With one simple move, sexual orientation, and the acceptance of people with lesbian, gay, or bisexual identifications wouldn’t matter at all.

That solution is arranged marriage.

I bring this up because it clarifies some more questions I’m often asked about the topic. See, in a society where marriage is arranged, attraction has no meaning at all. Young people are matched up to people they don’t know, and arranged marriage was successful for many cultures – if, by “successful,” we mean divorce was unthinkably rare despite vast age differences and likely abuse, personal choice was suppressed, and people were reproducing out of duty and necessity instead of love.

I don’t think arranged marriage is necessary. It made people unhappy, and denied them the joys of falling in love in response to attraction. Marriage by mutual attraction and affection is a more accurate depiction of the Christian analogy of Christ’s relationship to the church than a forced and inescapable marriage. The choice to reciprocate God’s affection out of endearment is comparable to the same feelings toward another person. Lifetime commitment to a person through rough times is reflective of God’s demonstration of love.

Without arranged marriage, though, attraction matters. This leaves all people opposed to same-sex marriage in a logical double bind: either set up a system where no attraction matters, or admit the same treatment to people with unusual preferences in attraction.

Some Christians say that legalizing same-sex marriage, much less accepting it in the church, is a slippery slope to atrocities such as acceptance of bestiality and pedophilia. Here’s a term I learned once I ventured outside the world of the purity movement, which made sex taboo: “consensual.”

It means two things: that a person has given their willing consent to have sex, and said person is eligible to give that consent. It is also being used to help raise awareness of rape. If a woman is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, she is incapable of giving consent, so a man who has sex with her has raped her. Rape doesn’t just happen to women, and important awareness campaigns have been launched to help reduce rape, using slogans like “no means no.”

This is crucial information for the discussion, because it provides a standard for ethical relationships. Animals and children are also considered ineligible for giving consent, so pedophilia and bestiality are ruled out.

It’s entirely possible for me to be an anarchist and to have such standards, because peaceful anarchy means treating everyone as if they, too, are free and responsible agents rather than controlling them. To oppose government, or the overpowering of another person, includes opposition to rape.

I remember the exact moment when I knew I completely supported same-sex marriage. I was watching one of my favorite actors receive an award. He and his gay partner used this phrase: “who you love matters.”

The phrase surprised me. It shook up most of what I’d learned about relationships. Though my parents may have alluded to it and wanted me to someday be attracted to the man I would marry, most of my relationship education was through books in the purity movement. I hadn’t come to expect falling in love with someone I had a crush on and who had mutual feelings for me. I thought I should discredit crushes. I expected finding someone who my parents approved of, and who would be a good pragmatic match.

Who you love matters.

This simple little phrase is why those in the world I grew up in cannot accept gay people. Though some progress has been made, much of what is known as “courtship” or “purity” or “waiting” is descended from arranged marriage. I’m not talking about the choice to save sex for marriage, because committed relationships are important to me. Unless it becomes acceptable for young people to, through mutual attraction and love, choose for themselves who to build a life with, same-sex marriage will be incomprehensible.

I chose then to believe that who I love matters, as a straight woman who hopes to someday build a life with a man who loves me back.

Christians in this old mindset have two choices: either go against their own straight attractions and use arranged marriage for everyone, or admit that romantic love is worthwhile. For myself, freedom and love and dedication to a lifelong partner seems like the better choice.

The story isn’t quite complete, though. I realized I couldn’t just be content to stick to a libertarian or anarchist view of government, and not answer these questions in my friendships and relationships. When I felt God telling me to love my friends who were struggling to reconcile with their sexual identities, it was odd to be told that my Christ-following instinct was at odds with the Bible. I went back to the Bible, and I checked it for the message of Christ, and realized I couldn’t oppose same-sex marriage from that standpoint, either.

It would have been easy enough to quietly carry on conversations about it with my circle of friends. When God started convicting me to speak up about my brothers and sisters who are cast out of the church, unloved and uninformed, I tried to compromise: maybe it would be enough to keep it within my own face-to-face discussions. When people told me it would be a risk, that I might be wrong, and to examine the arguments, I did all that. For the past several months, I’ve been talking about homosexuality to my friends, and having great conversations with Side B Christians.

I still knew I had to take it to my blog. I was reminded of Isaiah 58, in which God tells his prophet to tell his people that they have their religion all wrong: being the people of God wasn’t about looking good, it was about love. The message of love isn’t just in the New Testament. It’s all over the longings and laments from the prophets, and it’s yearned for behind every broken story in the book of Judges.

If it’s true that part of God’s plan for the Kingdom of Heaven includes gay couples taking in his precious orphans and raising them to know Him, and raising them to love other people and to stop feeling inadequate and wrong the way their parents did, I can’t be quiet about that. It’s wrong to hide that beautiful message, and I know it’s the gospel because the gospel has been about including the outcasts from the time it was foretold.

All I ask is for Christians reading this series to be consistent and to examine the teachings of our faith. Thank you for reading.

I will end this series with a video addressing questions and comments, so please leave your thoughts here on my blog, or on Twitter (@cynthiajeub) or Facebook (Insights on Epic Living).

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

An article by Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin started my questioning the Biblical interpretation of homosexual sin. They didn’t intend it, I’m quite sure, but the first place I saw Ezekiel 16:49 was in their series on Childish Homeschooler Syndrome.

The sisters wrote, “When many of us ‘good kids’ think of the sins of Sodom, we think of flagrant debauchery and perversion (no danger of going there, we reassure ourselves). But this is what God actually condemned them for: ‘Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.’ – Ezekiel 16:49” (emphasis in original)

I would come back to this post years after reading it as a teenager. In the meantime, I was looking for answers from Christians about homosexuality.

My first impression was that gay Christians who had gay relationships took the Bible very lightly. One YouTube video, made by a Mormon lesbian, explained that heaven might not be as great for her because she was sinning, but she didn’t want to live an unhappy life. The same explanation was in my university’s production of “Next Fall,” which depicted a gay couple’s relationship. One of the men in the relationship was a Christian, but a very loose one who said it was sin, but it didn’t matter that he was sinning.

That line of reasoning didn’t work for me. I needed proof that a homosexual relationship was or wasn’t sinful, not some excuse for sinning. If Christians should live like their desires are more important than the commands of the Bible, every wrong action is allowed. Besides, some verses in the New Testament went so far as to say certain sins would keep people out of the Kingdom of Heaven, which sounded pretty serious.

I was already convinced that I should accept gay people at the political level and as a friend. What felt disproportionately wrong was how my intuitive convictions and my regular reliance on the Holy Spirit weren’t lining up with what I heard about the Bible.

Maybe, just as the church so often overlooked love as the greatest commandment, it had gotten this issue wrong, too.

So I looked further. I contacted an old friend who had come out as gay since we’d last talked, and got his insights. I watched this sermon, and I read this book. The number of reasons to believe the Bible opposed a committed, loving same-sex marriage began to diminish.

Below is a breakdown of my personal findings. I gathered them from research and discussions, but they are not a representation of all Christians who support committed gay relationships. They are also not the only possible arguments; just the ones I found to be the most clear and convincing.

Sodom

In the biblical story of the two cities God destroyed for their sinfulness, Gomorrah isn’t mentioned in relation to homosexuality at all. The term “sodomy” comes from the city of Sodom, however, because the story has long been interpreted to mean the city was evil for its acceptance of the atrocious sin of homosexual relationships (among other sins). There are a few problems with this, though. In the story (Genesis 19:1-11), two angels visit Lot, and all the men of the city gather at his door, wanting to rape the angels.

It seems unlikely that the entirety of a city would be gay, if same-sex attraction was the definition of the time for “being gay.” It was also clear that these men weren’t looking for a committed, consensual relationship with the angels, but just wanted to harm them. The distinctions are so polar, it makes no sense to think Sodom’s sin was homosexual relationships. Another similar thing happened in the book of Judges (19:16-24). A group of men threatened a foreigner with gang rape, but were satisfied to be given a woman instead, meaning they weren’t merely attracted to the same sex. Further, there was that verse in Ezekiel (the one I opened this post with) specifically saying Sodom’s sin was a lack of hospitality. Perhaps the problem was that people shouldn’t gang rape foreign visitors, not that they shouldn’t have loving and committed relationships. I moved on.

Idol Worship

There were, surprisingly, not many other mentions in the Bible of homosexuality. I thought the topic would be rampantly scattered throughout every chapter, considering how seriously Christians take it. Jesus never speaks against homosexuality in the gospels. Several passages are contextually referring to homosexual practices as a form of pagan idol worship, rather than committed love. These include Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, 1 Kings 14:24 and 15:12, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Each of these mentions refer to idol worship, cult activity, and prostitution rather than a committed, loving, and exclusive marriage. It’s just as odd to compare the activity in these verses to heterosexual marriage as it is to compare them to the modern definition of a dedicated same-sex marriage, for they are so different.

Abandoning God as a Prerequisite

In Romans 1:18-32, Paul rants about the danger of false images of God. He describes what happens to people who have redefined God, and who worshiped things instead of God. Among the results of such behavior are God’s abandonment, and letting such people pursue their evil desires.

For those who have never known a Christian who is gay (or known that a Christian they knew was gay), this seems like the most logical argument against homosexual relationships within the Christian world. Gay people must have turned away from God, and they must have a wrong idea of who God is, and that’s why they have their attractions. If they hadn’t abandoned God, they wouldn’t have the attractions they do.

This misunderstanding may be one major reason Christians believe that being gay is a choice, and that a gay person can become straight through therapy. It’s the same explanation that leaves so many disappointed with an emphasis on a charismatic experience or healing through spirituality. Have more faith, and you or your loved one will be healed, some reassure, when Jesus specifically refused to perform miracles for the purpose of making people believe in him (Matthew 16:1-4). Many discouraged people lose faith because they can’t seem to have enough of it for the vending-machine god of miracles for signs instead of for love and compassion. In the anti-gay church, we’re doing the same to teenagers and young adults struggling with same-sex attractions: have more faith, and your problem will go away.

No wonder so many gay Christians think God doesn’t love them.

If these verses mean what they’ve been interpreted to mean, praying away same-sex attractions would work. It would work because under Christ’s new covenant, pursuit of God is personal. Salvation is not by generational blessing, and curses are not due to a sinful culture. If a sinful culture could make Christians be a certain way, Christianity could never have grown from a minority in a sinful culture, because God would have to cut them off as Romans 1 says. That message is the very opposite of the gospel, which claims redemption for anyone who chooses to take it.

The evidence shows that committed Christians have been unable to become straight. Last summer, Exodus International, which was known as the largest Christian organization providing therapy for gay people to become straight, shut down with apologies for hurting those they’d set out to help. There are countless stories of people who earnestly seek out God who are still attracted to people from their same gender.

Have gay people redefined God? There are two gigantic reasons not to believe this. First, if every person who redefines God at some point is gay, there should be a lot more gay people in the Christian church. Second, this group of verses in Romans 1 deserves a very serious reconsideration when the Gay Christian community is more closely observed. The modern church has many people who define God by personal ideologies and doctrines and teachings, divided by denominations. Articles like this one describe a different picture of gay Christians: they have found love in the face of adversity from the church, and not just an affectionate and romantic love. They’ve spread the love of God, and there is real revival toward Christ’s core message of love.

I must therefore venture to suggest this logical setup and ask a sobering question: Romans 1 says that God lets people turn to their selfish desires after redefining Him. Gay Christians – both those who choose to remain celibate and those who pursue same-sex marriages alike – are turning to a deeper understanding of God, the Bible, and putting into action the command to “love one another,” and are bridging gaps between divisions in belief. The anti-gay church, by contrast, is casting out their brothers and sisters who identify as gay, regardless of their lifestyle choices. Which of these two groups has redefined God? Which of these two groups is turning to selfishness?

Companionship

When God created Adam, he said that it was not good for man to be alone. Similarly, Paul says that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with passion. This doesn’t apply to all people, as Paul and Jesus were single and Paul admonished singleness. However, if there are gay people, and they long for a lifelong committed partner for companionship, is it then good for them to be alone?

Some may suggest that gay people should turn to God for fulfillment and choose to be celibate. As Justin Lee put it in his book Torn: God didn’t look at Adam’s loneliness and say, “I am sufficient for you.” He made him a suitable companion. As I said in my first post, this doesn’t mean I don’t support gay Christians who choose to be celibate. It does mean there’s a reasonable question about the need for human, committed, intimate relationships.

Procreation as a standard for marriage

During the days of the Bible, marriage was different than it is today. This does not mean God has changed, or that God’s plan has changed, or God’s law has changed. Marriage is never defined in the Bible, it is simply assumed by the culture of the time, and changes with the stories therein. Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel, is notably the first wife of a man who took a second wife so he could have children. Elderly couples don’t get married in the Bible. In fact, the problem of elderly people being unable to procreate gets Abraham and Sarah into a lot of trouble. There is no condemnation of polygamy in the Bible.

What I am about to say, then, is not in contradiction with a command in the Bible. It is an observation about culture: procreation is no longer the reason for marriage. We no longer need polygamy, for people can adopt children or go without having children, at least as long as others are still reproducing so the species can survive. I think the modern approach to marriage – that is, people marrying for attraction and compatibility and being committed to one person instead of more than one – is more consistent with Christ’s message than the traditions of older cultures. Jesus chose marriage to one bride as a metaphor for his return. Jesus preached against trying to serve more than one master, also a lesson Solomon taught in Proverbs about polygamy. Jesus’ salvation is a gift accepted by individual choice, and modern marriage is by mutual choice rather than being arranged or one-sided.

These were the main arguments I found most convincing as a Biblical defense for same-sex marriage. Once I was able to support same-sex marriage, and more importantly, people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, at the political, relational, and spiritual level, I couldn’t keep silent about it. I prepared with careful prayer, earnest study, focused discussion, and engaging with people who disagreed with me.

Keeping this information to myself and my inner circle wasn’t enough.

Update 2015: Many people are confused about why I’d make a Bible-based case for same-sex marriage when I don’t believe in the Bible as authoritative. I tell that story in this post. Also, a friend who wasn’t convinced by my Biblical breakdown found this book by Dr. Rev. Mel White more compelling.

I will end this series with a video addressing questions and comments, so please leave your thoughts here on my blog, or on Twitter (@cynthiajeub) or Facebook (Insights on Epic Living).

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

The more I worked on both sides of political lines, however, I realized all people are just people, and the system is more broken than I ever knew. Simple conversations with a fellow investigative journalist, a Ron Paul supporter, and a childhood friend made me start questioning the political reasoning behind opposition to same-sex marriage rights.

A fellow videographer drove me to the university we were investigating for corruption. We discussed the stronger arguments for equal marriage rights: gay couples weren’t hurting anyone with their personal lifestyle choices, so it didn’t make sense to outlaw it on grounds of harming people. Our investigation was focused around voting legality and ethics, not equal marriage, but I had to think about my priorities: I knew I believed in fighting injustice, and it didn’t seem fair that these people couldn’t live how they wished.

My friend Dave picked me up from the airport when I landed back in Colorado. A dedicated Ron Paul supporter, Dave talked to me about the primaries and didn’t ask me any questions about my secretive trip. I was leaning toward anarchy as a political philosophy (I don’t support violent revolution, but I think the ideal form of government is no government, and the means to get there is empowering individuals to govern themselves), but I didn’t support Ron Paul. Dave, too, brought up equal marriage rights. He said the government shouldn’t be making marriage official and taxing based on it anyway, so it didn’t matter if people were living outside of the so-called “definition” of marriage.

Within a few days, I was back to my regular political engagements on twitter. I tweeted about how children raised by same-sex couples are disadvantaged. An old friend replied, saying all the same problems are in heterosexual households.

If people wanted to live a certain lifestyle, even if I disagreed with it, it only needed to be proven as not harmful. If it didn’t harm people, it should be permissible by law. Was it harmful to allow same-sex couples to marry?

There was the argument of disease, but diseases spread among heterosexual couples who were uncommitted, too. I was told it was ruining the definition of “marriage,” but I wanted to know if that wasn’t the fault of the high divorce rate among heterosexuals, not people who wanted to live their own lives. The last question, then, was whether it harmed children.

My friend on twitter asked if children were harmed by abusive homes and split homes. These were in heterosexual marriage. I was forced to ask myself: would a child be better off in a stable home with two parents, even if they were the same gender, than in an unstable home? Even slim chances of having an abused child in a heterosexual home made heterosexuality an oddly arbitrary condition for parenting eligibility.

I was told that I shouldn’t compare the worst-case scenario in one to the best-case scenario in the other. However, I knew a single point of failure meant a philosophy couldn’t universally apply. The fact stood: it was possible that children could be better off in a home with same-sex parents than in a home with heterosexual parents.

People believe a child needs both a female and male parent because of gender stereotypes. According to fundamentalist tradition, a man must train his boys to be manly, and give his daughters an authority figure so she can transfer from that relationship to the same authority under her husband; the wife must be meek and submissive, and she isn’t the breadwinner, but the nurturer in the home (If you don’t believe me, check out this series on another blog).

My parents didn’t raise my siblings and me to base our actions on what was expected due to our genders, however. My little sister was very much a “tomboy” growing up, and played sports as well as the boys. In her early teens, she could win an arm-wrestle with any boy she met. She won a top-ranking award in the nation with her arguments on why the Bible doesn’t support the modern Christian presuppositions about male-female dynamics. One of my little brother’s earliest handiwork was in the “girly” activity of sewing, and there are many more examples. It’s impossible to remove all gender stereotyping from a household today, and my parents certainly haven’t eliminated it, but I never felt pressured to grow my hair long or wear dresses, and I think that’s a good thing.

Because I was already convinced about gender equality and opposed to gender stereotypes, it didn’t seem necessary to have two parents of both genders raising a child for that child to be stable.

I started questioning and researching, and applied the following standard to every argument I could find against equal marriage rights: could the same be said to outlaw heterosexual marriage?

I was told that procreation was the purpose of marriage, and gay couples couldn’t have kids. But aren’t some heterosexual couples unable to have kids? Should they be disallowed from marrying? Was it justifiable to let elderly couples marry? To be consistent, I had to set aside the procreation argument.

Another related question came up, too: what made a person gay? I was told it was always from abuse. If that was the case, there must also be people who, due to abuse, had unhealthy heterosexual attractions.

Morally, I wasn’t yet convinced. On a political level, however, I couldn’t support the traditional marriage definition as a reason to outlaw same-sex marriage. I decided the government should be uninvolved with enforcing a specific lifestyle, moral or not, and that conservatives should stop trying to define marriage a certain way. I wasn’t just disenfranchised with politics; I was disenfranchised with government itself, and people trying to force other people to do things.

So when I say “I support equal marriage,” I mean it in the sense that both homosexual and heterosexual marriage ought to be treated equally. Because I am an anarchist by political philosophy, I don’t think those rights are under jurisdiction of government or the church. I am therefore opposed to legislating a definition of marriage at all, so oppose any policies attempting to do so (California’s Proposition 8, for example).

It’s shameful to say my support happened in this order. My journey started with political philosophy, then bled into my friendships, and ended with a reexamination of the Bible and how to reconcile it to my Christian faith.

I’m disenfranchised with conservative-Christian politics because this is backwards. Jesus said to love God and love people, and every authority figure in my life immediately abandoned this premise when I brought up this particular issue. The focus on political ground, and keeping America safe from the “threat” of same-sex marriage, had to be the first thing I questioned.

When I got unsatisfactory answers, I set the issue aside. I wasn’t involved in political activism about it, and it didn’t impact me as a straight person.

Until a friend came out to me, and I had to decide whether to hate her sin or not.

I will end this series with a video addressing questions and comments, so please leave your thoughts here on my blog, or on Twitter or Facebook where you found the link.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

This week’s series will be in five parts, and it is not meant to be exhaustive. Many readers will find my discussion brief and inadequate, but my aim is to do two things: (1) to tell my own story of how I reached my conclusions and (2) to be a support to anyone reading who is struggling to identify with their sexual orientation. I will reference other resources throughout for those who want a more academic take.

Before going into this discussion, I let’s define some terms. To be gay means to be attracted to members from the same sex. It is not something a person chooses, just as heterosexuals cannot actively decide who they find appealing among members of the opposite sex. A lesbian is a female gay person who is attracted to other women. A bisexual person is someone of either gender who is attracted to members of both sexes. A straight person is someone who is heterosexual, or attracted to members of the opposite sex. For straight people as well as gay people, attraction to a certain gender doesn’t mean all people in that gender are necessarily attractive. To come out means to reveal one’s sexual orientation, and to be in the closet or closeted means to hide one’s sexual orientation. That’s enough to handle for now. I want any transgender people reading this to know that I support them, and I am working to develop an argument for you. This series will focus mainly on the gay, lesbian, and bisexual identities.

Now, a defense of my definition: people do not choose their sexual orientation. One of the main disagreements on this topic is what makes a person gay. Growing up, I was told that gay people were abused as children, which led to their gay attraction, but were actually confused straight people. Facts clearly stand in the way of this theory: there are many people who have been sexually abused and remain straight, and there are many gay people who were not abused as children.

Some Christians think people are sinning merely for being gay. We will discuss gay relationships later, but I must emphasize that while there is room for disagreement on what actions are sinful, attraction is not a sin. Jesus once said that if a man looks at a woman with lustful intent in his heart, it was the same as committing adultery with her. This has been used to say gay people are sinful by lusting after each other, but if attraction and lust are synonymous, every straight person is as sinful as a gay person.

Gay people are not affiliated with a single political agenda. As anyone from the Christian culture should realize – with the loyalties and divisions between denominations, educational choices, and political affiliations – there is no way to categorize a group of people as one single-minded “movement.” When I began researching this topic, I found disagreements within what I had thought was a singular “gay community.”

One phrase I heard often was that gay people have a specific political agenda. However, gay people have differing beliefs and affiliations. Anyone who has tried to accomplish something political at any level must realize how impossible it would be to make an entire group of people agree on one political action.

This is important because of something I was taught growing up: that all gay people are promiscuous. This cannot be the case if attraction is what makes a person gay, because attraction is not synonymous with unfaithful sexual habits. There are both committed and uncommitted gay relationships, just as there are with heterosexuals. There are also gay virgins and gay people who have chosen to be celibate.

I am what is called a “Side A” Christian. The Gay Christian Network has developed a clear and simple differentiation between what different groups of Christians believe to be sinful and acceptable behavior for gay people. I had a definition written out, but I like the Stephen Lovegrove put it: “Side A = LGBT Christians who believe they are free in Christ to pursue relationships and marriage. Side B = LGBT Christians who feel called to lifelong celibacy.” Though I am a Side A Christian, I support gay people who choose to be celibate by personal conviction, and I also support healthy discussions with Side B Christians to come to a better understanding of this issue as it relates to Christianity.

All of the above is general information needed to have this conversation with the Christian world. I will end this series with a video addressing questions and comments, so please leave your thoughts here on my blog, or on Twitter (@cynthiajeub) or Facebook (Insights on Epic Living).

On to the title of my post. When I suggested writing about the issue of sexual orientation on my blog, I was told, “The gay movement doesn’t need your help.”

As I established earlier, there is no such thing as a single “gay movement.” There are some groups of people who are gay with certain political affiliations and loyalties, but it is impossible to say that all gay people agree on any one thing. I’m not helping any single entity or “movement” by speaking up about my views on the issue, because there isn’t one. This also means that what I say in this series is not a representation of the views of all gay people. What I say is my own personal view, and I don’t aim to present something I have regurgitated from someone else.

However, the criticism that gay people don’t need my help gave me reason to pause. There are not many voices from my background and my audience who have “come out” as allies and supporters to gay people and committed gay relationships.

I was raised as a politically conservative Christian in a large family, was homeschooled K-12, and spent several years regularly attending chapel at Focus on the Family. I’m a straight 21-year-old girl, putting me in the younger generation of writers. While I know of a few “Side A” Christians with my background, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a series like this written by someone like me.

It would seem that this discussion is not mine. Other authors like Rachel Held Evans and John Shore are established and older than myself. Many people in my generation who are having this discussion are gay themselves. Because I am straight, this isn’t an issue that directly impacts my personal life. Why bother?

I’m writing because of the silence from people like me. I want anyone inside the world of Christian, homeschooled conservatives and others in my audience to know that if they are struggling to identify or conceal their sexual orientation, I support them. More than that, I want to inform them: you don’t have to abandon God or your sense of justice and economics on other political issues to come out. You don’t have to believe people like you, with your background, don’t exist. It’s okay to inform yourself, and there are intellectual Christians who have done research to help you find a lifestyle that is right between you and God. You don’t have to feel like nobody in this Christian culture or homeschool, large-family subculture will love you and support you, because I do. If there’s a single person in the homeschooling world who is gay or bisexual or transgender and would never think Cynthia Jeub could possibly accept them, it’s worth it to me to write this series.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

I left a quick comment on both my friend’s post and the original post from Ken Ham. I think Ham deleted my comment on his post because I can’t find it (correct me if you see it – the post is on his page here), but what I said to the small group of friends was this: “This is an awful idea and I’m ashamed that any Christian supports it.”

The first reason I don’t think Christians should support this photo should be obvious. To say “you’re wrong” is unconvincing. It’s also unloving, but while being loving should be first on the list of priorities for people who follow Jesus, my experience with supporters of this kind of thing would say something like “speaking the truth is the most loving thing you can do.”

I’m bothered by three other elements of the billboard campaign, which will land in New York’s Times Square today both on the corner of Chevy’s as shown and playing on the Times Square Digital Board as an animation every 2 minutes for the next month. First, it points to Genesis 1:1 to make its point, which means the argument is between young-earth creationism and evolution. Second, it says “thank God” on it. Third, it calls atheists “our friends,” and proceeds not to treat them in a friendly way.

When I made my comment, more than one person agreed that my expression of shame at this representation of my faith meant I have a heart issue. The reason what I said frustrates other Christians is because we grew up hearing Romans 1:16 and 1 Timothy 2:15, both of which talk about not being ashamed of the Gospel.

I’m not ashamed of the Gospel, but I can say I’m ashamed of this billboard and any Christians who support it because it’s not the Gospel.

The Gospel is not young-earth creationism. There are plenty of people who believe in intelligent design who aren’t Christians, and there are plenty of Christians who don’t believe in a young earth. To say this billboard is an attempt to spread the Gospel is equivocation – the logical fallacy of defending something by placing the wrong label on it.

The reason this seems clever to Christians is because we don’t hear the phrase “thank God” very often to start a catchphrase. To use this phrase is hypocritical for any Christian who thought he was witnessing to an atheist when he called him out for taking the Lord’s name in vain.

I have atheist friends, and I can guarantee that the person who thought it was a good idea to spend millions of dollars on this campaign doesn’t have atheist friends.

It’s guaranteed because my experience with atheists tells me to tell someone they’re wrong, based on an authority they don’t believe in, is the worst way to convince and love people. I’m ashamed of this campaign, because the gospel tells me to love and contend by speaking the truth in love, not come up with a short, hurtful, expensive ad to flash in the faces of the most frequented place in the country.

This needs a response because hundreds of thousands of people will be seeing this, unfortunately. It exemplifies an important principle: don’t think if someone accuses you of being ashamed of the gospel, that what you’re against is really the gospel.