For once, David, I agree 100% with you. Thank you for the words.

I've always strongly FELT the hypocrisy of harping on LGBT while all but ignoring the sins of no-fault divorce and pornography (adultery).

Satan has duped us into believing there are areas of our lives where others believers can't inquire and hold accountable...the "Private areas" of family (marriage/children), finance, and sexuality that are off limits.

What I don't understand is why we spend so much time strategizing and seeking advice to further our careers but privatize our sexual relationships and families. How much misery is involved with broken families and betrayals within relationships? How much grief comes to us, even we who know Christ, from unexamined inner lives unsubmitted to Jesus and ignoring the promptings of hte Spirit?

Somewhere along the way, we as a group bought the lie that that obedience and dying to self isn't the "happier" path.

Beautifully put, David. Of course the question about your points (a) through (e), as with all great statements of principle, is how. But it's at least a beginning to lay the key elements on the table. The pun is intended, for ultimately we are dealing here with nothing less than sacramental issues, and judging from the Corinthian correspondence the underlying issues go back to the first decades of the church's life.

Thank you for writing this. I have rarely heard an evangelical admit they have been wrong in their approach to GLBT people. As a Christian who happens to be gay, I read the GLBT blogs and there is much hatred towards Christians because of the actions and words of Evangelicals. And sadly it is justified. There are evangelical organizations like National Org for Marriage and Focus on the Family which after the Carrie incident held her up as a martyer and a hero of the faith. They see her as an opportunity to gain some ground in the culture war. I see it as carring more about their funding than the souls of people on the other side.

I'm sharing this article with lots of people!

Thank you for the thoughts David. I'm in a very serious relationship with a girl that I hope to marry by this time next year right now and throughout the relationship (especially this summer coming up on our 1.5 year anniversary), I've realized that my nice, safe, Evangelical Church in no way prepared me to love her Biblically. Your quick lines about the tendency to romanticize sex and love as the be all end all of a right Christian relationship are wonderfully insightful, and should be loudly proclaimed across Evangelicalism.

I'm finding more and more every day that I will only have a right relationship with her when I'm constantly praying to love her as Christ does and setting my own desires aside as I seek to serve her. If it wasn't for (and I know this will sound strange) some great Christian Rap songs about marriage and love (start with Json's 'Ladies and Fellas') and solid teaching from men like Mark Driscoll our relationship would have ended long ago.

I think I heard that Liberty University had invited Ms. Prejean to do a chapel? That dismayed me.

We are on the same page on this one. It's like you read my mind.

While Perez Hilton's attack on Miss California was completely unjustified and vile,I, too, was stunned to see (parts of) the evangelical community adopt Carrie Prejean as their newest prophet. It certainly implied to millions of Americans of all stripes that the only thing that matters is to be against gay marriage.

A lot of us are wrestling with these same issues, so we really appreciate the honesty and clarity of your thoughts.

For me, the primary issue is the idolatry of sexuality in general. Once we define sexual expression and fulfillment as essential to our happiness, then the GLBT community understandably insists on bowing down to the golden calf we have made.

I agree with most of what you wrote intuitively. I wanted to introduce the idea the church lost the marriage defining battle when it allowed the State to grant the power to our ministers to marry. Since the State took over that simple aspect of marriage, it has been defined by the State and certified by the State.

The horses are gone and the Church shouldn't bother trying to recover them. It will only result in alienation and ease the future restrictions on religious freedom in our country in coming.

While I agree with your points in the post about the church as a whole needing to do a much better job in our testimony in sexual matters, I don't feel Miss California was embarrassing at all. Yes, I disagree with the whole beauty pageant thing, too, but she was asked the question, blatantly, and she answered honestly. I guess it doesn't make sense to me to call her out for answering a simple question honestly. You could have said what you just said without getting personal with her.

Peace.

In an effort to shore up the family in the face of rampant divorce, etc. etc. Evangelicals have made the family and marriage an idolatrous end in themselves...and to the great hurt of single people, our understanding of the Church as the eternal family of God, and others.

I'm glad someone said the obvious. God calls us to purity with regards to sex, that is making sex relational and sacrificial rather than selfish and hedonistic. He also tells us what is good and not good sexually: hence the prohibition on homosexual sex. That is, he commands us to live sex lives that are very different to the world around us.
However, as evangelicals we are strict aout homosexual sex, taking a counter-cultural line, while going with the flow of our culture, in a slightly sanitized fashion, for heterosexual sex: wearing sexualised clothing, having recreational relationships based on good looks and popularity. This gives us zero credibility when we ask people with homosexual leanings to say no to their own desires, when we do not even think of denying ourselves in our heterosexual desires. It's easy to get all worked up about homosexual sex, when it's not something you want anyway.
The point about Miss California is not that she lacked consistency, making a valid point about gay marriage while desplaying her body in a "wholesome" sexualised way (you can get quite a good look, but we won't be going all the way). As others have said, the point is that church leaders have failed to notice this inconsistency, and have promoted her from someone who had a moment of bravery and honesty to a role-model. Which would mean that sexual purity does not rank high in their preoccupations, because her modelling career, probably unintentionally, is about titillating male viewers with her body and posture. It sounds like sexual politics are their preocupation rather than sexual purity, but Jesus-Christ who condemns lust our hearts, calls us to a higher standard, that none of us, gay or straight, can reach without his constant presence. If we knew how to deal with our own impurity, then we would have the words to encourage our struggling brothers and sisters. Then we would have Good News for the world.

Rahab, a prostitute, helped God’s spies in their mission and affirmed her profession of faith in Yahweh (Joshua 2). She was saved and the Gospel mentions her name in Jesus’ genealogy (Matthew 1:5).

Miss California, not a prostitute, helped Christians (God’s “spies” today) in their mission and affirmed her profession of faith in Yahweh. She deserves a good word from God’s people.

Someone had to say it. It simply seems like some evangelical orgs are desperate for a celebrity representative.

By the way, Carrie Prejean isnt the only one who embodies this contradiction. Look at the contemporary Christian music industry.

Image is all that matters in our society and Christians have bought into that.

I told our congregation the Sunday after this business with Hilton and Miss California happened that we should be mindful which whom we hitch our wagons in these situations. By attempting to make hay over this situation evangelical leadership threw the Church in with someone who's character and conduct had not been fully discerned. As it came about she is less concerned with her personal morality and sexual fidelity than she should be.

If anything it is another reiteration of the evangelical conundrum of being fifteen miles wide and an inch deep.

We need a holistic sexual theology that shows the biblical covenant expressed in the bond of a man and woman in marriage. Too often we tell kids sex is great but wait and proceed to make it the be all end all of our relationships. That isn't the point it.

Living in a culture that is inbiding deeply of all things sensual we need to return to biblical fidelity about this issue.

You are the Church!
Robert Angison

I don't disagree with the general thrust of this post, and I certainly think Ms. Prejean should have approached the aftermath of the controversy with more humility and with a deeper acknowldegement of her own flaws. That being said, I want to push back some on the criticism of Miss California. Ms. Prejean's comments were made in answer to a question that was asked of her, over which she had no control. She was suddenly put on the spot, having to answer a question on a controversial issue in front of a live national television audience with no prior prepation. I guess I ask myself how I would have responded in that kind of situation.
Despite what happened in response to the controversy, it was not a controversy she was looking for; and I think it's kind of unfair to attack her personally for her initial answer at the pageant.

Prophetik Soul,

It's not just Carrie Prejean and the contemporary Christian music industry that embody this contradiction. It's me too, and probably more often that I'm aware of.
And if the Bible is right, it's probably you too.
It's very easy to point out the hypocricy and inconsistency in others. I think more of us need to worry about allowing God to point out the hypocricy and inconsitency in ourselves.

This article made some good points, but never forget Ms. Prejean DID NOT choose to be in this position initially. She was ambushed by the question and answered it in a very courteous way. Much of the criticism of Ms. Prejean has come from outside the Christian community in an attempt to divide the Christian community. Even though this article provides some insightful commentary, it also has the potential to further that end. We hardly hear anything about Perez Hilton, and he was the one who actually started the whole fiasco with an agendized question and a vitriolic rant later.

well said!....how can Christiandom condone such behavior in young women?
methinks it is because women are subjugated in the pulpit everytime the women's issue points out that men must be the head..etc, etc....

this erroneous cultural inscription layered over the true meaning of Christian redemption and grace has taken it's toll on Christianity's leading the way in the area of wholeness.
men are going to have to concede power in order to gain power. the truth being that once women have the right to exercise their spiritual gifts, they will be respected and viewed as they ought to be. joint heirs of Christ.
(sigh)

Isn't it more Godly to focus efforts on the sick, poor, the needy & the oppressed rather than on beauty contests or recreational sex?
It's been more than 2,000 years & mankind still can't get it right. Whaddabuncha donkeys we all are!

I think you are mixing things together and that creates more confusion. The question was on same sex marriage. It was not about lust, it was not about pornography, it was not about bikinis and beauty pagents. She answered a question about same sex unions.

To then draw a connection that says, “We do the same things, but for gay people it’s sin. Lust is good, objectifying my body is normal, the fulfillment of all desire is good.” Then, on the other hand, she says to the gay and lesbian world, “But you can’t do any of this, because you’re different.” is quite a leap.

She was not addressing these issues. Are you saying that same sex unions are merely about lust? Is that a connection you are making? Are you saying that same sex unions are about objectifying? Is that the connection you are making?

She was saying, "I believe that same sex unions are wrong" that is it. It was the rest of the world that reacted. I think you are right, we do mess up sexuality and contests like this might be a part of the issue. However I think you blurred the lines here of what She said.

I've been in Canada relaxing with infrequent internet so I've not been able to respond.But I need to say thanks to the many people who made excellent and helpful comments.
To leonard,
I think my point (one of them at least) is that there can be no blurring because these issues because they are really all the same, deeply entertwined. The fact that we carry on the American sexualization of relationships in our church life, makes our witness so duplicitous to outsiders.
Peace

Leonard,

I disagree. She was addressing the issues of lust and objectifying her own body through her participation in the pageant, although not verbally. By stepping onto that stage on national television in a skimpy swimsuit, allowing herself to be ogled by (i'm guessing) millions of viewers, she was making a clear statement about all of those things. Then she answered a question based on the same Biblical sexual ethic that she'd been ignoring for the whole show, and presumably her whole pageant career.

I don't have a problem with what she said, since it is apparently what she believes, but the sad part of the situation was that the Evangelical community embraced her and her statement without acknowledging the drastic contradiction between her words and her actions: "Biblical sexual ethics are important, but I'm going to ignore them when they pertain to my own actions."

As a lesbian woman in a Christian committed relationship, I was interested in reading your post as you hit the hypocracy nail on the head that I see. However when you said, 'For those who need to know, I do not affirm gay/lesbian sexual practice as normative for the Christian church.' I had to laugh as heaven forbid you become classified as 'one of those.'