Everyone is talking about the Supreme Court of the United States hearing oral arguments on the matter of California’s Proposition 8, which banned homosexual marriage. But is anyone listening?

I sat down to an interview today on that matter. It’s been quite a while since I talked openly about the issue of homosexuality. In the last few years, it’s been like talking about taking a trip to the sun: Everyone knows where it is, but very few know how to get there, or how to deal with the basics without getting burned.

And so I hope to continue to the conversation. I want to reopen the floor for reasoned debate without the slurs and the stereotypes. Change begins with me. Say it with me: “Change begins with me.”

How do you feel about Proposition 8?

I think it’s unfair, given our system of laws and the secular definition of marriage.

So you support homosexual marriage?

No. I simply don’t think that Prop 8 is the way to deal with the issue.

Can you be in favor of the right to homosexual marriage and still disagree with it?

Yes. We are a nation of laws and justice. Equality has not always been the thrust of our nation’s history. Specific equalities were usually picked up one at a time. For example, the American Revolution did not establish equality for all. It established equality for all white males as opposed to the system of nobility and commoners. After 1776, most black men and women in USAmerica were still slaves. And white women didn’t vote until 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That said, we have moved into a new day in which equality is more and more important. Homosexual persons are the next candidates for equality under the law. And United States law protects a great many people today that it did not formerly protect.

The status of the law in the United States does not change the most basic tenets of our Christian faith. It is possible for us to pass laws protecting and even encouraging our citizens to behave in ways that are inconsistent with the teachings of our faith.

Can you disagree with someone’s understanding of marriage and still love them?

Yes. I do it every day. Most people have a skewed perception of marriage. Many of the young people who come to me to get married tend to think that marriage is about a dress and a limo. Most guys think it’s about the honeymoon. While those things may be a big part of the wedding day, there’s much more to it.

Marriage is the committed, covenant relationship and was established by God to encourage childbirth, provide for child-rearing, and mutual support throughout life. Israel was a tiny nation and did not need to be destroyed from within by losing its national identity to intermarriage. Today, that is simply not a problem. Marriage is no longer just about children. Indeed, when we couch marriage in those terms we disrespect and harm those unable to have children and those who have chosen not to have children.

But marriage is still about mutual support. For me, marriage is about a covenant relationship between God and a husband and a wife.

Contracts end when the terms are broken. Covenant endures until the covenant is ended, usually after a protracted effort to repair and renew the relationship.

That said, I endeavor to counsel with people who have questions about their behavior and their choices. I do not crusade against nor do I lobby in favor of homosexual marriage. If asked, I cite the beliefs and doctrines that are clear in our denomination and many others.

But how can you stand aside when so many are trying to legalize something that your faith requires you not to do?

Simple. My faith requires me not to do those things. My faith doesn’t require them not to do those things. If asked my opinion, I’ll share it. Today, I was asked.

Aren’t you supposed to be the representative of God’s Will on earthly matters?

Not much more than you are. My task is set apart as the minister of Word and Table. I preach and teach the word. I do not legislate it. I do not lobby for it. In fact, I find that the best way to approach this and other political questions is to inform those who are interested in hearing, converse with those who are interested in debating the finer points, and to counsel those who are interested in growing.

I do not find that God is interested in forcing God’s will on us. I’ve come to hold that a forced response of loving obedience is neither loving nor is it obedient.

So where do you stand on this issue?

I cannot condone same sex marriage nor the practice of homosexuality. Individual United Methodist pastors have not the authority to contradict the doctrine of the Church, and our denomination has repeatedly declined to reverse itself on this issue.

Given that the latest numbers for self-avowed and practicing homosexuals is less than 2% of the population, I’m spending far more time addressing sins that crop up more frequently. You will hear much more from me on how we treat and mistreat the homeless and the impoverished. You will hear far more from me on the topic of forgiveness. And you are guaranteed to hear from me on the need for faithful practices of discipleship.

But my understanding of sin does include the practice of homosexuality until God makes a change and someone brings it to my attention. At the same time, I cannot ignore those homosexual persons who are my friends and relatives. I wish to show them the same kind of love that I show to others.

I am sad to say that many of my friends choose not to speak with persons who disagree with them on these matters.

Oddly, I find that this has been one of the chief complaints of those who are struggling for recognition. It would seem that organized religion exemplified for them a very bad model of relationship. For years homosexual persons were cast aside, ignored, and devalued. And now, as support for homosexual marriage is on the rise in this country, many of those supporters cut short the conversation with accusations of “homophobe,” “bigot,” and “hate-monger.”

Indeed, the fact that I am willing, have been willing, and will be willing to have these conversations seems to count for nothing.

But then again, the Church has for too long now been the champion of “this is the way it shall be, and discussion is moot.” And that example does disservice now to those who lobby for homosexual rights in this country — with no interest in the conversation.

You keep mentioning “conversation.” What isn’t being talked about?

Last year, NT Wright addressed this problem in an interview in California, I think. He spoke for a few minutes on the fact that this conversation hasn’t been framed properly. We have spent the past few decades yelling at one another. We haven’t done a good job of listening. We haven’t thought through this theologically in the Church. And we have not done the job of interpreting things properly. Of course, this was taking place during a period in USAmerican history when the Church had fallen into abdication of moral authority and a reliance upon political power (ie. the Moral Majority and other religio-political groups).

His statements were recorded and are available on YouTube.

[youtube YpQHGPGejKs]
Essentially, we rely too much on labels and pejoratives. We fail to reason together.

So what does this mean for you?

It means that I will continue to spend less time on lobbying and more time building relationships and proclaiming God’s love for all persons.

But don’t you post political things in Social Media and on your blog?

I do. But I post conversations and reasoned explanations that I have found that are worth sharing. I tend to avoid bumper stickers, one-liners, and simplistic statements of my particular position.

For example, recently, I changed my profile photo on Twitter. One morning, the photo was different, no explanation. A large red “X” was plastered across my photo.

Immediately, I began to get questions about it. And in each case, I had the opportunity to enter into conversation with the person who asked. The “X” on my profile photo (and thousands of others) was in support of the End It Movement. Human trafficking and slavery is worse today than it was in the days of the Civil War in the southern United States.

I’ve changed my profile to a black square in support of freedom of speech online. I’ve changed it far more often to celebrate holidays (a crown of thorns for holy week, a striped hat for Dr. Suess’ birthday, the seals of the five branches of the Armed Forces for Veteran’s Day).

So what would it take to change your mind?

First, the point of conversation is not always to change someone’s mind. Tolerance doesn’t mean that we agree. Tolerance means that we disagree but can still hold fast to our relationship and love one another.

But if I were to change my mind, I do not think it could be done on the basis of “reinterpreting Scripture.” I’ve had many colleagues make the attempt with some new bit of exegesis that turned out to be eisegesis. The problem comes when we decide to look for a way for Scripture to confirm what we are already thinking.

No, you won’t find the proof-text for homosexual marriage or conduct in Scripture — not even in the stories of Jonathan and David.

But God does change God’s mind. The proof is in the story of the Apostle Peter as he prayed on the roof of Simon the Tanner’s home. Peter was dead set against sharing the Gospel with Gentiles. But in a vision, God commanded Peter to kill and eat unclean animals. With that experience, Peter began to think differently about clean and unclean, Jew and Gentile.

Incidentally, that same passage eliminates much of the questioning found in a popular email that juxtaposes ancient law with modern practices. The rest is eliminated with a phrase I used earlier: “My faith requires me not to do those things.” Those who are not bound by covenant are not required. Faithful Jews do not go door to door enforcing kosher.

While this passage does not prove that God changed God’s mind about all of the laws, it indicates that Peter was to complete what Jesus had begun: An outreach to the Gentiles, to those who were not “insiders.” While one could make the argument that this had always been God’s plan since the days of Abraham, we must make mention of the fact that this was a direct reversal of the food purity or kosher laws, and therefore, a removal of one of the chief points of separation of Jew and Gentile culture. For how are we to become friends and share life if we are not able to break bread together?

And, thus are we come full circle. The point was not the revocation of any law or rule or doctrine: The real point was in removing those things that are a hindrance to the sharing of life and gospel.

If God is ready to make the change, then so will I. But the decision coming from the Supreme Court is not the one for which I am waiting.

Related articles

• Why We Need Marriage Equality
• How can I defend traditional marriage? Why should I?
• Church says no I do’s until all can marry
• Clearing the air on Pope Francis and gay civil unions
• New Poll Shows Majority Of Catholics Support Same-Sex Marriage