Repost from 6/24/09: What does it cost to bridge the gap?

At the most recent GCN Conference, someone asked me to define what it means to be a "straight ally." I answered that it's mainly about being willing to pay the price for supporting LGBT people, and there usually is a price to be paid.

While the cost of dealing with persecution and social pressures may immediately come to mind, there is also the cost of dealing with your own heart issues. I talk more about that in this post from 2009:

 ====

How can we as straight 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 straight 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 gay 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 gays and lesbians, 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 gay, 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 their chance of enjoying a love that could be both personally fulfilling and socially acceptable to be 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.

Welcome, listeners of The Ken Fong Podcast

If you found this blog because of my interview on "Asian America: The Ken Fong Podcast," I'm glad you found your way here!

To make it easier to find out more about what Ken and I discussed during the interview, I've compiled the following links:

====

Here is the video of my keynote speech at the 2016 GCN (Gay Christian Network) Conference this past January. The video does skip some, so here is the full written transcript to that keynote.

"A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage" -- the controversial article I wrote in 2000.

This is a YouTube video of my keynote back at the 2012 GCN Conference in which I explain about the controversy my husband and I had with our old denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (Unfortunately, this video does not cover the complete talk; it is just a homemade video one of the conference attendees recorded of the last two-thirds of my talk.)

"Musings on Christianity, Homosexuality and the Bible," the original website I created back in 2000 to reach out to gays and lesbians.

Chronology of events and trial documents relating to the OPC controversy my husband and I were involved in.

Toward the end of the interview Ken asked me if there was anything in my background that shaped me into the type of person that would speak out in the church for the gay and lesbian community. Upon reflection I'm not sure how I managed to overlook one very important factor: being "Japanese American."

====

So you're a straight Christian who wants to understand better how to relate to someone who is gay? Here are some blog posts to help get you started:

• "How gays and straights talk past each other": Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 -- This short series is a primer to help foster communication across the gay-straight divide.

• "On having gay friends": Part 1 and Part 2 -- Some tips and reflections compiled from what I've learned over the years.

• "Side B, with qualifications" -- Ken and I talked about the Side A/Side B debate among gay Christians. In this post I explain why, as a straight ally, I don't take a hard-line Side B approach in the debate.

• "Surviving ex-gay ministries" -- In 2007 I attended an Ex-Gay Survivor Conference and learned first-hand about the trauma ex-gay ministries have caused people. In this post I attempt to put myself in the shoes of an ex-gay survivor and tell their story.

My interview on "Asian America: the Ken Fong Podcast"

Last Friday I was interviewed on Asian America: The Ken Fong Podcast. Heads up: the interview is eighty minutes long, but I think we were able to keep the conversation flowing and interesting. If you have a long commute to work, listening to this would be perfect to help you pass the time.

Ken Fong is the long-time pastor of a well-known Asian American church in Los Angeles called Evergreen Baptist Church. He also serves as Executive Director of the Asian American Initiative at Fuller Theological Seminary. We recorded this podcast in his Fuller Seminary office.

I know Ken as a fellow sojourner who is seeking to bring about love, respect and understanding between the LGBT community and the conservative church. Because we are both Asian American, conservative evangelical, and have taken an interest in the LGBT community, Ken and I have crossed paths before. I suppose we fit a unique demographic, and I'm grateful to him for the opportunity to be a guest on his show.

Yes, I am Side B. No, I do not advocate celibacy for all gay Christians.

Apparently, in spite of my recent and very public 2016 GCN Conference talk, there is still some misunderstanding about my Side B position. A recent article written by Stephen Parelli, who was present at the conference, called "Celibacy at Gay Christian Network: What's that all about?" characterizes me as advocating celibacy for all gay Christians.

I never advocated such a position in my keynote, and I never have advocated that position on this blog or in any past writings. The entire point of my GCN keynote was this: "Yes, I am Side B. But I believe Side A gay Christians should be accepted in the church in an 'agree to disagree' fashion according to the principles of Romans 14. Now, allow me to explain why I think the conservative church has been too blind in the past to see this truth, and how being obedient to Scripture can lead us out of this mess."

Over four years ago on this blog I wrote a piece called "Side B with Qualifications" that might be helpful to anyone wanting to understand further why I call myself Side B. Here is how I conclude my post (italics added):

This has caused me some problems. I have discovered that labeling myself Side B conveys the idea that I think Side A gay Christians aren't really saved, that all gay Christians should be celibate otherwise they're living in sin, and that my agenda should be to befriend Side A people for the purpose of converting them to Side B. And I have to wonder, what ever happened to respecting the consciences of others? I believe I can manage that as a Side B person. And nothing about what I believe concerning my imaginary choice as an imaginary gay person in an imaginary scenario blinds me from the reality of seeing true Christian faith in the many, many Side A gay Christians I meet all the time.

From what I've experienced I don't think the Side A/Side B divide is nearly as great as the divide between those who do and do not recognize that there are some cases where taking a "biblical" side is more about a personal choice than a cosmic mandate. I side with those who believe in strict moral convictions for themselves but much leniency and charity for others. I wish there were a label for that group.

"What's Next for the Conservative Evangelical Church?"

For those of you who made the request, I am here providing the manuscript of my 2016 GCN conference talk, "What's Next for the Conservative Evangelical Church?"

The talk was also live streamed but sometimes the video skips, which I understand can be annoying.

I loved meeting all of you at the conference. Even though I sometimes have trouble remembering names and faces, if you told me your story I almost always remember that. When people tell me about their personal experience I can visualize and sometimes feel the emotions of it, and that leaves a strong impression. So if you told me your story, remind me of it if you'd like to drop me an email, and that will help me continue our conversation.

GCN Conference 2016

I will be speaking at the upcoming GCN Conference, taking place in Houston on January 7-10, 2016. So the past three months I have been deep in my thinking cave, thoroughly neglecting this blog even though there is more on my mind regarding transgender issues. Apparently I am a "nationally acclaimed blogger and theologian." I had to laugh at that. Maybe "at one time nationally vilified and now thoroughly ignored" is more accurate. Anyhow, if you are planning to be at the conference, I hope to see you there.

Demanding a biological basis for gender identity

Some years ago I read about a male pastor who was kicked out of his denomination because it came out that he sometimes wanted to identify as a woman. Most of the time he was fine with presenting himself as a man, but some of the time he wanted to present as a woman and even chose a female name for that part of himself.

His church freaked out, of course, and gave him the ax. Yet there was a reasonable explanation for this pastor's behavior. Before he was born, when he was still in his mother's womb, he had a fraternal twin sister. Instead of separating and becoming another person, she somehow ended up fusing back with him so that the two of them formed a single person. As a result he was, in his biological make up, 70% male and 30% female. There is even a term for someone who is has two different sets of DNA as a result of absorbing a fraternal twin back into their body in utero: human chimera.

In the current debate over transgender people, many Christians are saying that it is just plain common sense that if someone is biologically male then he should view himself as male, and if someone is biologically female then she should see herself as female. Period. With no room for debate. If this were an ideal, unfallen world prior to Genesis chapter 3, I would heartily agree. But here and now, living in this messy, fallen state of humankind, it is not so. Instead we have this case of a pastor who was biologically both male and female. If biology directly determines one's personal sense of gender self-identity, then this pastor was being true to that principle. Even the proportion of time he wanted to spend as male versus female was true to the proportion that he was biologically male versus female.

Yet the reason this pastor was run out of his denomination was that he looked physically male and therefore he was expected to act and identify as such exclusively. The basis for his wanting to identify partly as female was hidden from the human eye, and yet it was very real. It could even have been scientifically proven through genetic testing.

In the case of transgender individuals, just because the basis for their desire to identify with a gender opposite of their (apparent) biological sex is hidden from our eyes, that doesn't mean it isn't real. Are we really so arrogant that we can dismiss this crisis of identity that they feel, as if we know everything there is to know about human beings, our mysterious formation in the womb, the human brain, genetics, and the origins of gender identity? The discovery that human chimeras exist is a relatively recent one. Who knows what else there is to discover about ourselves as human beings?

Here's something else to consider. Why do Christians need to know if there is a scientific explanation for the transgender experience before we stop our mistreatment of them: this merciless sneering and mocking and condemning of people whom we have made zero effort to understand? I thought the Bible was the basis of everything we do. We already know that Jesus commanded us to love people and refrain from judging them, because after all we do not see the heart and have no idea what sort of challenges they may be facing.

Of course, we can always wait around for science to uncover the reasons for the transgender experience--someday--before we feel like taking seriously Jesus' command to love these people. It's just that, given the way we normally scorn modern science almost as much as we do transgender people, I think that would be extremely ironic.

Is polygamy next?

Jonathan Rauch has made these arguments many times before, but in case you missed it, he explains once again why the legalization of civil same-sex marriage doesn't open the legal door to polygamy.

Now, people who want to take issue with the theoretical and empirical literature on polygamy should feel free to do so. What they should not do is what Chief Justice Roberts and Fredrik deBoer do, which is to ignore the literature altogether. Blandly asserting that there's no good reason to oppose polygamy once gay couples can marry makes no more sense than saying there's no reason to oppose date rape or securities fraud once gay couples can marry. It doesn't follow, and it isn't true, and the intellectual laziness implicit in asserting it is epic.

To find out why Rauch thinks so, read his article here.

Looking back and moving forward

Fourteen and a half years ago I wrote an essay called, "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage." I wanted to show that Christians can still hold to a traditional understanding of the Bible on homosexuality without being guilty of committing political and social injustice against gays and lesbians. I also wanted to point out how engaging in an earthly battle that prevents a minority group from receiving their legitimate constitutional rights only tarnishes our Christian witness to the hope of heaven through Jesus Christ.

Yesterday's SCOTUS decision is, in my view, the prevailing of earthly justice. Given the way our constitution is written, plus the history of the civil rights movement in this country, it was inevitable that this day would come. What's important for Christians is not that this day has come, but that we reflect upon all the years that have led up to it. How honorably have we conducted ourselves these past fifteen or so years? How profitably have we redeemed the time? Have we adorned the gospel in our interactions with the LGBT community? Is there anything we wish we could have done differently?

It has often helped me to realize that when you follow Christ, you follow him alone. You don't take your family with you, though you'd like to think you can. You can't take your friends with you. And certainly there is nothing you can do about everyone in society. All that's under your control is how obedient you are to Christ in your own personal relationship with him.

But we don't want to be his disciples under those conditions. We want to obey only if everyone else is doing the same thing. If same-sex marriage is wrong, we aren't content to hold to that belief with a clear conscience before the Lord. We want everyone else to believe it too. We don't want our children to have anything to do with it. We don't want society to approve of it. We definitely can't handle the idea that God may be leading us to view it as a sin and yet be leading someone else to the conclusion that is it okay.

What everyone else is believing and doing is irrelevant to your responsibility toward Christ, which is to follow him yourself, alone, according to how he is instructing your own heart. You can't know what God is doing in the lives of others, and you aren't meant to. When Peter pointed to the disciple John and asked Jesus, "But Lord, what about this man?" Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!" (John 21:21-22)

You follow me. There is freedom and joy in doing what the Lord asks of you without fretting about what he is asking of someone else. Without fretting about where society is headed and whether we are still a Christian nation and whether the next generation will believe things and do things the way you want them to. Moving forward, here's hoping the next fifteen years will be about less fretting and more lonely, single-minded discipleship.

Yarhouse on the transgender phenomenon

I recommend Mark Yarhouse's recent article in Christianity Today, "Understanding the Transgender Phenomenon," for Christians who are looking for a beginner's introduction this issue.

T is for Transgender

I've been thinking about transgender issues for a number of years now, but I've been somewhat intimidated at the thought of writing about it. The main reason is that the vocabulary involved is not only endlessly complex, but I've noticed that people who are in-the-know can be very offended when novices like myself come into the discussion and misuse terms. So, in the interest of full-disclosure of my limited knowledge, here's a summary of what I've learned thus far.

I know that you say "transgender" and not "transgendered." I know that there is a difference between "sex" (which has to do with your biological makeup) and "gender" (which has to do with your self-identity). I also know that non-transgender people like myself are called "cisgender." And I've learned that sexual orientation and gender identity issues are separate from each other; that cross-dressing is not necessarily an indication that one is transgender; that the term "transition" means taking steps toward making your outward identity and personal expression match your inner gender identity; and that some people transition "male-to-female" while others transition "female-to-male."

Even though I have found some of the vocabulary terms difficult, the basic human issues are not. For instance, as a straight person writing about gay issues I really had to wrestle with the idea of same-sex sexual orientation, but as someone who is cisgender I relate rather easily to having a strong inner sense of gender identity. I know I'm a woman, not just due to my biology but because I know myself to be female inside. So when I hear that a transgender woman feels the same way I do, except she is in a body that does not properly express her gender identity, the tragedy of that situation hits home.

Few things are more central to our sense of personal identity than gender identity. Through my friendships with gay and lesbian individuals, I've learned just how important sexuality is to us as human beings. When someone says "being gay is who I am" I understand what he or she is trying to express. If sexuality is that important to one's sense of self, gender identity is more so. In the beginning "God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27). As creatures of dust, gender is so integral to who we are created to be it is mentioned in the same breath as being made in the image of God.

If you're a Christian, you understand that the world didn't continue on as God originally made it in Genesis 1:27. Because of Adam and Eve's sin we now live in a world that isn't so neat and tidy, which probably has something to do with why some people's gender self-identity doesn't match up with the gender indicated by their biological sex. Perhaps some people are born with a male soul (or male brain) in a female body, or vice versa. Like many fallen conditions this dilemma is nobody's fault, and it is very real and painful to those who are born into it. Unfortunately it cannot be eradicated any more than you can go back in time and eradicate the Fall, so the thing to do is not to quote Bible verses at people as if we are still living in Paradise. Instead we recognize that during this time of Romans 8-style groaning, we need to respond to it as we would to any human pain: with compassion and understanding. I'd suggest, too, that it is wiser not to pass judgment on the decisions people make to alleviate their own pain, especially if you have never walked in their shoes.

Many Christians believe that such talk is dangerous, because it means we won't be taking male and female gender distinctions seriously. I beg to differ. What could be more illustrative of recognizing gender differences than a trans person who feels the need to have his or her outward appearance and presentation match his or her true inner gender? If a trans person is saying that there really is no male and female distinction, then it shouldn't matter to him/her how they present themselves to the outward world. Male . . . female . . . who cares, right? Yet it obviously does matter to them. If you feel you are female inside, you want to look like a female and be accepted as such. The same goes for those who identify as male. The oppressiveness trans people experience when they are treated as if they were one gender when they really identify as the other demonstrates how seriously they take these gender differences.

But here's something else to consider. While God did originally create human beings to be male and female for marriage and procreation in this earthly life, there are also strong hints in the New Testament that in the new heavens and new earth, gender won't be that important. Jesus said that after the resurrection there will be no marrying or giving in marriage because everyone will be like "angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30). Paul said that in Christ "there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28), which is a statement that anticipates the radical equality of men and women existing as co-heirs in heaven. There is no doubt that Paul and Jesus still affirmed and recognized gender distinctions and gender roles in this earthly life. Yet at the same time they were looking beyond to the world to come where we will be so transformed in glory, everything we recognize now as male and female in our earthly bodies will be elevated to such a transcendent existence, we may very well be beyond gender categories. As Jesus said, we will be like the angels.

If a brother or sister in Christ is dealing with being transgender, why not allow them the freedom to seek whatever temporary relief they need to make their earthly journey bearable until all is resolved in glory? Someday the resurrection and glorification of the body will bring permanent peace to the trans individual, but only God can give that gift. In the meantime, the gifts he asks us to give to them as they labor through this earthly pilgrimage are our love, sympathy and understanding.

Ten Things I've Learned As a Straight Conservative Christian Blogging on Homosexuality

1. No straight person can fully appreciate how difficult it is to be gay in a largely heterosexual world.

2. As soon as someone equates "homosexuality" with "having gay sex," the rest of what they have to say on the subject will be pretty much useless.

3. When some Christians hear the word "love," all they think is "liberalism."

4. "Gay Christian"--until you can think of a better, more accurate term, it stays.

5. You can't understand someone else's sexual orientation unless you first understand your own.

6. Christians who are determined to be persecuted by gays can't be convinced otherwise.

7. How much you believe God loves and accepts others in Christ is a reflection of how much you believe he loves and accepts you.

8. Love begins with listening to what people have to say about themselves.

9. Conservative Christians should have no problem with celibate gay Christians, unless they have a problem with the gospel.

10. Don't assume God brought someone gay into your life so you can teach them. Chances are it is the other way around.

What will happen if I love?

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." - G.K. Chesterton

There must be a reason Jesus told us that loving our neighbor is the greatest commandment next to loving God. He not only commanded us to love but he went out and did it himself without regard for his own reputation, safety, popularity. . . and ultimately his life. The rabbi who defended adulteresses and prostitutes. The holy man who touched lepers and other unclean types. The king who was abandoned to torture, mockery and a humiliating public death.

We speak of his suffering in reverent tones because that's how he atoned for our sins. That's the theological side of the story. But the human side of the story is that his sufferings came about as a direct result of loving all those despised, unwanted people. The hatred, the persecution and the outrage that led to his crucifixion came about because he healed a withered man's hand on the Sabbath and stood up for a prostitute who dumped a fortune in perfume on his feet and other such scandals. So when Jesus commands us to love as he loved--and also commands us to suffer as he suffered--he is speaking of two sides of the same coin. You cannot love the way he loved and not suffer the kinds of consequences he did.

Many Christians will fight you tooth and nail if you dare to bring up loving gay and lesbian people. The way they talk, you'd almost think there was a verse in the New Testament where Jesus answered and said to his disciples, "Know that you should love one another, as long as the conditions are right. Amen." That must be it, because all I ever hear is: I know we should love people, but I oppose the gay agenda. I know we should love people, but I'm not going to approve of their sin. I know we should love people, but they're indoctrinating my child at school. I know we should love people, but I'm not going to be manipulated by a bunch of sob stories.

What I'm actually hearing is this: Love sounds like a great idea, but I'm afraid if I love I something bad will happen. Yes, something bad will happen, but not what you think. Loving gay people probably won't lead you to approve of sexual sin, but it will most likely get you accused by fellow Christians of approving of it. It won't mean you'll support schools indoctrinating your children about homosexuality, but you will have to face the more real worry that the church is indoctrinating them to despise gay people. And you will definitely listen to people's sob stories, but instead of feeling manipulated you will never stop aching over the needless pain and injustice so many gays and lesbians suffer on a daily basis.

Simply put, loving gays and lesbians will mean many of your friends will forsake you, you will never be a part of the "in" crowd at church, your reputation will be tarnished, and you will carry the sorrows of others around in your heart until you feel like you're going to break. Downside: you will suffer. Upside: you will know the blessing of following in the path of a certain Someone who walked in those sufferings before you.

"Anger Issues with God"

My article, "Anger Issues with God," was published in the summer 2014 issue of PRISM magazine. Check it out.

Discomfort level

I just heard recently that a gay Christian friend of mine is going to be leaving his conservative church. Even though he is not in a gay relationship and never has been, he is being shunned by a core group of people in the congregation. The only excuse they have given for the way they treat him is, "We're not at a place where we feel comfortable interacting with gay people."

Sure, I get it. That's my favorite Bible verse too. The one that says, "They will know that we are Christians by the way we love only those brothers and sisters with whom we have come to a place where we feel comfortable interacting."

Which also brings to mind some of my favorite passages out of the Gospels where Jesus goes around touching, healing, befriending and sharing meals only with the people with whom he had gotten to a place where he felt comfortable interacting. Because if you want to change the world, that's the winning formula right there.

Speaking of changing the world, I can't recall any time in church history where the gospel caught fire and spread because Christians were interacting only with those respectable people with whom they felt comfortable. Saint Patrick, who is credited with bringing Christianity to Ireland, largely ministered to slave girls who suffered being raped regularly by their masters. John Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible in English for the benefit of lay people, whom the church of his day regarded as "swine." John and Charles Wesley were condemned by the clergy of their day for preaching the gospel in open fields to the uneducated masses.

If there's any spiritual lesson to be learned from the past, it is run, don't walk, from any temptation to center your Christian life around being comfortable, respectable and insulated. No great spiritual advancement has ever happened in the kingdom of God because Christians were afraid to love the really tough-to-love people.

Which is why there's hope for my gay Christian friends, because I see so many of them struggling to love their straight brothers and sisters in Christ in spite of our perverse ignorance and obnoxious self-righteousness. From a certain perspective we are the really tough-to-love people, not them. We need to understand the true nature of our spiritual situation. If we don't get our act together and learn how to love, the kingdom will surely march forward without us. And gay Christians will be leading the way.

Am I being sentimental or hyperbolic when I say that? Let me put it this way. If you want to know how God is working to advance his kingdom, observe what he is doing among the people on the margins. The poor, the homeless, the persecuted, the forsaken, the ill, the feeble, and the despised. God calls his people from within those situations and uses suffering to train them in love, forgiveness, patience and meekness. They may never get to be senior pastor at the newest megachurch everyone is flocking to. They may never even be allowed to lead a Bible study. They may struggle just to be accepted in their churches. But they are the ones whom Christ will lift up, they are the ones he will strengthen, and they are the ones he will reveal himself to. If you despise them, you do so at your own spiritual peril.

Come again?

So let me get this straight. World Vision announced three days ago that it will be hiring Christians who are in same-sex marriages and the reaction, according to Rachel Held Evans, was that thousands of Christians withdrew support from the children they were sponsoring, thus forcing World Vision yesterday to renege on their original policy change to stop the financial hemorrhaging.

Thousands of needy children were abandoned because some Christians didn't want to be working on the same team with gay Christians in same-sex marriages.

What kind of gay Christians are these people whom others found so abhorrent? Well, they are married, which means they are not living a "lifestyle" of promiscuous sex and one-night stands. They are Christians, which means they seek to live as sexually chaste as possible. Not everyone can handle living celibate so many gay Christians get married to same-sex partners. The apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:9, "But if they cannot exercise self-control let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." These gay Christians have taken that biblical exhortation to heart.

What kind of gay married Christian would want to work for World Vision? Probably someone who has a heart for children and for the poor, who wants to serve Christ's kingdom, and who is willing to make the financial sacrifice of working for a non-profit organization. Usually someone like that is a fairly committed Christian, kind, idealistic and compassionate. It's amazing how many gay Christians I've met who have a heart for missions and the poor. The marginalized relate with great tenderness and empathy to other marginalized people. It's a perfect fit.

World Vision probably recognized this too, which is why they didn't see a problem with the change in policy. I keep wondering why they didn't count the cost before taking that step. My best guess is that they expected blowback, but they didn't expect that Christian supporters would actually drop their sponsorships with their children as a way of protesting. I mean, who does that?

And what was the reason again for so many Christians dropping their sponsorships? Because they didn't want to labor on the same team as some of the most dedicated gay Christians in our midst, who have made the sexually responsible commitment of being in a marriage relationship, embracing the church's teaching not to be promiscuous or live the lifestyle. These are the Christians that others couldn't abide working with, even for the sake of relieving the suffering of a destitute child.

Never mind

Aaand within hours of my post supporting World Vision's very reasonable decision, they reverse themselves. Object lesson: don't underestimate the clout conservative evangelicals have on organizations that try to take even a conciliatory stance on gay issues. It explains why progress at evangelical leadership levels moves so slowly. The peer pressure, financial pressure, and threat of ostracization make it hard to think outside the box. Whether or not you agree with World Vision's original decision, surely you can see that this culture of conformity is just not healthy.

World Vision's surprising rationale for hiring Christians in same-sex marriages

I'm impressed that World Vision president Richard Stearns gives surprisingly logical reasons for the organization's recent policy change that they will now hire Christians in same-sex marriages. According to Christianity Today, Stearns says:

Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues. It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage.

Stearns explains that World Vision is a parachurch organization that doesn't take sides on controversial issues that divide the church. Unlike the church they do not make doctrinal pronouncements, but seek to include Christians from all sides in an effort to fulfill their ministry's goal of serving the poor.

"Denominations disagree on many, many things: on divorce and remarriage, modes of baptism, women in leadership roles in the church, beliefs on evolution, etc.," [Stearns] said. "So our practice has always been to defer to the authority and autonomy of local churches and denominational bodies on matters of doctrine that go beyond the Apostles' Creed and our statement of faith. We unite around our [Trinitarian beliefs], and we have always deferred to the local church on these other matters." 

World Vision has hardly tried to court favor with the LGBT community in the past. They've recently fought for their legal right to hire and fire according to their own religious beliefs and resisted USAID pressure to employ non-discrimination hiring policies covering sexual orientation.

But that's what I admire about World Vision's approach. Fight for your legal right to control your own hiring and firing policies as a faith-based organization, then make fair policies on your own terms. Allowing gay Christians who are in same-sex marriages to work for World Vision is fair and consistent with their organization's historical approach to any controversial issue.

There are those who say that this is about moral compromise. "Would World Vision allow adulterous Christians to work for their organization?" some conservatives are asking. I guess it depends. There are those who say that Christians who have divorced unbiblically and remarried are adulterers, but others say grace should be extended in such situations. World Vision says they defer to local churches and denominations on the issue of divorce and remarriage, which implies they do hire Christians whom some would define as adulterers. But the point is, because there are valid arguments on both sides of the divorce and remarriage issue within the church, World Vision recognizes that professing Christians can believe one way or the other. And being a professing Christian is all they ask of their employees.

Likewise, there are Christians on either side of the same-sex marriage controversy. That is why entire denominations are splitting down the middle over it. Those who accuse World Vision of morally compromising are missing the point. The point is whether there are legitimate biblical arguments on both sides of this issue. "Legitimate" isn't defined as "what I agree with." I personally don't believe blessing same-sex marriages in the church is biblical, but I understand that many of those who disagree with me are also Christians like myself. They have biblical arguments for their position and at times they have come close to persuading me. World Vision is simply acknowledging that the same-sex marriage issue has proven to be, over time, a legitimately tough call for churches, and therefore they are going to adjust their hiring policy to be consistent with the way they have dealt with similar issues in the past. It's an amazingly rational and fair step to take.

All over the Internet I see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 being quoted by conservatives who are throwing down the challenge for Christians to "truly" believe this verse:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor homosexual practicers . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.

But lately, I've been wondering if I "truly" believe this verse in Galatians 5:19-21:

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (italics mine).

What should I believe about those professing Christians who have shown open, unrepentant hostility toward gay and lesbian people, making false accusations against them about their experience of sexual orientation, and contributing to needless, hurtful conflict within their families and church congregations because of these accusations? The Bible says persons who practice such enmity, strife and divisiveness "will not inherit the kingdom of God." Should I "truly" believe what this verse says about the many conservative evangelicals who seem to fit this description?

For my part, I would rather hope that grace and Christ's blood can cover some of these follies, and leave those who seem caught up in them in God's hands to sanctify or judge as he sees fit.

Why the legal case for gay civil marriage is also a moral one

Recently I saw this YouTube of Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, a devout Catholic, announcing tearfully to his constituents why he is not going to defend Kentucky's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. As I saw this man's struggle of conscience it occurred to me that the legal arguments for civil same-sex marriage, which Conway clearly anguished over, aren't understood all that clearly by the average Christian who opposes gay marriage on religious/moral grounds.

For years now I've given my fellow Christians a pass if they bristled at the mention of gay civil marriage. "Look," I'd tell them, "you don't have to agree with my political views," then I'd try to discuss something about gay issues that was a little less advanced. But how long can evangelicals insist that they oppose gay civil marriage on moral grounds when they fail to see that there are also moral grounds for supporting it?

Many Christians have an underlying suspicion that people who focus on the constitutional arguments for same-sex civil marriage are doing so because they don't have biblical morals. Civil liberties is just a secular morality, a substitute ethic that has blinded the secular person from seeing the truth of the Bible's teaching.

There may be something to that. But what's damaging to our Christian witness is that the reverse is also true. Fixating on the Bible's moral teaching on gay sex blinds many evangelicals from seeing that the case for gay civil marriage is more justified, both legally and morally, than they think. It isn't about those who care about morals versus those who don't. In fact, the reason secular people are quicker to catch on to the civil liberties argument is that they don't have a religious prejudice against understanding it. As a Bible-believing Christian myself I hate to say it, but I think it's true.

Attorney General Jack Conway stated, "I came to the inescapable conclusion that if I [defended this case], I would be defending discrimination. That I will not do." As a Catholic he is not unaware of the moral teaching of his church on homosexuality, but as attorney general he knows he would betray the public trust in his office if he supported legal discrimination against gays. For Conway opposing discrimination is also a moral stance, and one that evangelical Christians would do well to understand better.

I'm not a law expert by any means, so I will explain my own lay understanding of the legal case for gay marriage in the best way I can:

• We have something called the Fourteenth Amendment in our U.S. Constitution. It states the following:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

• The part I italicized contains what's called the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary government intrusion into life, liberty or property. It has to do with interfering with a fundamental right. Equal protection has to do with treating all citizens equally under the law. 

• If a law either 1) interferes with someone's fundamental right (Due Process), or 2) denies Equal Protection to a group of people who fall under a "suspect classification" (more on that later), then such a law can only be justified if passes the standard of "strict scrutiny."

• "Strict scrutiny" is the highest standard of judicial review (as opposed to the lesser standards of "rational basis review" and "intermediate scrutiny"). Strict scrutiny means you have to demonstrate that this law serves a "compelling government interest" (e.g., our national security is at stake, multiple lives are in danger . . . that level of urgency). Plus, it must be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that government interest using the "least restrictive means." Discrimination is serious business, so if the law in question isn't directly on target to achieve this compelling interest, or if it is in any way overly restrictive, then it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. It gets the eject button.

• There are two possible grounds for arguing that laws prohibiting gay marriage should be subject to the highest standard of strict scrutiny: 1) they interfere with a fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice, contra Due Process, 2) they discriminate against gays and lesbians because of their sexual orientation, contra Equal Protection. 

• Re. ground #1: In the Loving v. Virginia decision which struck down laws against interracial marriage, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry the person of their choice is denying them a fundamental right. 

• Re. ground #2: If gays and lesbians are denied the right to marry because their choice of partner is dictated by their sexual orientation, then they are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Now, remember I mentioned earlier something called "suspect classification"? This refers to a classification of groups of people that meets certain criteria making them susceptible to discrimination. The Supreme Court currently recognizes race, national origin, religion and alienage (being a foreigner) as suspect classifications. Whenever a law targets a suspect class, the courts subject it to strict scrutiny to determine whether it violates Equal Protection. Right now, sexual orientation is not considered a suspect classification. 

• However, in the recent Proposition 8 case Judge Vaughn Walker argued that sexual orientation should be a suspect classification because as a group, gay and lesbian people fit the criteria: 1) they have a history of being discriminated against, partly due to stereotypes, 2) they have an immutable and/or highly visible distinguishing trait, 3) they are powerless to protect themselves in the political process, 4) their distinguishing trait does not prevent the group from contributing meaningfully to society.

• It turned out Judge Walker did not need to make the case for sexual orientation as a suspect classification (requiring strict scrutiny) because he determined that Proposition 8 did not even pass "rational basis review." What's that? Well, if strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review, rational basis review is the lowest standard. It demands only the barest rational justification for the unequal treatment of one group of people over another (e.g., 18-year-olds are allowed to drive but 12-year-olds aren't). The judge apparently thought Proposition 8 was so discriminatory it couldn't even clear the lowest hurdle of review.

• Some say that sexual orientation is currently being treated as a "quasi" suspect classification where an intermediate standard of review is being applied. Whatever the case, it's clear that whichever standard of review ends up being used, at minimum you have to come up with a rational reason for treating gay and lesbian people differently than everyone else. You have to show that their sexual orientation makes them psychologically unstable, less capable of contributing to society, morally inferior, a danger to others, or something of that nature, and you have to provide evidence that this is true of them as a class. There are simply fewer and fewer psychiatrists, sociologists and historians who are willing to stand up in court and testify as an objective fact that gay people are inferior to straights across the board.

So here's the takeaway. "Discrimination" in the legal sense shouldn't be taken as a word people are using just to sound off about their feelings or suspicions or political leanings. Laws that target specific classes of people for unequal treatment must be examined with the greatest of care, otherwise we are in danger of discrimination. We are in danger of legalizing the treatment of certain types of people as inferior human beings.

When Attorney General Jack Conway said, "I came to the inescapable conclusion that if I [defended this case], I would be defending discrimination. That I will not do," he wasn't capitulating to secular values but standing for his Christian beliefs. Opposing discrimination is very much a Christian moral issue because our Constitution, in its own methodical, pedantic way, upholds the principle that all human beings should be treated with dignity as creatures made in God's image.

We think we are being a good Christian testimony when we take a moral stand against same-sex civil marriage. But it may be that the message we are really sending to outsiders is that we think gay and lesbian people are less deserving of legal protection, fairness, dignity and respect than everyone else. If that's not how we want to be understood, then like the attorney general we should start concerning ourselves with the more fundamental moral issue of opposing discrimination, and leave the moral question of gay sex to the 5% of our society's population for whom it is personally and directly relevant.

The comments section: my four and a half year experiment

On June 24, 2009 I enabled the comments section of this blog in order to participate in "Synchroblog Day" on which I and sixty other bloggers addressed the same question on how to bridge the gap in our conversations about faith and sexuality. Until that point I didn't allow comments on this blog. However, I decided to try it since the whole point of the synchroblog experiment was to interact with other bloggers and share readers' reactions. Afterward I kept the comments section enabled to see what would come of it.

These past four and a half years, I've learned that the readers of this blog are far more respectful and restrained than some of the commenters I've read on other blogs. I've gotten to know many of you better from the comments you've left. I've seen encouraging feedback and thoughtful interaction. Some of you have shared prayer requests or put up links to additional material that might be of interest to other readers. I'm grateful for all the good that's come out of that kind of sharing.

All that said and acknowledged, I think it's time to close off the comments section once again. I came to this conclusion because I am also a big reader of blogs and websites, and lately I've noticed that there has been an increasingly negative feeling toward comments sections in general. You read a great article that makes excellent points and you wonder what's not to like. Then along comes the comments section. It's not that there aren't worthwhile comments being made by people who actually read and understood the article. It's that what usually carries the day are the inflammatory remarks on tangential points, and the long thread of debate that results.

The outcome is that a lot of intelligent people are discouraged from posting feedback because they don't want to be attacked by those who just like to be inflammatory. No one likes to "toss their pearls before swine," to use the biblical metaphor. So my suspicion is that many of the people whose feedback would be most worth reading aren't sharing it, at least not publicly.

I've been a long time fan and supporter of Andrew Sullivan's blog The Dish and have benefitted from much of his wisdom about blogging when I first started out. The Dish has never had a comments section, which for one thing makes it more pleasant to read. Instead Andrew will often share excepts of what readers email to him privately, and I've noticed that they are some of the most memorable and insightful contributions I've seen published on any blog. What you write privately to an audience of one individual is more honest and free than what you will say publicly before strangers. In a public forum some of the best stuff necessarily gets held back.

I've jumped on the bandwagon of having a comments section for the past four and a half years, but now I'd like to go back to the way things were.

If there are any posts or links from any of the past comments sections on this blog that you would like to copy and save for yourself, I will keep those available until the end of this month (March). But after that I am closing it all down. Blogger assures me that comments won't be erased but merely hidden on this blog, so if there is something you would like to retrieve after I've already closed down the comments section, email me and I will send you a copy of what you want.

Come April send me your feedback by email. If I want to share what you've written in a post I will ask your permission to do so.

Thanks, everyone.