How Can Evangelical Christians Love Their Homosexual Neighbors?

As we look at the question of "How do evangelical Christians love their homosexual neighbors?," I think it is crucial that we define some terms. Beginning with what is love, what is an evangelical.

So for example, the term evangelical is from the Greek, "euangelion." It means to announce the good news. It is to preach good news. In order for Christians to preach good news we have to understand the basic doctrines that define all of Scripture. And as Nadine has come from a civil libertarian perspective, or concern with civil liberties, what I'm going to seek to do is to find the theological basis for civil liberties. We're going to see a lot of places of interface and agreement, but I think we're going to find some places of tremendous disagreement. And I think those points of disagreement will surround, at least in my understanding, a question of definition of terms.

So definition of terms from a Christian. We begin with the assumption of three doctrines that are outlined for us in Genesis chapters 1 through 3: creation, sin, and redemption. Or as I like to speak about it: the order of creation, the reversal of that order, and the reversal of the reversal which is redemption.

The good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is in the face of the reversal, Christ reverses the reversal. He dies on the cross, he rises again and gives new life to those who would seek him. But what he's giving new life to is a restoration to the promises of the order of creation. Therefore, to understand the nature of Scripture on its own terms, whether we are Evangelical such as I am, or whether we are theologically liberal or unbelievers, to understand Scripture on its own terms begins with the definition of the order of creation in Genesis 1 through 2. The understanding of those terms will give us a trajectory for what that good news is all about, what love is about, what sexuality is about, man and woman, and therefore questions of homosexuality.

In the order of creation, there are four topics that are talked about: God, life, choice, and sex. In that order. As best as I can figure this out, and I have asked many skeptics to tell me otherwise, I don't know any other subject in the universe that is not ultimately a cognate of these four subjects, how they are defined and how they relate to each other. So we mention the Declaration of Independence, I'll talk about that in just a second, which talks about unalienable rights from our Creator.

"In the beginning God..." [Genesis 1:1] This is the assumption of Scripture. Then the whole trajectory of Genesis 1 and 2 is the making of male and female in God's image, making human life. God, human life. The first words of God to Adam and therefore to Eve are words of freedom, of moral choice, of aesthetic choice, but boundaries to that choice. We'll also talk about that as I proceed. Then once choice is given is the gift of sexuality. The image bearers of God, men and women in marriage, have got the unique power to pass on to their children the gifts of life, choice, and sex. And so God, life, choice, and sex is the order of creation.

The reversal of that order is sex, choice, life, God. I will argue that historically the most violent and destructive act there is, is sex outside of marriage. For example, you look at the inner city war zones in terms of fatherless boys who gather in families. We call them gangs, those of us who live outside the cities. They call them families. Those who are incarcerated for serious crime in the prisons today, among men between 70 and 90 percent are de facto fatherless boys. They didn't have a father loving their mother and loving them. My contention is that leads you to gangs, to selling cocaine, to drive-by shootings, and so forth.

If you look at sex outside of marriage you see the brokenness of covenant, the brokenness of trust. When we are born, and John Calvin argues this as the basis for rights theories, that when we are born, unless we are taught trust, we don't know how to receive blessings from others, we don't know how to give blessings to each other. The biblical view of this is sex is designed for marriage, that intimacy and that vulnerability, and that power for procreation from which we have all come.

Not only is this the order of creation, but Thomas Jefferson -- who certainly would not be known as an Evangelical, but as a rationalist -- he implicitly includes all these terms in the Declaration of Independence. As Nadine was talking about earlier, if we read the language of the Declaration, it says very simply:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

It continues on for the powers of the consent of the governed.

But notice the alignment here. It starts with the assumption of our Creator. That's "God". The first right listed is Life. That's "life". Then Liberty, and liberty is a synonym for "choice". Then the pursuit of Happiness. Well I guess a lot of people might think that "sex" equals the pursuit of happiness, or the pursuit of happiness equals "sex".

If you look at the Locke-ian language that is behind Jefferson's use here, you see that the pursuit of happiness is not divorced from family responsibilities and corporate responsibilities in the society. When you come to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the phrase of what is to be protected by due process of law is life, liberty, and property. And property is a legal term that guarantees us certain unalienable rights not to have our property taken from us apart from due process.

Interestingly, the word for economics from the Greek word household, "eukonomos," is family. In other words "eukonomos" is family, "eukonomos" is the word for economy. The understanding not only in biblical cultures but other cultures is, that unless you have the integrity of man and woman loving each other, and being faithful to each other, and building a household which is the basic thrust of economic liberties, which produces property rights, apart from which the pursuit of happiness is not possible. So what we see is that this is the definition of biblical sexuality: one man, one woman, one lifetime. Once you break that fidelity, everything breaks from that point on forward.

So my argument is, and I was sharing this with Barry Lynn, who heads up Americans United for Separation of Church and State, down at the University of Virginia last year. I asked him, Barry, is there any basis for civil rights in our country apart from biblical foundations? And he said no. He agreed with me there is no other basis. We disagreed on the interpretation of that dealing with prayer in the public schools. The point being, that if we want civil rights, there is no other basis I know of for unalienable rights than we find in Genesis.

But the next question is the applicability of those rights. My argument is that it is uniquely biblical ethics in Genesis that allow rights to be given to minorities. I don't want one inch more liberty to argue what I believe, than I first give to those who disagree with me. I mean, I first give. I don't want one inch more liberty. But still, we have to ask ourselves about definition of terms. Who are civil rights classes? What is the definition of civil rights?

If we understand the order of creation and the God, life, choice, sex paradigm, we understand that as those made in God's image as those who are human, that is the basis for unalienable rights.

I like to speak about the image of God this way. I was doing a forum at Brown University some years ago. We were dealing with the abortion debate and this one woman asked me a question about rape and incest, which is clearly a tremendously difficult question to address because of the sheer (and I use this theologically as well) hell of what women have been put through when they are violated accordingly. She asked me the question. Before I answered I asked her the following. I said, is it fair for me to assume that you like me in your life are seeking the qualities of peace, order, stability, and hope?

Now that audience of about 400 or so... I was debating the former head of Planned Parenthood in Rhode Island, and I can tell you that the sympathies for my evangelical, pro-life position were probably about ten percent of the audience. So people were not disposed to my presuppositions. And so I said, is it fair for me to assume that you like me in your life are seeking the qualities of peace, order, stability, and hope? I noticed that the cacophony, the underground noises that are always happening in a large, cavernous auditorium, ceased. I had the eyeball contact of everyone there including that woman. She affirmed that's what she was seeking.

Now I had not yet defined theological language, saying this was the image of God, but rather, I used terms I find descriptive of the image of God. Peace, order, stability, and hope. Who is not seeking that? Even those who commit suicide, in the two terrible instances in my life that I've been in situations to counsel those who are left behind by a suicide. In both cases of those suicides it was someone looking desperately for some peace that they were not finding in their lives. This is human nature, to seek those qualities. Or what I call the four Ls: to live, to love, to laugh, and to learn.

So I asked this woman if she was pursuing those qualities. She answered yes. I said, there is far more that unites us than divides us at this point. Because if we are seeking those qualities, we then have to ask ourselves this question: Even in the face of the hell of rape, how does abortion unrape the woman or restore to her the lost qualities of peace, order, stability, and hope? Or does it add further fracture? I argued it adds further fracture, and we took it on from there.

The most important point here from my perspective as a Christian, and how to love my homosexual neighbor, or an abortion-rights proponent, or someone who doesn't like my faith, is with the act of giving the right to dissent. This is based on biblical ethics as I will continue to develop. In other words, since people are made in God's image, Christ came to restore us to that image. The interpretive question is, what will do that? What is the nature of the image? What is the nature of the restoration? Well, the nature of the image of God is male and female. God made us male and female from the beginning.

When I was addressing a forum at Yale Divinity School last year, there were many students who were homosexual. Many were there to challenge my perspective. I made the observation that in the order of creation we have male and female. The reason God made them male and female is for the complementarity between the sexes, so that lives could be built together, children could be procreated, and civilization could be built. A man and a man together cannot produce that. A woman and a woman together cannot produce that. And even in so-called instances of lesbians having children, they still need a male sperm. In other words, from the beginning you need man and woman together. All of us are the product of man and woman. Well not only just in the act of sex, but the emotional level, and so many other levels God has made man and woman complementary.

Now, the question I had for those at Yale Div. I said, if you believe (as some of them were saying) that homosexuality was a gift of God, can you give me evidence in the order of creation as to where there is the explicit possibility or the implicit possibility of homosexual relationships? And the answer was there was no answer. And so what I was saying was, if you say you are Christian, no matter whether you are theologically liberal or conservative or an Evangelical like myself who accepts the inspiration of Scripture, Scripture starts with the assumptions in the order of creation.

There is another way in which I like to look at the order of creation and a little bit beyond, and that's six ethical components that I say sum up all of biblical faith. These are components that I seek to live my life by. These are components that are crucial when we look at the issue surrounding homosexuality.

The first ethic is the power to give. God's nature, if you compare Yahweh- Elohim, the God of the Bible in Genesis 1 and 2 as he creates, with every other so-called god in the pagan origin texts, you will see that God is eternal, his power is infinite, and he uses his power for one purpose: to bless and benefit you and I who are made in God's image. This is in stark contrast to the pagan deities who are limited, jealous, petty, and they beat up on humanity. They use their limited power in a destructive way. And therefore the nature of God's power from the beginning is to give, to bless, and to benefit. But he's the giver. And as the giver, he is the one who defines what is being given. And his goal in human relationships is to empower us to give to one another.

Therefore, when Adam is made and God says it's not good for man to be alone, which is a remarkable statement... Everything at this point in the created order is good, good, good. Then all of a sudden it's not ... [end of tape 1 side 1] ... want to mate with any of them. So on that basis I think God was teaching Adam, you're not it. I'll tell you why. The power of God the Father is to give. Adam received the fullness of his giving, and he is nothing without the ability to give. And therefore his complement, woman, is made for him. So when Adam wakes up we have the first poem in human history. "Wow!" is a way of summing it up. He's seen all the animals, he sees his complement. One chapter later the reversal is in full place. The point being, Adam needed someone to give to, because we are not fulfilled as people unless we receive. We are loved because God first loved us. I can tell you, the most satisfying act in human life is the act of giving. Well, the bottom line is that the act of giving, receiving back, and the power of procreation to pass on that giving to children, is uniquely male and female.

So the power to give from the beginning is to catalyze the act of giving. I will argue that homosexuality in its brokenness and its lostness, and those who struggle with it, many people struggle with it very deeply, is ultimately incapable of that giving and receiving, because the emotional, psychological, and physical structure of male and female in God's image.

Therefore I have no agenda toward homosexuals or against homosexuals. I do have a pro-active agenda for male and female and lifting it up as effectively as I can. So the first ethical component is the power to give.

The second is the power to live in the light. Which is to say as Christians we are to live openly, honestly, above board, with no ulterior agendas. Put our agenda on the table in the sight of the culture, and I seek to do that with every breath.

Thirdly is the ethics of choice or the gift of human freedom. The first words in human history of God to Adam is "you are free to eat." Or as the Hebrew says, "ocolt ocale," in feasting you shall feast. The idea given to Adam for freedom is an unlimited menu of good choices. But then he says, you must not eat the forbidden fruit, because to eat it is poisonous, it is to die. In other words, what God is saying from the beginning is you have liberty. And what's interesting is, if you look at all the religious origin texts, apart from Genesis, they only have a negative view of freedom. The highest aspiration of freedom, since they have no order of creation, is freedom from violation. It's good to be free from violation. But you can't be free from violation unless you know what preceded the violation. So the definition of freedom in Genesis is a smorgasbord, an unlimited menu of good choices, a positive freedom for pursuing the good. Then comes the "but." Then comes the caveat or the ethics, but you must not disobey God, the one who gave to you.

Now the outworking of this is "what you sow, you will reap." In God's love, he doesn't force us to accept his love. Love is a gift. A gift can not be forced, it can only be received. That's why we have Christ dying on the cross, that ultimate act of giving that we may receive. But it is not forced upon us. Therefore, as Christians in the public sphere, we are to give and not to force, not to coerce. And the legal process by which we establish what civil rights are must always include the minority. But by the same token we have a process by which people are voted into office, laws are voted into existence. So the minority rights that are protected is an equal place at the table for all law-abiding citizens to make their cases. But it is not a guarantee that their case will be heard or enacted into law. So we guarantee the equal humanity, but the question is, is homosexuality a civil rights class? Is it something that is to be protected unto itself? Or, are homosexuals as citizens to be protected as citizens? I will argue the latter.

The fourth ethic is the love of hard questions. I can not find any tougher questions than I find in Scripture, nor any better answers. And what it means for those of us who are Christian, is the hospitality to tough questions, and the embrace of those questions. On that basis you can not be discriminatory toward anyone. Because to love hard questions is to be hospitable. To be hospitable is the height of ancient near-Eastern and biblical ethics.

The fifth ethic is the love of enemies. Here I come into the redemptive order. The height of the Sermon on the Mount, the words of Paul in Romans 5, that when we were yet enemies of God through unbelief, he sent his son to die for us. Those who may be enemies of our position, whatever level, we as Christians regard no human beings as enemies. The devil, yes, and his demons, absolutely. But all people are candidates for the good news of Jesus Christ.

The question in how do we love our homosexual neighbors, I am moving toward that point, is to say that we love them by giving them respect but defining terms. Defining terms is that homosexuality does not lead to eternal life. It doesn't lead to the fulfillment of the image of God. Therefore we lobby through the power to give, to avail people of the Gospel and the power to change.

The sixth and final ethic is the power to forgive. This equals the bookends of Scripture. The power to give is the beginning point. Then no matter how deep the sin or the pain, to forgive is to give in the face of having been violated. In fact, in my estimation, to forgive is tougher than loving one's enemies. Because if someone has someone who is a sworn enemy, usually they don't know you, or usually you don't know them very well personally. But forgiveness is between husband and wife, parent and child, close friends, where pain is so often the deepest because love has been the deepest.

So these are the ethics that we must live.

Now, let's take a look at the issue of homosexuality, and let me pose a couple of questions that I think are crucial. I want to ask ourselves to define three elements in this debate. First of all is to define love. Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, as Nadine has quoted, has said he is being denied the right to love. But what is love? Love is the act of giving. But also Jesus says, if you love me, you will what? You will obey my commandments. [John 14:15]

If we go back to the Declaration of Independence and unalienable rights given by our Creator, we have to decide the issue, who is our Creator? In other words, if the rights are unalienable and came from our Creator, who is that? Is that a Buddhist deity? Is that an animistic deity? Is that Yahweh of the Bible? Is that some other deity? Because once we answer the question of who the deity is, then we will understand what love is, and what male and female is. And you will find in all the pagan texts, apart from Genesis, they will embrace sex outside of marriage at many different levels. Genesis will say no; the gift of sexuality, its intimacy and its power belong within marriage. Anything outside of that is going to lead to brokenness of the image of God.

So love is to obey commandments. For those who are not Christian or who are not Jewish, because it's exactly the same ethical basis, if we say there are unalienable rights we have the question, who gave the unalienable rights, on what terms, and what is the definition of love?Another thing that needs to be asked, is what is the definition of homosexuality. I was doing a forum near Syracuse University recently in a funky New Age coffee house. It was lot of fun. I was doing a forum with a gentleman named Harry Freeman Jones. Mr. Jones says that he and his partner are the longest standing married homosexuals in the country, saying they have been that way since 1973. During the course of our conversation, just in back and forth without really expecting what his answer would be, I just asked real quickly, Harry, could you define for me what a homosexual is? And he refused to do so. He would not tell me what a homosexual was. Now I find this interesting, because if homosexuals are to be protected as a civil rights class, or if not in the formal sense there, if they are to be protected as homosexuals, then my question is, what is a homosexual that has to be protected? He refused to answer the question. Now why would he refuse to answer that?

Well I continued on. I said, the reason I was asking the question is I wanted to examine the debate as to whether or not homosexuality was a genetic given, whether it was completely an element of choice, or somewhere in between along a long line of continuum. The difficulty here of course is that many homosexuals are homosexual only for a season. You will find many lesbians who will be that way in college and become heterosexual afterward. Smith College is famous for its recruiting of lesbians in that process. I have spoken on that campus, I addressed a forum there with Patricia Ireland, head of NOW [National Organization for Women]. So you see some malleability there. Those who say they are bisexual and can have sex in either direction. There are many elements here even before looking at the genetic questions, which I'm glad to look at as well, that shows that homosexuality is a malleable identity. So if we're talking about protecting homosexuals, we have to answer the question of how do we define a homosexual.

Interestingly, in Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis [chapter 19] these are not homosexuals who surround Lot's house to want to gang rape the two visitors. They are the men of the city. In other words, they are not defined as homosexual or heterosexual, but people engaged in a deviant sexuality in that context.

In order to really respect the common humanity in the image of God in all of us, I think we have to ask these questions about defining what is our essence. Is our essence first as a heterosexual? Or first as a homosexual? First as a white Caucasian? First as a black African? Or, is it first as an image bearer of God? If it's first as an image bearer of God who has unalienable rights, what are the other elements of our character that give a quality to that image, male or female or a different tribal or racial background. To be man or woman, apart from biological anomalies, or to be a certain racial lineage, is a given. It is not malleable, whereas I argue homosexuality is.

And this leads us to another observation. Two years ago, and Nadine's a lawyer, she can correct me if I read this wrong, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that homosexuality was not a valid civil rights class, that it was a subjective definition.

And so how do evangelical Christians love their homosexual neighbors? Let me share with you a proposed resolution I have. Nadine, I know Will Perkins, the gentleman who headed up Colorado Amendment 2. I've been in conversation with him. He's reviewing the following proposal I have. And so I will be interested in your response to this.

This is my definition of how Evangelicals love homosexuals in the public arena by giving civil rights, but not by countenancing homosexuality or any sexuality outside of marriage as being something protectable. If they want to exercise it in their own privacy, yes, but not protectable. This is my proposal for human sexuality and civil rights in Colorado and a couple of other states that some co-conspirators might want to consider lobbying for. It's called "Human Sexuality and Civil Rights."

"Whereas: All persons hold the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and therefore they hold equal dignity and protection under due process of law;"

I had to write the "whereas's" I was told.

"And whereas: The historic family unit, rooted in heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage, and the raising of children, is the basic institution in society;"

"And whereas: There are those who my choice, circumstance, or the brokenness of adversity who are unable to participate fully or partly as members of the historic family unit;"

"Therefore:".

Now before I get to the "therefore," let me outline the convictions I've written into here. Unalienable rights under due process of law for all citizens, number one, even non-citizens in terms of how the law is structured, rights. Number two, a positive statement of the historic family unit as the basic institution in society, rooted in heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage and the raising of children. The third clause here shows the exception reality in human experience. There are those who do not share that; they feel it is foisted upon them; it's not their choice; it is their choice; or something in between. So we recognize that this is the family unit; there are those who live outside of it.

What's interesting to me, as I have made this argument before many audiences where there have been a number of homosexuals. I remember one gentleman speaking to me at Yale and we were talking about this. I asked him real quickly, because he shared somewhat of a broken background openly with the audience, and I said, would you like to have had a mom and a dad loving each other and loving you when you grew up? He almost welled up with tears as he answered "yes". I've talked to many other homosexuals who would love to have had a mom and a dad to go home to. In other words, our identities are rooted in a loving mother and father. This is the ideal. This is the order of creation.

So I'm not disacknowledging their humanity when I say choice, circumstance, or brokenness. I'm acknowledging a range of self definitions as to why they consider themselves homosexual. So I'm saying yes to marriage, yes to their self diagnosis.

Then I continue with three elements here.

"Therefore: The laws of the state of Colorado (in this proposal) in section (whatever) shall be amended to include the following:"

Three simple statements.

"1. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in mutual fidelity."

Number two. This is where the Family Research Council took a deep breath when I was in conversation with them.

"2. No punitive laws shall exist to restrict private association, whether heterosexual or homosexual."

First time the word "homosexual" has been used. I don't want laws, and I have a whole argument as to a true theocracy versus a false theocracy. A true theocracy is when Jesus returns. I don't want a false theocracy where certain laws are put upon people. In fact, the Decalogue [Ten Commandments] basically protects marriage. And that's the positive element of what it does. Those who live in private association outside of heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage, I want no punitive laws.

Number three. And this is the ethics of choice application.

"3. All persons shall accept accountability for the public consequences of their private associations and actions. They shall in no way deprive others of life, liberty, or property."

Which is to say, when I get married, I want to be completely (and I have been almost twenty years) accountable for the public consequences of my sexuality. I stick by that twenty years later. I'll tell you what those public consequences are: Chad, Stewart, Jeremy, and Brittany. And the upcoming college bills.

Those who live outside of heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage, and embrace the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, domestic violences (which can happen inside marriage, but the overwhelming reality is outside marriage), my response is that if that choice is made, then do not expect the state to pay for it. You are on the consequences of your own choices at that point.

On this basis we are treating heterosexual and homosexual equal before the law. But we are saying something else. That the rootedness of society, in other words of reaping our own choices, we're equal. But, the positive reality of marriage is the bedrock of our civilization. If we move into a definition of rights that is less than humanity...

In fact, I would love to get rid of all these non-discriminatory clauses and just say that all people as human beings deserve equal rights. That's the simplicity of what I would like to go for. The reason it doesn't happen is because there are groups that jostle against each other. What happens I see with special rights, whether for one group or another, I mean, you know the codes where you can't discriminate against gender, or sexual orientation, or lookism, or agism, or all these other things that certain colleges have put into action? I say wait a minute. If we really grasped the image of God, then a human being is an image bearer of God, period. They deserve civil rights. But once we move beyond that and identify different groups that deserve certain identities as rights we come into the Balkanization of civil rights.

Therefore I think the way that we as Evangelicals love our homosexual neighbors is to be hospitable, to share the good news of Jesus Christ, to affirm their citizenship, their full freedom to argue and disagree with us, and to show them respect for their basic integrity as human beings. Also, it is to love the homosexual to argue against the Balkanization of civil rights, and particularly with the view of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, that homosexuality is not a valid civil rights class. I'm convinced that if we show the same respect to homosexuals that we show to one another in terms of intrinsic humanity, we wouldn't have the need for so much of the litigation that goes on. Thanks so much.

[applause]