The first point that I should probably clear up is that being theologically conservative is not the same thing as being socially conservative. Despite what Focus on the Family and other fringe groups on the axis of intolerance want you to think, Christian views on social issues have changed from generation to generation - and they’ve changed dramatically from era to era. If Christianity is defined by a particular social agenda, then there have been almost no Christians since the third century.

Likewise, trying to use some form of convoluted logic to make the words of the Christian scriptures “inerrant” is not being a theological conservative. Clearly the people who wrote, compiled, and edited the Jewish and Christian scriptures didn’t think they were creating an inerrant collection of documents. They would have made them more homogeneous if they had. People who talk about biblical “inerrancy” are really just using a code word for their desire to subordinate Scripture to their social agenda; and they typically do so with people who don’t have the scholarly background to appreciate how ludicrous their claims really are (or to realize that the “inerrantists” aren’t conserving anything, they’re creating a new doctrine).

The reason that I began with the negatives, defining what “theologically conservative” is not, is that - for me - paring Christian identity down to the essentials was part of the process of defining my own role as a pastor. Through ordination, the Church entrusts to its clergy the custodianship of the Chruch’s identity; and so understanding what is “Christian” and what is not is part of a pastor’s role. Consequently, when I was ordained I realized it was important to try have a working definition of the word “Christian” if I was going to be able to do my job well.

If one takes this exercise seriously, it’s harder than it seems. On one side, there are the shrill voices of the fundamentalists. In order to place their counter-cultural assertions beyond critique, fundamentalists insist that even the most minute component of their doctrine, no matter how scant the biblical or historical support for it might be, is an essential part of being “Christian.”

On the other side are the real liberals. They claim the label Christian, while ignoring, denying, or contradicting nearly everything that Christians have historically believed - be it the deity of Christ or even the authority of God.

Both extremes have kept the label “Christian” because they have positive associations with it or because it gives greater credibility to their belief systems; but in neither case is the label helpful. “Being a ‘Christian’ means understanding the world exactly the way I do, even if I don’t realize that the way I understand the world is very different from how Christians have historically understood it!” is not a useful definition. Nor is, “Being a ‘Christian’ can really mean anything as long as you include the word ‘Jesus’ in there somewhere.”

But with so many groups offering so many different, and contradictory, understandings of what it means to be a Christian, where can one turn? For me, the logical answer was (and is): Scripture and History.

Scripture alone is not completely helpful in this regard. Even if one limits such a search to the New Testament, the authors there wrote from very different perspectives and with different, sometimes competing, agendas. One of the reasons for the great variation in modern definitions of Christianity is that, lacking an external locus of authority, people have picked and chosen what they liked from Scripture to define Christianity.

An example here is the debate over predestination versus free will. There are biblical passages that support both positions, but adherents to each camp will insist that their position is the correct, Christian view. They do this by privileging the texts which support their view, and subordinating the texts which disagree with them. As a result, they claim that they are simply “taking the Bible at face value” and “letting Scripture alone define their beliefs.” What they are really doing, however, is imposing their beliefs on Scripture.

A couple of useful things come out of this realization. The first is that lots of things that might be helpful to have in a consensus definition of Christianity (like, for instance, settling the question of predestination) can’t be included. That’s because the biblical record is too mixed. This is even true on really major questions like the mechanism of justification/salvation, and on key social issues like slavery. If one approaches Scripture honestly, allowing its authors to speak with their individual voices, it becomes clear that the basic definition of Christianity, its essential heart, must allow for a diversity of views on many theological points.

Also, the value of history becomes clear. “Christian” isn’t just defined by Scripture. It is defined by the people who died for the gospel in the first few centuries of the Church’s development. It is defined by the people who, 350 years after the time of Christ, selected, compiled, and edited the Scriptures that would become the Bible. It is defined, in short, by the historical identity of the Church.

In addition to the necessity of history in establishing some consensus on interpreting Scripture, a study of Christian history is essential since that is the history of the Bible. Scripture was not created ex nihilo. The same process of prayer, study, debate, and encounter with the world which produced the creeds and early doctrines of the Church is the process which produced the Christian Scriptures. The Bible did not come to be in a vacuum, and trying to interpret it outside the context which produced it is nonsensical.

And so, in my personal journey to find a working, consensus definition of Christianity, I turned to Scripture and history. Fortunately, at that point my work was really done. Christians had already worked out two beautiful, consensus statements of what it means to identify oneself as Christians: the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. Interestingly, neither statement makes any mention of social issues or addresses the kinds of minutiae that Christians use for division and dispute these days. There was already enough history of dispute over those kinds of things that the Church knew that any statement of faith which was based on them would exclude more Christians than would include them.

Instead, the creeds focus on the heart of Christianity: a specific understanding of metaphyscial reality. This includes the preeminence of God, the deity of Jesus, the reality of the Holy Spirit, the brokenness of humanity, the need for restoration to the divine reality of God, the importance of community, and the defeat of death through the suffering, execution, and physical resurrection of Jesus, God Incarnate.

It is not in its practical morality that Christianity defines itself. Lots of groups produce moral views that are nearly identical to those held by most Christians. Nor is it in its explanation of the inexplicable that Christianity defines itself. The creeds are noticeably lacking in the kind of theological specificity that modern logic craves. The holy is, by definition, “other” and undefinable.

The uniqueness of Christianity is found in its metaphysical claims, its assertions about the nature of the human condition and the reality of a holy Creator seeking a relationship with us. It is for that reality - made explicit in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus - that the martyrs gave their lives. It is that reality that Paul proclaimed on Mars Hill. It is that reality which, no matter how it is encumbered by our own agendas and weaknesses, changes lives to this day. To deny any part of those metaphysical claims is to create new set of metaphysical beliefs, essentially a new religion. If someone wishes to do so, far be it from me to stop them. Nevertheless, a new religion needs a new name. It is not “Christianity.”

To finally answer Colin’s question, I define myself as “theologically conservative” because I define the gospel - the good news of Christianity - in a way that is consistent with how Christians have historically defined it. No matter how trendy or convenient, I will not take away anything from the heart of that confession. There is a God, incarnate in Jesus, who died of necessity to restore relationship with a broken humanity, and in his resurrection is victory over death.

Nor will I add to that definition, as fundamentalists do with (ironically) their own kind of liberalism - assuming somehow that their specific, modern understanding of morality and social issues is the unique and most accurate understanding of Christianity. In so doing, they ignore both the consensus of history and the diversity of Scripture, treating both dishonestly or, at best, disingenuously.

I am theologically conservative because I believe that, to be a “Christian” means to neither add to nor subtract from the common beliefs of those who died to give the word its meaning.

Their actions are yet one more indicator of the degree to which purveyors of a reactionary political agenda have continued to shield their propaganda behind the presumably sacrosanct rhetoric of the Church. The decision by these pastors to endorse a particular presidential candidate also demonstrates that the IRS’ distinction, which affirms the right of faith communities to discuss current events in the light of their traditions while denying them tax-exempt status when they move beyond that realm into partisanship, is a wise one. Simply put, stumping for a political candidate is not a religious activity.

This becomes immediately obvious when the particular agenda items cited by these pastors and the lobbyists who guide them are held up against the scriptures and traditions of the Christian faith which they claim to be preserving. In this election cycle three of the largest issues among socially conservative evangelicals are: elimination of access to abortion, prevention of equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, and the teaching of “intelligent design” in schools.

None of this issues hold up to even a cursory attempt to identify them with a consensus understanding of Christianity. Abortion is not addressed in the Bible, and Christian denominations in the U.S. hold a variety of positions on the ethics around reproductive freedom. Likewise, biblical arguments for and against same-sex marriage are sufficiently ambiguous that Christians and the denominations which represent them are divided on the issue, with the trend being toward more inclusion of clergy in same-sex relationships and blessings of same-sex marriages. As for a “biblical” understanding of how the universe was made, Christians who wish to hold with their tradition and a literal reading of the Bible must accept the biblical writers’ assumption of a flat earth and they must also agree with both Martin Luther and Pope Urban the VIII that, despite the data, the Sun goes around the Earth.

In other words, the socially and scientifically regressive arguments trumpeted by these pastors are not specifically or essentially “Christian” views. They are a last stand by social conservatives who, having lost ground in every other arena, attempt to hide their worldview behind the language of belief. In so doing, they are trying to safeguard their agenda from the scrutiny of logic and ethics on the assumption that faith claims are beyond those critiques.

They are not, but most of us are content to recognize that it is not the government’s role to evaluate the degree to which faith communities are honest about their own tradition. Consequently, churches are free to make remarkably bigoted and intransigent statements without challenge. For years, political activists have abused this freedom to produce single-issue voters whose decisions are forged, not in the thoughtful debate of the public arena, but behind the closed doors of sanctuaries and chapels.

This process has remained unchecked for so long that some pastors are now crossing the only remaining, clearly-delineated line between their churches and the state. They have reneged on their obligation to nurture houses of worship where Christians of all political persuasions can find a home. Instead, they are selling out the entire depth and breadth of the Christian tradition to the Machiavellian desires of a narrow political faction, one that will go back to ignoring those pastors and their churches as soon as the election is over. The only remaining question will be what those churches will do after they pay the taxes on their thirty pieces of silver.

For instance, I’ve yet to meet a fundamentalist who will claim any of the following, despite the clarity of the relevant biblical texts:

• God is not the only god, God is the most powerful of a heavenly host of gods (Exodus 15:11; 18:11; 20:3; 23:24; Deut. 10:17; Joshua 24:15; I King 11:2-10; Psalm 58:1; Psalm 82:1; Psalm 84:7)
• God affirms and blesses polygamy (2 Sam 12:7-8; and then many texts where multiple wives are viewed as a sign of blessing and status or divine plan, e.g. Judges 8:30; Gen 29-30)
• The world is flat, orbited by the Sun, and surrounded on all sides by water (Psalm 93; Joshua 10:12-13; 2 Kings 20:11; Genesis 1)
• God is fine with slaughter of children (Joshua 8:24-26; 10:37; Psalm 137:9; I Sam 15:2-3)
• God is not omniscient (Gen 3:22; Gen 22:12; Exodus 13:17)
• God is not unchanging (Exodus 32:14; I Samuel 15:35; I Chron 21:15; Isaiah 38:1-5; I Sam 2:30)
• God does evil (Exodus 32:14; I Samuel 19:9; I Kings 22:21-23; Judges 9:23)
• God accepts and sometimes requires child sacrifice (Gen 22; Judges 11; Exodus 22:29-30)
• Even though dietary laws don’t generally apply to Christians, all meat must still be bled in accordance with kosher food requirements (Acts 15:20, 29)

A fundamentalist will be quick to cite verses which contradict all of these texts, often mentioning that “God is not the author of confusion” and then relying on “common sense” to choose which of the two contradictory texts must be authoritative. Of course, the fundamentalist’s “common sense” doesn’t come from the Bible, it comes from their particular worldview. If something is really atrocious (child sacrifice, for instance) or scientifically impossible (the Sun orbiting the Earth) the fundamentalist will explain it away by saying that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it is plainly saying. Oddly enough, this kind of “explaining away” is just what fundamentalists accuse biblical scholars of doing; but fundamentalists give themselves a pass since the resulting conclusion agrees with their understanding of the world.

It is much simpler and more honest to simply treat the Scriptures as what they are, a collection of writings produced and edited by regular human beings who, having glimpsed in some way an element of God’s presence or divine truth, preserved that glimpse as best they could within the historical and cultural context in which they lived and worked. Scientific and historical inaccuracies are in the Bible because the people who wrote and edited the Scriptures were human, and they wrote in the context of what they knew. Conflicting theological statements are in the Bible because not all of the biblical writers agreed on everything, and because what was assumed to be true in one time was not assumed to be true in others. Behaviors that we consider to be immoral or even heinous are endorsed by God in the Bible because, in other times, people had a different view of those behaviors so they assumed that God did endorse them.

None of this changes the authority or value of the Christian Scriptures. In fact, letting the Scriptures be what they are frees us to actually take every text seriously. Rather than forcing biblical texts into an artificial harmony or ignoring some texts in favor of others; we can allow each text to speak for its own time and place. We can ask, “Where did the person who wrote or edited this text in this way see God in what they are describing?” We can then ask ourselves, “How might God be at work in my own time and place in a similar way? Where is God’s will and God’s presence in my own world?”

Allowing the biblical writings to simply be what they are keeps us from having to attribute absurdities and atrocities to Almighty God, and allows us to let the biblical texts speak with honesty and clarity. The main problem with this, of course, is that where contradictions appear in the Bible we have to admit some ambiguity. We have to admit that we don’t know some things for certain. This is true on historical matters (Note that both Saul and David, for instance, meet each other for the first time twice and attain the kingship in multiple ways. Compare I Sam 9:1-10:16; I Sam10:17-24; I Sam 11:1-11; and, also compare I Sam 16:1-13; 16:14-23; and I Sam 17:1-18:5.) and on theological ones (Is salvation by grace or works? Compare Romans 3:27-28 and Eph. 2:8-9 with Matt. 25:31-46 and Hebrews 10:26-27.).

The reality, though, is that the ambiguity was already there. It was only the compulsive need of some interpreters to explain away all contradictions that forced the texts into an artificial harmony and that hid those contradictions from plain sight. The contradictions, tensions, and inconsistencies have always been there – even in matters of no small significance. If, however, humans cannot admit to some confusion and ambiguity in knowing the mind of God, then our hubris is more damning than any doctrine of the Bible could ever be.

Here in the deep South, that may come as something of a surprise. After all, a group that cloaks the venom of their rhetoric in religious language will also be in Birmingham. They, and the large publicity machine that supports the anti-abortion movement, have spent decades trying to persuade people that the only acceptable position for people of faith is to oppose abortion.

I am hesitant to speak for traditions of which I am not a member, but as an evangelical Christian pastor and scholar, I can say with absolute certainty that it is possible to be a good and faithful Christian and to support legal access to abortion. The wide variety of official statements collected by the Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice confirms this reality, and the statements made by other faith traditions indicate that the same is true for members of other religions as well.

How can this be? How is it possible that people can be part of religious traditions that value life and simultaneously support protecting the right of women to terminate their pregnancies? Speaking for my own tradition, the answers are varied.

Some Christians are satisfied with noting that the Bible offers at best a mixed perspective on the personhood of a fetus. Because of the ambiguity of the biblical writings, they are comfortable with leaving the decision up to the individual conscience of the woman who involved. This is the simplest approach to the matter: if the Bible does not say abortion is wrong, many Christians are not willing to say that it is.

Other Christians, however, take a more nuanced approach. These Christians recognize the complexity and interdependence of all life. They realize that we make thousands of decisions as individuals and as a society that privilege some lives or forms of life over others. The most obvious example is the decision by a nation to declare war, a regrettable but sometimes necessary action that will invariably cost innocent lives in an effort to protect other lives. Other decisions – about the environment, the economy, or even the educational system – are also ethical choices about innocent lives.

Recognizing the difficulty of those issues, many Christians are all the more cautious about making unilateral moral pronouncements on the issue of abortion, where the debate is over the loss of a potential life and where the decision to terminate the pregnancy can be based on a variety of medical or ethical factors. These Christians trust that the pregnant woman is in the best position to make decisions about her pregnancy. Often they have spent time in women’s health clinics and have walked alongside the women who are faced with this difficult decision. They understand that sometimes the decision to terminate a pregnancy is the most moral decision a woman can make, and that supporting her in that decision is the loving thing to do.

The staff at these clinics understands this very well. Contrary to the mischaracterizations in the literature published by anti-abortion groups, the women and men who put their lives on the line to keep abortion a safe option for women are providing a caring ministry of compassion and support to women who desperately need both. All of us who desire to protect and aid those women are their colleagues in that ministry, and so we will go to Birmingham to stand by their side.

Along the way, the fundamentalists and the politicians who pander to them fail to mention the other “scientific” assertions required of someone who claims to take the cosmology of Genesis (and later books in the Hebrew Bible) literally. First, the literalist must claim that the sky is in fact a transparent dome holding back the enormous oceans of the “waters above” (Genesis 1:7). They must also understand that the Sun, the Moon, and stars are attached to that dome and move across it (Genesis 1:15-17; Joshua 10:12-14). Finally, the literalist must affirm that the Earth is flat. It has four corners (Isaiah 11:12), and rests upon giant pillars anchored in an enormous, primordial sea (I Samuel 2:8).

The fundamentalists of earlier centuries understood this, and consequently dismissed the research of Galileo Galilei, Nicholas Copernicus and other astronomers. Eventually, however, even the most militant fundamentalists have come to accept that the Earth is round, that the sky is not holding back an ocean, and that the Earth orbits around the Sun – despite what the biblical writings explicitly state.

The process for such acceptance goes something like this. First, a scientist proposes a theory that contradicts the way the biblical writers thought the world worked (their “cosmology”). Then, the biblical literalists of that time claim the scientist must be both wrong and a heretic. When the scientist’s theory is proven to be incontrovertibly true, the biblical literalists are forced to claim that the passage they initially used to accuse the scientist of heresy was, in fact, meant metaphorically or allegorically. Sometimes literalists even argue that the now disproven passage was “true” in the sense that it was literally true from the perspective of the person who wrote it.

In other words, “literally true” means one thing if scientists cannot disprove the fundamentalists’ claim and something else if they can.

That kind of doublespeak is exactly what we teach our children not to do when we teach them about lying. Yet fundamentalist religious leaders get away with it because it sells well to people who do not take the time to think seriously about how nonsensical their approach is. The fundamentalists, by disingenuously asserting that they are the ones insisting on interpreting the Bible literally, use this deception to claim the moral high ground. Unfortunately, the media often plays into their agenda by portraying the debate over evolution as a fight between scientists and Christians who “believe the Bible.”

It is not. The debate is between scientists (many of whom are Bible-believing Christians) and a sub-group of Christians who use selective literalism to prey on the public’s biblical ignorance and to sell their social agenda. Despite the fundamentalists’ claims, their brand of selective literalism is not essential to the Christian faith. Christian scholars around the world recognize the first three chapters of Genesis for what they are, two different and internally contradictory retellings of a popular Babylonian creation myth. The editors of Genesis included these two myths, not as scientific treatises, but as reminders that all of the Earth is the product of the careful intention of a loving and affectionate God. Misusing that beautiful message to drive a wedge between science and faith does not protect the Bible’s authority, it abuses it.

The debate over homosexuality is really rooted in the debate over feminism (in its classic sense). Historically, Western Europeans viewed people as existing in two categories: male and female - with social, political, and religious roles determined by which category a person fell into. In the past century, most of us have come to recognize that we’re all just people, some of whom are male and some of whom are female, but that the male/female distinction does not allow us to make universal generalizations about people other than in regards to their role in reproduction.

This shift has allowed for another change in perspective. Previously, it was assumed that everyone was meant to be heterosexual, since all the members of one category were expected to reproduce with the members of the other category; althought not all at once since that gets messy. Consequently, any same-sex, sexual activity was viewed as aberrant from the norm. With a more nuanced understanding of sex and gender, however, came a more nuanced understanding of sexuality. Homosexuality has come to be understood as one of a couple of possible sexual orientations rather than as an activity that violates the only possible sexual orientation. Speaking in terms of Christian ethics and sin, this shift is important because discussions of orientation and identity run much deeper than issues of which behaviors are acceptable. (In addition, it is worth noting that, in my opinion, much of the hostility you now see directed at gay rights is redirected anger over the full inclusion of women in our society and our churches - another discussion for another time.)

OK, so the next question is: Is homosexuality an unhealthy sexual orientation born of the brokenness of the world, or does it have equal standing with heterosexuality. That is to say, is homosexuality, like heterosexuality, neither bad nor good? Are there healthy, God-honoring homosexual relationships just as there are healthy, God-honoring heterosexual ones? Here are three approaches commonly used by people who say “Yes, homosexuality is an equally valid sexual orientation for Christians.”

1. One approach is to say that Christianity is ultimately about an understanding of the nature of God, the cosmos, humanity, and eternity - not about specific behaviors. A Christian is a person who pursues a relationship with a loving God through the death of God’s only son, Jesus in the merciful hope of the resurrection. That relationship is intended to heal the sinful brokenness of humanity, but sin itself isn’t about specific behaviors (otherwise, to “save” ourselves, we would simply need to correct all of our bad behaviors). Sin is about a fundamental brokenness in ourselves and in our relationships, and only the self-sacrificing love of our merciful God can restore what is broken within and among us. Those who follow this approach typically do not look to the Scriptures for guidance on the acceptability of specific behaviors.

2. Another approach comes from biblical scholars who argue that the small number of texts that deal with homosexual behavior are not addressing the issue of committed, consensual, adult same-sex relationships. In other words, the biblical authors wrote in and for a cultural paradigm that could not conceive of homosexuality as an orientation, only as an aberrant behavior. Consequently, they lump it in with a lot of other behaviors which they considered obviously unhealthy or anti-social. In a different context and paradigm, however, it is now possible to have healthy, loving, monogamous, same-sex relationships, so the applicable biblical principles are not the ones criticizing homosexual behaviors but rather the ones that describe how to have healthy, mutually supportive marriages.

3. A third approach builds on the two above. Some Christians note that there will always be some ambiguity about what is and is not sinful, even as they also recognize that this does not make discussions of sin and ethics irrelevant. While Christians should work hard to lead sinless lives, the heart of Christianity remains the development of a mature relationship with a merciful God who (hopefully) understands that we sometimes have to make choices on issues about which we do not have full clarity. (This is, essentially, a more conservative restatement of position 1.) These folks also recognize that there is considerable ambiguity in the biblical texts about homosexuality (see position 2). With both of these points in mind, and faced with an ambiguous ethical situation, they choose the more charitable perspective.

In other words, if the applicability of these biblical texts to the current situation is unclear, and if ultimately relationship with God through Jesus is more important than precision on exactly what is and is not a sin, then - faced with no clear answer either way - should we chose to separate people who love each other and want to create healthy families together, or should we instead nurture their love and their families in our churches and in our communities? Is it more Christian to nurture commitment, faithfulness, and love or to block it?

Years ago, it was ultimately argument three that persuaded me.

If only it were that simple. In practice, there are other questions we must ask. Does a God of love and life ever support war? Does such a God understand that some innocent civilians will die when we fight to protect our freedoms? In other words, does God approve when we make the decision to kill other people to protect our quality of life? What about when we kill to prevent genocide? Does God have a holy balancing scale that weighs intangibles like “intent” and “the greater good,” or one that compares the number of innocent lives lost against the number of innocent lives saved?

We do not know. For every Christian with a “God Bless Our Troops” sticker on their bumper there is another with “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” on their rear windshield.

If my experience as a pastor is any indication, it is unlikely that the driver of either car would be making their point from the kind of complex theological arguments I learned in seminary. In practice, our upbringings and our biases and our circumstances have much more to do with what we believe God thinks; and we are often inconsistent. How else could we re-interpret Jesus’ teachings, which were widely regarded as purely pacifistic in the Early Church, as an argument for violence in some cases and an argument against it in others? How else could we spend millions of dollars to oppose abortion – despite no clear biblical argument for or against it – and ignore the overwhelming number of biblical texts that explicitly command us to care for the poor.

For the vast majority of Christians, it is not about consistency – it is about convenience. Even those of us who speak passionately about protecting the weak often forget that our willingness to purchase cheap goods produced by exploited workers sentences children to poverty, disease, violence and death. The cars that we drive, the food that we allow to be marketed to children, the tax breaks we support or oppose, they all have a life-or-death impact on the most vulnerable among us. It is not only in war that we make decisions to value one life over another. Consciously or not, we do it every time we go to the supermarket.

The issue of abortion is not about whether life starts at conception. There are convincing arguments either way. The issue is which carries more weight: the life that may be in the embryo or the life and needs of the woman in whose body that embryo was conceived?

After spending time in women’s health clinics, I have come to realize that the “most vulnerable and helpless” who need our active protection are the women and couples who are faced with the agonizingly difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. As a Christian pastor, I strongly support protecting the right of women to make this decision. Other Christian pastors have chosen otherwise, and our division on this issue is proof that there is no Christian consensus here.

The far-right, however, has been able to set the issue of abortion apart from all of the other controversial, life-or-death decisions we make every day. Abortion is not a special case; and I pray that the guardians of our Constitution will continue to protect our freedom to choose our own priorities in all of these weighty matters. The beliefs or prejudices of some, regardless of who has a majority, should not be used to take the choice out of the hands of the woman who will be the main bearer, perhaps the only bearer, of the consequences of her decision.

Everything old is new again.  Georgians have elected a reactionary state legislature that seems intent on using the first part of the twenty-first century to turn back the progress our state was making into the twentieth one.  As much as they might like to, the legislature cannot subvert the constitutional protection that women have over their own bodies.  They can, however, introduce their own type of “literacy test” – and that is just what they have done with the ironically named “Woman’s Right to Know Act.”

In the minds of some Georgia state legislators, apparently the “right” to hear the legislators’ views on the consequences of abortion supersedes the right of a rape victim to not be forced to carry the child of her rapist.  Apparently our legislature thinks that fear of physical pain, family recrimination, social stigma, and guilt are not sufficient impediments to abortion.  Their obvious hope is that a woman who has already grappled with these concerns and made the difficult decision to seek an abortion will, upon being forced to seek the procedure twice, lose her resolve.

I suspect that, in this regard, the legislature has underestimated the determination of Georgia’s women fight back against this kind of bullying.  Nevertheless, our state senators and representatives should be ashamed.  Women who seek abortions do not do so in a state of ignorance, and the physicians who perform the procedure are not incompetent or insensitive amateurs incapable of assessing the physical and emotional impact of terminating a woman’s pregnancy.  There is no need for this law, and the fact that its only supporters are people who want to outlaw abortion entirely demonstrates this.

A President serves for a short time and with limited authority.  Our state and federal constitutions, on the other hand, are the foundational documents that define our rights as citizens.  Our ancestors showed great faith in us by creating a system that would allow us to alter those rights, and historically their faith has been justified.  We have chosen, for instance, to extend the rights that were once limited to white men to people of both sexes and all races.

Sadly, some political groups are hoping to reverse this trend and transform the Constitution of the State of Georgia into a weapon against liberty.  Ignoring real threats like promiscuity, divorce, and unwed pregnancy; they claim that the only way to “protect” marriage is a constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian citizens from marrying.  In addition, the actual amendment (which differs from the wording we will see on the ballot) may withhold even the benefits of civil partnerships from Georgians in homosexual relationships.

In a secular society, there is no rational justification for this prohibition.  Perhaps more to the point, there is no conclusive theological argument to oppose same-sex unions either. Nevertheless, since logic is not on their side – and despite our tradition of church-state separation – opponents of same-sex marriage have had to rely on weak theological rhetoric to support their cause.  As a member of the Christian clergy, I realize that their arguments are far less conclusive than they will admit.  In fact, my faith and theological education are what lead me to support same-sex marriages.

My greatest concern about the proposed amendment, however, is not as a clergyperson.  Every citizen should be deeply distressed that the Constitution of Georgia might be used as an instrument to impose the beliefs of one group on a minority of our fellow citizens.  Although laws may change to meet the majority’s wishes, the fundamental rights of citizenship within our state constitution are not intended to be subject to the biases of even a majority.

Taking advantage of a preponderance of socially conservative voters to pervert that protection is a shameful act, and I hope the people of Georgia will not fall for the prejudicial rhetoric that encourages it.  To put it plainly, the issue is not a hypothetical threat to heterosexual marriage.  The issue is that same-sex marriage opponents are simply uncomfortable with homosexual relationships, and they hope that there are enough people who share that discomfort that they can get sufficient votes to impose their will on the minority.

This attitude of domination by ideology is the real threat to our nation.  If a majority of citizens can use their religious beliefs to dramatically limit the freedoms of a minority group that does them no harm; what other threats to personal liberty might emerge from other, future majority groups?  If the personal beliefs of some citizens can prevent two men or two women from getting – through lifelong commitment – the legal protections and financial benefits that two Hollywood actors can get after one night in Vegas; what other rights might fall victim to the prejudices or preferences of the majority?

The vote on November 2 is not a vote on gay marriage.  By simply touching a button on a screen, every voter in Georgia will act to either affirm or subvert the tradition of liberty upon which our state and nation were established.  Our foremothers and forefathers trusted us to rise above our personal beliefs when faced with that decision; and I pray that we will once again prove their trust to be justified.

In the early days of our nation, our interpretation the Constitution was not nearly so inclusive. Women and slaves were denied full participation in the process that created the laws which governed their lives. Yet part of the genius of the Constitution is its flexibility, and it was amended to provide greater protection and participation for all American citizens.

Increasingly our judiciary – whose job is to insure that the majority cannot capriciously make laws which unfairly impose its will on the minority – has recognized that gay and lesbian folks still have not received the full protection of the Constitution.

As part of that process, they have recognized that there is no compelling reason to keep adults of the same sex from marrying. Homosexual couples, like heterosexual couples can build marriages (in all but name) that last a lifetime; marriages that are stable and monogamous; marriages that exist in loving homes filled with laughter; and marriages that raise healthy children who become productive members of society.

Some groups, who feel inexplicably threatened by the committed relationships of same-sex couples, have created volumes of material attempting to claim that homosexual marriages are somehow qualitatively different from heterosexual marriages. They raise bogeymen of promiscuity, pedophilia, and domestic abuse. They can do so successfully because many in their constituency do not know enough (if any) same-sex couples to have a realistic opinion on the subject.

Of course, the propaganda from the far right fails to remind us of what we do know; people in heterosexual marriages engage in promiscuity, pedophilia, and domestic abuse at an alarming rate.

Our nation’s founders wanted our judges to be insulated from that kind of propaganda and the prejudices associated with it. To their credit, many members of the judiciary have seen through the transparent arguments of the far right. They recognize that healthy homosexual relationships demonstrate conclusively that there is nothing intrinsic to same-sex marriages that makes them a threat to society. Likewise, they recognize that the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors among people in opposite-sex relationships makes it clear that proponents of heterosexual marriage are not in a position to claim a moral high ground.

Which is why the proponents of the so-called “Defense” of Marriage Act should be ashamed of themselves. They are attempting to subvert the role of the Constitution by changing it from a document that protects individual rights to one that enforces the religious and social prejudices of a particular group. Whether that group is in the majority or the minority is irrelevant. What matters is that the right against which they hope to legislate poses no threat to our society.

The sex of the participants in a marriage is obviously not the determining factor in its health. If proponents of the new amendment really wanted to defend marriage; they would legislate against the unhealthy behaviors about which they claim to be concerned. Instead, they are attempting to restrict the freedoms of a minority group that wants nothing more than legal protection for their families. In so doing, the propagandists on the right are trying to subvert the Constitution by changing it from a barrier of protection to a wall of oppression.