Christian Group Behavior (Episode 44)

[ScottBarger]

Sorry for the slow response. Here's the questions put to my by NHB:

Every married straight couple and every committed gay couple experiences romantic intimacies. I don't think I'm being too presumptive to imagine you do so with your own wife. Then after a good night's sleep, you kiss your wife, get out of bed, look in the mirror, and feel like your relationship to God remains uncompromised.

Yet for committed, Christian gay couples, your statements have stained every moment of their love-making with guilt and shame. When they arise in the morning, what are they to think & do? Are they to apologize to one another for the love they feel? Are they to pray that they don't do it again? Are they to seek forgiveness in a Christian counseling session? Are they to break up, thereby damaging two lives?

These two loving couples are intensely similar, but you have cast them in opposite moral lights. Just like you in your physical relationship with your wife, they are doing the best they can to live a loving, faithful, and honest life. Given that you live your life in almost exactly the same fashion as they do, what's your pastoral response to those efforts?[/color]

First, I think that there will always be behavior (especially in the arena of human sexuality) which could be considered moral/immoral based on some variable. A simple example: it's ok to lie to my wife about her surprise birthday party, but not about the affair I've been having. The only difference between these two scenarios is the event I am covering up.

In terms of human sexuality, the same argument could be used to justify just about ANY kind of sexual activity...

- How can you say homosexuality is wrong? The only difference is the gender of the people involved.
- How can you say pedophilia is wrong? The only difference is the age of the people involved.
- How can you say necrophilia is wrong? The only difference is the biological status of the people involved.
- How can you say bestiality is wrong? The only difference is the species involved.

Now, I do NOT mean to equate a monogamous homosexual relationship with pedophilia, and I hope I didn't come across as that insensitive, but I did want to make the point that (for me at least) the morality of homosexuality is not based on how similar or different homosexuality is from heterosexuality. It is based on how closely the practice of homosexuality aligns with the teaching of the Bible.

Which brings me to the tricky part...

I am not entirely convinced that the Bible explicitly prohibits homosexuality for the follower of Jesus (as I have argued above). I fluctuate on the issue primarily because of the ambiguity of the text and the nature of monogamous homosexual relationships (as you have argued above). If I had two parishioners who were practicing homosexuals, and they came to me with the kinds of questions you have posted, I would answer by encouraging them to pursue the teachings of Jesus. I would invite them to wrestle with the text and formulate their conclusion. I would try to help them, assist as much as I could, but the goal for me would not be to produce two heterosexuals. It would be to produce two people who are thoughtful, committed to following the teaching and mission of Jesus, and live in response to the teaching of the Bible. If they conclude that homosexuality is permissible for the follower of Jesus, and I have concluded that it isn't, it would be up to me to pursue harmony with them.

Now before my fellow Christians burn me in effigy, let me say that I believe there are MANY issues that are clearly prohibited in the Bible, and I would not condone them in any scenario. But there are many gray issues as well, issues that aren't as black and white as others, and in those issues I think humility and grace are prerequisites for the follower of Jesus. It just MIGHT be that homosexuality best fits the "gray" list rather than the "black and white" list.

But that's just my opinion.

PS.

I really enjoyed your last post, Stick. I think you hit the nail on the head. Mind if I forward your thoughts to some friends in my church?

[NH Baritone]

First, I think that there will always be behavior (especially in the arena of human sexuality) which could be considered moral/immoral based on some variable. A simple example: it's ok to lie to my wife about her surprise birthday party, but not about the affair I've been having. The only difference between these two scenarios is the event I am covering up.

In terms of human sexuality, the same argument could be used to justify just about ANY kind of sexual activity...
- How can you say homosexuality is wrong? The only difference is the gender of the people involved.
- How can you say pedophilia is wrong? The only difference is the age of the people involved.
- How can you say necrophilia is wrong? The only difference is the biological status of the people involved.
- How can you say bestiality is wrong? The only difference is the species involved.

Now, I do NOT mean to equate a monogamous homosexual relationship with pedophilia, and I hope I didn't come across as that insensitive, but I did want to make the point that (for me at least) the morality of homosexuality is not based on how similar or different homosexuality is from heterosexuality. It is based on how closely the practice of homosexuality aligns with the teaching of the Bible.

Where in the bible does it say that pedophilia is wrong? Where in the bible does it say that necrophilia is wrong? And even though the bible does prohibit bestiality, it says to kill both the man and the animal for committing the act. (Poor animal doesn't get a break!)

Those prohibitions aren't wrong because they're not biblical: We have determined such acts to be harmful via our own reasoning. Specifically, pedophilia creates a victim. The bible didn't teach you that ... human reasoning did. Thanks to this same reasoning, we no longer treat women as property, we have raised the age for legal consent for sex and marriage, and we have developed birth control to benefit productive family life.

I was disappointed (and admittedly, insulted) that you linked paraphilias like pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality with loving, pair-bonded relationships. There is no more connection between homosexuality and paraphilias than there is between heterosexuality and those same paraphilias. I had assumed you would rise above that, seeing as you spoke of having had respectful conversations with gay people.

This is roughly the equivalent of suggesting that your marriage resulted when you raped your virgin wife, got her pregnant, and her father forced you into the wedding (Deuteronomy 22:28)

I would never make such a comparison. Rather, I assume that your marriage and my relationship with Doug were both based on loving connections to couples who shared goals, commitments, and vision. By drawing those paraphillic parallels, you have seemingly turned me into the "other," the "outsider," something so entirely different from yourself that you can cast judgment without fear of staining yourself with the same brush. In contrast, I strongly suspect that you and I share much more in common than you are allowing yourself to admit.

Which brings me to the tricky part...

I am not entirely convinced that the Bible explicitly prohibits homosexuality for the follower of Jesus (as I have argued above). I fluctuate on the issue primarily because of the ambiguity of the text and the nature of monogamous homosexual relationships (as you have argued above). If I had two parishioners who were practicing homosexuals, and they came to me with the kinds of questions you have posted, I would answer by encouraging them to pursue the teachings of Jesus. I would invite them to wrestle with the text and formulate their conclusion. I would try to help them, assist as much as I could, but the goal for me would not be to produce two heterosexuals. It would be to produce two people who are thoughtful, committed to following the teaching and mission of Jesus, and live in response to the teaching of the Bible. If they conclude that homosexuality is permissible for the follower of Jesus, and I have concluded that it isn't, it would be up to me to pursue harmony with them.

You seem to be leaving this couple to struggle in isolation, essentially saying, "If you can prove it to yourselves that god accepts your relationship, then I guess you can justify it for yourselves. Just don't expect any help from me." Therefore, pursuing harmony with them sounds a bit like biting your tongue. To my mind, pursuing harmony would more involve embracing the common ground of couplehood.

You have left off the pastoral responsibility of offering guidance to your congregation in how to deal with such a couple in their community. If yours is like most Christian churches, it holds a good share of people that have minimal understanding of human sexuality. How would you help a member family to deal with a gay child? How would you help a member deal with an employee who brings his partner to the company Christmas party? If you hired outside church musicians, what would you say to your organist when she wanted to bring her female partner to the Church pot-luck that follows the Easter Cantata, particularly if the Choir master has been invited to bring his wife?

Is it necessary for a Christian to limit our understanding of human sexuality to that written in the Bible Would you or your wife expect heterosexual marriage to be limited to Levitical or Pauline standards? Would you advise families not to use birth control, to arrange the children's marriages, to remain celibate and never marry?

Allow me to point out something from the 10th Chapter of "The Acts of the Apostles":
The Jewish disciples were convinced that Jesus had come to bring the message of salvation only to other Jews. But Peter was called to visit a gentile named Cornelius. Against his better judgment, Peter went and preached to them the message of Jesus. And he and his followers were shocked when the gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit. Once he saw the fruits of the spirit, he offered to them baptism into full membership in the church.

There are Christian gay couples who are monogamous and trying to live holy lives. If you visit them, you'll see it. If they've received that gift by the Holy Spirit, who are you to deny that they are not blessed in the same way as you are, and deserving of the same position in your congregation?

[ScottBarger]

Where in the bible does it say that pedophilia is wrong? Where in the bible does it say that necrophilia is wrong? And even though the bible does prohibit bestiality, it says to kill both the man and the animal for committing the act. (Poor animal doesn't get a break!)

Those prohibitions aren't wrong because they're not biblical: We have determined such acts to be harmful via our own reasoning. Specifically, pedophilia creates a victim. The bible didn't teach you that ... human reasoning did. Thanks to this same reasoning, we no longer treat women as property, we have raised the age for legal consent for sex and marriage, and we have developed birth control to benefit productive family life.

I agree. My point was to show that ANY behavior could be justified using the same reasoning you offered for homosexuality, namely, the behavior's similarity to heterosexuality. I did not claim that these behaviors are explicitly prohibited by the Bible.

I was disappointed (and admittedly, insulted) that you linked paraphilias like pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality with loving, pair-bonded relationships. There is no more connection between homosexuality and paraphilias than there is between heterosexuality and those same paraphilias. I had assumed you would rise above that, seeing as you spoke of having had respectful conversations with gay people.

My point wasn't to equate homosexuals with pedophiles. Like I said before:

Now, I do NOT mean to equate a monogamous homosexual relationship with pedophilia, and I hope I didn't come across as that insensitive, but I did want to make the point that (for me at least) the morality of homosexuality is not based on how similar or different homosexuality is from heterosexuality. It is based on how closely the practice of homosexuality aligns with the teaching of the Bible.

Again, I meant no insult, I apologize.

I would never make such a comparison. Rather, I assume that your marriage and my relationship with Doug were both based on loving connections to couples who shared goals, commitments, and vision. By drawing those paraphillic parallels, you have seemingly turned me into the "other," the "outsider," something so entirely different from yourself that you can cast judgment without fear of staining yourself with the same brush. In contrast, I strongly suspect that you and I share much more in common than you are allowing yourself to admit.

Like I said, I wasn't comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, I was trying to demonstrate what is, in my mind, flawed reasoning. Just because homosexual relationships are very similar to heterosexual relationships, doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality is morally acceptable. I did not mean to make it seem as though you are an outsider, and I do realize that we may have much in common.

You seem to be leaving this couple to struggle in isolation, essentially saying, "If you can prove it to yourselves that god accepts your relationship, then I guess you can justify it for yourselves. Just don't expect any help from me." Therefore, pursuing harmony with them sounds a bit like biting your tongue. To my mind, pursuing harmony would more involve embracing the common ground of couplehood.

I would do my best not to let the couple struggle in isolation. Like I said, I would want to be a friend to help them deal with issues like this one. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to be gay, in a monogamous relationship, and struggling to figure out what it means to be a follower of Jesus. The reality is, this is a VERY difficult issue and needs to be handled with a bit more wisdom, compassion, and discernment than, say, helping someone come to grips with their smoking habit.

You have left off the pastoral responsibility of offering guidance to your congregation in how to deal with such a couple in their community. If yours is like most Christian churches, it holds a good share of people that have minimal understanding of human sexuality. How would you help a member family to deal with a gay child? How would you help a member deal with an employee who brings his partner to the company Christmas party? If you hired outside church musicians, what would you say to your organist when she wanted to bring her female partner to the Church pot-luck that follows the Easter Cantata, particularly if the Choir master has been invited to bring his wife?

I would handle these issues in much the same way as I stated above. I would encourage people to be gracious and compassionate, to understand that this issue may not be as "black and white" as we used to think, and to pursue harmonious relationships whenever possible.

Is it necessary for a Christian to limit our understanding of human sexuality to that written in the Bible Would you or your wife expect heterosexual marriage to be limited to Levitical or Pauline standards?

No.

Would you advise families not to use birth control, to arrange the children's marriages, to remain celibate and never marry?

No. No. Sometimes.

Allow me to point out something from the 10th Chapter of "The Acts of the Apostles":
The Jewish disciples were convinced that Jesus had come to bring the message of salvation only to other Jews. But Peter was called to visit a gentile named Cornelius. Against his better judgment, Peter went and preached to them the message of Jesus. And he and his followers were shocked when the gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit. Once he saw the fruits of the spirit, he offered to them baptism into full membership in the church.

There are Christian gay couples who are monogamous and trying to live holy lives. If you visit them, you'll see it. If they've received that gift by the Holy Spirit, who are you to deny that they are not blessed in the same way as you are, and deserving of the same position in your congregation?

Good point, I think that part of the task would be dealing with the person in a holistic way, taking into account the many facets of the human experience, including spiritual transformation. I think we need to remember that we are dealing with people, not objects. I mean, it doesn't seem to me that it would be beneficial to look a person ONLY in terms of their sexuality. I am more than just some straight guy, and you are more than just some gay guy. If we are both followers of Jesus, then it seems to me we have ought to have a commonality that would help us navigate through tricky issues such as this.

[NH Baritone]

I am more than just some straight guy, and you are more than just some gay guy. If we are both followers of Jesus, then it seems to me we have ought to have a commonality that would help us navigate through tricky issues such as this.

To be honest with you, Scott, so long as you get to go home to your wife and have a full physical, loving relationship that by definition does not harm your relationship with God, while simultaneously a Christian gay couple does not have that same privilege, then you and the Christianity you represent extract that commonality you hope for. You don't even have to think about it in your life. For Christian gay couples, they often have difficulty thinking of much else. And Christianity, at least the form you subscribe to, is for them a toxin.

[stickmangrit]

scott,

yes, feel free to send these thoughts out.

and to further my statements, and to cross cut with my study of the bible post, i would argue that homosexuality is not a biblical sin. here's why:

as i've stated in the aforementioned thread, the beliefs of any christian should be focused primarily on the direct teachings of Jesus, with the words of the disciples, including(and especially) Paul, coming in at a distant second. at no point does Jesus outright condemn homosexuality. clearly he would be aware of it, as both the Romans and the Greeks practiced it with a fair degree of regularity, and being an aspect of the all-knowing Yahweh, who would be fully aware of the problem it presents to modern christians, you'd think he'd have at least made passing mention of the issue. from my interpretation, it comes down to the two "greatest commandments" that Jesus issued.

Jesus constantly questioned and rebuked the Pharisees, who were obsessed with following the letter of the law in complete ignorance of it's spirit. he challenged them to answer why the acts prohibited in the law were immoral. he told us to love the lord our god, and to love each other as we would love god, and that whatever we do to the least of man, we also do to god. in light of these teachings, i would ask how a pair like NH and Doug, a monogamous gay couple who are clearly following Jesus' second commandment in loving each other completely and selflessly, just as they should love god, are committing sin, and therefore harming god? i would also point out that, by the logic of Jesus' teachings, the financial and emotional burden that NH went through from not having his relationship validated and recognized by the state due to "christian teachings." the pain that the christian majority inflicts upon him and other dedicated monogamous gay couples is also felt by god. i would argue that the pain and guilt inflicted by christians upon the homosexual community is also inflicted upon god, violating the most basic teachings that Jesus spoke.

i realize that as a non-believer, my interpretation may carry less merit. but i would also state that in many cases it takes an impartial outside observer to take a step back and see the truth of things. a little food for thought, if you will.

[ScottBarger]

Good post, stick. You make a lot of sense. I think I am basically in the same place.

[NH Baritone]

Good post, stick. You make a lot of sense. I think I am basically in the same place.

Then can we count on your public support for civil marriage for same-sex couples? You could help reverse a lot of damage inflicted by your church.

[stickmangrit]

Then can we count on your public support for civil marriage for same-sex couples? You could help reverse a lot of damage inflicted by your church.

be nice NH, the man's stuck between a rock and a hard place, and that he's managed to get this far outside the generally accepted dogma is a feat worthy of commendation. to critically question the views of the majority when the majority rules the penalty as being punishable by eternal suffering takes a rather hefty set of cajones, which, as an openly gay man, you should be more than aware of. know your enemy, and recognize your allies. as i've said numerous times, it's not people like scott or jim that are attacking our beliefs, it's people like them who we should be turning to for help in appealing to other christians.

that said, as divisive and explosive an issue as this is in modern america, it would be invaluable to have men of the cloth openly recognize and acknowledge the inherent cognitive dissonance between the teachings of Jesus and the condemnation of the homosexual community perpetrated in his name.

[NH Baritone]

Then can we count on your public support for civil marriage for same-sex couples? You could help reverse a lot of damage inflicted by your church.

be nice NH, the man's stuck between a rock and a hard place, and that he's managed to get this far outside the generally accepted dogma is a feat worthy of commendation. to critically question the views of the majority when the majority rules the penalty as being punishable by eternal suffering takes a rather hefty set of cajones, which, as an openly gay man, you should be more than aware of. know your enemy, and recognize your allies. as i've said numerous times, it's not people like scott or jim that are attacking our beliefs, it's people like them who we should be turning to for help in appealing to other christians.

that said, as divisive and explosive an issue as this is in modern america, it would be invaluable to have men of the cloth openly recognize and acknowledge the inherent cognitive dissonance between the teachings of Jesus and the condemnation of the homosexual community perpetrated in his name.

I think I saw a quote somewhere, hmmm, it went something like this:

"I see as much misery outta them movin' to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm."

Quite frankly, I understand that Scott has moved from throwing stones at gay people to holding the cloaks of those who are throwing them. I'm only pointing out that it doesn't mean much unless he prevents them from throwing the stones.

[stickmangrit]

I think I saw a quote somewhere, hmmm, it went something like this:

"I see as much misery outta them movin' to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm."

Quite frankly, I understand that Scott has moved from throwing stones at gay people to holding the cloaks of those who are throwing them. I'm only pointing out that it doesn't mean much unless he prevents them from throwing the stones.

hey, you leave Doc outta this!

but yes, you are right, and we're basically saying the same thing here. but as a therapist, you should know that the kind of change we're fighting for requires a degree of restraint. these are the good guys, and they are willing to hear us out(a rarity amongst christians). if rational discussion works, then forcefulness is unnecessary.

[NH Baritone]

I think I saw a quote somewhere, hmmm, it went something like this:

"I see as much misery outta them movin' to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm."

Quite frankly, I understand that Scott has moved from throwing stones at gay people to holding the cloaks of those who are throwing them. I'm only pointing out that it doesn't mean much unless he prevents them from throwing the stones.

hey, you leave Doc outta this!

but yes, you are right, and we're basically saying the same thing here. but as a therapist, you should know that the kind of change we're fighting for requires a degree of restraint. these are the good guys, and they are willing to hear us out(a rarity amongst christians). if rational discussion works, then forcefulness is unnecessary.

The cries from the ones being stoned may be necessary to help motivate those who are trying to hold back the mob. And I'm far too close to this to be expected to maintain clinical distance.

We all play our roles. I theorize that Scott has had precious few real conversations at this level with gay people. I remember how shocking I appeared to my classmates in seminary (and I went to a relatively liberal Methodist school). The conversation takes on a far too cerebral tone for my taste, and loses touch with the human beings it refers to. At the genuine risk of sounding over-dramatic, pain can seem theoretical until you hear someone real screaming.

[ScottBarger]

NH,

I think it is a bit unfair of you to categorize me as holding the cloaks of those stoning the Gay community. I have never agreed with the inflammatory rhetoric of ignorant, gay-bashing, fundamentalists. I think it is evil, and I have taught this clearly within my church community. I have consistently stated that it is not the role of the Church to set civil law that mandates the peculiarities of our moral system. I have repeatedly commented that I think some form of civil union ought to be allowed for gay couples. I think it is morally/biblically/theologically inconsistent for Evangelicals to be so vehemently against gay marriage, yet so "OK" with so many other behaviors the Bible "prohibits."

I have come to the place where I have had to admit that the Bible's teaching regarding homosexuality is a bit more gray than I had previously thought. If this is actually the case (and I think it is), then I have clear biblical teaching that mandates how I ought to proceed. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul teaches that humility and self-sacrifice are required when wrestling through gray areas. In Romans 14 he teaches that patience and grace are necessarily when believers have different opinion regarding moral issues. He specifically instructs the person with the "strong" conscious (the one who thinks the behavior is ok) not to despise the person with the weak conscious (the person who thinks the behavior is wrong). Likewise, he instructs the person with the weak conscious not to judge the person with the strong conscious. He goes so far as to say that the person with the "strong" conscious ought to voluntarily abstain from behavior that might cause others to stumble (this thought will never be popular in the U.S. of A., that it is sometimes best to give up our rights for the sake of others).

I apply this teaching to the issue of alcohol (which in my neck of the woods is still an problem for many Christians...the town where I live was the bastion for the temperance movement of the early 20th century...ugh). I do not think there is any thing wrong with drinking beer. I have the "strong" conscious in this area. There are people who have a "weaker conscious" in this area, and believe alcohol consumption is immoral for the follower of Jesus. The Bible teaches that the people who think drinking beer is wrong ought not judge me as inferior, immoral, apostate (whatever) if I drink a beer. The Bible also teaches that I should not despise people who think it is wrong and, in fact, ought to be willing to abstain from drinking beer if doing so is best for the "weaker brother."

I think this same attitude ought to govern our interaction with the issue of homosexuality.

[stickmangrit]

scott,

having read Romans 14, i see why i, and many other non-believers take issue regularly with Paul. throughout the beginning of that passage, Paul seems to give the impression that any behavior is acceptable to Jesus(there is nothing unclean of itself). but right there at the end he takes a sharp left, stating that even though these actions are totally okay, christians should bend to the weak faith of others, and stop doing what the majority finds offensive. and for good measure slips in a jab at how all who do not believe in Jesus are damned, just in case there was any doubt at this point.

he's setting up a system of morality that dictates that any behavior your fellow christian finds offensive, whether it has a damn thing to to with anything, is perfectly acceptable but should be stopped anyway. but the people demanding the ceasing of this behavior shouldn't judge. and vegetarians are evidently pussies. emphasis is placed on withholding judgment, but we're still told to bend to the will of the group, falling in line like sheep. and how do we determine what causes our fellow man to stumble? this is totally subjective, horrifically unclear, and a complete clusterf**k in it's execution. that's not compassion, that's f**king mob rule, and it's logic like this that leads to some of the darker parts of christian history.

this is the kind of s**t i'm talking about when i advise a thorough reexamination of the christian scripture. whereas one can clearly find a simple answer to our question(is homosexuality a sin, and should homosexuals be prevented from marrying?) in the words of Jesus, Paul does little more than re-muddy the newly cleared waters.

[NH Baritone]

Scott:

Allow me to explain my reasoning for comparing your stance with that of the unconverted Saul by quoting your own words:

I am not entirely convinced that the Bible explicitly prohibits homosexuality for the follower of Jesus (as I have argued above). I fluctuate on the issue primarily because of the ambiguity of the text and the nature of monogamous homosexual relationships (as you have argued above). If I had two parishioners who were practicing homosexuals, and they came to me with the kinds of questions you have posted, I would answer by encouraging them to pursue the teachings of Jesus. I would invite them to wrestle with the text and formulate their conclusion. I would try to help them, assist as much as I could, but the goal for me would not be to produce two heterosexuals. It would be to produce two people who are thoughtful, committed to following the teaching and mission of Jesus, and live in response to the teaching of the Bible. If they conclude that homosexuality is permissible for the follower of Jesus, and I have concluded that it isn't, it would be up to me to pursue harmony with them.

Simply put, you have justified reaching opposing conclusions by looking at the same two passages of the New Testament. You have allowed both conclusions to exist unchallenged. So regarding my un-named monogamous Christian gay couple, if you allow for them to independently "conclude that homosexuality is permissible for the follower of Jesus," then it is equally acceptable for you and your fellow Christians to reach the conclusion that homosexuality is impermissible, even when they are living up to the same behavioral standards you promote for all Christians.

You ambivalence here serves as no guidance at all, but instead leaves you open for tarring from both sides and praise from neither. What's more, given the climate of vigorous and pervasive socio-religious antipathy toward gay people, your indecisiveness gives effective tacit endorsement to the anti-gay conclusions.

Let me give an example: It was never sufficient in the segregated South to say, "I don't care if black folks vote or not." In order for justice to prevail, one had to vociferously promote black voter registration, the repeal of Jim Crow laws, and the dismantling of the segregation infrastructure. I am proud that my father did exactly that from his Tennessee pulpit. You may not endorse anti-gay legislation, but your ambivalence suggests that you are not standing up to the authorities, either within your own congregation or the society at large, who are trying to install anti-gay discrimination into the state and Federal constitutions. As a matter of fact, you would tell them that they "MAY" be exactly right. And these are the very ones who are engaging in "stoning" the gay community.

I have never agreed with the inflammatory rhetoric of ignorant, gay-bashing, fundamentalists. I think it is evil, and I have taught this clearly within my church community. I have consistently stated that it is not the role of the Church to set civil law that mandates the peculiarities of our moral system. I have repeatedly commented that I think some form of civil union ought to be allowed for gay couples. I think it is morally/biblically/theologically inconsistent for Evangelicals to be so vehemently against gay marriage, yet so "OK" with so many other behaviors the Bible "prohibits."

Come on, Scott! It's woefully insufficient to say, "Don't call them fags."

Choosing not to endorse "ignorant, gay-bashing, fundamentalists" differs immensely from actively and convincingly condemning not only the words they use but the logic they employ. You have spent large amounts of time & bandwidth simply straddling the fence, instead of stating "clearly" that there is no place within your congregation for discrimination against morally upright, monogamous, Christian gay couples. (It was not hard to notice that you skirted the topic of same-sex weddings, a sign of true equality, within your congregation.)

Recall that I asked you whether gay couples, those who engage in the same level of commitment & behavior as you and your wife do, can be considered to have a relationship equal to your own marriage in the church. After sneakily insinuating that there is some moral connection between monogamous gay couples and "pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality" (a tactic frequently employed by "ignorant, gay-bashing, fundamentalists"), you answered my question with the equivalent of "I don't think so":

If they conclude that homosexuality is permissible for the follower of Jesus, and I have concluded that it isn't, it would be up to me to pursue harmony with them.

... and then just to make certain that you hadn't offended any "ignorant, gay-bashing, fundamentalist" Christians (heaven forbid), you followed up immediately with ...

Now before my fellow Christians burn me in effigy, let me say that I believe there are MANY issues that are clearly prohibited in the Bible, and I would not condone them in any scenario. But there are many gray issues as well, issues that aren't as black and white as others, and in those issues I think humility and grace are prerequisites for the follower of Jesus. It just MIGHT be that homosexuality best fits the "gray" list rather than the "black and white" list.

So can you see why it appears to me that you prefer to avoid estrangement from and kowtow to bigots than to unequivocally protect civil rights? Do you understand why it appears that you would rather hide behind dogma than protect the lives & well-being of real human beings?

Yes, this angers me. But it also saddens me that above all else you fear offending your conservative constituency, i.e., those who would prefer that gay people didn't even exist. In other words, by your words you have sold out the gay people in your community.

That is why I said that you are effectively holding the cloaks of those who would stone gay people.

[JustJim]

So regarding my un-named monogamous Christian gay couple, if you allow for them to independently "conclude that homosexuality is permissible for the follower of Jesus," then it is equally acceptable for you and your fellow Christians to reach the conclusion that homosexuality is impermissible, even when they are living up to the same behavioral standards you promote for all Christians.

NHB,

I'm curious as to how you would counsel "your un-named monogamous Christian gay couple"? I assume you wouldn't try to talk them out of either their Christian beliefs or their homosexuality, despite the obvious conflicts produced for them by being both, so what would you do to "help" them?

Would you provide them counseling on the teachings of the Bible and how it should be interpreted and applied to them - something clearly outside your realm of expertise and responsibility as a therapist - or would you refer them to someone you know who is qualified and really good at such things, or what? I'm really curious as to how you would handle this without letting either your own sexual orientation or your own anti-theism interfere and "bias" your approach with them. Or would you let it interfere, but 'legitimately'?

You're obviously concerned and unhappy with Scott's approach - to help them come to their own conclusions and do their own wrestling with their feelings and frustrations after "researching" the teachings of their belief system (Christianity) - so what do you propose as an alternative?

Jim