Multimedia Archive

Miscellaneous speeches, talks, and documents by Phil Snider (or edited by Phil Snider), mostly so I (he) can more easily link to them

The Rule of Law

Note:  This is an old speech I gave at an Interfaith Immigration Forum that focused on compassionate immigration reform from a biblical perspective, held at Messiah Lutheran Church (Springfield, MO) on June 11, 2007. I didn’t want to lose track of it, hence the reason I’m posting it here. I was asked to discuss the rule of law in relationship to theology, ethics and the Bible.


“The Rule of Law”
by Phil Snider


Good evening.  My name is Phil Snider; I am the senior minister at Brentwood Christian Church in Springfield, where I have served since 2003.  I grew up in Springfield, and upon completion of my graduate studies, I was pleased to have the opportunity to move back to what my family and I consider to be our home.  I’m pleased to be part of this evening’s immigration forum and would like to formally extend my thanks to Dr. Emge for inviting me to address the topic of the rule of law, to Rev. Dan Friburg and Messiah Lutheran Church for their gracious hospitality, and to each of you for taking the time to be part of this incredibly important conversation taking place in this great country…


Respect for the rule of law has been foundational in the history of civilization.   In its ideal form, the rule of law intends to define the proper boundaries for the flourishing of human life and of creation.  Ethically speaking, respect for the rule of law recognizes the common good of everyone involved.


Throughout history, there have been several different ways of acknowledging the authority of law, particularly the ways in which it is determined, applied and enforced.  Most religious communities have distinguished between Divine Law, also called the Moral Law (with a capital M and capital L), and human law (with a lower case h, lower case l).


Let’s begin with a look at Moral Law.  Its major tenets have been expressed in both scripture and religious tradition.  One Catholic theologian says that, “The Moral Law is both a rule for what must be…and also a rule for what ought to be.”[1]


The Decalogue, better known as the Ten Commandments, are viewed as primary expressions of Divine, Moral Law (capital M, capital L).  Martin Luther went so far as to say that these ten commandments represented the natural order of all things.[2]


While philosophers and ethicists from various religious perspectives have argued the finer points of the Moral Law as expressed in scripture and tradition, the symbols and stories of the enduring religious traditions, particularly of those represented on this evening’s panel, hold on to a single, fundamental principle that is the foundation of all Abrahamic Moral Law, a principle at the heart of both Hebrew and Christian scripture:  It is the proclamation made clear in the very beginning of the Bible, in Genesis chapter 1, when we read that all human beings, both male and female, are created in the very image of God.


The ethical demands found in both Jewish and Christian scriptures that consist of loving one’s neighbor as oneself, of welcoming the stranger, of showing compassion to the enemy (as in the parable of the Good Samaritan); all of these are all deeply rooted in the fundamental biblical concept that all human beings are created in the very image of God.  This is the foundation of Moral Law, capital M, capital L.


By contrast, human law, in its ideal form, is intended to reflect the order of the greater Moral Law, but not be confused for it.  Following the Greek philosophy of Plato, the Moral Law does not change, whereas human law is always open to reform.  As Catholic theologian J. Heckel writes, “The Moral Law appears as a force which is always working for the reform of human law.”[3]


As we gather here in this Lutheran church, perhaps it is fitting to recall one of the primary theological affirmations held dear by the Protestant Reformers:  Ecclesia reformata simper reformanda (A reformed church always reforming).  In a similar fashion, in order to reflect the greater Moral Law, human law must always be open to reformation.


Postmodern ethicists have consistently pointed out concerns about the nature of lawmaking, particularly the ways in which powerful human beings have the tendency of making laws that do not ensure the common good, but rather ensure their own power.  Such tendencies have been reflected throughout history, and when there has been a conflict between obeying the Moral Law or the human law, history’s heroes have shown us that it is better to honor the former.


One might recall the biblical story of Daniel, who was thrown into a den of lions because he refused to acknowledge Babylonian law over and above the law of his God.


One might recall the early Christian apostles in the book of Acts, who, when faced with a similar conflict, stated that “We must obey God rather than any human authority.”


One might recall the Letter from Birmingham Jail, in which the greatest moral theologian of our time, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., reminded us that everything Hitler did in Germany was  perfectly ‘legal’; but aiding and comforting a Jew in Hitler’s Germany was nothing but ‘illegal’.[4]


In relation to the civil rights movement, he responded to several of his critics with these words, also from the Letter from Birmingham Jail.  He writes:  “You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws.  This is certainly a legitimate concern.  Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision…of outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws.  One may well ask, ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’  The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws:  there are just laws and there are unjust laws.  I would agree with St. Augustine (who said) that ‘An unjust law is no law at all.’


Now what is the difference between the two?…An unjust law is a (human)-made code that is out of harmony with the Moral Law….Any law that uplifts human personality is just.  Any law that degrades human personality is unjust…Of course, there is nothing new about (breaking unjust laws).  It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law was involved.  It was practiced superbly by the early Christians who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks, before submitting to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.”[5]


The question King puts before us is not whether or not respect for the rule of law is foundational to the well-being of society, it certainly is.  Rather, what King calls us to do is to assess our human laws, to ask whether or not they pass the test of justice, to ask whether or not they hold up to the greater Moral Law, with a capital M, capital L.


Indeed, respect for law has been foundational to civilization.  But recognizing the ways in which some laws have failed to pass the test of justice, the test of dignity, the test of the greater Moral Law—and working to correct them (one might recall the women’s suffrage movement and the civil rights movement)—these moments, these times, have represented our finest achievements as a society.


Thank you.



[1] J. Heckel, “Law:  Theology and Moral Theology,” in Encyclopedia of Theology:  The Concise Sacramentum Mundi, edited by Karl Rahner, p. 830.

[2] Patrick Keifert, “Law and Gospel,” in A New Handbook of Christian Theology, edited by Donald Musser & Joseph Price, p. 284.

[3] Heckel, p. 834.

[4] Martin Luther King, Jr., “The Letter from Birmingham City Jail,” in The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., edited by James Washington, p. 294-295.

[5] Ibid., p. 293-294

Worried Missourians Protest Healthcare Vote


Fact Check on Question 1: Ten Things You Need to Know

phil snider

In what will likely be my last post relatedto Question 1, which appears on Tuesday’s ballot in Springfield, I simply want to clarifya lot of the rhetoric that is going around Springfield right now, in large part because there is a lot of misinformation out there. (For those of you outside of Springfield, Question 1 asks Springfield voters if they wish to repeal the nondiscrimination ordinance that adds protections related to sexual orientation and gender identity.)

1. Fact: If voters choose not to repeal the non-discrimination ordinance, bathroom and/orlocker room predators and all who invade theprivacy of otherswill still be breaking the law.“The ordinance does not make any changes around criminal conduct. Criminal conduct will continue to be prosecuted.”[1] As such, “Anyone who tries to enter a woman’s restroom to harm, harass or invade the privacy of people will still be subject to arrest and prosecution.” In addition…

View original post 841 more words

Danny Cortez’s sermon, “Why I Changed My Mind On Homosexuality”

Here is a transcript of Danny Cortez’s sermon, “Why I Changed My Mind On Homosexuality,” that he graciously agreed to have published in the forthcoming book of sermons I’ve been privileged to edit.

Why I Changed My Mind On Homosexuality

Danny Cortez

The Rev. Danny Cortez, an ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Convention, is the pastor of New Heart Community Church, a Southern Baptist congregation in La Mirada, California. This sermon was preached at New Heart on February 9, 2014, just a few weeks after Rev. Cortez informed the elders that his views on homosexuality had changed. The congregation then entered a period of discernment, and on May 18, 2014, voted not to dismiss Rev. Cortez. Instead, they chose to become a “Third Way” church, leaving room for congregants to disagree with one another regarding the affirmation of LGBTQ people—which is a significant step for a Southern Baptist church. Later that year, on September 23, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to break ties with New Heart Community Church. [Editor’s note: This is an edited transcript that closely follows the audio file of this sermon. Slight modifications have been made to make it read more like a manuscript than a transcript.][1]



Romans 1

I’ve been so grateful in the sixteen years of New Heart that we’ve never had a church split. We’ve never had any major crisis. We’ve never had any huge ordeals that created major chaos. But, unfortunately, we are now embarking on our first one.

Many of you received an email asking you to attend today. The subject matter was about homosexuality—some of you know why, and some of you don’t. The reason there is chaos right now is because I recently revealed to the elders that I have changed my stance on homosexuality. It was understood that this was a radical shift from the longstanding belief of our church. This was a radical shift from our statement of faith aligned with the Southern Baptist Convention. In the news that I delivered to the elders, I realized that I had dropped a bomb on them. For that, I am saddened I created that confusion. They expressed to me that they wished I had shared that with them earlier on in the process, as I was going through this shift. In retrospect, I realize that I did them wrong by not sharing this with them sooner, and that I had done the church wrong.

But the fact remains that I’ve been on this journey, and my thinking on this matter has changed. There are implications for that; there are strong implications. I realize that it’s grounds for termination. I realize that this might be my last message—I get that. But I’m also grateful that the elders have extended graciousness to me. Even in our strong disagreement, I want everyone to know there has been nothing but respect for one another. There’s been a genuine sense of struggle and disagreement—and yet there’s been love between us. And that’s really all I can ask.

They have set a course of action for our church to pursue. The church will get together for the next few weeks to be in a time of discussion, dialogue, and prayer. I know this topic is often a litmus test for Christianity and liberalism versus conservatism. I know this is often the thing that makes people say, “Oh, you’ve become a flaming liberal! You’ve lost the faith!” I understand that, but I please ask of you that we would all create space right now to listen, to pay attention, to allow all of our hearts to be formed, and that I myself would be taught by you. Because I confess that on this journey, I don’t have all of the theology down. My conclusions aren’t tightly knit. I have so much room to grow, to be taught by you, to be taught by God. And I pray that all of our postures are the same. This is a difficult time.

Let me begin by telling you a little bit about my background. In my formative years of my faith, in high school, I attended Calvary Chapel. Then, in college, I became heavily involved with Campus Crusade for Christ (for the next twelve years). I also attended the Christian Missionary Alliance Church during college and was one of the youth leaders there. I also attended Biola University, Talbot Seminary, to pursue my master’s degree in pastoral ministry. In 1993, I was ordained in the Southern Baptist denomination, and since that time, for the past twenty-one years, I have been an ordained Southern Baptist minister, the last sixteen years here at New Heart.

I say all of that to show you that my spiritual upbringing has been in conservative Christianity. It’s been traditional in my bent towards theology and biblical interpretation. At the same time, I realize that my heart for the marginalized has continued to grow.

Sixteen years ago when New Heart started, I remember the first time someone came up to me and asked, “Danny, can I meet with you?” There was an individual who confessed to me their same-sex attraction. I remember not knowing what to do. I was caught off-guard and prayed for them. And lo and behold! For the next sixteen years—every year—either one or two or three people would come to me and tell me about their same-sex struggles. This pretty much became a pattern at New Heart.

One of the things that became clear to me as I began engaging in multiple discussions with people within the church—just trying to figure out and working through the anguish and the confusion they had—was that it always felt different from my interactions with everyone else inside the church and outside the church. Whenever I met with people with different problems—whether it be drug addiction or pornography or their spiritual walk or adultery or committing some kind of crime—I could sit with them engaged and deliver God’s word. And I always felt like I was giving them life. I always felt like, “Stay close to God, and follow these commandments of Christ.” And it was always received, “Yes, I know. That’s good; that feels right. It’s hard, but it feels right.”

But whenever I met with someone that had same-sex identity issues, I would sit down with them, and they would say, “Danny, what do you think about this?” I would tell them, “The Bible is clear. God is against homosexual behavior. And because of that, you have to remain celibate.”

In these dialogues, there was a sense of dread that would suddenly come upon the people I would talk to. It was basically me telling them, “For the rest of your life, you can never fall in love. For the rest of your life, you should never give yourself or anybody permission to love you in an intimate manner.” Those kinds of words—when I said those words—I could just feel the dread coming into the person I was talking to. I was always wondering why, of all God’s commandments, why is this the one commandment that just seemed like it was different from all of the other commandments that seemed to impart life? This was the one that created so much self-hatred. It made people feel like they were imprisoned—serving a sentence of life with no chance to love.

A quote by Matthew Vines puts it this way:

[EXT]Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct.[2][/EXT]

I remember one encounter I had with a young, lesbian girl who used to attend our church. She was in dialogue with me, saying, “Danny, are you sure you know what the Bible is saying?” We started talking about reparative therapy and what some people were pushing her towards, those who were trying to get her to change her sexual orientation. I’ll never forget what she told me that day. She said, “Danny, will you look at that man that’s sitting at the next table over? How would you feel if I told you that you had to somehow go over there and hold his hand? How would you feel if I told you that you had to kiss him? That you had to fall in love with him? That you had to learn how to be intimate with him?”

I remember looking over there, and I experienced a knee-jerk reaction because I’m straight. She said, “Danny, this is how I feel whenever I hear the church telling me, ‘If you don’t want to be celibate, this is the only option for you.’ Danny, do you understand how dehumanizing that feels? Do you understand how gross it makes me feel? In the same way right now—you reacted that way—that’s how I react. That’s why it’s so hard for me to understand why God would confine someone to this lifelong confusion and loneliness and imprisonment to celibacy.”

After she left New Heart, she said, “Danny, I know you’ve been thinking about studying this topic for a long time now.” She knew that I had a lot of topics that I was thinking through, and homosexuality was toward the bottom of the list. She said, “Danny, I pray that you would finally put this at the top of your list.” Three years ago, she left, and I said, “I will. I’ll do that.”

And I realized toward the beginning of this more intensified and intentional study that I had to admit that much of what I knew about homosexuality was not the result of a long period of study, but it was something that was passed down to me by either my parents or the church. I just never took the time to actually challenge any of those thoughts, but I was now at a place where I realized I had to engage in it.

As I began my study, I realized there were only six passages in all of Scripture that really were directly associated with homosexuality. Three of them are in the New Testament. Three of them are in the Old. And there’s not a lot of time this morning to go through all of them, so I want to focus on the main one, and that’s Romans 1.

Here, Paul is writing this most epic of episodes. Keep in mind, he’s trying to write about the glory of God and justification by faith and how grace abounds and how all of us have fallen short of the glory of God. He’s writing about these great truths, and like any good writer, he’s trying to come up with a great introduction. So what Paul does in the very beginning, in Romans 1, is write,

[EXT]Although they claim to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore, God gave them over in their sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity, for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped the created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lust. Even their woman exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men abandoned the natural relationships with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, boastful. They invent new ways of doing evil. Disobedient to parents, no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree, that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these things but also approve of those who practice them. (Rom. 1:22–32 niv)[/EXT]

Paul is listing here the result of exchanging the truth of God for a lie. He’s telling his audience, in effect, “You’ve exchanged God’s truth for a lie and exchanged his glory. Now you’re creating images made to look in the form of human beings and birds and animals and reptiles. You’re worshiping these idols. Not only that, because of that idolatry, God hands you over. You’re involved in this gross, sexual immorality. Men lying with men. Women committing unnatural relations. Then there’s gossips, slanderers, God-haters. All of that.”

As Paul is writing down this escalating crescendo of human sin and arrogance and evil, the listeners, the recipients of this letter, are tracking with Paul, and they’re saying to Paul, “Yes, that’s evil! That’s right! Everything about what you’re saying, we agree with!”

What Paul is doing—I think—is naming what everybody in the Christian circle at Rome (both Gentile and Jew) agree on—this problem in the temple at Rome. There was homosexual prostitution, violence, abuse, and all kinds of sexual immorality going on. Paul is setting up his letter, trying to name the most evil thing he can think of. And this is it. It’s the evil Roman Empire, especially the practices of its leaders and the immorality that occurs within the temple. Everyone is saying, “Yes! Yes, that is evil!” And Paul has them in his hands now.

Just as the people are resonating with Paul and pointing fingers, saying, “That is so despicable!” the very first verse in Romans 2 shows Paul turn the tables on his audience. He writes, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” (Rom. 2:1 niv). Paul is saying, “The reason I wrote what I wrote in Romans 1 was to create a realization of how great your sin is.” In his magnificent, brilliant writing style, Paul gets his readers to agree with how evil all of this is but then tells them, “Guess what? You’re just the same way!” Therefore, Paul says, don’t judge anyone.

And yet, Romans 1 is the passage used most often to judge all sorts of people, especially those in the LGBTQ community. So, if I were to look at Paul’s intent in Romans 1, it’s not as a window into other people’s lives. Rather, it’s a mirror to look at my own life. It’s not a window where we’re supposed to be looking at homosexuality and other people with disgust. In the application that I read here—really the only clear application that Paul is giving in this extended passage—the reason he writes this is for us to understand our own sinfulness. So that we can understand our own need for God; so that we can understand our solidarity with humanity.

I think Paul is brilliant in the way he did it. It’s the New Testament equivalent of what the prophet Nathan did to King David in 2 Samuel after David committed adultery, taking someone else’s wife. Nathan tells David a parable about a rich man who stole a poor man’s only lamb and killed it. David hears the parable and says, “That man must be killed.” Nathan says, “Guess what, David? That man is you.” The purpose of the parable was to show David his own sinfulness.[3] And that’s the purpose of Romans 1.

But I know for many of us, that’s not enough. Yes, maybe that’s the purpose of Romans 1, but it still doesn’t excuse the fact that Paul is declaring that these things are still sinful. I get that. But I think part of the problem here in reading Romans 1—in regard to the homosexual passages—is that it’s very natural for us to read it with western eyes, from our own cultural context. We have to understand that Romans was written in the context of their own particular history.

Let me give you an example. If, one day, I were to preach a sermon on the depravity of modern America, and I said, “In our society, men take advantage of interns, and they have sex with them. They not only take advantage of interns and have sex with them, but when they’re confronted by that evil, they deny it, and they wag their fingers, and they say, ‘I did not sleep with that woman!’” All of you would understand what I’m talking about without me even having to say the names of the president and the intern I’m referring to.

But imagine if somebody two thousand years from now heard a podcast and said, “Hey, that teaching must mean that men shouldn’t have sex with interns.” That’s what happens when we lose the historical context of what’s going on.

So the question for me is, “What is happening politically around the time of Paul?” Is there something in that cultural context that was actually feeding a common story that everybody could automatically agree with and say, “Hey, Paul. I’m tracking with you, and we all know who you’re talking about.” And I think that’s what’s happening because there’s a person within history that nearly fits this Romans 1 passage to a “T.”

I want to read excerpts from James Brownson’s book, Bible, Gender, Sexuality. I pray that you would track with me on this. The portion I’m reading is a little lengthy.

[EXT]Neil Elliott has called attention to the striking similarities of Paul’s language and the incredible greed, violence, and sexual excesses of Gaius Caligula, an emperor who reigned in a period not too long before Paul wrote Romans. First of all, Gaius is closely linked to the practice of idolatry. The Roman writer Suetonius reports how Gaius “set up a special temple to his own godhead, with priests and with victims of the choicest kind.” Another Roman writer, Dio Cassius, comments negatively on how Gaius was the only emperor to claim to be divine and to be the recipient of worship during his lifetime. Gaius also tried at one point to erect a statue of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem.[4][/EXT]

That’s why the Jews despised this guy. Here’s a guy that was kind of defacing their own temple. “[H]e was dissuaded only by a delegation from Herod”—hence the link between Gaius and idolatry would have been well-known indeed, particularly in Jewish circles.[5] Brownson continues:

[EXT]Gaius also serves as “Exhibit A” for out-of-control lust. Suetonias reports how Gaius “lived in perpetual incest with all his sisters, and at a large banquet he placed each of them in turn below him, while his wife reclined above. He records gruesome examples of Gaius’s arbitrary violence, vindictiveness, and cruelty. Later Suetonius chronicles Gaius’s sexual liaisons with the wives of dinner guests, raping them in an adjoining room and then returning to the banquet to comment on their performance. Various same-sex sexual encounters between Gaius and other men are similarly recounted. Finally, a military officer whom he had sexually humiliated joined a conspiracy to murder him, which they did less than four years into his reign. Suetonius records that Gaius was stabbed through the genitals when he was murdered. One wonders whether we can hear an echo of this gruesome story in Paul’s comments in Romans 1:27: “Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own person the due penalty for their error.” Gaius Caligula graphically illustrates the reality of which Paul speaks in Romans 1: the movement from idolatry to every insatiable lust, to every form of depravity and the violent, murderous reprisal . . . [The Jewish writer] Philo writes in similarly scathing terms of the evils of Gaius Caligula, interpreting his depravity as the result of his refusal to honor God, and his death as a manifestation of divine justice. This suggests that Gaius’s excesses and the divine judgment incurred by them were a common theme that would have been familiar to many Jews in the ancient world.

These contemporary parallels . . . give a clearer sense of the kinds of linkages and associations that Paul’s readers would have made as they read his words in Romans 1. Paul is speaking of sinfulness in its extreme and most obvious form here. His goal is to clearly delineate the essence of the human problem and to secure the unambiguous agreement of the Roman Christians in condemning such outrageousness . . . The twenty-one vices recounted in Romans 1:29-31 recount the full depth and breadth of human corruption, the sort of outrageous conduct that could be seen in Gaius Caligula.[6][/EXT]

The readers of Romans 1, who were very well aware of this evil Roman ruler, would read this passage and think, “We know who you’re talking about.” We know that this is about the excesses. It’s not just homosexual behavior, but it’s the violence of the homoerotic behavior that is occurring in that evil Roman ruler and everyone around him.”

That’s why I think it’s so important for us to not make the mistake of reading Romans 1 and then saying, “Isn’t it clear? Isn’t it clear that God says this?” When, in actuality, the context of the history says so much more.

I wish I had more time to go through the other two Bible passages in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, where it speaks about homosexuality in a list of sins. The Greek word that is being translated is arsenokoite[set macron over e]s. And if you know anything about that word, you know that it is a very hard word to translate. In fact, it wasn’t until 1950 that the word “homosexual” was in any English Bible. Before 1950, the word “homosexual” wasn’t even in any of the translations before that because, partly, “homosexual” is a new word. It was coined in the 1800s. So, I grant that arsenokoite[set macron over e]s might refer to “homosexuality.” There’s definitely an argument to be stated that it could mean that. But it could also mean “sexual immorality.” It could also mean “sexual perversion.” In fact, there’s such little usage of it in antiquity, that people agree that Paul was probably the first person to coin this word.

The New Testament scholar Gordon Fee—if you’ve ever been to seminary, you know who this guy is—he says, “Arsenokoite[set macron over e]s is rarely used in the Greek literature, especially when describing homosexual activity.”[7] So here’s this New Testament scholar saying that this word is hard to figure out because it’s used in so many different ways.

Then you look at Martin Luther’s version of the Bible when he translated into German the words of Paul and his letters. He translated it as “boy abusers.” He saw arsenokoite[set macron over e]s as pedophilia. If you trace this word throughout history, you’ll realize there’s a wide spectrum of use, which has created doubt that anyone really knows for sure what the word means. Should we translate it as “homosexual”? Well, that’s what [some of] our modern versions have chosen. But I’m not so convinced.

When I think of Middle Eastern sexual practices, I realize I’m not an authority in them. In fact, whenever I think about the Middle East and see pictures and videos of it, I’m always thinking, “Wow, that’s a different place.” Whenever they sing their songs, or shout in the streets, I don’t get it. I know there’s a reason for all of that, but I don’t understand it.

Then I think, “How much more do I not understand Middle Eastern marriage and sexual practices? That must be even more different than I can comprehend.” Then I think, “How much more difficult is it to understand Middle Eastern sexual practices from two thousand, three thousand years ago?”

I knew if I was going to do a serious study of this, I had to immerse myself in what was going on. I couldn’t just read about it and look at the scholarly research on it. I needed to get a hold of homoerotic literature, and that’s what I did. I tried to grab every piece of homoerotic literature that has ever been written in the Roman and Greek periods. And I began to immerse myself, all in order to better understand.

There were times when my body just shook with disgust. There were so many times I read it, and I was like, “Are you kidding me?” I felt like I was being transported into this other-worldly reality that was just so bizarre and evil and disgusting and misogynistic. So brutally violent, where these old men would just treat young boys like they were nothing. I kept reading it over and over, and I thought, “You know what? That’s a different world. That’s a different world.”

This is why, if you ever read classical historians today, who research homoerotic literature and teach at the universities and write the books, they’ll all say with unison, “It’s really hard to talk about homosexuality because our idea of homosexuality is so different from what it was back then.” There’s always this thing in the beginning of the book that is asking us to try to think of this in a way that is very different [from what we understand].

One of the ways that it’s different is that in our western context, we tend to think of the dichotomy of homosexual versus heterosexual. But they didn’t think in those ways back then. They didn’t think, “Well, here are the straight people, and here are the homosexuals.” The way they thought was in terms of active versus passive, or dominant versus submissive, or masculine versus feminine. In other words, in homoerotic behavior, there’s a dominant, and there’s a passive. The dominant was usually older, or a free person. The passive was sometimes a young boy, a slave. The way this worked was the dominant would penetrate the passive, but it would never be reversed. Just that alone makes you realize that the type of homosexual behavior that was occurring back in antiquity was so different from what’s happening now. What was filled with violence and abuse, I look at, and I think about all the things I read, and I say, “Hey, God, you were right to condemn all of that. God, that was wicked! All of that stuff! That’s unjust! God, I believe your word; no one should behave that way.”

But as you begin to realize that we’ve moved away from that part of history, we find something very different.

It’s almost like Halloween. I remember when our kids were first born, I was thinking, “Should I let my kids do Halloween?” Because I remember watching a Calvary Chapel video that said it’s demonic. You go trick-or-treating, and you’re actually worshiping Satan, and blah blah blah blah. Then I realized, “No, I don’t think they’re really doing that, so let’s go trick-or-treating!”

But if you look at the origins of it, it’s true. It was cultic. They would build bonfires, sacrifice animals, wear costumes, go trick-or-treating, and receive food in return for prayers for the dead. So, in terms of Halloween, I could make a case that no one should do Halloween because of its origins, which are filled with cultic practices. But we know that it’s okay to do Halloween now. Why? Because the meaning has changed.

And that’s what I feel like has happened. Homosexual behavior is not what it was in biblical days, when it was filled with violence and abuse and rape and slavery and temple prostitution. When I go into that world and have to put down the book, and I meet with a lesbian couple who are friends of mine at Starbucks, I think, “What I just came from in my book doesn’t feel like this at all. Because here’s a lesbian Christian couple meeting me for coffee, and they’re praying for me. They’re sharing the words of Christ to me. They’re loving on me.” And I’m like, “This is not what I’m reading about. This is different. This is different.”

I know that someone will probably pick up this podcast and write a refutation of everything I’ve said. I’ve been following this debate for long enough now. One scholar puts out something, another will put out something, then they’ll put out something else.

And it just keeps going. And I’ve been following it, and I’ve been realizing that for every response, there’s an answer, and for every answer, there’s a response. And it just keeps escalating. Quite frankly, my head is hurting just trying to follow the discussion.

Then I think, “Here I am, someone who is seminary-trained, who has learned Hebrew and Greek. I’m tracking with this, I’m tracking with this. But what about the rest of the people who don’t have time for this? How are they ever going to come to their own conclusions? Do you really have to be a scholar to try to determine what the will of God is? Is truth only reserved for those who are debating in scholarly research? And then the way we arrive at it is by faith? All of us have to align ourselves with someone that we think is more respectable and smarter? So we align ourselves that way, by faith? ‘I think I’m just going to go with him.’”

Really, that’s how the blogs have been. Or is there a different way? Because I don’t think Jesus intended his truth to be revealed only to the learned, but to the simple. And Jesus says, “You look at a fruit, is it bad, or is it good? Because a good tree bears bad fruit. A bad tree bears bad fruit.”[8] And everybody knows we’re wired to recognize hatred. We’re wired to recognize injustice. We’re wired to recognize things that are evil.

So we don’t have to have all that knowledge and then jump by faith, to lean on one scholar. I pray that none of you would look at me and say, “Hey, I’m with Pastor Danny,” because I’m fallible myself. I’m still in process. What God says to you, as people of faith, is, “Look at the fruit.” And what I see in my conversations with the homosexual community—I see the homosexual community being marginalized over and over and over again by the church. I say something’s wrong with that picture. Why is it that in our churches, it’s almost like there’s a sign outside of our doors that says, “No Homosexuals Allowed”? Or at our communion tables, “Are you straight? Only straight people here.” Really, that’s what goes on, and people in the LGBTQ community, they’re feeling like the churches don’t accept them.

Of course, what will be said is, “We have to guard the purity of the church. We have to remain strong. We have to look at God’s word and not compromise.”

Then I think about Jesus, who was the most morally pure person I can ever think of. He didn’t create walls of separation. He didn’t do that. What he did was he went to their homes. He went to their frickin’ homes. And when a prostitute came in, a girl who was an abomination and dirty—and no priest would want to be seen next to her—what does she do? She washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, with her hair. Then he tells these scholars, these theologians, these pastors, “You study the Scriptures. In them, you think you have eternal life. You go around following all these rabbis. You can debate all you want. But do you want to know what true worship is? It’s not about debate and trying to figure out the Torah. It’s by watching someone like this girl who has been marginalized. If you want to know worship, you learn it through this person.”[9]

If you want to know what giving is, you don’t buy a book on giving. You look at the widow who had nothing. If you want to know what love looks like, you don’t buy a book about love. You look at the Samaritan who was considered faulty of theology, a compromiser by virtue of his identity. You look at someone who’s been marginalized, and you see that this is how to love.[10]

That’s what I’ve been doing. I’ve been going into the homosexual community, into the LGBTQ areas. I’ve been going to AIDS clinics. I’ve been going to gay bars. I’ve been going to gay coffeehouses, bringing my books, studying, trying to meet people. I’ve been going to gay conferences, listening to their stories, letting them vent to me the abuse they felt from the church. And there I am, listening, and saying, “I’m sorry. I am so sorry.” Within those conversations, I realized that in those places, I saw the presence of God.

Over the summer, I remember thinking, “Wow, did I just change my view?” I remember it was just a thought in my mind, and it caught me off-guard. “Do I now believe that same-sex marriage and relationships in a loving, monogamous way is permitted by Scripture?” And I remember thinking, “Whoa, that felt weird. Did I just become liberal? Did I just lose my faith?” I remember I was scared about that, actually. I didn’t intend to do that.

Then I heard a song on the radio, and I thought, “Oh my gosh, that’s a pro-gay song, and I’m actually liking it.” I thought, “Oh, man. What’s wrong with me?” And I remember not wanting to talk it over with anybody until one day when I was driving my son, Drew, to school. That song came on the radio again, and I was like, “Oh, here’s that song!” I looked over at Drew, and I said, “Hey, Drew. Who sings this?”

Drew said, “It’s Macklemore. How come, Dad?”

I said, “Oh, because I like this song.”

Drew looked over and said, “Dad, you like the song? Do you know what this is about?”

I said, “Yeah, I know what it’s about. I think I changed my thoughts about homosexuality.”

He remained silent. I could tell that he felt a little confused. As we got out of the car—I was helping him with something in school—I looked over at him, and I said, “Drew, what do you think about it?”

He turned to me, and he told me in a nervous voice, “Dad, I’m gay.” I remember I just turned around, and I hugged him so hard. I said, “I love you so much, son. I love you so much. And I accept, and I affirm you. And I will love you unconditionally.”

It was just the most meaningful moment that I had ever had with Drew. I felt like I had lost so many years of not knowing the pain that was going on in his heart and thinking, “Drew, why didn’t you tell me before?”

He said, “Dad, if I said anything, I would be admitting that I was giving up. I was trying to fight my gayness. I didn’t want to admit it, and I hated myself. I hated myself all the time.”

I said, “Drew, I’m so sorry for not being there with you. But know that I will be your father, and I will love you. I will love you unconditionally.”

I couldn’t help but thank God. Drew was born two months after New Heart started, and the whole time of New Heart was in preparation for this. It was in preparation for this moment. I said, “God, thank you. Thank you that you brought me to a place where I’m no longer judging people that think differently from me. God, how freeing that is.”

As we caught up to my son’s life, we felt like we had lost so much time with him. On his birthday, last December 30, he said to us, “This is the first time I woke up on my birthday where I was at peace.”

I said, “What do you mean?”

He said, “Every birthday, I would wake up and realize I’m still gay, and I knew God hadn’t answered my prayer.”

There was another time in the car when he said, “Dad, Mom, I want you to know that if somebody gave me a pill that could change my gayness, I would take it right now.”

So, I thought about that. I went up to him the next day, and I said, “Drew, I want you to know that if I had a pill that could change you, I wouldn’t give it to you, because you’re perfect just the way you are. No more fighting, Drew. No more fighting. Accept the way God has made you. Because I love you just the way you are.”

For the first time, speaking to someone who was gay, I felt like I was giving them life. For the first time, I was actually offering words of life. I thought, “The fruit of this feels familiar. It feels so familiar.” I might not have all my theology down, and there are some passages that I’m still working through, but I know what fruit looks like. I know what good fruit looks like. I might not have all the answers, and someone might be able to stump me with a question so I say, “I have no idea. I don’t know. I’m just ignorant that way.”

But I do know what grace and mercy and peace and love look like.

And so we see in the life of Jesus—the perfectly sinless man who was willing to cross over forty-five boundaries in Scripture—he crossed social, religious, and political boundaries in an effort to stand in solidarity with the other person. That, for me, has been what my journey is about. That’s why I spend time talking with the elderly who have been abandoned. That’s why, last week, I sat down with a rapist who had been in and out of jail. That’s why I meet with brothel owners and prostitutes. That’s why I sit down with the homeless and listen to their stories. Because, for me, the study of God and the way I find truth is no longer trying to find the best arguments, the best books, the best scholarly research. It’s looking at the way Jesus lived his life and finding the kingdom of God in the things that people deem worthless and the people that are most broken.

My hope for New Hope isn’t that you all would agree with me. It’s been a sixteen year journey for me to finally get to where I am. I don’t expect anyone to agree with what I believe. I’m not here trying to push my beliefs on you but merely to share with you my journey.

And you have every right—I respect whatever you believe. But do we as a church have space for disagreement? Are we as a church willing to say that we have different ideas of homosexuality, and therefore, can we not judge anyone and just accept them into full membership? Or do we choose to say, “We disagree with you, and therefore, we have no fellowship with you”? Personally, I don’t think that’s the way of Christ. I don’t think that’s the way of Christ.

On January 8, my wife and I went to Chicago. Some of you follow us on Facebook. Many of you were asking, “Why in the world did you go to Chicago? It’s so cold!” No one knew the real reason why we were going except our family. The reason Abby and I went to Chicago was to go to the Gay Christian Network Conference. I found out there was a conference in Chicago to help parents who needed a support group, and Abby and I qualified for that because we’re so darned ignorant on how to raise a gay child. Somebody, please teach me.

But it wasn’t about raising him, actually. It was about raising ourselves. Erasing some of our biases. Our prejudices.

At this conference, there were over seven hundred people there—maybe sixty parents, and the rest people in the LGBTQ community. Here we were, sitting in a hotel conference room, singing the same songs we sing here at church. They were lifting their hands, and I was looking over at Abby, and I was wondering how she felt because she grew up Southern Baptist, all her life. Her grandfather was Southern Baptist, her uncle, her dad, her cousins. All those people are pastors in her family. I was wondering, “Dear, how do you feel?”

She was like, “It’s different.”

I remember thinking, “This is where Jesus would be. This is where Jesus would be.”

The last night, I met a man by the name of Coyote. He approached me, thanking me for my story—I told some people about my journey. He said, “This conference is meaningful for me and my friends because this is the only church we get to go to once a year.”

I was like, “What do you mean?”

He said, “In the places we live, in the small communities, there are no churches that will accept us.”

And my heart broke. I thought, “That really sucks.”

So, when I was asked the question recently, “How does it feel to know that you might be terminated in a few weeks?” I said, “I am at peace.” I’m at peace because I know my heart has been enlarged for people like Coyote who need a church. I know that whatever happens, compassion is giving me clarity. It’s giving me clarity in my calling; it’s giving me clarity in my purpose. People like Coyote, they need a church. They need to be pastored. They need a community of people that will not judge them because of their sexual identity.

So, I pray that as a church we would open ourselves to how God directs us, and I caution you to realize that it’s so easy to look at the word of God and merely look at the letter of the law. But there is something underneath it, a deeper current that is only understood by the Spirit, moved by love, and drawn into compassion. Our thoughts cannot just be about arguing the biblical text. It must be understood in the context of love, and that means in the context of real, human relationships. Because compassion is what gives clarity to this matter.

And I pray that our church would survive this.

[1] You may view this sermon online by visiting For more information on evangelical churches and “third way” approaches, see Wilson, A Letter to My Congregation.

[2] Vines, “The Gay Debate.”

[3] See 2 Sam. 12:1–13.

[4] Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality, 156.

[5] See Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 157–8.

[7] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 244.

[8] See Matt. 7:18.

[9] See Luke 7:36–50.

[10] See Mark 12:41–44 and Luke 10:25–37, respectively.

Interview I did for KSMU after Michael Brown’s death and the fallout in Ferguson

Prayer offered at Claire McCaskill’s Town Hall meeting in Springfield — March 18, 2014

I appreciated the invitation to offer the opening ecumenical prayer at Claire McCaskill’s town hall gathering earlier today at Drury University. Here’s a copy of the prayer I gave (because of time I omitted paragraphs 3-4 at the live event):

To the One who transcends all religious affiliations and languages and creeds, we take this moment to open our hearts to the call of love, justice and compassion that we sense upon our lives — a call that is found in the best expressions of our religious traditions, but of course is not confined to religious traditions.

And regardless of the name in which we pray, or if we pray at all, we come together at this time to express our deep longing and abiding hunger for love, justice and compassion to be found in our midst; for fairness, equality and opportunity for all people to be our guiding principles.

For all of the times our actions fall short of love, understanding and compassion, may we be set on right paths. For all of the times our laws fall short of the claims that justice and fairness and equality make upon our lives, may we be set on right paths. For all of the times we willingly or unknowingly participate in systems and structures that fall short of human rights and economic dignity for all people, may we be set on right paths.

More than anything, may our prayers be expressed not on our lips but rather through our actions, lest we hold our religious beliefs in vain. May we keep in mind that all people – including and especially the poor, and the vulnerable, and the citizens among us who don’t have access to the same rights and opportunities that many take for granted, whether because of socioeconomic status, skin color, sexual orientation or gender identity — way we be reminded that each person deserves our attention, our action, our voice and our care.

We give thanks for leaders with the integrity to govern not by the shallow demands of ideology or popularity but rather by the highest principles of fairness and equality, in solidarity with those they represent.

We pray these things in the name of the Love which transcends all boundaries, divides and religions and constantly seeks to usher in a better, more beautiful way of being, Amen.

Reflections at the MLK Unity March – Aug. 28, 2013

H/T @darrylschafer

H/T @darrylschafer

A transcript of my talk at Springfield’s Unity March in honor of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech:

It is an honor to be with you this evening as we celebrate this most important of moments in our nation’s history. It’s only proper that we celebrate such a dream as a community—for we are, as Dr. King reminds us, tied to a “single garment of destiny . . . Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly . . . We must all learn to live together as brothers [and sisters] or we will all perish together as fools.”

In religious discourse, there is often a distinction made between what is referred to as “orthodoxy,” on the one hand, and “orthopraxy,” on the other. Orthodoxy refers to having all of the right beliefs. Whereas orthopraxy refers to our actions: doing what is right, not just believing what is right.

This distinction between belief and action is essential, for it’s all too easy for us to treat Dr. King’s dream as a great ideal, as an expression of our best beliefs, as a dream that is beautiful to think about, inspiring to recall. We can hear it and say, “Yes, that’s what I believe! Yes, that’s what life should be about!” // We can have all of the right beliefs about Dr. King’s dream.

But there’s a subtle danger lurking here. If all of our right beliefs do not lead to concrete actions—in other words, if we hold Dr. King’s dream in our minds as a beautiful concept or a moving idea, yet we do not commit ourselves as individuals and as a community to doing the hard, sacrificial work of making his dream a reality, in the here and the now, in the life of our community, in the lives of our children, in the systems and structures that shape us—in our educational systems, our economic systems, our justice systems—if we do not follow up our beliefs with actions–well then, our remembrance of Dr. King’s dream will have very little substance, it will be dry as dust. Hollow, not hallowed. // Simply put, our veneration of Dr. King’s dream must be followed by a commitment not just to believe what is right but to do what is right, to make the truth happen . . .

And we are here this evening because we believe Dr. King’s dream can live.
We are here this evening because we wish to give Dr. King’s dream arms and legs, hands and feet.
We are here this evening because there is a call for justice that overcomes our lives and we believe that the long sweltering heat of injustice—in the United States of America, in Springfield, MO—even given our checkered past, // it does not have the final say.
We are here this evening because we want to write a new future for Springfield, a future that does not ignore the wounds of the past but is not bound to repeat the wounds of the past.
We are here this evening to honor Dr. King’s dream precisely by pledging our lives, putting it all on the line, to write a new future, a better future, and a more beautiful future for the people of Springfield—not just for some people but for all people—so that if someone like Dr. King was to be part of our fair city, he just might say “’Tis a privilege to live in the Ozarks.”

Thank you very much.

Springfield Pridefest Speech, 6-15-13

[A video of this speech can be viewed here, but for some reason the last few lines of the speech didn’t get recorded…]

As someone who grew up in the churches of the Bible Belt, it’s been a long journey getting to this place today. If you would’ve told me 20 yrs ago that i would be marching at Pridefest, I never would’ve believed you. Actually, I probably wouldve said, “What’s Pridefest?” 😉

I remember being taught that being gay was sinful — and that those who are gay — those who live the “homosexual lifestyle” — were condemned.

At first I simply accepted the church’s teachings without really thinking all that much about it. But over time, as I met more and more people who are gay, I started to sense a disconnect, and this feeling grew and grew.

I vividly remember prayer meetings where people would literally lay hands on those struggling with what was called the demon of homosexuality, and they’d try to pray the gay away. I remember a couple of friends who tried so hard to be straight –
they’d go to therapy,
they’d pray,
they’d try so hard,
yet time and time again all this only made them feel worse about themselves, that despite all of their best efforts they’d never measure up in the eyes of God. It was like the system was set up for them to fail.

And I remember feeling very frustrated at God about all of this. Thinking how unfair God must be.

At one point along the way I thought about homosexuality as a sin along the same lines of alcoholism or adultery (this is still all too familiar in Christian circles), but after a while even that didn’t add up in my mind. For instance, if one is an alcoholic, and gives up drinking, one’s life improves, it gets better. And if in a relationship neither partner cheats on the other, well, obviously, that’s much healthier for the relationship. And I started to notice that people who are gay don’t tend to get better over time when they try to renounce their sexuality; in fact, the LGBT people I knew who were most healthy were actually the ones who had come to terms with their sexuality and didn’t try to repress or ask God to change it, but had accepted it as part of who God created them to be.

I really wasn’t sure what to do. All I knew was that I was in the process of changing my mind, and I didn’t know where that would take me.

There’s a great scene out of Mark Twain’s novel the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn that’s become really important to me.

It features Huck going back and forth wondering what to do about his friend Jim, a slave who Huck had helped escape. Huck knew he was supposed to return Jim to his owner, and that he could get in big trouble for helping a slave get away.

Huck had been taught — by social convention and by the church — that everyone has their place, and for slaves this place was with their master.

In helping free Jim, Huck also knew he was going against what he had been taught — by social convention and by the church. In Huck’s words, “the plain hand of Providence [was] slapping me in the face, letting me know my wickedness was being watched from up there in heaven.” He recalled the Sunday School class where he learned that people who treat slaves the way he’s treating Jim “goes to everlasting fire.”

So out of fear, in order to do the “right thing and the clean thing,” Huck decided to write a letter to Jim’s owner, telling her where she could pick Jim up. Huck said that after writing the letter he “felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time, and I knowed I could pray now. I was thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell. . . . But then I went on thinking. And got to thinking about our trip down the river; and I see my friend Jim before me, all the time . . . and somehow I couldn’t seem to strike no places to harden me against him.”

Huck thought about his friendship with Jim, and he thought about the letter he was supposed to send to Jim’s owner. He went back and forth, back and forth, wondering what to do. Then Huck took the letter and held it in his hand. “I was atrembling, because I’d got to decide, for ever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: ‘All right, then, I’ll go to hell’ — and I tore up [that letter because I couldn’t betray my friend].”

For Huck, there was a deeper ethic or deeper truth at work than what he was initially taught by social convention and by the church, a truth that valued the dignity of all people, including slaves, and he began to realize that what the church taught Huck about slavery was flat out wrong.

And I started thinking about all of this in relationship to my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. When I began to consider the possibility that the church got it wrong when it came to slavery and women’s rights, or that the Bible often reflected the prejudices of the culture in which it was written, it was like I was able to see with new eyes.
I started to believe the church got it wrong when it comes to the LGBTQ community as well.

Nowadays, I don’t advocate for the rights of all people in spite of my faith, but precisely because of my faith. I recognize that from a historical perspective, the teachings of the church have often fallen short of the measure of love, and anytime the teachings fall short of the measure of love, as Jesus taught us so well, then the church is called to reconform and reconfigure so that it better reflects the measure of love at the heart of Christianity. For if love is the only measure, St. Augustine once said, then the only measure of love is love without measure. Nowadays, it’s my faith in Christ that makes me more inclusive of others, rather than less, because, for me, he embodied beautiful love without measure. And of course this love extends well beyond religious boundaries, it’s at the heart of many different religious traditions around the world.

In closing, A lot of people say I’ve got a lot of courage as a pastor to come out in support of the LGBT community. That I risk my job and such…

And I appreciate such sentiments and all. But I also want to say that there are many other pastors like myself, several of them here today, and I also want to say how grateful I am to work with the incredible community of people at Brentwood Christian Church, whose amazing encouragement and support allows me to vocalize my support.

But more importantly, I remind people that any kind of adversity I face as a straight (cis) white male ally is nothing compared to the daily adversity felt by my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters —
• those who wonder if they can come out at work, and still keep their job or their set of friends,
• or who wonder if they can be honest with their families about the deepest truths that make up so much of who they are,
• or who are not allowed to legally walk down to the Springfield court house and get the same marriage license that I can easily get without batting an eye, simply because I was born as a straight white male.

So we are here today to celebrate you, my LGBT friends:
• for you are the ones reflecting such beautiful courage,
• you are the ones building the legacy,
• you are the ones on whose shoulders future generations will stand.

You have reason to feel great Pride on this day!

Thank you.

An Open Letter to Dr. George Wood and the Assemblies of God Denomination – of which I was once a member

Note: My response to Dr. George Wood’s article in yesterday’s News-Leader can be found here. Before reading it, however, I ask that you first read the following (personal) reflections:

While I’m primarily writing this post as a reply to the biblical and theological critiques that Dr. George O. Wood (the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God denomination) made in his News-Leader response to the clergy letter signed by myself and 22 other Christian leaders in support of the LGBT community in Springfield, I would like to begin by sharing a personal note that is often lost in the public eye.

While this may come as a surprise to many, I have very deep roots in the Assemblies of God church. Not only did I grow up in Springfield, where the headquarters of the Assemblies of God denomination is located, but I was baptized into an Assemblies of God church where, surprisingly enough, Rev. John Lindell was once a youth pastor. I also had a Damascus Road conversion experience in the Assemblies of God that changed my life forever, and the Assemblies of God church is the first place I felt a call to ministry. For these reasons and more, I continue to hold the Assemblies of God very close to my heart.

In addition to these religious experiences – and every bit as important to me – are the close friendships that I made in the Assemblies of God church, for they remain the most enduring friendships I’ve made in my lifetime, and I will forever treasure them. I simply would not be who I am without them, as those who know me on a personal level can well attest.

This personal background is important for several reasons. First, when I respond to perspectives related to representatives from the Assemblies of God, I’m not simply thinking about a group of people with a certain set of beliefs from a certain denomination – I’m thinking about a group of friends who are very close to my heart. This underscores an important point: Unlike what was read into the clergy letter I signed, I do not for one moment believe that Rev. Lindell, or other representatives from the Assemblies of God, lack class or integrity – not for one second. In fact, in the same edition of the News-Leader in which the clergy letter appeared, I am on record as saying, “We consider pastor Lindell to be a person of integrity. It’s just a matter of differing opinions.” Several of my dearest friends are pastors in and members of the Assemblies of God church, and I have the utmost amount of respect for them. While many of us have long had differing interpretations of the Bible, we’ve never found ourselves questioning one another’s integrity. Indeed, we’ve been able to have meaningful conversations with one another about controversial topics precisely because we care for one another and respect one another. And I have no reason to doubt the integrity of Rev. Lindell, especially given the fact that so many of my friends who know him well speak very highly of him. I have no reason to disagree with Rev. Don Miller, the Southern Missouri District Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, when he says that Rev. Lindell’s “character is impeccable.” I only waded into these waters to help provide an alternative approach to understanding a very complex matter in the Bible. So, to be clear: this is not a matter of questioning one’s personal integrity, it’s a matter of biblical interpretation.

All of this is to say that, contrary to the popular misconception, having differing interpretations of the Bible is not to be equated with doubting the integrity of the one(s) with whom you disagree, for I firmly believe there are well-intentioned people at various places along the spectrum, including Dr. Wood and Rev. Lindell, as well as so many of my friends from the Assemblies of God, and I hope they think the same of me. I’m proud to be part of a Christian denomination in which we recognize that none of us necessarily view every doctrinal or social matter the same way, but even in the midst of a diversity of perspectives — especially in the midst of a diversity of perspectives — the love of Christ transcends our differences. We often borrow a line from the heroic civil rights activist William Sloane Coffin, who liked to say that “our unity is not based on uniformity of opinion but on mutuality of love.” And the same principle applies here.

So with this disclaimer in place, allow me to respond to the critiques made by Dr. Wood, with the recognition that I am not attacking his personal integrity or intentions but am simply offering a different interpretation of the Bible that I (and a rapidly growing number of Christians) experience as being (1) far more persuasive on a personal level, (2) far more credible on a scholarly level, and (3) far more helpful in the lives of individuals and communities.

Admittedly, this is an interpretation that the Assemblies of God doesn’t leave much room for, at least not yet, which is why it represents one of the primary reasons I had to leave the Assemblies of God church I loved so much  – albeit with a backward wistful glance, the bittersweet effect of which I feel every time I drive by the Assemblies of God church of my youth, which remains very close to my heart to this day.

More than anything, I want my friends (as well as those who often read these kinds of posts online), to know that I didn’t arrive at this place in my spiritual journey lightly. It’s not because I’m trying to be controversial. It’s not because I’m trying to go along with the crowd. It certainly doesn’t express the way I’ve always felt. And it’s not because I don’t take the Bible seriously — as you’ll see in my full response, I do. But my mind has changed over the course of nearly twenty years, and I am thankful to God for it.

Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.

Click here to view my full response #longread

Those interested in this conversation also might like to check out Justin Lee’s book, Torn: Rescuing the Bible from the Gays vs. Christians Debate

Letter in response to Pastor John Lindell’s comments to SOGI Task Force – published by News-Leader May 2, 2013

In the wake of Pastor John Lindell’s comments to Springfield’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Task Force, our hearts continue to break for the LGBT community of Springfield. As pastors and Christian leaders, we are deeply sorry for the ways Christianity is frequently used to hurt rather than heal, and we want you to know there are many of us in support of you.

In Pastor Lindell’s remarks (available at, he states, “it is not my purpose to give an exhaustive listing of Bible verses that speak of homosexuality,” yet he manages to mention four of the five in Scripture (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9), providing the illusion that homosexuality is a major theme in the Bible when even the most conservative scholars can only point to eight verses at most – out of over 30,000.

He quotes Leviticus 20:13, “If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent.” Yet the conclusion of this verse states that both men “shall be put to death.” If Christians wish to use these passages as an authority for ethical behavior, then by extension they are claiming that men who have sex together should be executed. To Pastor Lindell’s credit, he doesn’t think we should “persecute practicing homosexuals.” Yet, the Bible tells him to do precisely that. Furthermore, if this is the measuring stick Christian leaders use, then shouldn’t they also interpret the Bible with a bit more consistency? Shouldn’t they also condemn those with tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), execute their sons who consistently disobey (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), make women marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? Or are we allowed to pick and choose which Bible verses carry authority, only giving weight to those that support our preconceived biases?

Pastor Lindell also quotes the New Testament, but here things are far more complicated than we often think. St. Paul argued that homosexuality is against the natural order (Romans 1:26). Yet as a product of his times, Paul also viewed patriarchy and slavery as part of the natural order. If Christians agree with Pastor Lindell that their “1st Amendment rights of free exercise of religion and free speech” are violated by the proposed non-discrimination ordinance, then it must be fair game to repeal statutes that make it okay for women to have authority over men in the workplace (1 Timothy 2:12). We can quote St. Paul and a long history of Christian tradition as our authority!

In his most misguided statement, Pastor Lindell equates homosexual orientation and practice with “anger, chemical addiction, gambling, slander, stealing, pride, lying, etc.” While the behaviors he names hurt individuals and communities, what actually hurts individuals who are LGBT (and our communities) is repression of their sexuality. Just ask the American Psychiatric Association or the American Medical Association. Elsewhere he cites Scripture to demarcate marital gender roles between men and women, yet he doesn’t take into consideration those who are born with ambiguous genitals (intersex), which effectively makes one out of every 2000 people unable to fit into his far too neatly constructed (not to mention unscientific) gender identity boxes.

We are aware that Pastor Lindell and some members of his community may fear that recognizing the integrity of LGBT people may threaten their understanding of biblical values. While we also support the wisdom of Scripture, we believe that the Bible is honored most when it is read in context. After all, most of us would not see God’s love as consistent with slavery, yet slave owners in the 1800s had more specific biblical texts to use discussing slavery than did abolitionists. We believe a more thematic view of the Bible can reveal the divine intent where justice, love, and compassion are honored over violence, hatred, and insensitivity. We encourage Pastor Lindell and his congregation to consider affirming the deepest and most authentic biblical values. As 1 Cor. 13:13 proclaims, “Now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.”

Rev. John Andrews
Rev. Charlie Bahn
Rev. Emily Bowen
Rev. Ellen Brantley
Rev. Peter Browning
Rev. Ken Chumbley
Rev. Conni Ess
Rev. Jonathan E. Frazier
Rev. Laura Fregin
Rev. Janice Fulbright
Mr. Matt Gallion
Rev. Janet Given
Rev. Cory Goode
Rev. Becky Hebert
Rev. David Hockensmith
Rev. Paul Hunt
Mr. Keith Jaspers
Rev. Caleb Lines
Rev. Gary Metcalf
Rev. Kim Polchow
Rev. Diana Smith
Rev. Phil Snider
Mr. Geoff Weinman