August 20: Uncivil Civil War

An article in Sunday's Washington Post regarding "a rift in black churches" over gay unions begins the next chapter in the story of how American churches will respond to "the homosexual question", and launches the latest salvo in what is becoming America's next uncivil civil war.

Author, speaker and leader in the Emergent Church movement, Brian McLaren, recently opened Pandora's Box in a magazine article highlighting the need for pastoral sensitivity and it seems some readers wanted to burn him at the stake as a heretic for even suggesting civil discourse on the subject. When did "christians" become so mean?

McLaren, in a response to critics of the article, posed some interesting questions with which every church will soon wrestle if they have not already done so:

"For example, if you are certain without a shadow of doubt that homosexual behavior is always wrong, where do you draw the line:
Do you let a homosexual person be a member of your church, or an attender?
Does your exclusion apply only to “practicing” gays, or to celibate people of gay orientation?
How many weeks can they attend without being given an ultimatum?
How do you find out if a supposedly nonpracticing person is hiding their secret behaviors?
How many failures do you allow before excommunication?
And do you allow heterosexual people who attend your services to have gay friends?
Must they confront those friends in order to be faithful Christians?
What if they don’t?
What if your leading elder comes to you to say his daughter has come out as a lesbian?
What if your daughter comes out?
Or conversely, if you are an “open and affirming” congregation, do you require fidelity or do you allow promiscuity?
How do you enforce that?
Do you accept people who think homosexuality is wrong?
What if they repeatedly share their opinions publicly and in so doing scare away gay people whom you seek to receive?
Are you then open and affirming of homosexuals, but not of people who consider homosexuality a sin?"

My question is, "Can christians be Christ-like during the discussions?" I hear the old addage, "Well, we just have to agree to disagree." I can't stand that phrase. It leaves no room for either party to grow, change their opinions or their behavior. How about, "Let's learn to disagree without being disagreeable."? At least that makes a request for civility during the dialogue.

And why do so many christians pick and choose which sins to punish. For example, many church-folk are quick to condemn gay couples who are monogamous and committed, while at the same time turning a blind eye to heterosexual promiscuity or straight couples living together out of wedlock. Why the double standard?

Some are quick to quote Leviticus 20:13, "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.", but completely skip verse 10, which reads, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Why the double standard?

I'm not suggesting we institute the death penalty for either one of those behaviors, I'm just raising the question of why some church-folk are so rabid about one Biblical injunction but often turn a blind eye to so many others?

The question I pose for the church is, "can churches be civil while they wrestle with the questions posed earlier?" So far the answer is "absolutlely not", and that's sad and more sinful than the issues being discussed.

There is no doubt more to come as our culture and churches clash over this issue. You'll hear church-folks echoing the mantra "love the sinner, hate the sin." I want to ask my gay friends, "do you feel the love yet?" I didn't think so.

~ Father, help us to hold out love as we seek to know your heart and will. Forgive me for acting like behavior and belief have nothing in common. Amen.