Enjoying the synchroblog

I have enjoyed reading some really interesting contributions to yesterday's Bridging the Gap Synchroblog. I'm trying to get around to reading all of them.

Here's a short list some of the posts I enjoyed, maybe because of content, or writing style, or insight:

Rising Up Whole:

I'm an ex-ex-ex-Christian (that's just a non-Christian with a very sordid past). I have been everything from a fundamentalist Christian to an angry ex-Christian. I have been an evangelical ex-gay and an apathetic agnostic. I've been on all sides. So in some ways, it's ideal that I've been asked to participate in this synchro-blog-o-rama.

Box Turtle Bulletin:

Recently I traded stinging denunciations with a writer at an organization included in the SPLA’s list of hate groups. I accused the writer of callousness and deceit and she returned the favor. But, oddly enough, this opened a dialogue between us, one which led to a later retraction of a particularly odious claim at the website of that organization.I should not have been surprised. It was hardly the first time that I found that if I tried a personal approach, many anti-gay activists are receptive to at least listening to what you have to say.

Grace Rules:

My friends who are homosexual have also taught me a lot about what it means to keep the faith. I often wonder what I would have done if I was gay. Would I be faithful to Christ or would I have just given up on the whole thing because of the way I was treated by Christians? Would I have continued to attend church, to read the bible, to sing worship songs? knowing that so many hurtful things had been said about homosexuals and done to homosexuals in the name of Christ.

Paradoxy:

It's time to retire catchphrases like "change is possible" and "freedom from homosexuality" that strongly imply a promise of orientation change. The semantic hoops that ex-gay spokespersons have to jump through to explain why these terms don't mean what they appear to mean make those same spokespersons appear as disingenuous as the oiliest politician.

SisterFriends Together:

If I can look across the gap and see him or her as God’s very own, then I stand of chance of being part of what God so longs to do among us; that we would let go of all our judgments of the other and of our need to be right and for them to be wrong, and just allow God to be God, extending Divine compassion and mercy as equally in their lives as God has shown time and again in mine.

Have fun exploring the rest of the contributions here.

Synchroblog Day: Bridging the gap and breaking down walls

Today I am participating in the "Bridging the Gap Synchroblog," which means that I and about sixty other bloggers will be addressing the same issue of how to bridge the gap in our conversations with people about faith and sexuality. Be sure to check out the links to the other participating bloggers at the Bridging the Gap website. (For the occasion I have also taken the unprecedented step of enabling my comments section. Please comment appropriately and be considerate and respectful of others.)

How can we as conservative Christians "bridge the gap" in our conversations and relationships with gay friends, family members and acquaintances on the topic of homosexuality? Most evangelicals are easily able to summarize what the Bible teaches about how to relate to our neighbors: Christians should be loving and kind, patient when wronged, respectful in the face of hostility, forgiving, humble, compassionate and truthful.

So the question isn't knowing how we ought conduct ourselves as Christians. What needs to be explored is why we so often fail to relate to gay people in the loving and winsome way that the Bible so clearly outlines.

I believe the answer is that Christians cannot bring down the walls between ourselves and the gay community until we have confronted the walls that exist in our own hearts--fear, pride, insecurity about our own faith. The biggest challenges are not "out there," rather they lie within. I remember the three biggest challenges I faced when, as a conservative Christian, I first began the process of "building bridges" with people in the gay community.

When I first became interested in trying to understand where gay and lesbian people were coming from, I had already been taught by many highly respected church leaders that homosexuals were particularly depraved individuals who had strayed so far from the will of God they actually chose to pervert themselves by living the gay lifestyle. A good Christian girl like me would have absolutely nothing in common with these sordid types, so I initially thought my big challenge would be knowing how to talk to them at all. Yet what I encountered in real life was completely different from what I had been told to expect. I met ordinary people, many of whom were professing Christians, who never wanted to be gay in the first place. Some had contemplated suicide in their teens, others had spent their young adult years in therapy trying to change. Many finally came to terms with their situation only later on in life and at last found the courage to make the best of it. I felt it would have been wrong to despise these people, and I even found myself relating on so many levels to the heart-breaking stories I heard.

I had been told to hate the sin of homosexuality. What I encountered were people who had fought a battle with self-hatred for so long, the last thing I wanted to do was dogpile on their pain. I had been told to enlighten these people with the gospel. What I encountered was only my own tremendous ignorance, my own need to be enlightened about what it was like to be in their shoes.

And so the first challenge I faced was whether to follow the righteous exhortations of godly Christian leaders I admired and trusted, or go with my own instincts in an entirely different direction, based on my own conclusions about gay people that--apparently--no other Christian in the world had ever come to except me. (Or so it seemed.)

Any serious Christian would much rather submit to the majority consensus of the church than run the risk of being wise in one's own eyes. I wasn't any different. What ultimately made me press forward was that I saw clear opportunities before me to love people instead of despise them, to understand instead of judge, to listen instead of command--and that path just seemed more in line with what the Bible taught. It was as simple as that. And yet even though I knew I had good reason to follow that path, I was sick with fear. Fear of being a maverick, fear of being unsubmissive, fear that I might appear rebellious, fear that my reputation in the church might be damaged. All that fear was a barrier that needed to be crossed.

This soon led to the second major challenge I had to confront, which was the difficulty of having to face people at church every Sunday, knowing that I was going against the standard wisdom that most of them embraced about homosexual people. The church had always been like family to me, from the time I first came to Christ as a teenager. My fellow Christians were people who worshipped with me, invited me over for dinner, prayed for me when I was in need, brought meals to my house when I was laid up, loaded boxes into my U-Haul when I had to move--and I did the same for them in return. To go against what these good people, my dearest friends, believed about homosexuality, and to side instead with what everyone called "the homosexual agenda," felt like the worst kind of betrayal. Like some bout with insanity that I just needed to snap out of.

The only way I could to deal with the nearly unbearable tension was to remember that as much as my church family meant to me, my first responsibility was to follow Jesus Christ. And I simply found it difficult to believe that Jesus would reach out to harlots, tax collectors, demoniacs, lepers and heretics but would disapprove of me reaching out to homosexuals, because it might upset some of my Christian friends. So in my heart I had to let go of my need for my friends' good opinion. Later on, when some of them found out my views and let go of me for good, I remembered Jesus once again, that by the time he'd made it to the cross at the end of his life he was alone. It meant that however painful loneliness might be, I could at least take comfort that there was no shame in it.

The third major challenge was probably the most serious. As I got deeper into the issue--talking with gay and lesbian people, reading books, having email exchanges--I began to realize that the conclusions I was coming to about the nature of homosexuality were presenting a challenge to my own Bible-believing faith. Because if people weren't choosing to be homosexual, why would God allow this to happen to them? Why would he allow something to befall them that would so alienate them from their families, their communities, their churches? Why would he allow a person's sexuality, that sacred part of a human being, to be messed with, so that their chance of enjoying a love that could be both personally fulfilling and socially acceptable is permanently sabotaged? Is God cruel? Is the Bible mistaken?

Over time my faith survived these challenges, and has even grown stronger as a result. But I can also appreciate how much easier it is for us to burrow deep down into our churches and cling to simple, cut-and-dried explanations about homosexuality rather than expose the vulnerabilities of our faith to something much more complex. And yet if we are willing to admit this much, we should at least try to be honest with ourselves when it comes to befriending gay and lesbian people. How much of our inability to love them is rooted in our personal insecurity about our Christian faith? When we argue with them, aren't we sometimes just trying to protect our own beliefs? When we insist that they are unrighteous, might that be just another way of asserting our own righteousness, so that we can temporarily silence the doubts we have about ourselves as Christians?

I have been on this journey for nearly ten years, and although it may appear to others, and even to myself at times, that this has been about trying to break down walls and build bridges between myself and gay and lesbian people, I know that for me it is really about something far greater. Like many of the challenges that Jesus Christ calls me to, I realize that his ultimate purpose for me has not been the challenge itself, but to teach me more about himself, so that I might understand more deeply his life, his heart and his word. Simply put, I have had to trust him. For that reason, I could never regret any of it, whatever the journey has cost me along the way. I have become richer in Christ, and that has fully compensated me for whatever else I may have lost.

Blogging break

No blogging until the 24th. I'm more interested in following the events in Iran. I hope you are too.

Synchroblogging on June 24

I've been invited by Wendy Gritter of New Direction Ministries to participate in a "synchroblog" on June 24. A bunch of us will be blogging on the same topic, namely, how to break down the dividing walls between the Christian and the gay communities, particularly in conversations about faith and sexuality. I'm not sure how the logistics is going to work out, but I'm assuming my only job is to post my piece on this blog and see what happens.

I understand that June 24th was chosen because it falls in the middle Pride Week for many cities, when animosity between Christians and gays comes to a head. And so the purpose of our synchroblogging is to provide an antidote to the usual hostility, a peaceful and constructive conversation about a normally divisive subject.

Some of the bloggers will be reviewing the new DVD put out by New Direction Ministries called "Bridging the Gap: Conversations on Befriending Our Gay Neighbours." (The ministry is located in Canada--hence, "neighbours" with a "u.") I've only seen the trailer:



I don't know when I'll get to watch the entire DVD, but I'm more than glad to see other Christians trying to address the topic of homosexuality in a winsome and intelligent way.

Do you like this blog?

You might be interested to know that the author's Myers-Briggs personality type is INTJ. The INTJ type is sometimes referred to as The Scientist. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter also calls it The Mastermind.

I'm still trying to figure out what this means for me. But if you like reading this blog, maybe it also says something about you.

The decision

Admittedly I haven't read every page carefully, and I don't completely grasp it all. But from what I have read and understood, it sounds like the majority's opinion turned on the question of whether or not Proposition 8 could be defined as a constitutional revision or a constitutional amendment.

[A] revision is a more substantial or extensive change, an amendment a less substantial or extensive one. (J. Werdegar)

Apparently, an amendment needs only the approval of the majority of the population, while a revision requires approval by two-thirds of each state house, followed by a majority vote.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion determined that a revision is defined as making "a fundamental change in the nature of the governmental plan or framework established by the Constitution." And, they reason, even though Prop. 8 has deprived individuals of some measure of their constitutional rights, there is apparently precedent in cases where constitutional amendments have deprived individuals of their constitutional rights, such as protection against cruel and unusual punishment (Frierson) and protection against unlawful searches and seizures (Lance W). Nevertheless, since these instances of the curtailing of constitutional rights did not result in "a fundamental change in the nature of the governmental plan or framework established by the Constitution," they cannot be categorized as "revision."

That, at least, is what I got out of this quote by George in the majority opinion:

As we have seen, a number of our past amendment/revision decisions have involved initiative measures that made very important substantive changes in fundamental state constitutional principles such as the right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment (Frierson, supra, 25 Cal.3d 142) and the right to be protected against unlawful searches and seizures (Lance W., supra, 37 Cal.3d 873) — initiative measures that, like the current Proposition 8, cut back on the greater level of protection afforded by preceding court decisions and were challenged as constitutional revisions on the ground that the constitutional changes they effected deprived individuals of important state constitutional protections they previously enjoyed and left courts unable to fully protect such rights. Nonetheless, in each case this court did not undertake an evaluation of the relative importance of the constitutional right at issue or the degree to which the protection of that right had been diminished, but instead held that the measure did not amount to a qualitative revision because it did not make a fundamental change in the nature of the governmental plan or framework established by the Constitution.

My question is: Really? So, it would be okay for the majority of Californians to vote to cut back on the rights of Catholics or African Americans or women, as long as we deprive those groups of only some measure of their constitutional rights, and as long as we don't make fundamental changes in the "governmental plan or framework established by the Constitution"--whatever that means?

The minority opinion by Moreno indicates that George's majority opinion may contain more than a little b.s.:

The majority’s reliance upon the lead opinion in People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142 (Frierson) is also misguided. That opinion stated the view of only three justices that the 1972 initiative measure that added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the death penalty did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment amended, rather than revised, the Constitution. Each of the remaining justices made it abundantly clear that they either declined to address this issue or disagreed with the lead opinion. Nevertheless, the majority treats the lead opinion as if it were a majority opinion, referring to it as “[o]ur opinion” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 69), and incorrectly referring to the lead opinion to describe what “the court concluded” (id. at p. 88).

In other words, Moreno says in the Frierson case, George is trying to pass off the "it's okay to curtail some of the constitutional rights of individuals and still call that 'amending' and not 'revising' the Constitution" rationale as if it had been the majority opinion of the Court. In truth, it was just the lead opinion representing only three justices. The other four justices did not support it.

Hmm. Makes me wonder what other "problems" exist in the majority report that I as a layperson don't have the legal education to discern?

The more I read of Moreno's dissenting minority opinion, the more I see the fog starting to clear. Moreno discusses the original purpose behind the idea of a constitutional amendment, that it was a way to prevent powerful minorities from getting their way, and was not meant to deprive persecuted minorities of their rights.

Although this initiative process was thereby instituted as a remedy for government corruption, and to free legislation from the influence of powerful special interests and the Legislature’s own self-serving inertia, there is no indication that this process was intended to prevent courts from performing their traditional constitutional function of protecting persecuted minorities from the majority will. There is a fundamental difference between preventing politically powerful minorities from unduly influencing legislative and judicial decisions on the one hand, and preventing courts from protecting the rights of disfavored minorities unable to obtain equal rights through the usual majoritarian processes on the other. There is no indication that the Progressives who framed the initiative process were insensible to that distinction, or that they sought to abolish the judiciary’s role as the guardian of minorities’ fundamental rights.

Moreno argues that there is no precedent for restricting the scope of the equal protection clause by mere constitutional amendment, or for placing the protection of equal rights into the hands of the electoral majority instead of the judiciary by mere amendment:

None of our prior cases considered whether an amendment to the Constitution could restrict the scope of the equal protection clause by adding language that requires discrimination based upon a suspect classification. Nor did these cases consider, as in the present situation, whether a transfer of the authority to protect the equal rights of a suspect class away from the judiciary to an electoral majority is the type of structural change that can be effected by a constitutional amendment. For the reasons discussed above, I believe this kind of change in the countermajoritarian nature of the equal protection clause is the type of fundamental alteration that can be done only through a constitutional revision.

Moreno's conclusion is that in order to make the changes advocated by Prop. 8, we would need a constitutional revision that says the equal protection clause should be modified to protect just some folks and not others (anyone for that idea?):

In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.

Proposition 8 stands

The CA Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 by a decision of 6-1, but is allowing the 18,000 gay couples who wed last year to stay legally married. Their rationale is that voters have the right to change their State Constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

Let me remind you what provided the basis for the voters' decision to change the State Constitution. I quote from the pro-Prop. 8 mailers I received last year:

"Same-sex marriage threatens tax exempt status of churches."

"Gay marriage WILL be taught in California public schools if we don't pass Proposition 8."

"First Graders Taken to San Franscisco City Hall for Gay Wedding."

See here, here and here for my blog posts exposing how grossly misleading these claims were.

Now the Supreme Court is knocking the ball back into the court of "the people's will." Never mind that the basis upon which that will was determined was the twisting of facts that played to people's fears and prejudices. Incredible.

Decision Day tomorrow

Word is that the California Supreme Court will issue an opinion on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

I can't tell what their opinion will be. But I'd be interested to know how this Supreme Court could get out of upholding their ruling last year in favor of same-sex marriage. The California legislature had already voted to grant gay couples full marriage rights twice, and the Supreme Court simply determined that there was no constitutional justification for withholding the label "marriage" from such couples.

In spite of this relatively conservative ruling--six out of the seven Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican governors--the Christian Right has not ceased decry the ruling as "judicial activism." Unfortunately, the Christian Right often finds itself in the situation of being the black pot trying to call the silver kettle black. There is nothing activistic about looking at the State Constitution and determining that marriage rights should be granted to that small minority of the population for whom the full meaning of "marriage" can only make sense within the context of a loving, committed same-sex union. If gay couples have no legal right to same-sex marriage, it would be the same as barring them from their constitutional right to marry at all.

On the other hand, the charge of "activism" is completely fitting for the pro-Proposition 8 campaign we witnessed last summer, where the primary argument the Christian Right gave us was, essentially, "THEY'RE AFTER YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR CHURCHES!"

If the California Supreme Court does reverse their ruling from last year, I have to wonder what justification they could give, since the pro-Prop. 8 campaign offered no legally useful arguments. "Horror Tales From Massachusetts" may be effective in scaring the general public, but a Supreme Court Justice has to make a rational decision.

Finding Jesus Christ: The only way to heaven?

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

One of the most common objections to Christianity out there is that its exclusive claims are offensive. I often hear people say that Christians who claim that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven are arrogant, narrow and judgmental. How can you say that your religion alone teaches the truth about God? How can you say that none of the other religions teaches the true way to heaven?

I'm not sure why everyone is so upset. A better approach would be to be grateful that the Christian religion has conveniently boiled everything down to one key issue in such stark terms. Life is short, and there are so many religions to investigate. To figure out the other religions you may find yourself crawling on your knees in a pilgrimage to some holy city, or spending ten years in a monastery with a shaved head. But with Christianity if you have a Bible, the ability to read, a brutally honest heart, and the willingness to utter an occasional prayer for guidance, you can get right down to it.

The question you need to investigate is: Do you need Jesus Christ to go to heaven, or not? Whatever conclusion you come to--whether yes or no--will determine whether or not you should become a Christian.

As you investigate by reading about the life and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, you will discover that Jesus' claim to be the exclusive way to heaven ("I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me."--John 14:6) is actually one of the milder statements he made. He claimed not only to be sent from God, but to be the revelation of God himself (John 14:8-9). He claimed to have existed from eternity past (John 8:57). He claimed that someday he would raise all the dead from their graves and pronounce judgment upon the eternal fate of every human being who has ever lived (John 5:25-29). He said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). So, as you can see, Jesus' claim to be the exclusive way to God is simply the logical outworking of all these other claims he made about himself as the unique, authoritative, divine Son of God, who came from heaven to tell us in no uncertain terms what his Father demands of us.

If there were such thing as the Truth about God, and if there were such thing as a religion that taught the Truth about him, you wouldn't expect that religion to be apologetic about it, would you? I'm not saying that all religions claiming to be the truth should be taken seriously. But certainly, you wouldn't expect the Truth to shrug its shoulders, wave its hands helplessly in the air, and whine out catch phrases like, "Let's be modest now. Let's not hurt people's feelings. Can't we all just get along?" If the Truth is really out there, is this how you'd expect it to present itself?

Jesus expected his followers to take their quest for the Truth seriously. He constantly said things that stumbled them, offended their sensibilities and hurt their feelings. Maybe nowadays people think that seeking God is like drinking a warm glass of milk and drifting off to sleep in a featherbed. But back in Jesus' day people had a firmer grasp on reality. They understood that if you dared to seek out the living God, you ran the risk of having your world turned upside-down.

In-house debate

Alan Ng gives some excellent conservative Christian responses to a reader's objections against gay civil marriage.

I’m assuming we’re both Christians. We both believe Jesus is God and died for our sins. We both believe the Bible is the Word of God. If this is true, then we believe that God is Omnipotent. If this is true, then no matter how the country defines the American Family, my God is still bigger than that and that God’s people and His church will never be marginalized. If you feel that your ability to live a Christian life is be harder, than your God is smaller than He really is.

You can read more of the exchange in this follow-up post.

"Homosexual Christian"

I've been puzzling over the latest bandwagon evangelicals have been jumping on in criticizing the term "homosexual Christian." The phenomenon has been around for some years, but it seems to have picked up steam lately, especially in the more conservative evangelical crowds. "I don't call myself a Proud Christian or a Lustful Christian. Why should you call yourself a "Homosexual Christian"? they will say to fellow Christians who disclose their struggles with homosexuality.

My question in return is, "So, what should they call themselves?" I'm sure they would be happy to call themselves regular old "Christians" with no qualifications attached. The problem is when they remain silent on the "qualification" part, no one suspects they are homosexual, right? Then when they finally take the chance of revealing to their Christian friends that they have actually been dealing with homosexual feelings and attractions all along, everyone wigs out. There is no end to the accusations about how this person "lied" and "deceived" everyone, or to the hand-wringing about how "betrayed" everyone feels for thinking all along that this person was just like everyone else. That they were just a "Christian" with no qualifications attached.

Well, guess what? Homosexual people have feelings, and they also have a conscience. They don't want to be accused of lying and deceiving people. They don't want to feel like they've betrayed friends and family members. They've heard all the complaints. That's why more people are trying to be upfront about what they are dealing with. Calling oneself a "homosexual Christian" is a good, honest way to signal to everyone that no lying, deception or betrayal is intended on their part. But instead of receiving an appreciative, "Thanks for letting me know. I know it must have been hard for you to tell me this," they get shot down with, "Why would you call yourself that?" "Why would you label yourself according to your sin?"

I can only think of two reasons why anyone would make that objection. 1) You don't really want to know that a fellow Christian is dealing with homosexuality. 2) You want people who are dealing with homosexuality to say that, really, they are just heterosexuals who have somehow messed themselves up, but now they're on it, and if we would just give them a few more years in the local ex-gay program they can come back to us with all the yuckiness cleaned up--in which case they should never have bothered to take on the label "homosexual Christian" in the first place.

If your reason is the first one, then you're saying that you'd rather be lied to and deceived. So be honest about that and spare us all the lamenting about how "betrayed" you feel when someone does manage to deceive you for years on end, but was ultimately too honest to be able to keep it up forever.

If your reason is the second, then you're saying that homosexual people who claim that they have tried to change but couldn't are either liars or they are self-deceived. They should be able to overcome their sin, but they are somehow holding back and are only pretending that they've been putting out a monumental effort. But really, they like to call themselves "homosexual," especially in front of their Christian friends, because it's just so cool to come to church and have everyone glare at them and whisk their kids out of the very path they walk. And it's just so cool to know that even the "brave" people who do come up to shake their hand probably rush to the restroom afterwards and wash. Yeah, that must be the real reason why someone would want to call themselves "homosexual" at church. There are just so many perks.

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.