One of my children still calls me "Daddy."  The others call me "Dad."  They all know my real name.  They know the ideals and values that I have taught them.  Most importantly, they know the heart of who I am and how much I love them.  I don't care what they call me.  I want them to know me by who I am and how much I love them.

Many people fight in the name of God.  Yhwh,  Allah.  Jehovah.  Jesus.  Condemning torturing and killing each other over names.  I don't understand why we believe that God could be pleased by this.  I regularly drive by a billboard that reads, "Jesus is the ONLY way to God."  I cringe whenever I read it.  That sign communicates, "God only loves Christians."  That's not the message of Jesus.  "I am the way, the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me."  I find no convincing evidence that, when Jesus said these words, he wanted people to believe in a name, a set of traditions or doctrines, a particular organization or brand of religion.

It seems to me that what Jesus wanted was for us to believe in him.  Not his name.  A name is a sign.  It points to something.  The name "Jesus" points to the human, who, as the essence of God, displayed who God is with perfect clarity.  He called those who believed in him to follow him.  To adopt his heart and his purpose - loving and redeeming the world.  Every day I see people who, in the name of Jesus, worship a God who looks nothing like him.  I can only conclude that it is equally probable that those who worship a God who looks like Jesus, though they know him by a different name, worship him truly.

In saying this, I acknowledge - with no small amount of joy - that my standard for understanding the person of God is Jesus, as revealed in the Christian scriptures,  In this sense, I believe that Jesus truly is the only way to God, that the selflessly loving Father we find in the person of Jesus and his teaching is who God truly is.  If you know Allah as the God of selfless love, forgiveness, mercy and truth, then I must conclude that we worship the same God.  If you worship a Jesus who controls through power and fear, I can conclude nothing other than that we worship wholly different Gods.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that, in your Christianity, you have much to learn of the one true God from my Muslim friend.

Every Day is the End of the World As You Know It

Every day is the end of the world as you know it. Every day is the beginning of a brand new world to discover.

This thought hit me yesterday afternoon and I haven't been able to get it out of my mind.  When I was young, I flowed with change like it was water.  I loved change.  In many ways I still do.  But as I get older, I find that change makes me nervous.  Endings make me unusually sad.  Somewhere along the way, I lost track of the fact that endings are normal; they, too, are good.  Without endings, there can be no beginnings.  Life is movement and movement requires change.  If you're fighting change, you're fighting life.  Irony of ironies that rejecting change is, in a way, embracing death.

Sometimes I think that I fear change because it frustrates my attempts to control my life.  As a young man, it was a foregone conclusion that I had little or no control over my life.  However, as this abhorrent thing called "maturity" has descended upon me, it has brought with it the vain illusion - a strange delusion - that I can control things in my life.  Events. Consequences. People. Fate.

It's a lie.  You cannot control things.  You cannot control people.  You cannot control the future.  It is the pulling of a strand on a sweater.  The more you pull, the more the thing unravels.  Stop it.  It is futile.  It is wrong.  Stare into the unblinking eye of the universe and scream.  Stare into the face of God and accuse.  You will not stop the machinery of time and change.  You will be ground to powder.  For dust you are, and to dust you will return.

Be still.  The God who formed the stars and hurled them into the darkness, formed you from the dust of their dissolution.  In every death there is the promise of life, if you embrace it in faith and hope.  In every ending, the promise of beginning.  Children will grow up.  Relationships will move on.  Chapters, like songs, will end.  Suns will set.  But fear not, child, they will rise again.

40 Answers to 40 Questions

A response to Kevin DeYoung's list of 40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags. 

Now, I wouldn't say I'm "celebrating" the decision because it doesn't apply to me directly, but I will say that I am in support of it. I don't own a rainbow flag and I probably wouldn't be waving it if I did, but I do believe that a position of loving acceptance of homosexuals in a state affirmed marriage relationship is not unChristian. This is my attempt to answer those questions for those who want to have the discussion. I am not infallible, so take these answers for what they are, one man's attempt to honestly answer a very difficult question.

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

I have over the last 5-7 years come to the belief that every expression of human love that reflects the genuine, faithful, grace-filled, selfless love of Christ is to be celebrated.  A qualification:  some will say that homosexual marriage is not selfless, but I would suggest - as a married heterosexual - that it is as selfless as heterosexual marriage.

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

Lk 10:25-37; Mt 22:23-30; Acts 10.  However, the purpose of this question is draw all argument from scripture where the conservative belief in inerrancy and literal interpretation can be used to force the argument.  I do not believe in inerrancy in that sense, infallibility or simply inspiration would be a better way of understanding my view of scripture.

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

Sexual activity is not what is celebrated in marriage.  It is the relationship of commitment, faithfulness and trust that is to be celebrated.  With the exclusion of true sexual intercourse, many of the acts of sexual activity within heterosexual relationships are not radically different from those same acts in homosexual relationships.  The only sexual activity celebrated as a blessing in the scriptures in reference to original design appears to be one that leads to procreation.  This sexual activity is, in fact, *commanded* in the original design.  However, Jesus indicates that celibacy is also a viable option.  Paul, for his opinion, indicates that celibacy might even be a better choice than marriage.  The natural conclusion is that the sexual activity is not the blessing, but the committed relationship within which the activity occurs.

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

Which verses demand that marriage depict the relationship between Christ and the church? However, the image of Unity in difference is not limited to sexual difference. Two people of the same sex have only one less difference than two people of the opposite sex. Similarly, the marriage relationship illustrates God's committed, faithful love for his children in its reflection of his committed, faithful, selfless love. An inferior reflection of this love can be evidenced in any marriage relationship.

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

If I didn’t, I wouldn’t hold this position.  Jesus didn’t come to a perfect world, he came to a broken one.  I believe he would be as “okay” with homosexual marriage as he is imperfect heterosexual marriage.

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

In Mt 19:4-12, the question the Pharisees ask regards *divorce.  Jesus quotes this verse in order to assert the permanence of marriage, not the sexuality of marriage.  That said, the passage Jesus cites does *assume the heterosexual relationship of marriage.  However, the question Jesus is answering has nothing to do with homosexual marriage.  How could it, in fact?  Such a question would not have been addressed.

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

Infidelity, specifically adultery and sexual relationships outside of the intent of fidelity.

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

No one who knows anything about the Greek language would argue against the fact that the passage in Romans 1 does, in fact, refer to homosexuality.  However, there are a few caveats that should be observed.

1. The “type” of homosexual behavior described here is not defined.  Note that these men “burn” (ekkaio - were kindled ) for sex with other men.  Paul says, in 1 Cor 7:9, in reference to heterosexual marriage, that it is better to marry than to “burn” (purow - to be set on fire).  The implication is that the issue here is the lustfulness of the sexual desire.  Clearly, Paul is describing homosexual behavior as the consequence of departing from God’s will.  However, he is assuming the prevalent understanding of homosexual behavior of the time, which, according to those who have done the research, was almost exclusively self-gratifying, generally exploitative, not infrequently violent and essentially without fidelity of any kind.
2. Paul’s emphasis in this passage is idolatry, the turning upside down of our purpose as “idols” representing God to his creation in worshipping the creation.  The homosexuality here depicted is associated with that worship.  They “did not acknowledge God any longer.”  In what way is a believer with homosexual orientation (whether genetic or psychological) who is involved in a committed relationship and who seeks to worship God refusing to acknowledge God?
3. There is a long list of additional attributes beyond homosexuality associated with those who have given themselves over to idolatry and abandoning God.  Examine those professing Christians who are involved in homosexual relationships and see if you can match up those attributes as well.  Similarly, examine those professing Christians heterosexual relationships and see if you can match up those attributes any more or less successfully.

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

No.  The numerous passages like that 1 Corinthians refer not to “heaven” specifically, but to the “Kingdom of God.”  The Kingdom of God is as much “here and now” as it is “there and then” (heaven).  The choice of 1 Corinthians 6:9 seems disingenuous.  A parallel passage would be Gal 5:19-21 in which “anger,” “envy,” “jealousy,” “dissension” and “drunkenness” are included in the list of sins that keep a person out of the “Kingdom.”  If these sins keep us out of “heaven,” I am afraid it will be remarkably sparsely populated and many of our ministers will be unavailable to us there.

As to the Revelation passage, I would remind anyone who reads the Book of the Revelation that is a highly symbolic book and there are few who are willing to claim a complete understanding.  I suspect it serves a similar function as the 1 Corinthians and Galatians passages.

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

See #7.

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

It is not what those individuals failed to grasp, it is what they had not yet dealt with in their culture.  Of course they had dealt with forms of homosexuality, but not in the context of a democracy, not in the form of a large-scale movement of homosexual individuals seeking committed monogamous relationships, not in terms of the marriage relationship.  Whether or not one wants to admit it, this is a unique situation in history.  Every generation faces questions that previous generations did not.  Each generation has to answer those questions in light of scripture, reason, tradition and - in my opinion - experience (which is just another aspect of reason).

While we’re asking questions, however, let’s consider a few more.  What did Peter understand that Abraham, Moses or the other disciples had not grasped when he opened the way for Gentiles in the Church?  What did Paul grasp that Peter didn’t when he dared to confront him (Galatians 2)?  What did Luther and Calvin think they understood that a thousand years of Christianity had not grasped?  It should also be noted that there is a wide doctrinal difference between these men themselves, appealing to their combined authority might not be the best idea.

This is a question designed to intimidate.  So I will feel free to ask a question in return.  Why do some evangelicals call up names from history when it’s convenient and ignore them the rest of the time?  

12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

The same ones I am making right here.  Now, your turn.  How would you explain to patriarchal societies that they ought to make more room for women in ministry leadership positions given the predominantly patriarchal nature of the scriptures?  How did we argue that even though scripture justifies slavery in both Old and New Testaments, that we should forbid it in the United States? 

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

This has no relevance to the question.  Nonetheless, I will answer it.  Was I motivated by personal animus and bigotry when I, for most of my life, defined marriage as only between man and woman?  Maybe.  I think I was more motivated by the culture around me defining marriage for me.  We don’t question things unless we have a reason.  Over the last 20 years, we have been compelled to consider this question more carefully and our answers have changed.  Keeping the same opinion forever is not a virtue.

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

Studies show that it doesn’t really matter.  I think children do best when they have a home that is loving, nurturing and safe.  According to the statistics, there are 17,900,000 children in the world in need of adoption.  Would you prefer them to live on the streets?

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup

What research would you point to in opposition to this?

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

That should be based on further research and will likely be the subject of future litigation.  The state obviously has a role.  The separation of church and state forbids the church from asserting any control in this area.

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

Of course it points to something more than emotional and sexual fulfillment.  The end and purpose of marriage, as identified in scripture is companionship (it is not good to be for man to be alone), intimacy and procreation (go forth and multiply).  In the first sense, homosexual union meets this purpose.  In the second, it arguably cannot.  However, it should be pointed out that not all heterosexual marriages meet this purpose, either.  Should those be considered sinful or unacceptable?  Should those who use contraceptives or other forms of birth control to directly contravene this second purpose be penalized as well?  

18. How would you define marriage?

Given that marriage is a cultural and religious concept, I think more discussion is needed on this subject.  I would start with "a permanent and faithful commitment of two people in partnership, companionship and love."

19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?

No.  It should be noted, however, that various cultures throughout time have allowed this.  Such cultures include those affirmed in the Bible and - on a literal interpretation of scripture - the patriarchs of the Judeo-Christian faith.  Nonetheless, I think it can be proved with relative certainty that this is, genetically speaking, a horrendously bad idea.

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?

Yes.  Many cultures have permitted polygamy, including Biblical cultures.  However, I think it is a profoundly bad idea in that it has a tendency to dilute the marriage elements of companionship and intimacy (though increasing the element of procreation).  Within an exclusive relationship between two people, strong trust can be developed.  In a relationship of more than two people, trust is endangered and one or more of the members of the relationship will always fear isolation or abandonment.  Further, legislatively speaking, this would be a practical nightmare.    

That said, we live in a democracy.  Christians don’t get to decide the legal definition of marriage for everyone else.  I have no control if the majority decides to accept polygamy as part of the legal definition of marriage.  I have control only over my own decisions including what I model or teach to those within my sphere of influence.  I will model and teach a choice that more accurately aligns with God’s purposes, fosters his Kingdom and creates a higher likelihood of joy, peace, fidelity, trust, satisfaction and hope in the monogamous marriage relationship.

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?

Again, in a democracy, I don’t get to control who or how many people get married.  I will always teach my family that marriage is intended for two people, ideally male and female, and not to marry someone of close relationship because it is creepy and tends to produce genetic abnormalities and disease.

22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?

There *is* a federal age of consent.  If not overridden by as state law, the federal age of consent is 18.  Considering the various cultures throughout history, including Biblical cultures, this is an abnormality.  Individuals were often married at significantly younger ages.  There should be an age of consent in any culture that defines when young people are able to fully understand and be held accountable for their legal, ethical and societal agreements.

As for me, I will teach my own children that marriage before the age of 18 is a stupendously bad idea.  However, this is unlikely to be a problem in our culture.  The actual marrying age of individuals has increased over time rather than decreased.  Given protective parental attitudes, I don’t see this reversing.

23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?

I would argue no.  However, once again, we live in a democracy and it is not my right to make my beliefs into a universal decision what is marriage as defined by the state.  

24. If not, why not?

Not least because it would be a legislative nightmare.  Beyond that, it’s not my right to make this determination for another person or for society at large.  Traditionally, marriage is essentially a specialized heterosexual best friend relationship with legally, culturally and religiously affirmed sexual and legal benefits. I’m not sure what *new* relationship that could be conceived to place under this category of marriage.  If someone wants to marry a turnip, it’s not my problem.  As an ordained person, however, if they want ME to perform their wedding, I’m going to tell them no… and perhaps advise psychological counsel.  

25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

Absolutely.  Naturally, this does not go without qualification.  If your religious belief interferes with your role as a legislative official, then you surrender certain aspects of your religious practice whenever you function in that role.  You shouldn’t apply for the job of executioner, for example, if your faith prohibits you from killing people.  In the same way, don’t assume the role of Court Clerk if your faith prohibits you from giving a marriage license to a gay couple.

26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

Of course!  Again, with qualification.  Sometimes people use their “faith” as a means of manipulation and/or profit.  But I would stand up with anyone of any belief, especially my brothers and sisters in Christ, if their freedom of religion was actually being violated!  

27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?

Certainly!  As long as the Evangelicals and Catholics aren’t shaming and bullying the gays and lesbians while they’re asking to be defended. 

28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?

The church really doesn’t have a way to “ensure” or control anything of the sort.  The church holds out the picture of the selfless love of God in Christ.  It teaches this love.  It lives this love.  The reality is that the church can’t control people except by individuals breaking relationship with those who choose to act in opposition to the teaching of Christ and the church.

29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?

By “open,” I assume you mean “not monogamous.”  The church should reach out to these people as much as possible to communicate Christ’s love and purpose for them.  If they are hurting or damaging other people in the church by their actions - whatever they are - it should be brought before the church as a whole.  If absolutely necessary, then, members of the church should break relationship with them for the good of both parties.

30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?

Yes.  Just like it is a sin for heterosexual person to do the same.  Just as gluttony is a sin.  Just as jealousy is a sin.  Just as war is sinful.  You get where I’m going with this?

31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?

They will teach believers in Christ that their purpose is to pursue the Kingdom of God in all its attributes of faithfulness, wholeness and selfless love.  Nonetheless, each person chooses whether and to what degree they participate in that Kingdom.  This has always been the case.

32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?

Love that strives to put the other above the self.

33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?

“Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

God’s commands, as summarized by Jesus are:  

1. Love God.  
2. Love others as you love yourself.

If God is the source of selfless love, we love him by loving others as ourselves.

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?

No.  It’s impossible to love someone unless they agree with you on everything.  No… wait… that’s *controlling someone else.  Of course you can love someone and disagree with their decisions!

36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?

Many things have changed for me about my understanding of faith over the years.  A faith that grows will always change as we seek God honestly and truthfully and do our best to submit to what we discover.  I have come to love Christ more.  I have come to accept other people better.  I have learned to judge other people less.  I have learned to pursue the Kingdom more faithfully.

37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?

Ahhh… here is the rub.  God didn’t call me to be a “traditional evangelical.”  God called me to follow Jesus.  Many Evangelicals have this troubling tendency to assume that they are the only *real Christians.  Evangelicalism is new on the Christian scene, as are several of its “traditional distinctives.”  I am an evangelical in that I believe that the fundamental call of Christ is to meet the greatest fundamental need of humankind:  to help people understand and accept the love of God as illustrated by Christ and to work toward his Kingdom. 

38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?

I would suggest that “Orthodox Christianity” is largely dependent on who is defining “orthodoxy.”  You are simply defining Christianity in your own terms.  On the other hand, there are numerous open and affirming churches where people are joining Orthodox Christianity as defined by the creed, where people are being called to the pursuit of God and his Kingdom and missionaries are going out into the world to share that love.  

39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?

I do.  Of course that depends on your definition of “the church.”  If you mean “committed to your view of the evangelical church,” then no.  If you mean “committed to the Scriptures” as equivalent to “committed to inerrancy,” then no.  If, on the other hand, you mean commitment to the body of all believers throughout time and space, commitment to Christ the Redeemer and his Kingdom, commitment to the Scriptures as a locus of truth to be reasonably interpreted in the context of the world around us under the influence of tradition and the Holy Spirit.. then yes.  Yes, I genuinely, desperately do. 

40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?

The sins of selfish lust that see the “other” as an object for the satisfaction of the self instead of the beloved of God.  The sin of rebellion against the commands of Christ to love God and love others selflessly.  The sin of turning away from God and refusing to acknowledge him in Christ.

Returning Love for Judgment

Do not judge, or you also will be judged.  - Jesus

I hurt for many of my brothers and sisters in Christ right now.  The heat and duration of the marriage rights debate along with the amplified religious diatribe have created a genuine perception of crisis for many conservative believers.  Some of them are confused and heartbroken.  Still others are concerned and afraid.  For those who support the High Court’s ruling on marriage, I would remind you that Jesus’ command not to judge falls now on you.

Many who are now celebrating have borne a great deal of pain over the years.  Some who have experienced the worst hurt may now feel justified in returning judgment for judgment.  I believe they are tragically mistaken.  Wrong doesn’t magically become right when you achieve the legal upper hand.  For any who follow the Way of Christ, his command remains now what it has always been:  “love one another.”  You may not always have received love, but you are called to give love.  You may not always have received grace, but God has still called you to be a vessel for grace.

I can’t say this will be easy.  Following in Jesus’ footsteps rarely is.  His followers are called to love, called to be peacemakers.  Dare I even say it... we are called to reconciled to one another.  It may take time, but we must all move in that direction if we hope to truly participate in the redeeming work of Christ.  I know this will take time, but I believe that the love of Christ is strong enough to overcome any obstacles, even our own selves.  The discussion isn’t over and I pray for those on both sides to continue working toward some middle ground, founded on mutual love, respect and grace.  If we cannot yet walk together, let us walk in the same direction.

To any person on either side who can only see through eyes of hatred or malice, I cannot judge you except to say that we walk opposing roads, you to your god and I to mine.  However, we may never be closer to each other than we are now, so forgive my presumption in this moment to make an observation.  When I look down this road to the horizon, I see the sun rising full and hopeful on the horizon.  At the end of your road, on the other hand, I can see only darkness.

Why Christians Shouldn’t Fear Legalized Gay Marriage

Because Christians didn’t actually lose anything.  

Some Christians have been so entrenched in the “culture war” mentality that they feel an irrational sense of loss.  The only thing that Christians have lost is the right to withhold a legal privilege to a minority group.

Let that set in.

There is currently a lot of talk about “free exercise” of religion.  At what point did following Christ’s commandments require punishing other people?  I have spent most of my life studying Jesus’ teaching and I just don’t see that anywhere.  If the free exercise of your Christian faith requires denying a blessing to someone else, you’ve misunderstood Jesus… and the Constitution.

Because scared people get crazy.

For better or worse, a significant component of Christian identity is based in martyrdom.  Some church leaders will capitalize on this.  Nothing forges unity like the fires of fear.  Even now, there are believers gathering in bible study classes, coffee shops, prayer groups and social media sites fanning the flames of paranoia with visions of authorities storming their sanctuaries and forcing them to host homosexual marriage ceremonies under the threat of hostile action.

Listen to me.  That’s irrational fear.  It’s crazy talk.  The ruling legalized gay marriage.  That’s it.

“Sure, but the implications…”

The implication is that homosexual people have the same rights as other people.  The end.

Pastors and churches refuse to perform and host marriages every day for any number of arbitrary reasons.  I know.  I worked in a church where the pastor required a period of abstinence before the marriage prior to the wedding.  It isn’t uncommon for ministers to refuse to perform a marriage because both parties aren’t Christian.  That is a “free exercise” of religion that cannot be denied.

The absolute worst any Christian or Church really has to fear from the “implications” of this ruling is the loss of their “tax exempt” status.  In this extremely unlikely event, I remember Jesus saying something about “giving unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.”  The last thing we need is people drawing dividing lines and creating battle camps.  That never ends well.

Because you have an opportunity

Christians are meant to influence the world through lives lived in hope and example.  Let your own marriage reflect the love of Christ in all its love, grace, hope, faithfulness and selfless love.  You will share more joy that way.  You never had any control over anyone else anyway.  Even God doesn't exercise that kind of control.  Trust that the Redeemer of the universe knows his business better than you.  The Redeemer is always working.  Look carefully and you will find Him busy here too. 

Jesus on Human Sexuality

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says something profoundly interesting.  In the fully redeemed creation, says Christ, “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”  The passage doesn’t explicitly tell us very much.  However, it IMPLIES something of critical importance for the discussion on homosexual relationships.  It hints that human relationship and sexuality have not yet reached their final destination.

The scriptures say that God created and it was good.  They say that this creation was broken somehow.  They tell us that God is redeeming that creation.  Do not misunderstand this point.  Redemption does NOT mean that God is returning creation to its original state.  In fact, the unity of God and humanity in Christ shows us that redemption is moving us to something BETTER than the original creation.

I would be lying to you if I said that I understand same-sex attraction.  I just don’t.  I don’t even understand what makes me attracted to the opposite sex.  Maybe it’s genetic.  Maybe it’s psychological.  I suspect it is of divine purpose, intended to drive the principle of multiplication - of species preservation and propagation.  A fundamental religious opposition to homosexuality is that it goes against this divine purpose.  Abstinence, celibacy and birth control in all its forms, all of these function in opposition to that purpose.  This is not a sustainable argument.    

Portions of the scriptures speak against homosexuality.  No intelligent person would argue against this point.  Larger portions of the scriptures also speak against gluttony, pride, wealth, hatred, inequity, eating shellfish, tattoos and sewing different fabrics together.  Portions of the scriptures also affirm slavery, infanticide and genocide.  I don’t base my faith on any of these components of scripture.  I base my faith on the redeeming, gracious, life-giving love of Christ.  I practice my faith in hopeful anticipation of the Kingdom that bears the name and character of that same Christ, Jesus.

What will sexuality mean in that Kingdom?  Christ didn’t see fit to tell us.  I am of the humble opinion that it will mean more and less than anything we find in the crumbling remains of this present kingdom.  One thing, however, is certain. Redeemed human sexuality in the coming Kingdom will be infused with the elements of grace, forgiveness, humility, truth, hope and selfless love that characterize Christ himself.  To the degree that any relationship embodies those elements, it participates in the redeeming work of Jesus here and now.  We do more and better good by fostering such relationships than forbidding them.

   

An important decision was made today.  I agree with that decision.  I don't agree with it because "everyone else" agrees with it.  I don't agree with it because I "want to avoid conflict."  I don't agree with it because I have a "vested interest."  I agree with it because I believe in Jesus.  Christ summed up all the Law in two commandments:  1) "love God with everything you are" and  2) "love others as you love yourself.”  In the Gospel of John, Jesus said, “If you love me, follow my commandments.”  This is the essential ethical principle of Christ’s teaching.  I choose to follow Jesus.

   

The one man Jesus turned away...

was not gay.  Once again, I find social media active with Christians posting their opinions on homosexuality.  Why?  Because another well-known evangelical (Tony Campolo) invited homosexuals to the party.  “You can’t just do that,” say some of my evangelical friends, “some people don’t belong at the party!”  Here are two things I would offer my brothers and sisters for consideration.

The one man Jesus turned away was not gay.  He was rich (Mk 10:17-31).  American Christians live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.  Many churches spend far more money on their buildings, programs and worship services than they spend on giving to the poor.  Yet Jesus said to the rich man, “Go and sell all your possessions and give money to the poor and you will have treasures in heaven.”  This is the passage that keeps me up at night.  This is the issue of obedience that I struggle with daily.  I… we… look a lot more like the rich man than Lazarus.*

Secondly, please recall that there was a time when you weren’t invited to the party.  Peter went against direct testimony of the scriptures when he opened the door to the Gentiles who wanted to follow Jesus.  You may be tempted to say, “But that’s just because the religious community misunderstood the point of the OT statements about gentiles.”  I agree with you, but the religious community was upset for the exact same reason: “They aren’t invited to the party!”  

Peter was skeptical, but what convinced him was seeing the love of Christ and the power of the spirit moving in the house of Cornelius.  Is it possible that we have misunderstood the point of some passages of scripture?  Is it possible you are ignoring the movement of the spirit in people because you have judged them?  Are you “standing for Christianity” or standing in Jesus’ way?

I’m not God.  I’m not here to judge you.  I find the judgment seat uncomfortable… and crowded.  These are questions I’ve asked myself along the journey to understand and love Christ.  This is not ultimately about agendas on one side or the other, not about political or religious ideologies.  This is about real people who are trying to love Christ and follow him with their lives.

*Technically, Jesus didn’t even turn the rich man away, he walked away of himself.  There was also the demoniac, but Jesus didn’t turn him away so much as redirect him to a different purpose.