.'"

If only more religious conservatives were equally concerned about integrity. Should Proposition 8 pass this coming November 4, just remember how many Christians blindly supported the lies, misrepresentations and shameless scare tactics it took to make it happen. Then please, try to make an effort to temper your righteous indignation against gays and lesbians when your attempt to share with them the message of Christ's grace, love and forgiveness is met with hostile rejection.

Our Lord Jesus calls us to adorn his gospel with lives of humility, integrity and love for the truth, yet we are willing to sell that sacred calling for a mess of pottage to satisfy our earthly craving for political and social supremacy. We are willing to win the earthly battle and yet lose the war for people's souls. How did we manage to get so far afield?

Will gay marriage threaten the tax exempt status of churches?

To recap, I received a pro-Prop. 8 mailer containing all sorts of scary talk about how the legalization of gay marriage will strip Christians of their religious freedoms across the board. I've been looking into the cases listed in the mailer one by one to determine whether the threat to our religious freedom is real. Here's the next one on the list:

Same-sex marriage threatens tax exempt status of churches. The Methodist Church's Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey was stripped of its tax-exempt status for part of its property after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property.

Wow. A lesbian couple demanded to be married in a Methodist church, the church refused, and for that it was stripped of its tax exempt rights! How frightening that churches will now be forced to accommodate gay and lesbian couples who demand, upon threat of lawsuit, to be married in our sanctuaries!

Before we have a collective heart attack, let's take a look at the pavilion in question:



This is an open-air pavillion on a beach boardwalk that overlooks the Atlantic Ocean. The locals understand that it is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA) which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. But the locals also understand this property to be open to public use. While it is used for worship services, Bible studies, gospel choir performances, it has also been open to the public for weddings and other events and generally provides refuge for pedestrians and beach-goers looking for a place to rest.



So you can see why one of the major considerations in the State of New Jersey's decision in this case was whether this pavillion was for public or private use based on its history. "Evaluating these matters under the appropriate section of the LAD [Law Against Discrimination]. . . will require a determination as to whether Respondent's pavillion rental is a public accommodation subject to the LAD's anti-discrimination provisions, or is exempt as a program which is distinctly private." Notice how the State is ready to recognize exemptions from LAD provisions in cases where the property is private. The problem is, OGCMA couldn't demonstrate that the use of these facilities was distinctly private.

Even weirder was that the State had trouble determining whether OGCMA is even a religious organization. While acknowledging that the state Supreme Court had at one time confirmed the OGCMA's religious status in a case some thirty years ago, "evidence of subsequent changes, such as those relating to the Respondent's relationship with and funding by government entities, may demonstrate that Respondent is no longer a religious organization."

I looked into this "relationship" a bit. First of all, OGCMA doesn't just own the pavillion, but much of Ocean Grove's choicest beach property including, apparently, 1000 feet of the ocean. Furthermore, within the last two decades OGCMA has lobbied U.S. Representative Frank Pallone (D-Monmouth) for state and federal funds to have their property repaired. This includes $250,000 in state funding to replace the roof of the Great Auditorium and federal funds to repair the Ocean Grove boardwalk after a 1992 storm. While all this government money was rolling in, they also successfully secured tax exempt status for themselves as if they were just like any other private religious organization. So which are they? A public or a private organization? Rep. Frank Pallone stated, "They've taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public."

Sure, the pro-Prop. 8 mailer correctly reports that OGCMA was "stripped of its tax-exempt status" as a result of this civil union lawsuit. But that's because the OGCMA was getting away with enjoying the benefits of government funding and tax-exempt status at the same time. All the State did was decide, in view of this lawsuit, which side of the line the OGCMA should properly fall.

Sounds fair to me. But instead of giving you the facts, the pro-Prop. 8 mailer would have you believe that this lawsuit unjustly stripped a church organization of its rightful tax-exempt status in favor of the homosexual agenda. That just isn't so.

Frantic pro-Prop. 8 mailers

Twenty-five million dollars have been spent to boost an enormous campaign in favor of Prop. 8 here in California. I just got one of their mailers yesterday. The rhetoric comes off as truly frightening to all church-going, child-raising, conservative-value-cherishing Californians. Activist judges are out of control. Children will be indoctrinated in the second grade. Churches will be stripped of their rights. It goes on and on.

Except I keep seeing stuff on the mailer that contradicts known facts. For instance, you open it up to this headline:

In May of this year, four activist judges on the Supreme Court in San Francisco ignored four million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California. Their ruling means it is no longer about 'tolerance.'

Hmm. One problem is they fail to mention that three out of four of these "activist judges" were appointed by Republican governors. These "activist judges" are:

Chief Justice Ronald M. George--Gov. Wilson (Republican), 1991
Assoc. Justice Joyce L. Kennard--Gov. Deukmejian (Republican), 1989
Assoc. Justice Carlos R. Moreno--Gov. Davis (Democrat), 2001
Assoc. Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar--Gov. Wilson (Republican), 1994

They also fail to mention that before this ruling, the California state legislature had already voted twice in favor of full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The legislature took the lead on this one, not "judicial activism." And since California state law had already granted gay and lesbian domestic partners all the legal benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the court's decision was simply about whether there was any constitutional reason to deny the label of "marriage" to such couples. Three out of the six conservative-appointed judges on the CA Supreme Court apparently thought there wasn't.

Then there's this claim on the flyer:

Same-sex marriage threatens the education of our children. After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, public schools began to teach school children about gay marriage. After second graders were read a story in which a prince married another prince, some parents complained. A court ruled that they had NO RIGHT to withdraw their children from classes that taught gay marriage. And since California law already provides children as young as kindergarten be taught about marriage, gay marriage will be taught in our schools too!

Sounds scary, right? So scary that you forget that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with educational policy in public schools. At all. It's about whether gay civil unions, which are already recognized by the state of California as equivalent to marriage relationships in just about every legal aspect except in name, should be called "marriages."

But what about down the road? What if inappropriate sex education gets taught to our children in public schools? I don't know about Massachusetts law, but the California Education Code says parents have every right to excuse their children from public school sex education. Read it for yourself:

Article 5. Education Code sections 51937, 51938—
Notice and Parental Excuse
Many of the parent notification requirements from the prior sex education and HIV/AIDS instruction codes have been retained and moved to this section. Education Code Section 51938 retains a parent's right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS instruction and any assessments related to that education. Parents are to be notified:

• about instruction that is planned for the coming year in comprehensive sexual health education, HIV/AIDS prevention education, and research on pupil health behaviors and risks. This notification is to be at the beginning of the school year or at the time of enrollment for a new student.
• that written and audiovisual materials are available for inspection
• if instruction will be taught by school district personnel or outside consultants
• of their right to request a copy of this chapter
• that they may request in writing that their child not receive comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS instruction

But what if the California Education Code changes to strip parents of these rights? Well, obviously that's the time to start screaming and hollering about "our rights" as parents and sending out panicky mailers about the "threat to the education of our children." The thing not to do is to send out mailers implying that parents will have "NO RIGHT" to withdraw their children from sex education classes, when in fact they currently do have that right in very explicit terms.

There's more misleading stuff on the mailer I'd like to talk about, but I've got to pick up my oldest kid from public school now. More on this later.

Freedom is a Republican value

Cool ad.

Prop. 8: "It's about the children"

So while I was sitting in my minivan yesterday waiting to pick up my oldest daughter from middle school, I was trying to understand an editorial by David Blankenhorn in Friday's L.A. Times on why gay marriage would have a negative impact on kids. In "Protecting Marriage to Protect Children," Blankenhorn starts by saying, "I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together." Well, I'm intrigued. Maybe Mr. Blankenhorn can enlighten me using his liberal Democrat point of view. Shed some new light on the subject.

I read the editorial twice over. The second time I really combed through it, underlining, even slowing my eyes down to study his arguments word by word, and still I wasn't exactly sure what points Mr. Blankenhorn was attempting to make. Was I missing something? I'll put them down line for line and maybe you can tell me.

[M]arriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children . . .

[T]he anthropologist Henry Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce."

Presumably, Mr. Blankenhorn is aware that the entire debate we're having here in California over Proposition 8 is whether gay marriage should be legally recognized. This is not a philosophical discussion about marriage ideals. This is a debate over whether to grant or withhold marriage rights from a certain segment of the California population. Given that context, Blankenhorn sounds like he believes that the marriages of all couples who are biologically incapable of producing children (including: the man or woman is sterile, or the woman is past childbearing years) should not be legally recognized. I don't think he is seriously suggesting that, but that's certainly the direction of his logic.

Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood--biological, social and legal--into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you . . .

In 2002 . . . a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

I agree that this is a beautiful ideal. I had it in my family as a child. My three children have it now. But, as we all know, it's not possible for all children to have that. Now, if we are serious about passing laws to minimize these less-than-ideal child-rearing situations, we should start by outlawing divorce. Such a law would make great strides in ensuring that "the man and the woman whose sexual union made [the child] will also be there to love and raise [the child]," wouldn't it? But again, I don't think Mr. Blankenhorn is serious about following through on his own logic.

Let's look at this from another angle. According to Blankenhorn, Child Trends says that the ideal family structure for raising children is "two biological parents and a low-conflict marriage." That means, in theory, a stable married gay couple who, let's say, adopts a child would provide a better family structure than a divorced single mother who shares custody of her child with her ex on the weekends. The household of the stable married gay couple would fulfill the "two parent" requirement, the "low-conflict" requirement and the "marriage" requirement. The household of the divorced single mother who still has to deal with her ex on the weekends would fulfill only the "biological" requirement and fails on the "two-parent," the "low-conflict" and the "marriage" requirements. By Child Trends' standards, the theoretical stable gay married couple is far more preferable to the single divorced mother.

So why aren't we voting on a proposition to penalize divorced single mothers, since they can't provide the ideal family structure according to Child Trends? The answer is, because this is America, not communist China. In this country we don't use the law to penalize someone because he or she fails to live up to everyone else's utopian ideals.

And, I might add, we also know too many divorced single mothers who have successfully raised well-adjusted kids. Why not give gay couples the same chance?

[C]hildren have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world . . .

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one.

Every child has a "right" to be raised by both biological parents, says Blankenhorn. This is where he really loses me.

When I picture a gay married couple raising children, I think of four different scenarios. 1) The children are biologically related to one partner from a previous heterosexual marriage. (One biological parent, one stepparent.) 2) The children are adopted. (Both are adoptive parents.) 3) A child being raised by a lesbian couple was conceived by implanting donated sperm into the womb of one partner. (One biological parent, one stepparent.) 4) A child being raised by a gay male couple was conceived by implanting the sperm of one partner into the womb of a surrogate mother. (One biological parent, one stepparent.)

Plenty of straight parents have or acquire children through these means. Plenty of straights are also involved in raising children who are not biologically their own. Besides stepparents and adoptive parents, there are also godparents and grandparents who step in to help raise a child where one parent is deadbeat, deceased, etc.

Shall we penalize all these people, whether gay or straight, because they are "denying" the child his right to be raised by two biological parents? What on earth does Blankenhorn mean by that anyhow? You could rephrase Blankenhorn's statement as follows:

"Every child being raised by a stepparent, adoptive parent, godparent or grandparent is being denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one."

At best it's a dismal take on the situation. At worst it's an insult to the people who are unselfishly devoting themselves to the child's well-being. Someone who isn't even their own biological child.

I thought that people who weren't the biological parents of a child, yet still took on the responsibility of giving him love, attention, discipline, security and provision, ought to be commended for doing a noble thing. I thought that people who wanted children so badly they would go as far as adopting a child, using cutting edge medical procedures, or risking hiring a surrogate mother showed tremendous promise for being committed and enthusiastic parents.

I have an odd feeling that the real answer is, if you're straight you can be a noble, committed and enthusiastic parent. But if you're gay you are only capable of denying a child his "birthright."

* * * * * *
I know at this point you're expecting me to list more of Blankenhorn's arguments. But really, that's it. Read the article for yourself and let me know if I've missed any other profound insights from the liberal Democrat on why I should oppose gay marriage. For myself, I can think of plenty of socially conservative, even Christian reasons why I should support it. I think I'll stick with those.

Ray Boltz's story

A friend sent me a link to this interesting article in the Washington Blade. I've never been a CCM fan so I can't say I knew the name, but apparently Ray Boltz is right up there with the likes of Sandi Patty and Steven Curtis Chapman. His journey to coming out as gay is, unfortunately, typical of many people I know. He was married for 33 years and has four children. He hated himself for his homosexuality and endured decades of pain, of hiding, and of fear. Although he never formally joined an ex-gay group, he tried all their methods. “I basically lived an ‘ex-gay’ life — I read every book, I read all the scriptures they use, I did everything to try and change.”

Boltz speaks for many, many people who have been down the same path. The difference is that he is a celebrated name in Christian circles, and evangelicals can be brutal when their idols disappoint them.

Says Boltz:

I don’t want to be a spokesperson, I don’t want to be a poster boy for gay Christians, I don’t want to be in a little box on TV with three other people in little boxes screaming about what the Bible says, I don’t want to be some kind of teacher or theologian — I’m just an artist and I’m just going to sing about what I feel and write about what I feel and see where it goes.

Sample lyrics from one of his recent songs:

I was so good at pretending/like an actor on a stage/but in the end nobody knew me/only the roles that I portrayed/and I would rather have you hate me/knowing who I really am/than to try and make you love me/being something that I can’t (from “God Knows I Tried”).

Boltz isn't the first Christian singer to come out, though he may be the most famous. Kirk Talley, a Southern Gospel singer, came out in 2005. The Washington Blade tried to interview Talley for their story on Ray Boltz but he declined, offering only one comment:

"I will definitely be in prayer for Ray," he said in an e-mail. "He has no idea the crap he will have to endure."

Post-trip let down

I haven't forgotten about you guys. I even got started on a couple of posts for this blog, which I've left incomplete for now. But it's not just this blog that's suffering neglect. I have friends I'm supposed to email back, or get back in touch with, or get together with, and I've been slow to follow through.

I think it's because the Cambodia trip is still eating at me. This summer my husband and I went on a short term missions trip to Cambodia for ten days, my first missions trip since I was in college in 1987. Ever since that first trip in '87, I've wanted to go back. The past twenty-one years I've invested a lot of time thinking and educating myself about foreign missions. I thought finally getting the chance to go to Cambodia would reignite a desire for missionary work and give me clearer direction about when and where that would take place.

Instead I've come back feeling less excited about it than before, and I guess I didn't expect I'd feel that way. I'm not less enthusiastic about missionary work itself. I understand the tremendous needs out there and saw them firsthand. I was inspired by the missionary workers I met who have given up everything to dedicate themselves to this task. For most of my life I've half expected that I'd be called upon to make those sacrifices myself. But now, after this trip, I'm no longer sure that God is confirming that path for me.

Twenty-one years is a lot of build-up to come to a conclusion like this, so right now I'm feeling a bit of a let down. But it helps to confront the hard facts of the situation, writing it down here, so that I can start making some progress in moving forward. Maybe when more of that progress is made, I'll feel up to writing again.

Posthumous Oscar for Ledger?

Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight was outstanding. There are even rumors that he might be considered for a posthumous Oscar. I think that would be terrific, of course, but not without mixed feelings.

The year Ledger was nominated for Best Actor for his performance in Brokeback Mountain, I heard from reliable opinions that Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance in Capote that year (which I didn't see) happened to top his. I could accept that.

But for the Academy to award Best Picture to Crash instead of Brokeback Mountain was, to my mind, pure cowardice. The Academy nominated the Brokeback cast for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress, and didn't give the award to any of the three. That must mean that, given that the collective performance of the cast was so exceptional, by the Academy's own admission, not the mention the obvious impact the film was making among the general public and the social relevance of the issues being raised, it all points to a best picture of the year, right? Any other picture carrying those credentials would be an obvious shoo-in for the award. Except, it turns out, a picture that tells the truth about being homosexual in America.

Since Crash won Best Picture two and a half years ago, do you hear anyone talking about it? Any memorable scenes recalled? Any truly memorable performances? When someone says "Crash" you think they're talking about their commute home from work. When someone says "Brokeback" everyone knows what they're talking out.

All things considered it makes me wonder if Heath Ledger ever had a chance at winning the Oscar, Philip Seymour Hoffman notwithstanding. I wouldn't be surprised if the Academy viewed Hoffman as a godsend that year. If Ledger wins an Oscar this time around, posthumously, that would be great. But it also leaves me with the sad feeling that the honor came too late, and on a picture that, overall, isn't nearly the achievement that Brokeback was.

Back from Cambodia

Phnom Penh was an amazing, exciting, crazy place to be staying for ten days. Geckos crawled the walls inside the houses and restaurants. People set up shop any place they could find on the shoulder of the road--all you need is a cart and some merchandise. And no traffic rules applied, such as: what lane you're supposed to be in, what side of the road you're supposed to drive on, and whether red means stop or green means go. As far as we could tell the only traffic rule that applied in Phnom Penh was, Do what you need to do to get there.

The Cambodian people are friendly, gentle, easy-going souls. They graciously tried to understand my Khmer and gave me pronunciation pointers on my vowels. (There are more than 40 different vowel sounds in Khmer, the most of any language in the world.)

Using a translator, I taught a discipleship-type class for Christian women from Monday to Friday the week I was there. Going in, I was under the impression that my students would be at a more basic level. But as I began teaching them I quickly realized they were much more advanced, and I had to rework all my lessons to make them adequately challenging.

They wanted to know why the clean and unclean food laws from the Old Testament changed after Jesus' coming. They wanted to understand the Trinity. They wanted to know why good people suffered and evil people prospered in this life. All really good questions. They were questions that I had thought of before, and the more I answered the more questions they asked. Before I knew it, it was Friday.

I only wish I had more than just one week to spend with those Christian women. But whatever my longing, I have to accept the shortness of my stay. I had seen enough to know that the Holy Spirit is working in the lives of those believers, and it was my privilege to be able to stop in briefly and enjoy fellowshipping with them in our common faith.

Off to Cambodia

I'm off to Cambodia tomorrow morning. I spent a year and a half trying to learn Khmer just for this ten-day trip, and yet I feel like I know hardly anything. Since not many people know Khmer, I thought I might be able to connect with the Cambodian people more quickly if I at least made an effort to learn their language.

Otherwise I will be relying on a translator. I'll be giving five lectures at a Christian women's conference on how to grow in your relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. I'll also be sharing the gospel with women in the rural villages who are mostly illiterate.

From everything I've heard, the Cambodian people are a cheerful and resilient people in spite of the horrors they suffered during the Pol Pot massacre in the 70's. Going into that context carrying Jesus' message of forgiveness and of redemption through suffering, I can't say I feel entirely adequate. If there are Cambodian Christians who have learned to forgive the past and have managed to find redeeming value in their sufferings, they are the true message bearers. I'm sure I'll come away feeling more blessed by them than the other way around.

AFA bizarreness

A friend points me to a story about the bizarre editing practices of the American Family Association. Anyone ever heard of "auto-replace"? I think I'll turn it over to The Carpetbagger Report to explain . . .

The auto-corrected version of the article can be found here.

Reporting live from California

I thought I should report to all of you who might have been concerned that even though gay and lesbian couples have been getting married all day here in California, my own heterosexual marriage is currently in good and stable condition. Today has been largely uneventful. My husband went to work, worked, and came back from work. I cooked dinner while he played with the kids in the yard. I served honey Dijon chicken breast, braised carrots and salad. We enjoyed dinner then watched the Laker game. In disgust he just now walked out the door to run an errand, not because his marriage has been redefined but because the Lakers are trailing the Celtics by 29 points. So things are pretty normal around here, and I do believe our marriage will pull through. But thanks, everyone, for your concern.

Sunday School class, part two

I felt burnt out from my studies after finishing the second and final Sunday School class three weeks ago. And yet as soon as the class ended I had to hit the computer again to write a series of five lectures (different topic) in preparation for a Cambodia missions trip next month. No rest for the weary.

Hence, this late report on how the second class went. It was a more practical class than the first. I talked about understanding where gay and lesbian people are coming from, the ways in which we often talk past each other, and how to communicate about our Christian beliefs without sounding like a religious right fanatic.

I explained that one complicating factor is that gay people divide roughly into two groups on the question of how to evaluate their own orientation. Which group any given person is a part of changes entirely how I understand and relate to them. I've found that people can look at their homosexuality in two ways:

1. Some people focus on the fact that their sexual feelings and attraction are not oriented toward the "right" sex. They have always felt that there is something about them that has gone awry, and their conscience, the pressures of society and the teachings of religion seem to confirm this perception. People who view their homosexuality in this way often come from a religious, conservative or ethnic background. More liberal-minded gays often dismiss them as self-haters, weaklings who have failed to stand up to social oppression. This may be the case with some, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that there are others who believe they are simply following the convictions of their conscience. In other words, even if the pressures of family, society and the church could be shoved aside, many people would still feel something is wrong with being homosexual. It is easier for the average conservative Christian to relate to people from this group because Christians can appeal to the idea of sin and the fallen state of human beings when talking to them.

2. On the other hand, there are other people who choose to focus more on the fact that their sexual feelings and attraction are an expression of love, which they say is no less real than heterosexual love. The fact that their sexual orientation happens to be directed toward the same sex is a less critical issue to them. Whether they think their same-sex orientation is a morally neutral or morally troubling phenomenon, to them the more weighty issue is pursuing a loving relationship. Love is among the highest of moral virtues--so healing and beneficial to yourself and the person you love. Loving and being loved makes you whole. How can this be harmful to society? Conservative Christians dismiss this group as depraved and hard-hearted because they celebrate with "gay pride" the very thing Christians view as sin. But it's hardly fair to assume people are "celebrating sin" when they believe they are just celebrating love. Conservative Christians may have a serious moral disagreement with them, but going as far as calling them "depraved" only shuts down the conversation altogether.

I remember when I was a kid my dad used to tell me, "There's a difference between saying 'I understand' and 'I agree.' I may understand you but not agree with you." Dad isn't a Christian, but I think his advice is apropos for Christians who want to be effective witnesses in the world today.

From my experience it never hurts to understand where the other side is coming from. It might only hurt if hearing a different viewpoint upsets you to the point of shaking your faith, in which case you should definitely bail. But if you are a mature Christian, if you are secure in your own personal moral life and you know what your limits are, having a conversation with someone who sees things differently than you shouldn't imperil your soul. I view listening as an act of kindness. It is just taking to heart the advice from James 1:19-20, "But let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger. For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God."

Running low

Opponents of same-sex civil marriage will need to present Californians with a convincing argument for voting in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage this November. But as this Bill O'Reilly interview shows, they're running low on ideas.

(HT: Andrew Sullivan)

Last Sunday's class

My Sunday school class went really well this past week, and I've been so busy preparing for the next class I forgot I was leaving you guys hanging. Sorry!

My goal was to present my understanding of homosexuality to the class, so that later on we can discuss how Christians can do a better job of loving and understanding their gay friends, family members and acquaintances. I presented the homosexual orientation as both a fallen and yet unchosen condition, a definition that stays true to both biblical teaching and people's experiences. It is in accord with Augustine's view of original sin that is further expounded upon in the Westminster Standards' Larger Catechism, to which our denomination (the PCA) subscribes.

But it's not enough to present abstract doctrines and theological definitions. I also read from the testimonies of two gay men who were professing Christians who talked about what it was like to grow up with the dawning awareness that they were homosexual. To me this was the centerpiece of the class, because if you haven't heard people describe it for themselves, you can never fully appreciate what people mean when they say, "I didn't choose this." I don't know how people in the class felt about those testimonies, but everyone listened in a respectful silence.

The question and answer time went on for 30 minutes. No one was hostile, everyone was trying to think and understand. Maybe the reason it all went so well was because our church is very young. The vast majority of members are in their 20's and 30's.

People wanted to know if these testimonies were typical to most gay people's experiences. One guy mentioned off-hand that he didn't have a problem with the CA Supreme Court's recent decision, and wanted to know how Christians can distance themselves from the "religious right" image. We talked about celibacy, what that was like for people, how the church might support someone who makes that decision for him- or herself. Someone brought up Joseph Nicolosi, not to bring up ex-gay ministries but to ask whether Nicolosi's theories about child-rearing could prevent kids from becoming gay. (I said I had never seen any convincing evidence to support his theories.)

Before we broke up, I asked the class whether they wanted me to explain about ex-gay ministries next time, or if they just wanted me to move forward with how to talk to and befriend someone who is gay. I was offering to read some ex-gay testimonies and explain how they related to what we had just talked about in class. One guy said, "Skip it" and I saw a lot of heads nod. To me that was the most surprising thing about last Sunday's class. Is the younger generation of conservative Christians becoming more skeptical about the claims of ex-gay ministries? If so I think that would be a huge step in the right direction.

Republicans aid "judicial activism"

I heard that Hugh Hewitt threw a fit on the radio this afternoon over today's 4-3 California Supreme Court ruling. Apparently he was screaming something about voting for John McCain so that a Republican could appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court instead of a bunch of liberals.

Well, I'm afraid that may not necessarily solve things because Hugh Hewitt failed to mention one small detail. I learned from the Log Cabin Republicans today that 6 out of 7 justices on the CA Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors. I checked it out for myself:

Assoc. Justice Joyce L. Kennard--Deukmejian (Republican), 1989
Assoc. Justice Carlos R. Moreno--Davis (Democrat), 2001
Assoc. Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar--Wilson (Republican), 1994
Chief Justice Ronald M. George--Wilson (Republican), 1991
Assoc. Justice Ming W. Chin--Wilson (Republican), 1996
Assoc. Justice Marvin R. Baxter--Wilson (Republican), 1991
Assoc. Justice Carol A. Corrigan--Schwarzenegger (Republican), 2005

Given that the Democratic appointee voted in favor of this ruling, it means that the remaining Republican appointees were split 3-3. You're not going to learn this tidbit from either the Democrats or the Republicans. Leave it to Log Cabin to give us the real scoop.

California joins Massachusetts

Andrew Sullivan astutely points out that the ruling in California today is not judicial activism, as the religious right will no doubt spin it. Far from ramming this ruling past the legislature, the California legislature has already voted in favor of full marriage rights for gay couples twice. All the court has done is refuse to buy into the "civil unions" rationale, which says, "Gay couples can have all the legal benefits of marriage but let's stop short of actually calling it marriage." Instead, they have chosen to do what is legally fair.

As I have said many times before, when it comes to the civil arena the only justification I can see for stopping short of calling such unions "marriage" is bigotry. We do not live in a theocracy. As a society we do not require that our government withhold the title of "marriage" from all couples whose marriages do not conform to biblical standards (logically, that would include a lot of marriages). You cannot withhold the label "marriage" from gay couples seeking legal recognition of their unions by appealing to a Christian definition of marriage, unless of course you want to start by attacking the Buddhist married couple down the street. You have to find some other excuse. And speaking for myself, I've been hard pressed to find one over the past eight years of studying this issue.

If you're a Christian, look on the bright side. For years we've pounded on gays, condemning their "lifestyle." Well, there is no better remedy for a sexually promiscuous and irresponsible lifestyle than entering into a marriage union, where your gay spouse would be much more effective in keeping you on the straight and narrow than a Focus On the Family broadcast. Let's prove that Christians can be smart, consistent and fair-minded by at least giving a nod of approval in that direction.

Doing them justice

For the very first time since I started studying this issue eight years ago, I will have an opportunity to teach a class on homosexuality at my church. The fact that I've been overthinking my lesson plans and generally stressing about it shows that I'm more than a little nervous.

How often do we talk openly about these issues in the conservative church? Whenever it does spring up, it's usually because someone within the church is suddenly discovered to be homosexual, and so the discussion arises in an atmosphere of shock, gossip and scandal. The person in question is under a cloud from the start. There is no opportunity to discuss what it means to be homosexual in a calm and rational environment.

I feel I need to speak for that person, to explain to my fellow Christians what homosexuality is from the perspective of those who experience it. There is so much to say, and it is difficult to know where to begin.

I have been reading through old emails that readers have sent me over the years. I'm amazed at how open people have been with me, how articulately they have expressed themselves. It's overwhelming, really. Now I want to do them justice, and I'm afraid of failing them.

Moved in

So we're finally getting settled into our new place. The house is so . . . nice. I've been working on it non-stop but am finally beginning to realize that there is no end to the stuff that needs to be done. Maybe it's time to let up a little.

I keep wondering why God gave this house to us. For the first time we have a yard for the kids to play in, a garage to store stuff, a fireplace (two of them!), a driveway (where your newspaper sits waiting for you instead of getting swiped by neighbors in the next unit), and a roomy kitchen (where I don't have to use the pull-out cutting board as counter space). Recently I realized that I've been working so hard because I felt like I had to deserve to be here. Which is dumb because no matter how hard I work, I would always be able to think of other people who deserve this house more than me. There must be some other reason why we're here.

If you'd asked me back in college where I thought I'd be living at age 39, I would have said a thatched hut somewhere on the missions field. When I started dating my husband, he asked me if I'd mind apartment living the rest of my life since that's all he'd be able to afford with a career in the ministry. I figured it was a step up from a thatched hut, so no problem. I was fairly content with apartment living until the third kid came along and I couldn't walk three steps in our apartment without bumping into something. (Mysterious bruises routinely appeared on my legs that I never remembered getting.) I wanted to stay content, though, because if I couldn't hack the situation that might mean I couldn't hack Africa or China or some place God might call us to someday.

I guess I'm worried that the reason God gave us this nice house and the reason I'm enjoying it so much is that he's telling me I'm not cut out for the rough stuff of missionary life. Yet at one time I thought he had called me to be a missionary. Was I mistaken?

A gay friend of mine observed, "Maybe God wants you to be a missionary here. I know of so many conservative Christians who would much rather minister in Cambodia than to homosexuals right here in the States." I wonder if he may be right. I have the tendency to think that anything I enjoy doing couldn't be God's real calling for me. I always imagine that his real calling for me would be something distasteful.