The Pope and the Clerk: On Rushing to Judgment

Let me put a few cards on the table:

1) I support full LGBT inclusion in the Church and in society. I rejoiced at the Obergefell decision.

2) I support freedom of religious expression and those who have conscientious objections.

3) I disagree with Kim Davis' decision to stop issuing marriage licenses. If her job requires her to act in contradiction to her religious beliefs, she should follow the example of early Christians and leave her job. The ancient liturgical document The Apostolic Tradition of Pseudo-Hippolytus lists professions that were forbidden to Christians. The expectation was that there are certain jobs that conflicted with the teaching of the Church: ancient Christians did not serve as as charioteers. It's not that they were charioteers who refused to race; they simply left the profession. Davis should follow the example of the third century Chrisitans and resign her position if she believes if conflicts with her faith.

4) Moreover, I think Davis' legal counsel is using her. They have their own agenda in mind, not her best interest. Frankly, I am surprised that her representatives have not been disbarred.

5) I like this Pope. I disagree with him on a few issues, but I firmly believe that he is making steps towards full reconciliation within the Church.

6) I like NPR. They tend to get stories right on the first go and tend to be the most unbiased news source in this country. I'm going to call them out on some stuff in this post precisely because they usually do a good job. Fox News or MSNBC dropping the ball on a story? Nothing out of the ordinary. NPR is capable of better, and so they're my media-stand-in.

With all of that being said, when Pope Francis met Kim Davis, the American media lost its mind.

The trip went incredibly well. The Bishop of Rome delivered a stirring address to Congress, ate with the poor, met with survivors of clerical sex abuse, and projected himself as a bishop of the people -- in keeping with his desire that the Church be poor and for the poor.

But just consider how the few days after his departure played out.

The first few days after his return to Rome, NPR lauded the visit, saying he "Moves Believers and Skeptics Alike" and "Strikes A Chord" with both Catholics and non-Catholics.

And then something happened. Lawyers at the Liberty Counsel started tweeting about Kim Davis' papal audience. And the tone of the conversation changed. NPR picked up the story and reported what Davis told ABC News:

Just knowing the pope is on track with what we're doing, and agreeing, you know, kind of validates everything.

That same day, NPR ran a story: "Pope's Commitment to Religious Freedom Highlighted on US Trip." Interviewee Emma Green, a reporter at The Atlantic, details all of the ways that Il Papa discussed religious freedom: he mentioned it at Independence Hall, he met with a group of nuns in a legal struggle against the contraceptive mandate, and he mentioned it before Congress. As Green puts it: "hints." But meeting with Davis? That's highlighting, because we all know how intimately the Bishop of Rome is concerned in the goings-on of a Pentecostal county clerk in Kentucky.

It's important to remember that at this point, there had been little news on the event. The story broke on 30 September, the date of the article above. The Vatican commented on it the same day, acknowledging that the Pope and Davis had been in the same place at the same time.

By the next day, NPR was touting that the visit "Puts a New Twist" on the papal visit. Credit where credit is due, one of the Vatican correspondents discussed the Pope's mid-air press conference this way:

We don't know exactly how this meeting occurred and what the pope knew about her. Of course, just later on a press conference on the way back to Rome after leaving Philadelphia, he was asked about the rights of conscientious objection for people, and then he gave a very milk-toast, bland answer about generic rights of conscientious objection for people without mentioning Kim Davis, without mentioning same-sex marriage. So it makes me think that maybe he didn't even know who this person was or what was going on in that meeting.

But this clarification came only in response to the anchor's question:

It would seem that everything on a papal trip is there to make a point. What might have been the point for Pope Francis in this meeting with Kim Davis?

Later, NPR ran a follow-up about the response of LGBT Catholics "disappointed" in the papal "meeting."

It's important to remember how little had come out at this point in the story. The only source of information on the meeting was from Davis and her lawyers. The Vatican had done little more than to begrudgingly admit that the meeting had occurred. And yet the entire week-long visit was recast by this single event.

Then, after two days and no fewer than four articles of confused "this changes everything" reporting, the hurricane stopped. The Vatican issued a statement. Turns out, the meeting didn't change everything. The Pope met Davis briefly in a receiving line. It wasn't a formal audience. He offered no express opinion on her situation. Because, as it turns out, the Liberty Counsel was blowing the event way out of proportion.

And the news media -- even our best news agencies -- swallowed the Liberty Counsel's version, hook, line, and sinker.

Cue the correction and clarification: NPR ran two consecutive stories after the Vatican announced the "meeting" was almost a non-event. Hindsight, it turns out, is much clearer. You can't draw a total conclusion about a person's policy from a single event, especially if that event is being framed entirely by somebody else's agenda. Francis met briefly with Davis in an impersonal, highly formalized setting -- but we only listened to how Davis and her lawyers framed the narrative. Because, as it turns out, Francis did have an official one-on-one audience, much like the one Davis described. But he met with a former student, a gay man, and that man's husband. They were welcomed via personal invitation, whereas Davis was contacted independently by the nuncio (Vatican ambassador) to the US.

Way back on the first day of the news cycle, Fr. James Martin, SJ, wrote a quick seven-point response to the unfolding story. Throughout, he urges caution in interpreting the events. He reminds us that the Vatican, not Davis, is the authority on the Pope's actions and intentions. That meetings take place but do not indicate specific endorsement of the individual. As Fr. Martin puts it:

Most of all, despite what Ms. Davis said, a meeting with the pope does not “kind of validate everything.” Again, the pope meets with many people, some of whom he may know well, others of whom may be introduced to him as a reward for long service, and perhaps others who will use a meeting to make a political point. Meeting with the pope is a great honor, but it does not betoken a blanket blessing on “everything” one does. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Pope Francis also met Mark Wahlberg, and that does not mean that he liked “Ted.”

So the next time there's a "this changes everything" moment with the Pope, whether it's along the lines of "Who am I to judge?" or a meeting with a partisan figure, let's all wait. See how things unfold. Remember that every event has to be understood in the full context of the who the Pope is, both as the Bishop of Rome and as a man named Jorge. No single event defines a papacy or a visit.

So, NPR and every other news organization out there, wait a moment next time. Put the events in full context. And please, for the love of God, don't let the Liberty Counsel control the narrative. 

Wait, There Were Condoms at Wild Goose?

Part V in a series of reflections on Wild Goose

- - -

So apparently I missed this (or click here for a more reasoned summary of the situation). I didn't even hear about this non-event until I had been home a week.

And I wasn't alone. Not many people mentioned the punny condom wrappers. Actually, I didn't hear anyone mention them. Not even in a "Ha ha, did you year about the Chicago Seminary handouts?" Nobody mentioned it in any of the talks I attended. None of the musicians mentioned it in the sets I heard. Nobody mentioned it during the Catholic Mass. Nobody came up to the ELCA hospitality tent and said, "Well, the UCC is giving out condoms. You have anything better than water?"

I did not hear a single reference to the "souvenirs."

And to tell the truth, I'm not especially offended by it.

Granted, the pun is not in particularly good taste, but several news articles get the story wrong -- that is, they intentionally misrepresent what happened.

Bethany Blankley (the first link in this post) writes:

At last week’s 2015 Wild Goose Festival attendees received condom packages designed with a colored image of a rainbow flame, an LGBT variation of the UCC’s logo.

As an attendee, I did not receive a condom. It was not distributed with the wristbands, at the beer tent, with the parking passes, or the festival programs. The seminary distributed them at their information booth set up at one of the festival tents. The seminary was a festival sponsor, but their actions do not represent the convictions of the Wild Goose Festival, its attendees, or its advisory board. So did any attendees receive condoms? Most likely. But it was not as wide-spread as this reporter makes it seem.

Or this:

In other words, a “Christian” seminary is likening the Second Coming of Christ to gay sex.

No, in other words, a Christian seminary is making a lame pun on the word "coming." The only thing tying this stunt to "gay" is the use of the rainbow coloration for the school's logo. Given that the UCC, with whom Chicago Theological is affiliated, is known for its open and affirming stance, it makes sense.

And, worst of all, there's this:

Only an apostate Christian and apostate church could celebrate or encourage gay sex or orgies. Only an apostate Christian and apostate church could advocate being “LGBTQ friendly.” Apostasy is inherently anti-God.

Besides the myriad problems of claiming that LGBT and ally Christians are "apostate," there is the underlying assumption that promoting safe sex is on par with promoting orgies. It is this same sort of hyperbolic mentality which leads to failed abstinence-only programs in schools. It is this same sort of vitriol that leads to victim-blaming when a person is sexually assaulted.

Distributing condoms does not mean, "Go hook up with anyone." Using birth control does not mean, "Be promiscuous." Advocating the use of prophylactics is equivalent to only one thing: believing that sex has a function outside of procreation and child-rearing.

Perhaps no source misunderstands what happened more than Rod Dreher at The American Conservative. He writes:

I apologize if this offends you. It ought to offend you. But you also ought to know what progressive Christianity finds acceptable. I would love to hear that the organizers at Wild Goose put a stop to distributing these things at the festival. But I doubt that they did.

We orthodox Christians have nothing in common with these people, and ought to get it clear in our heads who the enemies are, and what they stand for. One hardly needs to worry about the UCC; it is declining so rapidly that they will cease to exist in the next 15 to 20 years. Good riddance. Rather pay more attention to those who see no particular problem with their blasphemous radicalism, and who seek to mainstream it into the churches. Church leaders who make room for this garbage under the guise of “relevance” and “inclusiveness” are signing their own death warrant, and the rest of us should give no quarter to this contagion.

This is not about what "progressive Christianity finds acceptable." It's about a bad marketing ploy by one seminary. This is not the best we have to offer; it's the laziest.

But to deny that progressive Christians are orthodox? To flame that we are the enemies, that we stand for something other than the Gospel of our Risen Lord, to call us blasphemous, to call us a contagions? I will not and cannot stand for such vile attacks against me, against my friends, and against how we understand what Christ is calling us to in the world.

Is this promotion in bad taste? Yeah, it is. Am I a little surprised that somebody didn't have second thoughts on it? Yeah, of course.

But what does this mean, really?

I am just as offended by how certain sisters and brothers are reacting as I am by the condoms themselves.

I was at Wild Goose. The air was not filled with the moans of orgiastic hedonism. A haze of marijuana smoke did not hover over the campground. The toilets did not overflow with the vomit of drunkenness.

Instead, kids and families wandered around and played in the river. Songs of praise ascended to the Lord, as did the scent of frankincense from the Episcopal tent's thuribles. People drank a few beers and some whiskey while singing hymns. Bread was broken and wine was shared.

Christians welcomed in those hurt by the Church and those who may never come to share in our baptismal identity, and we discussed what it meant to strive for justice and walk humbly with our God. We examined the problem of violence, racism, and sexism. We wept and laughed together. We considered what it means to seek reconciliation among the Church and among the nations.

So please, for the love of God, let's not focus on one poorly thought out publicity stunt. Let's not concede the day to scandal over "pelvic issues." Let's rejoice that a place like Wild Goose exists, and that it is a brief in-breaking of the Kingdom of God in the Appalachians.

More Answers for Kevin DeYoung

It's been about two weeks since Kevin DeYoung posted his forty questions over at The Gospel Coalition, and he has not taken up the topic of LGBT Christians or same-sex marriage since (at least, not on TGC). There's no indication that he has read any of the answers provided to his list of questions, but numerous Christian authors have taken up the challenge of publicly discussing the issue.

At Approaching Justice, Dwight Welch responds to the question about convincing Christians in the Global South:

That’s a rather broad statement as there are churches in all three continents which are supportive of LGBT folks. The case I’d make is that we all relate to scripture through a cultural lens. That the scriptures come out of a cultural context. And that there is no perspective that is outside of culture. I’d make the same argument regardless of continent.

John Shore's blog on Patheos takes a more satirical approach by answering each question with his own question:

What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex cannot adequately depict Christ and the church?

...followed by the more Colbert-esque quips (with DeYoung's original questions, for full context):

19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married? Do you think you should be a guest on The Jerry Springer Show? 

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people? Should you replace Jerry on The Jerry Springer Show?

Susan Cottrell at Freed Hearts (also on Patheos) responds to the same question about the Global South:

Surely you are aware that the understanding of homosexuality of Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America is culturally conditioned by American (missionary) Christians??

...and then she offers an answer to DeYoung's request for a definition of "love":

Love is treating others as you want to be treated. (I borrowed that from Jesus and I can think of no better definition.) It includes the idea of showing someone overabundant kindness with no regard or even knowledge of their “sin” or lack thereof. (Think Good Samaritan.)
Perfect love casts out all fear. Love is putting yourself aside for someone else. God is love.

Fellow Candler alum and yet another Patheos blogger, Kimberly Knight, doesn't take the questions on a point-by-point basis, but she does give us the following insight:

You [DeYoung] direct your questions only to open and affirming heterosexual Christians as if there are no LGBT Christians. There are in fact scores and scores of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians so to ignore that fact leaves a huge piece of this mysterious puzzle hidden. I am both a lesbian and a Christian so right from the start it seems that you and I are nearly lost to one another. But where there is love and grace, there is hope.

Buzz Dixon of Unfundamentalist Christians, differs from most other writers in that he actually took DeYoung to task on the challenge of citing Scripture (as opposed to Experience and Reason) that changed his mind:

First and foremost, the Golden Rule. The Two Great Commandments, which Jesus quoted directly from Rabbi Hillel, who was no slouch in things Talmudic. John 3:16-17. Jesus’ teachings on eunuchs, who had been banned from communion with Godunder Jewish law, and his teaching that some people are indeed born that way. The woman at the well, who was married and divorced multiple times and currently living out of wedlock with a man, and yet Jesus without judging her used her exactly the way she was to spread his gospel, nor did he demand changes in her status afterwards. Peter’s vision in which God laid aside Moses’ holiness taboos.

 Alise at Knitting Soul (which might also win the category for best blog title) refused to answer DeYoung:

Here’s the thing. I’m out of patience for this. DeYoung asks his 40 questions, but they all boil down to the same thing. Prove that you’re right. Prove that God is on your side. Prove that you deserve what I already have.
I’m tired of it. I’m tired of the assumption that my gay friends are the ones who need to be answering questions. I’m tired of the assumption that they need to justify their faith to those who fancy themselves the gatekeepers of Christianity. I’m tired of the woe are we attitude from those who have been a part of movements to bar LGBTQ people and their allies from leadership positions in the Church, from people whose words have led to legislation imposing jail time, even calling for the execution of gays.

Instead, she boiled it down to a single question:

When are you going to listen to the answers to your questions?

Tobin Grant turned the wheel over to Matthew Vines (author of God and the Gay Christian, to which DeYoung and others have responded with their own published works). Vines also responded with his own list of forty questions (of which the first eight are posted below):

Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?
Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it?
How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have?
How many openly LGBT people would say you are one of their closest friends?
How much time have you spent in one-on-one conversation with LGBT Christians about their faith and sexuality?
Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people?
Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful?
How many gay brothers and sisters in Christ have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy, and for how long?

I must say, if DeYoung responds to any of the posts, if he actually engages in the conversation he claims to want, I hope it is to Vines.

I know there are many other authors who have written in response to DeYoung, and there are many seminarians and pastors out there who could provide a much better response but have opted not to. So instead, here's that clip from West Wing in all of its Sorkin glory.

Forty Answers for Forty Questions

I, for some, inexplicable reason, end up reading a lot of stuff from The Gospel Coalition -- more than I would care to read, anyway. Recently, the up-and-coming "young, restless, and Reformed" pastor Kevin DeYoung posed forty questions for Christians in support of gay marriage in the wake of the SCOTUS ruling on Obergefell vs. Hodges.

When reading through the original forty questions, I couldn't tell if DeYoung was being antagonistic (as though these questions don't have answers), snarky (as though anyone who gave serious thought to these questions would surely agree with him), or genuinely curious (as though I should give him the benefit of the doubt...which I suppose I should...). I, for one, am frustrated that so many on the fundamentalist side of the Church assume that their brothers and sisters have not devoted serious and intense theological thought to this issue.

I came across DeYoung's post when a friend shared Ben Irwin's forty answers. As soon as I read the first question in the original post, I thought: I have to provide my own answers. Not because I'm somehow convinced that DeYoung will ever see my blog. Not because I think I can change anyone's mind.

Instead, I offer my answers for the same reason I suspect Irwin did: the Church really doesn't like having these conversations, but we must. There is a deep divide in the Body of Christ, and to heal it, we must first give careful, detailed, charitable, and orthodox voice to every side of the debate. And so, as much as I want to think that DeYoung is being cocky, I'm going to take him at his word. I'm going to respond to these questions as though they are an invitation to dialog rather than an antagonistic shot across the bow.

- - -

Kevin DeYoung: 1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

Answer: I first started to re-asses my stance on same-sex relationships and marriage towards the end of college and came to my current position during seminary. I grew up on and around military bases during the days of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and so if I knew any LGBT persons growing up, I did not know it. (In high school, there were a few students who identified as LGBT, but I largely ignored the legitimacy of their self-identification. To them, I offer my sincere apology.) During the last year of undergrad, I volunteered at a parish with very open and affirming clergy; they paved the way for me to consider that a Christian could faithfully love and affirm LGBT persons and relationships. At Candler and LTSS, I met a large number of LGBT students sincere in their desire to serve the Triune God and the Church. Many of these students are much better Christians than I will ever be; they understand and live out Christ's concern for those on the margins and for the oppressed in a way that I can only pray to one day experience. Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson also played a major role in my shift, and I commend his writings on the issue. I was pushed to consider the full extent of the Church.

All told, it has been a seven year shift, and I've held my current position for about five years.

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

Here, DeYoung and I part ways. As someone who grew up within the UMC, I carry with me a respect for the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Like Luther and the Evangelische Reformers, I hold to a view of Scripture as primum verum rather than the sole authority. Therefore, I am open to the role of Reason (as guided by the Holy Spirit) and Experience (mediated through Scripture, Tradition, and Reason) in opening up the mysteries of faith.

To that end, no single passage from the Bible has led me to change my mind. It should be noted, however, that close readings of Sacred Scripture in full historical context are open to interpretation in a way that DeYoung denies. (Irwin's response offers a descent summary of these interpretations.) I might also note that a literal reading of Scripture does not forbid polygamy except for clergy.

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

Using the same pericopes used to affirm all sexual activity within the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Specifically, I look to readings from Genesis 2, the Song of Songs, Jesus at the wedding in Cana, and the metaphorical language of the Church as the bride of Christ as affirmations of right human sexuality.

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

The same ones DeYoung points to and for the same reasons: the marriage metaphor is not primarily about the physical act of intercourse. Instead, it is about a mutually self-giving love.

I would further point out that heterosexual marriage cannot adequately depict the relationship between Christ and the Church. Humans can only love imperfectly, whereas Christ loves perfectly. If we could love like Christ loves, we wouldn't need Christ.

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

First, why are we discussing Jesus in the past tense? We worship a risen Lord.

If we are, for some reason, distinguishing between the historical Jesus of Nazareth and the Risen Christ, then it is highly unlikely that the Jesus of the first century ever considered same-sex relationships which were consensual and monogamous. Such relationships were rare (though, unlike many of today's thinkers, I am unwilling to say that they did not exist). However, I am generally unwilling to make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the Risen Christ, and I hope that DeYoung would agree with me on that point.

I believe that Jesus celebrates with the Church anytime two people enter into a loving and committed marriage.

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

Christ does not reassert "the Genesis definition of marriage" (and I note that the Genesis definition of marriage is polygamous) but quotes it as the establishment of marriage as a social reality and affirming the permanence of marriage. When he quotes Genesis 2 in the tenth chapter of St. Mark's Gospel, he is not saying, "Only men and women can get married." Instead, he's saying, "People get married. These married people become flesh. They are united in God, and should remain united."

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

If I had to use a single word to translate porneia, I would render it "promiscuity." I'm not a Greek scholar, though.

If I had to fill out that translation, I might define it this way: "seeking sexual fulfillment with another person outside the confines of a consensual, healthy, honest, and loving relationship; extending the physical nature of a relationship beyond the emotional, mental, and spiritual commitments within said relationship."

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

The "traditional" reading of Romans 1 always assumes that the relationships among women and men are "shameful" because they are homosexual. What if it's because the sexual relationships were not monogamous, consensual, or loving? From what we know about same-sex relationships in the first century world, they were almost entirely based around prostitution and an abuse of power dynamics.

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

No. Not unless the "liars" are kept out of Heaven as well. And if the liars are kept out, what hope is there for any of us?

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

DeYoung repeatedly asks for a list of sexual sins. I'm going to stick with my definition of porneia from Q7.

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

The fruits of biblical criticism over the centuries are incalculable, and modern theologians have built upon the work begun by Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and yes, even Calvin. We must never assume that our forebears had a perfect understanding of Scripture or of God. They were, after all, human.

Moreover, while I hesitate to say that I better understand Scripture better than Aquinas, I might be so bold as to claim that twenty-first century Christians have a better understanding of same-sex relationships than Christians from centuries past.

12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

There was a time when European and North American Christians had to convince Christians in Africa that polygamy was unacceptable and "biblically incorrect." I wonder what arguments they used, given that polygamy was practiced among certain African civilizations and within Israelite culture.

Larger issues of sexuality and monogamy aside, I fail to see why different arguments are needed for the Global South than among fundamentalists down the street.

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

No. Instead, I would suggest that people who oppose same-sex marriage act out of a number of fears and misunderstandings, often sown by Church leaders, which results in biased actions. The bigotry and animus comes from ecclesial and political leaders who fear losing their power and privilege within a changing society.

As to the political aspect, we can only ever speculate about motivations when politicians change and clarify positions. Politicians may publicly deny support for same-sex marriage out of political greed and a thirst for power; they may support same-sex marriage for the same reasons. I care about their motivations, but I do not pretend to know them.

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

I think children do best with loving parents, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, and a loving community to raise them.

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

Numerous studies have demonstrated that children of same-sex couples are not any worse off than children from heterosexual couples. What we should be concerned about is that we provide every child the resources needed to thrive; we should care more that a child has three meals a day than that they have two mothers.

16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?

The Church and the state both have a role to play in providing children with parents or guardians who can provide a safe environment to learn, grow, and thrive.

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

Yes, and we as the Church should also note that it is possible for persons to find fulfillment outside of marriage as well. The Church used to affirm those called to celibacy, and we have unfortunately lost that affirmation (and, more unfortunately, we have also at times forced that call upon the LGBT community).

18. How would you define marriage?

I distinguish between civil and religious marriage. Civil marriage is defined by the state and is marked by certain obligations under the law. Religious marriage, as defined by the Church, is a sacramental union between two consenting adults, pledged in front of and affirmed by both God and the Church, to offer mutual love, support, and care, and, when it is God's will, to raise children. (Note well that same-sex and infertile couples can still raise children.) In this sacrament, the couple practices kentoic love.

19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?

No. Support for same-sex marriage is not the same thing as supporting a pan-sexual free-for-all.

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?

Legally, yes. Within the Christian tradition, yes.

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?

Any relation: easy. In-breeding and abuse of familial power.

Any number: legally, to promote the civil benefits of marriage (one designated "next-of-kin" to serve as medical proxy and inheritor of the estate -- with my apologies to lawyers who are probably shuddering at my inaccurate terminology).

Religiously, the Christian Tradition has interpreted marriage as between two people. Within the New Testament canon, monogamy was only ordained for elders and deacons (which, the Tradition has understood as clergy, up until the Reformation). The Tradition later expanded monogamy.

22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?

Yes, and 18 seems as good a place as any in as far as the US and many other nations have identified it as the "age of majority." I'm not sure why this is an issue, though. Again, support for same-sex marriage is not equivalent with support for any of the "parade of horribles" imagined by certain Supreme Court justices.

23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage? - and -
24. If not, why not?

This question is poorly conceived, and the answer is "Yes, but also no." For one thing, meaningful relationships are not the same as marriages. I have many meaningful relationships with friends and family as well as with my wife. But my spouse is in a fundamentally different category from my friends and family. I interact with each of those groups differently.

On the no side, there are certain family relationships which already include many of the same benefits of legal marriage. Legally, marriage is about certain tax and medical benefits (along with a long list of things about wills and estates that I don't fully understand) -- a unity within a given household, if you will. Those protections already extend to other legal dependents through different legal means (birth or adoption for children until they reach adulthood).

As for friendship, on the yes side, the state does not check to see if two people of the opposite sex are "in love" before issuing a marriage license. Legally, there is no restriction to prevent a woman (let's call her "Sally") from marrying a man ("Jim") just because Sally and Jim want to share in the copious benefits of being legally marriage.

If, though, DeYoung means something other than a consenting adult human, he is simply traveling further down his slippery slope argument. Marriage requires two humans legally capable of consenting to marriage. By its definition, it excludes animals.

25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

Again, it depends. Nobody is suggesting that a pastor ever be forced to perform a same-sex marriage, even if that person is a chaplain in the employ of the state. If, on the other hand, that person is a judge or clerk, they must be willing to serve all citizens equally. Likewise, I can understand a photographer or musician not being compelled to perform their art at a same-sex wedding ceremony (or a ceremony outside of their religious tradition, for that matter). But a baker cannot refuse to make a cake for a reception -- baking a cake for an after-party is not the same thing as participating in the marriage service itself.

We must also be careful about language of "punishment, retribution, or coercion." Religious persecution is one thing; loss of one's perceived "preferred status" is quite another.

26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

If a Christian pastor is ever forced to perform a marriage in direct contradiction to their religious beliefs, I will be among the first in line to protest.

If a Christian baker is boycotted for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception, I will likely join in the boycott.

If either of those Christians comes to me to discuss the issue, I will welcome them in the name of the Lord.

27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?

If by "shaming and bullying," DeYoung means being unfairly targeted for emotional, verbal, or physical abuse based on adherence to one's identity, then yes. I will stand up against bullying, whether the victim is LGBT or hetero/cis, Christian or any other religion, male or female, nerd or jock. But if he means, "Will you break picket lines?" then I must point back to my answer for Q26.

28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?

Pre-marital counseling, referral to licensed couples' counselors (if needed), and the full support of the Church are essential for all marriages. I would go further and point out that some times, maintaining a healthy marriage requires that the Church lend financial and material support in addition to emotional and spiritual support for struggling families.

29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline? - and -
30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?

Adultery is wrong. Adultery is always wrong. The Church does not recognize "consensual" forms of adultery. (And I hasten to define adultery: sexual activity in which a married person commits sexual acts with someone other than his or her spouse.)

As to "sexual activity outside of marriage": "Sexual activity" is difficult to define. Hugs and kisses can be sexual or platonic acts. In keeping with my definition of porneia ("extending the the physical nature of a relationship beyond the emotional, mental, and spiritual commitments within said relationship"), I would say that acts involving the genitalia are reserved for married couples.

31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?

By affirming a positive image of monogamy and developing a healthy theology of the body and human sexuality. This must be instilled in our youth, which means we must affirm that young women have value outside of their roles as wives and mothers. (We cannot deny that feminist and queer theologies are both linked to developing a robust and positive view of human sexuality.) By affirming and supporting married couples in all ways. And, above all, by offering the grace of Christ to those who fall short of these ideals.

32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?

Love wins because Christ conquered the grave. Thus, love is a self-sacrificial, kenotic activity rooted in the infinite love which is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and expressed perfectly by their relationship. This love is infused to us all by God's grace.

33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 -- The entire witness of Scripture testifies to Divine Love.

As to "proof texts," Matthew 22:36-40, John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 13, Galatians 5:14, Philippians 2:7, and 1 John 4:8 are good starting points.

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

Christ came to fulfill the Law. The Law is to love. We are called to be like Christ.

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?

Yes.

36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?

A lot. Faith is dynamic and ever-changing.

37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?

I'm honestly not sure how to answer this question. For one thing, I'm a Lutheran; when I use the term "Evangelical," I mean it in a completely different way than DeYoung and the folks at The Gospel Coalition. When I speak of being "born again," I'm referring to the Sacrament of Baptism (which has become a lot more important in my theology over the past several years, but is only loosely tied to my views on same-sex marriage). I've actually come to reject the "penal substitution" model of atonement in favor of the more ancient Christus Victor model (unrelated to my view of same-sex marriage; oddly, I think I could make more of a case if I held to penal substitution). DeYoung and I mean different things by "total trustworthiness of the Bible." As to the "urgent need to evangelize the lost," (again, I wouldn't use that term) I find it much more loving to tell people about a God who loves them enough to join them on the margins of society than to tell them of a God who loves them but fundamentally hates who they are.

38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?

Many parishes within the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and even a few within the United Methodist Church. Member churches within the Union of Utrect (Old Catholic). There are even a few individual parishes, clergy, and members within the Roman Catholic Church. And because DeYoung is "Reformed," I would be remiss if I didn't point out the Presbyterian Church (USA). Though I doubt he would consider these denominations "orthodox" -- apparently there was a gap in Christian Orthodoxy between the time Paul died and Calvin entered Geneva.

39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?

Yes to all of the above. More so than any other question, this one feels like a slap in the face -- that somehow, DeYoung believes that a Christian cannot answer this question in the affirmative and still affirm LGBT persons and same-sex marriage.

40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?

...didn't we already cover this one? Cf. Qs 8-10.

- - -

I am curious -- how would other Christians answer these questions?

If you've answered them elsewhere, please, link in the comments below.