Live and Speak

I'm not sure it's helpful to talk about evangelism in terms of percentages, but someone once said that 90% of our witness should be through our actions and 10% should be with our words. Saint Francis of Assisi is credited for saying, "preach the gospel and, if at all necessary, use words." I've always loved the Saint Francis approach but I think that it can become a cop-out. And as long as we're dealing with percentages, that 10% (or whatever percent) where we do use words can be critically important. The fact is, it is necessary to use words. Our words are the bones beneath the flesh of our actions. Words have power, power to mobilize and to challenge, power to transform the environments around us. We are accountable for our words, for their content as much as the mediums and contexts of their delivery. Language is too vital to human interaction for it to be isolated from the life of a Christian, especially since the Christian life is all about human interaction and relationship.

I don't know why it is, but it seems that the church is split--the people who are doing the most Christ-like work are the most timid when it comes to talking about Jesus. The ones who are actually embodying the kingdom of God by standing for the oppressed, fighting for the dignity of the marginalized, living in solidarity with the outcast, and meeting the needs of the "least of these" are the most negligent when it comes to telling the story of God and they're the least likely to invite people into an intentional relationship with Christ. And the very people who are the most vocal about Jesus, the quickest to the trigger when it comes to sharing the gospel, are the same people who side with the wealthy, marginalize the ones who don't think as they think, alienate the immigrant, and are so very disconnected from the "least of these" in their own backyard. Where's the balance? Few are those who are willing to live and speak boldly.

We need to be careful with our words, contextually responsible for what we say. But we have also got to take back evangelism from those who have hijacked and distorted it into a manipulative and conquest-oriented endeavor. Those of us who are more prone to live the gospel without mentioning it, we who are prone to using St. Francis' perspective as a cop-out and a way to avoid speaking the good news of Christ into the lives of the people around us need to train ourselves to actually tell people about Jesus. Perhaps we're embarrassed and afraid to be associated with those who've so manipulated evangelism in the past. But that's all the better reason to do it well and to do it often.

The good news of Jesus should have the effect of transforming the texture of our environments, of giving hope and inspiring endurance. If we found a way to say it well, the gospel would have the same transforming power as our actions of love and justice, even if to a different degree or in a different way.

On the flip side, I'd challenge those who have perhaps overemphasized the importance of speaking. I'd challenge them to read the gospels again and to do what Jesus did. I'd challenge them to connect with the ones in need, to open their eyes to social injustice, and to humbly love all the wrong kinds of people... just like Jesus did. Speaking the gospel is important, as I've already argued, but living it is still vastly more important.

Catholic Cardinal Calls For Equality

Tripp Fuller (@Trippfuller) posted an article on Twitter today reporting that The Cardinal for Berlin  joined "a growing chorus of prominent leaders in the Roman Catholic Church calling for a re-examination of church teaching on same-sex relationships."

Berlin’s Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, at a conference on 60,000 Catholics in Mannheim, spoke out in support of the moral legitimacy of same-sex relationships. According to the Tagesspiegel newspaper, Woelki said,

"When two homosexuals take responsibility for one another, if they deal with each other in a faithful and long-term way, then you have to see it in the same way as heterosexual relationships."

Regardless of where you stand, I think that this may be a sign of where this debate (the debate concerning the Biblical and moral position of the church on homosexuality) could be headed. Notice that Woelki does not try to presume homosexuality as one thing, one uniform concept, but distinguishes a sort of ethical homosexuality from the otherwise implicitly unethical version thereof. I think that may be the best direction for the conversation--to impose the same ethical standards onto homosexual relationships as we would heterosexual ones without imposing arbitrary moral standards.

I don't think it will suffice much longer to simply argue that homosexuality, as a whole, is wrong. You've got to say why it's wrong and you've got to say it in practical and real-life contextual terms, not merely in interpretative ideals and ethereal concepts. For example, you can't just say it's wrong because of some ideological "design" for humanity or procreation. Those arguments ignore real stories way too much. The fact is, relationships are about more than procreation and the concept of a "design" for humanity is just not practical (does the man who cannot produce sperm fit the "design"? If not, then why are we letting him have sex?) and it's arbitrary unless, once again, you argue why.

God is not arbitrary. God's design for humanity is an ethical design with real social implications. God has a reason for why things are wrong. Murder is wrong because it disregards the value of human life. Rape is wrong because it's purely dehumanizing and abusive. Theft is wrong because it violates the the rights of ownership and it values possessions more highly than human dignity. Promiscuity is wrong because it violates the relationship between intimacy and commitment. But why is homosexuality, as a whole, wrong? You've got to answer that question without using "design" or procreation or "'cause the Bible says" (because, again, God is not arbitrary, therefore even the Bible has its reasons, not to mention the Bible is not clear on the subject). You've got to say why it's unhealthy and argue from there. Eventually, you've got to deal with the homosexual relationship in which bother parties are faithful, committed, monogamous, healthy, and even Christian. 

So positioning the argument within the realm of ethics, actually discussing the nature of relationships and measuring their morality in terms of practical and contextual standards of social health, like Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki did, seems like a very good idea. It will keep the extreme examples of promiscuity and irresponsibility within the gay community out of the conversation concerning homosexuality's intrinsic moral quality.

Thoughts on Community and the Virtues of Tolerance and Forgiveness

"Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity." Colossians 3:13-14

Now this is just one of those tough but gorgeous passages in the New Testament.  It's a snapshot of what true community looks like. Interesting that Paul (the author) begins with the assumption that there is difficulty in community, that there'll be something with which we'll need to "bear" and that there'll be a need for forgiveness, for reconciliation. Now, I say "we" with some hesitation only because we should first acknowledge that Paul wasn't writing to us. Paul was writing to a specific church with it's own specific issues. But by extension he's also speaking into our context. This passage rings true because we do have difficulty, we do need forgiveness--not only on a local church scale but on a global scale as well. We live in a world that is more in need of forgiveness than ever, more in need of tolerance and love than ever. We are desperate for this verse! We desperately need to know how to bear with one another, how to forgive with the same unrelenting forgiveness as that of Christ, and how to peruse such a community as a virtue. The thing about virtues is they take practice. They imply work and work implies direction. Are we people who run toward forgiveness, toward reconciliation, toward tolerance and love, or are we people who run toward strife and arrogance and selfishness? Which sort of community are we really practicing?

The stakes are higher now than ever. We actually have the ability to literally destroy ourselves. Not only so, but currently there are people suffering the consequences of community without tolerance, without forgiveness, without love. You see, forgiveness is the enemy of violence. We cannot kill the forgiven. We cannot peruse pain for the forgiven. Forgiveness doesn't always mean that things go back to how they used to be but it does mean that we wish for good things for those whom we have forgiven. If we cannot forgive them (whoever they may be) then indeed, as Jesus said, they cannot be forgiven for they will only receive good if we who have the power to give it to them will do so. We will only do so if we wish good for them and we will only wish good for them if we have forgiven them. Proverbs 3:27-28 says,

"Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act. Do not say to your neighbor, “Come back tomorrow and I’ll give it to you”— when you already have it with you."

We are the ones withholding good whenever we withhold forgiveness, whenever we are intolerant. We withhold good, for it is always within our power to wish someone good. Forgiveness has the power to end suffering. Forgiveness gives us the power to turn from destruction. Forgiveness is the enemy of suffering, of injustice, of sin itself.

The scale is global, indeed. But as a virtue, we cannot expect forgiveness to begin on such a scale. it must begin small, as a mustard seed, and then grow in us. Things grow when they are nurtured, when they are nourished. We mature in one direction or another. Not all maturity is good. A cancer can mature just as a flower can mature. It is for us to decide; in which direction shall we mature? "Practice makes permanence," some have said. So what are we practicing? What sort of world are we reflecting in our daily life? What are the global implications of the things we do in private, in our family, in our local church, in our community?

We don't get to choose our family. We are just born with them. So living in community with family is often difficult. Sometimes family are the hardest people for us to forgive. Unfortunately (in some ways), we have more control over choosing our church family (especially in the United States). We can just switch churches if we don't like them. Nobody's forcing us to "bear with" our church family. But that is a profoundly important community for us to practice our tolerance and our forgiveness. The question is, are we really running toward reconciliation? Is that what we are perusing? When we pick and choose our community with such discretion that we are never actually bearing with one another and forgiving one another, we are actually implying a very fragmented and closed-off world. If we're not running toward forgiveness, we're running toward destruction.

So ask yourself... are you searching for reconciliation like it's a precious stone?  Are you hungry for it? It will not be easy to find. Indeed, it will mean processing the situation and doing the difficult work of dealing with the issues at hand. It will not be immediate. God's forgiveness is for everyone. That means good is due to everyone. That means that if we are to forgive as God has forgiven us, we must wish good for everyone. God's forgiveness renders everyone worthy of goodness. Are you headed in its direction? Or are you withholding good from those to whom it is due?

Clothe these virtues in love, which expands all boundaries and crosses all borders. Love binds all these things--forgiveness and tolerance--together in perfect unity. Love is that which pushes our limits. If we clothe ourselves in love, there is none who cannot be forgiven. Indeed love is what gives us a vision of a world complete in the peace of Christ.

God and our Money?

I'm so distressed when I am reminded that so many "bible-believing" Christians have no trouble seeing their Christian identity as either directly parallel to if not one in the same as their idenity as an American. Now, I realize that I'm perhaps a little extreme in my own distress even at seeing an American flag in a church building, and I don't expect that everyone's tension should be as strong as mine, but I do sometimes wonder how it can be so easy for people who read the Bible to ignore the tension between patriotic allegiance and Christian identity.

Some Christians act like proposals to take the word "god" off of American money is somehow an attack on Christian values or a violation of religious freedom. But if we put a little thought into it, wouldn't the God of the Bible have a problem being associated with such an idol as American currency, used to fund wars, oppression, apathetic indifference, and the vices of a corrupt culture? Wouldn't the God of the Bible take issue at being given credit for something so diametrically opposed to who God is? Indeed, is it not a man's image on the face of those coins? It money not a symbol of power and wealth? So when we print God onto American money, we are either lying about God, slanderously crediting our vicious corruption and coercive power to our trust in God, or we are speaking of a different god altogether, a god who condones and endorses the American dream of superiority and wealth.

Truth is, it's not that I have something against America. I'm grateful to live in this country. But I am far more grateful to God for God's salvation, forgiveness, goodness and love. And I am afraid that we have mixed up our allegiance. The church should be on the side of those who find themselves on the underside of the American systems and ideologies and I am afraid that, by being so aligned to the American patriotic identity, we have positioned ourselves only to perpetuate the ideals of the state even when people, however small the number, are trampled beneath them.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

Coming Out Christian...

I have to thank my friend (and a mentor of mine) Steve Swope for turning me on to a new blog called Coming Out Christian. In her own words, Kimberly says that

"This blog is a place where real people with beating hearts and quick minds can gather to explore what for many people seems a paradox but for me has never a source of conflict – being gay and Christian in America."

I think that blogs like these are invaluable and indispensable to the conversation concerning the Church and homosexuality. On whichever side of the aisle you may find yourself, it's so very important that we ground ourselves in the real stories of real people who are the subject of such a large religious and political conversation. You've gotta know people and as soon as we begin to speak as though we don't know people, we've got to run to hear their stories and see their faces. I'm looking forward to reading future posts at Coming Out Christian. And yes... there are gay Christians... you should really read this blog...

The "Fire & Brimstone" Distortion

"If I'm perfectly honest, lemme tell you why I decided to follow him. The reason why I decided to follow Jesus is because Jesus said, Jesus promised, he says, 'I am gonna come back to that earth, and I'm gonna come back someday and I'm gonna judge the earth.' And when I read about his judgement... it's terrifying." -Francis Chan 

I don't really understand the American appetite for "fire & brimstone," but for some reason we've always had it. There's always been a market for the fear tactics and there's always been a brand of Christianity which operates on the assumption that people should be scared into the arms of Jesus, that if we don't talk about hell and damnation and if we don't sell an image of God as a judge who'll gladly punish folks for all eternity given the right excuse, then we're not really talking about the gospel. It's "turn or burn" as Charles Spurgeon put it.

Popular versions of this theology are everywhere and they've come out in droves ever since Rob Bell wrote Love Wins and scared them out from hiding. Francis Chan is an obvious example. In his video from his "BASIC" series called "follow Jesus" (ironically made by the same people who used to make NOOMA videos), Fracis says, "The reason why I decided to follow Jesus is because Jesus said,... '...I'm gonna come back someday and I'm gonna judge the earth.' And when I read about his judgement... it's terrifying." In other words, Francis decided to follow Jesus out of terror, out of fear of being on the wrong side. And to be honest, that just makes me sad for him.

What a tragic way to come to Jesus! Picture it... the God who can be swiftly described as pure love, the God who invented forgiveness and thought up the concept of kindness, watching as God's beloved come fearfully begging, "please don't hurt me! I'll do whatever you want," as if God's holding hostages or as if God's an abusive spouse. What an insult to God! I can't imagine if my wife had said, "yes, I'll marry you, just don't kill me!" or "sure I'll be you're wife, what other choice do I have?" What sort of person must she think I am? What must we think of God? It's like we skipped the Gospels altogether and missed all the irony of Revelation.

Now, I'm sure that's not the whole story on Francis Chan. I'm sure that if he were being "perfectly honest" he at least eventually started following Jesus for better reasons. But nevertheless, there are too many in the church today begging God, the very God who loves them, to spare them. Too many treat God like and abuser. Too many have completely missed the point of Jesus. Jesus came, not so that we would be afraid of an angry god but so that we might see that God is not angry and that God is not a monster at all. Jesus came to show us that God is loving, kind, faithful, compassionate, and self-sacrificing. Jesus revealed that God would rather die than to take our life! If hell exists, it exists despite God, not because of God.

Despite what the evangelists try to tell you, Jesus is clear--God is good! It would be terrible to miss out on God's goodness. I don't follow Jesus for fear of hell, just as I'm not married to my wife out of fear of her wrath. Sure, I'd hate not to be married to Amanda, but I didn't marry her for lack of another option. It's not that I have no other options (although that is surely the case once you've discovered how dim everything else is in comparison to God's love). I am a Christian because I believe Jesus' message that God is good, God loves without limit, forgives when I cannot, and relentlessly & eternally pursues restoration. Kindness, forgiveness and, above all, love are the prescription for the world's brokenness and God is the author of such as these.

Fierce

Some people just have a grace about them. You know the kind of people I'm talking about? They just have a way of making you feel accepted, like they can handle you, like they aren't judging you. And yet, ironically, simply because of their grace and their kindness, they're also challenging. They have a way of surfacing, simply by contrast, all the things in you that aren't so gracious and kind. They sharpen you and inspire you to be better, to be gracious as well. They have a certain power, a power they gain not because they take it but because they accept it, a power they don't exploit but hold rather loosely as though it doesn't really belong to them in the first place. They don't need to go around imposing their way upon others because their way speaks for itself. For me, people like Desmond Tutu (though I've never met him) and Tony Campolo (who gave me a hug before I could shake his hand when I first met him) come to mind, though the best examples are people who aren't so well known.

Then there are other people. There are people who have the opposite affect. These people are easier to come by, unfortunately. They're people who make you feel judged right out the gate. Their utter lack of grace makes it immediately apparent to you that they have a certain standard for who you should be, how you should think, and what you should be like. Sometimes they even justify their judgement as though it somehow makes them prophetic, like they're "telling it like it is" while everyone else is just being ignorant. They claim a moral, intellectual, and often a religious high-ground and authority. They sometimes (too often) even manage to gain a following, other people who are perhaps intimidated into following their lead, people who are willing to submit to their exploitation of power. But rather than inspiring people to be better simply by their example, they scare people away or, worse yet, they mold others into their image, inspiring people to hide their insecurities by judging and projecting their brokenness upon others. When these sorts of people happen to be Christians it makes for a bad combination. There's no wonder that so many are so turned off by the church, so disillusioned at the concept of God. I would be too if I'd only been exposed to such as these. I won't name names here, I'm sure you can think of a couple of figures which fit this description.

There are people who are fierce with grace and kindness--fierce with love--and there are people who are just fierce with power and judgement. I don't know that we can really justify a "balance" here. I think the ideal has got to be one or the other. The former is just as capable of speaking their mind as the latter. The former is just as capable of discerning injustice and speaking prophetically as the latter. So the question is, first of all, which sort of person is God like? What's the nature of God's power? And secondly, which sort of people should we be training ourselves to be? Which direction are our spiritual disciplines taking us? I believe that Jesus was fierce with grace, fierce with kindness, fierce wit love, even to the point that his life became a challenge to the power players, a prophetic indictment of their exploitive practices. And as followers of Jesus, we should be fierce in the same way.

Don't Fear Reality

Don't be afraid to let your interactions with people influence the way you see the world, your faith, and even your politics. That fear seems to persist among too many Christ followers out of a sense that their experience should not affect or tarnish their so-called "objective" reading of scripture. In other words, they are afraid of the subjectivity of reality and that their literalist understanding of what's being said in the pages of scripture might get called into question if they allow relationships, history, and experience to enter the equation. For example, if you're convinced that women should not be pastors because of your understanding of the bible, you might have a preconceived anxiety about getting to know a woman who is a pastor. Indeed, you'll likely have your defenses up while they're preaching and you'll likely hold them under more scrutiny than you would a male pastor. If you got to know a good woman pastor, if you actually witnessed their success in ministry, heard their heart for the gospel of Jesus and their ability to communicate and embody it, then your reading of scripture might be challenged. You'd at least have good reason to take a second look at the passages you've been using against them.

Also, take for example, the homosexuality debate. Now, if you don't know any gay people or, perhaps more especially, any gay Christians then you probably don't feel any obligation to question those verses that seem obviously condemning of the homosexual orientation. But if you do know them, and you do see that not all of them fit the stereotype of promiscuity, then you might feel relationally obligated to take a second look at what you believe.

The same standard applies to homeless people, immigrants, rich people, liberals, conservatives, Evangelicals, etc. ...Once you get to know them, your knowledge of the individual--actually putting a face to the label--often serves as a catalyst for real re-evaluation of assumptions and notions. When we know people, we can no longer talk as though we don't know them.

And here's the best part... the Word of God can handle our questions. It's never inherently dangerous (at least not in a bad way) to take a second look at the bible. If we are confident that the bible is indeed true, authoritative, and inspired by God, then we should also be confident that it won't crumble under the weight of our examination and inquiry. There's no point at which we can have used too much context to inform our reading. Of course, there are wrong and right ways of being informed by context and history, but we can't overdo it if we're doing it right.

I had a conversation, not too long ago, in which I was explaining to someone how the specific historical context of a specific passage of scripture rendered its meaning quite different from what it seemed to say at first glance. They were shocked and surprised at the conclusion and though the interpretation made sense to them, they were still frustrated and asked, "so do you just pick and choose which verses to do that with?" The answer is no... we're invited to do that with every verse and  passage of scripture. The Bible can handle the scrutiny of history. We should seek after the text's original meaning, even if it seems very different from the meaning we thought it had.

Likewise, the Bible, and indeed our worldview, can handle the scrutiny of our experience. The Bible itself teaches us compassion and so we should not be so uncomfortable when our compassion begins to challenge the way we read the scriptures. It does not mean, necessarily, that our conclusions must change upon second glance. But surely the texture of those conclusions will be transformed by love when we begin to see the face of God in the people who are subject to our understanding. When we begin to affirm humanity, to see the face of the other, then we can no longer prefer our assumptions over their humanity. The goal of exegesis should not be to strip ourselves of our experience, to deny the humanity of our engagement, and to find some static objective position. No. We should take our compassion, in all it's subjective glory, with us as we engage the text. Not that we should impose ourselves onto the text but that we should be motivated by our relationships to examine the scriptures, to question their meaning, and to dive deeper and deeper into the well of God's Word. We should not fear the subjectivity of reality. indeed, we should welcome its invitation.

Humanity is an embodied reality, an existence graciously bound to communal interdependence and social responsibility. The incarnational nature of God in Christ and, by extension, of God's word in scripture, beacons us to encounter God through authentically human embodiment, listening and reading not from some notion of objective idealism but from the position at which our feet are actually touching the ground.

Our Impending Relocation

I've always lived in Southern California. I've never lived further than two hours away from my current location. In fact, I currently live about 50 feet (no exaggeration) from the house in which I grew up from birth until college. My wife has always been a California girl. Indeed, it's been a while since she's even visited the East Coast. So you can imagine the potential for anxiety regarding our impending relocation to Princeton, New Jersey for Seminary. There's something crazy about a move like this one, I'll be the first to admit--especially since, on many levels, I'm already doing what I want to do (youth ministry).

It's not just that Princeton Theological Seminary is perhaps the best and most well-rounded theological school in the country (if I can say so, having not yet begun my journey there)... I don't think that's enough. It's not that we want to make more money someday. If it's about money, I think I may have chosen the wrong field. Primarily, we are making this crazy move because we believe that God has gone before us. We believe, despite our anxiety, even our fear, that God has directed our path.

If it is not out of trust in God and God's loving intention that we make our moves in the world, it is ever only out of ignorance or arrogance. So we trust in the God who leads us. We trust the God who offers neither prosperity nor comfort but embodies the promise of New Creation, that we may at one level or another participate in God's creative movement of restoration--the Kingdom of God which is immanently among us.

Thoughts on Amendment 1, Billy Graham, and The Continuing Conversation

Lately I have been more forthright in my position on the ethical legitimacy of homosexuality. Indeed, my feelings on the subject get stronger with each year that passes and especially as old debate points and arguments continue to get recycled even in light of the work that's been done on the other side. Indeed, it's not people's position that bothers me as much as it is their ignorance of the scope of what has already been argued. For example, it wasn't long ago that I heard someone say, "can anybody argue against Romans 1?!" as if the answer should be that nobody can and nobody has done so because it's so clear and simple. But therein lies the ignorance. The fact is, pretty much EVERYONE has argued against Romans 1 and there's little simplicity or clarity to the matter. Everyone who's bothered to deal with the issue has addressed Romans 1 because it is perhaps the most problematic passage regarding the issue. But, nevertheless, the argument has been made (for example, see my post in The Bible And Homosexuality)--regardless of whether or not one agrees with it--and the issue should be discussed accordingly, that is with sensitivity to the range of conflicting arguments. In fact, the arguments are out there concerning any and every verse or passage that one could bring up, so the issue cannot be oversimplified. Clarity is not as easy to come by as some have made it out to be.

Although I am frustrated by the arguments that come from ignorance, I am more patient than some with the variety of sensitive and robust biblical arguments against the legitimacy of homosexuality (and sorry liberals, but there are at least a few). Though I disagree, I think I still have a grasp on where people are coming from. I can hear their position and as such, I try to be a unifying voice wherever possible rather than a polarizing voice. We are, in fact, all members of the same body, the same family--Evangelicals and main-liners alike--and we should not give up on one another.

Whatever the case, though I was not surprised, I was disappointed to hear of the passing of North Carolina's recent Amendment 1, a discriminatory constitutional ban on gay marriage in the state (similar to the infamous California Proposition 8). I was disappointed because of how the church has responded to the gay community and for a variety of other reasons. I think that the church has mixed up its definitions. We have allowed our understanding of marriage to be limited to the definitions of state governments when, I hope, our definition involves much more--including the reflection of God's image through the uniting of two people and two families and a sacred covenant between God and God's people (some things the state just wouldn't understand). What gay people are asking for is access to the same governmental state rights as so-called straight people when it comes to their relationships. A loving response, regardless of how we feel about the biblical ethical legitimacy of those relationships, would be to give them those rights and then deal with the ethics accordingly. Why should the church deny them those state rights on the basis of marriage definitions when the church and the state are talking about two very different things from the start? The church has flexed its religious power in the arena of state governance and I find that to be unethical and especially un-Christlike. We need to have a relationship with the gay community before we start speaking to their conduct. We need to earn the right to speak into their lives... that's the loving thing to do... before we go legislating their lives and their futures and their social-status. As such, by such legislation, the church has become a politically oppressive force, wielding our political power to rule over the moral lives of others. It's not even about the morality or immorality of homosexual relationships, it's about the church and its power and the wielding of that power.

Perhaps more disappointing to me than the passing of Amendment 1 was the way Billy Graham, a hero of the church in our time and an historically unifying figure in the public sphere, responded to the situation. These were his words regarding Amendment 1:

"I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage. The Bible is clear -- God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment ... Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern. I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected."

Really Billy?! Why are you doing this to yourself?!

Now, I'm not surprised at his position. He's 93 years old, after all. What surprises me is his ignorance and his lack of grace. Now, this may just show my own ignorance regarding Billy's political career, but I would not have expected Billy Graham to say something so polarizing. I would have expected him to listen and hear the other side, to lovingly disagree, and then to advocate the reconciliation between the gay community and the church. But he did the opposite.

He didn't hear a word from the other side... really Billy?! You "never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage"? I thought you'd been around the block enough times to know that we would. Anyone who has actually taken the time to read and absorb the scope of the conversation knows that the Bible is anything but clear on this particular subject. Quote a verse in regards to homosexuality and there'll be volumes of polarizing discussions regarding its meaning. Clarity has certainly not been reached in this discussion, even if Billy Graham's superior intellect has made it seem clear to him. Rather than disagreeing graciously and lovingly, he refers to the lives of gay people as part of the "moral decline of our country." That's anything but loving, even if it is merely a characteristic of Billy's generation. And rather than advocate for reconciliation, he implied that gay people are enemies of "the home and marriage" from which we should be "protected." Now them's fightin' words... anything but reconciling.

I love him. I respect him. I'll still remember him for his better moments. But Billy is behind the times. Not in his position or his opinion but in his approach. We are beyond polarizing oversimplifications and false claims to biblical clarity. We are beyond slanderous implications of exaggerated social dangers. We are beyond the "us vs. them" battles. The conversation now must be graciously and intellectually compassionate and it must on some level involve the reconciliation of the church to the gay community. Because even if the conservatives win the biblical argument, without relationship and love that will be their only victory.