odd man out.

I waited a few days to compose this post because I didn’t want to write from unfiltered emotion.  Nevertheless, ever since I read about a private Christian school in Tennessee that essentially banned any discussion of homosexuality among its students and faculty, I have felt shocked and indignant.  Here’s the text of the school’s new policy:

“Homosexuality is forbidden in scripture (Romans 1:27, Leviticus 18:22).  A staff member or student who promotes, engages in, or identifies himself/herself with such activity through any word or action shall be in violation of this policy.  Should the administration determine a violation of this policy, the person involved will be subject to disciplinary action with the possibility of permanent dismissal.  Any applicant who is not in compliance with this policy will not be admitted.”

The school in question is Rossville Christian Academy, which serves about 300 K-12 students and whose mission is, according to its website, “to challenge a diverse student body through high academic standards, seeking to instill and inspire Christian virtues in a safe and nurturing environment.”  I only know as much about this situation as I could gather from internet news stories, so perhaps I should take it with a grain of salt, but the very idea of the policy struck a nerve with me.

Policies like these are not how the church is to go about training children up in the way they should go (Proverbs 22:6).  Nor are they how the church is to help children avoid conforming to the patterns of this world (Romans 12:2).  Policies like these are how those with authority convince people like me that we’re freakish, unlovable, and alone.  They’re how people like me learn that the church is no place for us to talk about our experiences of sexuality and that there’s no room for us in God’s family unless we can privately eliminate our desires.  They treat homosexuality differently from all other behaviors considered sinful, which is entirely inconsistent with the scriptural picture of holiness and immorality.  They’re worse than overt homophobia, in my opinion, because they try to pretend homosexuality does not exist and thereby dismiss and silence the experiences of countless individuals.  Lest we try to point too big a finger at Rossville, let’s not ignore the countless other churches, Christian institutions, and even social circles in which the exact same policy is the unwritten, de facto law.

The worst part of the story is that the policy is evidently reacting to one particular student, and I can’t imagine how the policy is affecting him/her and his/her fledgling identity formation.  I’m certainly not naive enough to believe this rule will actually prevent kids from talking about the issues, but its very existence sends a clear message about what the school believes (and what it wants its children to believe).  I know it’s difficult to talk about sexuality, and I know we want to raise our children with particular values, and I know many of us simply haven’t had enough time to give the homosexuality issue the attention it deserves.  But a policy that uniquely outlaws discussions of homosexuality—in any institution—is misguided, inconsistent, and deeply toxic.

Ever since I stumbled across Audrey Assad’s song “Winter Snow,” I haven’t stopped thinking about it and what it says about God’s gentleness.  Here’s how it starts:

“You could’ve come like a mighty storm with all the strength of a hurricane; you could’ve come like a forest fire with the power of heaven in your flame.  But you came like a winter snow, quiet, soft, and slow, falling through the sky in the night to the earth below.”

Depending on whom you ask, Christmas falls anywhere on a spectrum between “the most wonderful time of the year” and “the darkest time of the year.”  I’m not saying anything new when I identify how the experience of being an LGBT individual in our current climate often involves pain and brokenness in relationships with family, with friends, and with God—and for many, the Christmas season tends to exacerbate that pain.

So for those approaching Christmas with anxiety, grief, or trepidation, I offer this encouragement: God became man, and from that very moment, things were and are and will be different.  It means we won’t be stuck, enslaved, or broken forever, and even if things are bad now, we get to experience momentary glimpses of the wonderful things that are coming when God brings creation to its glorious conclusion.  If you feel lonely, know that you are not alone; if you feel anonymous, know that there are people who legitimately care about you and want what’s best for you; and if you feel hopeless, receive the birth of Jesus as God’s bold and incredibly gentle proclamation that things are different now.

For those approaching Christmas with joy and eager anticipation, lean into that joy, and receive the hope Jesus’ birth offers.  In a real, tangible way, allow yourself to become the means by which God brings about his kingdom: Look for those who feel lonely, anonymous, and hopeless, and show them through hospitality and genuine affection that things are different now.  Tell them they are not alone; show them you care about them; and extend the hope which you have received.

Merry Christmas.

From Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, a Christmas-themed anecdote:

“In one of my classes I was challenging students to think of examples of where we have assumed that something is in the Bible when in fact it is not.  One student answered, ‘Some people think that the names of the three wise men are found in the New Testament, but the fact of the matter is, we don’t even know what the names of the three wise men were.’  This was a very interesting comment.  True, some people assume that the names Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar are found in the Gospels, although they are not.  But neither are three wise men!  The Gospels do not specify the number.” (122)

Within many of the circles in which I run, scripture is understood to be the highest source of authority when it comes to theological reflection.  If we’re going to give scripture that much weight (as opposed to other sources of theological reflection like reason, experience, or the historical tradition of the church), it’s absolutely essential that we take seriously how we’re using the scriptures to ensure we’re using them consistently and as they are meant to be used.

I have a hunch that many of our arguments about scripture aren’t really about what the scriptures say but about how we believe the scriptures should function in the lives of individuals and faith communities.  Quite often, I’ve seen theological debates in which each person involved calls into question the other person’s fidelity to scripture.  (“If you would just read what the Bible says…” or, “If you weren’t so disobedient to what God says in this verse…”)  But the problem isn’t that either side is ignoring or devaluing the scriptures; on the contrary, his/her respect for the scriptures is what makes the other person’s position intolerable.

So, for example, if someone tends to interpret the scriptures more literally, she might be tempted to accuse someone disagreeing with her (perhaps with some accuracy) of abusing the scriptures by ignoring what they seem to say plainly.  Or, if someone tends to draw scripture interpretations from a historical-critical approach to interpretation, she might be tempted to accuse someone disagreeing with her (again, perhaps with some accuracy) of abusing the scriptures by ignoring the vast distance between the cultural setting in which the scriptures were composed and our present setting.  In either case, though, the individual has a very high respect for scripture; the difference is simply how she believes we can read the scriptures most responsibly.

I don’t want to make any declarations here about the best way to interpret scripture.  I want to request something much simpler: Let’s be careful when we use the language of “The Bible says…” when what we actually mean is, “My interpretation of the Bible says…”  Very often in the debates about homosexuality, people begin referencing the Bible, as they well should.  The problem is that their references aren’t always accurate.

For example, I’ve often heard some variation of the statement, “The Bible defines marriage as a commitment between one man and one woman,” but the Bible does no such thing.  The Bible is simply not interested in defining marriage because the Bible is not a dictionary.  Instead, the Bible is full of examples of marriages, teachings about marriage, and theological discourse about marriage.  But you won’t find a definition of marriage within the Bible because Webster did not write the Bible.

Don’t get me wrong: I think we can and should use the Bible to determine what kind of committed relationships are holy and pleasing to God, but I want us to watch our language when we talk about what the Bible does and does not say.  I cannot legitimately say, “The Bible defines marriage as…”  But I can legitimately say, “I believe the scriptures provide a framework for understanding God’s intention for marriage as…” or “I believe the scriptures lay out a consistent theological foundation for allowing marriage to include…” or even “My interpretation of the scriptures causes me to define marriage as…”

When we can bring our conversations to that level, I think we’ll get a lot more done—and I think we’ll waste a lot less time arguing whether we do or don’t know the names of the three wise men.

I’ve been going back and forth over the last few days about whether to post this video, but after seeing how it affected a friend of mine last night, I think it’s pretty valuable:

“It’s Time.”

I think talking about issues is much easier than talking about people.  When we talk about issues, we can stay in the theoretical, and it’s much easier to think of things in absolute terms.  When we talk about people, suddenly we’re talking about your roommate or your sister or your coworker, and the conversation gets much more complicated.

This happens all the time in the homosexuality debates.  I would certainly never say that the theoretical realm is bad, and I think it has a lot to say to our behaviors and beliefs.  But I’ve noticed that theoretical conversations tend to be much more insensitive and abrasive than conversations about and involving people, and I think one of the reasons many Christian conversations about homosexuality become insensitive and abrasive is that many Christians simply don’t know any LGBT people.

I think one of the reasons this video is so moving (and, in my opinion, so compelling) is because it is not about issues.  It’s about people—two people, in fact.

The idea for this post came from a comment I received a while ago asking about the unique gifts LGBT people have to offer their communities.  That got me thinking about what LGBT people have to offer to their churches, and I came to realize just how much they do have to offer.

It’s not my job to determine how exactly LGBT people are going to fit into your church, whether you will fully affirm same-sex relationships or support celibacy as a lifestyle or leave it to the individuals to decide or do something different.  That decision is the responsibility (I would say “urgent responsibility”) of your church and its processes of theological reflection.

What I can do, though, is try to convince you that your church benefits or would benefit from the participation of openly LGBT members who are committed to the beliefs and teachings your church holds.  I say “openly” here because your church likely already includes LGBT members, regardless of whether they feel safe expressing their sexuality.  Whether your church is small or mega, progressive or traditional, expanding or sustaining, I believe the presence of openly LGBT members is an invaluable asset.

1. LGBT youth need role models

I’ve written before on this blog about how the pain of struggling with sexuality is magnified in a church culture that makes no room for honest discussion.  I have actively participated in three large churches thus far in my life, and each of those churches lacked any sort of role model or authority who was willing to speak from experience about life as a sexual minority.  The result was that I had to decide between finding a role model for my sexuality outside of the church (like Kurt from Glee, although even he wasn’t around when I was a teenager), effectively ignoring my faith, or a role model for my faith within the church, effectively ignoring my sexuality.  LGBT teens shouldn’t have to make that decision.

Fortunately, we’re blessed to live in a time in which there are strong role models across the spectrum for gay Christians at a public level.  If an LGBT teen believes God blesses same-sex relationships, s/he can find great wisdom from someone like Justin Lee.  If an LGBT teen believes God calls LGBT people to celibacy, s/he too can find great wisdom from someone like Wesley Hill and his book Washed and Waiting.

Nevertheless—and at the risk of diminishing the important work those men are doing, which is absolutely the last thing I want to do—I think the majority of us would agree that the most influential role models in our lives are the ones we can talk to and touch, the ones who are present in our lives and, if you grew up Christian, are part of our churches.  What would it mean for an LGBT teen struggling with confusion about sexuality and faith, difficulty in family relationships, and bullying at school to be able to talk openly with an older mentor who understands the feelings because of similar experiences?  What if that mentor could set an example of a new kind of homosexuality, one in which homosexuality becomes a unique avenue through which the individual could glorify God?

“Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ,” Paul tells the church in Corinth (I Corinthians 11:1), and he similarly sets up a system in Crete in which the older members of the congregation are supposed to teach the younger members how to live (Titus 2:1-8).  Our culture constantly inundates us with messages about how we ought to live and what we ought to value and how we ought to define ourselves, and the community of God is the place where we are trained how not to “conform any longer to the pattern of this world” (Romans 12:2).  Whether your church teaches LGBT youth how to live a holy life of singleness or how to honor God through same-sex relationships, those teens should have to look no further than the church in which they participate—certainly not to the media—in order to find strong examples of how to interpret and express sexuality in light of the faith they profess.

2. God’s nontraditional family needs every relative

Somewhere along the way, American Christianity collectively decided that its job was to teach people how to raise perfect nuclear families that exist in relative independence.  The scriptures are certainly rife with wisdom about how people should run their households, and we simply cannot overestimate the profoundly positive impact of a strong, close, loving, God-fearing family on the children who will grow up within it.  God cares about whether you fill your family role to the best of your ability (parent, child, spouse, etc.).

Nevertheless, if one looks to Jesus for advice on how to establish and maintain a healthy household, s/he may go away empty-handed and even frustrated with shocking commands like, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple,” (Luke 14:26) and enigmatic statements like, “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50).  What becomes apparent in Jesus’ ministry is that he might be much more concerned with the kingdom he is establishing than with the makeup of the families who will live within it.

Let’s be clear—Jesus understands the deep significance of family relationships.  He just has a big imagination about what forms those relationships may take: “No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life” (Mark 10:29-30).  When I read this, I think of single mothers who find within the church strong men who invest in the lives of the children to provide them with positive male attention; I think of elderly people who, though they live miles away from their own grandchildren, find within the church children who can receive their wisdom and compassion.  I think of adoption and remarried widowers, of foster care and friends as loyal as siblings.

Unfortunately, many churches’ idolatry of nuclear families leaves little room for nontraditional lifestyles, and those families whose stories follow a different trajectory because of their circumstances often have trouble finding a place.  Regardless of how they fit into your church, LGBT people will help flesh out the broad extended family God is trying to develop in your community, giving healing and love where before was brokenness and pain.  If your church does not condone same-sex relationships, then your celibate LGBT members will play the role of surrogate parents, siblings, and friends along with the other single members of the congregation (and help to legitimize celibacy as a lifestyle within the church).  If your church affirms same-sex relationships, your LGBT members will find deep camaraderie with other couples for whom childbearing presents a unique challenge, and they will empathize closely with other people who face the challenges of living as minorities.

Regardless of the life decisions an LGBT person makes, his/her life simply will not follow the narrative that has stood as the ideal in our culture; God’s family has a place (was especially designed, even) for this and every other kind of nontraditional family unit, and your church should make room as well in order to experience and extend the joy of belonging.

3. The body of Christ needs all of its parts

When one member of the body of Christ is oppressed, the entire body of Christ suffers as a result.  Paul writes in I Corinthians 12:7, “To each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good,” and he goes on to provide a metaphor involving the human body that suggests every single person’s contribution to the work and worship of the body of Christ is essential (that is, non-negotiable) to that body.

I’ve often heard people lament the church’s treatment of LGBT people in terms of what that mistreatment does to the victims; but I rarely hear people lament what that exclusion has meant for the body of Christ, since an essential part of our body is being prevented from participating.  That means the LGBT people are not the only ones suffering; the body is suffering as well, since those individuals are not able to contribute their unique Spirit gifts for the “common good.”

In addition to those LGBT people who may have been expressly prevented from joining particular churches, I’m especially thinking here of those Christians who are unable to come out and be honest about their sexuality with the churches in which they participate.  To make a long story short, I have experienced a radical shift in my ability to minister and function within the body of Christ as I have allowed my sexuality to become involved in my ministry, and I cannot imagine trying to go back and minister from the closet.  I recognize that coming out is not an option for many people now, but I wonder how much more effectively and meaningfully our LGBT members could function in the life of the community if they did not have to dedicate significant resources of energy and time to maintaining some sort of façade within the community.

As with any component of a person’s identity, be it gender, race, family background, socioeconomic status, career, political party, nationality, or even football team, it is spiritually disastrous to allow one’s sexuality to become the core of one’s identity—that place is reserved for Christ (Galatians 2:20).  And I recognize the wide variety of ways people interpret sexuality and incorporate it into their self-definitions (just listen to the very specific language people intentionally use when they describe their experience of sexuality).  Nevertheless, diversity seems to be a central tenet of the kingdom God is establishing: At the same time as we affirm. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Galatians 3:28), we see how Jesus has “purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).  The end result is that somehow people who are different cooperate as eyes, ears, hands, and feet to create a cooperative body that is much greater than the sum of its heterogeneous parts, and we ought not to silence that diversity (I Corinthians 12:12-31).  I’m loath to rely on generalizations, but I do believe LGBT people possess unique and significant gifts that are essential to the life of any particular community of faith.

How has your church welcomed LGBT members into your community?  Is any of the stuff I describe above happening right now?

On Tuesday, I wrote about the Marin Foundation, an incredible organization building bridges between religious and LGBT communities.  I mentioned founder Andrew Marin’s book, Love Is an Orientation, which I highly recommend (and plan to write more about in the future).

In a couple of weeks, the Marin Foundation will be releasing a DVD curriculum based off Love Is an Orientation, and though I have not yet seen it, I expect it will be an invaluable resource for ministers, small group leaders, professors, Christians, and anyone else who wants to learn more about developing meaningful relationships with LGBT people.  You can watch a short promo video for the curriculum to learn more.

I should probably explain: Although this post sounds like an advertisement, I’m writing completely from my own passion for the Foundation and what they’re doing.  Love Is an Orientation is absolutely one of the best books I’ve found about the difficult matter of how relationships can endure differences in worldview in belief in regards to faith and sexuality, and I think the DVD curriculum will be extremely helpful.

So, for those of you who have heard me say we need to talk more about LGBT issues in church and have asked me how to start those conversations, here is my advice: Buy this DVD, and buy a copy for your minister (Merry Christmas!), and go through the six-week study with your small group at church.  From what I’ve seen, people are itching to talk about homosexuality within the context of a trusted faith community.  This DVD series will open many doors for discussion.

If you are interested in the conversation between faith and sexuality—and your visiting this blog seems to indicate you are—you need to be aware of the Marin Foundation.  I will do my best to avoid gushing, but I’m not making any promises.

The Marin Foundation is a nonprofit based in Chicago that exists to “build bridges between the LGBT community and the Church through scientific research, biblical and social education, and diverse community gatherings.”  They achieve their goal through five primary “pillars”: biblical and social education classes, national scientific research, Living in the Tension community gatherings, communication and dissemination, and consulting.

That’s the legal jargon.  What you need to know is this: The Marin Foundation is a powerful force for reconciliation and communication around the world, building bridges that go both ways between religious and LGBT communities.  If you have ever become frustrated with all talk and no action in regards to the righting of wrongs and the healing of wounds between Christians and sexual minorities, look no further, as these folks are doing big things.  And people are noticing—the BBC, for example, recently ran a big story and radio segment about the work of the Foundation, concluding that their approach to relationships “may just offer a hopeful model for the future.”

I first discovered the Marin Foundation through a book written by its founder, Andrew Marin: Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community.  When Marin was in college, his three closest friends came out to him in rapid succession, which forced him to reconsider his assumptions about homosexuality and Christianity.  He decided to surround himself with gay culture, seeking to understand LGBT people and their perspectives on life and faith.  Eventually, that enculturation led to deep friendships and even Bible studies, and Marin ended up creating his Foundation to mobilize the work of building bridges.  Since then, Marin published his book and has spoken across the country (even at government events), and the Foundation has done significant research, organized countless gatherings, and opened doors for powerful and life-changing relationships among individuals.

There are many different approaches to handling the intersection of faith and sexuality on an individual level, and those approaches become much more complex when they’re attached to an institution.  Nevertheless, the Marin Foundation is a pioneer when it comes to bridge building, and there is a lot I love about the way they go about their work:

1. A disinterest with the “Big 5” questions.

I’ve listened to numerous interviews with Marin, and the interviewers always (without fail) try to draw out Marin’s beliefs about homosexuality and scripture.  Marin always evades the five questions he calls the “Big 5” (referring to such questions as the nature/nurture debate and the eternal destination of LGBT people), though, and he does so in an attempt to imitate Christ:

“Rather than answering close-ended questions, The Marin Foundation seeks to elevate the conversation and continual fruitful dialogue, as tense as that may be. This is a model taken from Jesus throughout the Gospels. Of the 25 times Jesus was asked close-ended questions, only three times did he respond with a yes or no. These three times were only after he was arrested and admitting he was the Messiah. Prior to this, Jesus never answered close-ended questions with a yes or a no. Instead, he elevated the conversation.

“Our goal by not answering the ‘Big 5’ with a simple yes or no is not to dodge the subject or avoid the issue. We long to engage it. We seek to elevate the conversation, we seek to continue dialogue, and we seek to understand one’s point of view even if it is diametrically opposed to our own. We want to be educated, not dismissed, and we do not want to dismiss others in the process. We want to elongate the conversation, thus changing the conversation.”

That’s an important distinction—avoiding the questions altogether would be lazy and irresponsible.  But I think Marin is right to stay away, at least for now, from the questions that have been most divisive in order to develop relationships and open genuine conversation, and it’s an approach I’ve tried to emulate on this blog.

2. A willingness to hear each side on its own terms.

Too often, the debates between religious and LGBT communities boils down to stereotypes and sound bites, neither of which leads to constructive conversation or any sort of healing.  The Marin Foundation seems committed to letting different kinds of people speak on their own terms, listening closely to what others have to say and giving alternative perspectives their due weight.  Their commitment to diversity is evident from the demographics of their staff:

“On staff we have a gay man, a lesbian, a progressive straight Christian male, a conservative straight Christian male and a straight female. This is the reason why The Marin Foundation does not take a stance on any issues corporately; as we are a group of individuals that comprise many different shades of faith, sexuality and politics in our culture today. If The Marin Foundation staff is not able to build bridges amongst ourselves on daily basis surrounding divisive issues even we disagree with each other on, how can we suggest any other entity should then, either. And our volunteers spread even further—to bisexual activists, transgender individuals, black, white, Asian, intersex individuals, celibate gays and lesbians, old and young, ex-gays, rich and poor. The Marin Foundation is trying as best as we can to live what we understand God’s kingdom to be on earth as it is in heaven.”

3. An effective means of communicating love and repentance.

The Marin Foundation stays busy throughout the year, but one of their most well-known endeavors is their “I’m Sorry” campaign at Chicago’s annual Pride Parade.  Wearing shirts that say, “I’m Sorry” and holding signs with such messages as, “I’m sorry for how the church has hurt you,” and, “I used to be a Bible-banging homophobe—sorry,” the group assembles volunteers to make a visible statement of apology and repentance to a community Christians have wounded.  In 2010, their efforts led to a particularly moving image of a parade participant hugging members of the Foundation across a road barrier.  In his description of that day, Foundation staff member Nathan Albert concludes:

“What I saw and experienced at Pride 2010 was the beginning of reconciliation. It was in the shocked faces of gay men and women who did not ever think Christians would apologize to them.

“What I saw and experienced at Pride 2010 was the personification of reconciliation. It was in the hugs and kisses I received, in the “thank you’s” and waves, in the smiles and kisses blown.

“I hugged a man in his underwear. I hugged him tightly. And I am proud.”

In all honesty, when people ask me what kind of ministry career I hope to pursue, I am finding it increasingly difficult to say anything other than, “I want to be doing the kind of thing the Marin Foundation is doing.”  Marin’s book and the work of the Foundation have both played a major role in inspiring and motivating this blog.  In my opinion, the grace, compassion, and love they demonstrate with Christians and with LGBT communities is nothing less than the Kingdom of God at work in our midst.

If you want to learn more about the Marin Foundation (and, in my humble opinion, you should), you can head to their website, their Facebook page, their Twitter feed, or Andrew Marin’s blog.

[WARNING: Spoilers from the most recent episode of Glee follow.]

On last night’s Glee, two of the show’s high school couples had sex for the first time.  One of the couples was a boy and a girl.  The other couple was a boy and a boy.

This isn’t a post about Glee, and that paragraph is all you need to know about the show in order to keep up with the questions I’m going to ask here.  I think last night’s episode of Glee provided a great case study for how we think about sex, sexual immorality, and heteronormativity in the church.

In my experience, many Christians who consider same-sex relationships sinful are guilty of handling homosexuality (and for that matter, homosexuals) differently from how they treat all other sins, reacting to LGBT issues more strongly than they do to other perceived variations from God’s design for humanity.  My fear is that they do so thoughtlessly, condemning LGBT people more than they do others due to ignorance, prejudice, or fear about sexual minorities rather than deep-seated, nuanced beliefs about sexuality and the nature of God.

The problem, of course, is that Christians can’t afford to be thoughtless, especially when being thoughtless results in the oppression or exclusion of an entire genre of people.  So, I think it’s time for Christians—and by Christians, I mean Christians in general, but I also mean any Christians who may read this post—to give thought to the question of homosexuality, if they haven’t, and I’d like our approach to the issue to be educated by theological reflection instead of ignorance, prejudice, or fear.

Take last night’s Glee, for example, where two unmarried couples had sex.  If you believe same-sex relationships are sinful, I would be willing to bet you also believe sex outside of marriage is sinful.  And if that’s the case, my question for you—and I mean it as a genuine question, since I imagine responses to this question will cover a wide spectrum, with the extremes on each end dumbfounded that I’m even asking—is whether the sex between Kurt and Blaine (the two boys) was any more sinful than the sex between Rachel and Finn.

It’s worth defining my terminology here, since “sinful” is a word that has received quite a beating in public discourse.  When I say “sinful,” I don’t have in mind a vindictive God who is waiting for us to screw up so he can screw up our lives in return.  Rather, I have in mind a God who composed the universe with particular rhythms and a certain key signature, so that certain attitudes and behaviors fit into that plan for the world and others don’t.  As much as we’d sometimes like the freedom of doing whatever we feel like doing, that kind of “freedom” would be about as enjoyable as the trumpet player breaking out the solo from “Louie, Louie” while the rest of the orchestra is halfway through Beethoven’s Fifth.

In other words, I’m concerned with the sin question because I think sin matters, and I have a sneaking suspicion that sexuality is particularly close to our most central essence as humans who reflect the nature of God (see, for example, I Corinthians 6:12-20).  I think it’s particularly important for us to get this thing right; not because God’s grace isn’t big enough for our mistakes, but because we should want to live in the way God wants us to live.

But the relative significance of sexuality is beside the point here, since what we’re comparing is two different kinds of sex.  Again, I will ask: If same-sex relationships are sinful, is sex between two unmarried males any worse, in God’s eyes, than sex between an unmarried male and female?  Are there degrees of sinfulness (i.e., Rachel and Finn are one degree sinful since they’re unmarried, whereas Kurt and Blaine are two degrees sinful since they’re unmarried and gay), or is behavior simply classified as  “sinful” or “not sinful”?

This post is not headed towards an answer.  This post is headed towards an exhortation: Let’s aim for consistency between our beliefs and practices.  If you are going to say same-sex relationships are foreign to God’s plan for humanity, give serious thought to whether they are any more foreign to God’s plan than premarital sex, adultery, abusive relationships, using sex for personal gain (even with your spouse), or—let’s not forget this one—lust in any context.  If they are more sinful, let’s make sure we have a strong, sophisticated theological grounding for that claim.  If they are not, let’s actually make the change and stop punishing LGBT people more severely than anyone else.  Again: We can’t afford to be thoughtless.

In the meantime, let’s concern ourselves with striving for sexual purity in our own lives.

At the risk of this blog turning into nothing more than a mirror for Dr. Richard Beck’s Experimental Theology (which, in my opinion, would still be a good use of the space), I think his recent post on ecclesiology is particularly compelling.  Beck asks the question, “Why is Killing Okay But Not Sexuality?“  Referencing the wide variety of views that exist among Christians regarding killing (which range from total pacifism to, as was the practice in a few churches I’ve attended, applauding war veterans on the major patriotic holidays), Beck asks:

“If we are okay with diversity on the issue of killing—overriding an explicit command at the heart of Jesus’s Kingdom vision on a topic of enormous moral consequence—why won’t we allow for a diversity of views within the Christian communion in regard to Paul’s vice lists?”

Many times, people wonder, “Yes, I am willing to befriend someone in a same-sex relationship in spite of my beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality.  But at what point do I confront (what I perceive as) that person’s sin?”  In this post, Beck seems to be offering a counter question: At what point does the pacifist tell his/her soldier friend that his/her career is sinful?  To that question I would add many other questions: When do I point my rich friend to Matthew 19:24, or when do I alert my lustful friend to Matthew 5:27-30, or when do I confront my inauthentic friend with Matthew 5:37?

Notice that the question here is not whether same-sex relationships are right or wrong, and Beck is certainly not suggesting people should believe one way over the other.  Neither is he suggesting that choosing a side is wrong or that holding people accountable is wrong.  Rather, the issue is handling sin consistently—why are we so much more concerned about sexuality than anything else we might perceive as sinful, and is it the right thing for us to be so concerned about?

If nothing else, the article is worth a read to catch Beck’s phrase “hermeneutical chutzpah.”

There is no shortage of material online about faith and sexuality, so I do my best to filter in order to bring attention to articles that are either especially helpful or unknown outside of my particular circle.  Jay Michaelson recently wrote an article called “The Religious Duty to Come Out” over at Religion Dispatches, and he has a very unique perspective worth your time.  I’m struggling to avoid quoting the entire article, but here are some highlights:

“What some folks don’t understand about ‘the closet’ is that it’s not just a set of walls around sexual behavior. It’s a net of lies that affects absolutely everything in one’s life…How can you build authentic relationships with anyone—friends, family—under such conditions? And if you’re religious, how can you be honest with yourself and your God if you maintain so many lies, so many walls running right through the center of your soul?”

“When I was in the closet…I lied all the time, to everyone….Somehow, I believed that all this lying was in the service of God. From where I sit now, the very proposition is preposterous: this notion that to be faithful to God requires deceit, falsehood, and deception.”

“I’ve already remarked at how tragic and offensive it is to hear homosexuality called a ‘lifestyle,’ as if it’s like living in the country, or enjoying golf or tennis. But the closet, in my experience, is a death-style—a slow, painful draining-out and drying-up of all that makes life worthwhile—even for those of us fortunate enough to live in places where gay-bashing and state-sanctioned violence are comparatively rare.”

For those of you in the closet, I recommend not reading the article as an imperative to come out; the sad truth is that for some people—at least for now—coming out is not a legitimate option.  But from this side of the closet door, I can confirm that things feel much better out in the open.

For those of you who are not or have never been in the closet, let’s keep making this a world where people can be safe coming out.