Two weeks had passed in our exploration of the content, and I was waking up to work on sermon research for week-three when I reached for my phone and found that it had exploded with notifications from every single platform on which I am present. As a bi-vocational writer and pastor, I quickly learned that a Christian influencer with a pretty large online following had gotten wind that my next children’s book, releasing in August of this year, features a nonbinary character. Overnight, she’d rallied an angry mob of digital advocates to flood my email and DMs with vile accusations and to get my books removed from Christianbook.com, which they did. 

I spent most of the day licking my wounds, cleaning up my comment sections of language that could be hurtful to people I love, locking down my privacy settings, and making blackout poetry out of hate mail. In a timely or untimely moment for sermon writing, the truth of that morning was that I didn’t really all that much want to stay Christian following the vitriol. If this is what it’s come to, I thought, if this is who it excludes, if few things feel more hateful than Christian love, what are we even doing?

One of my agnostic best friends texted me that morning to say, “Hello, abomination, how are you doing? I don’t think the company of these folks’ anger in heaven is the selling point they think it is.” 

“Yeah,” I responded, “There may be a marketing problem.”

Dark humor aside, the reality was that I felt a little bit done that day, or at the very least, I felt more than able to understand those who are done. But, as can be said indefinitely in the journey of God’s people, the story wasn’t quite over. 

At some point in the afternoon, I was sent a direct message by celebrated, queer, Christian children’s book writer Matthew Paul Turner. Turner’s work has also built a significant following, but one that is made up of all the beautiful souls who have been pushed into the margins of faith—the artists, the prophets, and the misfits. And the message said, “How can I help?” 

Maybe you’ve read Jeff Chu’s introduction to the capstone work of Rachel Held Evans, Wholehearted Faith, which he came alongside to finish after her untimely death in 2019. If so, you know that how can I help were generous, grace-fueled, go-to words of Rachel’s for fellow writers (especially those working in the honest and inclusive places). I was taken aback with resurrective gratitude when I read them, feeling certain that Matthew—who also came alongside some of Rachel’s unfinished work in the form of children’s literature—was carrying on more of her legacy than book-buyers will ever see. 

“I’m up for ideas,” I responded, “your company is a deep breath of fresh air.” 

With no further commissioning, he proceeded to spend the next little bit rallying together so much love and support from countless people and places all over who have dared to ask the gatekeepers, “Who says?”

Who says that this is what the Bible means? Who says that this is who gets to be a conduit of the Holy Spirit, and this is who doesn’t? Who says that the ways in which we are desperate for Jesus to break out of stained glass and walk with us into one of the most vibrant, risky, wonderful, adventurous, connected, equitable, inclusive, full and free existences we can imagine isn’t the way that it’s supposed to be? Who says they get to have the monopoly on a caged Christ that we’ve been given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to free for the sake of the world? Who says? Who gets to say?

The outpouring of care from curious, creative, resilient people was more than a balm; it was merciful fuel. I cried that night in gratitude, not because I felt less alone or validated—which, to be sure, I did—but because I had been given a fresh glimpse into a redemptive reminder that if all of those people who had come into the conversation that afternoon had already left Christianity because of the people who had started the conversation that morning, then there would be no one left. No light remaining to speak on behalf of God’s totally radical, nondiscriminatory love. No voice to say, “If you want to stick around a little longer, I’ll be here, too.” 

Therefore, maybe, just maybe, I could be willing to not cut ties desperately. Maybe I could hang in there, free Jesus a little more, and look for the people to whom I can also ask how can I help, that they may know the light hasn’t totally left either. In fact, maybe the light is just spreading and growing in all the places that the loudest voices aren’t looking. Maybe we’ll look up one day and see that because we dared to approach all of this with such curiosity, creativity, and resilience, the light will have taken over after all. 

“Do I stay Christian?” McLaren asks what so many of us have asked over the years. Maybe, no. The very valid and heartbreaking reasons that people aren’t are worth looking in the face, lamenting over, and repenting from: violent crusader DNA, corrupted institutionalism, manipulative money worship, the hierarchy of the old boys’ club, and toxic theology that further oppresses the marginalized, to name a few.

Or maybe, yes, McLaren posits, because we are free to adapt and experiment in theology; we can lose that which was dogma as our ceiling but gain it as our floor, which can become our foundation, soil, and launchpad; we can speak and write about God in fresh ways, building upon the past rather than being boxed in by it; we can uncage God from at least some of the roles and expectations we have constructed. Maybe yes, because we have been given an invitation to remember that we need each other as allies, that Christianity is relatively young for abandoning, that there are always third ways to consider, that nothing is truly disposable but all is redeemable, that the church in the margins is growing and we are being welcomed in to stand in solidarity with it rather than following our addiction to innocence out of the messiness. 

But maybe, the answer is simply maybe, for now. And to that, I would say, lean in. Maybe is worth your time, too. Maybe your stir-crazy feelings within the faith aren’t signs of a defect but the song of who you were created to be. Maybe you get to say says who when someone tries to tell you where your lines and Jesus’ lie. Maybe you are being invited by the Holy Spirit to rethink what it means for us to exist intentionally, collaboratively, and reverently in this changing world and church. Maybe, just maybe, as McLaren encourages, you are being drawn in to ask the previously un-askable questions, make previously forbidden confessions, imagine previously impossible possibilities, and form previously un-formable communities as we become the most just, kind, and humble versions of ourselves that we possibly can by way of grace, day by day, practicing a faith that expresses itself in love. 

Last week, on behalf of our congregation, I traveled further south to join statewide clergy and lay delegates in the voting to dismiss the now 130+ formerly-United Methodist Louisiana congregations into disaffiliation, largely over the issue of human sexuality. It was not easy to raise a “for” card to approve the process, though anyone who has read the story of Solomon and the warred-over-baby knows what will die if we keep pulling. Still, the journey was and is painful for so many, surely most profoundly our queer clergy and congregants who were first formed in God’s love in these now-leaving spaces. Chasing the grief, there’s an anxiety about what this now means for United Methodists the conference and world over. 

But here’s something I shared with my peers throughout this process that I’d like to share with you now, especially as we enter Pride Month recognizing the wounds that the church has caused to so many of God’s beloveds—especially holding in spirit those who are asking if all of this is worth anymore time and heartbreak. May it serve as a blessing in the spaces you need such a blessing.

Smaller ships turn faster. Death is just the beginning. Scarcity is a distraction. Abundance is absolute. Shalom is our inheritance. The arc is justice-pointed. In tension is creativity. In desperation lies a new paradigm. Out of labor comes new life. More has been done with less. The next right thing is enough. All that we need is here. Look around to see who is beside you. Ask how it is you may help.

Something new is stirring. Something new is waiting. Something new is gestating. And God needs not for us to wear ourselves thin bailing water from sinking boats all because we do not trust ourselves as swimmers. Let sodden boards warp, and we may find ourselves walking atop waves with Jesus.

The truest truth is that God’s kingdom is not in trouble. The truest truth is that our calling has not changed. The truest truth is that we are a part of living history. The truest truth is that in the economy of the Spirit, where the last are first, the poor are rich, the least are greatest, and the weak are strong, we are in good company here in the floodlands, planting seeds.

Something will take. Something will grow. Something is taking! Something is growing! Watch closely, for when the dust settles, we’ll learn that the work didn’t stop. We’ll learn that we didn’t stop! We’ll see that something was on the other side of all that broke down in the compost pile. We’ll take the mess and mire and reconsecrate it as nutrients for the harvest.

Up around the corner? The truest truth awaits.

Keep going.

Seats shift.

Arms cross.

Eyes look down. 

A few make nervous jokes.

Some voices are affirming. Others are not.

“Weird.” 

“I don’t get it.”

“Not natural.” 

“Love the sinner; hate the sin.” 

This last one is perhaps the most dangerous. It allows one to accuse another of sin while at the same time telling one’s self and others they are being loving. The youth pastor attempts to provide a sincere explanation that “their” same sex attraction is no different than “our” desire for other sexual sin. 

Meanwhile the kid’s eyes search for the closest exit, having now inferred that they aren’t included in God’s kingdom. 

This kid has no agenda. They have no part in the Christian culture wars of the last few decades. They are not trying to stir the pot or rebel. Most of these students are not even sexually active. This is not an “out of control lust.” They just know they have an attraction for whom they have an attraction. They’re figuring out who they are. 

Their attraction and identity is hugely complicated, and multiple studies have confirmed that it’s not a “lifestyle” or “choice” any more than heterosexuality is a lifestyle. 

What room is there for the gay kid?

I posed this question to a youth pastor last year. We were discussing the very practical issue of LGBTQ+ kids that attend youth groups at church. How do we welcome them? How do we love them? Though we didn’t completely agree, it was a respectful and needed conversation. It’s a complicated issue and very sensitive for many. In past decades, most kids who would identify as LGBTQ+ would stay in the closet at least until they left for college. Nowadays, coming out is happening earlier and earlier. For some, there is no closet.

This reality is not going anywhere, and the modern evangelical church is not handling it well.

Many church leaders have the conviction that the Bible teaches that all homosexual acts are sinful, even in marriage. Their resulting policies are varied. Some are transparent about their objection in an attempt to abate the “rising threat of sexual impurity” among believers and in our culture. 

Most are more passive, hoping the subject doesn’t come up and that gay believers stay quiet, asexual, or perhaps don’t show up to church at all. Thankfully, it is now widely acknowledged that efforts to change sexual orientation through “therapy” or “praying the gay away” is destructive. The now infamous Exodus International organization whose president, Alan Chambers renounced the efforts to convert homosexuals, now sees these efforts as fruitless and even harmful. Studies show that lesbian, gay, and bisexual teens are twice as likely to have attempted suicide than their heterosexual peers.

Some faith leaders want to minister to gay believers and help them find peace with their sexuality and God through celibacy. Although some LGBTQ+ people have the conviction to practice celibacy (just as some straight-identifying people do), that conviction is far from a mandate that all LGBTQ+ people must be celibate. Some pastors are hesitant to reveal this view, because it drives away members that don’t share this conviction. Again, many pastors believe that the LGBQT identity doesn’t exist or is something to be put away; many believe it’s simply a sexual predilection that’s part of their “brokenness.”

READ: Good Fruit and Where We’ve Gotten it Wrong

Let’s widen the question a bit.

A gay man has been coming to church for years, keeping his personal life quiet and hidden from the rest of the congregation, fearing rejection. Some ask him, “When are you going to get married?”

A transgender man visits church just once. Few talk to him. He receives the unspoken message from the church: “We don’t know what to do with you. Please leave.”

A lesbian woman has embraced her sexuality and has the conviction to stay celibate. The few with whom she has shared this never bring the subject up again. She struggles daily, and seeks others with whom she can share this struggle. She doesn’t feel there’s a place in the church for her.

For all of these individuals, they are keenly aware that who they are is objected to, at least by some in the church. And so, they drift from the faith community and perhaps from God. 

This is not the case of all churches, but a majority of mainstream, evangelical churches are in denial about this reality.

I am a child of God, a follower of Jesus. This is my most important identity. My LGBTQ Christian neighbors are fellow children of God and siblings in Christ. This is where our unity lies.

But I’m also a white, heterosexual man. When I became a believer, I didn’t stop being a white, hetero man. I just prioritized those identities in light of my identity in Christ. Even though I became a new creation, I didn’t ignore other aspects of who I am. I submitted them to my identity in Christ. My sexuality shouldn’t rule me, but our sexuality is a part of who we are. It’s not the center of my identity, but it’s definitely a part of it. 

Ironically, the church is over-focused on sexuality as much as the LGBTQ community has been accused of over-focusing on sexuality. Sexuality is a secondary issue compared to the central issues — the persons of God and the means of salvation. By secondary, I don’t mean unimportant. Many churches have made the LGBTQ conversation a litmus test for being a believer. In effect, they have unwittingly added to the gospel and have placed a burden on believers that God did not create.

But there is hope.

What if we, wherever we land in this discussion, embraced each other as Jesus modeled for us? What would it look like if we focused on the person and work of Christ — his life, death, and resurrection — versus seeking who should be left out of God’s kingdom? What if we loved each other as Christ commanded? What if we didn’t cut off relationships from those that disagree, and rather talked about it. Instead of ignoring the topic or creating a hard policy of complementarianism, what if we humbly came to the scripture, acknowledging that different believers have different Biblical convictions. Talk about it from the pulpit, in small groups, and in classes, presenting reasonable, Biblical arguments on both sides. Invite people with opposing views to reasonably discuss the issue, modeling Christ’s love and acceptance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen in today’s climate, but it is something for which to strive. There is power when believers can unite in Christ, in spite of differing on this issue, but not ignoring it.

What if we engaged?

Perhaps 60% of anyone at your church has a close friend or family member that identifies as LGBTQ+. That means you probably know someone in the LGBTQ+ community. At the very least, we need to be careful with our comments, examining our hearts and prejudices. Please know LGBTQ+ people don’t need your correction or judgment. Like all humans, they need your unqualified love. 

There are kids, teens, and adults at your church that are LGBTQ+. They’re wondering if there’s a place for them. And more will be coming. Or maybe they won’t. Not because they aren’t seeking Christ, community, and Biblical truth, but because they’re tired of being rejected. They’re tired of looking for the exit. 

How will we do this better?

DG: Why is relationship and covenant essential to biblical faith and what role do they play in resistance to empire?

WB: It seems to me that the pivot point of the Bible is the covenant at Sinai which is anticipated with the covenant with Abraham. According to the text, the holiness of God makes promises and demands of the human community and that linkage which then comes to fruition in Jesus of Nazareth who is truly God and truly human is what scripture is all about. It is about the mystery that this bonded loyalty between heaven and earth is the truth of our existence. And that bonding at Sinai then becomes the model for “all creatures of our God and king,” human and non-human, to be bonded in tenacious loyalty to each other. And money, power, privilege, entitlement of empire, all mean to interrupt or distort that bonding.

I don’t know whether I’m being very articulate or not…

DG: Ha, yes, very! So Exodus is “the pivot point” when God and God’s people covenant together. What does this covenanting with God have to do with how we relate to others?

WB: When they asked Jesus for a great commandment he said you can’t have just one, you get two so that love of God and love of neighbor are intimately connected.

My favorite text about this is in Jeremiah 22 where the prophet is contrasting the wicked king Jehoiakim with his good father Josiah. He says about the father Josiah, “he cared for the poor and the needy, is this not what it means to know me?” Jeremiah does not say, “If you care for the poor and the needy, you will get to know me.” He does not say, “If you get to know me, you will want to care for the poor and the needy.” It is the act of caring for the poor and the needy that IS knowledge of God. And it seems to me that ties the two great commandments intimately together with each other. And what we try to do is separate those commandments.

So pious people are tempted to want to love God and forget neighbor and secularists sometimes love neighbor but want nothing to do with loving God. And the wonder of evangelical faith is that they cannot be separated. Which I suppose is echoed in the epistle of John — if you do not love the brother, sister, neighbor or immigrant whom you have seen, how can you love God whom you have not seen?

DG: Given that relationships are so vital, I wish evangelicals would welcome their queer and gay and lesbian brothers and sisters because they too need this covenant fidelity, both in marriage and in church.

OG: Do you think there is a particular reason why Christians fixate on homosexuality? I just saw an article that asked, “Is homosexuality really the greatest sin?” And I feel like that’s the way Christians make it out to be.

WB: I have a theory about all this adrenaline about homosexuality and that it is not about homosexuality. It is about the old privileged world coming to an end. And you cannot any longer blame black people. You can’t blame women. You can’t blame any of those who want a part of the pie. So it is still morally safe to put all of this angry adrenaline on gays. But I think it is a misplaced anger that has to do with the loss of the old world. And it feels like high moral ground to take your stand on, that’s what I think.

OG: That makes a lot of sense. I think our generation has more experience with people who identify as LGBTQ.

WB: Your whole generation says, “Well, what’s the problem?” But when I think of how long it took me to get to accepting this new social reality, it’s not surprising. If you have no contact, or at least no awareness of contact… my generation didn’t have that contact because so few people were ‘out.’

DG: So the evangelical anxiety about inclusion and affirmation relates to our struggle with empire and the changes that threaten our privileged place in it. Thanks, Walter!

There’s a kind of unique club in the world called “friends of Tony and Peggy Campolo.” I’m a grateful member of that group. It began when Tony was the first “big name author” to read my first manuscript and send me some encouraging words. While some established authors might see “up and comers” as a threat, Tony saw me as an ally and colleague and his encouragement and support have meant the world to me.

One of the nicest things Tony ever did for me was introduce me to his charming and brilliant wife. Once, when I was still a pastor with some standing in the Evangelical world, Peggy called me. There was an LGBT-friendly church pastored by a gay man in Little Rock, Arkansas, she explained. They wanted to invite me to speak at a conference they were hosting, but didn’t want to put me in an awkward situation by doing so.

They knew that I was clearly sympathetic to the LGBT cause and critical of the typical conservative Evangelical attitude to LGBT people. But they also knew that if I accepted their invitation, I would be labeled as a “friend of sinners” and association with a “gay church” could cost me whatever fragile credibility I had left in the Evangelical community. Peggy wanted to test the waters with me so she could let them know whether or not to make the invitation.

Related: Five Reasons Churches Need to “Come Out” on LGBTQ Rights

I prayed about it and said yes, which led to my meeting Randy Eddy-McCain and the beautiful church he served.

What neither Randy, Peggy, nor I knew was that about four months later, one of my sons would be coming out. When he did, I kept thinking, “Thank God my son didn’t have to worry that his coming out would in any way hurt my work and reputation. Thank God Randy and Peggy invited me and I had the chance to ‘come out’ as a publicly gay-affirming ally … before the issue of sexual orientation became a personal reality in my own family.”

With that backstory in mind, you can see why Randy and Open Door Community Church would mean so much to me. And you can see why I’m so thrilled that he is telling his story in a new book, And God Save Judy Garland: A gay Christian’s journey. But it’s not just that connection that makes me want to be an advocate for this book. It’s also that Randy tells a story that needs to be told, and he tells it honestly, compassionately, courageously, and beautifully.

Sadly, the people who most need to read a book like this too seldom do. And when they do, they often do so (pardon the nerdy Star Trek references) on red alert with their defector shields up and their photon torpedoes fully armed. If you’re one of those readers who feels nervous even listening to the words of an outspoken “gay Christian, ” first, let me congratulate you for your courage in getting this far. And second, let me remind you that Jesus’ message similarly made people nervous. He dared question old certitudes about who was clean and unclean, who was acceptable and unacceptable, who was in and out. That’s why he so often had to say, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear!”

You may be a Christian who is questioning your own sexual orientation and you’re opening this book feeling a different kind of uncertainty mixed with hope. You’re wondering how “coming out” will affect your family relationships, your church relationships, and most important, your relationship with God. All I can say is that I can think of no better pastoral care for you at this moment than what you’ll receive in these pages from Randy.

Also by Brian: Trayvon and George…A Tale of Two Americas

You may already be part of the choir, people who are sympathetic to Randy and the good work he is doing. “Preaching to the choir, ” I’ve learned, isn’t a bad thing. If the choir learns to sing better, more and more people will hear the music.

If that happens, “somewhere over the rainbow” may, like the Kingdom of God, appear a little more among us, here and now, “on earth as it is in heaven.”

I read an article on Huffington Post today about a new survey by a nonpartisan organization called YouGov of self-identified Christians. Asked how they believe Jesus would vote on various hot current topics, here’s a run-down of the results:

1. Jesus would not support gay marriage.
2. Jesus would oppose legal abortion.
3. Jesus would support universal healthcare.
4. Jesus would not support the death penalty for murderers.
5. Jesus would not support stricter gun laws.
6. Jesus would not support high taxes on the wealthy.
7. Jesus would support reducing carbon emissions.

Like me, you probably nodded in affirmation of a couple of these and sighed or rolled your eyes in exasperation at others. Suffice it to say that this Jesus, as described by the opinion poll, at least, doesn’t fit many, if any, of our expectations about what WE think Jesus would value.

Related: Stop Comparing Your Christianity to My Christianity!

It reminds me of the well-known saying about how God created us in God’s image, and ever since then, we’ve gone to great lengths to return that favor. As I talk about at some length in my upcoming book, postChristian: What’s Left? Can We Fix It? Do We Care? We have not only created false constructs of God and Jesus in our minds and in our churches; we’ve come to worship them as if they are the one, true divinity.

And yet, throughout scripture, Jesus is forever throwing ideological curve balls that don’t conform to an us/them, yes/no sort of binary.

That said, there’s evidence in scripture to support whichever position we’ve already taken, and to coerce others into believing that Jesus, as the Bible clearly states, is on our side:

• Libertarians would cite Jesus’ challenges to empire as a clear advocate for reducing the role of government in our lives.
• Progressives would emphasize his vocal and active care for the poor and marginalized as a basis for him voting democrat.
• Conservatives would note his warnings about pure thoughts and his apparent example of chastity when claiming him as a republican.
• Christian anarchists would highlight his refusal to engage systems of government all together to achieve his ministry, and draw a distinction between oppressive systems of democracy and Jesus’ persistent calls away from violence.

We’d all love to claim Jesus for our team, but in doing so, we can safely assume that Jesus actually would wriggle free from such limitations. While it would be comforting to validate ourselves by claiming Jesus as a Baptist, Disciple, Catholic or something else, what we’re effectively trying to do is keep from changing ourselves. We want to rest in the certainty that we’re all right how we already are, with no real need to grow or do things differently.

Also by Christian: Five Reasons Churches Need to Come Out on LGBTQ Rights

But the reality is that if we allowed this Jesus to look deeply into our hearts, to know our motivations, our insecurities, our desires and shortcomings, we know that we have work to do. We democrats, we republicans, we human beings.

Jesus isn’t a free agent to be courted and recruited to our team. That’s not the kind of person worth modeling one’s life after. And yet we preoccupy ourselves with such haggling and partisanship because it serves as a relatively pleasant distraction from the real transformative, reconciling work at hand that is yet to be done.

Dear Evangelical Establishment,

I know you don’t trust or like me and I don’t blame you! Lord knows what a pain in the ass I am! But instead of just writing me off as wicked, for once you’d better listen up. This is for your own good.

In the old days your predecessors didn’t like me because I was faulting you all for not being part of the Religious Right! No kidding. I changed sides. Now you are the right wingers I wanted you to become and then some, and I’m a nasty liberal writing books with unsettling titles like WHY I AM AN ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD: How to give love, create beauty and find peace. Weird, huh?

But here’s the point. And I tell you this for old times sake: You’ve been duped and it’s not by me.

So please read this “open letter” to you to understand what’s been done to you. I’m not your enemy. Your neoconservative “friends” are your enemy. I’m just an annoying writer still throwing mud from time to time but in a different direction these days. Sorry. Maybe I was dropped on my head as a child!

Your real enemies are not progressive Christian/Atheist/Backsliders like me. Your real enemies are some of the influential people who pretend to be your friends. They are your Nemesis.

I’ll bet the board members of Gordon College, Wheaton College and Christianity Today have no idea about the real reasons behind a bad set of choices they were duped into making in order to serve a purely political agenda masquerading as a “religious liberty” issue. They’ve been had.

A day is fast approaching where ordinary evangelicals will be cursing Wheaton College, Gordon College and the other evangelical establishment bastions that demanded the right to discriminate against women and gays as a matter of “religious liberty.”

So many evangelicals live in bubbles that they have no idea how the real world functions. They are going to find out that outside the comfortable inner circle of home-school, Christian school, Christian radio, TV and publishing, churches and Bible study groups, to the larger world people who want to discriminate against gays and women are weird outcasts to be shunned.

I mean what young man or woman wants their university degree to be from a pariah institution? Who wants to teach someplace that has the moral standing of the old apartheid regime of South Africa?

And what self-respecting secular, moderate or even ordinary tolerant religious organisation will associate with people who write letters to the president demanding the right to discriminate against gay men and women — just for being gay?!?!

What college will play a sports team from Gordon College if Gordon succeeds in gaining the “legal” right to discriminate against gay men and women? Who will hire a Gordon grad from “that place that discriminates against gays?”

What academic association will want to work with faculty from Wheaton College, now that Wheaton has “won” a Supreme Court case giving it the right to withhold contraceptive insurance coverage from women?

The argument will soon be made that if Christians can “legally” discriminate against gays and women then secular institutions should be able to exercise their consciences and discriminate against evangelicals. Just wait.

Major evangelical institutions have been talked into becoming part of the Tea Party attack on President Obama in particular and progressive America in general. They are “winning” some battles. But they will lose this war.

These stories are making headlines. They are also making enemies for the evangelical movement that will not fade away. They will be to the evangelical reputation what Franklin Graham has become to Billy.

As I predict in my new book WHY I AM AN ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD: How to give love, create beauty and find peace the evangelical institutions that are making the anti-women and anti-gay headlines are going to discover that their more moderate religious and secular peers are going to punish them. They will also be losing their young people in droves.

Re-accreditation? “Forget it, you have a policy of discrimination against gays and women.” Find sports teams to play your students? Want your professors to publish and deliver papers at national conferences? “Forget it, you have a policy of discrimination against gays and women…”

I used to be a religious-right author and activist who once would have rejoiced at Wheaton’s “victory” and would have applauded the editors of Christianity Today for their “stand.” My late father, Francis Schaeffer, along with Jerry Falwell and others, has been credited as one of the founders of the evangelical wing of the religious right. I fled the movement in the early 1990s. As noted by the New York Times, I also changed my politics.

Back in the 1970s and 80s, people like Falwell and my father and I publicly lamented the lack of support we were getting for our outspoken positions on the “culture war issues” from mainstream evangelical institutions. In those days we were attacked by tolerant and moderate Christians in places like the old The Wittenburg Door, sometimes known as simply The Door (a Christian satire and humor magazine) for demanding that other evangelicals follow us into the far right.

Here’s what The Door offered in April/May 1984:

Mudslinging
EDITORIAL: “The Methods to His Mad-ness” by Ben Patterson
FEATURE: Fun QUOTES from “Modern Man” — Franky Schaeffer
ARTICLE: “The Schaeffers at Nyack” by Robert Longman Jr.
ARTICLE: “My Life with Franky Schaeffer” by Dale Suderman
INTERVIEW: Franky Schaeffer re name calling, ecumenism, Jerry Falwell, humility…
ARTICLE: “The Unmaking of Francis Schaeffer” by Richard Pierrard

The “Unmaking of Francis Schaeffer” was a critique in favor of moderate evangelicalism against what we had been doing back then. It was the defense of Christianity Today Magazine against our attacks on it for not joining our right wing crusade! I’d been vilifying CT editors in my far right rag The Christian Activist,  a free newspaper that had a circulation of over 500, 000 when I bailed the right and folded all my “Franky Schaeffer V Production” enterprises more or less overnight. (I was fortunate that my first secular book, my novel Portofino, was critically and commercially successful. Having bailed from the religious right my wife Genie and I had nothing to live on.)

Dad and I faulted Billy Graham for wanting to preach Jesus instead of taking a stand with us against abortion. We faulted Christianity Today for not being sufficiently political. To us the words “moderate” and “compromise” were dirty words.

Back then we were wrong and the more moderate editors at Christianity Today were right.

How things have changed! With the election of America’s first black president, the advent of the Tea Party and the shift of the GOP to the right, it seems that the major evangelical institutions are launching initiatives that Falwell would have loved. Why?

Short answer: Evangelicals were manipulated.

A long history of behind-the-scenes activities to move the evangelical base rightward are paying off. I’ll bet most evangelicals don’t even know they have been duped by neoconservative Roman Catholics and a few others, into a war where they’re just cannon fodder in a larger political battle.

Mainstream evangelical leaders like Wheaton, Gordon and Christianity Today used to set themselves apart from the likes of Falwell. No more. They have now become willing co belligerents of the far-right GOP leadership seeking to discredit Obama.

That is all this “religious liberty” shtick has really been about. And it is going to isolate and damage the evangelical cause. Do the words “Scopes Trial fallout and loss of credibility” ring a bell?

This is no accident. The anti-Obama shift by the evangelicals has been the aim of some dedicated activists. Their work is paying off. But they never did care about the likes of Wheaton and Gordon and would find the journalism of Christianity Today Magazine, let alone the religion of the big pastors that went along, laughable.

The late evangelical leader (and former Nixon hatchet man) Charles Colson was the evangelical Judas that sold his brethren for a mess of political pottage. He sold them to the religious right via  Roman Catholic activist Professor Robert George of Princeton, and George’s friends on the Court (Justice Antonin Scalia and the other Roman Catholic members). George  helped create The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the legal group at the heart of arguing the Supreme Court “religious liberty” cases.

Who is Robert George? Here’s how he’s described in the New York Times:

Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic… is this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker… George …alarmed at the liberal takeover of Washington and an apparent leadership vacuum among the Christian right, [brought a] group … together to warn the country’s secular powers that the culture wars had not ended. As a starting point, George had drafted a 4, 700-word manifesto that promised resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same-sex marriage…

 

[George] has parlayed a 13th-century Catholic philosophy into real political influence. Glenn Beck, the Fox News talker and a big George fan, likes to introduce him as “one of the biggest brains in America, ” or, on one broadcast, “Superman of the Earth.” Karl Rove told me he considers George a rising star on the right and a leading voice in persuading President George W. Bush to restrict embryonic stem-cell research. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told me he numbers George among the most-talked-about thinkers in conservative legal circles. And Newt Gingrich called him “an important and growing influence” on the conservative movement, especially on matters like abortion and marriage.

 

“If there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy, ” the conservative Catholic journal Crisis concluded a few years ago, “its leaders probably meet in George’s kitchen.”

George’s brainchild, The Beckett Fund describes itself as “a non-profit, public interest law firm defending the freedom of religion of people of all faiths.” They have achieved their goal of setting the stage for their best shot at rolling back Obama’s health care reform. They’ve done this by using vulnerable evangelical institutions that will pay the price. Unlike the evangelical schools and institutions George and the Beckett Fund have nothing to lose. George will still be at Princeton when your average Wheaton teacher is out looking for a job.

The neoconservatives have played the evangelicals like a violin. I say “played” because after the 1950s evangelicals never were anti-contraception– until recently that is when aroused on the “religious liberty” issue. And believe it or not many evangelicals, say most teachers at Gordon, never woke up in the morning asking themselves how they could find new ways to hurt the feelings of their gay students by inflicting them with Medieval Roman Catholic “Natural Law.”

The sucker punch was delivered to the evangelicals by the so-called Manhattan Declaration. In 2009, Colson was a principal writer with George of the Manhattan Declaration, which called on evangelicals, Mormons and Catholics to defeat President Obama in 2012, albeit without mentioning Obama by name. This call was made under the “nonpolitical” cover of “sanctity of human life” issues, “traditional marriage, ” and “religious freedom.”

The Manhattan Declaration was signed by a virtual Who’s Who of evangelical leaders. The Manhattan Declaration reads:

“We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

Fast forward to now when 14 religious leaders just sent a letter to the White House echoing the declaration and requesting a religious exemption to a planned executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation “Without a robust religious exemption . . . this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom, ” says the letter. It was signed by recently installed Gordon College president D. Michael Lindsay as well as the chief executive of Catholic Charities USA, the executive editor of Christianity Today, prominent evangelical pastor Rick Warren and others.

Neoconservative activists like George and his Beckett Fund, and Colson helped set the stage for the Tea Party and what should be called the Biblical Patriarchy Restoration Movement. They gave a gloss of intellectual respectability to what was a theocratic wish list targeting gays and women as a means to target President Obama and the Democratic Party. That’s the real game. It is a game worthy of Karl Rove, in fact it is his game…

The aim was not freedom for religion but a chance to deliver a blow against a president that many evangelicals have never accepted as legitimate but that the racist Republican establishment hates. The result risks fulfilling Justice Ginsburg’s “minefield” prediction where the rule of law and equal protection fade into chaos.

The larger American community will not stand for this. Most evangelicals won’t either. They are good loving people. Wheaton, Gordon and Christianity Today Magazine at al are mere tools in a larger fight. Now they are marked as bastions of intolerance. They will pay a heavy price. They have been abused. That is a shame. Evangelicals deserved better. The cause of Christ did too.

Yours sincerely,
Frank Schaeffer

Our entire family, including my wife, Rev. Amy Piatt, and my two kids, took part in the Portland Gay Pride parade this weekend. We stood on a float in the rain and waved to thousands of people lining the streets, from the park blocks to the riverfront. It truly was a joyful day, but of course, not everyone is comfortable with the idea of the church officially being represented in the parade.

Why not just take part as individuals? Why bring such a polarizing issue into the spotlight, especially one that might make many people uncomfortable?

Here are five reasons we, as Christian institutions, need to take public stands on behalf of our Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer sisters and brothers:

Much of the pain, and therefore, suspicion and resentment, lies at the institutional level. It’s one thing for a person who identifies as a Christian to take the risk of putting themselves out there to say they support or affirm someone’s God-given orientation or identity. It’s entirely another when a church body does so. As long as the efforts to reconcile the brokenness between the Christian community and the LGBTQ community remain at the individual level, the history of marginalization and judgment lingers like an ever-present shadow.

Related: Is the Gay Thing Worth Splitting a Church? Definitely Not, and Definitely Yes.

The Churches’ window of opportunity to be on the right side of history is closing. At the risk of sounding opportunistic, too many Christians found themselves on the rather embarrassing end of the debate about slavery, desegregation, and even women’s rights and in some cases still today. Nearly anyone with a compassionate heart and some sense of history would look back on those movements as something for which Christian churches should have been champions on the forefront. Yes, some were, but certainly not enough. And honestly, if we continue to advocate for some people being treated as “less than” others in any way, how can we claim the Gospel as our mandate with any credibility?   We’re seeing history change before our eyes with regard to same-sex rights; shall we be remembered, once again, as one of the few holdouts clinging to the social equivalent of a flat-earth mentality?

People need to know where their sanctuaries are. Despite much progress toward equality for LGBTQ persons, there still is an inherent fear, or at least anxiety, about where one will be tolerated, if not openly welcomed. By taking such a public position, churches assure those seeking refuge from a lifetime of judgment or condemnation that there is a place for them.

We’re commanded to go to those in need of God’s grace. Sure, it’s all well and good to take an official stand as a congregation or denomination from a boardroom or in a set of bylaws no one will ever read. But saying we’re affirming of LGBTQ rights takes very little risk on our part. If someone has taken the bold step to be open and forthright about their identity or orientation in the public sphere, the least we can do is act in kind. Yes, it’s vulnerable and a little bit scary to go as a group of Christians to a pride parade. Someone might reject us. Someone might unload their pent-up pain or anger toward Christianity on us. Much like they’ve had people do to them, no doubt, being part of the LGBTQ tribe. Jesus didn’t sit back at the temple and wait for people to cue up and ask for his grace; He went out into the world, noticed where the needs were around him and addressed them, head-on. Why, as followers of the path Christ illuminated for us, should we expect our work to be any different.

Also by Christian: Why Should the Church Care About Marriage?

Love is without condition. Period.  Perhaps you’re still wrestling with the “gay issue” because of your understanding of scripture. As long as you’re at least wrestling, I applaud that. It means you care. But if you use such reservations about an issue to withhold radical, boundary-smashing love and grace from any of God’s children, you’re denying the humanity at the heart of the Greatest Commandment while navel-gazing and calling it Bible study. Your LGBTQ brothers and sisters are worthy of your love and grace, and God’s love and grace, as much as those you find it so easy to love. But Jesus is clear that we should not be content with loving the one’s we’re already comfortable loving. The very people who you struggle to open your heart to are the ones to whom you are commanded to give yourself fully. With all your soul, strength and mind. And if we can’t stand shoulder-to-shoulder on such principles as this, what in the hell are we worth as Church universal?

Photo Credit: blackboard1965 / Shutterstock.com

Definitely Not:

Made up of millions of individuals of varying backgrounds, education, and experience, there are no two people in the Christian Church who agree on all issues.  There are, however,  some essentials, some non-negotiables, of the Christian faith that define it.  As Christians we believe (in both mind and soul) in God the Creator, Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected, and the Holy Spirit dwelling and working within us.  As Christians we strive to follow the life and teachings of Jesus, including what he called the most important commandment, to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and to love our neighbor as ourself.

Beyond the essentials of the faith, there is room for our diversity.  Some prefer classic hymns, others contemporary praise choruses.  Some prefer tradition while others seek new expression.  Some worship quietly, others with applause and verbal praise.  Some like vestments, some don’t.  Some read the Bible dogmatically, others contextually. Some can’t imagine life without technology.  Others believe it has ruined the world. Some are urban, some rural.  Some like dogs, others cats. Some are Republican, others Democrat. Some like to grill burgers, others are vegetarian.  We have different opinions about gender roles, divorce, hymnals, abortion, immigration, the color to paint the Sunday School room, and gay people; and there is room for us all.

Related: What’s the Difference Between Homophobia and Standing Up for “Christian Values”?

None of the non-essential disagreements are worth a church split.  But there is a catch.  If we are to live together as a Church, we must agree to respect each others’ differing opinions and to love each other despite them.

Definitely Yes:

If we cannot find that mutual respect, then, yes, the gay issues are important enough to allow a split.  Here’s why.  Because an estimated one in every 15 children born into our congregations is gay, * and we, the church, are oppressing them and harming their families.  And once they are old enough to make their own choices, we lose them entirely, along with a large percentage of, especially the younger generations, who see this misguidance of the Church and want no part of it.

Denominations and congregations are gradually coming to the realization that gay people do not choose to be gay any more than left-handed people choose to be left-handed, and that the Church has been wrong in labeling homosexuality a sin.  As with any change from traditional thinking, this is bringing division.  Congregations are losing members.  Denominations are splitting. And while this is tragic, yes, it is worth it.

For every single child who will not hear in sermons or Sunday School lessons that he’s destined for hell and that if he has enough faith, he can pray and God will make him straight; for every child who will not leave the Faith, believing she is a bad person and God does not love her; for every parent who will not hide in the double shame that her child is gay and that she failed as a parent; for every disciple whose heart is able to listen to others’ stories and love them unapologetically as God’s precious children, yes, it is worth even a church split.

Conclusion:

There are times when a particular issue is so important to an individual disciple, that he cannot live together in Christian love with those who see it differently. Whatever that issue might be, there are other congregations or other denominations where he might feel more comfortable in God’s service.  And as God’s family, whether we are those who leave or those who are left to grieve as others exit (I have been both), may the love of Christ cross the divide, and may we find peace in knowing that yes, it is worth it, and as painful as division always is, sometimes we cannot grow as Christian disciples without it.

Also by Kathy: I Tithe…but should it go to my local church?

Moravian motto: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love.

It seems that the UK evangelical church has got itself into a bit of a tizzy. Baptist mover and shaker the Rev Steve Chalke, who leads the much respected Oasis Trust, followed up his 2003 perceived faux pas, with author Alan Mann, where they questioned some dearly held views about the cross of Christ, with some recent comments questioning the evangelical stand against same sex marriage.

This didn’t go down too well in some quarters although, somewhat surprisingly, it wasn’t without support. In addition there were a good number of key evangelical voices that remained quiet; perhaps preferring to stay under the radar on this emotive issue.

Then a few days ago the Evangelical Alliance (EA) chose to remove the Oasis Trust from its membership list referencing Chalke’s recent comments as being influential in its decision.

Now on their website this the largest of UK Evangelical groupings says that it represents ‘the UK’s 2 million evangelical Christians’ seemingly adding weight to its decision to exclude this wayward group.  But let’s back the church minibus up a moment and check this rather bold claim.

Related: Steve Chalke Raises Deep Questions to ‘Restore Confidence in the Bible’

Indeed Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs at the EA, said in his submission to the Merits Committee on Marriages and Civil Partnerships of the British Parliament in 2011 that the EA represents ‘the majority of the UK’s 2 million+ evangelical Christians’.

Furthermore it’s website description says that it works ‘across 79 denominations, 3, 500 churches, 750 organisations and thousands of individual members’. It is worth noting that it appears that the number of individual members comes in at twenty-thousand.

Given that the average British church congregations stands at 84 people it’s hard to see how they have reached their figure of representing 2 million. The most generous number I can offer them, using their own figures, is around 400k – it could be as low as 200k.

So how do they feel comfortable claiming to represent ‘the’ or ‘the majority of the’ 2 million UK evangelicals.  I have asked them for comment but so far have only received two emails indicating that the recipients are not in a position to comment.

The problems, however, don’t end there. Back in 2010 the EA conducted a survey at key evangelical events including New Wine and Spring Harvest. In it they asked around 15000 people to decide whether they agreed with the statement: ‘Homosexual actions are always wrong’.  They found that whilst 16% actively disagreed, 11% were unsure; giving a total of 27% of event goers failing to actively affirm the generally accepted position on this subject.

Given this survey, and the questions about their membership roll, are they honestly suggesting that they represent ‘all’ of UK evangelicals when making their decision to eject dissenting voices? I am not so sure. Given this even their claim to represent the ‘majority’, made to the parliamentary committee, should be questioned.

So what does it mean when a group like the Evangelical Alliance ejects a member for looking to question the perceived position on human sexuality? In terms of their day to day running I hope it doesn’t affect the Oasis Trust in any significant way. It does however send a signal to all the other potential ‘naughty boys and girls’ to keep their opinions to themselves when it comes to difficult issues or face the possibility that you too may be given the right hand of disfellowship.

Also by Alan: How a Few Good Evangelical Men Allowed Mark Driscoll to be Called a Bully

The Rev Simon Nicholls makes this comment ‘The EA want to be broad enough to include all evangelicals’ (even if we are not members – my note) he continues ‘yet narrow enough to exclude those who want to have a more open conversation’.

Are Chalke and the Oasis Trust any less evangelical for being excluded? I would suggest not. Are they less able to do the excellent work they do in helping thousands of people in the UK? I would suggest not.

Have they asked awkward questions? Well possibly, but I for one have always preferred the company of people like this rather than those of a more religious disposition. I suspect that the very Jesus the EA look to represent did too.

Following the much publicised statements made by UK evangelical leader Rev Steve Chalke revealing that he could no longer support the exclusion of gay people from the church, he himself has been excluded by the Evangelical Alliance (EA).

The reasons offered centre around a perception that the Oasis Trust, pioneered by Chalke, has been on a mission to change the Church’s historic view on human sexuality. (Read the EA statement: http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/media/press-releases/oasis-trust-membership.cfm)

Oasis Trust responded by saying they had ‘no corporate view on this matter’ but this was seen as dodging the issue by this group of Evangelicals whose strap line is ‘better together’.

Now firstly let me say that the EA tells us on their website that they represent ‘the UK’s two million evangelical Christians’. That’s right; they represent all of us: presumably even if we have not asked for them to do so.

Related: Steve Chalke Drops the Bomb in Support of Committed, Faithful, Same-sex Relationships

Not withstanding the fact that I know of many Evangelical Churches that are not members, this statement serves to give the impression that these 2 million Christians are of one voice on a variety of issues including human sexuality.

My internet friend Mark Hewerdine tells me that the EA conducted extensive research back in 2011 into what “21st century evangelicals” believe and do. In response to the statement “Homosexual actions are always wrong” (we can deconstruct the problems with the statement another time maybe…) 27% of those asked were either unsure or disagreed with the statement. So over a quarter of their sample of “21st century evangelicals” – it’s reasonable to assume – might at least quibble with the EA’s exclusion of an organisation for not opposing same-sex relationships.

Hewerdine says ‘EA’s own research suggests that by this decision to expel Oasis they are disregarding at best and silencing at worst the views of a significant number of evangelicals’

Now I ask you: when Steve Chalke raised his challenged did the EA return to ask its members for their opinions on such matters? No, they chose to represent them without knowing what they might feel. Did they look to the rest of the UK evangelical community for support. No, they gathered as a board and decided the subject was too hot to handle.

Also by Alan: Could Your Evangelical Church be Called a Cult?

If they had looked for consensus before choosing to exclude Rev Chalke’s organisation they may have achieved something near a level of honesty that might be useful. Unfortunately they have now given a clear signal that honesty is not welcome amongst UK evangelicals.

So all of those evangelicals that disagree are encouraged to remain silent or face being put out of the group.