Last year my husband and I were discussing gay marriage, and this was the compromise that I came up with as well. I’d have no problems with ensuring that all couples have legal protection and rights, while reserving the marriage sacrament for those who have religious beliefs of some sort.

To compromise is to continue to allow for the over-arching message that gay people are not wanted. There is no way getting around that.

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS…

In fact as a Dutch citizen there is still a problem because the terminology that is used is not that of a civil union, but of a marriage. So couples, straight and gay, will have a marriage ceremony at the city hall. Because of secularization civil marriages are more and more rigged up to give a sense of meaning to the occasion.

(I apologize in advance for my bad English, I’m Dutch ). In Holland you háve to go to the City Hall if you want to get married, and this official, civil marriage is open to hetero and gay couples, it’s the same institution and indeed, gay couples have the same rights as hetero couples. And, this union between gay people also is called marriage (‘huwelijk’ in Dutch ).
This civil marriage can be blessed and ‘confirmed’ in church, but you have to go to the City Hall first. It’s true that not all churches wil bless gay marriages.

Dr. Campolo:

You wrote: “‘Personally, as a Baptist minister, I always feel a bit uneasy at the end
of the weddings that I perform when I have to say, ‘And now, by the
authority given unto me by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I pronounce
you husband and wife.’”

You know that you don’t have to say that, right? As a minister, I don’t. I use the Wedding Service of the Book of Common Prayer (although I’m Pentecostal), and in 15 years of performing ceremonies, I’ve never mentioned the state.

George Paul Wood

Thank You Tony!  I have been advocating a separation of Marriage in the Church and Civil Union in the Courts for YEARS! Obviously I have not been able to express it quite so clearly and rationally as you have. Aubrey

Dr. Campolo:

I appreciate you addressing this subject.  To me there is an inherent tension (and hypocrisy) regarding those seeking to “defend marriage” by limiting its participants, and at the same time tolerate (and in large part facilitate) expedited divorce.  To me, the defense of marriage would be to defend the institution and what that institution represents — a life-long covenant.  I think such a view goes hand in hand with your basic position.  The “State” certainly has an interest in defining the relationship between citizens and in providing access for individuals to seek State determination regarding their domestic relationships.  However, as for defending the institution of marriage the State fails completely when it allows no-fault divorce, and other expedited divorce proceedings.  To me, that is the true vulnerability of marriage that deserves defending.  

If individuals seek to live and love in a committed relationship and want to share the ceremony and title with their friends and family, their respective gender should not have any place in it.  The true defense of marriage comes in supporting the bond and not facilitating its breakage.

I think a vocal majority of Christians seeking to “defend marriage” by making divorces harder to obtain would highlight the hypocrisy of  those against same sex marriage.

Full disclosure — I am a divorced and I was heartbroken by the lack of any type of deliberation in the process.  

As a Christian anarchist and a  queer woman, this is the position I like.  The only thing I regret about my own marriage is letting the government say, “Ok, for arbitrary reasons, you’re allowed to perform this holy sacrament, but other people in your church aren’t even though your church thinks it’s fine because we say so.”  Ideally, I’d like the government to butt out of all marriage, but I’m
also a realist.  As long as they’ve got their foot wedged in there, I’m
going to fight for all inclusiveness. 

I think right now we’re having to fight for two separate and important things: acceptance and the legal benefits that married couples get.  As long as these two issues are the same issue, we’re fighting an uphill battle.

As a Christian anarchist and a  queer woman, this is the position I like.  The only thing I regret about my own marriage is letting the government say, “Ok, for arbitrary reasons, you’re allowed to perform this holy sacrament, but other people in your church aren’t even though your church thinks it’s fine because we say so.”  Ideally, I’d like the government to butt out of all marriage, but I’m
also a realist.  As long as they’ve got their foot wedged in there, I’m
going to fight for all inclusiveness. 

I think right now we’re having to fight for two separate and important things: acceptance and the legal benefits that married couples get.  As long as these two issues are the same issue, we’re fighting an uphill battle.

And that I think is at the very heart of the matter.  I think Tony really does solve the problem for the church and for the society at large.  I think this could work.  But what about the evangelical Christian (of which I am one).  The question reamains:  Are homosexuals wanted and welcomed in the Christian church?  As a heterosexual Christain this seems to be a big question.  What is our plan and approach for the homosexual?

It seems to me like we can say to them, “We have three options for you:

1.  You can be gay but celebate
2.  You can get involved in one of the many “programs” aimed at making you not gay or otherwise “give up” or renouce your homosexuality (which is to say that you can be gay and we will accept you as long as we think you are sincerely trying not to be).
3.  You can live in defiance of God’s will and we will love you anyway… by the way did I mention that we all defy God’s will daily too and while there are a bunch of reasons why I want Jesus in my life that is the big reason why I need him?

It seems to me like the church (and more importantly Jesus) accepts me with all of my faults and brokeness, including those that I rationalize as not being sinful at all.  No one ever told me that I must renounce all anger, greed, pride, etc. prior to joining a church.  I was taught that Christ came for the broken.  Why would this sin be any different?

I’m only an ametuer theologian so I’m not sure.  I have heard that the bible passages that mention gay sex do so in a context that is really more about idol worship, that in the ancient world it was done as an act of worship to idols and that is what is offensive to God.

Any gay evangelical Christains out there?  I would love to hear from you.  How do you deal with this?  Have you been able to reach any of your gay friends?  How did you overcome this roadblock?  Do you see other options besides the 3 that I list above?

The issue you raise is much bigger than the marriage issue, of course. I’ve thought for many years that the church should get out of the wedding business (and take marriage far more seriously). The state oversees this “union” because it offers benefit for those who are “married”, including legal rights. The only real solution is for the church to cut itself off from the state entirely, but that won’t likely happen voluntarily. No more tax-exempt status, no more tax-deductible donations, no more manse/housing allowances for ministers…the list of benefits is pretty long.

Church and state have been in bed together in the U.S. from nearly the beginning of the Union. I tell people who want me to marry them to go get the legal part done at the Justice of the Peace and then I’ll perform a Christian ceremony. This small personal decision doesn’t resolve the gay marriage issue at all, but it’s my way of letting the business end of unions be separate from the spiritual end of marriage.

What we really need is some good, old fashioned persecution to purge the church in the US from it’s complicit dependency on the government (among other sins). Imagine what would be left of the church if donations suddenly were not tax exempt. My suspicion is that the dross would fall away and something like what Jesus had in mind might be the only stuff that survived.

Welcome to being a homophobic bigot.  That is *exactly* the position I’ve supported for the last 20 years, while I slowly went from being “pro gay liberal” to “homophobic bigot conservative” as the society moved around me.

Here’s what is really interesting- though many right-wing Catholics consider this “cooperation with evil”- a careful reading of the Catechism pretty much states that since other Christians do NOT have the fullness of truth, this is no different than two Protestant heterosexuals on their 4th marriage each…..It’s just yet another corruption of the sacrament into “licit heresy”.

“It seems to me like the church (and more importantly Jesus) accepts me with all of my faults and brokeness, including those that I rationalize as not being sinful at all.”

That, in and of itself, is a huge difference between evangelical and orthodox belief.  For us Catholics (Eastern, Roman, Orthodox and Anglican) that compromise the historical Apostolic Core of Christianity- rationalizing away a sin is a sin in and of itself.

Thank you for sharing that David.  The only objection I had to the post was the term “civil union” as the term “marriage” has lots of cultural privilege associated with it. I think it would be unjust for any couple to have to forfeit being “married”  just because they didn’t want to be associated with a church or wasn’t allowed to be “married” by a church.  I have no problem with the church getting out of the “legal” marriage business and think it is a good idea for churches to only bless the unions they desire to bless and let the state do the legal stuff about marriage.  I absolutely don’t want to see those who decide to legally marry outside of the church to have to give up using the term.  

I’m a Christian who is hetero but if those were my options I wouldn’t have anything to do with that kind of church.  

This seems like the obvious solution to me.  Equal protection under the law granted to all couples without religious groups interfering.  Religious blessings as couple and church choose and allow, without government interfering.  It seems so obvious to me.  I’m glad I’m not the only one.

Thanks.  I should make clear that I don’t claim to speak for anyone other than me.  So I can’t defend any church structure, orthodox or anything else.  The larger point that I’m making with that comment is I beleive that Jesus paid it all, for all of my sins.  Even those that I still don’t recognize as sin yet and that I might never recognize.  I certainly would agree that rationalizing sin is sin in and of itself.  The larger point is that Jesus’ work on the cross doesn’t get cancelled by any individual sin that I remain ignorant of or even in defiance of.

So what then do you say?  You have a gay friend that you have been talking to about Jesus and that friend seems to want to learn more.  Are they welcome at your church?  Does your church provide a 4th option?

Tony

You deal well with the state government’s involvement in marriage. In my state, Oregon, officiants no long have to register with their County.  Anyone may marry.

My understanding of the history of government involvement is that a need to settle ownership of property issues at the death of a marriage partner resulted in marriage registration.  The States did this at various periods, most US States were recording marriages by the early 20th century. Some started recording, stopped, and started again.

Once the State began recording, like most simple matters, their interest expanded into who married the couple, where, etc.  Standards were needed, so only ordained people recognized by a known church group could do the marriage.  In some periods, blood tests were required to assure that diseases were not passed along.  The role of the state just kept expanding.

I agree (as another Baptist minister) that we should separate the role of the State and its various purposes from that of the Church and its’ interests.  The only hitch in this plan is that a recording of marriage could be done WITHOUT the Church…but the Church could not conduct the Rite of Marriage without the event being recorded by the State…its the law.

Everett

That’s what scares us more orthodox Christians about OSAS.  If you can’t lose your salvation, the temptation to continue living in sin rather than learning more about sin and trying to recognize it in your own life is great.  Of course, the out for that is if the sin is too great- then the conversion never occurred to begin with- but that seems to me too much like leaving my brother behind in sin.

I would not be able to live with such a temptation.

#1 and #3 is what we Roman Catholics offer in the United States.  #1 is a group called courage (couragerc.net) and #3 is Dignity (DignityUSA.org).  As a heterosexual autistic I’m not real comfortable with either option, but I recognize that their road is no more hard than my own.

Jesus gave us a gift by paying for it all- but the experience of the Saints over the last 2000 years tell us that it is a gift we must be willing to accept- with *real* change in our lives.  To me, that’s also the danger of Sola Scriptura- one is very tempted to avoid those parts of scripture that would require real, ongoing conversion.  Can’t do that if the Sunday readings are from a 3 year lectionary cycle.

It’s a matter of equality, civil rights.  All people are children of God.  Why then, does the church chose, discriminate and judge?  What would Jesus do….not this!

You could also join one of the growing number of churches that have come to the belief that homosexuality, meaning the desire and practice of forming committed, loving, same-sex relationships is actually consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the Bible as a whole. That the few verses that do describe same-sex activity are in reference to pagan rituals, prostitution, and pederasty, not two men, or two women who genuinely love each other.

You’re right about that last part, the only things that would be left are small family and friends style congregations who meet and talk about the Bible, their beliefs and their personal struggles. I do not believe that Jesus intended for these hierarchal systems. While I believe that the grand majority of the members of any church have wonderful intentions, these systems we have built are designed to fall short.

I’m totally with you … this is easily the best solution and isn’t really a compromise in my opinion — it’s the way it should’ve always been handled.

It’s a compromise and not a good one.  No matter how you flavor it, it’s a compromise and I bet Tony knows that as well.

The question I have is why does the Church get to “keep” marriage and those secular – and homosexual – people get merely a “union”?
Marriage has always been a legal union, one overseen by the State. In fact for many years (long before America existed) the Catholic Church was against marriage as it was seen as a covenant made in opposition to ones commitment to the Church.
Until only the very recent past – even in the USA – marriage was merely a legal union, often one arranged by family (as is still the case in most of the developing world!)
The bulk of weddings now are conducted outside of Church by secular celebrants. Perhaps a better compromise – all things considered – is for “Marriage” to be the union of two people, gay or straight, and the Church (or at least those elements which
wish to judge and discriminate) can have their own ceremony called something else with a lovely church based celebration but no legal status – similar to a Baptism or funeral?
Surely this makes more sense?

[...] Campolo has posted today offering A Possible Compromise on the Gay Marriage Controversy. Basically he makes the very sensible suggestion that marriage should continue to be understood as [...]

It sounds like a well-thought-out compromise.  However, those opposed to gay marriage will automatically detest this idea.  The root of the issue is the same: the view of homosexuality as a sin.  It will work for those who think of homosexual people as ordinary, average people or those who really don’t care one way or the other, but I can’t see those opposed in every way to homosexuality suddenly being okay with gay and straight marriages being in the same ballpark.

I honestly believe this issue of how Christians respond to homosexuals is a separating of the wheat from the chaff. Can we Christians love and forgive the sinners who really make us uncomfortable? Can we see past the external to the heart? Can we listen to the pain without judging? Can we acknowledge that every person is fearfully and wonderfully made with a purpose to fulfill in God’s kingdom? Can we build one another up instead of tearing down? Can we ever really love God with everything we have in order to love every neighbor as ourselves? Can we try to answer these questions this side of heaven?

I totally had this idea about 2 years ago, I am glad to see that I am not the only one who thinks this could work.

I think the bit at the beginning of the post about “most Americans” agreeing that marriage “should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman” is out-of-date.  The percentage of Americans in favor of legal gay marriage has been slowly growing for quite a while, and if polls like this — http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx – are to be believed, they are no longer in the minority.  

I have thought for some time now that we were headed this way.  Since secular marriage will soon be defined any way a person wants to define it, it will soon come to mean nothing.  When you can marry any gender, as many as you like or eventually a house pet, the spiritual meaning of marriage as God intended will be lost.  At that point, probably sooner rather than later, we should quit recognizing civil unions at all.  Let the church take back marriage to define it as God intended and God will ultimately be the judge as to whether they got His definition right. 

hmmmm… sounds sort of logical but I can;t put my finger on what I don;t like about it.
‎1. Is marriage really just a religious institution? I’m not so sure…

2.
There are hundreds of thousands of gay christians… would this really
help anybody or break any barriers? Seems a little like apartheid where
we’ll allow black churches and white churches but not share… see what I
mean? Does this just keep the ‘gays’ segragated from the rest of the
community in their ‘gay affirming’ churches?

I’m sure there’s
heaps more but it doesn’t sound like much of a solution to me… just
keeping everyone away from each other.. ie: secularists to the state,
gays to ‘gay affirming’ churches or the state and good ‘true Christian’
folk (sic) can still have it the way it is.

Simply, excellent! I’ve been telling my conservative friends this for the past couple of years.  Great third way!

What you mention for Holland, by the way, is also true for Germany: the legal aspect is dealt with by the secular official (i.e. the state). Only once that has happened, any priest / pastor / rabbi etc can proceed to marry you in a religious sense.
But while that removes the link to the political sphere, the debate exists in Germany as anywhere else: can, should, must the Church bless any union other than “lifelong, between one man and one woman” (1M1W4L, so to speak)?

In my denomination, the officiant doesn’t say anything about his power and authority being invested by the state. It’s all done in the name of Christ and His Church. Interesting proposal…don’t know if I fully agree, but it does seem like the most reasonable solution in a country where every right (whether harmful or good) is considered “a God-given right” and demanded.

This sounds nice but it won’t work.  Here’s why.  Taxes.  Civil Unions as they currently stand are NOT viewed as legal, and affects the tax rate of those gay folk who do it.  This is their biggest complaint.     

Duh! Separation of Marriage and State!

Awesome “solution.” Libertarians have sought this ought for decades. 

If you really want to know why the state is involved in marriage here is a clue… check out the court cases:

http://childrens-justice.org/papers/marriage.htm

I don’t know about this. It was my understanding that God created marriage, the government just wanted to be involved for tax purposes. I for one believe that God CLEARLY defines marriage between one man, and one woman. Why even get entagled in all the civil union mess? Its heartbreaking to know that some churches even allow homosexuals to be married there. I guess this just shows that we really are in the last days, and there really is a great falling away. Instead of arguing about republican or democrat or involving ourselves in politics to such a degree that it affects our ministry, why not just focus on making a difference here on earth for our Heavenly Father? Its sad to say this, but i know that there will be a ton of Democrats out there that will disagree with this. Put your party away, and look what the Savior says…

All you have to do is read our historical documents by our founding fathers to find what is horribly wrong with this ‘suggestion.”  For those who claim our nation was not founded on Christian principles, I challenge that they have NOT read those documents or the early court rulings on matters regarding religion.  Secondly, any pastor who supports affirmation of gay marriages ought to read their Bible thoroughly because God calls being with the same sex an ‘abomination’ in the KJV and “detestable” in the NIV more than one place.  “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22. There is also New Testament Scripture: Romans 1:24-28 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

This is clear.  That which God does not condone, so ought not man, especially those who are teachers/preachers of God’s Word. 

You are wrong in thinking scripture is clear. If you study original language and historical context you will find that none of the verses are clearly speaking about loving, monogamous same sex relationships. More probably they are speaking about male prostitution and pagan worship practices that included temple sex and heterosexuals having sex with the same sex. And as far as abomination goes it was also an abomination to eat shell fish and mix fabrics so that should give you a little
insight into what the word adbomination means. What is clear is that it is unjust to condemn something or someone without sufficient reason.

See my response to Mary Ann

I agree wholeheartedly! Too many social, cultural and legal privileges are associated with marriage for anyone to give up the title.

I agree with you. This is a poor solution because it keeps people in same sex relationships segregated and treats them as second class. Marriage is definitely not just a religious thing. Many are legally married outside of the church. Even athiests get married. I am sure Tony has good intentions but this comes off as selfish and self centered.

Joe,
Actually (specifically the OT references) probably has more to do with uncleanliness and male dominance than any pagan ritual.  There really is not much that is more “unclean” than fecal matter…

I feel like Tony has plagiarized some of my own Facebook comments.  I would, however, extend “Civil Union” to any registered adult household relationship.  A brother and a sister living together as roomates could form a civil union.  A poster once objected to marriage being the sole property of the religious, but that doesn’t need to be.  The non-religious can have a friend officiate a ceremony and call it whatever they want to call it…who’s going to stop them?

Formerly a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the Campolo (and his Jezebel slut) now feels it’s safe to just walk around in his wolf garb.

This isn’t a compromise, but an all-out forfeiture to the religious.  Why should secularists be called upon to sacrifice the term “marriage”?  What’s next, giving the word “death” to the religious and leaving secularists government-recognized “expiration”?   In practice, religious institutions offer very little to marriage since it is essentially a legal agreement that is handled in government courts.  

Civil unions, domestic partner, etc. are silly semantic games that please no one.  Social conservatives are just as opposed to government-recognition of pseudo-marriage and those of us seeking marriage equality will not settle for second-class status.

[...] [...]

I’ve said this for YEARS now. Good to see someone else with more influence saying it as well.

Actually, the original language study does not condone your ungodly assertion.  The Bible is clear – in English and in Hebrew and in Koine Greek.  God is clear.  He says homosexual acts are sin.  He is above culture.  There is no “more probably”.  I respect homosexuals that reject the Bible because they abhor what the Bible says.  I have no respect for the intellectual dishonesty that people have when they wish to sin and have God condone it.  Shame on anyone who tries to twist Scripture – especially those who try to hide behind original language and try to undermine others based on supposed linguistic superiority.  I do know biblical Greek and Hebrew and God is clear.  People just try to pretend he isn’t so they can rationalize sin in their lives

The government should not be involved in either marriages or civil unions or whatever else you want to call it. Why did it ever come about that whoever wants to live together consensually needs government recognition? If you want a pastor to marry you, that’s great, or if you want to marry another person of the same gender, that’s fine, but the government should not be involved in either.

I agree with you, but I also think that unfortunately it will take baby steps for everyone to accept gay marriage. I think the best way would be to ease into it…let the conservatives see the world will not end. I do believe it’s completely unfair for gay people to be denied the same rights as everyone else, but maybe if we can all compromise a little for now, the eventual end goal will come sooner rather than later?

“Why not…” etc.  No.  To normalize what is wrong is wrong not right.  Call it what it is… sin.  Treat it for what it is… sin.  Anything else is just wrong.

The thing not being addressed here is why the church is important when it comes to conducting marriage ceremonies. Even people who could care less about the church seem to want a “traditional”, predominantly meaning “church”, wedding. That just blows my mind, but what it tells me is there is so much “sentimentality” attached to the practice of “traditional” type weddings. You don’t even have to attend that particular church…it’s like treating the church as though it’s a “drive-thru” McDonalds. It’s ridiculous already!! What makes a marriage Christian, is the fact that you are both connected, or connecting with the community of believers. You don’t just get to do whatever the hell you want, and define things as you please! Marriage in the church is intelligible once we include the communal element. There, we receive our help, wisdom, discernment, character formation…how can we all of a sudden exchange the community, within which the marriage relationship finds it is nurtured by mutual Christian love, dignity, respect, and let’s not forget…ACCOUNTABILITY. Christians are accountable to each other, and have willingly made that commitment to one another through membership/participation. If our pastors are willing to conduct any and every marriage ceremony that comes through, we ought not be surprised that people don’t really see the ceremony as “ordained by God”. Drive-thru church mentality is what drives us further away from being distinctive in Christian practice.

In other words the “church” does not want to include gay people etc. etc……You put a lot of thought into your comment, but it is homophobic to the max..I’m straight, I’m a Christian, card-carrying Presbyterian and I am sick of this subject.  Let’s just do what Jesus would do and love people who love Him.

This is also my opinion. God is looking into hearts and not our laws

You say that marriage is an institution ordained of GOD. Don’t you believe that CHURCH is ALSO  an institution (a body of believers) ordained and blessed by GOD ? How then can you say “Of course homosexual couples could go to churches that welcome and affirm marriages.” How can you a believer put such a notion forward for consideration. ? It must grieve the heart of GOD the way the Church is willing not only compromise ‘ marriage ‘ (which involves children who have no choice ) but also to compromise the BODY OF CHRIST – the CHURCH.
THE CHURCH (in law) should ONLY be responsible for marriages BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN (The ONLY union capabale of bearing fruit).
MARRIAGE and CHURCH has NOTHING to do with   “personal convictions “ - it has to do with WHAT GOD HAS SAID -  NOT with what either you or I think.  You either BELIEVE ENOUGH to OBEY or you don’t. (Romans 6:16 – “Don’t you know that to whom you present yourselves as slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of SIN unto DEATH, or obedience to RIGHTEOUSNESS.”.  )
It’s YOUR  CHOICE –  HEAVEN or HELL.
MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUTION  ORDAINED OF GOD, and the Government should go on giving “LEGAL STATUS “ to UNIONS  (NOT marriages ) of unbelievers - WHATEVER ! and leave MARRIAGE WHICH IS ORDAINED OF GOD  to the CHURCH.
In the bonds of Calvary,
Elizabeth Miller   

The primary problem here is we have the church compromising with the culture. History shows that whenever the chhurch gets in bed with the culture/government, the church gets more than a food night’s rest. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it so succinctly that the church must steadfastly maintain it’s position of being the conscience of the government, never vice versa. Let’s be honest, at one time in our nation’s history, the government said that people with non-white skin only counted as 2/3 of a person and that slavery of these individuals was a legally protected activity. Now we have the government telling the church that gay marriage is okay….and far too many in the church are willing to go along with that…ostensibly for the sake of “love.” As a church, we are slowly but surely abdicating our role as the moral rudder for culture/government.

I guess this is where I have the struggle.  Well, here and in one other place.  I’m not sure that we are to be the moral rudder for culture and goverment.  Where does that idea come from?  Does Jesus command this and I missed it?  It seems like our rules are for us to follow (the church) and that we ought not expect people that don’t believe as we do to follow them.  It seems to me that the church gets itself into a lot of trouble when it tries to police those that are outside of it.  Sad to say but the church [collectively] has plenty of problems with the board in its own eye.  I just don’t get what it is that gives us the right to tell others outside of the church how they should conduct themselves morally or otherwise. 

The second thing that concerns me is that the position of the church in general seems to be one of the two:

1.  It is OK if you are gay as long as you don’t engage in any actual sexual activity.  You can be gay but you must then be celebate.

2.  Ultimately it is not OK to be gay.  Sure, we will welcome you as long as you are willing to try to not be gay.  And so off we go to some sort of “repair” program aimed at “curing” your “problem.”

I’m not gay but if I was I would really question these two approaches because it seems like what we are saying is, “You have to become like us in order to be accepted by us.”  And that is a problem.  There is no other area of sin where we insist on transformation prior to acceptance and conversion.  Just think, I wonder how many people would be in church on Sunday morning if we made greedy people feel as unwelcome as we did gays.  What about self-rightousness and so on.  If we eliminate all of the people living “sinful lifestyles” then there would be no church left at all.

Is homosexuality somehow different than pride or greed or laziness that we say to them “You must repent of that sin prior to us accepting you?”  I doubt it.  That seems like the same approach that the Pharisees took and Jesus seemed to have a lot to say to them about their lack of compassion.

So, I’m only an ametuer theologian.  I have no formal trianing other than my own experience in church and my walk as a Christian.  I’m sure that there is lots to get wrong here but I try to love God and love people first and foremost and anything that pulls me away from that I think is falsehood.  I think this is the primary message of Jesus and ultimately it is the demonstration of this kind of radical love demonstrated to me by some people that called themselves Christians that I came to become one myself.  I remember saying to myself, “Any God that can cause people to love like that has to be real…  I need to be a part of that.”

Looking at a bigger picture here, I find it sad that these religions and beliefs are divide people from one another instead of *uniting* us altogether. We’re worse than mindless animals; we cast away our fellow humans simply because they differ in race, sexual orientation, etc. This must be the price we pay for having the ability to think freely and have opinions heard. It sure is a sad world we live in. I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re the next to be wiped off the face of the earth. We don’t deserve this beautiful planet.

Here is the bottom line:  God has declared what he has declared.  We can argue this to the nth degree and it won’t matter because God’s Word is the ultimate authority (though some religions don’t accept this).  God has not changed, he will not change.  And he doesn’t do adendum’s to his agenda and his will.  You can be enlightened or you can be deceived, but in the end GOD WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD regardless of mere mortals’ opinions, and that is exactly what they are, opinions.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.

…From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

But nothing you do will  save you. It is through grace alone that you are saved. If we peoples can keep our salvation based on our sinless nature, then all would be good, but we are not sinless no matter how hard we try to resist temptation. There’s none without sin, thus we are saved by the grace of God. We don’t know for sure how God will judge, but if we want to be with Jesus it starts here in this life with showing love followed by growing (which personally is painfully slow at times) in the relationship with God as well as the understanding of the Bible.