John H Armstrong

The Problem with Nondiscrimination Laws and the Rights of Homosexuals

I hate discrimination. I believe that when it comes to barring people from public places civil rights laws are quite necessary. I also believe that discrimination against homosexuals, because of their sexual orientation or private practice, is wrong. We presently face a number of legal struggles about discrimination that will impact all of us in one way or another. Let me explain what I mean with an intriguing development out of Great Britain. 

Fifteen years ago Peter and Hazelmary Bull made headlines when some reporters saw their "stodgy guest policy" (Wall Street Journal, 3/16/12) in these words: "No double rooms for unmarried couples." Since 1986 the Bulls had been turning away unwed couples at their Cornish B & B. No one bothered much until very recently. They just considered the Bulls out of touch. But things have changed now and this change is happening all across the West. 

A British appeals court recently upheld a stiff fine against the Bulls for turning down two men who wanted a room in their B & B 2008. These two men were joined in a legal civil union. (Great Britain has accepted civil unions since 2005.)  The Bulls, who refer to themselves as "born again Christians," feel they should decline such guests. The charge against them is that they violated the 2007 Equality Act. They have now appealed to the U.K. Supreme Court and if they lose they will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. (They are being represented by a very conservative Christian legal group.) Current British law exempts some from nondiscrimination laws, especially churches. But commercial guesthouses do not get such an exemption, thus the battle with the Bulls and their house. 

Here is the point. The Bulls are allowed to hold their convictions in private but they cannot practice them in regards to their B & B because it is a "service and public function."  The Bulls are seeking "reasonable accommodation or expansion" for enterprises such as their own business. Here is the problem. The equality law is constructed to allow religious liberty only within a religious organization. Anne Jolis, writing in the Wall Street Journal, adds, "That's true enough, though Britain's equality and nondiscrimination rules already have more loopholes than a coherent principle can bear. A case in point involves British Airways, a private business that has had the better luck enforcing its standards under Britain's patchwork of rights, responsibilities and opt-outs." 

A dispute with British Airways (BA) now makes its way to the European Court of Human Rights. In this case BA has a long-standing dress code that bars employees from wearing visible religious symbols. In 2006 a check-in attendant named Nadia Eweida refused to stop displaying her crucifix and then refused a job that would have placed her in a non-public place with BA. She was placed on unpaid leave for six months. Subsequently BA relaxed its policy in 2007. British courts rejected her claim and BA was not forced to pay her back wages. She is now arguing her case before the European court in Strasbourg. Her argument? The UK court failed to protect her religious rights to nondiscrimination in the workplace. The government's argument, in this case, is actually based on the fact that Christianity does not require a believer to wear a symbol of their faith. (To be honest about this, I have to agree with this interpretation!) Wearing such a sign does not constitute the "practice" of the Christian faith. She is thus engaging in behavior that is "inspired by belief" but not essential to her expression of Christian faith. The court also argued, and this is a more persuasive point, that a private company has no "positive obligations to ensure this right." Her rights were not violated since she was "free to resign and seek employment elsewhere." 

But here is the problem with the argument of the Bulls with regard to their B & B. Just as no one forces Christians who wear symbols to work for secular-sensitive airlines nothing should compel a same-sex couple to lodge at a B & B that seeks to run its business by their Christian principles. In the case of the Bulls the government's position, says the Wall Street Journal "comes down to the fact that no one forces Christians to open businesses." 

A Downing Street spokesman said a few weeks ago that if a European court finds against Ms. Eweida, then the government may look into new protections for religious workers against private standards such as dress codes. The Wall Street Journal concludes: "That might satisfy devout Britains for a while, as would a new carve-out for religious business owners such as the Bulls--at least until the next time anyone's convictions, mores, practices or habits conflict with anyone else's in the country. Meanwhile, these small victories will only further muddle companies' freedoms to dispose of their resources as they see fit--regardless of faith, sexual orientation, or ever-changing estimations of political expedience."

These same types of arguments are already playing themselves out in the legal and political culture of the U.S. If you think this is simply a matter of "equality" or "prejudice" then I believe you clearly fail to grasp the deep significance of the points made above. Does this rise to the level of refusing service to a black person in a hotel or restaurant in the 1960s? It could if you are really honest about it. Does a company have the right to make standards about how employees should dress when the public will engage with them? I think so. But does this mean that there can be no show of religion in such a place? What about Muslim female employees who wear the traditional head coverings? I would guess this would be allowed because it would be seen as part of the practice of Islam.

I, for one, am not profoundly alarmed by this debate. Thus I do not agree with Christians who see all of this as a form of persecution. But I also do not agree that all laws against discrimination are entirely equal. This seems to be the reason we are still working this out in public contexts. I hope Christians will keep a cooler temperament about these debates and contribute to the future by helping us end discrimination against homosexuals wherever possible without sacrificing our religious freedom in the process. The way forward is slippery. Many challenges will have to be faced legally. I pray that we will respond with civility and grace in how we engage in these struggles about the law. I do not believe my rights are under constant assault. I do not believe there is a vast conspiracy to deny me my faith or to stop my public practice of Christianity. I do believe the way I can express my faith is changing and it is only right that I observe this and respond where I can since mission must always be contextualized if it is done well. At the same time I am committed to the open practice of religious freedom. If religious freedom is only a private right then we have lost a vital freedom for all of us, including homosexuals, blacks, non-Christians, etc. This debate will not end soon. Let us pray for wisdom in how we respond. There will be plenty of heat from the far left and far right but Christians should look for better ways to show the love of Christ in public. 

Is It Necessary to Be Sexually Active to Order to Be a Healthy, Flourishing Person?

This is a rather amazing piece of popular television dialogue. You will clearly note that Tim Gunn does not take a moral position about sexual practice in his comments. So, at least for a moment, please leave the moral questions off the table. Watch this short clip for what it says and how the speaker actually says it, as well as the context in which he says it. His words clearly challenge the regnant modern Western idea that sexual experience is as necessary (almost) as food, clothing and shelter. If you are a sexual person, and all of us are created as sexual persons, then the argument generally made by our culture is that you should either be having sex or preparing and planning on having sex sooner than later. Why? Sexual expression is normal and human. It is argued that it is thus a part of who you are and without experiencing it you cannot express yourself in serious relationships. If you choose to remain celebrate then you are abnormal, or so much of the culture seems to say in our modern debates about this issue. It is this thesis that I believe we should profoundly and patiently challenge, regardless of our moral perspective. We need to seek common ground where we can find it and this is genuinely a place to start a serious conversation. We might disagree about some verses of Scripture (as serious Christians do) but the question remains: "Must normal adults with strong sexual inclinations be sexually active in order to be healthy people with great friendships and full lives?" The dominant answer is clear! But should we listen to the Tim Gunn's narrative and consider seeing this question differently?

   

You will note that Tim Gunn is still a homosexual by his own definition yet he has not had an active sexual relationship for 29 years. Watch the response of the panel and see how they are "silenced" by the clarity and integrity of Tim's simple narrative and earnest response. I wonder if they thought to themselves, "This guy is really strange!" (I'm not taking a shot at the persons on this program but their body-language, and what one says just before Tim tells his own story, is rather clear.) I wonder if the hosts of this show, and many viewers, were stunned to actually realize that a person can be a healthy and normal human person (in this case a homosexual person) without having sex? I would love to have seen this question discussed openly. I hope we can inject this type of discussion into the sexual narrative that we communicate in our culture. 

I suggest that this entire debate (whether about homosexuality or heterosexuality) needs to move toward the discussion Tim Gunn's narrative creates if we are to get away from the perspective that we have so widely accepted as completely normal. 

A New Form of Excommunication

The Episcopal Church in the U.S. has been embroiled in deep controversy for many years. It reached the breaking point for thousands of devout Anglicans in 2003 when an openly partnered gay bishop, Gene Robinson (born 1947), was consecrated as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Robinson is widely known for being the first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be ordained as a bishop in a major Christian denomination that believes in the historic episcopate. Now, eight years later, the church is even more deeply split.

Even before the consecration of Bishop Robinson numbers of Episcopalians had begun to leave, forming several different Anglican church communions. Most of these early churches and priests submitted to the oversight of African Anglican bishops. I have several friends who followed this course and I’ve had the joy of speaking to a national gathering of these Anglicans.

Since Robinson’s consecration many, many more lifelong Episcopalians have left their church. Among these are even more of my friends. And numbered among those who have not left the Episcopal Church are other good friends. The sad fact is that to openly admit this creates tensions on every side in the midst of such a heated battle.

This historic breakup is genuinely tragic. On both sides there have been rash and hostile actions taken in debate. Though my sympathies are clearly aligned with those who believe that consecrating a bishop who is living in open immorality is wrong I cannot defend some of the actions my conservative friends have taken. The reproach of separation, and what often follows such action, clings to many of their otherwise fine efforts for the kingdom. Those friends who most encouraged me remained as long as possible (conscience is never a humanly uniform guide) inside the Episcopal Church but many of them finally left with tears and great sadness in a spirit of Christian love and humility. They are, to put it mildly, sick about this breakdown in Christian relationships within their beloved church. They did not leave because they hated someone or because they loved a good old fashioned ecclesial fight. They left because they felt their own call to ministry demanded they leave once their church had taken a moral stance that was not defensible biblically or historically. And almost everyone I know in this category continues to be in cordial relationship with many of their brothers and sisters who did not leave. Friendships can survive even ecclesial battles if the love of Christ prevails!

I often criticize conservative Christians for their penchant to divide and create new schism in the church. Today I grieve over the schism and tragic commitment to destruction that has been taken in the liberal Episcopal Church in the United States. This is especially true with regard to the leadership of Katharine Jefferts Schori (born 1954), the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States. Let me explain.

In 2009 the breakaway Episcopalians in the U.S. and Canada formed the Anglican Church in North America. I’ve been in conversation with leaders on both sides of this breakaway over the last few years. Again, I have friends who chose differently about how to respond to the moral crisis they see within the Episcopalian Church. The Anglican Church in North America reports 100,000 members in nearly 1,000 congregations. (Remember, there were large numbers who had already left or moved to other contexts before 2009!) What makes the Anglican Church in North America different is that it has been formally recognized by many Anglican primates outside the United States. And various Anglican bishops are working internationally to preserve the unity of the church as much as possible. As of this writing 22 of 38 provinces in the Anglican Church have declared themselves to be in “broken” or “impaired” communion with the Episcopal Church in the United States.

Yet in spite of all this global unrest in the great Anglican communion Bishop Schori says this new Anglican group is encroaching on her church’s jurisdiction. As a result of this belief she has authorized dozens of lawyers “to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church.” On the surface this stance might seem to make sense but consider what she is really saying. Alan Haley, a canon lawyer who has represented a diocese in one such case, says the Episcopal Church has dedicated $22 million to legal actions against departing clergy, congregations and dioceses.

But it doesn’t stop there. The Episcopal Church has increased these attacks in recent months. It has decided that any church which breaks away, and buys its property from the Episcopal Church, must disaffiliate from all other Anglican groups.

In September a well-known Pittsburgh congregation, All Saints Episcopal Anglican Church, walked away from its building, inhabited since 1928. The congregation called the Episcopal Church “mean-spirited” and said it had denied them their “freedom of religious affiliation.” Having read both sides of this debate, and followed it with growing sadness, I have to agree with All Saints Church in this case. It seems liberal Christians are liberal only up to a point. Then it seems that it is OK to be “mean spirited” in the same way they rightly charge of some conservatives.

Some churches have opted to disaffiliate rather than spend years in expensive litigation. Two congregations in Pennsylvania and two in Virginia have promised they will not affiliate with other Anglicans for five years after they bought their property. But affiliation with a bishop, by definition, is essential to Anglican identity. This position leaves the church unable to work with local and national church bodies on things like disaster relief, youth retreats, educational seminars, clergy insurance and pension programs, etc. (Many ministers are losing their insurance and pensions as this tragedy unfolds!)

In 1 Corinthians 6 the apostle urges Christians to not settle their church issues before the courts. I have seen this text randomly applied in ways that suggest no Christian should ever use the courts to settle a true legal grievance with another believer. I find this interpretation weak at best. But what is clear from Paul’s counsel is that a church should not sue a church. The Episcopal Church is telling Christians where they can and can’t worship and whether or not they can remain Anglicans. They are clearly using the courts to fight churches and ministers who want their freedom of conscience. Other denominations who have trended in this same progressive direction on sexual practice have maintained that they will not follow this legal and spiritual pattern. They say they respect the freedom of conscience. I hope they really mean it and do not follow the Episcopal Church in this regard. Time will tell since religious battles like these are often unsettled and messy.

What does Bishop Schori have to say about this complete capitulation to the tactics of opposing churches and leaders in secular courts? “We can’t sell to an organization [note what she calls a church here] that wants to put us out of business.” Read her sentence again. She is really saying that this struggle is a kind of holy war within her church and one side must defeat the other! By calling these congregations “an organization” she may mean what she says; i.e., these are not churches! No fundamentalist could have said this with more prejudice and fervor. She adds that her job is to assure that “no competing branch of the Anglican Communion impose on the mission strategy” of the Episcopal Church. What mission strategy is this?

In this instance actions do speak much louder than words. Bishop Schori, as recent cases plainly demonstrates, could not be clearer in her intentions. When Good Shepherd Church in Binghamton, N.Y., left the Episcopal Church the congregation offered to pay for their building. In return the Episcopal Church sued the congregation to seize their property. What did the Episcopal Church do to reflect the “mission strategy” that Bishop Schori speaks about? They sold the property for a fraction of the price the congregation would have paid them and today the church building is a mosque! So much for a mission strategy.

Bishop Schori openly expressed the conclusion that the Episcopal Church would rather sell property to Muslims, Baptists, or even barkeepers, than fellow Anglicans who disagree with the Episcopal Church. Remember, this is war and she is packing the weapons of her warfare in both her language and actions.

Bishop Robert Duncan (born 1948) was deposed from his ministry by the Episcopal House of Bishops in 2008 by a vote of 88 to 35 in a closed meeting in Salt Lake City. This action removed Duncan from ordained ministry on the grounds of “abandonment of the communion of this church.” This “abandonment” amounted to Duncan’s support of Anglicans who disagreed with the Episcopal Church’s actions on sexual practice. Today Duncan is an archbishop in the Anglican Church in North America. He says his group has no intention to replace the Episcopal Church in the United States. I have many friends who know Bishop Duncan well. He served the Episcopal Church faithfully and was bishop of Colorado and then the bishop of Pittsburgh. He is a noble and generous Christian man. These Anglicans, like Archbishop Duncan, are not trying to destroy the Episcopal Church. They disagree with her actions so deeply that they feel compelled to follow their conscience into the ecclesial wilderness. But they are not out to destroy but rather to build and do Christ’s mission. More giving and activity in mission has been generated by these new alignments than by all the efforts of the Episcopal Church before this schism. Sad but true.

It is one thing to tell a congregation that you cannot have the property that you worship in each week because it belongs legally to the diocese. It is another to tell them to abandon what they believe or face legal action. Bishop Duncan says that the ongoing litigation is “scandalous” but what is worse is that the Episcopal Church is now saying you must abandon the tenets of your faith or we will punish you in court!

Many of you might say, “If these leaders and Christians believe they are following the Bible and conscience they should simply leave and get over it.” If you this think this then you show that you do not understand either Anglican polity or principle. What was always the “middle way” of gracious, orthodox generosity has become a way that now demands radical conformity beyond imagination. The Episcopal Church says to fellow Christians, who are Anglicans in faith and practice, if you do not agree with us in our liberal doctrinal and political stances then we will sue you and make you conform or we will drive you out! We will make sure you cannot be Anglicans! And we suggest that Catholics have abused power.

This practice needs to be seen for what it is—a new form of excommunication employed by progressive and liberal Christians who have always been the first to speak against other forms of excommunication. This is more than an irony. It is great tragedy!

Holy Sexuality

I continually seek to understand both the Scriptures and culture with regard to the very hot subject of human sexuality. I cannot think of a single issue that threatens to divide us and defeat us more than this one. We debate this in convoluted ways that are framed by paradigms never employed in previous debates void of modern notions about “rights” and true freedom. Some want to frame this entire debate entirely by a "civil rights” paradigm while others insist that homosexuality is an “abomination” that must end all further discussion. While the civil society debates this topic the church stands in the middle, so it seems, dividing one from another in ways almost beyond belief.

I am clear (in my mind) about several things in this debate.

1. The debate is hurting us on every side. Generations are divided, families are divided and churches are now divided. I see no end in sight.

2. The cultural debate is growing and will not stop. Everything will very likely change. There is very little that you or I can do to stop this even if we want to stop it. This is not “defeatism” but a recognition of the real dynamics of the issue and how things are changing with each passing year.

3. Each church will very likely have to choose how it will handle marriage and then realize that the government will make laws that have nothing to do with our sacred witness. Would it be so bad if the church conducted “religious” (Christian) ceremonies for weddings and the state only did the “civil” ceremonies and the two were not the same? I think not. I have never bought into the idea that I am a servant of the civil state when it comes to officiating at weddings. In most cultures, and throughout most of (modern and ancient) human history, the two were not the same.

4. The church must talk much more clearly about sexuality, all sexuality. The human person is a sexual being. We have avoided this for too long. We respond to same-sex inclinations (whatever label we put on this) and same-sex practice as a type of separate category of sexuality from the rest of our sexual nature. This is a huge mistake. The church or pastor that teaches on this subject must not settle for a series on homosexuality without putting this into the larger context of all sexuality.

5. Sexual needs are not the same as the need for food and water. Without food and water we will die. Without sex we might have trials and struggles but we can survive. We might even live a better life without sex in many instances. Where did we get the idea that sexuality meant God gave this desire to us to be used as we please, whenever we please, and always for our personal pleasure? Even with food the church has always taught that fasting had a place in growth. The big issue then is our lack of a solid biblical understanding of sexuality in general, not homosexuality.

6. We must teach about holy sexuality. The Bible clearly condemns sexual promiscuity. The debate should not be about whether this is true. Everyone knows that it is. The debate is about whether or not a person with strong sexual orientation or inclination toward the same-sex can act on this inclination and remain holy before the full-orbed teaching of the Scripture.

My friend Christopher Yuan, who was at one time a practicing homosexual, says he searched the whole Bible, after being converted to Christ in prison, to see if he could find “justification” for his sexual practice. He says that he found none. He says his decision was thus to stop practicing his homosexual relationships with other men and ask for liberation through Christ. His life is a powerful statement about this decision and the love of God.

He writes, “As I continued reading the Bible, I realized that my identity shouldn’t be defined by my sexuality. . . . My primary identity didn’t have to be defined by my feelings or sexual attractions. My identity was not ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual,’ or even ‘heterosexual,’ for that matter. But my identity as a child of the living God must be in Jesus Christ alone” (“Holy Sexuality,” in Wheaton Alumni, Autumn 2011, 57, italics mine).

Chris says that what gave him clear direction was the simple biblical requirement that God had clearly said, “Be holy, for I  am holy.” He realized this meant he was to be holy in his sexual life as in everything else. He adds:

I had always thought that the opposite of homosexuality was heterosexuality. But actually the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. Therefore, I realized that I shouldn’t focus on homosexuality or even heterosexuality, but on the one thing God calls everyone to: holy sexuality. Holy sexuality was not focused on orientation change—becoming straight—but on obedience (Wheaton Alumni, 57).

What this means is that celibacy is appropriate for all single people. Holy sexuality is ultimately about being chaste before God because of who God is and who he made me to be. It is about living life the way God intended for you to live. It is not about having no feelings or attractions for the same sex, or for the opposite sex for that matter. It is about acting on those feelings in an appropriate way. God created us as sexual beings and as a result we have natural (good) desires for intimacy. But each one of us should express these desires in God-honoring, nonsexual relationships that can and do exist within and between both genders.

Perhaps the most positive thing that will come from all of this confusion is a whole new generation of Christians will arise who do not judge people the way mine did; e.g. the color of their skin, the status of their background, the amount of money they have, their sexual orientation, etc. I welcome this part of the sexual revolution. 

But holy sexuality cuts across all social norms and accepted practices, both between same-sex people and opposite-sex people. Holy sexuality affirms intimacy but reserves the practice of sex for marriage. This is done for several very important reasons.

You might ask, “But what about marriage? Cannot two people (regardless of gender) get married if they love each other deeply?” My purpose today is not to define marriage. (I’ve done that elsewhere.) But everyone engaged in the present debate who takes the Scripture and Christian tradition seriously must admit that marriage between persons other than an adult male and female is not what we see in Scripture or in church history. This new idea of marriage is a modern innovation that is built on very shaky (Christian) ground at its best. This is why this debate will never go away. It is unlike debates about civil rights and slavery. Most Christians will never embrace homosexual marriage for every good reasons. Our friends who disagree need to acknowledge this and recognize that we are not responding as we do because we are homophobic but because we believe holiness demands that sexual practice be reserved for a man and his wife. This has always been the Christian position and all the debates in the world will not fundamentally alter this understanding. Why? Because marriage is defined and explained in Scripture in a way that does not include the various modern innovations. The church that embraces holiness will necessarily stand for love for all people, including homosexuals, but it will also stand for marriage between one man and one woman.

Sadly, this debate is being carried out in ways that preclude honest disagreement, at least at this point in time. Christopher Yuan recently spoke at Yale University and was demonized by college media for holding to positions that he clearly rejects and has never taught. If you enter this part of the modern public space, and express a Christian viewpoint on holy sexuality, expect to be attacked. But Christians know how to respond when attacked.We are called to love, turn the other cheek and never attack back in kind. I am thankful for a friend like Chris who understands the message of love and grace and has the courage to speak the truth as a gay HIV-positive man who embraces holy sexuality in both his teaching and sexual practice.

An Inevitable Clash of Human Rights?

The most basic of all human rights, hammered out for millennia, is the right of religious freedom. I have often said that this is America’s greatest single contribution to civilization. Here what you believe is permitted and you can practice your personal faith without state interference, so long as no one else’s rights are harmed by your practice.

There is a fierce debate going on now about civil unions and same-sex marriage. Personally I have no doubt that same-sex marriage will eventually become the norm. It already is the norm in some states and over time I believe that it will be law in the majority of states. It will then become the law of the nation. On one side people argue that their right to free expression is hindered by our present laws while on the other people believe a fundamental building block of a moral and decent society is at stake.

My deepest concern in this debate has been growing for some time and it is not a concern over where we will end up defining marriage. In the end how the state actually defines marriage should not be a primary concern for Christians. (Note: I said “primary” concern!) Ancient Rome defined marriage and the early church clearly had very different ideas about sex and marriage. The early church not only survived but eventually it thrived!

My concern in this debate is about religious freedom, our most basic Constitutional right. Why does this concern me?

A recent example in Illinois serves to make my point. The governor informed a number of diocesan Catholic Charities that the state would not renew its foster care and adoption contracts with them starting in fiscal 2012 because their policy on not placing children with unmarried couples allegedly violates a new state civil unions law.

Now the ironies of this challenge are quite considerable. First, Governor Patrick Quinn is a Mass-attending Catholic. As such he is going head-to-head with Illinois bishops and Catholic social agencies. Second, the Illinois bill that created same-sex civil unions is called the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Third, proponents of the law explicitly denied the critics’ claims that this type of impact would come to bear on adoption agencies run by religious groups who disagree with the law.

New York provides a similar example with its same-sex marriage law. Before the law went into effect the New York Times editorialized about the “discriminatory intent” of the law’s provision that “allows tax-exempt charities to refuse to marry a same-sex couple or to allow the use of their buildings or services for weddings or wedding parties.”

This all means exactly what the words say. Many proponents of same-sex marriage are not satisfied to get the law changed about marriage. They want to remove the religious freedom churches have previously enjoyed to follow conscience and not the state. The editorial board of the NY Times clearly wants Catholic priests to marry same-sex couples or face the consequences.

What are the consequences? Right now they might seem almost inconsequential but the first line of attack is on Catholic social services. The same has already happened with regard to abortion and now it is happening with regard to same-sex reforms.

Are all advocates of same-sex marriage committed to forcing the church (legally) to conform to their views? Not at all. I think, in fact, it is only a minority at this point. But unless we gain clear evidence of respect for religious freedom the minority will become a cultural majority over time. Mine is not a far-right plea from the hinterlands. This is what is really happening. We had better defend the religious rights of all or the day will come when none of us will have them.

The solution is for Christians to join with non-Christians who are reasonable, and understand our system of laws, and to fight together for principles of democracy and tolerance that the church and our fiercest critics all know is right. This is not a Christian issue, per se, it is an issue of freedom for all who want to practice their faith in public, not just in their hearts. If we lose this freedom we will lose the greatest freedom our nation affords to us. This is why we must stand with every faith and allow all to express their faith as they see fit.

The Missional Church and Gay Trends in the Culture

A recent Pew Research Center study reveals how deeply divided we are over same-sex marriage. A majority of Americans (58%) now say that homosexuality should be accepted, rather than discouraged, by society. From reading this data I gather that what is meant here is that 58% believe we should accept homosexual practice, not just homosexual inclination or identity.

The context this creates for the missional church is both challenging and dangerous. Let me explain.

The more the culture moves toward an open acceptance of homosexual practice the harder it will be for conservative Christians to adapt and incarnationally share the good news of Jesus. So long as homosexuals believe they have been singled out for special disdain as unique sinners the more they, and larger numbers of non-homosexuals with them, will resist the gospel. Why? They will see the gospel as a political/moral message that condemns them for something they cannot change.

But the more the church rushes to adjust everything to this new reality the more we run the serious risk of making no moral distinctions at all regarding sexual practice. If anything is clear in Christian tradition it is this -- moral distinctions and practices are the result of faithfully following Jesus. The fruit of discipleship will include moral norms.

I think one of our major problems is centered in the question of how we can preach grace while we still hold to a scripturally moral position on a wide range of concerns. Sexuality is such a major concern but it is one of many concerns and when we tend to make it the most important one we do so to our peril. Do we preach morality to the culture or do we preach the grace and forgiveness of Christ? Do we tell the good news or do we keep hammering on the bad news of a culture that is moving toward Gomorrah? The answers are more complex than people on either the left or right seem to grasp, at least to my way of thinking about them. In this instance nuance is extremely important. I believe we are losing the “nuance” of the gospel on both sides of this contentious debate. We want simple answers. Either we stridently oppose homosexuality as the greatest sin of all or we stridently defend it as the newest insight that we believe we’ve found in Scripture. The church is further divided and discussion turns to acrimonious mistrust and the complete rejection of those who do not agree with us.

Among younger people in particular, there is broad support for societal acceptance of homosexuality. More than six-in-ten (63%) of those younger than age 50 -- 69% of those younger than age 30 -- say that homosexuality should be accepted. Far fewer of those ages 50 and older (52%) favor societal acceptance of homosexuality.

These are among the findings from the Pew Research Center political typology survey, released on May 4, 2011. The survey, conducted in February and March of this year, showed that opposition to gay marriage has continued to decline.

Currently, 45% favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 46% are opposed. Two years ago, in April 2009, 35% supported same-sex marriage while 54% were opposed. This is a staggering change for anyone who is paying attention. I see no way that homosexual marriage will not become law in the foreseeable future whether we want it or not. The “wild card” is spiritual renewal that impacts the culture at large.

Pew notes that opposition to gay marriage has fallen by 19 points (from 65%) since 1996. (For more on changing public views of same-sex marriage, see Pew Research Center reports from March 3, 2011 and Oct. 6, 2010.)

The aforementioned political typology survey also found a decline in negative views of the increasing number of gays and lesbians raising children. Today, 35% say that more gay parents is bad for society, 14% view this trend positively, while 48% say it does not make much difference. Four years ago, 50% viewed this trend negatively, 11% said it was a good thing and 34% said it made no difference.

The world that is our present world, and the world that is about to be the one we will have to live in for Christ and his kingdom, will be very different from the world that I grew up in during the 1950s. And it will be different from the one most of you know from your experience too, even if you are much younger than me. My burning question is clear: How shall we live and proclaim the grace of God while we still hold to a thoughtful, Christian morality in both public and private? The challenge is immense. Let us go forward in love and not shut down those we disagree with by harshness or moral arrogance. The world is changing but the good news is still the same – God saves all who call upon him in and through his Son Jesus Christ.

Coming Out, Coming Home

I wrote a blog on January 16 titled: “A Conference on Faith and Sexuality.” It was about a local Saturday seminar on same-sex relationships and the church. The host church, Gary Memorial Methodist Church in Wheaton, invited four speakers to give biblical and theological presentations. The speakers clearly held different perspectives. The last of the four speakers was Christopher Yuan. I was moved to my depths by the story Chris told of a life of homosexual practice and drug dealing. After three years in prison, an HIV-positive blood test result, and an obvious conversion to Christ, Chris entered into a new Christian lifestyle.

Now you can read Chris’ moving account of this conversion in his new book, Out of a Far Country (Waterbrook Press, 2011), which comes out May 3. The story is told by both Chris and his mother Angela. The foreword to their new book is written by Kay Warren.

Chris is one of two sons of Chinese immigrants. His father, as my father was in his professional career, is a dentist. Angela assisted Dr. Yuan in his practice. Chris’ dad had a nominal Catholic background but Angela was an atheist. Chris was raised in a context without the church or any real expressions of faith. At an early age Chris discovered that he had an attraction to other boys. He tried dating girls but still felt strongly attracted to guys. His mother was, in her own testimony, what we rightly call a “controlling mom.” The more she tried to control her own life, and that of her son Chris, the worse things got. Then Chris came home from dental school in Louisville, Kentucky, and “came out of the closet” about his sexuality. Prepared by his homosexual friends for total rejection this is what he got so he stormed away from his family looking for love, acceptance and a new family identity in the gay community. Angela’s life then spiraled out of control even more then ever once she began to deal with her feelings about her husband and her son. She determined to take her own life in her despair. In his mercy God intervened and Angela became a devout follower of Jesus as Lord. She had a lot of things that needed changing. She began to absorb the Scriptures and grow in God’s grace. Her marriage was turned around, hope became her spiritual strength and Chris became the focus of her regular prayer and fasting times alone.

Hearing this story from the perspective of a heart-broken mother, and a rebellious son who finally came home to Christ, makes this one of the most unique accounts of a prodigal’s conversion that I’ve read in a modern account. I would not hesitate to give this book to parents or even to older (young adolescent) children. Some may question the wisdom of older children, say 12 or 13, reading a book like this but this is a book that explains how sexuality identity can destroy lives. And it explains how God’s grace puts them back together again. It is not so much a book about homosexuality, as such, but a testimony that homosexual advocates should be encouraged to read since the story truly rises above the various debates and takes the reader into two human hearts longing for God and his glory above the clamor of modern disagreement.

Does Chris have a view about homosexual identity? Yes, and it seems that he accepts the fact that he has homosexual desires regardless of how this happened. (He doesn’t address the debates about how a person becomes homosexual, simply saying he was drawn to boys and men.)

Does Chris have a view about homosexual practice? Yes, he does. He shares it in only a few pages without the typical polemical rhetoric. He tells of searching the Bible soon after his conversion asking “How should I now live?” He began with the feeling that it would be pleasing to God for him to remain a practicing homosexual and a follower of Christ. He ends, without telling you all the turns in the road, saying he came to believe that he was called to a higher standard of sexual purity thus he should stop practicing same-sex intercourse. This has led him to become a celibate in the years that followed his conversion. He says nothing about desiring marriage, about changing his sexual identity per se, etc. What makes his story so compelling to me is that he never engages in attacks on other views and people but very simply allows his story to stand for what it is, the story of a remarkably changed man. The reader can judge what they will about Chris and his life but you can be sure of this – he is a man who knows who he is in Christ and is clearly following holiness as he understands it in Scripture. Honestly, this makes the book unique since it is a story, not a biblical defense or apologetic in the normal sense of these terms.

Chris and Angela cast an extremely compelling vision of God’s love, God’s grace and God’s holiness. Their book really speaks to prodigals of all kinds and to the parents of prodigals. And yes, it speaks to those who want to minister to the gay community in a way that is not based on rancorous polemical stereotypes and arguments.

After attending Moody Bible Institute Chris did an M.A. in biblical exegesis at Wheaton College Graduate School, as a Charles Colson Scholar. (This is a program designed for ex-convicts). He is currently pursuing a doctor of ministry at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul (MN) and is teaching at Moody Bible Institute. He also travels with his mom speaking to churches, conferences and youth groups about God’s desire for all prodigals to come home to him.

I recently had lunch with Chris and can tell you he is the real person this story presents him to be I love him as a brother and friend and hope you will read his story and pray for both Chris and Angela. You can follow Chris on his blog. If you need a powerful speaker on the themes addressed in this book he is a great choice. You can see his amazing story, from Saddleback Church, on YouTube.

A Conference on Faith & Sexuality

Yesterday I attended a local conference on faith & sexuality hosted by Dr. Tracy S. Malone, senior pastor of Gary United Methodist Church in Wheaton. Dr. Malone, and her congregation, invited four panelists to share in a civil, respectful and grace-filled conversation. Though the purpose of the event was to discuss sexuality more broadly the primary thrust, as you might guess, turned out to be a discussion on homosexuality. I am profoundly interested in the topic and believe all church leaders should be. I just told a doctoral class I taught last week in Ft. Lauderdale (Knox Theological Seminary) that this is the “greatest struggle” in the church in America in the first half of the twenty-first century. For most mainline churches this struggle is being resolved by embracing marriage between homosexuals, both in the church and the clergy. For most conservative churches the struggle is being resolved by embracing the language and responses of another era identified more directly with the power and language of American Christendom. The divide is growing and this debate has become a war in many cases. Friendships are being destroyed and people on both sides find it increasingly hard to listen and learn.

Gary Methodist urged people to come together and engage in an open and warm conversation. The goal was to listen; thereby reduce hostility in the midst “of this ongoing spiritual crisis.” To this end four panelists spoke at this event. Dr. Lynn Cohick, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College, did a solid job of explaining the New Testament texts on homosexuality. Christopher Yuan, an instructor at Moody Bible Institute, gave one of the two most passionate addresses of the day. Chris, with his mom (who was also present), has written a new book that will be released in May. The title: Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God, a Broken Mother’s Search for Hope, is engaging in itself. I had the privilege to speak with Chris and will write on this site about his book near its release in early May.

Chris grew up in a well-educated, but atheistic home. He came out of the closet while in dental school in Louisville, Kentucky. He then made his way to Atlanta and became a major drug distributor in the gay subculture before he was arrested and spent serious time in prison. While in prison, with his converted mother seeking God’s grace for her son through prayer and fasting, Chris found a Gideon New Testament and began to read. He was eventually converted and then began to consider whether he could continue to practice his homosexuality. (He also had discovered that he was HIV-positive while in prison. He is featured on a documentary, “HOPE Positive: Surviving the Sentence of AIDS.”) Chris’s story moved me to the depths of my being. I intend to pursue a relationship with Chris as a brother after I met him yesterday.

The other two speakers were Dr. Douglas Sharp, who serves as Dean of the Academy at a Chicago-based organization called Protestants for the Common Good. Dr. Sharp is an American Baptist pastor and committed to integrating the social sciences with the disciplines of theology.

The most radical speaker on the panel was clearly Dr. Pamela Lightsey, the Vice President for Students Affairs and Dean of Students at Garrett-Evangelical Seminary (Methodist) in Evanston, IL. Dr. Lightsey was passionate in her commitments as well. She referenced herself as “a queer Womanist scholar.” (I admit I had not encountered such theology before this event!) She is an ordained elder in the Methodist Church and serves as co-chair of the Womanist Religious Studies Group for the American Academy of Religion (AAR). She openly spoke against the Methodist Church for not approving the ordination of homosexual ministers. The question for me is why the bishop of the Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church should not proceed with discipline against Dr. Lightsey for this stance but almost no such action is ever done by bishops in mainline churches. A major exception happened in the Reformed Church in America (RCA) several years ago when the trustees of one of the  seminaries removed the president of New Brunswick Theological Seminary for performing the marriage ceremony of his daughter to a woman. The denomination then stripped him of his ordination in an action by the general synod. The issue has not gone away but the church is on record for holding a clear and faithful stance regarding its own polity.

Queer theology (I am not making this up I assure you) challenges binary sexual ideologies which assert the impossibility of anything beyond male and female identity. Further, it openly refuses fixed categories in every area of life. She asked, “Is Old Testament knowledge really factual?” Her answer was delivered with passion and was very clear: “Queer theology says all knowledge is subjective so we should not read the OT as factual.” By implication I would argue the same must hold true for the New Testament and everything else the church has taught about Jesus and the gospel if she is consistent at all. Why? She said “all privileging of epistemology” should be rejected. Dr. Lightsey asserted up front that she would not argue about the Bible, either about specific texts or their meaning, factual or otherwise. At one point I thought her honesty told the whole story: “I’m not a biblical scholar, I’m a theologian!” I suppose the listener should take her seriously but without the Bible in any of her frame of reference then she is most definitely not a Christian theologian in any meaningful sense of the word. Toward the end of her major presentation she asked if any expression of sexuality should be called sin? She said pedophilia and necrophilia were sinful because here others were abused through the use of power. If your theology is radically self-referential then I do not understand how she can argue for any concept of sin at all. She plainly has no biblical definition of sin, or at least one any historical creed would recognize.

Christopher Yuan sought to frame the entire question by reference to God’s love and how that love transformed his own life. Quoting the American Psychological Association he said: “Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed, however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.” Chris believes this to be true and thus does not argue about how one comes to such an orientation; i. e. are you born this way or are you socialized into this orientation? He says the answer is not relevant to Christian practice. I have agreed with this conclusion for many years.

Chris further stressed that he did not like any modifiers placed in front of his identity in Christ. He said, “I am a Christian, not a Chinese Christian, a gay Christian, a married Christian, a single Christian (Chris is single), a (fill in the blank) Christian.” Again, this is an important insight for missional church thinking and practice. We need to drop the labels and talk about being Christians. Chris concluded: “We don’t love God better by loving people. We love people better by loving God first.” Amen.

Modern Family

The popular ABC sitcom “Modern Family” recently received several expected Emmy Awards for being the best television show in the business. There is a chicken-and-egg debate about shows like this one. Do they represent culture or do they create culture? Surely it is some of both but I believe it is more the former than the latter.

This popular prime-time show features three decidedly non-traditional families living in a way that anyone from a few decades ago could not remotely recognize as an American family. But if this show represents changes in our society what exactly are those changes?

Consider some facts.

1. 50% of marriages in the United States are still estimated to end in divorce. Yet the divorce rate is slightly down. The reason is that the marriage rate has dropped almost twice as quickly in recent years.

2. A 2005 Rutgers University study found that 8% of coupled households consist of unmarried heterosexual partners.

3. The same Rutgers study found that only 63% of children in the U.S. grow up with both biological parents.

There can be no mistake about the further erosion of our understanding of family when besides redefining marriage as something other than a lifelong commitment we have radically uncoupled the bearing and educating of children from marriage as well.

Many of my Catholic friends believe that the beginning of this slide was artificial contraception. To some extent I agree. (Study the debates about contraception with an open mind and you will see why I say this without fear of contradiction!). Though I do not hold a Catholic view on this question I respect their view for the reasons generally given. Let me explain.

Some gay activists have argued that artificial contraception has rendered so many heterosexual couples sterile as to entirely remove the idea of procreation from the basis of what constitutes a marriage. And now with the rise of in vitro fertilization we have further undermined the relationship of marriage to procreation. Again, popular culture reflects this in the rash of recent movies on forms of procreation that have nothing at all to do with marriage.

Battling same-sex initiatives will almost surely be ineffective so long as we do not understand marriage biblically. Christians and churches need to rediscover the challenge and glory of self-sacrifice, life-long love as the basis for a covenant between a man and a woman in holy marriage. And this relationship is fundamental to raising healthy, well-balanced and spiritually sensitive children.

The strongest (true) defense of marriage is not found in the politicization of the homosexual debate or in passing laws to defend marriage. Clearly the answer is to build strong, healthy and biblically defined marriages. Let the church major on what it can and should do and let the state sort out the parameters of what it will do. Honestly, we have little choice the longer we remain on this cultural road to nowhere. We are going to have to learn how to live in Babylon whether we like it or not.

How the Church Can Properly Respond to Same-Sex Practice

I have frequently suggested that the church is making huge mistakes in how it addresses the modern same-sex debate. Let me explain, albeit simply, what I mean. I want to articulate several truths that I believe we desperately need if we are to move forward with a compassionate and faithful biblical alternative to accepting everything the culture tells us about sexual practice.

First a few comments of analysis.

1. The church has chosen to primarily fight same-sex thinking and practice through politics. This is a debate that we are bound to lose unless something unforeseen happens. We are sure to lose this battle in the culture and we will likely lose it inside many churches as well, given enough time. “Just say no” will not stop same-sex practice nor will it help serious Christians who do not want to surrender their bodies to unsanctified sexual inclinations.

2. Treating same-sex practice as the ultimate evil can not be supported by Scripture (if properly read and interpreted within the historical context of the church’s faith and practice). Anyone who reads the Bible can plainly see that same-sex practice is only addressed a few times in the New Testament and it is listed alongside other sins that most churches tolerate. So long as we single out this sin as the most hideous of all sins we will lose the battle both in and out of the church.

3. Dividing the church over this issue is unacceptable. I know the arguments. Most of them suggest that this is “the line in the sand” and if we do not stand here we will embrace sodomy in the name of Christ. If we do this then the church is doomed. This logic is not rigorously logical if you have a right view of faith and of a human, flawed and broken church. I personally oppose liberalizing the church’s stance on same-sex marriage and practice. I have said that I oppose same-sex practice in every context where I have served. At the same time I refuse to condemn those who disagree with me. (I can express my response without condemning everyone who disagrees with me.) I have made my understanding clear and I will not violate my conscience in the process but I have not “drawn a line in the sand” and said, “All who cross this line are not Christians and I am leaving you behind.” Sin is far too insidious and complicated for me to make this one sin the test for orthodoxy. Having said this I am well aware of the dangers inherent in approving personal sin and lifestyle choices that will harm the body and soul of all those who practice them.

In short I remain in a church where this debate rages and will do so until I am forced out because of conscience. I would not leave because someone, or some group in the church, “crossed the line.” In every case that I know the most liberal churches still affirm the historic faith while at the same time they teach things that are in error. But so do some of the most conservative churches I know but few are willing to see or admit this problem. If the ancient biblical standards are applied to the modern church in the West we all fall far short of what we ought to be. And who raises the pressing question of how much schism is acceptable when we already have experienced far too much? History tells me schism almost never solves the problems it set out to solve.

A friend who left the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) put this well for me. He said, “We did not leave our church when many of our friends left many years ago. We left when the church completely and finally left us. And we left with tears and a broken heart, following bishops that sought to keep the church faithful to its own confession but failed. Further, we did not leave to protest but rather to plant vibrant, healthy churches.”

So what should be done positively to address this problem of same-sex practice inside the church?

1. We must offer real hope and real healing to those who are trapped in the sin of sexual lust and ungodly practice. We must not just offer this to people in the grip of same-sex attraction but to everyone involved in sexual sin, in both mind and practice. Read that sentence again. This includes just about everyone I know if you follow it carefully.

2. We must not single out any one type of sin, especially because we find it personally offensive. Rather, we must treat all sin as a call for radical grace and true sanctification. We must teach people to be mature disciples and offer them living role models of narrated truth. This means the church must become genuinely inter-generational. It also means we must not create an atmosphere where any sinner would feel repelled by our words and actions because we are intolerant and judgmental.

3. We must recover the biblical narrative of Genesis 1-2. We must teach people, young and old, that God designed a covenant called marriage and marriage is designed for one man and one woman who enter into a great mystery because they desire God’s blessing upon them and their family. The Genesis story has been lost, at least as a defining mega-story. We debate the details of exegesis and miss the epic nature of what is actually going on here. God made us “male and female” (both genders) in his image. He then brought us together in holy covenantal union to become “one flesh.” Only this powerful story will help us recover the holy meaning of true marriage.

4. We must teach the biblical doctrine of celibacy. And we must teach the Pauline ethic found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-20. We must further teach that those who freely give themselves to illicit sexual relations will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:5-6). And we must explain the somewhat complicated, but truly relevant, words of 1 Corinthians 7:20-40. This content should be factored into our thinking and teaching as normative Christian teaching. Remaining unmarried is a distinctive kingdom choice that some should make. I celebrate marriage but I feel we have turned it into a human right more than a divine calling. In the process we have given single people little hope unless they can find a sexual partner. Can a person have strong sexual desires, for the same sex or for the opposite sex, and remain free and single? The answer has to be yes or the whole history of the church has been wrong and the Scripture has plainly misled us.

Sadly, most evangelicals do not teach celibacy, except before marriage. They seem to hear this as a “Catholic” dogma. It is nothing of the kind if you search the Scriptures carefully. We are not defined by sexuality and our bodies are meant for so much more than sexual pleasure, even though it is a wonderful gift to the married.

There is a positive way forward in the midst of great chaos and confusion. Will we pursue this way or simply keep fighting the “culture wars”? If we fight these battles it will be to our own loss and only lead to continued ineffectiveness in our distinctly Christian witness to the modern age.