College Baptism into the Homosexuality Debate

In the spring of 1974, when a student at Denison University, there was a forum at which a male homosexual and a lesbian spoke. The man was student president, and the woman was from Columbus, Ohio. This was the first such “coming out” event the homosexual-rights movement had on our campus - as across the country this effort was then initially underway. It was held in the auditorium in the Student Union, a modest sized room, but packed out for the event (some 120-150 people). At that time I had about zero knowledge of homosexuality.

The man and woman each gave their “testimony” about how they came to “realize” they were “gay,” though I remember few details. I was struck by many intellectual inconsistencies, but most of all I asked myself why they were going public about it. I knew of no homosexual-rights agenda, but I could discern that there was some agenda at play. There was a substantial interaction period with the audience, and every question or comment was supportive of this “coming out,” whether from students or faculty. As I observed this phenomenon, I felt a sinking sense in my spirit, wondering if I were the only one there who disagreed.

The homosexual man spoke at one point about his need to “love” men, and that he could not fulfill this need until he embraced homosexuality. So I finally mustered the courage and raised my hand and asked him if it were possible to “love” a man without it being sexual. And after all, I continued, didn’t Jesus love all men accordingly? And what did Jesus mean when he said “Love your neighbor as yourself?” I was greeted with what seemed to be universal derision, laughter and caustic mockery. How dare I raise such a question, and especially, how dare I raise the name of Jesus in such a setting? I do not remember exactly how the man answered my question, except to say that he avoided its intent.

When the forum was over, I left with the crush of people up the jammed aisle, into the hallway, some down several flights of stairs and others into the elevator. It was a case study in eye avoidance. No one wanted to talk to me or look at me. But the next day a fellow classmate, and not a Christian to my knowledge, went out of his way to thank me for asking the question. He thought it hit the mark, and that others who were there also thought the same way.

My first public address on the subject was not until 1994 at my Mars Hill Forum at Yale with Episcopal Bishop John Spong. It was not the subject of the evening, but he brought it up,and I had to give perspective. So I got drawn into the need to address it biblically, in seeking to affirm the image of God in all people, rooted in the prior supposition of the goodness of man and woman in marriage. The goal of the Gospel, always, is not to win a debate, but to win honest relationships in the face of real debates.

###

College Baptism into the Abortion Debate

In the fall of 1972, I was baptized into the debate over human abortion.

In a college religion class -- just several months before the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision -- we read several articles on the subject, which was new to me.


The class had about thirty students, and when it came time for discussion, I was the only one who spoke against human abortion. As I did, I was met with overwhelming opposition and even derision from my classmates. The most serious challenge was from a guy who asked me what I would do if my wife were raped -- would I “force” her to keep the baby? The classroom was hushed, and I gave answer, never having thought about it before.


First, I said that any woman I would marry would share my faith in Jesus Christ, and that I also believe in the power of prayer to protect her from such an evil. I do even more so today, knowing the territory of spiritual warfare as I now do.


Second, if such an evil were theoretically possible (cf. Daniel 3:16-18), any woman I would marry would also share my belief in the inviolability of the unborn. I then said it would be easier for me to argue for the abortion, since the child would not be mine, but nonetheless I would support my wife, love her more than ever in the face of such trauma, and raise the child as my own with her.


The class broke out in a caustic and mocking laughter. As it did, the professor, Dr. Lee Scott, interjected. Prior to that moment I was not his favorite student. I was one of those “Jesus people,” long-haired and bearded with wire-rimmed glasses, theologically nascent, and forever asking questions that challenged various of his assumptions (in retrospect, I probably asked some good questions, and undoubtedly asked some stupid ones too).

When I gave my answer and the class started its derision, Dr. Scott said something pretty close to “Shut up.” He probably did not use those words, as he was a gentle and gracious man, but his emotions carried the same force. He rebuked the class and told them to be quiet unless they were willing to be as consistent as I was, or able to make a better argument. This was my baptism into the abortion debate. And, no one gave further comment.


###

When You Are Invited to a Same-Sex Wedding ...

I have been asked a number of times by fellow Christians: How do I respond when a family member or friend invites me to his or her same-sex wedding ceremony? These are people we love, yet how can we affirm what we do not believe in? Here is a sample letter I recently developed (in the singular case that can be made plural as need be). I am seeking a) to be clear in terms of biblical conviction about human sexuality, and b) hospitable to the humanity of those with whom we disagree. The truth is, that in time, hospitality always wins out over rejection.

As well, and this is key, we give hospitality on the terms of the Gospel, which is open to all people (e.g., Matthew 11:28 where Jesus says: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest"). But we do not participate in receiving a hospitality that requires us to compromise our convictions. The truth is, also, that the invitation of the Gospel touches eternity in the hearts of people; whereas an invitation to a same-sex marriage wedding serves only a fading and broken hope. Feel free to send this along to others, and I am glad for your input.

___________________________________

Dear ____________:

Thank you for your kind invitation.

It presents me with a need to share the central essence of my Christian faith. I am thinking of when Jesus summed up the Hebrew Bible with the Golden Rule – “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

As you may imagine, I believe that marriage is given by God as a covenant between one man and one woman for one lifetime. And though many of us have experienced broken promises in this regard, most of us still pursue it. When guests attend a wedding ceremony, they are called to be witnesses who affirm the vows taken.

But what happens when I cannot affirm certain vows? I hope you can see the situation I am in. I fully affirm you as created in the image of God, sharing the same humanity we all have. But if I were to attend your wedding ceremony, it would require me to affirm same-sex marriage, contrary to my faith in the God of the Bible.

And this is where the Golden Rule comes into play. I would never wish to place you in a situation where you felt compelled to affirm something you do not believe in – especially when it comes to matters of core identity or beliefs. And I am sure you do not wish to do the same to me.

Thus, I pray you can understand why I must decline your invitation, and that regardless of our differences in this matter, my hospitality to you always remains the same.

Most sincerely –

____________

Three Simple Questions for Muslim People

1. Do you believe that all people are equal in the sight of the one true Creator?

2. Do you believe in religious, political and economic liberty for all people equally?

3. Does Muhammad's life serve such a pursuit of liberty?

I am delighted for any Muslim response.

Muhammad and the Jews of Khaybar

In "The Real Muḥammad: In the Eyes of Ibn Isḥāq," I seek to summarize the most ancient biography of Muḥammad accurately. Muḥammad imposes Islam by any means possible -- this is reality. But, is there room for religious liberty to make place for itself?

From the prologue: "Muḥammad, at one point in speaking to the Jews of Khaybar, says to them: 'Do you find in what He has sent down to you that you should believe in Muḥammad? If you do not find that in your scripture then there is no compulsion upon you.' As we will see, this is an exception among all the words and deeds of Muḥammad. Yet, hopefully, these words can serve the freedom for Jews, Christians and Muslims as we look at the nature of Moses, Jesus and Muḥammad each on their own terms. And also, in helping us all grasp the nature of the Hebrew Bible, Christian New Testament and the Qur’ān."

Why I Wrote a Book on Muhammad

In my studies about Islam across the years, I have read various biographies of Muhammad, and the most ancient, authoritative and extant biography is that of Ibn Isḥāq, written in the second century A.H. (eighth century A.D.), about 100 years after Muhammad's death.

Ibn Isḥāq is an honest historian, but also working with various sources, some trustworthy, and some he questions. But in recording the primary sources that come from a known chain of custody back to Muhammad and his companions, Ibn Isḥāq gives us the profile of Muhammad that Muslims have patterned themselves after for some 1400 years.

My priority as a minister of the Gospel is to serve religious, political and economic liberty for all people equally. And such freedom is only possible -- for all people -- if first rooted in a true definition of terms. In the Garden of Eden, Yahweh Elohim gives us the choice between the fruit that is good and serves life and freedom, and the fruit that is evil and leads to death and slavery.

My purpose in this new book, The Real Muhammad: In the Eyes of Ibn Isḥāq, is to let this candid profile of Muhammad become accessible, and thus serve people's freedom of informed choice. It is profile of a violent and imposed religion according to Ibn Isḥāq, but too, this he believes, in the eighth century, is how it should be.

But does such a religion truly satisfy the human soul -- Muslim or otherwise?

###

The Real Muhammad: In the Eyes of Ibn Ishaq

Today I publish and begin to advertise my new book on Muhammad. Here is the content of the back cover:

Can Muhammad satisfy the Muslim thirst for freedom?

I believe all people are hardwired by the one true Creator for full religious, political and economic liberty. Muhammad is the prophet of Islam, and his way of life, or Sunna, determines every detail of a Muslim’s life. He is the measure of the Islamic understanding of the social order and politics. But how well do Muslims, or any of us, know the real Muhammad?

In these pages, we will look at:

1. A summary of Ibn Ishaq’s biography, or Sira, of Muhammad’s life, person and character. Ibn Ishaq’s Sira is the most ancient, extant and authoritative source we have for Muhammad’s life.

2. How Ibn Ishaq’s narrative represents Muhammad as fulfilling and transcending the Hebrew Bible and Christian New Testament;

3. A presentation of appropriate biblical texts in the footnotes; and

4. In the epilogue, a brief biblical perspective on how to serve religious, political and economic liberty for all people equally – Jewish, Christian, Muslim or otherwise.

The crux of the issue is this: Islam is historically a one-way religion. It is rooted in Muhammad’s person as the prophet of Allah, bringing forth the Qur’an. Whether a person is born into, chooses to enter, or is driven into Islam, he or she is prohibited from leaving it. Muhammad builds and enforces this assumption over the course of his life. His right hand man, and the first caliph after Muhammad’s death, Abu Bakr, puts it this way: “Allah sent Muhammad with his religion and he strove for it until men accepted it voluntarily or by force.”

Is this what any or all Muslims embrace today? Is this what any person in any religion wants to embrace?

###