A Few Florist Thoughts

Share

One of the news stories that broke this past week was that the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a florist who decided not to offer her services to a same-sex couple for their wedding. This case has ignited much furor in both the LGBT and evangelical worlds because it seems to place the debate as a battle between civil liberties and religious liberty. I have only slightly followed this case, but as this discussion will soon (and already has) become heated, here are a few thoughts I have to hopefully bring some nuance to this case that addresses both sides:

• If you hear conservative Christians saying this story was "buried" this week in some attempt to secretly take away religious liberty, don't believe the hype. Mainstream media did in fact cover the story (how else do you think people became aware of it?) Furthermore, if this story did not rise to the level of prominence many conservatives felt it deserved, it was likely the result of the current chaos in the Trump administration, not because of some conspiracy theory.
• It seems pretty obvious that Barronelle Stutzman (the florist) was in violation of the law. Our current laws clearly state that same-sex unions enjoy the same privileges and rights as heterosexual marriages. Furthermore, it is a crime to discriminate against a person based on either gender or sexual orientation. A business refusing to provide a service because of a person's sexual orientation is a crime. Under the eyes of the law, it is really no different from refusing to provide a person a service because of their race or ethnicity. This is why the Washington Supreme Court was unanimous--it's pretty cut and dry.

Conservative Christians at this point will say this infringes on Stutzman's religious liberty. But here are a few things to consider:

• One's religious liberty is not unlimited. The law only grants religious liberty so long as that liberty does not infringe upon the well-being of society (this is how all rights work). For instance, I cannot kill my child even if I followed a religion that said this was acceptable. In this current case, the laws and perception of our society state that such discrimination is detrimental to society. Thus, the court ruled that the practice of her religious conscience in a place of business was problematic.
• What all does religious liberty actually cover? I am not a constitutional scholar, so I'll largely leave this question open. However, it is good to note that the State is not forcing Stutzman to change her beliefs, per se. She can still worship as she pleases, she can still speak out against gay marriage, she can refuse to attend gay weeddings, etc. The court simply said that, if she is going to operate a place of business in the public sphere, then she must treat all citizens equally.
• Which leads to this last point on religious liberty. I'm not sure religious liberty extends to a business. An individual can be a "Christian," and a church congregation can be "Christian," but I'm not convinced a business can be "Christian." The reality is that when you open a business, you agree to abide by the laws and regulations affecting businesses. This include anti-discrimination statues. If you are not willing to serve certain customers because of demographics that fall under those statutes, then you probably shouldn't run that business or you should be willing to face the consequences of breaking the law. It may even be right to defy a law you see as unjust, but be truthful and don't whine or complain when you get in trouble for breaking that law. Ironically, I've seen a number of conservatives this past week say, "You're free to express your beliefs, but you're not free from the consequences of those expressions" in response to employees getting fired for taking off work on the "Day without Immigrants." Shouldn't we say the same about Stutzman? She was free to express her beliefs, but she's not free from the legal consequences of those actions.

But before my more liberal friends get to excited, I do have a few thoughts for that side as well.

• This court case has often been characterized in terms of "civil liberties." As noted above, I won't argue with the legal realities here, but there is one aspect of the LGBT movement that's never set quite well with me, and that's the comparison between LGBT rights and the racial civil rights movement. In this particular case Stutzman's actions have been compared to refusing to serve a customer because she is black. While legally speaking this is true, I think we'd be amiss if we didn't acknowledge some substantial differences. The main difference I see is that most educated Christians who don't approve of same-sex unions take issue with the ACTS of homosexuality, not the impulses or orientation itself. This is quite different from discrimination based on race which is a trait you are born with and can't escape. There is no way to not act out on being your color. Your race race remains the same regardless of your actions. Regarding being gay, even if sexual orientation is genetic, a person still has a decision about whether or not to act out on those impulses, which makes it somewhat different than racial discrimination.
• Bring this point onto the Stutzman case. What if a man who identifies as gay but chooses not to act out on those impulses (perhaps because of a religious conviction or some other reason) decided to buy flowers from Ms. Stutzman, perhaps for his mom. And let's say the florist sells him flowers and she knows he identifies as gay. But, at the same time, she refuses to offer services for a gay wedding. Is this truly discrimination against a person for being gay, or is it discrimination against the actions of homosexuality? It may be a fine line, but I think it's worth at least acknowledging.
• Additionally, I think it's easy for LGBT advocates to get overly militaristic at times (just as evangelicals often do). From some of what I have read, it seems Stutzman did attempt to offer the gay couple a referral for another florist. So, it does not seem like she is some evil lady trying to hate on "the gays." Rather, she is a person of conscience (like a significant minority of Americans) who are not comfortable with gay marriage and who view homosexuality as a sin. For many of us, we strive to love our LGBT brothers and sisters, but the liberal narratives of being anti-gay marriage as equivalent to being hateful or bigoted or uneducated are simply not fair. Those who are pro-LGBT rights would do well to remember that it has only been very recently that a majority (and only a slim majority) of Americans back their cause. Triumphalism and shouting down the opposition does nothing to draw us toward unity or truth. Not all who oppose gay marriage are hateful. Many of us continue to wrestle with the issue.
• Finally, pro-gay rights individuals should remember that (for Christians) this is a debate about sin. Is homosexuality a sin or not? This is no small question and the Church remains incredibly divided on this issue. So, for Christians who have become convicted that gay marriage is acceptable because it is something different than what the Bible addresses, be patient with the other half. Don't get angry or judgmental just because you are passionate about what you see as an issue of "justice." Remember you are asking your brothers and sisters to change their minds about sin. For any Christian, this is not a matter to be taken lightly as getting the answer wrong (in either direction) could amount to an offense against God. So, be filled with grace (both sides).

So there are my thoughts. In summary, the law seems pretty clear, but the underlying issue is not. I don't think Christians can really argue that Stutzman wasn't breaking the law (I think she probably was), but what remains open is whether those laws themselves are unjust or how people on both sides of the debate choose to relate to and characterize each other going forward.

Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties

The news has been abuzz the past few weeks with debate over what entails "religious freedom." The spark for this discussion has been Indiana's passing of a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA) bill, but was also fueled by Arkansas' governor signing a similar bill into law. These laws would allow their states to protect the preferences and liberties of religious individuals and entities. In short, they say the government cannot force a person or group to contradict its religious beliefs.

However, the focus on these bills (as with other similar efforts) has been on the expansion of these religious rights to companies and businesses. The go-to example seems to be Christian bakers. Under these laws, if a baker who happens to be a Christian is asked by a gay couple to cater their wedding, the baker would have the right to refuse service if he felt catering the wedding would violate his conviction that homosexuality is wrong.
This has sparked outrage on the part of gay-rights groups who insist the law invites and legalizes discrimination. Proponents of the law claim that the focus is not on the gay community and that it will not be used to discriminate. Instead, they say, the law is intended to protect from big government.

Now, I am not an attorney or legal expert, so I cannot weigh in very much on the legality or implications of these laws. However, I have observed one issue in the back-and-forth that must be brought to the surface.

As I've listened to both sides, I can agree that each has some valid points. However, neither side is likely going to see eye to eye for one simple reason--they hold competing values. In particular, conservatives are prioritizing "religious liberty" while their opponents are prizing "civil liberties."

Of course, we in America like to believe that our laws and justice system can bring us peace, prosperity, and unity (which honestly looks a lot like idolatry at times to me). We also want to believe that our Constitution can solve any social problem we encounter. As such, we want to believe that religious liberty and civil liberties (both great American values) can coexist in harmony. But ultimately, this is not the case.  When push comes to shove, you most often will have to choose either religious liberty or civil liberty, or you will have to redefine what one of those values looks like.

Recently, Rick Santorum, a Republican presidential hopeful, came to the defense of RFRA laws by trying to point out the "two-way street" that exists. He asked why it would be wrong to allow a Christian to refuse service to a gay couple based on religious beliefs but not be wrong for a pro-gay print shop to refuse service to Westboro Baptist, who famously promote the slogan "God hates fags."

However, these kinds of remarks illustrate the tunnel vision that creeps into such public debates. Comments like Santorum's completely ignore the other side's point that the LGBTQ community is entitled to civil rights, and therefore any such discrimination is wrong. I can just imagine a gay-rights activist responding to Santorum's illustration by saying, "It's wrong for the Christian to discriminate, AND ok for the print shop to refuse service because discrimination against gays is wrong in both scenarios."

This conflict between religious liberty and civil rights (and our different priorities) means that we are really just talking past each other. We will never find common ground or see eye-to-eye as long as we are operating by different paradigms. For instance, our definitions of "civil rights" conflict. For some conservative Christians, civil rights includes race, ethnicity, and gender, but should not include "sinful" behaviors like alternate sexual orientations or gender identities. Meanwhile, others feel sexual orientation should be a protected category. As long as we cannot agree on these terms, there will be no resolution to the public debate. Beyond this simple fact, we also place different values on religious and civil liberties, and this is important because religious and civil liberties inevitably stand in tension with each other.

The bottom line is that if we value religious freedom as the highest priority, then we are going to admit that all kinds of religiously motivated beliefs are acceptable. But how far do we take this? Is it ok for white supremacist groups who use the Bible as justification for their actions to hate or even harm blacks and Jews? Is it ok for certain cults to employ suicide or human sacrifice? Most of us would say that these actions cannot be prohibited in a civil society, but this is what you will get if you prize religious freedom without adding any qualifications or redefinitions.

And most often, the way we place a check on unbridled religious freedom (or any other freedom, like freedom of speech) is to fall back on civil liberties. It's ok to utilize your freedoms unless it infringes upon the freedom or well-being of others around you. This is the very argument being used with RFRA laws. It's fine to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the moment that belief drives you to treat others differently or to discriminate, that is a problem.

And the truth is that, by-and-large, sexual orientation is considered a civil liberty now. We have a variety of laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination against those in the LGBTQ community in certain contexts. More and more cities are passing non-discrimination ordinances (my college hangout town of Springfield, MO is set to vote on one such ordinance today). And, as I said in an earlier post, regardless of your beliefs regarding homosexuality, you need to come to terms with the fact that society has accepted it as a legitimate lifestyle (more than half of Americans support legalized gay marriage). So, if defenders of religious liberty want to protect the civil liberties of other races and genders, they are going to have to start protecting the rights of the gay community as well.

But, at the same time, we would do well to hear conservative concerns that valuing civil liberties as the highest value can pose problems as well. For instance, should a pastor be forced to offer his church building for a lesbian couple's wedding ceremony even if it violates his conscience or his church's teaching? What if civil rights keep expanding and begin to offer protections for more and more specific groups? This increases the likelihood that there will be conflict between civil and religious liberties. So, it's not good enough to simply place civil liberties on a pedestal either.

One thing I hope Christians see from this conversation is the futility of placing our hope in government or laws. Yes we need good government and just laws, but these things cannot save us. They will always be imperfect. So maybe it's time we stop putting so much emphasis on these American values, and instead turn our attention to the values of God's Kingdom, the place where our allegiance is supposed to be anyways.

In God's Kingdom, we value rights, but we don't die for them. Instead, we die for the well-being of others, even for our enemies. In God's Kingdom, we are called to practice radical love, grace, and hospitality. In God's Kingdom, we confess that all are made in the image of God, but also that all have fallen short of the glory of God. It is only as we begin to set our eyes on our heaven-on-earthly calling that we will be able to navigate the tricky areas between religious liberty and civil rights. Looking to laws and our Constitution won't bring opponents together, heal the pain in someone who has experienced discrimination, or bring about a society that respects faith. Quoting the Constitution or appealing to the "weight of history" won't change the lens your opponent is using that prevents meaningful dialogue. Only the Way of Jesus can do this. So perhaps it's about time that we start looking at the words and life of Jesus as the starting point of how to decide whether or not to bake that wedding cake.

------------------------------
Other random observations as additional food for thought and discussion:

• It's helpful to note that the current RFRA bills tend to extend religious protections to businesses. For Christians, we need to really think about whether this accurately reflects reality. A business may have Christians in it, but does that make the company "Christian"? This might be easier to believe with small businesses and those who are self-employed, but what about bigger corporations like Chic-fil-a or Hobby Lobby? Certainly not every employee of these companies is a Christian. While we may want to say the company has a right to religious protections, who is protecting the religious beliefs of individual employees? If Chic-fil-a were to decide it can't cater to gay-rights events or at gay weddings, are non-Christian employees obligated to carry out the same practices, even if it goes against their religious conscience?
• We Christians do a poor job of thinking about the precedents we set. One of the interesting developments in the news has been that the governor of Indiana ended up signing a clause to prevent the RFRA law from interfering with non-discrimination laws, while Arkansas has specifically avoided creating any exemptions for non-discrimination laws. In fact, Arkansas even passed a bill that prevents cities from enacting any non-discrimination ordinances not already in state law (by the way, there are no non-discrimination laws in Arkansas protecting gays or lesbians). However, at the end of the day, the motivation for pushing back against such ordinances is the conviction that homosexuality is a sin (there really is no commercial or legal reason). However, with these and other efforts, are we setting a double standard? Are we saying it's ok to discriminate on the basis of the sin of homosexuality, but not on the sins of lust, greed, adultery, or lying? Do Christian bakers ever feel compelled to refuse to cater weddings that celebrate excess, drunkenness, and wealth? Probably not (they probably get excited about selling twice as much). Once again I wonder if are trying to legislate morality, but are ending up looking like hypocritical fools.

10 Thoughts on the Homosexuality Debate

I don't talk very frequently about this topic, particularly online, since raising the issue can quickly descend into emotional irrationality and unhelpful stereotypes (from both sides). However, the past year has seen an unprecedented acceleration of the conversation. I now hear or see news stories daily  regarding homosexuality. Numerous stories in recent months have especially forced the topic into the spotlight. From the first openly gay NFL player, to the current back and forth in Alabama's court system, to the mayor of Houston subpoenaing a pastor's sermons, and yes, ultimately to the upcoming Supreme Court decision on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriages. With this issue bubbling to the surface, I decided to pen a few of my thoughts here.

That being said, I am just listing a few highlights of where I currently stand. As with any online opinion, it can always be misconstrued and taken out of context. Each of the following points could easily be an entire (lengthy) blog post itself, so please be cautious before you rush to judgment of what is listed here. The best way to sort through such a complex issue is in the flesh, but nevertheless, here it goes:

1) Same-sex marriages will become legal in the U.S. 
 There, I said it. It is no longer a matter of "if" this will happen, but simply "when." Many people (myself included) suspect the Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriages later this year. For Christians, we need to come to terms with this and accept that this is where our culture is. Even if it does not happen this year, it will happen. Just in the past decade I have seen an incredible shift in opinion among the population regarding homosexuality. And this is not my mere opinion, you can check out the facts here as well. Rather than living in denial or nostalgia, Christians need to accept this reality and discover how to live faithfully within it.

2) We need to recognize that 2 marriages are at work in "marriage."
When bans against same-sex marriages are struck down, many will cry that the sky is falling. "Marriage has been redefined and has been polluted." However, we need to recognize that there are 2 aspects to any wedding/marriage. There is the civil/contractual aspect, and the covenant aspect. All a Supreme Court decision will do is redefine the LEGAL/CIVIL definition of marriage. Certainly this will be a symbol of the overall attitudes of our culture, but is does not mean that the covenant of marriage has automatically been redefined as well. I am not married because my wife and I signed a paper in front of an authorized witness, even though this is what the government calls "marriage." I am married because we pledged ourselves to each other in a covenant relationship before a community of Christian believers in the sight of God. I personally am not fond of calling same-sex unions "marriages," but knowing this distinction allows me to accept civil marriages for gays and lesbians while not fearing that my church's definition of covenant marriage has been altered. What is really at stake currently is whether the LGBT community may enjoy the benefits and responsibilities government grants to those who are "married" on paper. And I, for one, am not willing to go on a witch hunt to deny other sinners these civil entitlements because they drink too much, are prideful, or view pornography.

3) The Old Testament doesn't really help us sort through the current debate.
 When you ask Christians what Bible verses condemn homosexual behavior, they will typically point you to the story of Sodom and Gamorrah as well as to Leviticus. The Mosaic law identifies male on male sexual behavior as "an abomination," and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to confirm this condemnation--entire cities destroyed after the men of the city wanted to have sex with Lot's male visitors. However, I don't use these passages anymore. In fact, if all we had were these Old Testament passages, I could easily accept homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation.
The problem is our modern concept of "sexual orientation" did not exist in the Old Testament world. Rather, the homoerotic behavior described in the Old Testament was of a different nature. Namely, men typically had sex with other men to shame them. In this sense, homosexual behavior in the Old Testament can be better thought of as sexual assault, rather than as a loving, committed relationship as many envision it today.
Sodom and Gomorrah are a perfect example of this. They wanted Lot's visitors not because of their lust, but because of their violence and lack of hospitality. They wanted to shame and defile these visitors, rather than show them kindness and welcome. If this seems an odd interpretation to you, simply read the rest of the references to Sodom or Gomorrah in the Old Testament. The sin of these cities is not identified as "homosexuality," but is named as violence and injustice. Simply check out Isaiah 1:9-17 where the the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that they have "blood on their hands." In contrast, the remedy is not chastity, but is to "learn to do right; seek justice, defend the oppressed, take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow."
Likewise, the verses about homosexuality in Old Testament law are surrounded by many other verses that we ignore or chalk up to simple cultural instructions that don't apply to us. It should also give us pause when we see that activities like wearing clothes of mixed fabrics, touching dead bodies, and eating shrimp are called "abominations." So, be careful in calling homosexual acts "abominations" unless you stand ready to do the same to your neighbor at Red Lobster.

4) The New Testament leads me to still say homosexuality is a sin.
Before my more conservative friends start getting spitting mad and formulating a response to my anticipated heresy, let me also say that at this moment I still believe homosexual practice is a sin. While I find the Old Testament less than helpful, I cannot get around the verses in the New Testament that address homosexuality. In particular, Romans 1 is a sticking point for me. Here, Paul connects idolatry to men and women engaging in homoerotic behavior. While I have read the explanations and interpretations from LGBTQ advocates, I have simply not found any of those arguments convincing. Additionally, Paul's words do seem to better address our contemporary debate for two reasons.
First, Paul describes the behavior as giving up their "natural" function for something "unnatural." The Greek word Paul uses here is physis, and as far as I can tell it means something embedded within the created order of the world, not simply a cultural conviction. Second, Paul describes the cause of these homoerotic sexual acts as "lust of the heart" and "degrading passions." This seems to be addressing sexual passion, not sexual violence. Indeed, there were individuals in Greek and Roman culture who seem to have preferred homosexual intercourse and who pursued same-sex relationships for lustful/romantic reasons. Perhaps Paul was addressing the custom of adult men having sexual relationships with young boys for pleasure or to instruct those boys about sex, but this doesn't really explain Paul's mention of female-female sex as well in Romans. To me, it seems like Paul is saying there is something about the very act of homosexual sex that runs contrary to nature and to God's will. If this is the case, we are left with the decision of whether to believe the Bible on this topic or to believe our current cultural convictions.

5) Same-sex attraction is NOT a sin.
 While I still maintain that homosexual practice is sinful, I do not believe that simply having same-sex attraction is sinful. I believe there are people who identify as lesbian or gay that will never be able to become straight. Being attracted to those of the same sex is no more sinful than me being tempted to lust after women. The temptation is not the sin. Even Jesus was tempted (perhaps even with same-sex attraction? Heb. 4:15?). The problem is when we choose to act on those temptations--that is what is sinful. The church needs to admit that it will have gay and lesbian members. In fact, we need these people, just like we need married and single straight people. We just need to be cautious in accepting acting upon those attractions.

6) Genetic predisposition does not mean a lifestyle is acceptable.
 One common argument I've heard in defense of homosexuality is that science shows that certain people are predisposed to have same-sex attraction. To be honest, I have not studied the science of homosexuality as much as I should have, but I also find this line of reasoning lacking. To sum up my thoughts here, I think saying it's okay to be gay because of genetic reasons is essentially genetic fatalism. However, we get into dangerous territory if we say that our genetic makeup should determine our behavior in life.
For example, I've read studies about the "warrior gene," which is a gene that might predispose a person to violence. Now, is it acceptable for an individual to kill another human simply because their genes may predispose them towards that action? Of course not. So why do we rush to genetic fatalism when it comes to homosexuality?
Similarly, the argument that "God made me this way" falls apart. Just because your biology may drive you towards certain behaviors does not mean that "God made you that way." Human biology is corrupted like the rest of human life. We should be careful of using the "God made me this way" argument unless we also want to say that God made people with mental retardation and fatal birth defects those ways as well. But in the end, whatever the consensus on the biology of homosexuality ends up being, it cannot be the deciding factor in the rightness or wrongness of a behavior. That moral choice must come from an outside source that is informed, but not determined, by biology.

7) Use caution when arguing for "right side of history."
 With the impending court decisions and growing cultural acceptance of the LGBT community, I have heard the phrase "be on the right side of history" countless times in the past few months. Those inside and outside of the church have urged for complete acceptance of homosexuality because you want to make sure you're "on the right side of history." After all, you don't want to be looked back on as we look back at those who supported slavery and racism.
However, this is an emotional argument more than anything else because it can cut both ways. This same argument has also been used to justify horrible atrocities (most famously by Hitler who saw his Aryan race as the future humanity). While I do want to make sure I am not defending injustice or oppression, I also recognize that sometimes the masses get it wrong. Societal acceptance of an idea does not make it right. Likewise, history does not always progress in a just direction (simply consider that the 20th and 21st centuries have been the most bloody in human history). As long as we live in a fallen world awaiting Christ's return, both history and society will sometimes go astray. So please, drop the "right side of history" crap and actually have an educated, logical discussion.

8) This is one of most crucial debates for church in this generation.
 With that invitation to have a discussion, I also believe that this will be one of the most important discussions within the church of our generation. The reason I believe this is because we are debating over whether or not a particular act is a sin. Therefore, we are either going to get this one very right or very wrong. Either we will end the church's perpetuation of injustice much like we did with slavery decades ago, or we will tragically declare a sin to be an acceptable part of holy living. Either way, the stakes are high.
As such, it is imperative that we not rush into decisions and that we thoroughly study the matter. We need to examine the whole of Scripture to discern what it says and does not say. We need to keep up with the cutting edge of scientific and social research on the issue. We need to have conversations with those actually struggling with (and living out) same-sex attraction.
One of my biggest fears is that we have become too polarized on this issue and have stopped talking with the other side. Instead, we rely on stereotypes and straw-man arguments. Those who advocate for full-acceptance say that calling homosexuality a sin is an injustice akin to racism and constitutes "hate-speech." Those who hold to traditional beliefs dismiss LGBT arguments as part of a "liberal/homosexual agenda" constructed by those who don't believe the Bible.
But the issue is so much more complex than that. For example, I still hold that homosexuality is a sin, but I also do not see my actions as equating anything near racism. I also have struggled long and hard over my own personal beliefs and actually know people who identify as gay or lesbian. To label me a bigot is to dismiss my own story and journey I have been on. Likewise, my friends who also believe homosexuality is a sin need to make friends with the LGBTQ community and listen to Christians who believe differently than them. Again, the stakes are too high to stop listening.

9) The only acceptable gay lifestyle would be in the covenant of marriage.
 Although at this moment I still believe homosexuality to be a sin, I want to maintain the humility to admit that at some point in the future my views may change. Perhaps as I continue to study Scripture, pray for guidance, engage culture, and listen for God's voice I will come to the decision that there is nothing inherently wrong with male-male or female-female sexual expression. However, if (and that's a big "if") I ever came to that conclusion, my sexual ethic would still look very different from the world's. If I could declare gay or lesbian sexual expression as acceptable, I would also be clear that the only appropriate context for this sexual expression would be in the context of a covenantal relationship/marriage. The same standards that currently apply to heterosexual relationships would also apply to lesbian/gay relationships, namely "chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage." Those in same-sex relationships would be expected to abstain from sex and lust until they are married, and would be expected to remain faithful and flee adultery within marriage.
 Ironically, this is one reason why I'm not quick to jump on the cultural bandwagon regarding homosexuality. As I look at my culture, it quite clearly does not reflect Christ's desire for sexuality. Sexual expression outside the context of marriage is becoming increasingly the norm. Whether heterosexual or lesbian/gay, such sexual activity outside the covenant of marriage is clearly in violation of God's desires. In returning to point number 7, this dishonoring of sexuality in our culture makes me all the more cautious to simply follow societal voices that call me to accept homosexuality as a sinless lifestyle.

10) The Church must love the LGBT community and its shift focus to more pressing sins.
 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Church needs to love and accept the LGBT community. They are still humans and many are Christ-followers. Even when we still confess that homosexuality is a sin, we must do a better job of embracing the person. The church's default position has been to reject both sin and sinner. But these are people the church needs in its ranks.
I admit this is a tough thing to do, but perhaps one thing that will help is if the church becomes a little less sex-obsessed and shifts its focus to more pressing sins. While it is true that "sin is sin," most of us can agree that certain sins are more destructive than others. Honestly, when it comes down to homosexuality or lust and infidelity, the latter two are the more significant in my eyes. As noted in the previous point, it is possible to have a loving, committed gay/lesbian relationship. However, love, trust, and commitment are all abolished in acts of adultery. Likewise, cohabitation presents a much bigger problem to Christians and churches (I think) than does homosexuality. Similarly, divorce rates in the church are just about as bad as in the world. If we really want to insist on talking about sex and marriage, then perhaps we should start with the problems of lust, pornography, adultery, cohabitation, and divorce, matters of which the Bible is abundantly clear, unlike homosexuality which is a little ambiguous at times in the Bible (for reasons named above).
Or perhaps the church could demonstrate to the world that is does care about justice. If the church were more vocal in its opposition to racism, violence, poverty, domestic abuse, and oppression then it would be much harder to label opposition to homosexuality as "hate speech." If we became "pro-life" in all matters, not just on abortion, then perhaps outsiders would be convinced that we really do love all people.

-----

So there it is. Again, there is so much more that could be said under each point, but that's the short of where I currently am in my journey. Maybe some of these thoughts will help you sort through your own struggles (or maybe not). Feel free to post your opinions and comments below. Just make sure to maintain humility and avoid demonizing others. Thanks!