A Quick Recap

In my Part 1, my opening article, I shared that I would address three concerns that non-affirming Christians have posed to me. I agree with their concerns. Here is a summary of how I would address those concerns.

a) The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about the holiness of God. Are we disobeying God? What is God up to?

My response: In Part 2, I shared that I see God at work in the “gay debates” in three ways: The disarming of religious authorities, the unleashing of freedom (break every enslavement) and the deconstruction of male-dominated patriarchy. I shared what I experienced from worshipping and interacting with LGBTQIA people. I did not see the holiness of God being violated by affirming these people and their desire to get married. Instead, I have seen a more robust examination of the gospel, a restoration of purpose for the church, an excitement about life and several gifts, which include a better understanding of holiness.

b) The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about our children. Are we setting a bad example? How do we break through the hostility?

My response: In Part 3, I shared the stories and history about Alan Turing, and his royal pardon by the Queen of England decades after his death. The Queen’s affirming stance toward Turing is a positive example of setting a good example. One way to break through the hostility is with empathy, going beyond the right vs wrong arguments. It will indeed take decades to sort out what’s been happening. My hope is that the church can have enough compassion to listen and to step back and see the bad example and injustice that has been done to gender and sexual minorities.

c) The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about immorality. Are we on a slippery slope? What restraint do we have?

Here is my response, Part 4.

Some Questions

Is it possible to maintain moral fortitude, gospel consistency and also affirm same-sex marriage? My contention is yes. Many theologians, such as Richard B. Hays, have left this door open. Matthew Vines, David Gushee, Jim Brownson and the other Reformation Project activists are going through that door.

Some ask: Aren’t you on a slippery slope? What’s next, a man marrying his teddy bear? My first answer is yes, we my indeed be on a slippery slope. However, are we not supposed to live by faith? Does not our Lord call us to go and brave the slippery slope?

Some Actions I Do Not Affirm

When I say I am “affirming” I need to point out that I do not affirm the following:

• I do not affirm abuse of others with sex
• I do not affirm excess of sexual activity or promiscuity
• I do not affirm rape, prostitution or pedophilia
• I do not affirm adultery, polygamy or incest
• I do not affirm revising Scripture

Some Actions I Do Affirm

What then, specifically do I affirm when I claim to be “affirming”?

• Celibacy as a gift for some
• Faithful kinship bonds between two people
• Civil debate and disagreement
• Revisiting, rereading and reassessing Scripture
• Love

How do we have moral restraint?

One of my contentions is that Gentile Christians do not live under the supervision of the moral codes in the Old Covenant. Hebrews 8 is the primary source of this contention. The Old Covenant is obsolete. We are no longer under the law. I see the Bible teaching us three ways Christians have moral restraint. It is my belief that such things give the church confidence to navigate the sexual landscape in an affirming manner.

• The power of the Holy Spirit
• The guidance of love and justice
• The wisdom of hermeneutics

The Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic

I want to briefly introduce a hermeneutical approach to reading the Bible developed by a man named William Webb. He used his own principles to arrive at a non-affirming stance toward LGBTQIA people. However, when you study his own work, you can find shortcomings in his application of his own hermeneutic. If he applied his own work more objectively, he would actually arrive at a far more affirming stance toward LGBTQIA people.

Webb’s work has received much criticism from both sides. Affirming people disagree with his conclusions about homosexuals. Non-affirming people disagree with his approach, because he pushes the boundaries of “Biblical authority”.

In my armchair theologian mind however, Webb’s approach is brilliant and gives a good starting framework to speak intelligently about the Bible in various contexts.

The core principle of Webb’s hermeneutic is called the X>Y>Z principle.

“Within the model, the central position (Y) stands for where the isolated words of the Bible are in their development of a subject. Then, on either side of the biblical text, one must ask the question of perspective: What is my understanding of the biblical text, if I am looking from the perspective of the original culture (X)? Also, what does the biblical text look like from our contemporary culture, where it happens to reflect a better social ethic-one closer to an ultimate ethic (Z) than to the ethic revealed in the isolated words of the biblical text?”

William Webb: “Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis”, pg 31

Further reading:

As Easy as X-Y-Z

The Evangelical Theologian and William Webb’s Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: A Theological Analysis

The Imitation Game

A Royal Pardon in 2013 for Turing

Alan Turing holds a special place in my life, since I am a computer engineer. My entire livelihood is due in large part to Turing’s mathematical genius. Today I learned more of his story and read about an amazing act of mercy that occurred in 2013.

Alan Turing was convicted of homosexuality in 1952 in Great Britain. Yes that’s right. To be gay in England just 50+ years ago was a crime. The punishment was 2 years in prison or castration by chemicals. Turing chose the chemicals. He committed suicide not long after (His cause of death is still up for debate however).

“Society didn’t understand Alan Turing or his ideas on many levels but that was a reflection on us, not on him – and it has taken us 60 years to catch up.”

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: “I pay tribute to the government for ensuring Alan Turing has a royal pardon at last but I do think it’s very wrong that other men convicted of exactly the same offence are not even being given an apology, let alone a royal pardon.
“We’re talking about at least 50,000 other men who were convicted of the same offence, of so-called gross indecency, which is simply a sexual act between men with consent.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25495315

(The picture may be the response of some on “both sides” to “the other side.”)

What I will no longer say. Probably until a few years ago, I would have stated boldly and unequivocally, “According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin.” But I won’t say this any more. It is not because I’m afraid of being “blasted” or “labeled,” which is actually kind of fun. But it is for these reasons:

First, I’d much rather say, “God loves homosexuals, and I love you too.”

Second, it’s because I have a much stronger, better, positive and affirmative message of the good news of God’s grace to declare unashamedly and primarily (Ac 20:24).Third, so why would I make any statement that turns off, offends, infuriates and even hurts and wounds a large segment of the world? They are the majority of the non-religious world, and an increasing number in the Christian world, especially those who enthusiastically support monogamous homosexual unions? Surely I have a much more appealing, lovely and marvelous declaration of the gospel to proclaim than to make any negative statement that enrages people, sometimes to highly volatile and emotional levels.

Fourth, making statements–regardless of whether it is right or wrong, true or false–that simply breaks the communication and relationship is unwise. It is foolish and a detriment to the gospel of God’s kindness, forbearance/ tolerance/ restraint and patience (Rom 2:4). This often creates a permanent barrier before the two sides can even begin any meaningful dialogue or conversation.

An ostrich hiding its head in the ground. In recent weeks I’ve been reading and watching blogs and videos from “both sides” of the homosexual marriage debate. So, I’m an inexperienced novice on this topic, which I’ve barely skimmed the surface of. It’s also not my “area of interest.” I’d much rather read “boring Bible commentaries” and live with my head in the clouds! Presently, in order to preach through Isaiah, I’m reading 5-7 Bible commentaries on Isaiah, which completely appeals to and satisfies my cerebrally and intellectually inclined introversion. But I should be an informed Christian who is not entirely like an ostrich with his head in the sand. So I felt compelled to at least begin to look into the homosexual marriage debate–without digging my heels resolutely into any particular position.

Can both sides be right? There are so many arguments, so much analysis, and so much explanations and detailed exegesis of the same biblical texts supporting completely diametrically opposite conclusions…and with both sides insisting they are right!

Cisgender. One thing that struck me recently was the use of new words, phrases and vocabulary that I’m unfamiliar with. I was recently surprised to find out that I’m a “cisgender.” My limited understanding is that it is a term popular among some activists and scholars. Personally, my preference is to be referred to as either “male,” “a man,” or “heterosexual male.” I hope this is not offensive (it is not intended), especially to those who are ambiguous about their sexuality and may not like such black and white clear cut and precise distinctions and definitions.

Non-affirming. Next, I felt that the phrase “non-affirming” is being increasingly used by those who are strongly supportive of homosexual unions. In Brian’s recent comments, he stated that he regards as “affirming” only those who are celebratory of homosexual unions. I have to confess that I had a discordant and dissonant inner reaction to this. It is probably because it immediately puts Christians who are anything but celebratory and in full agreement of homosexual unions on the defensive. Then no matter how much Christians are genuinely gentle, tender, kind, compassionate, respectful, empathetic, sympathetic, embracing and loving toward homosexuals, they would always be defined negatively and categorized as “non-affirming.” Even a genuinely loving gracious non-imposing tolerance would always be regarded as “non-affirming.” I guess I am empathetic toward anyone who disagrees with homosexual unions being labeled as “non-affirming.”

I think I understand that a lot of the gender language today is a backlash and retaliation toward those who have treated homosexuals and transgenders horribly, violently and with prejudice, disgust and contempt (both historically and currently). This is inexcusable and reprehensible, especially if one claims to be a Christian and to love God and to love his neighbor, even his enemy.

Nonetheless, in my opinion, to center or impose upon the world of gender and sexuality (which includes everyone) based on the preferred language of non-heterosexuals can be just as offensive and unloving as heterosexual Christians being opposed to homosexual unions.

Would it not be equivalent to those who are celebratory of monogamous heterosexual unions regarding anyone who is not pumped and excited about it as being “non-affirming”?

Am I over-stating my argument? Am I being offensive or unloving by voicing my reaction toward the “new” gender vocabulary such as “cisgender,” and especially “non-affirming”?

I plan to continue sharing each summary. Feel free to jump in at any time. I hope to share my reactions to questions posed to me from time to time by people of the non-affirming conscience. Whenever I say “God is love”, the response is often, “But God is holy.” The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about the holiness of God. Are we disobeying God? What is God up to? Is there any possibility that God could be doing a new thing among gender and sexual minorities?

How do Christians navigate any change or issue?

When faced with new realities and cultural shifts, Christians begin and end with the gospel. Christians live as citizens of the kingdom of God. Christians face the facts of new realities with hope and compassion for the marginalized, and a passion for justice.

Christians look not only to the Bible but at least 2 other sources. Christians consider the prompting of the Holy Spirit, the lessons from Tradition, the human testimony of experience, and also sound, logical reasoning.

For example, how does a church react when an elderly couple asks to be blessed with the sacrament of marriage? Do they quote verses about “be fruitful”? Do they demand celibacy for the couple? For most churches, the answer is no, the couple would be allowed to marry even though there is no chance of children being born.

A word about holiness and obedience

To be holy is a valid Christian concern. To be holy is to be “set apart”. I would ask us to consider what we are set apart for? I contend that the holiness Jesus taught is very different from the holiness the Pharisees taught. Holiness is no longer about obeying a holiness code.

To be holy means to be willingly contaminated with the physical world, trusting that our heart and soul are kept pure by the hand of God.

Who is the most holy person you can think of? Mother Theresa is a common answer. She died September 5, 1997 in Kolkata, India. She is the one who lived her life in the contamination of the world, surrounded by the outcast. We seem to be so afraid of being physically or socially or spiritually contaminated that we avoid the very places that would strengthen our holiness and help bring about redemption to those around us. Jesus ate and drank with prostitutes. Does our idea of holiness allow us to do the same?

What new reality are we seeing?

Some have claimed we are seeing waves of sin and immorality and disobedience. Others claim we are in the end-times apocalypse. My contention is that we are seeing the kingdom of God coming to earth in a new wine fashion. I contend that we are seeing three reformations:

-The disarming of religious authorities
-The unleashing of freedom (break every enslavement)
-The deconstruction of male-dominated patriarchy

The “male and female” thread in the Bible

I contend further that we are seeing the binary wineskin of “male and female” bursting in society around us. People tend to quote Genesis 5:2 and point out that God created “male and female” in the beginning. I agree. I would point out that the end of the “male and female” thread in the Bible is Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” NIV.

Questions for discussion

Why is everything outside of “male and female” considered broken or disordered?

What does the bible condemn in regard to our modern, non-male/female term “homosexuality”?

In light of the male/female binary fading away, might we revisit the meaning of marriage?

How can we sustain “hate the sin, love the sinner”?

Should the church be the safest place to work this out?

How can we say that practicing homosexuality is any different from the desire of homosexuality?

Why I am fully affirming

Please note that I am NOT affirming gay sex orgies or immorality. I am ONLY affirming same-sex marriage. My claim is that sex is no longer sin in the confines of marriage.

I see three corrections gender and sexual minorities are already bringing to the church. This is the subject of my Lambhearted Lion book:

A more robust understanding of the gospel
-Move beyond atonement toward reconciliation
-Revisit Scripture without “male and female”

A restoration to the purpose of the church
-Are we sin police? Who is King? Who is Lord?

An excitement about philosophy and theology of life
-A gay Christian inspired me to return to church!

I also see three gifts gender and sexual minorities are already bringing to the church. This is the subject of my New Wine book:

The gift of heart
-Move toward courage, hope, compassion

The gift of holiness
-Deeper understanding of unity, conscience and purity

The gift of celebration
-All-surpassing joy of hospitality, marriage, celibacy

Our Purpose

I am not going to hide or filter my purpose in having these conversations. I and many others are working to develop a Bible-based, gospel-centered approach to gender and sexual minority inclusion in the Christian church. I realize this puts me outside the gates of the visible church, Christendom. My claim is that I am not outside the Christian faith by welcoming and including LGBTQIA people. I am referring specifically to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersexual and asexual people. Our inclusiveness however does not stop there. We believe our theology is a gospel-centered approach toward any and every oppressed people, especially those oppressed or outcast by the white, male-dominated hierarchy that has existed around the world for eons.

What I Affirm

In the LGBTQIA world, there are “affirmers”, those who affirm and welcome same-sex marriage and the genuine self-narratives of LGBTQIA people. And there are “non-affirmers”, those who do not affirm such things. We believe these terms are neutral, meaning these terms do not necessarily imply rightness or wrongness of either side. The terms merely acknowledge our differences and give us a starting, civil framework.

I think it is important to notice that both affirmers and non-affirmers can have some common Christian ground. For example, I affirm the following:

• Authority of Scripture
• Desire to please and obey God
• Value of moral fortitude
• Gratitude toward the church
• Love for all people

Where do we begin?

For me, the conversation about any social issue or human condition begins and ends with the gospel. The gospel is Jesus the Messiah. This is the best starting point, and really the only starting point I can find that has any chance of bringing about the unity Jesus expects from His followers. We know many facts about Jesus: His birth, life, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension and return. The good news is an announcement and proclamation that God has entered our world and is eager to live among us, both in bodily form 2,000 years ago and in the form of the Spirit now. When we read the Bible we see five key messages or results of this gospel: grace, glory, salvation, peace and the kingdom. We see the themes of the gospel at work: forgiveness, freedom, fulfillment, Love, reformation, reconciliation, repentance, justice and so forth. Any conversation about society, for Christians, centers around these gospel topics.

Meet some of the Reform Leaders

One of my goals in the presentation is to introduce people to some leading reformers who have some remarkable visions for the church. One of the most dynamic and effective leaders is Kathy Baldock. She lives in Nevada and created a wonderful “hiking ministry”, where she goes on hikes through the mountains.

I was fortunate to talk with Kathy during the cohort (and get a signed copy of her book!) What Kathy’s book brings to the table is the historical, medical and non-religious perspectives. This is so very important for the church to consider, in light of Galileo, left-handed people and interracial families. Her book is a great place to begin the conversation.

Book to begin with: “Walking the Bridgeless Canyon”

“If you read only one book on the history of LGBT rights, the culture, psychotherapy, religious reactions, and what the Bible really says about being gay, Walking the Bridgeless Canyon should be it. It is well-researched, compelling, and eye opening. If this book had existed when I became an anti-gay Christian activist, I would have questioned if what I was doing was truly Gods will or if it was nothing more than a man-made construct meant to maintain white heterosexual male dominance on the backs of gay people and women.”

–Yvette Cantu Schneider, former policy analyst at
Family Research Council, former director of women’s
ministry at Exodus International

Respect for Conscience

Can we make a deal? Those who do not affirm samesex marriage are not bigots or full of hatred automatically. Can we agree that those who do affirm samesex marriage are not going to hell automatically?

My hope is that starting with this handshake (no hatred/no hell), the church can be healed and move forward in a God-honoring manner. The next three parts of my presentation are the following:

Part 2: The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about the holiness of God. Are we disobeying God? What is God up to?

Part 3: The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about our children. Are we setting a bad example? How do we break through the hostility?

Part 4: The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about immorality. Are we on a slippery slope? What restraint do we have?

How would you answer these questions? What thoughts do you have about this topic? I am sharing these presentations publicly in order to give some time for critical feedback and challenge to my thoughts.

Ezekiel 16

My bible search began of course with the famous six “clobber passages”. These are the six knives that have been stabbed into the hearts of so many gay people around the world, even used to justify laws for jail or death for being gay.

The first one I Genesis 19, the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Like most bible readers, I just assumed the sin of Sodom that angered God was homosexuality. But then I read Ezekiel 16:49-50, and that entire chapter.

“’Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” (NIV)

Now certainly the same-sex gang rape incident described in Genesis 19 was detestable. It is described as an abomination in other translations. But what is the primary sin described here? They were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned. They did not help the poor and needy. I do not think God is pleased with sexual perversion, but the sin that gets the God of the bible really furious is arrogance and apathy.

Dr. David Gushee

Recently the Reformation Project welcomed a conservative theologian Dr. David Gushee and scheduled him as their keynote speaker for their Washington DC conference in November.  Here are some priceless quotes from this Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, a Baptist college and divinity school in Georgia.

“I do join your crusade tonight,” Gushee’s prepared remarks say, according to a draft obtained by Religion News Service. “I will henceforth oppose any form of discrimination against you. I will seek to stand in solidarity with you who have suffered the lash of countless Christian rejections. I will be your ally in every way I know how to be.”

Gushee says the journey to his current position has been a long and winding one. During the first two decades of his academic career, he maintained a traditional view of sexuality and “hardly knew a soul who was not heterosexual.” As he worked on issues such as torture and climate change, his attention was drawn to other issues — slavery, segregation, defamation of Jews, subjugating women — for which Christians once cited Scripture for their entrenched positions.

Then in 2008, his younger sister, Katey, came out as a lesbian. She is a Christian, single mother, and had been periodically hospitalized for depression and a suicide attempt. It made him realize that “traditionalist Christian teaching produces despair in just about every gay or lesbian person who must endure it.”

“It is difficult to overstate the potential impact of Gushee’s defection. His Christian ethics textbook, “Kingdom Ethics,” co-authored with the late Glen Stassen, is widely respected and was named a 2004 Christianity Today book of the year. He serves as theologian-in-residence for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a coalition of 15 theological schools, 150 ministries, and 1,800 Baptist churches nationwide.”

source

My Fourth Book

I plan on continuing to read, discuss, debate and explore this topic. I plan to expound on three big reasons why Christianity needs gay people, and why same-sex marriage is not the problem, but the solution. There is not only an “elephant in the room” of the kingdom of God, there is a Lion. Thoughts? Questions? Challenges?

Matthew’s Purpose

This book was written to directly address one question: How does the bible applly to same-sex relationships? The book is dedicated to “To all those who have suffered in silence for so long.” The premise is clear from the first chapter: The bible cannot be set aside in the discussion about same-sex relationships, based on John 10:35.

Matthew’s Case

With brilliant calmness, Matthew synthesizes every debate, discussion and argument I’ve heard in regard to LGBT people. Matthew exposes and examines arguments from both sides, and shows how some of the arguments from each side fall short of the biblical mandate. Here is an overview of the case he makes.

Good fruit/bad fruit

The foundational argument made in this book is a sort of end-game. What is the fruit of how LGBT people have been treated? Is such fruit good or bad?

“First is the harmful impact on gay Christians. Based on Jesus’s teaching that good trees bear good fruit, we need to take a new look at the traditional interpretation of biblical passages that refer to same-sex behavior.” Loc. 998-1004

Historical Examples

Next Matthew takes us on a journey of some examples from history where long-standing, multi-century teachings of the Christian church have been wrong, and re-adjusted based on new discoveries. Matthew shows how each time, the authority of Scripture was not compromised by the new scientific discoveries, but rather, enhanced. Matthew cites recent history too, such as the 2013 closure and apology of the ex-gay ministry, Exodus International.

Celibacy as a gift

One of the contradictions expressed by the church has been to re-define celibacy from being a gift for some to a mandatory lifestyle choice for many in their attempt to “save marriage”. Matthew expounds on the gift of celibacy amazingly well, and shows proper, but not undue, respect for the gift of celibacy.

The traditional clobber verses

About half of the book is devoted to painstakingly examining the passages of Genesis 19, Leviticus, Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1. Matthew does this with many questions, references to multiple interpretations and excellent logic– all without coming across as a bully. Nowhere does Matthew forcefully exhort the reader to adopt his logic. Instead, Matthew gently and methodically presents his case, inviting the reader to journey along side him.

“Of the thirteen references to Sodom in the Old Testament following Genesis 19, Ezekiel 16:49–50 offers the most detailed description of the city’s sins. In that passage, God stated, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore, I did away with them as you have seen.” Sexuality goes unmentioned, both in the Ezekiel passage and in every other Old Testament reference to Sodom following Genesis 19. If Sodom’s sin had indeed been same-sex behavior, it’s highly unlikely that every written discussion of the city for centuries following its destruction would fail to mention that.” Loc. 1188-90

Matthew makes a real attempt to move the gay-Christian debate beyond the typical conundrum.

“Sad to say, though, that’s been the extent of many debates about the Bible and homosexuality in recent years. One side starts by quoting Leviticus 18:22 (or 20:13, which prescribes the death penalty for males who engage in same-sex relations), and the other side counters with verses about dietary laws and bans on certain combinations of clothing. We really do need to go deeper.” Loc. 1194-97

Brilliant Gospel Exposition

As with any book, I care deeply about how the gospel is presented. Matthew’s book shines brightly with the explicit gospel messages and was a joy to read.

“First, I’d like us to consider the reason why Christians don’t follow all the laws we see in the Old Testament, from its restrictions on food to its rules about clothing—and many more, including the death sentence for rebellious children. And then I’d like to look at the Old Testament prohibitions of male same-sex intercourse, as we seek to discern whether and why Christians should follow them today.” Loc. 1210-16

“Our freedom from the law, I should be clear, is about much more than one decision made by one church council nearly two thousand years ago. It is rooted in the saving, reconciling work of Jesus Christ. The New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the law. Colossians 2:13–14 says that God “forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.” Christ’s death made it possible for us to be permanently reconciled to God. Before then, only temporary atonement was possible through the sacrifices of the Jewish priests. But as Hebrews 8:6 explains, “The ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.” Loc. 1231-34

“I am far from the only gay Christian who has heard the claim that gay people will not inherit the kingdom of God. That message is plastered on protest signs at gay-pride parades. It’s shouted by roaming street preachers at busy intersections and on college campuses. The result is that, for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, all they’ve heard about the kingdom of God is that they won’t be in it.” Loc. 1955-58

Same-sex Marriage

Matthew concludes with a humble examination of marriage. He admits that since he is single and young, he has little to offer and cannot teach about marriage. But he shares some incredible insight nonetheless. Matthew continues to ask profoundly good questions, as he does throughout the book.

“Granted, the Bible’s silence on committed same-sex relationships doesn’t necessarily mean those relationships are blessed. Even if you agree with my analysis so far, you may still wonder: Can loving, committed same-sex unions fulfill the Bible’s understanding of marriage?” Loc. 1982-86

“Perhaps the dominant message about marriage in modern society is that it’s primarily about being happy, being in love, and being fulfilled. Nearly everyone desires these things, of course. But what happens to the marriage bond if one spouse stops feeling fulfilled? What if one partner falls out of love, or they both do? For many in our society, the answer seems obvious: The couple should seek a divorce. Why should two people who no longer love each other stay together? But that is not the Christian message. For Christians, marriage is not just about us. It’s also about Christ. If Christ had kept open the option to leave us behind when he grew frustrated with us or felt like we were not living up to his standards, he may have abandoned us long ago. But the story of the gospel is that, although we don’t deserve it, God lavishes his sacrificial love upon us anyway.” Loc. 2132-38

Conclusion: Hope and joy

This book left me with tremendous hope and joy, and also with a somber and deep commitment to be a straight, Christian ally to all LGBT people. The three concluding personal narratives are beyond amazing and simply must be read for yourself. I conclude with one of Matthew’s concluding statements.

“Tragically, I hear from many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians whose churches also are convinced that they cannot take an affirming approach to same-sex relationships while remaining faithful to Scripture. I wrote this book to show that there is a third way. The message of Scripture for gay Christians is not what non-affirming Christians assume it to be.” Loc. 2415

Celibacy as the only answer

Wesley begins his book by sharing various viewpoints regarding same-sex attractions. He present the idea that LGBT people who are not Christians can choose for themselves how to express their non-hetereosexual natures. He insists that his choice is to accept what he calls the Christian teaching that celibacy is the only answer for a homosexual person. He does all this cautiously, trying not to be offensive and trying to allow room for other people to make their own choices.

At times we are left to wonder however, just what Wesley believes. He is not persuaded by the traditional bible interpretations and church teachings. For example:

“At times, though, for me and many others, the weight of the biblical witness and the church’s traditional teaching against homosexual practice can seem rather unpersuasive. The list of Bible passages and the statements from the Vatican and other church leaders just don’t seem compelling enough to keep gay and lesbian people from looking for sexual fulfillment in homosexual relationships. In fact, not only are they not compelling; these biblical texts and Christian pronouncements appear out-dated, perhaps slightly cruel, and, in any case, not really workable or attainable.”  Page 56

Wesley’s premise is clear though:

“At the end of the day, the only “answer” I have to offer to the question of how to live well before God and with others as a homosexual Christian is the life I am trying to live by the power of the gospel.” Page 26

“For reasons I described in chapter 1, I do not think the option of same-sex, erotically expressive partnerships is open to the homosexual person who wants to remain faithful to the gospel. Which leaves the gay or lesbian Christian with few options, it seems.”  Page 108

Glimpses of the Hamster wheel gospel

As with any Christian book, I am highly sensitive to what kind of  gospel message is being taught. I was rather disheartened to hear the oft-repeated message that we Christians have to focus our energy on cleaning ourselves up. I call this the “hamster wheel gospel” because this belief makes you run in circles, entrapping you in a vicious cycle. This gospel attaches the concept of repentance to sin and views forgiveness as a constant struggle and search. Wesley writes:

“If we have failed in the past, we can receive grace—a clean slate, a fresh start. If we fail today or tomorrow in our struggle to be faithful to God’s commands, that, too, may be forgiven.”

Dark themes

This book was rather difficult for me to read. I felt depressed as I listened to the endless struggle, as if I was drowning and could not breathe. Wesley seemed to return to the “kamikaze” type thinking throughout the book:

“While taking a German class in college, I learned that in some old Teutonic and Scandinavian religions and mythologies there is an ideal of the “fated warrior.” This is the champion who heads into battle fully aware that doom awaits him at the end. “Defeat rather than victory is the mark of the true hero; the warrior goes out to meet his inevitable fate with open eyes.”  Page 71

“And yet we ache. The desire of God is sufficient to heal the ache, but still we pine, and wonder.”  Page 118

The other dark theme is what Wesley calls “a profound theology of brokenness”. I remember adopting this theology many years ago. But that theology proved to be only a transition into a wonderful new life when my theology of brokenness turned into the theology of transformation. As a young man in his 20’s, Wesley seems to be weaving a cocoon of brokenness around himself. I hope his journey continues and he emerges with the new life of a butterfly.

It is clear from reading this book that Wesley may have the gift of celibacy. But he presents celibacy sometimes as a gift and other times as a ball and chain. I appreciated listening in on his holy struggle.

Many quotes and poetry

Wesley shares many quotes from many people. He especially focuses on Henri Nouwen.

“For several years, all I knew about Nouwen was what I had read in these two books, The Return of the Prodigal Son and Adam: God’s Beloved. Then one afternoon, I was in the library at Luther Seminary in St. Paul and noticed a new biography of Nouwen. I picked it up and started to read, still standing in the lobby near the “new arrivals” shelf. I remember vividly the shock and ache I felt in my stomach, as if from acrophobia or a sudden lurch, when I discovered that Henri Nouwen had been a celibate homosexual and, as a result, had wrestled intensely with loneliness, persistent cravings for affection and attention, immobilizing fears of rejection, and a restless desire to find a home where he could feel safe and cared for.”  Page 88

Desire for companionship

In the end, Wesley asks the right questions and gives the reader a taste of what it must be like to live the LGBT experience.

“All our lives we’re searching for someone who will take us seriously. That’s what it means to be human,” a friend of mine once mused. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, people are wired, it seems, to pursue relationships of love and commitment. Maybe it’s possible to be more specific: it seems that we long for the experience of mutual desire. We’re on a quest to find a relationship in which we can want someone wholeheartedly and be wanted with the same intensity, in which there is a contrapuntal enhancement of desire.”  Page 101

“Is there any legitimate way for homosexual Christians to fulfill their longing—a longing they share with virtually every other human person, both heterosexual and homosexual—the longing to be desired, to find themselves desirable, and to desire in return?”   Page 101

• What are your thoughts, reactions, comments, questions, ideas about this book?
• Have you read Henri Nouwen? What do you think of the discovery that he was gay?
• How have you reacted to anyone around you who is homosexual?
• How will you reach out and be a friend to the marginalized people in your UBF chapter?

Here is a quote from C. S. Lewis from Mere Christianity in his chapter on Sexual Morality which may be helpful:

“We may, indeed, be sure that perfect chastity—like perfect charity—will not be attained by any merely human efforts. You must ask for God’s help. Even when you have done so, it may seem to you for a long time that no help, or less help than you need, is being given. Never mind. After each failure, ask forgiveness, pick yourself up, and try again. Very often what God first helps us towards is not the virtue itself but just this power of always trying again. For however important chastity (or courage, of truthfulness, or any other virtue) may be, this process trains us in habits of the soul which are more important still. It cures our illusions about ourselves and teaches us to depend on God. We learn, on the one hand, that we cannot trust ourselves even in our best moments, and, on the other, that we need not despair even in our worst, for our failures are forgiven. The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection.”

Is this helpful to you and to those you know?

Basically his position is that Lesbians and Gays are called to live a celibate life (not necessarily to change their orientation although he subtly acknowledges that this may be possible). He clearly stands against the church blessing homosexual marriages and ordaining practicing homosexuals as ministers. But he has no problem ordaining non-practicing ones.

Hays may not be an evangelical but he sure is a very biblical Methodist, and one that knows the Bible more than any evangelical I’ve seen. He points out that an often cited passage against homosexuality is Rom 1:21-28, which actually says that homosexuality is the product of the disorder wrought about by sin, and not sin itself as a choice. This is exactly in line with what we know from the scientists who point out that for most people sexual orientation is not really a choice. After all, Romans says “God gave them over…” (Rom 1:24,26,28). This means that the church is in no position to judge someone merely for his/her sexual orientation.

Hays also points out that if you really think about it celibacy puts the LGBT community exactly in the same position as heterosexuals who are unable to find a partner (and there are many of them).

In my view, (I’m not speaking for Hays now), the main problem and the reason why this issue is so hotly debated today is because we live in a culture that glorifies sex, romantic relationships, and marriage. We can see this not only on the pervasiveness of pornography but also on “wholesome” TV shows in which families have a good time. How is the LGBT community supposed to feel in this culture? Obviously they want a piece of it too.

The Church has also been complicit in creating this culture. In many churches, 1 Corinthians 13 is a favorite as a sermon for marriages, even though this chapter is not really talking about marital relationships. As for UBF, of course, it is not guilty of glorifying marriage as romance, but it is guilty of glorifying it as mission. What a load of lies! The fact is that one is in a much better position to serve God and the church as single rather than married (1 Cor 7:32,34-35). This is common sense. A married person has to care for his family first (1 Cor 7:33). The New Testament is full of passages that favor celibacy over marriage. {Think of the following: the Sadducees testing Jesus about the resurrection (Mt 22:30); Jesus saying that it would be better for women not to nurse children when the end is coming (Mt 24:19), the fact that Jesus himself never got married, and Paul himself explicitly says it is better to be celibate (1 Cor 7:8)}.

Yet I remember Friday meetings in Chicago where someone would share that maybe it is better to be like Mother Barry, and then you would hear uncontrolled laughing from the Koreans. I never really understood what was so funny.

As for UBF thinking that marriage is for mission, I think that it confuses a purpose versus a prerequisite. Mission is not the main purpose of marriage, but rather it is a prerequisite. If indeed mission was the sole purpose of marriage, then perhaps I should have married Joshua Jeon. (Sorry my friend for using your name.) We would have been great partners for the gospel. But obviously we didn’t because it is unnatural and we are not attracted to one another.

I could talk about the pitfalls of marriage in UBF at another time. The point is that a church that does not honor celibacy as a feasible option and really as superior to marriage according to the Scriptures is not really in a position to reach out or judge the LGBT community. This applies to UBF and many churches in America. For us to get this issue right, before we even talk about LGBT evangelism, we must renew our minds and not be conformed to the patterns of this world (Rom 12:2). First and foremost there must be a change in our culture about marriage and singleness. Singles should never be looked upon as poor loners and losers, but rather as those with the best potential to spread the Kingdom. Marriage should not be imposed or pressured upon anyone.

As for the political issue (many states supporting or disapproving, and President Obama’s stand) and the fact that the church disapproves of homosexuality, does it then mean that she should take a stand politically on this matter? This is a very complex issue that depends on one’s views about the relationship of the church and the state. I will not deal with this issue here and I myself find it very hard to find the right answers on this one.

Jail, Judgment and Hell. When I went to the jail to visit him, I saw the secure high walls, countless security measures and armed policemen. It was a gloomy, depressing and hellish atmosphere. It made my already heavy heart heavier. Despite prison breaks in movies, the reality and likelihood of breaking out of jail is virtually nil. I felt very sorry that if he is found guilty, he would spend significant time in jail in the prime of his life. It made me think of the finality of hell for those who fall on the wrong side of God’s judgment on the Final Day.

Jail is Temporary, but Hell is Permanent and Forever. Going to the jail just to visit was extremely depressing. There is a strong feel of gloom, doom, wrath and judgment. It is surely a deterrent. As unpleasant as jail is, hell would be infinitely worse. To speculate and contemplate on the finality and eternality of hell was extremely sobering. It is good for my soul. It brought to the forefront of my heart and mind the utmost importance of missions and for reaching the lost and equipping the saved. It prompted me to pray for those I know and love who do not know the assurance of eternal life through Christ.

Brokenness and Sorrow. Most of all, I felt so broken-hearted for him. This is not at all to minimize the unspeakable and inexcusable trauma caused to the woman he allegedly sexually assaulted. She is the victim. He is responsible for that. If found guilty, an adequate judgment needs to be pronounced. But knowing the dysfunctional details of his life through 2 years of Bible study and friendship, I know that he too is a victim. He works out regularly and carries himself with a tough exterior. But seeing him in jail, his toughness was completely gone. He was softened and humbled. For the first time he thanked me for studying the Bible with him, and for being a father figure to him. I pray for him that through this event, Jesus may be the Joy, Treasure and Delight of his heart (Ps 37:4).

Why am I writing about porn? I saw a newsflash this morning that a Wheaton College professor of Christian education was arrested and charged with possessing images and videos containing child pornography.

A Christian leader trapped by porn. It made me think about how trapped he was by his porn addiction if the charges are true. He is 60 years old, and is married with 3 kids. He was a pastor at age 19. Presently, he is a lay leader at a Methodist church and a teacher, mentor and professor at one of the best Christian universities. Ironically, his specialty for which he has done much research was on children’s spirituality. Here is a short video clip of him introducing his online course. Today, in court, he had bail set at $750,000. Wheaton College placed him on administrative leave. His professional career is over. His wife and 3 kids are surely devastated. Full restoration for him and his family can only be found in the love of God through Jesus.

Looking for joy in all the wrong places. What is the motivation for porn? Correct me for being overly simplistic, but I would venture to say that it is our quest for joy, however misguided. God made us to live with the utmost of joy (Ps 37:4; Phil 4:4; 1 Th 5:16). No man can live without joy. Jonathan Edwards says, “The enjoyment of God is the only happiness with which our souls can be satisfied.” But if we do not find our joy in God, we cannot but seek it in all the wrong places.

There but for the grace of God go I. I could have been like the Wheaton College professor. If my patient had not died, I sometimes wonder if I would have stopped watching porn. It is surely only God’s intervening grace that saved me from myself.

May God have mercy on us to find our utmost joy in our Lord and not settle for counterfeits.

Jim, Jim and Ted. Perhaps, the 3 most “famous” Christian sexual transgressors in the U.S. are Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard. Pedophile priests would fall into the same category. Because of their prominent positions of Christian leadership and influence, they have given the non-Christian public “justifiable” reasons for rejecting Jesus, Christianity, the Bible, and the church.

Reasons for allowing a Christian leader to lead after a sexual sin. According to reports, it has been “common” for leaders to continue in their positions of leadership in the church after sexual transgression. Common justifications include:

• “God forgives all sin, including sexual sin,”
• “He repented,”
• “He served so well for so long,”
• “He has great gifts that can greatly benefit the church,”
• “Now he can understand sinners better.”

There are ample biblical arguments for each of the above justifications, which I will not go into, but which you may wish to address.

What about “lesser” sins? Others say, “If Christian leaders are dismissed because of sexual sin, shouldn’t those who commit other sins, such as pornography or “lesser” sins, also be dismissed or disqualified?”

All of the above are “reasonable” reasons for keeping a Christian in a position of leadership and influence in the church after sexual sin. But are they adequate and biblical and reasonable reasons to keep a Christian in leadership?

Intimacy in marriage points to Christ’s love for the church (Eph 5:25). Sexual intercourse is a special gift from God ONLY in the exclusive context of marriage between a man and a woman. Thus, sex with anyone but one’s spouse violates this. When ANY Christian commits a sexual sin, he obscures and sullies the beauty of Christ in his unique sacrificial love for the church, not to mention betraying his spouse, his children and his friends. When a Christian leader does this, the impact, influence and damage increases exponentially.

Sexual sin is not an “ordinary” sin. The Bible seems to “elevate” the seriousness of sexual sin, when Paul says, “All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body” (1 Cor 6:18), because our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19).

Would you listen to a Christian leader who had sex with your daughter? The answer to this question seems obvious. So, why might anyone in the church think that it is OK for that leader who committed a sexual sin to preach and teach other women and other daughters in the church? Reason itself should disqualify a “fallen” Christian leader from leading in the church.

Disqualification from leadership does not mean exclusion from fellowship. Disqualification by sexual sin does not mean exclusion from fellowship in the church, who should forgive and welcome him in the grace of Jesus, and provide counseling for him and his family.

This is an extensive topic. Volumes have been written. I have obviously barely skimmed the surface. To read more, I have found these helpful:

• Lessons to Learn from the Fall of Jimmy Swaggart: This 1988 sermon from John MacArthur is one of his most popular sermons.
• A book review of The Stain that Stays: The Church’s Response to the Sexual Misconduct of its Leaders by John Armstrong. Al Mohler says of this book: “(Armstrong) has left no stone unturned and yet he has thrown no stones at fallen brothers.”
• DA Carson answers the question: Do you think that a fallen Christian leader can ever be restored? If not, why not? But if so, under what conditions?

Sex is always a hot button issue, because sex pushes our buttons regardless of whether we are Christian or non-Christian, Christian leader or church member. May God give us grace and wisdom to deal with sexual sin, not just of Christian leaders, but especially of lust and the temptation of sexual sin in our own hearts.

That has happened. God has blessed us with lots of interesting articles and lively discussion. Even during the recent holiday period, when our pace of publishing slowed down to less than one new article per week, we were still averaging about 50 site visits per day by readers from all over the world.

But one aspect of UBFriends has been gnawing at my conscience: the overwhelming majority of posts and comments have been written by males.

At present, we have some nice articles in the queue witing to be published. The articles are thoughtful, interesting, and provocative. But they were authored by men. When they appear on UBFriends, I suspect that they will generate lots of lively comments by our male readers but not by women. This is one reason why I am hesitating to press the “Publish” button. I don’t want to do anything that will unwittingly reinforce our image as an all-boys club.

What has happened to the fairer sex?

Perhaps women have become disinterested because the content of the articles does not appeal to them. Perhaps UBFriends articles have become overly abstract. I have learned from experience that when conversations turn to ideas, doctrines, and principles, women start to yawn and bow out. That’s a huge oversimplification, of course. I don’t want to be guilty of stereotyping. But there are significant differences between men and women in how they think. I have heard from reliable sources — and seen by personal observation — that men fall in love with principles much more readily than women do, whereas women tend to be focused on relationships and people. When discussing a problematic issue in ministry, men are likely to wonder, “If we do such-and-such, what kind of message are we sending to our members, and what kind of precedent are we setting?” But women are likely to wonder, “If we do such-and-such, what impact will it have on the significant persons in my life?” (Both of these perspectives are important. Men and women truly need each other.)

Or perhaps the style of our communication is subconsciously hushing women up. I have seen how this happens. I have sat through meetings where most of the people sitting around the conference table are men, except for one or two women. If those women are not accustomed to working in a predominantly male environment and have not adapted themselves to male styles of verbal and nonverbal communication, they tend to just sit by and watch. Similarly, I have attended meetings where I am the only male surrounded by females. In those settings, I feel out of place and tend to just keep quiet and listen. It’s hard to pinpoint how the ethos of a male-dominated forum differs from a female-dominated one. But these differences are real and instinctively felt.

It is interesting to speculate about why UBFriends has become male-dominated.

But it is more important to ask: What should we do about it?

One solution is to publish more articles authored by women. That is something we would love to do. If any women would like to contribute articles to UBFriends, please email them to us (admin@ubfriends.org) and we will put them at the head of the queue. If you are unsure about your ability to write and express yourself, please don’t worry. We can help you to revise or edit your piece as needed.

Another solution is for the men who are contributing to UBFriends to become more attuned to how their content and style is perceived by women. If you have the urge to write something, perhaps you can show it to your wife, daughter, sister, etc. and ask them what they think. Consider co-authoring a piece with them.

If you have any suggestions on how to make UBFriends a more welcoming place for women, please let us know.