Can You Be Pro-Gay and Stay Evangelical? Yes…and No

My friend Jonathan Merritt and Kirsten Powers co-penned a piece on the Daily Beast titled, “Conservative Christians Selectively Apply Biblical Teachings in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate.” Their essay, written in opposition to the Arizona legislation allowing companies to refuse service to same-sex couples on religious grounds, is fair and even-handed. In fact, if anything, it’s too safe.

They simply make the point that if a wedding photographer or cake-baker refuses to supply a same-sex wedding because it is “unbiblical,” they should similarly refuse service to other “unbiblical” marriages. Like, for instance, people like me who are divorced. Or people like you who engage in unnatural sex acts.

Merritt and Powers don’t even get into the extended argument that Lydia surely sold her purple garments to non-Christians in Thyatira. Even if she’d put a fish on her business card, there weren’t enough Christians in her town to make a living if she’d exclusively catered to fellow believers.

Evangelicals have lashed out at Merritt and Powers, including Russell Moore and Albert Mohler (hereafter, Moorohler). It matters not that Merritt and Powers’s argument is so supremely superior to Moorohler’s — anyone with a modicum of intellect can see that. Merritt and Powers present an airtight argument. It’s a stupid law, as most anyone can see, and it surely isn’t defensible by any biblical argument.

But what I’m more interested in is the politics of the backlash.

Rather than admitting that the law is bad, motivated by fear, not really solving anything, and backed by one of the craziest governors in the country, Moorohler would rather dig in their heels and throw punches at Merritt and Powers. Rather than once, just once, publicly acknowledging that the Religious Right has jumped the shark, Moorohler do theological gymnastics to defend the idiotic legislation.

What’s really at stake here for Moorohler (though not for Merritt and Powers) is the definition of “evangelical.” Both Merritt and Powers have impeccable evangelical credentials, and, more importantly, they claim to be evangelical. But by the lights of Moorohler, they’re not. Why? Not because they affirm gay marriage. Not because they affirm gay ordination. Because they stand against discrimination.

I regularly equate the fight for gay rights with the fight for civil rights. It’s not a one-to-one correlation, but there are enough similarities to make the case. Conservatives regularly disagree with me, saying it’s apples and oranges. But when states attempt to enshrine discrimination in law, the parallels are all too clear.

Contra Moorohler, one’s evangelical credentials do not rise and fall on toeing the line on gay rights, or the lack thereof. Evangelicalism is a theological stance, not a political one. As Scot McKnight has repeatedly stated, quoting David Bebbington, the four marks of evangelicalism are conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism. By this rubric, I’m quite sure that Merritt and Powers are true blue evangelicals.

But we’d be naive not to acknowledge that there’s another working definition of evangelicalism at play. That’s a cultural definition, and it swirls less around theology and more around brands: Christianity Today, James Dobson, contemporary Christian music, Christian colleges, and Republican politics. Jim Wallis can jump up and down all day, screaming, “I’m an evangelical!,” and Moorohler will calmly say, “No you’re not.” Or, they might quote Jerry Falwell, who once told Jim that he was “as much an evangelical as an oak tree.”

If we’re honest, we can acknowledge that “evangelical” is an empty signifier. The term is up for grabs. Some (McKnight) see it as a theological category; others (Moorohler) consider it a cultural/political category. The media tends toward the latter definition since they have a tin ear for theological nuance. And, as long as the term has no agreed-upon meaning, we will be trapped in arguments of incommensurability.

So, the next time someone accuses you of not being evangelical, don’t get your undies in a bunch. Just realize that they’re using the word in a completely different way than you are.

Is Rob Bell This or That?
No One's Heard of Paul Ricoeur
Limping Into the New Year — A Christmas Diagnosis
Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have a Subtitle
  • http://joshalinton.blogspot.com Josh Linton

    Just glad you didn’t use “Moore-Mohler” because the phonetics of that combination scare the hell out of me. The world doesn’t need more Mohler.

  • Daniel Mann
    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

      Your link falls apart, because it relies on the Ocean Grove case. You should realize that Ocean Grove is a terrible example for your argument, because the facts lead you to the exact opposite conclusion.

      Ocean Grove lost its tax exemption on an open air pavilion because it wouldn’t allow a lesbian couple to have a commitment ceremony there. But the fact is: This only happened because Ocean Grove simply applied for the wrong kind of property tax exemption.

      Instead of basing it on religious grounds, they applied under a state program that gave non-profit corporations a tax break on property that is “open for public use on an equal basis.” Ocean Grove obviously violated that agreement and lost the exemption on their pavilion.

      But here’s the thing…

      Ocean Grove later applied for a religious tax exemption on the facility, and got it, leaving them free to discriminate without paying property taxes.

      And there’s more…

      Ocean Grove also owns chapels, chapels that don’t permit same-sex ceremonies, and never have. Those properties are also tax exempt. Why? Because they’re part of the group’s religious work.

      Ocean Grove’s religious freedom to discriminate against icky gay people was never violated. In fact, the full story actually affirms the religious right of the Religious Right to discriminate against us.

      • Daniel Mann

        Rob, It’s not a matter of discriminating against gays. It’s a matter of not being compelled to participate in what violates our moral code! Should we be compelled to film an orgy? Should we go to jail if we refuse to comply? Would you want to be compelled to have to bake a cake reading “Gays are Icky?”

        If we are all to live together, we have to grant one another some degree of moral space.

  • Cary Bass-Deschenes

    You can not only be pro-gay and evangelical. You can be gay and evangelical. It’s a real thing.

    • The_L1985

      Even if we consider “evangelical” to be a political stance, it’s still true. I’m sure there are a fair number of Religious-Right folks in the closet. ;)

  • http://jacobarminius.blogpost.com/ William Birch

    If Moorohler represent what is an evangelical proper, then gladly discount me from the nomenclature. Moreover, at what point do we call Moorohler’s attempt at a conservative evangelical right-wing theocracy tantamount to spiritual idolatry? If not now then when?

  • CurtisMSP

    As an Evangelical Lutheran, I appreciate your conclusion.

  • http://www.kellyjyoungblood.com/ Kelly J Youngblood

    In a theology class I took many years ago, I remember reading something that gave maybe 6 different definitions for evangelical, showing that it was complicated to define. What struck me was that even if a person fit into a couple of the categories, people in the other categories wouldn’t accept them as evangelical (and vice versa).

  • http://www.dualravens.com/ravens Patrick O

    Christianity Today is certainly is a marker of Evangelicalism, but that’s not a new definition. That might be the best historical definition. Christianity Today and Fuller Seminary were started as flagship signifiers of the neo-Evangelical movement. They were intended to be the public expressions that both were defined by and were defining for the movement. That’s Marsden’s take on it, and I think he has a pretty good grasp on the history.

    Which is to say that’s not all Evangelicalism is, and the other bits. the CCM, the Republican politics, etc, are definitely later issues. But CT and Fuller, they’re the brands that Evangelicalism set up.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship Censored

    > If your hotel is hosting the wedding and you don’t see rings on both
    individual’s fingers, you must refuse to rent them only one room. [DailyBeast article]

    Don’t give the evangelical obsessed-over-thy-neighbor’s-sex folks ideas! My wife and I were married in a Conservative Mennonite church with no rings (because jewelry is “worldly.”)

  • http://www.geekedoutsoul.com/ John Stonecypher

    “Evangelical” has always been such an important word in my identity, but I know the time has come to give it up. As a word, it is a salted field. I hate giving up words. It feels like genocide.

  • Murray Garrison

    I agree with the article. I do think that the billboard in the picture is way off, however. The two men in that passage of Matthew were not gay, according to any version I could find. They were, however, not Israelite which is where the non-discrimination part works, but not gay.

    Before anyone jumps down my throat about this, I am not, in any way, religious. I am fighting a never-ending battle against religion among my own acquaintances. I just simply don’t believe in lying or stretching the truth to make a point. I personally believe that religion is the greatest scourge this planet has ever known.

    • SonjaFaithLund

      Here’s the essay behind the billboard. You can still disagree with their exegesis, but they do have an explanation. http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

      • Guest

        Thank you. It is a very interesting read. I am aware that the current bible is a translation of a translation of a translation and we all know that a lot is often lost in translation. The same goes for the translation about Sodom and Gomorrah. Most christians believe that the ‘sin’ was homosexuality. In reality, it was simply about the violent rape of guests to the city and not specifically about homosexuality. Like the article that you posted, we have to consider the cultural difference of the time. Violently attacking a guest to the city, whether it be male on female or male on male was the real crime, even if rape was not necessarily involved. Christians love to pick and choose what they believe in. My favourite is that they consistently preach that the old testament doesn’t apply to them because jesus came and died for their sins, yet they continually cite old testament scriptures to judge others today.

        • Ignorance is amiss

          I think you need to look into the difference between translation and version in so far as it applies to the Biblical method.

          Most bibles you pick up today (ESV, NASB, etc.) are direct translations from the original languages or earliest documents we currently hold.

          Just a point of clarification.

          • Guest

            They are not. Even IF they were, again, something is almost always lost in translation. Either way, they’re translations of a fictional book to begin with and therefore have no meaning whatsoever.

            • Ignorance is amiss

              Actually most of the English versions are directly translated from the earliest original documents we have available.

              Also, they are not translations of a fictional book, even the most ardently irreligious biblical scholars (yes there are many non religious bible scholars) are clear that there is much accurate and historical information in the individual documents that make up the biblical record.

              I don’t see much usefulness resulting from this conversation as you seem pretty focused on denying readily understood facts.

              • Guest

                Pot, Kettle, Black

                • Ignorance is amiss

                  This doesn’t seem to apply. Looks like you jumped the gun a little.

                  I see that long posts filled with facts and documentation of claims will be deleted as spam. What a joke.

              • Guest

                The King James version is the most common version and as far as I can tell, all of the other most popular versions of the bible were derived from the KJV to make reading it simpler and more easily understood in plain modern english.

                The KJV was translated from two other languages. The old testament from Hebrew and the new testament from Greek.

                There is a caveat, however. James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. So, not really a true translation of the original text.

                Also, the bible is conglomeration of scrolls put together by the ‘men in power’ of the time. There were thousands of scrolls considered and many were tossed aside because they didn’t conform to the belief of the church of the time.

                So, yes, the bible is fictional. Yes, there is much historical data in the bible that can be verified, but that data mostly pertains to cities and leaders of the time. The supernatural aspect of the divinity of the dietys is entirely fictional and there has been no proof EVER found of the one thing that christians hold in the highest regard….jesus! Not one thing ever found to prove that he even existed….and the Romans and Greeks were meticulous record keepers.

                Christianity was a ‘fringe’ movement until Constantine came into power in the ‘Holy Roman Empire’ and decreed that christianity was now the official and only religion….more than 300 years later.

                • Ignorance is amiss

                  You just showed how little you know about the Biblical process. Please check with some credentialed individuals to understand how it works. Try Dr. Daniel B. Wallace well known for collecting and cataloging (also making them available in PDF format for scholar and layman alike) some of the earliest manuscripts available to us today (including a 1st century fragment copy of the book of Mark).

                  Another note, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek WERE the original languages the documents of the Bible were written in and both old and new testament have a very reliable collection of manuscripts which can be examined to determine authenticity and accuracy of the words we have today. The KJV was translated from some of the earliest manuscripts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek original language) that were available at the time it was translated. Other formats of the bible, NAS, NET, ESV, etc. were also direct translations from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts available at the time of their undertaking. Why were they made? Because we found earlier manuscripts and thus were able to more reliably translate.

                  There are versions of the bible such as the NIV, The Message, the NLT, etc. that are designed simply to work from formats like the KJV, NAS, NET, ESV, etc. for the sake of more fluid readability. This is because some people struggle reading the KJV, NAS, NET, ESV etc. due to the word for word “wooden” translation from the original languages and early manuscripts. The easy reading versions are done on a thought for thought, or concept for concept style for smoother reading but less direct correlation.

                  Actually there are plenty of documents from sources outside of the Bible that make reference to Jesus and bring every single historian which serves in a University position to ratify that Jesus of Nazareth surely was an existing historical figure.

                  Looks like you need to brush up on your study a little bit.

                  Very few individuals deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historically existing person.

                  Maybe a little too much Dan Brown for you and not enough interaction with informed research and history.

                  Here is a light interaction with the material for you, all gathered in one place with citations and explanation. – http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html (You’ll also be able to interact with the material regarding Jesus alleged likenesses to other falsely claimed “dying and rising gods”.

                  You have a good day, every day is a good day to learn something new.

                • Ignorance is amiss

                  Someone marked my original placing of this comment as spam, probably because they didn’t like the information.

                  You just showed how little you know about the Biblical process.
                  Please check with some credentialed individuals to understand how it
                  works. Try Dr. Daniel B. Wallace well known for collecting and
                  cataloging (also making them available in PDF format for scholar and
                  layman alike) some of the earliest manuscripts available to us today
                  (including a 1st century fragment copy of the book of Mark).

                  Another note, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek WERE the original languages
                  the documents of the Bible were written in and both old and new
                  testament have a very reliable collection of manuscripts which can be
                  examined to determine authenticity and accuracy of the words we have
                  today. The KJV was translated from some of the earliest manuscripts
                  (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek original language) that were available at
                  the time it was translated. Other formats of the bible, NAS, NET, ESV,
                  etc. were also direct translations from the earliest and most reliable
                  manuscripts available at the time of their undertaking. Why were they
                  made? Because we found earlier manuscripts and thus were able to more
                  reliably translate.

                  There are versions of the bible such as the NIV, The Message, the
                  NLT, etc. that are designed simply to work from formats like the KJV,
                  NAS, NET, ESV, etc. for the sake of more fluid readability. This is
                  because some people struggle reading the KJV, NAS, NET, ESV etc. due to
                  the word for word “wooden” translation from the original languages and
                  early manuscripts. The easy reading versions are done on a thought for
                  thought, or concept for concept style for smoother reading but less
                  direct correlation.

                  Actually there are plenty of documents from sources outside of the
                  Bible that make reference to Jesus and bring every single historian
                  which serves in a University position to ratify that Jesus of Nazareth
                  surely was an existing historical figure.

                  Looks like you need to brush up on your study a little bit.

                  Very few individuals deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historically existing person.

                  Maybe a little too much Dan Brown for you and not enough interaction with informed research and history.

                  Here is a light interaction with the material for you, all gathered in one place with citations and explanation. – http://thedevineevidence. com/jesus_history. html
                  (You’ll also be able to interact with the material regarding Jesus
                  alleged likenesses to other falsely claimed “dying and rising gods”.

                  You have a good day, every day is a good day to learn something new.

  • JoAnn Forsberg

    Love is all we need. It is that simple.

  • JoAnn Forsberg

    JoAnn Forsberg
    As a born-again Christian Grandmother married to one man for 38 years. I have deeply studied the Bible and traditional marriage as America states it. For truly the one man and one women was not the Bibilcal standard in Old Testament.

    If you are willing to step outside of what is passed on and taught through the denomination you joined; a choice you made as to what you believe is truth. For obviously for as many Christians whom exist, for as many foundational teachings:

    NOT ONE person or church has the complete knowledge of interpretation of Biblical passages. God’s word is perfect; it is mankind’s interpretations that is not.

    So if your willing to learn I ask you look up the National Geographic video on the study done on genetics and gay individuals. We cannot deny creation in however born. For to do so denies our Creator.

    Yet, truly what confuses me the most about my Christian brothers and sisters is the whole abortion and adoption issue. As a women who defends the rights of gay individuals in church and America. I have gained many gay friends over a thirty year period.

    My observation is this: we stand for the right for life. Yet, children are born with mental and physical issues. Many, many gay families adopt these babies/children giving them a loving home. I have also witness time and time again gay couples helping a teenager so they will not abort the child!

    Who is the Good Samaritan here? Who would Jesus state were showing His message of love? I know many children in gay families who would not be here without a gay person helping them to be born.

    So until we solve the abortion issue we should be applauding any person- gay or straight who help these children to be born.

    Your not hurting gay people by deny equal rights in marriage and families. You are sentencing many unborn children to death. Many handicapped children to not belong to a loving person.

    Please open your hearts, open your mind, study genetic creation of gay people. then, know Christ/God/Spirit did not condemn gay individuals. It is us, as Christians who have.

    Requires too many statements to explain all the misinterpretation that has occurred.

    But just know this is an undisputed truth: the word homosexual was never (1,500 years) in the Bible until 1946.

    One more truth to consider: study the seven deadly sins. Very enlightening as “Sloth/laziness” was the greatest sin over history. Reason being a tribe, clan and our own Pilgrims required all to work for survival.

    I often hear in Christian circles: that America needs to repent. Often blamed on gay individuals. I agree with: “We need to repent, humbly fall on our knees”. But not because of gay individuals. But because we are so spoilt in America that daily survival does not cross our mind.

    That the Christian Church today “band-wagon” is those gays who want to attend church! Wow, really? 1,500 plus years Christians worried about survival and we worry that a gay person adopts a child, wants to be a family, or wants to attend church just as they are, just as I am.

    Yes, America needs to repent; fall down in humility for being selfish in sharing the love of Christ to ALL!

    Bless you all today… Consider the children yet unborn.

    Blessings, Jo

    • Joseph Durepos

      Bless you Jo! And Tony, one of the smartest guys in the room.

    • http://www.myfullemptynest.wordpress.com/ myfullemptynest

      Well said.

    • http://kingscriercommissions.blogspot.com/ thekingscrier

      I agree with your sentiment towards inclusion for the LGBT community. I disagree with your statement about your god’s word being perfect.

  • Terry Call

    In any event, it’s all but over the moment they begin eating their own kind.

    Jesus would go to the Gay bar long before he’d head to the evangelical church.

    • robertdwilliams

      That is the most Bible-based truth on this page. Thank you!

  • Zeke

    The proposed law “surely isn’t defensible by any biblical argument”?
    Blogger, please. Christians can readily cite the Bible to support idiotic laws like these. The Bible is such a contradictory mess that you can cherry-pick passages that suggest tolerance, but let’s face it, no other book has done more to stigmatize, shame, and terrorize homosexuals.
    Bible reading Christians are the soul of gay bigotry and champions of the effort to ban same sex marriage. Is it simply a massive coincidence that millions of Christians agree on the evils of homosexuality without reading the Bible? The fact that Christians like yourself choose to interpret the Bible to mean what you want it to mean is commendable, but you have no more basis for your view than they do.

    • Andrew Dowling

      “but let’s face it, no other book has done more to stigmatize, shame, and terrorize homosexuals.”

      That statement sure lets the Quran off the hook.

      The Bible certainly does contradict itself, but the “good parts” cherry-picked by the likes of Jefferson, Rousseau and the fathers of the Enlightenment paved the way for the liberal-democratic societies that have seen the first widespread acceptance of homosexuality in modern history (the words of Jesus in the Gospels are radically egalitarian for 2000 years ago, let alone today). So let’s be fair.

      • Zeke

        True enough, the Quran probably takes that prize!
        I agree with your final statement too, which I suppose is really the whole point. You can interpret the Bible to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. But you have to squint pretty hard at it to find support for homosexuality.

  • Steve_Seattle

    Is calling Mohler “Moohroller” supposed to be clever or funny? I think it’s just juvenile. As for the Arizona law, I suppose to be consistent in opposing that law, Tony would have to deny the right of conscientious objection in wartime. After all, the law is the law, and conscience should not be allowed to override the law. According to Tony’s logic, the state is the supreme authority before which we must all bow, right after public opinion polls. And I suppose Tony would force a gay caterer to service the Westboro Baptist Church. And he would deny people the right to boycott businesses to which they have moral objections because that would be discriminatory. I would also ask Tony if Barack Obama was a homophobe and a bigot when he opposed gay marriage in 2008, or was he merely a liar?

    • WonkishGuy

      And, to be consistent in defending the law, its supporters should say business owners in the 1960s South should have been allowed to discriminate against African-Americans and that the Civil Rights Act was a terrible mistake.

      As for a gay caterer providing services to Westboro Baptist Church, I say: why not? They have despicable views but, as long as they pay good money for the services obtained, I don’t see the problem. Providing food for a function at market prices is not endorsement of what people do. I would want Westboro Baptist Chuch to have the same rights not to be discriminated against as other people.

      Conscientious objection? Different because we’re dealing with forcing people to take actions that they would not normally take in any circumstance (taking up arms against strangers), which is why their attitude to violence is general is scrutinized. Very different from telling people that, if they’re willing to bake a cake that says “Adam + Eve”, they should be willing to bake one saying “Adam + Steve”.

  • Timothy M. Grahl

    First off, the scripture on the billboard had absolutely NOTHING to do with a gay couple. How someone can make that connection is beyond me. Second, if you claim to be a Christian, you cannot be pro-gay. Homosexuality is a sin, you can find that truth in many scriptures in the Bible. Sin separates us from God. God abhors sin. The “love the sinner, hate the sin” saying still applies but you cannot support the sin of homosexuality and be a follower of Christ. So the answer to the question posed by this article is a resounding NO. You cannot be pro-gay any more than you can be pro-murder or pro-theft. The are all sins and a Christian cannot support nor be pro-sin.

    • steve daugherty

      Hey Timothy,
      Murder and theft are, to put it generically, justice issues. So you’re probably right; to be for the act of taking property or life probably puts one at odds with Christ. At least at odds with Christ’s way. But I don’t think being against someone for their sexuality rinses Christ’s blood off you. At least not in how I understand grace and the non-meritocracy of Christ.
      Perhaps we could allow ourselves to be less sure about this, since it’s not our call? I can understand having strong convictions, but let’s be bold about what we’re for, not what (who) we’re against. Most the major religions bash homosexuals et al. It’s not uniquely Christian to do so. What’s uniquely Christian is to unite ourselves at be at peace with those who the religious reject.
      Just a thought.

  • Thin-ice

    As an ex-missionary and ex-evangelical-now-unbeliever, I watch these who’s-an-evangelical discussions with much amusement. And I too think it’s entirely cultural question. You guys (and I don’t include Tony here) should all quit trying to make the New Testament validate your particular flavor of evangelicalism. The New Testament is nothing more than a reflection of morality and culture as it existed in the middle east 2000 years ago. There are enough contradictory and eccentric passages contained therein, that almost anyone, from fundamentalist tea-party types to extremely liberal progressives, can quote scripture and verse in support of their version.

    But I guess religious types always need a supernatural “authority” to be on their side, so probably nothing will ever change . . .

  • David Williams

    After the 10 Commandments, almost every leader of Israel had multiple wives and concubines. Solomon’s 1,000 concubines is even celebrated. Not once is there a condemnation. Also, there is no condemnation of Lot’s daughters having sex with him. Paul only requires leaders to have one wife. Evangelicals have found what they went looking for regarding sex in the Bible.

  • Andrew Dowling

    Frankly, I see the “evangelical moderates” trying to have their cake and eat it too. American evangelicalism arose neck and neck with the conservative political and cultural apparatus you mention. Any (relatively rare) liberal elements of that were kicked out (or left) in the late 60s/early 70s, mostly from the educational sector.

    Now in the last 10 years, as the world as gotten smaller and the evangelical brand has been severely tarnished, you have many evangelicals trying to nuance their way into much more moderate (dare I say progressive in some instances) strands of Christianity. But to get there, you have to eventually dump the view of inerrancy and embrace some modernist assumptions. But modern evangelicalism arose precisely to REJECT modernism and embrace biblical inerrancy (usually making inerrant the passages most aligned with conservative politics).

    If you go away from that . . just be honest and dump the term evangelical. It’s permanently smeared by the legacy of its post-Scopes emergence and the 80s Moral Majority movement.

  • Debra Gilbert

    JoAnn Forsberg…thank you!

  • http://www.myfullemptynest.wordpress.com/ myfullemptynest

    Why don’t you say what you really think?! Great post. Thankful for great minds on this matter. It’s unfortunate the ‘crazies’ are the loudest.

  • billireland

    The author, rather than refuting the arguments of Moore and Mohler, simply pronounces the opposite argument “supremely superior.” (Someone should read the dictionary entry for “redundant.”)

    With the case thus closed,the author gets down to his task of name-calling: First, “anyone with a modicum of intelligence” will agree with him. The Arizona governor is “crazy”. The law itself is “stupid”. He indulges in gratuitous disrespect for Moore and Mohler by deliberately mangling their names.

    This is a sorry excuse for rational argument, and a sorry excuse for Christianity.

    • benaksar

      My thoughts exactly.

    • Daniel Comings

      What? Tony poisons the well with his “arguments?” Nooo… [/sarc]

      Thanks for pointing it out though.

  • jobeob987

    It
    is not that they won’t serve the lgbt folks. It is that they don’t
    want to serve in activities that go against their religious convictions.
    You can’t make a kosher deli serve you a pork chop or an African
    America seamstress sew your KKK robes. Plenty of Christians serve the
    lgbt people of their communities everyday from doctors to garbage men.
    Christian Muslims and Jews just don’t want to participate in activities
    that they see as wrong. Early last month the company I work for found
    out that we could get some work at a large nuclear contractor
    for the military. I told them that I would not work on any of the jobs
    we do there because they are military contractors and I am a
    conscientious objector and Jesus said we are to love our enemies. Should
    I be force to work there? I could loose my job just like many of these
    Christians may loose their businesses. Christian have been martyrs for
    a long time. There have been times of peace but they never last that
    long and we may have squandered the current time of peace that is now
    coming to an end. Now that
    the lgbt people have political power they are becoming the bullies.
    Here is an article that you will find interesting that just came out the other
    day. http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/25/yes-of-course-a-business-owner-should-have-the-right-to-refuse-service-to-gay-eople/
    I don’t call gay people names and I wouldn’t stand by and watch someone
    hurt another person no matter what the orientation, religion or race is.
    I hope the lgbt community will do the same.
    The Matt Walsh Blog on WordPress.com
    themattwalshblog.com

    • Andrew Dowling

      “You can’t make a kosher deli serve you a pork chop or an African
      America seamstress sew your KKK robes”

      Not an adequate analogy.

      -The Kosher deli isn’t selling pork. The baker is selling wedding cakes. No-one is forcing the cake maker to bake donuts.

      -As for the seamstress, if she makes white sheets she should sell them to whomever wants the white sheets. She is not “participating” in whatever act is done with the sheets (do bed sheet makers have sex with those who purchase them and then have sex in them?) . . she is making/selling sheets. Just like bakeries bake cakes. If you are so upset in whatever possible act that could be done with what you sell, then the public marketplace is not for you.

  • http://Www.theirishatheist.wordpress.com/ The Irish Atheist

    This post could have easily been called ‘Can you be a good person and still be Evangelical.’

    Yes, but it makes you a pretty bad Evangelical. Overall, becoming a better person is inversely proportional to becoming a better Christian.

  • Daniel McDonald

    Thank you for this article. The fact is that Evangelicalism is a collective of independent denominations and churches with varied creeds, confessions, and statements of faith. There are many speaking as if speaking for all but none really do. This is why if you are talking with an Evangelical or you are speaking as one you need to divide issues from the “label” and begin speaking in concrete matters as you dialogue regarding faith and practice.

  • SuprNatWarrior

    I must be reading a different Bible than people on here?? My Bible says homosexuality is a sin. G-d says unrepented sin will not enter the kinqgdom of Heaven.

  • Pingback: wz()


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X