Last Wednesday, our brothers and sisters at Sojourn Montrose got a little write-up in the Houston Press. If you're not familiar with the Houston Press, let's just say it's where I go to keep my "ear to the streets" on the counter-sub-counter-sub-sub-culture in town. It's an interesting publication, but it's not the bastion of fairness that the Houston Chroni...it's not a bastion of fairness. The articles have an agenda, and that's fine for them. I write with an agenda all the time.
The article focuses most of its attention on Sojourn's beliefs about human sexuality, which happen to be biblical. This excerpt expresses it well enough:
But Sojourn isn't likely to budge on its theological stance against same-sex relationships. Church leaders are upfront about that, and though some attendees leave as a result, others stick around to wrestle it out. Gays are welcome to be members, provided they repent for their same-sex attraction. Gay members that refuse to renounce homosexuality would eventually be booted from the church.
To be clear, I'd say that Sojourn wouldn't ask people to repent from their same-sex attraction, just like the church wouldn't ask me, a single man, to repent of my opposite-sex attraction. There's nothing to repent of. But we ask all people everywhere to repent of their lust. There's a difference between attraction and lust. Attraction is a predilection to a certain desire, whereas lust is thought, imagination, or desire that leads to sexual misconduct. So keep that in mind when you read sentences like the one in the article. It belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what is really going on.
What I want to do is address some of the fallacies implicit in the article—and made more explicit in the comments section. By the way, take a look at the comments if you want to see what modern tolerance looks like in practice.
First, there is a deep underlying assumption that the morality of a person's desires and their actions cannot be separated, at least when we are talking about homosexuality. Of course, no one would extend this thinking into many other areas of life. "I really desire my neighbor's stuff, therefore I have a right to take it" doesn't fly when you are in front of the judge on theft charges. But notice how, in the article, the author has a terribly hard time distinguishing same-sex attraction from homosexual activity. It's just assumed that if you identify as gay, then homosexual activity is inherently a part of your life. The article says that "gay members who refuse to renounce homosexuality would eventually be booted from the church." Well, yes and no, depending on what you mean. This is the fallacy I'm talking about.
Maybe the author truly doesn't understand that we would not excommunicate someone merely for their sinful desires, which everyone has. Maybe, under their moral framework, asking a gay person to be chaste for life would be inhumane. Or maybe that notion is so unconscionable that it didn't cross the author's mind as a distinct possibility. Who knows. But I do know this: rarely have I seen people give equal treatment to the fact that we ask all people who are not married to a person of the opposite sex to abstain from all sexual activity. Chastity is not limited to gays. Maybe that makes us even more oppressive...
Second, a common objection I hear is that Christianity is really about love, acceptance, and tolerance, so we should be loving, accepting, and tolerant of the LGBT crowd. This is always a troubling statement for me. What do you mean by "love?" What I think people really mean when they say this is that Christians should support and affirm each aspect of a person's identity. So love, accept, and tolerate get wrapped up into approve. Therefore, we have a completely different framework for what love means. If you are not approving, then you are not loving. This, of course, is false. The Bible defines love as the laying down of one life for the good of another. And that which is good is defined by that same Bible. So how could it be loving for us to refuse to lay down our lives (and popularity) and watch the destruction of another? It is, rather, utterly hateful.
Third, and this is closely related to the first one. The underlying assumption here is that, for a homosexual, that person's dignity and their sexual activity are irrevocably intertwined. If you ask a person to change their sexual behavior, it is tantamount to denying their humanity. (Although you would never say the same thing, for instance, about a pedophile or abuser—a remarkable denial of a logical conclusion). But this notion is simply untrue—and ignorant. A person is so much more than their sexuality. That's why, as Christians, we can encourage each other to "put to death" the sinful lusts of the flesh—because those things are not our identity. Killing sin will not kill our humanity. Our identity is in Christ and Christ alone. And that is the fundamental misunderstanding: one of mistaken identity.
Fourth, let's get down to the root—idolatry. What's really going on? A deification of the autonomous orgasm. And according to the doctrine of this idol, all religions are welcome as long as their god bows to the great Sex God. Therefore Sojourn Montrose's presence is acceptable so long as its moral priorities conform to the moral priorities of the neighborhood (hint: sexual autonomy). So we can worship God however we want, as long as God submits to the prevailing sex god of our culture. Sorry—not gonna happen.
Fifth, there is some real irony in all of this, courtesy of the comments section. (As an aside, we've thrown around the word "bigot" so much in our society that it's lost almost of all of its original meaning). Marshall Dallas is excoriated for his bigotry, hatred, animus, and intolerance for homosexuals (all of which, of course, is blatantly untrue). His presence in the community, really, is not tolerated. It's a harsh reality these days that the most "tolerant" communities are the most intolerant of different viewpoints. Where's the appreciation for diversity? Where's the real tolerance?
In the comments you'll notice a consistent demand for moral conformity when it comes to sexuality—just like the church. Consider my eyebrow raised. And the eyebrow says "ironic, isn't it?" Inescapably, we come to this end: it's not whether morality will drive our communities, but which morality will drive our communities. To me, it's better to build a culture of righteousness—not because it is justifying, but simply because it's better to live in a culture of righteousness than it is to live a culture of unrighteousness. That applies across the board.
Last thing, I promise: I wrote this to help us think through these things foundationally. When we engage in these conversations, I want us to think about what everyone's assumptions are—and to challenge them. But when we work through these things on the way to the cross, things are different. The cross allows us to bear a burden on the hard road to its eventual destruction. As I've said before, a commitment to holiness is so much more than righteous indignation at sin. It requires us to enter into sin as we make our way out of it. And that can only happen through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
When revival sweeps through Montrose, we'll have no recourse to ourselves; we will only be able to credit the work of the Holy Spirit. So come, Jesus, and repair our minds as well as our hearts.