The Head: Who Your Church Follows

Train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. —1 Timothy 4:7–8

Leadership is critical to the life of God’s church. Positions of church authority are the long-sought-after prize for the Christian gay rights movement. For many traditional Christians, leadership posts are the last bastion, the final defense, which, if breached, will signal the demise of orthodox Christianity. Leadership standards are the dividing line where currents from the culture wars collide with riptide fury.

A few months ago I was in a presbytery debate that swirled around the topic of church leadership. An elder in favor of the ordination of gays and lesbians concluded her appeal, saying, “I have homosexual friends who say, ‘We will not be part of your church. Why should we get involved in a church that will baptize us but won’t allow us to become church officers?’”

Even as I type these words, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has just finished its fourth vote in twelve years about whether to allow practicing homosexuals to become elders and pastors. The vote was close, but once again the historic standards prevailed. Already appeals are being made by gay-affirming congregations for a fifth vote on the same issue. Other denominations are in the thick of battle about ordination standards too.

Why Leadership Matters

Early in my marriage, before I began pastoral ministry, I had the wonderful opportunity of attending churches just to learn, worship, and participate as a regular member. My wife and I settled into a large interdenominational church and enjoyed the worship and the preaching. We came to love and trust the pastor and delighted in his sermons.

Then came the announcement—in the mail. My pastor had left his wife for his secretary. The church had set up a council to work with him in an attempt to restore his marriage, but he refused to leave the new woman. The letter announced the pastor’s dismissal and the creation of a support team for the pastor’s family.

I was devastated. How could this seemingly godly man veer from the commandments of God to fulfill his own personal desires? If his problems were deep and interpersonal, why did he not seek counseling and recommit to his marriage and family? Similar disappointment and pain must have filled the hearts of nearly every other church member. Like me, they each probably understood the need for him to step down. To allow him to continue in his unrepentant state would be to affirm his misdeeds and to suggest that promiscuity and adultery are acceptable and inconsequential in the lives of Christians.

A leader’s life casts a large shadow over the people he or she serves. J. Oswald Sanders, in his book Spiritual Leadership, puts it simply: “Leadership is influence.”1 When church members fall into immorality, immediate friends and family grieve. When a leader of the church fails morally, the whole congregation suffers.

Influencing Our Youth

The awesome responsibility of parents and the church related to their youth is summarized in the book of Proverbs: “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6). The Hebrew word for train carries with it the sense of creating an environment for growth. In home life and in the church, we must do all in our power to create an environment for the healthy growth of our youth. Parents and church leaders carry the responsibility of creating such an environment, and their examples shape that environment.

Steven DeVore grew up with polio. He learned to overcome his disability by watching others walk and then mentally replaying the image in his mind. When he was nineteen, he used the same modeling concept to learn the Finnish language. Later, in college, he watched professional bowlers on television until their movements and styles were imprinted in his mind. He then attempted to copy their techniques and bowled nine strikes in a row, claiming a score of 278 (his highest previous score had been 163). Sharing his bowling experience with a professor of psychology, DeVore was told that observation and learning through role models are the primary ways in which humans learn behavior. DeVore engaged a neuropsychologist at Stanford University to help him with research and applied the concept of learning behavior through role models to develop a multimillion-dollar company that markets instructional videos on everything from golf to weight control. He made a mint on a simple concept: we develop our behavior based on the behavior of others.

Leaders are role models for our youth. Think of the people who have most influenced your life. What influence did leaders have on your ambitions and actions as a youth? It is no wonder that whole denominations are splitting over decisions about whether unrepentant gays or lesbians should be allowed to be pastors and church leaders. For those who believe homosexual behavior is immoral, such a step is tantamount to sanctioning nonrepentant adulterers into positions of power. Those who believe same-sex attraction is an inborn gift of God, however, find it offensive and discriminatory not to allow gays and lesbians into leadership posts.

The Modern Dilemma

In 2003, when the American Anglican Church voted to appoint openly gay Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as a bishop, an ecclesiastical earthquake erupted, causing church splits, court battles, and significant membership flight. No doubt, there were already many homosexuals within the ranks of the Episcopal Church, but most were quietly worshiping or serving. For the denomination to appoint a bishop who publicly endorsed homosexuality by his words and his lifestyle, however, was to proclaim to all people that homosexuality is acceptable in the eyes of God.

The leaders we need are not those who give in to their weaknesses, but those who humbly trust God for the strength to be obedient. Jesus told us we would need to deny ourselves and take up our crosses if we are to be his disciples (Matthew 16:24). In the realm of sexuality, leaders in the church must model faithfulness to God’s creative norm, despite struggles they may face as singles who never find mates or as persons in marriages that for physiological or psychological reasons preclude sexual expression. Jesus Christ, who was never sexually active, enables us to find deep intimacy and fulfillment in relationships even when sexual expression must be curtailed. The Bible showcases singleness, along with marriage, as a holy calling from God (Matthew 19:10–12, 27–30; 1 Corinthians 7).

Our Manual

Leroy Eims, in his book Be the Leader You Were Meant to Be, writes, “We need to look at leadership from the standpoint of the Bible. Both the Old and New Testaments are alive with eternal truths that bear on this subject.”2 But there are differing perspectives on how to interpret the Bible. Bishop Robinson found his way into a respected leadership post because there were many who believed his self-proclaimed gay lifestyle was acceptable in the eyes of God, and they believed they could support their position scripturally.

The two primary New Testament writings about leadership are found in 1 and 2 Timothy. Each chapter in these two letters describes the qualifications for pastors, and a whole section is devoted to the high standards for church officers (see 1 Timothy 3:1–13, which has a parallel passage in Titus 1:5–9). The clarion call in Paul’s letters to Timothy, his frontline pastor and church planter, is for godliness. Not giftedness, not prominence, not persuasiveness, and not majority vote, but godliness. Every chapter in these two books upholds godliness as a standard for leadership, as does the whole tenor of the Bible.

The Greek word for godliness is a compound of two words, eu, meaning “well,” and sebomai, meaning “devotion” or “worship.” Put together, godliness is “well worship,” or “true devotion.” A godly person lives in a way that honors God, based on a true knowledge of God’s Word and will for our lives. The Bible cautions us about religious leaders who cloak themselves in an outward form of godliness but who deny the life-changing power of our Lord. There is a vast difference between godlikeness and godliness. Godliness encompasses not only appearances but the reality of an inner life that is touched by God’s truth and grace right down to the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (2 Timothy 3:5).

The Two Rival Factions

In Christ’s day, two major perspectives on godliness were peddled by the two types of religious power brokers—the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees were the well-to-do priesthood, the religious aristocracy, the leaders of the mainline church. They were experts at finding caveats and compromises related to the plain teaching of Scripture to make life for the God-follower easier and to make Scripture more accessible for people who struggled with their faith. When they found it necessary or convenient, they denied the existence of angels, the afterlife, and the judgment of God. Looking good in their external show of religious finery, they subtly denied major scriptural truths in exchange for political gain (Mark 12:24). The images of godliness and religious power were nearly synonymous for them.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, held to a strict and literal interpretation of Scripture. Tenaciously, they embraced their faith in God, in the supernatural, in the afterlife, in angels, and in all things sacred. In fact, so great was their devotion to Scripture that they created thousands of their own rules to ensure that even the finest points and interpretations of God’s Word were kept with exacting detail. To the Pharisee, godliness was measured not by one’s power but by perfection. Their lists of regulations became so laborious that the common person had no hope of keeping them, and even the Pharisees themselves couldn’t keep up with them all. Dwelling on the minutiae of God’s will, they missed the main point. “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24). They tithed their kitchen spices but neglected justice and mercy for the poor and needy.

The Sadducees failed to honor God’s truth, and the Pharisees neglected God’s grace. Neither lived in a manner that pleased the Lord. Jesus cut to the heart of the issue when he showed love to the outcasts, the poor, the sinners, and the downtrodden. Speaking the truth in love, he taught people everywhere that the life he offered could change their lives. Challenging the Pharisees for their rigid standards (Matthew 23:13–36) and rebuking the Sadducees for their lack of faith (Mark 12:18–27), Jesus’ teaching and life confronted ungodliness with all of its religious trappings.

How are we doing today? Do we really embrace Scripture without compromise? If so, are we following the Bible by embracing the priorities given to us by God by caring for the needy, the poor, and the outcasts of society? Throughout history, the coming together of truth and love and the avoidance of the extremes of the Sadducees and Pharisees have always been an indication of life, health, and renewal in the church. When conflicting extremes create a polarized church, however, the need for spiritual renewal becomes glaring.

What Drives The Extremes?

It is typically not wrong values that create heresy and hypocrisy in the church but right values that are out of balance. Heresy is biblical grace twisted on one end, and hypocrisy is biblical truth twisted on the other. Justice, for example, is a value that fuels the progressive theological movement. The call for justice is found throughout the Bible. It is a godly aim, an indisputable passion in the heart of God. With a slight twist, however, it can bend love into immorality and truth into error. On the other extreme, the value of biblical accuracy powers the theologically conservative sectors of the church. When the Bible is taught but not lived out, the church becomes an empty shell, devoid of life and purpose as it motivates church members more by guilt than by the grace of God. Let’s briefly consider how both extremes have manifested themselves in the church.

Justice With A Twist

The issue of justice permeates the Scriptures. In the Old Testament, God’s people are commanded to reach out to and care for the poor, the alien, and the downtrodden (Zechariah 7:8–10). Jesus set the standard for the church when he did just that (Matthew 9:35–36). His followers are commanded to follow in his steps. Latching on to this mandate, the progressive movement within the church works vigorously to open the gate for practicing homosexuals to serve as ordained pastors. Jack Rogers, in his book Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, says that those who hinder such ordinations need only to look back at the history of other injustices to see how wrong it would be to prevent gays and lesbians from serving as church leaders. Likening the issue to slavery and women’s rights, Rogers writes:

How could most Christians for more than two hundred years accept slavery and the subordination of women with not a hint that there was any other view in the Bible? Why did good, intelligent, devout Christian people not see what we now recognize as mitigating factors in the biblical record? Why did we change our minds? How does a church change its course? Potentially, at least, we can learn something relevant to our discussion of homosexuality by discovering the answers to these questions.3

Later in the book, Rogers uses similar logic about the church’s gradual acceptance of women and then divorced people into leadership. This is a classic example of truth with a twist. The logic of Rogers’s argument seems to work on the surface, but with a more careful look, one can find the turning of facts and logic, causing his argument to come apart at the seams. The comparison with slavery is illogical, the comparison with the subordination of women is debatable, and the comparison with divorce is irrelevant. Consider first the slavery issue.

Why Slavery Does Not Fit

Equating race with sexual preference is incongruous. Genes determine skin color and may influence our preferences, but they do not dictate our behavior. The argument behind this logic goes like this: But homosexuals did not choose to be attracted to the same sex. That statement is true. We do not choose our temptations. But we can choose how to act on them. Overweight people do not choose to be drawn to the dessert menu, but they do make choices about whether to overeat. Joe Smith does not choose to be aroused by his neighbor’s wife as he unintentionally sees her undressing through his window. But he can decide to look away and not dwell on his thoughts and feelings or convert them into action.

The very thought of equating slavery with homosexual rights is offensive to many African Americans. In Jack Rogers’s defense, one might say his main point of symmetry between slavery and homosexuality is on how leaders have changed their viewpoints around the interpretation of Scripture. But even that comparison is illogical. While slavery is allowed in the Bible, it is nowhere supported. It is tolerated under a general rubric of respect and love for one’s fellow humans (Lev. 19:17–18; 25:39). Homosexual acts, however, are nowhere tolerated in the Bible. Despite the modern gay rights movement’s effort to reinterpret Scripture, mainstream scholarship has for two thousand years understood the Bible to stand against homosexual behavior.

Paul stood against inequities in a society that incorporated slavery into its very fabric. It is believed that as many as 40 percent of the populace in Rome was under the bondage of slavery. Many indentured servants, however, were treated fairly and justly, somewhat like employees today. Sadly, many others were abused and mistreated. If Paul had started a campaign to end all slavery, he would have been mocked, imprisoned, and rendered ineffective. Instead, he did something much more powerful. He promoted the godly values of love and justice (Colossians 4:1). With a heart made radical by the love of Christ, Paul called Christian slaves his brothers and sisters (see the book of Philemon). He set the stage for the abolition movement centuries later.

William Wilberforce, one of the best known of the British abolitionists, was a member of the Clapham Sect, an evangelical segment of the Anglican Church. His challenge to the upper class to regain true Christian values, largely based on Paul’s writings, was critical to his political success. If the New Testament values that Paul sought to apply to slavery were applied to employee-employer relationships today, the outcome might actually improve relationships in most corporations. It would not be slavery.

What About Women In Leadership?

Questions about women in leadership, biblically, go back to the creation and yet are influenced by culture. Some “conservative” Christians believe that the acceptance of women in leadership posts in the church has opened the door for the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Likewise, some “liberal” Christians argue that just as the church finally came around to accepting women in leadership posts, it is time they do the same for practicing homosexuals. This is Jack Rogers’s stance. Both perspectives are flawed.

The issue of whether women should hold leadership posts in the church has been debated from the earliest days of the church, even in some of the most conservative branches of Christendom. Likewise today, some of the more conservative evangelical Christians support women in leadership, and some do not. When we find an issue like this that has been debated by Bible-believing Christians through the ages, we should approach those who differ with us with grace and respect.

The question of whether practicing homosexuals should be allowed into positions of church leadership has not been debated or even considered an option through two thousand years of church history. The first significant challenge to the clear teaching of the Bible on this topic came through Anglican theologian Dr. Derrick S. Bailey in the 1950s in his Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition.4

Not one verse in the Bible affirms homosexual leadership. Dozens of texts, however, describe women in leadership.5 Questions of gender in leadership and questions about morality are not on the same plane.

The Divorce Question

A third correlation, upheld by the theological left, between the church’s historic stance on practicing homosexuals’ leadership options and injustice is divorce and remarriage. After describing the changing standards about divorce in the mainline Presbyterian Church, Jack Rogers writes:

How is this relevant to granting equality to gay and lesbian members of our churches? Jesus’ words that divorce is equivalent to adultery are among the clearest statements on a moral issue in Scripture…. If we were to take Jesus’ teaching on divorce literally, we would still not be accepting divorced and remarried people as office bearers in the church. Yet church law now asks that we take literally less clear statements regarding homosexual behavior. It is a double standard: current church law permits a pastoral approach concerning marriage and divorce for people who are heterosexual and mandates a legalistic approach toward people who are homosexual.6

On the surface, this argument seems to make sense.

Recently I had lunch with a man who said, “I’ve been divorced and remarried three times, and I am in church leadership. I can’t see why we don’t allow homosexuals to lead in the church if we allow for divorce and remarriage.” It took from the time the food was ordered to just before the bill was paid to answer my friend. There is not a simple one-sentence response to this complex issue, and whole books have been written to bring clarity on biblical guidelines for remarriage and divorce. And that is just the point. On matters that are not made clear in the Bible, denominations need to set clear policy guidelines so that their membership is treated fairly and consistently. Same-sex activity is clearly prohibited in the Bible. The conditions on which one is free to remarry, however, can be complex.

The Bible shows clearly that God hates divorce but that he allows for it where the marital bond has been broken by sexual infidelity (Matthew 19:9). Paul offers his personal convictions about other potential exceptions (1 Corinthians 7). Less clarity is found with regard to remarriage, and each pastor and church must develop their own perspectives on this matter and practice them consistently to avoid hurt and confusion among church members. I remember one time when I told a couple that I could not marry them on biblical grounds, based on the particulars of a previous marriage and the situation of a previous spouse. They walked down the street and found a pastor in another denomination who agreed to marry them.

Fortunately, many denominations have written clear position statements about divorce and remarriage. Nearly every statement I have seen emphasizes the importance of repentance for the person getting remarried if the divorce occurred for nonbiblical reasons. The Scriptures tell us to repent for our past sins so that we don’t set a bad example for others. Christians can debate whether a divorced person can take a leadership post in a church, but none should debate the importance of purity and permanency in marriage and of repentance for those who divorced for the wrong reasons.

The proper question about homosexuality, when making a comparison with divorced persons being remarried, ought to be, “Should we allow repentant homosexuals to be in a position of leadership in the church?” The logical answer ought to be, “Of course,” especially for churches that allow repentant divorcees to be in leadership. Throughout this book I seek to differentiate between a person who may struggle with same-sex inclinations but who is committed to living in a way that honors God in contrast to the person who promotes same-sex activity by his or her words and life. Other requirements for church leadership should include a life of godliness, spiritual maturity, and God’s calling and gifting for the job.

The Other Extreme: Empty Truth

If grace devoid of standards leads to spiritual harm, then a pharisaic approach to Christianity is equally detrimental. Some believers add line upon line of tradition and requirement around God’s truth until the original intent of the Scripture is entangled by human-made regulations. The Pharisees drew 613 laws from the Old Testament and loaded them on the backs of their followers. Jesus said, “They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them” (Matthew 23:4). Jesus called them “hypocrites” seven times in Matt. 23 alone. The biblical Greek word for hypocrite means “actor”; one commentator has “actor on the stage of life.”7 These were religious leaders who put on a good show but inside were uncaring and unloving. They were no godlier than the prostitutes and tax gatherers they rejected. Extremely careful about how they dressed, how they tithed, and how they kept the traditions of their congregations, they overlooked the more important matters of “justice, mercy and faithfulness” (v. 23).

In searching for modern-day examples of hypocrites, I need not look far. I preach weekly to a large congregation just a block from housing projects and a shelter for the homeless. I live on a decent American income, while poverty ravages most of the world. I pray for people to come to Christ and don’t share my faith as often as I should. Thus, I often struggle and pray daily that the Lord will help me not to be just another actor on the Christian stage, devoid of heart, passion, and Christian action.

Karen Booth is a woman who has devoted her life to helping Methodist churches develop ministries for those conflicted sexually. I once asked her what she has found to be the biggest barrier to developing ministry for homosexuals in local congregations. Expecting to hear that it was gay rights protestors, or perhaps denominational politics, her answer caught me off guard. She didn’t think twice before answering, “The church itself is the barrier.” She went on to detail example after example of how reluctant and resistant the average church is to help the sexually conflicted. Prejudice, fear, and legalism abound. There is so little understanding, so little love and compassion. Evangelicals and fundamentalists shake their fingers as they denounce the liberal congregations that affirm homosexuality. But what will it take for those who carry the torch of the truth to themselves be ignited with a love for the people Jesus wants them to reach?

The Heart Of The Matter

Debate among Christians about homosexuality is but the fruit of differing perspectives. The way we view Scripture is the root problem. We must avoid the extremes of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

There are more than a dozen biblical texts that either directly or indirectly deal with homosexuality, half of them carrying the greatest significance.8 These texts can be linked into natural pairs that demonstrate how the Old Testament stories, images, and laws are the alphabet with which the language of the New Testament is written. Each pairing reflects a central aspect of God’s person.

• God as Creator: Old Testament, Gen. 2:21–25; New Testament, Rom. 1:18–32
• God as King: Old Testament, Lev. 18:22; 20:13; New Testament, 1 Tim. 1:8–11
• God as Redeemer: Old Testament, Gen. 19; New Testament, 1 Cor. 6:9–11

Based on the three central roles of the Almighty, we find three practical questions that relate not only to those who struggle with issues of sexuality but also to the challenges every one of us faces on the journey of spiritual transformation:

1. God as Creator
   Question addressed: Did God create me this way?
2. God as King
   Question addressed: Is the Old Testament law relevant for today?
3. God as Redeemer
   Question addressed: Can God change me?

Creating A Biblical Reality

In his book Leadership Is An Art, Max De Pree writes, “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality.”9 The desperate need of our day is for leaders who will define biblical reality. Avoiding the extremes of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, we need leaders who will proclaim truth with such love and acceptance that they become like Christ to the hurting world. We cannot endorse leaders who embrace a lifestyle of adultery, greed, sensuality, or gossip, however. Nor should we immediately reject leaders who have once fallen but show evidence of transformed lives. It is often those who are overcome by the grace of God who can best help others to overcome.

Regarding ministry to homosexuals, some of the most effective leaders, counselors, and advisers to churches are those who were once trapped in the grip of sexual sin. In fact, I have found that one of the most significant factors held in common by churches that have developed ministry to the sexually conflicted is that they have partnered with one or more persons who have been sexually broken, who have found healing and strength in Christ, and who have dedicated their lives to helping others.

Paul commended post-homosexuals in the church at Corinth for overcoming their sinful ways, saying, “Such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11 NASB). He acknowledged their faith and faithfulness (1:4–9), confirming that their past need not hold them back from living for God’s glory today (6:9). Many modern Christians do not share Paul’s confidence that lives can be changed and thus are indifferent and even hostile toward post-homosexuals, as though they are a category of untouchables, an especially bad class of sinners.

I have the highest respect for those who are leaders in the post-homosexual movement. Many of them are model Christians by biblical standards. They face great challenges as they seek to help others while being rebuffed, not only by the world, but by Christians on both sides of the theological fence. Those who have come out of homosexuality and now take a stand for Jesus and for holiness may be considered a persecuted silent minority in our country. Many of them labor tirelessly, snatching others from the pit of despair and darkness and offering the brightness of hope. They are to be commended and supported for their work. They become a lifeline for gay and lesbian persons who are crying out to God and looking for a church to call home. These heroes of the faith are also some of the best instructors to help equip the church to develop relevant ministries to homosexuals.

Why do some heterosexuals feel awkward or even defensive toward post-homosexuals? Perhaps we have forgotten that God can use our failings to make us stronger, and our sins to teach us grace. Think about it:

• Paul was a persecutor of Christians before he repented and became the great apostle and the author of most of the New Testament.
• Moses committed murder and ran as a fugitive before he repented and led a million Jews to the Land of Promise.
• Rahab was a prostitute who protected God’s people and had her name etched in the genealogical line that leads to the Messiah (Matthew 1:5; Hebrews 11:31).
• Abraham and Isaac each had a problem with lying (Genesis 20:9–13; 26:6–9), Jacob could be downright deceptive (Genesis 27:33–36), David fell into sexual sin (2 Samuel 11), and Solomon supported idolatry (1 Kings 11:4–10). James and John were once judgmental (Luke 9:51–56), and Peter outright disowned his Lord (John 18:25–27).

There is not a leader in the world who has never sinned or who will not face temptation in the process of leading others. The desperate need of our day is for godly leaders who will allow their past failures to become channels of grace through which others experience the touch of God’s love and redeeming grace. When church leaders are transparent about their weaknesses, those they lead are more likely to come out of their protective shells and ask for help.

The Making Of A Leader

Patrick Payton was recently out of seminary. His new church in Midland, Texas—Stonegate Fellowship—was thriving. His success in part came through teaching his members to be open to all kinds of people because the grace of God can change anyone. Then came the challenge—through Mike and Stephanie Goeke, a couple whose troubled marriage had been wonderfully restored. They confessed in the quiet of the pastor’s office that their marital problems had been related to Mike’s lifelong struggle with same-sex attractions. Patrick listened as Mike described his struggles through childhood, high school, and college, along with the loneliness and the fear of alienation he felt even at Stonegate Church. Patrick left work that day with the realization that Mike and Stephanie’s testimony needed to be shared openly with the congregation. In his words:

“Following several weeks of very intense and sometimes personal attack and struggle about the importance of sharing this real-life story in the body of Christ, I had this precious couple speak in front of our entire church family. It was a day I will never forget.

“The auditorium was packed with Stonegate members and with Mike and Stephanie’s friends from the community. Our church was filled with people who thought they were there to hear a normal story about how Jesus had saved a marriage. No one knew they were about to experience a marker day for Stonegate Fellowship. From that Sunday morning on, everyone would know we were serious when we said, ‘We believe Jesus changes lives, and we want you, and all your baggage, so we can journey with you in the new life in Christ.’ But not only was Stonegate Fellowship changed; a pastor was changed as well.

“To say the least, I was amazed at what happened that Sunday morning. After the service, people would not leave. So many people stayed to talk with Mike and Stephanie about family members struggling with homosexuality and asked what they could do. Men whom I knew to be very upset about what the Goekes were going to share were in tears, asking for forgiveness from Mike and Stephanie. And the hope I saw on the faces of so many was astounding. I saw in the eyes of people something of a new hope that said, ‘If Jesus could do this in Mike and Stephanie’s life, then surely he can change my life.’ But things were changing in my heart as well.

“I knew from the beginning that my characterization of homosexuality had been wrong. My ideas about homosexuality were formed from the harsh rhetoric of evangelical speakers and the images of mainstream media. I never once thought about white-collar professionals like Mike Goeke who had been suffering with this issue for decades and were drowning in a sea of anonymity right under the nose of the church. Men—and women—living two lives, desperate for help but finding none anywhere they looked. After all, homosexuality was the worst sin and surely of a different sort than normal sins, such as taking one too many drinks, cheating on taxes, lusting after women, breaking the speed limit, or failing to tithe! I had bought into a way of thinking that set homosexuality apart as the leprosy of the twenty-first century rather than another destructive sin used by Satan to steal away full and meaningful life from those who would follow Jesus. From this moment on, at least for this pastor, homosexuality would not be the serious sin of the worst sinners but rather another sin destroying the lives of everyday people of all social classes.

“I also learned that my words were killing those who most needed the healing touch of the Savior. On another Sunday, not long after the Goekes shared, I was waxing eloquent about an especially popular couple at the time who were openly proud lesbians. I boldly referred to them as perverts and continued on without skipping a beat. Within days, Mike stopped by my office to let me know that when I used words like pervert and queer, I further alienated those so desperately desiring help from the local church. As much as I wanted to defend myself, I could not. I was damning the very ones Jesus died for by my churchy, harsh words. The more I thought about it, the more I realized Jesus never called anyone names either, except the religious elite of his day. He certainly never called the woman we read about in Luke 7 a whore! He just let her wash his holy feet and taught a humiliating lesson to Simon the Pharisee. As much as I hated to do it, I stood in the pulpit the very next Sunday and issued an apology to our congregation for labeling sinners rather than just labeling sin. I vowed to never make that mistake again.

“I was learning some new things about confession and community as well. Jesus changes a life in an instant, but it takes a lifetime of walking in the new, crucified life in a community of Christ-followers called the local church to truly experience the transformed life Jesus came to offer. But for so many like me, we have grown accustomed to acting like transformed people should act, while deep down inside we are dying a slow death because we are afraid to talk about our struggles. We fear we will be perceived as spiritual losers. After Mike and Stephanie shared the rest of their story, the gauntlet was thrown down in my life and in the life of our church. That gauntlet simply represented the fact that Stonegate would be no place for fakers. We would lean heavily on each other with our deepest struggles so that, as a community of Christ-followers, we could share the life of Christ with each other.”

This chapter appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Jan/Feb 2011).