Some (Slightly Edited) Facebook Posts about Gay Marriage and Related Topics from Last Year

** In response to the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage:

Okay, here's my rant-y, overly-long, and potentially incendiary post for the quarter (actually a cleverly disguised apology/call for love and understanding):

Thank you friends for being who you are. I'm proud to say that, given the recent Supreme Court judgment on gay marriage, Facebook pretty clearly shows I have friends on BOTH sides of the issue. This is a good thing (surrounding yourself only with those you agree with is not the best way to go about life). And frankly, you've all been, without any exceptions, extremely respectful and loving in every one of your posts on the subject, even when others may not be. Even the articles you share have been similar. On the one hand, you have been celebratory without being gloating or judging. On the other hand, you have been disappointed without being bitter or judging. Thank you for doing your part in making the internet and life in general a more respectful, friendlier, and generally more decent place for everyone.

In general, I get annoyed by debates over gay marriage or homosexuality in general. Not because I don't have an opinion on some matters (listen to my Cornerstone class on the Old Testament laws where I talk about biblical commands about sex) or that people don't agree with me but rather because of the tone and irrationality of the debate in most cases. Debates generally consist almost entirely in name calling, straw men, false analogies, condemnation for even making an analogy (without even considering the merits of the argument), begging the question, equivocation, ad hominems, genetic fallacies, etc.

On the debate over the legalization of gay marriage I just have a few points to make which, if taken seriously, would have at least as much chance as any in making things a bit more tolerable (though maybe not):

1) Just because someone supports the legalization of gay marriage does not mean they think it is morally permissible. You can think being a Jehovah's Witness is wrong, for instance, all the while thinking that people have a basic right to be a Jehovah's Witness. People can have rights to choose whether or not to do a bad thing.

2) Just because someone is against the legalization of gay marriage does not mean they think it is morally wrong. The majority of the legal and philosophical arguments against legalization do not depend in any way on the moral (or even religious) status of gay marriage. (Nor does anyone claim that gay marriage will harm their own personal marriage - that's a straw man) For instance, one argument is that marriage by definition excludes two persons of the same sex so that saying we should legalize same sex marriage would be akin to saying that we should legalize round squares. Whether the argument works or not, that has nothing to do with morality.

3) Similarly, just because someone thinks it's wrong doesn't mean they are against legalization and just because someone thinks it's morally permissible doesn't mean they think the law should recognize it. In other words, issues of legal rights and legal values are separate (though not always necessarily completely distinct from) issues of moral rightness and moral values. Just because it should be legal doesn't mean it's okay. Just because it shouldn't be doesn't mean it isn't. To repeat: these are distinct questions. How we relate the questions to each other will largely depend on the political and legal assumptions we adopt. It's not a matter of being a bigot or not, or being an approver of sin or not - it's about political and legal views, period. In general, Americans tend to confuse legal and moral values and jump to conclusions about one from a conviction about the other. "People should have the right to do X; it's none of your business if they do it, so mind your own business" quickly becomes "So doing X is okay"; and "Doing X is wrong" quickly becomes "We should outlaw X".

4) There's a distinction between what should or shouldn't be legal and what is or isn't constitutional. Someone can think the supreme court ruled correctly while also thinking that gay marriage should be illegal or think that it should be legal while thinking that the court ruled incorrectly. (A distinction that was lost on those who, simply because they thought it should be illegal, criticized Chief Justice Roberts for ruling in favor of "Obamacare")

5) The Bible does not explicitly and directly tell us which political and legal theories to adopt nor does it explicitly and directly speak about gay marriage, hence to say "the Bible says no to gay marriage", etc. is a bit misleading when we're talking about legal rights.

6) On the other hand, to say "The Bible says nothing about gay marriage" is also misleading since it does in fact (in my opinion) say direct things about homosexual acts and morality (note that I say "morality", not "legality"), which are topics obviously closely related to gay marriage.

Bottom line: As someone who has not chosen a specific political/legal reference point, I don't have a particular opinion on whether or not the Supreme Court made the right decision. I don't know - I haven't considered these reference points nor the arguments for and against gay marriage in enough detail to make an informed decision regarding legality. (I really can see both sides of the argument at the moment.) I make decisions based on warrant and right now I simply haven't acquired enough information. Some other people may have done this, but I haven't. I hope that's okay - it wasn't up to me to make the decision anyway. But let's be understanding of those who do not share our own views, whether of the legality or the morality of gay marriage. Let's listen and understand where they're coming from, WHY they hold the views they do, and let's see things from their point of view before we rush to condemn. Let's have empathy with others and drop the name calling, shaming, and judging. We're not enemies, we're family. We're people. Let's treat each other as such.

** In response to Kim Davis refusing to sign marriage licenses:

Not a popular opinion (feel free to disagree) - and I may be wrong about this - but I can't help but think regarding what's going on in Kentucky that recognizing that two people have met government requirements to enter into a government contract, regardless of whether entering into such a contract is sinful or unwise or otherwise inadvisable (and the clerk in question apparently has no problem recognizing other contracts she disagrees with), is in no way an endorsement or moral acceptance of such a contract. I'm a very strong supporter of religious liberty, but I don't think religious liberty has much of anything to do with what's going on here. That's just my initial reaction, though.

** In response to this bit of silliness:

Oy. Sorry, short rant: While I agree that Davis isn't doing the right thing here, I have to object to the way Huffington Post is trying to argue for that position. This is the sort of article you see again and again (not necessarily about this case, but in general), and it's really annoying since it completely ignores how biblical hermeneutics (the interpretation and application of the Bible) even works. The majority of these jobs are not "banned by the Bible". For one thing, most of the out-of-context quotes don't even match the job description given. Not eating pork, for instance, doesn't have much to do with selling other people pork (though if the former is wrong, one could argue the latter would be as well, but that doesn't follow automatically). For another, even if they did, it still wouldn't be relevant since lists like this ignore the fact that there are biblical and theological reasons why Christians follow some laws strictly and literally today and others not so much. Articles like this try to make it seem arbitrary, silly, and a case of picking and choosing. While many Christians might not be aware of the exact reasons WHY some laws are followed more strictly than others, that does not mean that there are no good reasons. This is precisely one of the many reasons why I did the Old Testament laws class I did, so people would understand biblically how to interpret these laws and how they are supposed to be applied today. Other than the psychic advisor or maybe the gossip columnist (which is kind of a scummy job to do anyway), I don't see how any of these would be a violation of biblical principles.

Interesting Discussions

Here are some interesting internet discussions worth checking out:

At Prosblogion, Interpreting Plato and St. Paul Part 1, and Part 2 - these are all about how Scriptural exegesis differs from ordinary exegesis of other texts. Also on that site, The Epistemic Grounding for the Biblical Canon - this is about the question of how we are to justify our choice of what goes in the Bible and what doesn't.

At Leiter Reports, Philosophy Departments That Advertise Through the APA But Violate Its Anti-discrimination Policies - this is about whether Christian colleges and universities violate the anti-discrimination policies of the American Philosophical Association when they require faculty to sign a statement that includes, among other things, a pledge to abstain from gay sex. This one's quite heated. You can see here how just because someone's a philosopher doesn't mean they always think clearly or critically. Lots of anti-evangelical dogmatism (though to be fair there were one or two people last I checked who at least made some attempt at some argumentation on the pro-gay sex side).

Identity Politics

I quickly get tired of a lot of what passes under the name "identity politics". Not all of it may be bad, but a lot of it is. This post is dedicated to the bad lot.

When one speaks of identity, one can mean a lot of different things. One can mean, for instance, numerical identity (expressed in logic by '=' - for example, Mark Twain=Sam Clemens), or qualitative identity (the kind of identity that holds between identical twins). Identity politics focuses on something else. This is identity in the sense not of what is essential but of what is central or important to a person - "who I really am". But there isn't a single sort of identity that falls under these sorts of descriptions but many. Here are four versions of identity that might fall under this sort of category (and which people tend not to distinguish often or very well):

1) Cultural identity - one's role or importance as assigned by culture
2) Reflective identity - one's role or importance as chosen or approved of by one's self
3) Deep identity - what is central, evaluation or function aside
4) Normative identity - what is central or important in regards to one's function or telos

Obviously, there are going to be important connections between all of these. All but the normative may, for instance, be partly constructed, whether by society or the self.

Now how does identity politics of the sort I don't like work? Here's the game plan: Defend people with trait or behavior X by claiming that X is part of their identity and hence that X is morally okay and justified and that one has a right to do X and to the protection of it and protection from discrimination on the basis of it. To aid in this process, it helps to actually have or produce an identity in order to advocate protecting it. To this end, the formation or maintenance of organizations, chat rooms, communities, public advocacy or identification, conscious differentiation from others who do not do or have X, the use of identity politics itself to defend X, etc. all help to form or maintain an identity around X so that one may now pursue defending it in the public square. Racial identity and the production of White identity as different from Black or whatever else is one example of a kind of identity that was created in modern times (though here the motivation was more to justify one identity at the expense of others). Homosexual identity is another, and much more recent. Many of these sorts of identity involve a symbiotic relationship of mutual creation and maintenance between cultural and reflective identities.

So once you've got this nifty new identity, so the politics goes, you try to justify X, which the identity is formed around, by referencing the fact that it is part of one's identity. Homosexuality has definitely gone along this path. Individuals will sometimes do the same thing too, of course ("I couldn't stay married to Bobby! It's just not who I am! Jimmy's much better for me..."). But notice that X being part of one's identity does not actually, necessarily make it morally okay or justified or whatever. Just because gay sex is part of one's cultural, reflective, or even deep identity does not make it okay or that it should be protected, etc. (Consider, for instance, the fact that very, very bad stuff can be part of one's identity in any of those three senses)

The only surefire way to get identity to entail goodness or whatever is for it to be normative identity. But opponents of homosexual behavior precisely deny that it is part of anyone's normative identity, so for the homosexual-advocate engaged in identity politics to rest their case on this kind of identity is to beg the question and fails to prove that such behavior is acceptable. So, in sum, there isn't any easy way actually to argue from identity to permissibility, rights, or anything like that. But the players in the identity politics game might not want you to know that - in fact, they need most people to be ignorant of it if their strategies are to work.

(For a very closely related group of confusions, see my posts in my series on naturalness: Naturalness Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3)

Anglican Pit Fight

Here's a recent address given by philosopher Marilyn McCord-Adams to the annual conference of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in London. I think my respect for her just went down several notches. Though she has some interesting points, she is significantly less than charitable to conservatives in the Anglican communion and persists in calling the conservative view of homosexuality a taboo, oppressive, and other not-so-nice things (without really any argument or actual engagement with the conservative view on its own terms - such as the massive biblical support for it - but then again, that probably wasn't to be expected in an address like this). It was especially grating to see her call the Holy Trinity a "gay man's chorus". Also, I don't think her view of the historic Anglican Church is entirely accurate, but I won't say anything more here about that. For another viewpoint, see here and here. Let me know if there are some other good places for getting points of view on the other side of these issues. Some excerpts from McCord-Adams' address:

Illiberal winds are blowing pernicious policy and polity changes our way. The Communiqué from the Tanzanian Primates’ meeting brought the intentions of those who dictated its content more fully out of the closet. First, it sent the sinister signal that for the forseeable future, full membership in the Anglican communion will require a local church to enforce anti-LGBT taboos: no more episcopal ordinations of coupled gay or lesbian people; no more official or clandestine church blessing of same-sex couples.

The latest wind-tunnel generators have been violations of ancient sex and gender taboos by North American member churches in the US and Canada, and they have added fuel to a well-laid plan by conservatives to take over the North American churches.

The Tanzania Primates’ Communiqué attempts to make homophobia official Anglican policy. In doing so, it only brings out of the closet into the broad daylight, the principles already implicit in Issues, which promulgates a double-standard offering second-class citizenship for coupled gay laypersons but requiring celibacy for gay clergy; in the forced resignation of Jeffrey John from his appointment as bishop of Reading; in the reaffirmation of the celibacy requirement in connection with the recent permission of civil partnerships. Founded rumor has it, misogyny as official Anglican communion policy will not be far behind.

Nowadays, conservatives protest that the use of the terms ‘homophobia’ and ‘misogyny’ is inflammatory, because it suggests pathology, while they regard their positions as conscientious and principled. In a Toronto speech last week, the ABC scolds:

"It’s not just about nice people who want to include gay and lesbian Christians and nasty people who don’t. It’s a question on which there is real principled disagreement. What are the forms of behavior the church has the freedom to bless, and be faithful to Scripture, tradition and reason? That is the question that is tearing us apart at the moment because there are real differences of conviction."

To this protest, I make three replies.

[1] First, the human condition is non-optimal. We can say it in different ways: traditionally, ‘it’s a fallen world’ or ‘before death, human beings are not yet fully sanctified’; or more colloquially, ‘God isn’t finished with us yet’! Whichever way you say it, part of what this means is that ‘pathological versus principled’ is not a forced choice. The same convictions and practices can be both. Our conservative enemies insist that our conscientious convictions are pathological. But since human non-optimality is no respecter of persons, they cannot consistently claim immunity for the bible’s human authors or for themselves.

[2] Second, I do not use ‘misogyny’ and ‘homophobia’ as expletive slurs but terms with a fairly definite descriptive sense. What I mean by ‘misogyny’ is the (often unconscious) belief that women have to appear smaller than they are so that men can feel as big as they are. What I mean by ‘homophobia’ is the (often unconscious) belief/insistence that LGBT be (or at least pretend to be) other than they are so that others can feel comfortable and secure in their sense of who they are.

[3] Third, my point is not psychological but theological: homophobia and misogyny are contrary to the Gospel because they imprison everyone in lies about who we--each and all--are and about who we--each and all--are meant to be! It is not true that anyone has to appear smaller so that someone else can stand up to their full stature in Christ! It is not true that some have to stay in the closet so that others can be true to themselves. God Our Creator knew what God was doing. God calls us each to grow up into our full stature, and God has a way, God is determined to make a way for each and all to do it at once.

The Church’s sex and gender policies have been and are abusive, and that puts LGBT Christians in a double-bind.

Current Church policy and emerging polity seemingly puts LGBT Christians in a ‘no win’ situation, which is where our enemies want us, perhaps need us to be.

Moreover, God our Creator is too big to be an authority figure. God is of consistent purpose: God does not boss us around on the outside without regard for our inward potential and propensities. God works as an enabler on the inside, a live-in Tutor, designing individualized syllabi, trying to evoke our capacities, hoping to win our ever-more conscious collaboration, sparking our imagination together to create fresh ways to express who we really are, teaching us courtesy to make room for God’s other creatures to be what and who they are as well. For God, it is no fun just to squeeze us into a set mold. God does not have one and only one plan for our lives, some eternal idée fixe of who we are. God made us living and active so that we could add human to Divine artistry and invent new ways to be. Who we really are is both gift and task!

How can we survive and grow as Christians, when the Church has become so abusive, so hostile and hurtful, so opposed to the Gospel?

Renouncing society’s right to say who we are and what we mean, frees us for full communion with Our Creator, with that gay men’s chorus, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Anti-LGBT taboos oppress and so betray the Church’s Gospel mission to proclaim release to the captives; taboos imprison everyone and keep us all from surfing in the wideness of God’s mercy. Detached engagement makes us ambassadors for Christ bringing the Gospel back to the institution that doesn’t want to hear it, whose leaders are afraid to see, hear, and act on it.

If It's Natural Does That Mean It's Good or Good for You?

Some quick thoughts:

If it's natural does that mean it's good or good for you? That's what a lot of people seem to think and what a lot of advertisers want you to think: Such and such activities are natural and therefore good or at least permissible; such and such a product is all natural and therefore good for you; etc. But is all that really true? Is naturalness equivalent to goodness? Does an activity's naturalness render it good and unnaturalness bad? To think about such questions we need to be clear and separate out the most common notions of naturalness, notions that people tend to confuse:

Natural (1) - due to non-human causes or made from ingredients which are

Natural (2) - capable of showing up in a naturalistic theory (e.g., being physical, being part of the causal network, being spatiotemporal, being a subject of the sciences or natural sciences, or etc.)

Natural (3) - being statistically common or the most common (perhaps: normal or average)

Natural (4) - genetic or inborn, or the result of a genetic or inborn disposition

Natural (5) - in accordance with or at least consistent with a thing's telos (its end, goal, purpose, or function)

Foods or ingested products claim to be natural (1). Obviously, though, something can be natural (1) but not good for you. Various poisons are natural (1) and if all the other ingredients in a pill or recipe are natural (1), that makes the entire pill or recipe natural (1) as well. But clearly if there is enough of the poison, this all-natural ingestible is definitely not good for you. Let that be a warning the next time you want to pick up some unknown, untested (probably herbal) medicine which claims to be all-natural and therefore, presumably, good for you - its naturalness (1) is no cause for approval. Artificial stuff can be just as good as the natural (1) or even better! It all depends on what exactly it is.

Wars and lying are respectively natural (2) and natural (3) but they are not necessarily good either. Few people, though, seem to think that being natural (2) or natural (3) lead to goodness (especially for the former). So what about the last two notions of naturalness?

Take homosexual behavior or being disposed towards such behavior as an example. There's a huge nature vs. nurture debate there - gay activists trying to argue that homosexual behavior is the result of genetic or embryonic dispositions and anti-homosexuality activists arguing that such dispositions are purely choice. The assumption in this debate seems to be that if such a disposition is natural (4) then such behavior must be good or permissible or not blameworthy. But of course that doesn't follow in the least. Someone may have a genetic or inborn disposition towards child molestation or violence but that doesn't mean that such things are good or permissible or not blameworthy. In fact, probably all of us have some sort of sinful disposition inborn in us but that doesn't make things any better for all that. Really, little or nothing of moral consequence seems to follow immediately from the fact that something is natural (4).
Perhaps what is going on here is a confusion of naturalness (4) with naturalness (5). Naturalness (5), unlike the other notions, does have something to do with what is good or with what we ought to do or be like. And I think a perfectly acceptable, consistent, and plausible Christian view of the matter would be to take homosexual behavior (or alcoholism or aggression or infidelity or whatever else you want to pin on genetics or fetal development) as natural (4) but not natural (5). On this sort of view, that kind of behavior would be against our proper function as human persons and bad but still a result of genetic or inborn dispositions. And unlike naturalness(4), there is no reason or evidence to suggest that homosexual (or whatever) behavior is natural (5). So naturalness (4) in this debate is just a red herring. The real question - the philosophical and religious one - is whether such activities are natural (5). And that's a question the Christian tradition, in line with the New Testament teaching, answers in the negative.

Controversy surrounding FBC

The following is an expression of my own personal, fallible feelings on this issue. In no way should it be taken to reflect the opinions of FBC or any of its staff or members. Especially if, as may be the case, it turns out to be too judgmental or not loving enough toward the parties involved (in which case, apologies to those concerned):

There's a big controversy going on right now about our church here in Davis (FBC - First Baptist Church). One of our members, an elected official named Freddie Oakley, has spoken out against the illegality of gay marriage. Apparently she thinks it is unjust/unfair/politically wrong to limit marriage or people's choice of marriage partners. As far as I know, she has not said anything at all to indicate that she thinks that gay marriage is morally permissible - for all she's said, she may very well think it is wrong or sinful, just that it is a matter of political justice that the state has no right to interfere when it comes to marriage. In other words, it may be wrong, but it is unjust for the state to force someone to accept that it is wrong or act as though it were. Everything she's said publicly has been perfectly compatible with such a combination of views (and, indeed, such a combination of views is not entirely uncommon, especially among people with more of a politically liberal or libertarian bent). After all, plenty of people think JW's are wrong in what they believe but most of the same think it'd be unjust to block them from attaining a place of worship. All this is just to say that though Oakley may be politically in favor of allowing gay marriage, that doesn't directly translate into moral approval or a moral condoning of it (and indeed, some of her comments might seem to support this particular interpretation of her views - look at what she says about how religion ought to be kept out of the law - presumably she has in mind her own religion, Christianity, which is morally against homosexual relationships).
The past two weeks, a group from Placerville called the Church of the Divide (an unintentionally apt name!) has been protesting at FBC because they feel that the church in general, and the staff in particular, have been lax in publicly disciplining Oakley for her "sinfulness". Apparently, they are unaware of the possibility of the combination of views described above. Or maybe they just think that anyone who disagrees with their political stance must thereby be sinning! The former seems pretty likely to me - people quite often confuse moral and legal matters (which is not to say that there is no connection - just that they are not the same). This group has taken FBC's refusal to bar Oakley from worship as moral approval of gay relationships, as evidenced by the sorts of signs they brought to the protest and many of the things they have said. This is, of course, ridiculous, as FBC, in line with the Bible, is against homosexual practices and the pastor has explicitly said as much.
The group sent a letter to FBC, the following being an excerpt:

Due to your apparent refusal to speak with us privately about this issue dealing with the purity of the bride of Christ, His church, we will be following Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18 and will publicly expose your inaction in exercising proper church discipline on a member’s open, public sin. (“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, TELL IT UNTO THE CHURCH.” Matt 18:15-17)

This is quite the wacky application of these verses, to put it mildly. Jesus is here speaking about the goings on within a particular group of believers (probably originally the local synagogue - its a bit misleading, though hermeneutically still appropriate, to translate the Greek word ekklesia (meaning "assembly") here as "church", though since the local church is just a continuation of the local synagogue the principles still apply). Specifically, this is about interpersonal relationships between members of the same local assembly. More specifically, it's about one individual member personally wronging another individual member - such as through fraud, exploitation, gossip, abuse, etc. Clearly this does not support the Church of the Divide's actions. No one in that group, as far as I know, is a member or even an occasional attendee of FBC nor has any of them been personally wronged by any member of FBC. So there is no Scriptural basis in this passage for them to bring this matter up with our church.
Check out their article on the controversy and the protest here: http://www.churchofthedivide.org/FBCOakleyProtest.htm
and
http://www.informationgospel.net/information_blog.htm

If you read what is written on both websites and watch their video, they are hardly loving - they seem to be taunting FBC staff and volunteers and acting in general in a rather immature manner (notice how the cameraman takes up the issue of setting foot on the property in a rather childish way, reminding me a little of a bratty kid talking back to its parents). They seem to be completely belligerent, arrogant, and uncharitable. They twist everything and interpret everything into the worst possible light without even considering more charitable (and more plausible) interpretations of what is being done and said by FBC staff or members.
It's highly ironic that their website's motto is "Expressing God's Love in a Whole New Kind of Way". This new way seems to be the old "Pharisaic" way of judgment, condemnation, and self-righteousness. Notice how they even describe someone as an "aged, obese bicyclist" - if that's not deliberate malevolence, I don't know what is!
Here's a quote from their site:

Upon arrival, Church of the Divide was met with a hostile crowd of "First Baptist Church" (FBC) personel

I highly doubt it was really hostile. As far as I know, they told the group to leave and endured the group's taunting without uttering any hostile words and in general keeping quiet - how is that hostile? As an aside, it's funny that they talk about "FBC bodyguards" as if we had big, burly tough guys of questionable character and violent tendencies standing about. It's hilarious to think of Jon ("Papa Jon" to his grandkids) as an official "FBC Bodyguard". Maybe they should get an official t-shirt.
Notice the following quote from a man from the group who was asked to leave the property:

"Not very 'welcoming' if you ask me," he added. "I guess only Freddie Oakley gets welcomed here - Bible-believing Christians apparently are not."

That's about as uncharitable as you can get. There's no notion here that perhaps the staff thought that this person was really here to protest and disrupt the service or accost the pastors or parishioners or film what was going on in order to edit and twist the words and actions of the people in the church (which was pretty likely what would have happened - notice on the video that one man who was kicked out of the service had a camera in his hand and kept talking about having gone into the service to speak to the pastor). Instead, if they aren't allowed on the property it must, of course, be because they are Christians and, of course, FBC doesn't want Christians on its property! All this, of course, is getting things almost completely backwards. Any group which is about respect for its members and being welcoming and having an uninterrupted service without its members being molested would precisely not want to welcome such protesters. They are not welcome precisely because they are, in an extremely confrontational and public way, not acting as Christians.

As already mentioned, their use of Scripture in support of their position is piecemeal and not very well executed to say the least. Take some of their signs: "I have this against you - "You tolerate that woman Jezebel (Freddie)" Revelation 2:20". Anyone who knows anything about Revelation or its context should find this laughable - last time I checked, FBC is not located in Thyatira in the first century AD nor is Freddie Oakley a leader at our church attempting to lead the rest of the church into pagan/proto-Gnostic practices. Another quote from them: "I told him [Pastor Glen] homosexuality is a sin of great consequence stemming from the destruction by God of Sodom and was brought up in the Bible, including by Jesus, over 30 times; the judgment of homosexuality is not just individual but societal." Now, I don't remember Jesus ever explicitly bringing up homosexuality, but it's important to remember that the Bible never says that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of gay relationships. That undoubtedly added to their guilt, but Scripture indicates that they were generally very depraved, not just in wanting to have sex with other people of the same gender but in all sorts of ways. They tried to rape some angels, violate norms of hospitality and justice, etc. Scripture indicates that it was because of their wickedness that they were destroyed - it never pinpoints that wickedness as solely or even mostly to be found in gay relationships. So it is hard to say, as they seem to think, that homosexual activity is somehow a greater sin than all others - Scripture just does not support that. If any sins are held in greater contempt at all (which may be disputed), Scripture sees injustice and idolatry as the greatest sins - not homosexual activity. Scripture does see such activity as a grievous sin, just not something somehow at the top of the list. In any case, Oakley wasn't even engaging in such activity nor was she explicitly condoning or supporting it - so the seriousness of homosexual activity as a sin isn't relevant in any case.

Anyway, Scripture is not altogether clear on what all of our political views should be - moral views yes, political views no. In such a gray area, we should be charitable and allow people to differ in their opinions so long as they hold true to the faith and affirm what the Bible is indeed clear about. Even if Oakley were to publicly speak out in favor of the moral permissibility of homosexual relationships, it still is not clear that she should be kicked out of the church - Paul in 1 Corinthians speaks of removing the people who are committing public sexual sins and remain unrepentant, not removing the people he condemns for merely approving of it.

The ultimate problem seems to be that these people think that sinners shouldn't be let into the church. This of course is connected to an ancient heresy opposed by the rest of the church (the Church Father Augustine prominent among those who opposed the heresy). The Church of the Divide apparently believes that Christians can and should be completely sinless. One member told a curious FBC-goer that he personally had been without sin for 28 years or something like that. Of course, this contradicts 1 John "He who says he is without sin is a liar". And so since they think Oakley is a sinner, they think she should go - only the sinless should be allowed in church! But, as Pastor Glen has said, in that case none of us (Dividers included) would be allowed inside!