I have an honest question for my Traditionalist friends -- those who hold to a conservative and traditionalist view of homosexuality in the Bible.

This traditionalist view is based primarily on three hermeneutical principles: (1) What the Bible says should be taken literally; (2) what was commanded then is still commanded now; and (3) consistency with church tradition is a critical test of exegesis. (feel free to correct me if you think I am mis-representing your views...)

Here is my question... what is the practical or theological difference between the following two theological claims, the first made by what are often termed extremists and the second a common view held by traditionalists:

(1) "God hates homosexuals and condemns them to hell." (this is in essence the view of people like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church).

(2) "God loves homosexuals but condemns them to hell." (this is in essence the traditionalist view espoused by many conservative evangelicals and other traditionalists).

Seriously, what is the practical distinction between these two theological statements? When talking to my gay friends, is #2 reallhy good news over #1?  If #1 is wrong, what makes #2 right?  Isn't the only difference one of rhetoric and language, but not substance?  In other words, isn't fair to say that the conservative traditionalist view is not significantly different than the fundamentalist/extremist view?

This is an honest question and I would love for some traditionalists to post their thoughts...

Thanks!

I have been re-reading Lauren Winner's great book, "Mudhouse Sabbath".  It is about rediscovering Jewish spiritual practices in the context of her Christian life.  Lauren grew up in an observant Jewish family, converted to evangelical Christianty and then found a church home within the Episcopal Church.  I love her writing and her journey!

Here is one of the key ideas that really struck me from the introduction of her book:

"na'aseh v'nishma" -- "We will do and we hear/understand." (Exodus 24)

Growing up in a Jewish family (including 2 years at an orthodox Jewish day school), I have always had an appreciation for this concept, but it was helpful for Lauren Winner to give words to the idea. (Or more specifically, the Torah to do it, lol).

I think this is part of the secret as to why obedience is such a powerful thing -- as Nancy talked about in a her recent sermon about ways to know Jesus.  Sometimes we DO even when we don't understand... but in DOING, we come to understand.

In a similiar way, I think there is a powerful dynamic between DOING and BEING.

Some Christians are really good at BEING and that is their emphasis in their spirituality.  Simply be in the presence of God. Don't worry about doing, just pray/worship/enjoy God.  Accept that you are accepted. Know that you are loved.  Be transformed simply by the presence of Jesus in our lives. A common phrase among these folks is "we are supposed to be human beings, not human doings."

These are the "BEING" Christians, and they are 100% right.

Other Christians are really good at DOING and that is their emphasis in their spirituality.  They are always doing, being active in their faith and ministry.  Serving the poor, sharing the good news, helping a friend move, giving to charity, etc etc.  These folks believe that as followers of Jesus, we are to DO the things He did and asked us to do. A common phrase... "WWJD?"

These are the "DOING" Christians, and they are 100% right.

That is the tension.  Both are right.

Here is what I am learning... and I think na'aseh v'nishma helps us grasp this, as do many of the rythyms of Jewish life that Lauren talks about... that BEING always leads to DOING and DOING should lead to BEING.

In other words... when we are authentically in the presence of Jesus ("being"), we will be compelled to service (as our master was)... and that when we DO, we will become more like Jesus in our character and being.

Thoughts?

Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has become (in)famous for its political activism, protests and in-your-face-offensive signs at said protests such as "God Hates Fags."  Led by the iconic Rev (?) Fred Phelps, the church and the Phelps family (almost one-in-the-same) represent the extreme right wing of Christianity.

It is easy to dismiss Phelps and his flock as crazy, extreme, hateful, evil and as a 1-trick pony in the world of hate speech. But an article by author and journalist Jeff Chu, profiling the only Asian American congregant of this Mid-western church, brings a human face to the often one-dimensional picture you get in most of the press.

It is worth reading Jeff's article for several reasons... it is well-written, it offers an inside peak at the real people that are part of the WBC, and I think it forces us to actually deal with these folks as real people.  It also, I think, offers an interesting picture of how the conservative church approaches homosexuality. You can read Jeff's article here.

This article is part of a book project that Jeff is working on.  The book is an exploration of Christian attitudes towards homosexuality in America, and is due to be released sometime next year.  I recently had lunch with Jeff and it was interesting hearing about the book and some of the profiles he is working on. I first connected with Jeff through my sister and we have talked extensively about my own story/experience as well as the general issue of homosexuality and Christianity.

There were a couple of real take-aways for me from the article/excerpt... I would be curious to hear what you thought...

1. The problem of "OTHER".  I think we (and by we, I mean all humans) have a serious problem of exclusion.  We need to exclude people from the group and we do so by making them "other".  This need for "other" is almost universal.  Even those of us who get all self-righteous about being labeled "other" (and as a Jewish evangelical gay democrat, I have been labeled "other" for various reasons at various times in my life), are quick to make others "other".  And to exclude... to "make other"... is really to dehumanize someone, to make them less-than-human and one-dimensional.  Most of us have done this to the folks at WBC... we have made them other.  But Jeff's article helped remind me that -- like them or not -- these are complex human beings with complex emotions, stories, motivations, etc.

2. The dangerous mixing of religion and politics.  If it weren't for their political activism, WBC would be like many ultra-conservative fundamentalist churches in America... and we would probably not even know who they were.  And, with the exception of those within their immediate flock, they would be pretty harmless.  But when you inject conservative politics into the mix and add a good dose of media attention, all of sudden you have an explosive situation.

3. Church history and theology matters.  I believe in local governance of churches, I believe in idependent churches... at heart, when it comes to church governance I am a congregationalist and baptist.  However, I think it is important to understand church history and the broader theological landscape.  One of the things you get from reading this article is that while these folks may be savy (in terms of marketing and social networking), sharp and even educated (Phelp's daughter successfully argued and won a U.S. Supreme Court case for the church), these folks are theologically shallow and simplistic.  On the one hand they are hyper-Calvinist, yet strongly baptist... the theological contradictions here are huge, but don't seem to bother them at all.  These folks are not deep thinkers nor interested in theology... and that can be dangerous.

4. They might not be that extreme -- at least in their theology.  Yes, their methods are extreme and offensive, but, at least when it comes to theology and message, I am not sure they are as extreme as we like to think.  Much of what they say about America being cursed by God (through 9/11, wars, natural disasters, etc) are things that people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others have also said.  Yes, Robertson and Falwell are both fundamentalists and ultra-conservative.  But given their influence on mainstream evangelicalism (at least for the thirty years from 1970 to the turn of the century), I am not sure you can call them "extreme'.  And while many conservative Christians are uncomfortable with the theological claim that "God hates fags", I am not entirely sure that -- from a theological or practical perspective -- this is that much different than the claim that "God loves homosexuals... but condemns them to eternal hell."  My sense is that trying to parse the difference between those two positions (the first being WBC's position, the second being one that many non-extremist conservative Christians hold) is like splitting hairs.  So while many may be uncomfortable with the harsh language, the theology -- and undergirding hermeneutic -- is actually pretty close to each other.

5. For better or for worse, if you take away the political activism and the signs, WBC would look a lot like 1000's of churches throughout America... that may be scary, but it is true.

6. While I disagree with almost everything they stand for and proclaim -- and think they are 100% wrong in their reading of and application of the Bible -- they are still (possibly) my brothers and sisters in Christ... and that is a hard pill to swallow.  It is tempting to dismiss them as false prophets that are not really believers... that may be the case, but it is not for me to say... anymore than it is for them to say about me.  My guess is that they are as uncomfortable with me being a brother in Christ to them as I am with the idea that they are brothers and sisters in Christ to me... such is family, I guess.

Those are some of my thoughts after reading the article... what are yours?

There have been several deeply disturbing moments in recent GOP debates among the candidates for their party's nomination.  Each of these incidents happened because of audience reaction -- in one, the audience cheers for the death penalty and execution of people; in another, when one candidate was asked what should happen to the uninsured, shouts of "let them die" rang out; and in the third, a gay soldier who was asking a question was booed.

The most shocking aspect of all three of these incidents is that not one candidate stepped up and spoke up to say that these reactions were wrong.  There was silence from the candidates... and tacit support, it would seem.

Now despite my serious policy differences with the current GOP candidates, I don't believe that all of them revel in state-sponsored executions, honestly believe that the answer to our health care predicament is to "let them die" or that any soldier should be booed for serving our country.

But all of them were silent. And as Martin Luther King, Jr has famously noted in his day (and I believe it still applies in our day), "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

Silence from the candidates under these circumstances is shameful and unacceptable. I believe it also disqualfies each of them for the presidency.  Standing up and speaking out on principle is essential for our leaders.  By not speaking out, these candidates either signal that they agree with the crowds or lack the backbone and conviction to challenge their own supporters.  Either way, they should be ashamed and have no business running for president.

In case you missed the moments, here are the brief video clips, followed by, if I were one of the candidates advisors, I would have counseled them to say:

DEATH PENALTY

Response should have been:  "Let's all just hold on here a second.  I understand the desire of the public for the death penalty.  Some crimes are so heinous that the death penalty must be used. But let us never cheer or celebrate the use of the death penalty.  Every time the state chooses to execute a criminal, it is a human tragedy. It is a human tragedy for the victims of their crime and their families.  It is a human tragedy for the broader community.  And it is a human tragedy even for the life being executed.  For we believe all life has infinite potential, and it is always tragedy when a life full of potential chooses a road of death, destruction and murder.  Yes, we will use the death penalty as needed -- but never with joy, never with cheers and always with sense of humbleness andseriusness that befits the issue.  To cheer death is to violate our basic principles as a party committed to life -- and we should never do it."

MEDICAL INSURANCE

Response should have been: "These are very complicated issues, as you know. And I do not support Obamacare or individual mandates. But obviously, "let him die" is unacceptable public policy and inconsitent with our values as a party.  Whatever solution we do end up with -- and I believe there are are solutions that will not bankrupt America, will not federalize our entire medical system, will not socialize our medicine -- but whatever solution we do end up with will need to be one that values life, sustains life and improves life for all Americans. That is what it means to be a truly pro-life party... from conception to death.  So no, "let him die" is not acceptable social policy."

DADT

Response should have been: "Hold on a second... I need to interject here. I don't care what your politics are or where are stand on the issue of homosexuals serving openly in our military. No soldier who honorably serves our nation should ever be booed or disrespected the way I just saw happen here.  That is unacceptable.  As a nation, we are capable of having a civilized policy debate whithout dishonoring the men and women who serve in our military.  We are a party that supports and honors our troops -- and as President I will make sure that all of our troops are supported and honored."

Now please note, these are the answers I would have suggested a GOP candidate give.  These are not my own answers.  For the record, I oppose the death penalty 100% of the time, I support Obamacare and individual mandates, and I support the repeal of DADT.

But even if you are a conservative on these issues, there is a way to do so that is honorable and has integrity... and then there is a way that is shameful and embarrassing.  So far, we have only seen the shameful and embarrassing approach from the declared candidates... highlighted by their silence in response to these three incidents. 

you have no idea how much I love you... 

you have no idea how much I love you... 

you have no idea how much I love you...

One basic principle I have learned over the years from wise mentors and experience is the importance of ADVANCED DECISION MAKING (ADM).  The principle of ADM is simple: look ahead at issues and situations coming your way and make advanced decisions about how you handle it.

If you don't have a home church or a small group to connect with this Fall, I hope you will consider checking out Riverfront Family Church for Sunday worship as well as the Fellowship Groups they are offering this Fall!

You don't have to be a member or even ever attended before to get connected with a small group. Every one is welcomed!  And if you can't make a weekly meeting, several of the groups meet every other week and even one meets entirely online (in fact, I am leading that one).

Here are some of the groups the church is offering this Fall:

• Financial Peace University
• Parenting with Love & Logic
• Online Book Club: "Mudhouse Sabbath" by Lauren Winner
• Book Club: "Unbroken" by Laura Hillenbrand
• Young Professionals Fellowship Group
• College Fellowship Group
• Women's Prayer Fellowship Group
• Men's Breakfast Fellowship Group

For details or to sign up for a group (including my online group), click here.

And groups aren't just for adults!  The church has seven different "Spirit Clubs" for kids of all ages. Spirit Clubs are a fun-filled, action-packed after-school program held in neighborhood homes for children in pre-school – K; 1st – 5th; and 6th – 8th grades. They teach basic Christian virtues, common to both Catholics and Protestants, in dynamic ways your kids will love! This semester there are Spirit Clubs meeting in Glastonbry, West Hartford, Avon and Ashford.

For more information about Spirit Clubs or to get your child connected, click here.

A core value of the Baptist tradition is "liberty of conscience".  It is one of the reasons I like that I belong to an American Baptist Church these days. It makes explicit as a value the "big tent" idea that I truly believe in: "unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials and charity (love) in all things."

But this isn't just a nice idea.  It is firmly grounded in the scriptures.

The Apostle Paul makes this argument several times.  In Romans 14:1-12, for example, he writes:

¹ Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. ² One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. ³ The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. ⁴ Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. ⁵ One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. ⁶ Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. ⁷ For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. ⁸ If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. ⁹ For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. ¹⁰ You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ¹¹ It is written:  “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me;    every tongue will acknowledge God.’” ¹² So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

The basic principle Paul lays out here is that when it comes to non-essential "disputable" matters, we are all directly accountable to God and therefore should not judge and condemn each other.  He also makes the case that we should live consistently with what we believe.  In other words, if we believe it is wrong to eat meat, it would then be wrong for us to eat meat.  But if we have no problem eating meat, then it is not a problem.

Paul makes a similiar argument in 1 Corinthians 8 in regard to eating meat sacrificed to idols.  To many, this is clearly sin.  But for some Christians, they did not regard it as sin.  Paul argues that for those that think it is sinful, it is.  And to those that do not, it is not.  He also counsels that we should show wisdom when interacting with "weaker brothers" -- in other words, it would be wrong for me to serve meat sacrificed to idols at a dinner party when I knew I was inviting some who thought it was sinful.  To give it a more contemporary application, I have no problem with moderate drinking of alcohol.  I enjoy wine, beer and all types of alcohol and have no problem with it.  But when I invite my conservative Baptist friends over (or we go out to eat) I choose not to drink or serve alcohol.  Why? Simply out of respect for their convictions (and, perhaps, to avoid a lecture... just kidding... they are always very gracious.)

Lest we think that this only applies to small issues, it is helpful to understand that the issue of idols, sacrifice to idols and eating that meat, was a huge issue in the early church.  No issue of sin is bigger than idolatry.  Many believed that to eat that meat, was to participate and sanction idolatry.  No sin is bigger than that.

In fact, the Counsel of Jerusalem, when they tried to determine what the minimum standards were for Gentile Christians in relation to Jewish law, inlcuded on their list both sexual immorality and the eating of meat sacrificed to idols (see Acts 15:29 and Acts 21:25).  In other words, the early church leaders considered the eating of meat sacrificed to idols (as well as eating unclean food contaminated by blood or strangled) as being in the same category as sexual immorality. (It is also worth noting that Peter's vision allowing him to eat all things (Acts 10) comes BEFORE the counsel at Jerusalem -- in other words, apparently the church leaders in Jerusalem disagreed with Peter on this issue.)

Yet in 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14, Paul says that this issue (meat from idol sacrifice) is a non-essential and disputable issue --- once that falls within the "big tent" of liberty of conscience.

As I have written before, I think this issue gives us a framework for how the modern church can and should deal with the LGBT issues.  These are disputable matters (as seen by the amount of dispute WITHIN the church on these issues) and non-essential in terms of core doctrines of the faith.  Clearly, it falls under the "big tent" of liberty of conscience.  We should respect LGBT folks, therefore, who conclude differently on this issue.  Some LGBT folks I know are committed to a Side A solution (monogamous, committed, Christ-centered relationships); others believe that only Side B is an option (that is, life-long celibacy).  Others seek change through counseling.  And even others fall somewhere in between on this spectrum --- or are yet unsure as to where they are.

Paul's advice? Follow your conscience.  If a gay marriage is sinful for you, then don't do it.  But if getting married is a way to honor God and make Christ the center of your life, then do that.  

Afterall, we are all accountable directly to God. 

Justin Lee has just posted on his blog on a topic that has been raised here by Kim and others... namely, can traditionalist/evangelical churches and Christians be reached? Can they be educated on LGBT issues? Is change possible? (yes, irony intended!)

Here is the beginning of Justin's post. Read it and then click through to finish reading his thoughts. Then come back here and post your comments.