Douglas Wilson, Slavery, and Evangelical Opposition to Gay Lives (and the gospel)

[I wrote this a few years ago in response to some prominent Evangelical reactions to the Supreme Court’s legalization of marriage equality for gay people.]

A few days ago Pastor Kevin DeYoung wrote a blog post for the Gospel Coalition entitled “40 Questions for Those Now Waving Rainbow Flags.” DeYoung is a conservative Evangelical and the questions were meant to put Evangelicals who affirm marriage equality on the spot. Many progressives have written answers to DeYoung. Others, including Matthew Vines, penned their own 40 questions for those who opposed marriage equality (or “gay marriage”).

Pastor Douglas Wilson recently wrote a response that is sadly getting a lot of reposts from other conservatives. I say sadly because Wilson is a known apologist for slavery and the Confederacy. This is even reflected in a shocking statement in Wilson’s piece. There he writes that gay marriage is worse than slavery was. Yes, you heard that right: gay marriage is worse than slavery!

Let me break that down for you a little bit: on the one side, you have an institution that adducted men, women, and children from their homeland, tearing apart families. It packed them onto ships like sardines in unsanitary and inhumane conditions in which millions lost their lives in transit. When they got to this new and scary world, they were sold off like livestock. They were dehumanized and treated like beasts; worked like animals, raped at will, and traded off at their master’s leisure. Even when that did not happen, the threat of breaking up slave families was used as a stick to curb their natural desire for freedom.

Education was generally discouraged and although Wilson elsewhere praises Christian masters for saving the souls of these poor lost African slaves; what they were shown was generally not the gospel of Jesus Christ but rather the false gospel of white supremacy.

Instead of being taught their full freedom and equality as human beings before God, they were pointed to the passages that emphasized their need to submit and obey. Instead of being shown the love and identification with those most marginalized that Jesus called his followers to, they were taught hate and fear. Thankfully many Africans learned the true gospel of Jesus – which was really the fulfillment of their own vibrant spiritualties.

Immense wealth was built right off of their backs, and they were denied a share in the fruit of their labor. But that’s not all. For people to treat other human beings this way, a racist ideology of white European supremacy had to be established. This same ideology led white Americans to break treaties with, kill, and steal land from Native Americans. It also led them to enact discriminatory policies against Mexicans, Chinese, and other ethnic minorities.

Untold thousands of Africans lost their lives to the hardships of slavery. And that says nothing about the psychological toll. After this dominant privilege was challenged, it led to pushback in Jim Crow laws, segregation, and massive inequalities and injustices that continue on to a large extent to this day. That’s on the one side.

On the other, you have a group of normal people who have historically been bullied, murdered, raped, castrated, and castigated in the worst ways gain a little bit more social acceptance and legal rights. Now any two non-related consenting adults who love each other and are willing to commit to one another, for better or worse, are able to do so in marriage and have access to the marriage benefits that many previously lacked.

This in no way hinders those who were formerly able to marry from marrying who they want to; it just extends the same freedoms and privileges to others. This doesn’t (necessarily) hinder others from exercising their religious beliefs;* it just upholds the ability of millions of other religious people to exercise theirs as they see fit.

One of these two is all about love, inclusion, freedom, equality, commitment, humanity, and health. The other is about hate, bondage, inequality, separation, segregation, and dehumanization. Guess which one Douglas Wilson sees as worse?

It can only be by closing your eyes to the empirical evidence before you that anyone could say something so outlandish and hateful. It is only by deifying a human book and making it into an idol that one could so gleefully sacrifice their children’s lives and spirits to the false god of inerrancy.

But millions of us see through that. Millions of us know that although God’s call to us in Jesus involves sacrifice; it is not an arbitrary sacrifice that breaks our spirits for no discernable reason (what kind of God would do that?). It is sacrifice in the service of love: to extend neighbor love to foreigners, enemies, and those on the margins of society. Not just our friends and family (“even the sinners do that”).

This means confronting our prejudices. It means giving up our wealth, security, and privileges. It means risking our lives and others’ high opinion of us to defend the humanity and  rights of people who are viewed by others as dangerous or disgusting. Like Jesus did. It means giving to the poor and seeking justice for them.

It means announcing to them and others the good news of God’s in-breaking kingdom; of God’s call to repent of our selfishness and faithlessness and turn instead to our loving Abba-Father who is merciful and trustworthy; to warn others that continuing on the path of narcissism, selfishness, and retribution would lead to a living hell and separation from God; but that to grow in light and love would reconnect us to God and would give us a new family of brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers made up of every tribe and nation, of those who fear God and are following the path of Jesus.

There are other problems with Wilson’s piece. He constantly and disrespectfully refers to marriage equality as “gay mirage.” He assumes inerrancy throughout and in so doing, appears to be unaware of the overwhelming evidence that the Bible is a fallible human book (though one which could still contain a core message that God has progressively been revealing). Since it is clearly fallible, his wooden and flat use of it leads him to (in effect) make it into an idol. One on which he is willing to sacrifice gay people.

It leads him to contravene the entire spirit and thrust of Jesus’ mission. Jesus emphasized love, mercy, inclusion, reconciliation, and so on. His harsh words were for people who used laws and holiness codes to judge, exclude, or marginalize others. His use of the Torah tended to marginalize the violent parts and the holiness codes and instead emphasize love as the highest law and inward moral purity of desire and intention.

Incidentally, he said nothing (directly, contextually) about gay relationships.

* I’m setting to the side the thorny issue of whether religious believers should have the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people or other minorities in their public for-profit businesses. I tend to think they should not have that right. But for the sake of argument, assume that I am wrong. A contrary position on religious liberty is compatible with gay, lesbian, or bisexual people having the constitutional right to marry.


Trump and the Practical Apostasy of Evangelicalism


I am saddened and angered by a sense of betrayal. Betrayal on a number of fronts, but especially from conservative Evangelicals.

Before going on with some of the hard things I’m going to say here, let me qualify myself some. There are Evangelicals I love and respect. I know not all Evangelicals fall prey to the chronic problems in Evangelicalism I will be criticizing. Further, every camp has its own blind spots, including my own. Yet Evangelicalism at large is riddled with problems, and their support of President Trump has exposed many of them like nothing I have seen before.

My background is Evangelical, so I have a long and close connection to these people. I grew up under the influence of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, and Billy Graham. I know that world intimately. As a homeschooler and then Bible college graduate, my whole life and identity was once wrapped up in that subculture.

But for some time now and for a variety of reasons I have moved away from Evangelicalism. I came to disagree with a lot of its common stances: for example, its rejection of critical Biblical scholarship, suspicion of mainstream science, misrepresentation of history, opposition to LGBTQ rights and identities, complicity with racism, promotion of patriarchy, glorification of violence, unbridled capitalism, antipathy toward pluralism, denialism over climate change, anti-intellectualism, legalism, cultish acquiescence to authority figures, tendency to conflate the gospel with American civil religion, and so on.

But beyond disagreements with specific claims, I also came to oppose what I see as Evangelicalism’s pervasively wrongheaded spirit and priorities. As a rule, I find it anti-intellectual and narrow in loving; emphasizing dogma over evidence, power over love, exclusion over inclusion, security over justice, and entrepreneurship over authenticity.

I’ve had a lot of flashpoints of pain as Evangelicalism and I have gone more and more our separate ways. I remember when 19,000 Evangelicals would literally rather children starve then for World Vision to let married gay people work in their offices. I remember when a swath of Moody students and even a Moody professor attacked a black student group for speaking what should have been an obvious truth about racism in America. I remember these things and more.

But this election cycle and in particular the way white Evangelicals have largely supported Donald Trump has been the most painful unmasking to me of hypocrisy and moral corruption within Evangelicalism.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is fallible (for example, see Sparks or Stark). This does not necessarily undercut it serving as an authority for Christians alongside others such as reason, experience, science, or the fresh leading of the Spirit. My study of both the Bible itself and religion more generally indicates to me that love is at the center of authentic spirituality.

Love is God’s primary attribute and, redeemed and empowered by His love, our primary duty is to love God and love others. This is the central message of Jesus and the Bible. The world religions disagree on many things, but most agree that the Highest Ultimate is primarily loving, good, or blissful and that we are to treat others as we would want to be treated. Such notions are backed up by the phenomenology of religious experience, miracles, and our ethical intuitions.

But because Evangelicals refuse to accept this, they make the Bible into an idol and act in ways that are profoundly unloving.

For example, because of a handful of texts that condemn homosexuality, they treat LGBTQ people in ways that can only be described as hateful.

They mock them and condemn them. They compare their most intimate relationships to pedophiles, sex with animals, pollution, rape, and murder. They isolate them, suspect them, and treat them with revulsion (even those who are trying to follow their rules). They claim natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or AIDS are God’s judgment for our “wicked” acceptance them.

Many Evangelicals insist that not only is their love wrong, but even their unchosen attractions and indeed their sexual or gender identities are as well. Contrary to science and experience, they insist they chose this and can change it. Some of them force their children to go through the torture of “conversion therapy.” Others literally try to cast out the “demon” of homosexuality. Some kick their children out of their homes to the streets, or speak from their bully pulpits about the necessity of doing so -“turning their children over to Satan,” as it were.

They buy into debunked theories about what causes gayness: a distant father or overbearing mother, for example. They offer quack “treatments” to “fix” it, such as exercises to find their supposedly suppressed “inner” masculinity or femininity. As indicated above, other “treatments” such as shock therapy are not so mild.

They do this in spite of crystal-clear evidence of how important relationships are to our well-being – how fundamentally we are wired for that – and how unaccepting environments drastically elevate LGBTQ persons’ susceptibility to depression and suicide. They do it in spite of evidence that these people largely do not choose these identities and  in most cases cannot choose to be otherwise (though they can choose to act in non-conformity with them). They simply refuse to listen to LGBTQ folk when they try to explain these things or share about their experiences.

In recent years, this hostility toward gay and trans people has become a hallmark of their identity and one of their top political priorities. This, apparently, is the line they are willing to die on. Not caring for strangers, widows, orphans, or the poor (even though the Bible has loads more to say about that.) Those things would be too costly and threatening. No, hatred toward gay and trans people is easier. That’s the name of the game.

They actively seek to bar gay and bisexual couples from being able to marry the person they love, with all the benefits that come with that. They seek to pass bills making it easier for LGBTQ folk to be fired or denied housing or medical care simply because they are gay, bisexual, or trans. Under the guise of religious freedom, they seek to pass bills that make it easier for businesses and colleges to discriminate against gay people. (I’ll admit some of the issues and specific cases related to this last point are more tricky and debatable than others.)

They seek to bar trans people from using the bathroom that marches their gender identity – which can endanger trans individuals and is a source of anxiety and shame. They spread statistically and scientifically misleading propaganda about LGBTQ people being sexual predators (or predators posing as such). They’ve done this for years.

Some on the fringes insist LGBTQ people ought to be castrated, imprisoned, or executed; something that was not so fringe until just recently (or even today in other countries like Uganda where Evangelicals have actively campaigned for such measures).

And to add insult to injury, they say they do all of these things because they love gay people. They’re just trying to save them from themselves. But as I’ve said, their only basis for saying this is their idolatry to a fallible human book.

Science and experience are unambiguous about what loving LGBTQ people as embodied creatures means. It means welcoming them, listening to them, celebrating them and their families, and standing up for their rights. Evangelical opposition to these things can only be called “love” if love is divorced from embodied flourishing – a sort of Gnosticism.

I have seen the Spirit working in powerful ways in my gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans brothers and sisters. Many of them are quite evidently bearing the fruit of the Spirit. I can see the wholesomeness and goodness that comes from their partnerships and how they flourish in communities that treat them with respect.

Really this isn’t that difficult. And unlike other minority issues, granting LCBTQ rights doesn’t cost anything (outside of shedding an untenably ideology, which I realize can be painful). Evangelical hatred and willingness to sacrifice their LGBTQ sons and daughters to the idol of inerrancy is scandalous. It destroys lives and brings ill repute to the gospel.

And they voted for Trump precisely because of his promises to enact policies that would make life harder for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans individuals and families.

Based on idolatry to inerrancy, Evangelicals also often treat women in dehumanizing and unloving ways. In varying degrees, many of them accept the patriarchal norms of the Bible as God’s unalterable will.

I believe there is a minority thread within the Bible (particularly the New Testament) that is more egalitarian. Both men and women are said to be created in God’s image (Genesis  1:27). In places, women are celebrated as prophets, leaders, apostles, teachers, or deacons (Judges 4; 2 Kings 22:14; Romans 16:7; Acts 18:24; etc.). Jesus treated women with respect and let them learn and follow him alongside his male disciples (Luke 8:1-3; 10:38-42). This was radical for those times. Arguably Paul’s language of mutual submission and his command for husbands to love their wives (Ephesians 5:21-31 Colossians 3:18-19) in his version of the household codes  was meant to gently subvert Greco-Roman patriarchal norms.

Even just the logic of the New Testament’s pervasive love ethic would seem to imply egalitarianism when combined with what we know about history, sociology, and what women tell us about themselves.

But despite this minority thread, the Bible is predominately patriarchal. It teaches in many places that women are worth less than men and are essentially “owned” and controlled by them (see Coogan).

For example, fathers could sell their daughters as slaves ( Exodus 21:7) and were the ones to arrange their marriages . A woman’s vow could be nullified by her father or husband (Numbers 30:3-16). In the ten commandments, women are listed among other possessions men are told to not covet (Exodus 20:17). If a raped woman was not yet “given” to another man, her father might choose to give her to her rapist as a wife, provided they never divorced (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Captive virgins could be forced to become wives (Numbers 31:15-18).

While the New Testament generally tries to soften and even arguably subvert this kind of patriarchal teaching, it doesn’t do away with it. It gives more explicit “proof texts” to Christians who take a hierarchical view of gender roles than ones who take an egalitarian one. Hierarchical views of women have been the norm throughout church history and they are the predominate ones today among conservative Christians.

For example, the authors of Ephesians and Colossians command wives to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18). The author of 2 Timothy prohibits women from teaching men and says they must learn from their husbands (2:11-13). He also implies that the reason for this is that women – like Eve – are more gullible; but that they will be saved if they maintain a traditional docile role epitomized by bearing children (2:14-15). The author of 1 Peter says that wives must submit to their husbands and consider them masters even if they are treating them “harshly” (1 Peter 3:1-6 cf 2:18-25)

Between this and Jesus’ prohibition on divorce, many abused women have been pressured to simply “grin and bear it.” Other texts that encourage reconciliation and forgiveness have been used to pressure victims of all stripes (women, children, etc.) to get back together with their abusers after a simple “I’m sorry.” Religious abusers manipulate this masterfully.

And since women are excluded from leadership, men have the inside track in credibility and in setting the agenda of what issues are on the front burner. It’s no coincidence, for example, that spousal abuse and marital rape were not taken seriously until the second wave feminist revolution of the 60s and 70s, with women gaining more representation for the issues that concerned them.

I could spend a lot of time detailing how much damage these kinds of teachings have done: to women I know, to policies and social norms, in other societies with analogous views (such as traditional Islamic ones). This patriarchal mindset that sees women as objects to be possessed and controlled plays into rape culture, a paternalistic view of women as less intelligent or more fragile, and it plays into male entitlement in men’s dealings with women. It is straight up evil. It is NOT God’s eternal, perfect will. But many of the Biblical authors seemed to think it was. We have to be honest about that.

In contrast, many of the women in my life are strong leaders and gifted co-workers. Relationships I’ve seen characterized by mutual respect and egalitarian decision making seem more healthy and loving.

In voting for Trump, many Evangelicals downplayed the harm his words and actions have caused women. They again indicated how little they value women and how opposed or indifferent they are to many policies which are important to women.

On these things Evangelicals are often wrong, but at least they are consistent. On so many other things, they are not even willing to follow the Bible. Like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, they emphasize purity culture and blind obedience but neglect more important matters of justice, mercy, and love.

For example, the Bible says in multiple places that God’s people are to care for the “stranger” or “alien” in their midst (Deuteronomy 10:19; Psalm 146:9; Matthew 25:35; Hebrews 13:2; etc.). This isn’t just supposed to be a personal impulse; many texts indicate that it is a matter of (political) justice (Exodus 12:49;  23:9; Leviticus 19:33-34; 22:21; 23:9; 24:22; 25:35 Deuteronomy 10:17-19; 24:19-21; 26:12; Jeremiah 7:5-7; 22:3; Ezekiel 22:4, 7; 47:22-23 Malachi 3:5; Zechariah 7:10; etc.).

The actual sin of Sodom (not the made up one of “being gay”) was greed and inhospitality toward strangers and the poor (Genesis 19; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Isaiah 1:10-17; Matthew 10:14; Hebrews 13:2). And honestly, this is as simple as following the Bible’s pervasive love ethic.

Yet many Evangelicals support policies and a candidate who threatens the lives of refugees and immigrants and often treats foreigners as less than.

In the same vein, one of the Bible’s most dominate themes is care for widows, orphans, poor people, and the vulnerable. This is mentioned repeatedly in the Mosaic law (Exodus 22:21-24; 23:6; Deuteronomy 10:17-19; 15:13-15; 24:19-21; 26:12; etc.).

Failure to insure such justice is one of the prophets’ major indictments on Israel that led to her judgment (Psalm 10:14, 17-18; 146:1, 5-9; Proverbs 14:31; 19:17;  Isaiah 1:10-17; 3:14-25; 10:1-3; 58:3-7; Jeremiah 5:26-29; 7:5-7; 22:3, 13-19; Ezekiel 22:4, 7; 16:49-50; Amos 2:7; 5:10-15, 21-24; 6:1-7; Micah 2:2; Zechariah 7:10 Malachi 3:5; etc.).

Such care is central to Jesus’ gospel (Luke 1:52-53; 3:10-14; 4:18-19; 6:20-26, 33-36; 7:22-23; 10:25-37; 11:39-42; 12:16-34; 14:12-14; 16:19-31; 18:18-30; 19:8-9; Mark 12:28-31, 40; Matthew 6:1-4, 19-24; 10:7-8; 15:32; 18:21-35; 25:35-40; etc.).

And it was distinctively characteristic of the early church (John 13:29; Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-37; 5:1-11; 6:1-7; Galatians 2:10; Romans 15:22-28;   1 Corinthians 11:20-22; 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Colossians 3:5; 1 Timothy 3:3; 6:8-10, 17-19; Hebrews 13:5; James 2:1-17 ; 5:1-5 1 John 2:15-17; 3:16-18; etc.).

Much like with foreigners, many of these texts imply that this care was not just charity, but was a matter of justice. This is implicit or explicit in most of the texts surveyed. But specific examples include the following: Farmers were commanded to leave the edges of their fields unharvested so the poor could eat (Deuteronomy 24:19-21). Usury was condemned so the rich could not prey on the vulnerable (Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19-20; Leviticus 25:35-38). After seven years, debts were to be cancelled and slaves set free, and after fifty years land was to revert back to its original owner (Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15).

Yet, based on their misuse of a handful of texts (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15), many Evangelicals see a special concern for the vulnerable and extra economic measures to ensure their well-being as negotiable or even as harmful “enabling.” They tend to support typical Republican policies that subsidize big business and the rich, cut funding for social safety nets for the poor, oppose health care for everyone, and glorify unbridled capitalism. Knowingly or unknowingly, they support economic exploitation of people here in the US and in other countries. They seem unconcerned about increased income inequality. Though they claim to be pro-life, they often oppose measures to help the poor that actually mitigate the reasons poor women often feel compelled to have abortions.

And now they have voted for a man who literally brags about his greed. In voting for Trump, they are supporting our increased move toward oligarchy and unfettered exploitation of the poor and marginalized.

Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9). He told us to love our enemies and pray for them, forgive those who persecute us, and turn the other cheek  (Matthew 5:38-48; 6:14-15; 18:21-35; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:27-36; John 20:23; etc.). He condemned violence and retribution, instead calling us to leave vengeance in God’s hands. He demonstrated such radical enemy-love and forgiveness in his own example (Luke 22:49-51; 23:34) – an example the New Testament repeatedly call us to imitate (Philippians 2:4-11; 2 Corinthians 8:9; 1 Peter 2:21-25; 1 John 3:16; etc.).

Love saturates the New Testament’s moral vision. It is the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40), the “royal law” (James 2:8), the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14), and the most enduring virtue (1 Corinthians 13). The early church up until Constantine took this mandate of love and forgiveness seriously (Romans 12:9-21; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13; 1 Peter 3:9; etc. see Sider). The Bible’s ideal vision for God’s coming kingdom – a kingdom breaking into the world through Christ – is a pacific one, where swords are beaten into plow sheds (Isaiah 2:4).

While admittedly such values can never be fully transferred to a this-worldly government, it does seem that a preference for peace, magnanimity, fairness, and restraint with others (where possible) would be closer to the kingdom ideal. It seems like preventative and restorative measures would be more in keeping with this spirt then purely punitive ones (though obviously the latter are necessary sometimes).

But Evangelicals voted for a bully of a man who glories in brutality: wanting to bring back torture, “pound the hell” out of ISIS, kill innocent people, punch protesters and others he disagrees with, beef up our already bloated military even more, and exploit other countries under the threat of force. He is apparently unwilling to address systemic violence and racism in our law enforcement. In his view, more people need guns, not less. He and Evangelicals tend to favor the most harsh punishments, including bringing back the death penalty.

The Bible is clear that lying is wrong and truth is paramount (Leviticus 19:11; Colossians 3:9; etc.). Just logically, truth and trustworthiness are of bedrock importance in a leader.

But Evangelicals trusted and voted for one of the most dishonest persons to ever run for office. Their tendency to anti-intellectualism and  gullible faith apparently made them easy targets. As Valarie Tarico says, they have become a people of exploiters and exploited.

Relatedly, the Bible is clear that we should not gossip or slander others (Exodus 20:16; 23:1; Psalm 101:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Romans 1:29; James 4:11; etc.). Common norms of decency and honesty also suggest this.

And yet Evangelicals lapped up the GOP’s slander of Obama, Clinton, and others. To be clear, there are legitimate areas to critique these figures; genuine faults and mistakes. But so much of the angry fervor that was whipped up was baseless (e.g. Obama being a Muslim and not really American, Benghazi, democrats wanting to take your guns, the election being rigged, Jade Helm being a secret plot to take over Texas, etc.).

The Bible and particularly the New Testament exalt humility, servanthood, and sacrifice in a leader (Luke 14:7-14; 22:25-30; Philippians 2:1-11; etc.). But Evangelicals have voted for a man that epitomizes arrogant boastfulness and who is transparently egotistical and self-serving.

Jesus’ teaching about neighbor love ideally universalizes the sphere of people we are supposed to care for (Luke 10:25-37). The teachings of the other great religions and even humanist ethics  have also tended toward expanding the circle of concern. Even so-called “identity politics” aims to do so. For example, feminists at their best aren’t against men or wanting to have a leg up on them; they just want equal rights and an equitable standing to them.

In a globalized and interconnected world that faces challenges such as climate change that will depend on us coming together, things like equality and mutuality are more important than ever.

Yet, in the face of this Evangelicals voted for a man who seeks an “America first” approach. And specifically, a white America, a “Christian” America, a rich, male, and non-disabled America. To the degradation of everyone else. Conservative Evangelicals often seem to buy into a rugged individualism that is neither true to reality nor to spiritual (Trinitarian) values of interconnectedness and loving care for one another.

The Bible’s teachings on love, compassion, and human equality as well as common decency indicate that racism is wrong.

Yet, Evangelicals have a troubling history of either actively supporting racism or not taking it very seriously. Many European Christians appealed to the “doctrine of discovery” and a sense of “manifest destiny” to justify stealing native peoples’ lands and  enslaving or killing them. Evangelical Protestants campaigned to bring slavery to the colonies. Since the Bible has more “proof texts” to support slavery and nothing that directly condemns it, conservative “Bible believing” Christians were among the fiercest defenders of the institution. They saw abolitionism as a liberal assault on the authority of God’s Word.

After the modernist controversy that birthed the Fundamentalist movement, conservatives tended to be suspicious of social justice movements in general. White Evangelicals were among the most resistant to the civil rights movement and this resistance played an integral role in the rise of the Religious Right. Since then they have made greater strides towards racial equality. But for a number of reasons including still segregated churches, unacknowledged privilege, and antipathy to social science and social justice, they are often less than fully engaged allies for racial equity.

But many Evangelicals rewrite this history to lesson their guilt and not have to face America’s “original sin” of racism and white supremacy. They wax eloquent about our “glorious” Christian past. They pretend like they were reformers when they were most often the lethargic or the actual oppressors. The pretend like racism no longer infects us. Or they at least downplay the (structural) complexity of it or the misery it inflicts, from Standing Rock to Ferguson. And now they have voted for the candidate endorsed by the KKK who ran on a barely concealed platform of white nationalism.

They claim they care about religious freedom, but vote for a man that has vowed to strip the rights from people who don’t think like they do. In reality, many only care about their Christian privilege, and for some, a literal Christian theocracy.

They say they care about the Constitution but voted for a man who threatens freedom of religion, free speech and the press, an impartial judiciarate, due process, and who evinces totalitarian impulses.

They say the want to “Focus on the Family” and are the party of “family values.” But what they really mean is white heterosexual middle-class families. They certainly don’t care about gay families. They seek to undermine their rights and family structures at every turn. They don’t care about minority families. They seek to see immigrant families torn apart by deportations. They support the devastation that the “war on drugs” and mass incarceration has caused to black families. They seek to cut off social safety net support for poor families. Until recently, they were disdainful of divorced or single-parent families.

They say they are pro-life, but in terms of policy are often pro-guns, pro-war, pro death penalty, anti police reform or accountability, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, anti-minority, climate change deniers, anti-gay, against preventative community health measures, and so on.

They say when it suits them that “character counts,” but then elect a vulgar man who is a liar, an adulterer, a bully, a thief, a peeper and genital grabber, perhaps a rapist, a bigot, an arrogant and greedy person, an owner of strip clubs and casinos, a man who glories in power and celebrates violence.

Many people thought it ironic that when Jerry Falwell Jr. and his wife posed next to Trump for a photo, a prominent framed picture can be seen next to them of Trump with a playboy model. The hypocritical contrast to past Evangelical posturings was palpable. The world took notice.

As Robert P Jones notes,

In 2011, consistent with the “values voter” brand and the traditional evangelical emphasis on the importance of personal character, only 30 percent of white evangelical Protestants agreed with this statement [that a political leader who committed an immoral act in his or her private life could nonetheless behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public life]. But with Trump at the top of the Republican ticket in 2016, 72 percent of white evangelicals said they believed a candidate could build a kind of moral dyke between his private and public life. In a head-spinning reversal, white evangelicals went from being the least likely to the most likely group to agree that a candidate’s personal immorality has no bearing on his performance in public office (emphasis mine).

Blogger Rachel Held Evans recently tweeted, “The culture that warned me against moral relativism is now the hardest to convince that character, truth, and compassion matter.” I agree.

At the root of so many of these problems is that too many Evangelicals hold to a theology that emphasizes power over love. I have written on that here.

While this post may seem harsh, I have elsewhere been more gentle in calling Evangelicals to live up to their own tradition’s high principles.

And whether through gentle exhortation or more searing prophetic critique, I will continue to stand up for the truth and call my Evangelical kin to repent of their practical apostasy from the way of Jesus.

Why I Changed My Mind About Gay Relationships

(There’s a lot more I could say, but this old response I gave to a friend covers a lot of the main points.)

Ok, now to some of the places we are likely to disagree. Sara is right to ask about your view of the Bible and why you see it in that way. To my mind, a lot of this gets down to how we know what is real and how we discern what God’s will is.

I’ll let you elaborate and defend your view of that. But let me here explain mine. Christians have historically viewed the Bible as an authority. But they have approached it in different ways and they have always recognized other ways God reveals truth as well. For example, God also reveals truth through science, experience, reason, tradition, and the fresh leading of the Holy Spirit. Further, we recognize that the Bible and redemptive history are not “flat.” Instead, the person and message of Jesus are at the center. He is our salvation and the key to how we approach the rest.

I believe empirical experience is fundamental to human knowledge. By this I mean what we sense through our five senses as well as our moral and spiritual sense (holistic empiricism). Even knowledge of God and the Bible depend on experience of this sort being generally trustworthy. Where we have strong empirical evidence or experience of something, that truth is presumptive. This is even more so when it involves broadly shared patterns of experience or is strongly evidenced by rigorous scientific study. In general, even Christians would say that one’s assumptions about reality have to change if they don’t fit the evidence. We should not twist what we discover in the world through science and strong empirical experience to fit our assumptions about how it must be; instead our assumptions should be amended where necessary to fit with the reality we discover.

This should be transparently obvious. In any other context you’d agree. For example, do you think it would be reasonable for a Mormon or a holocaust denier to refuse to consider the evidence against their assumed bodies of truth and simply twist that evidence to suit their preconceived opinions? You wouldn’t accept that. How is it somehow noble for Christians to resort to the same strategy? Especially when we know that God reveals truth in creation and in our study of the world. The Bible itself teaches that.

Christians have historically believed that God reveals himself in both the Bible and in nature. What happens when what we see in the Bible seems to contradict what we learn about nature through empirical experience? We should go back and examine our interpretation of both. We could be wrong in either case; be that due to sin or human error. What happens if after we have done that there still seems to be an irreducible contradiction between the two? In that case it seems obvious to me that we should side with the well evidenced findings of science and strong empirical experience.

The Bible is first and foremost a collection of human documents. Whether God was involved in its production and the degree to which he was involved in that have to fit with what learn about both the world and the Bible itself through our careful study. (Ascertaining what the Biblical authors meant is itself an inductive/empirical enterprise.) It is my study of both of these that has led me to a different view of inspiration. In context, the Bible contains scientific and historical errors, failed prophesy, internal contradictions, and even (in places) immoral teachings. If you want some examples, I’d be happy to point them out.

Now obviously God cannot lie. This is not me maligning his character. My whole point is that for those who believe that God speaks through Scripture (as I myself do), we have to acknowledge that he accommodated some human error in inspiring broader principles and trajectories in Scripture. How do we sort the one from the other? We read the Bible through the lens of God revealed in Jesus and we do it in interaction with other Christians, in light of our considered experience, and through the prayerful leading of the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the early church took a similar approach to Scripture. For example, although there was intense debate among early Christians, eventually they felt free to reject the Old Testament laws because these were fulfilled in Christ. Their approach to Gentile circumcision is very instructive. As Kenton Sparks notes, “Circumcision is a central rite in the Hebrew canon, and the text explicitly describes it as an ‘eternal covenant’ (Gen. 17:13) to be observed by Jews, and most importantly, by any foreigners who wished to join Judaism (Gen. 17:27; Exod. 12:48).” And yet, based on the concrete evidence of the Spirit’s work before them, they felt free to reject this Biblical requirement. “The weaker position from Scripture, supported by the Spirit, bested the stronger position opposed by the Spirit.”

This and many other examples I could give shows that they were much more interested in God’s broader message revealed within Scripture; discerned according to their understanding of its higher principles of love, Christ’s message and work, God’s in-breaking kingdom, and their experience of the Spirit; then with slavish agreement with the original authors’ every meaning.

I want to say something more about the ethic of love because that is relevant. Jesus said that loving God and loving our neighbor fulfilled the whole of the law (Matt. 22:35-40). He felt free to heighten laws or negate them based on his perception of God’s in-breaking kingdom and based on how they fit with our call to love God and other humans. The early church also felt that freedom. I find it fascinating that Paul says basically the same thing as Jesus. In Galatians he says that we are no longer under the supervision of the law now that Christ has come (3:23-25); but that we are not to use our freedom to sin but rather to love one another, “for the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this command: Love your neighbor as yourself.” Likewise, in Romans 13:8-10 Paul says that the spirit of EVERY SINGLE commandment is fulfilled in loving our neighbor as ourselves!

Of course, it is AGAPE love that is in view; not some sentimental or self-serving type of love. We receive further instruction into what loving God and others means elsewhere in the teachings of Jesus and in Scripture. But seeing love as the central principle and seeing Jesus and the apostles feeling free to rework the Old Testament in light of the God’s in-breaking kingdom, in light of Christ, in light of the Spirit’s fresh leading, and in light of love gives progressive Christians warrant and guidance in doing the same thing with things like committed gay couples or full equality for women.

Whether a thought, word, or deed fits with agape love is the determiner of whether it is God-honoring or sinful. When we think of sins such as lying, stealing, adultery, gossip, etc.; it’s not that hard to see how they violate the spirit of love. But the same is not the case for loving gay relationships. These do not obviously violate agape love. On the contrary, in many cases they seem to be a noble expression of it.

We learn through science as well as clear empirical experience that in *most* cases one’s sexual orientation—that is, who we are attracted to—is not chosen and cannot be changed. I say “most” because some claim to have changed that. In many cases this appears dubious and numerous LGBTQ people have tried everything to change with no success. The American Psychological Association cautions that trying to get people to change their orientation is unlikely to be successful and can cause a great deal of harm. You might prefer to word this differently, but you seem to grant the premise. This means, for example, that gay men are only attracted to other men and can no more be attracted to women than straight men can be attracted to other men.

Then we observe that most LGBTQ people, just like most straight people, want to fall in love and experience the intimacy, dependability, and other benefits that come from being in a committed relationship with another.

We can see that those who try to suppress this desire and/or their orientation often face severe loneliness, self-loathing, mental health issues, and elevated suicide rates. This is prima-facie not good. The Bible itself testifies to the existential truth that it is not good to be alone (Gen. 2:18). Both Jesus and Paul say or imply that celibacy should not be mandatory (1 Corinthians 7:9; Matthew 19:11-12).

On the other hand, we can see that when they find that special someone, they experience love and joy and happiness; someone to depend on; someone that grows them and brings them outside themselves; really almost all the virtues that we associate with genuinely loving straight relationships. This seems prima-facie good. I have gay friends that have some of the most loving, and beautiful relationships I know. I can SEE the good they bring out in each other.

Of course, not all of these relationships are this healthy; just like not all straight relationships are healthy. Both have the same capacity for good or evil.

I say “almost all” of the same virtues because obviously gay people cannot reproduce in the same way that heterosexual couples can. But they can adopt and medical technology has expanded their options here. Studies suggest that children raised in intact gay families are just as healthy as children raised in intact heterosexual families.

And both experience and Scripture suggest that reproduction is not the only legitimate function of sex or romantic relationships. There is no principled way to say that sex has to be connected with reproduction without also stigmatizing heterosexual couples who themselves cannot reproduce.

Implicit with what was said before, we observe that gay relationships between consenting adults do not obviously harm anyone. Promiscuity, whatever one’s orientation, can be harmful. I’m not necessarily speaking to that. But gay people are not just going around having “gay sex.” This is about the full range of sexual and romantic expression.

Finally, we see our LGBTQ brothers and sisters in Christ loving Jesus and bearing the fruit of the Spirit (which Jesus himself said only a good tree could bear (Matthew 7:16)).

To me, this seems like a very strong argument not just for the moral permissibility of gay relationships, but for their capacity for positive moral good. It is based in science and careful empirical observation and reflection. It results from paying loving attention to our neighbors and their experiences.

Opponents of gay relationships want to cite a handful of texts against that. What these texts are actually saying is debatable (see below). But to me, even IF they meant what conservatives say, science and experience should trump traditional interpretations of, what we know from other cases, is an all too human book. Further, loving gay relationships fit the gospel and Scripture’s dominant themes very well.

I know you likely won’t agree with this view of knowledge or the Bible, but please prayerfully consider it. I am fully convinced that it or something like it is true.

Know also that there are many who take a more conservative view of the Bible and simply interpret those 6-7 texts that have been used against gay people differently. I’m not sure I’m fully convinced (especially on Romans 1). I come to an affirming stance in the different way that I have described above. But they have some pretty powerful arguments. See, for example, Matthew Vines presentation here or Justin Lee’s here .

If I could recommend only one resource for you to check out, I would say read Justin Lee’s book “Torn.” It’s very accessible to conservatives. Lee has a gracious manner. Even if you end up disagreeing with him, it is eye-opening in showing just how hostile the church has been to LGBTQ people—even those who accept traditional interpretations and have chosen celibacy. We as a church have a lot to answer for!