At the beginning of a new school year, Still’s question is an appropriate one for us here at Duke.  After all, we are a bit of a mess inside, too, aren’t we?  Yet, as we meet so many new people this time of year, the natural tendency is to put our best foot forward and hope to conceal our brokenness and pettiness from them.  Maybe, we think, if I can just show them my best qualities, and hide my blemishes, we can all be great friends.  Maybe then I’ll be accepted.

But when we come around Jesus and those who love him, we have to throw all such pretense out the door.  Within the context of a community that loves and worships Christ, we can and must be real with each other.   Because as we read the pages of Scripture, it becomes clear that Jesus, rather than looking for the ‘together, ’the ‘polished’ or the perfect, is seeking to befriend and love the unlovely, the wretched and the flawed.  He’s not looking for people with something to offer, but rather calling morally bankrupt, disobedient, broken people to accept his offer to follow him.  Indeed, it seems that the main people who invite his wrath are those who claim to have it together or seek to conceal their rebellion and brokenness.

So as you come to Cru this fall, please know that we want you to come as you are. There are no prerequisites, no qualifying tests, no entrance exams.  Cru exists to help students experience Christ, and the only thing that qualifies anyone for Christ is this—that she be a great sinner, a ‘mess inside.’  For centuries on end, when those kinds of people have come to Christ, they’ve found in Him a deeper love and acceptance than they could have every dreamed.  We pray that you’ll find the same in Him this year at Duke and in Cru.

Blessings,

Cole

Three questions (and they may be composites) were relayed to me, and each is worthy of considerable discussion.  I will do my best to respond, but I want to emphasize, as I did in my talk, that these issues are not fundamentals of the Christian faith.  There is ample room for disagreement.  The point here is simply to show the existence of credible explanations that respect both the authority of Scripture and sound scientific evidence. — Dr. Constance K. Walker

1. What do you think about the discussion that God created the earth with age?  How does this picture fit into what you discussed on Thursday?

There was no time in my talk to mention the other common views held by Christians with regard to the age of the earth (or with regard to creation and evolution).  The question above refers to one of those alternative views.  It favors a literal reading of Genesis chapter 1, but it postulates that when God created the earth some thousands of years ago, he created it so that it looks old—billions of years old.  Unlike the simplest “young earth” view, this position respects mainstream science, though in an odd way.  It says that science is telling us what would have happened if God had taken the long, slow route.

If someone could convince me that I had to take the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, in Genesis 1 to mean a literal 24-hour period, then this is probably the view I would adopt, because the scientific evidence for an old earth is pretty solid.  However, since I see yom used in other ways in Scripture and, in particular, used to denote in indefinite period of time, and since the mechanistic details of the creation process were not pertinent to the main purpose of the narrative (pointing to God’s power, majesty, and sovereignty over the universe), I do not see the need to interpret yom so narrowly.  One can, but one need not.

What bothers me about a young earth created “mature” (created to look old) is that it seems inconsistent with God’s character.  I don’t believe that God deliberately misleads us.  There are things that he may choose not to reveal to us, but he doesn’t deceive us.  “God is not a man that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19, ESV), and deception is a form of lying.  Nor is there any obvious reason for him to make a young earth look old.

2. Do you think the case made against evolution is often overstated?  How so?  Conversely, how do the changes that have occurred in the theory of evolution affect its validity?

The case against evolution and the case for it are probably both put forward with unwarranted certainty.  Those who oppose macro-evolution as a significant explanation for the varied life forms tend to ignore evidence in its favor, just as those who favor evolution as the sole explanation tend to ignore the holes and problems in the evidence supporting it.  We need a little balance in this discussion.

We know that small-scale evolution played a role in the development of the different life forms, and it is likely that larger-scale evolution also played a significant role, but, as I said in my talk, it is not yet clear how much of a role.  Nor is it clear whether or not God intervened directly and “supernaturally” at one or more points.  A likely point for direct intervention might be the development of the first living organism, and there may be others.

I’m not sure what changes in the theory of evolution are referred to in the question.  Science is always changing (“evolving!”) and refining its explanations.  That’s how it progresses.  The science of genetics has provided many new tools and new clues for unraveling the mystery of how our physical bodies and those of the animals came into being, so adjustments in the theory of evolution are appropriate.

In this debate over human origins, we, again, don’t want to lose sight of the main purpose of the Biblical text.  God created all of life, in its varied and intricate forms, but Genesis chapter 2 emphasizes God’s personal and special relationship to humanity.  We have had his Spirit breathed into us; we are spiritual beings, and that side of our nature is outside the reach of science.  The theory of evolution involves only the origin of our physical bodies.

3. How does the “great flood” reconcile with fossil finding and naturalism?  How might the flood validate a “young” earth?

The flood described in Genesis chapters 6-8 is another example of a mysterious event recorded in the Bible for which we lack definitive explanations.  Here again, opinions are divided, even among evangelical scholars, and let me say at the outset that I am certainly not an expert on this issue.  Was the flood global or regional?  When did it happen?  How did it happen?  The best answer to all of these questions is that we don’t know, but theories abound.  The way one answers these questions and the way one reconciles the Biblical account with the fossil evidence and the philosophy of naturalism will depend on one’s predispositions.  Fortunately, the answers do not affect the main purpose of the text: to show God as the moral, righteous judge of all humanity.

Christians who believe that the earth is young will tend to insist that Noah’s flood was global, recent (obviously), and, because it is global, supernatural.  The claim has been made that the fossils found in sedimentary rock formations were not deposited over long geologic ages and do not contain evidence of evolution but represent different layers of sedimentation occurring during the flood.  This supports their young-earth perspective.  Such an explanation of the fossil record has now been largely discarded by mainstream geologists, though a small, devoted group continues to carry out “creation research.”  Naturalists, of course, would reject anything supernatural.

Christians who accept the mainstream science view of an old earth typically accept the fossil record in the conventional way and suggest that the flood covered a vast region, but not necessarily the entire globe.  It was a catastrophic event that certainly wiped out the population of the portion of our planet that was the stage for the human story recounted in the earlier chapters of Genesis.  This would constitute “the earth” for the Bible’s human authors and the original recipients of its message.  As I said in my talk, the Bible is written in the everyday language of its time, not in precise, technical language.  A date for the flood would depend on how the age information in the early chapters of Genesis are interpreted, and, here again, opinions differ.  While there may be a “natural” explanation for the flood (the abrupt filling of the Mediterranean basin when the Straits of Gibraltar first opened?), this would not remove God’s hand from the story.  He timed the flood carefully and warned Noah, his “herald of righteous” (2 Peter 2:5), to prepare for it.  He was in control!

Explanations of the great flood are an issue that has, regrettably, divided Christians and drawn the focus away from the main point of the biblical text.  In chapter 1 of Genesis, Scripture points to God’s sovereign majesty as the Creator of the universe; in chapter 2, it shows us something of his personal nature and of his special, close relationship to mankind; then in chapters 6 through 8, we see God as the moral judge of mankind.  As one commentary puts it, “We should be careful to read the account whole-heartedly in its own terms, which depict a total judgment on the ungodly world already set before us in Genesis. . . . The whole living scene is blotted out, and the New Testament makes us learn from it the greater judgment that awaits not only our entire globe but the universe itself (2 Peter 3:5-7).” [Derek Kidner, Genesis; An Introduction and Commentary, London, Tyndale Press, 1967, p. 95].  This is somber business that we dare not dismiss, but one that naturalists are anxious to avoid.

Question: How do we approach family/friends who aren’t Christian but are LGBT? How do we love but not condone?

Answer: For those LGBT persons who are not Christian, it is important for us to remember that they lack one or more of the following: (i) the spiritual power of Christ’s presence inside their hearts; (ii) the spiritual knowledge of Christ’s pursuit of them; (iii) internal conviction of their sins and their personal need for salvation; and/or (iv) trust in those who actively witness in Christ’s name. This last factor is nearly always present.

For this reason, I do not find confrontational evangelism to be effective. You may feel differently. If so, you need to ask yourself this question: do I use a confrontational approach with ALL non-Christians or only LGBT people? This approach often comes across as self-righteous and pushes LGBT friends away from Christ.

I recommend that we encounter non-Christian LGBT folks wherever they are on their “prodigal” journey. I would rather nurture whatever faith does exist, rather than tear down the faith they do have. This means that I often have to surrender verbalizing much of my spiritual concern for them. This NEVER means surrendering my concern: it simply means investing such concern in fasting, prayer, and radical friendship (serving, loving).

Recognizing that others’ spiritual path to Christ often takes place over a journey, we must build authentic relationships that can last over the long run. Non-Christian LGBT folks need the faithfulness of long-term Christian friends who refuse to moralize them or make urgent demands that are impossible for them to carry out. In other words, we need to stop searching for “approaches” and simply dwell with those who need Jesus.

Most LGBT friends and family already experience tremendous “targeting” of their homosexuality by religious people. They feel judged, excluded, moralized and even hated. They have encountered self-righteousness and hypocrisy in evangelicals. In other words, they have little trust in us. They believe that our offer of friendship will soon turn into a religious agenda. Thus, there is no trust. That means there is NO meaningful relationship…

Proving, over the long run, that we are “for” them maximizes the chances for a deeper intimacy in which spiritual matters can be discussed. To head in that direction, I believe we should first humbly live out our Christian faith for ourselves. Second, extend invitations into our faith community where the Gospel is effectively presented. Third, never turn the Gospel into a religious agenda. Fourth, invite them to dine with us in our homes. Fifth, be prepared to give “your answer” for the faith that you have: that is, be prepared to offer a witness of Christ in words that has been won because of the trust you’ve sincerely built into your relationships.

Nothing about this “love” approach ever condones sin. We give ourselves way too much credit for having the power to condone sin in LGBT people. The factors that drive them toward same-sex desire and action upon such desire run very deep within their psyche. You cannot love too much.

There are many examples that we could look at, but one of the most common questions I get is something along these lines: should I include my gay friend’s partner in dinner invitations? I feel like doing so might validate their relationship. My three immediate thoughts are as follows: (1) as stated above, we are too presumptive about our power to validate relationships that already exist; (2) the driver behind many of our hesitations seems to be fear, which necessarily interferes with our ability to be an authentic friend; and (3) isn’t it likely that our gay friend’s partner also needs Jesus? Isn’t it likely that he too has encountered much judgment and exclusion?

Question: Do you think homosexuality is ever a choice?

Answer: I hesitate before answering this question for one reason: the answer is multi-faceted in a world that demands a single answer. I know people who are engaged in same-sex sexual activity that originates more out of addiction or pornography, rather than homosexual orientation. I know many others who act on same-sex desire principally out of the wounds of sexual abuse, rather than homosexual orientation. For women, some engage in same-sex sexual activity due to emotional codependency – not homosexual orientation. I have identified about 15 types of homosexuality: some do not originate from homosexual orientation, and some involve NO sexual activity at all. My point: sexual and gender identity are quite varied and complex.

Putting that aside, let’s take the most common case: those who are exclusively or principally gay or lesbian. Studies in the early 1980’s – using very small and non-random samples – showed high concordance rates in identical twin pairs. That is, they showed a very high rate of both identical twins being gay. That led to the pop culture idea of a gay gene. Today, we now have large and random samples (Australian Identical Twin Pair Study, for example). The concordance rate has dropped dramatically from 85-100% down to roughly 35%. This indicates genetics play a “predisposing” but not a “predetermining” role in homosexual orientation.

That said, we have to say that genetics could play a role in sexual orientation. Further, other prenatal biochemical factors could play a role as well. Doing studies on the flow of hormones and chemicals in the womb throughout an entire pregnancy will be nearly impossible to ever achieve (at least in meaningful sample sizes). I think it is safe to say that such factors do likely play a “predisposing” role in homosexual orientation. There are other inputs as well: sexual abuse, a physically or verbally abusive parent, an absent parent or less serious but still critically important issues like trouble assimilating with or relating to same-gender peers. These environmental factors also likely play a role in sexual and gender identity.

To those who demand that the answer be either nature or nurture, researchers on both sides of this issue (including gay researchers) describe homosexual orientation as originating in a confluence of both prenatal and environmental factors. There is widespread agreement that there is no gay gene.

So, is homosexuality ever a choice? Yes. But in most cases, I do not believe so (due to BOTH prenatal and environmental inputs).

Question: Fornication is a deep sexual sin as well. Do you think the Church looks at (or should look at) sex before marriage through a multi-dimensional lens?

Answer: Let me clarify a possible misunderstanding: I did not intend to convey that we should view “sin” through a multi-dimensional lens as if we can come to multiple conclusions that fornication is both sin and non-sin. That would be illogical and unbiblical. Rather, I suggested that we must see human beings (yes, sinful ones) through a multi-dimensional lens: particularly those we tend to reduce to an unbiblical one-dimensional characteristic or label. We have done that to LGBT people for a long time.

The question is this: could this apply to other sinners (such as fornicators)? I believe it could. If we ever fail to see the factors that drive others to sin – if all we ever do is label them immoral – we are missing the opportunity to be helpful. To become helpful, we must see sinners (not their sin) through a multi-dimensional lens.

A theoretical example: Tessa is a fornicator. She has sex 2-8 times a day and gets paid for it. We often refer to her as a one-dimensional label: prostitute. This disposition (or lens) rarely invites us to actually care for Tessa, much less do something redemptive to reach her. Alternatively, we (or those NOT tempted by her) can care enough to dig into the various dimensions of her life. When we do, we find she was raped by her father. He beat her and kicked her out of the house when she was 14. She hiked across the Midwest to New York City. Desperate and hopeless, Tessa fell prey to dark forces that led her into false attempts to find value and identity (not to mention survival). On the side, Tessa is now a top online porn star that men throughout the world view. Such men vacillate between worshipping her and condemning her. They laud her but they certainly do not care anything about her – or else they would not use her body for their own sexual release. Particularly Christians…

A real-life example: Amy graduated from my high school. I was over at her home with a group of boys when one of them pulled down his pants and placed his private part on top of her head. She was a beautiful girl, but her self-esteem was deeply broken. That day, we all laughed as this boy effectively communicated to her that she is good for nothing but sex. At my 20^th high school reunion, I saw Amy and she looked so genuinely beautiful. I introduced her to Kang and we both gave her a hug. Then, during the announcements, it became clear that Amy is an internationally known porn star. The entire room erupted in laughter as the former class president of our high school effectively outed her. She is so broken that she found the attention appealing. I guess if you’re a porn star, you thrive on others knowing where to look you up. When Kang and I returned home, we looked up Amy’s “non-pornographic” profile website. I will never forget what her profile said: “My grandfather used to always look at me sexually. He said I was ugly and that I’d never amount to anything. I want to say thanks to all of you who watch me: you prove him wrong every day.”

I do not think the church looks at or should look at sex before (or outside of) marriage through a multi-dimensional lens. Sin is sin. Nor do I believe that Christians should engage in pre-marital or extra-marital sex. There are, however, factors that lead many to do so. While still teaching clearly about sexual immorality, we should be redemptive in helping others avoid such sin. To be redemptive, however, we may have to walk with those who continue to commit such sins. To do that, the very Gospel work that is needed in their lives will require us to gain a multi-dimensional lens to view them by: especially those we single out; those who sin in ways we do not; those who are as broken and lost as my dear high school friend, Amy. I see her NOT as a porn star: rather, I see her as the woman at the well whom Jesus loved. I believe with my whole heart that Jesus will one day reach Amy. I pray for that. And when we see Amy, we will engage her in that redemptive hope without pointing out her life of sin. She needs a Savior; not a Pharisee.

Question: A common view I have heard – on behalf of Christians who think gay relationships are okay – is that everyone deserves to love someone. How do we respond to this?

Answer: Thank you for your thoughtful question. I hear this view regularly. I am sympathetic to the heartfelt compassion behind this idea given that I personally know how painful and difficult it was to surrender my own sexuality (and a partner I dearly loved) to Christ in 1995. Compassion is needed because we often think that LGBT people just need to stop “sinful behavior.” What we miss is that surrendering their sexuality is not just about sex: it is about an entire romantic drive that encompasses how one loves and receives love.

In regards to my own story, I could NEVER surrender my partner and gay identity to Jesus just because the church asked me to. I could NEVER do it just to satisfy the religious demands of other Christians. I did it ONLY because I personally encountered the Living Christ. I did it ONLY in response to the invading power of God’s Holy Spirit into my soul. In the very moment when I “let go” of my sexuality, I can only say this: God deeply filled my entire being with the most amazing peace and joy that I have ever experienced in my life. What does this say? It says to me that Jesus Christ is enough. He is enough to satisfy all our unmet needs.

Beyond my own story, I invite folks to consider the plight of the 130 million orphans in our world. Kang (my wife) and I have intimately invested our lives into the lives of orphans in Siberia, China, Nepal, Kenya and particularly Haiti. We see the same story everywhere: intense suffering. Despite the best attempts of mission activity by the church, tens of millions of orphans struggle to survive. All of them struggle with the inner pain of being abandoned. The drive to want a family – or food – is similar to the drive for sex. All are considered natural needs. Yet many orphans live an entire life in the midst of these needs going unmet.

Does the orphan deserve a mother and father? Does he deserve food? Does she deserve protection against the elements? YES. Yet do many realize such deliverance? NO. They somehow learn to live surrendered to their circumstances under the mysterious glory of God’s sovereignty; a sovereignty that promises to make all things wonderful in heaven; a sovereignty that recognizes that we all will suffer in this broken world until then.

Amazingly, I am struck by how much JOY and PEACE there is in the hearts of the orphans of our world. I have met orphans who have NO choice but to dwell in their unmet needs. I have heard stories of how Jesus supernaturally sends them “manna” from Heaven. That manna is not always food for a hungry belly. Sometimes it is simply an awareness of His presence; a presence that melts away the pain of hunger; a presence that produces unthinkable peace and joy; a presence that brings to life Jesus’ amazing love. Mysteriously, they get a taste of the blessings of the life to come and that taste is enough to get them through their suffering today.

They are innocent: there is nothing immoral about being hungry or thirsty or longing for a father. They are innocent: and they must wait in their hunger and abandonment. With the drive for sex, we too easily cross the line of immorality. These drives are not so innocent. If the orphan must wait, those of us who wrestle with unmet sexual desires must also wait. Yet like the orphan, Christ can supernaturally comfort us and melt our unmet needs if we will seek Him with our whole heart. The more desperate we are, the more likely we are to find that He is enough to satisfy all our unmet needs. This goes for us all. The LGBT person is not alone in this.

Finally, we must reclaim the beauty of true Christian community. We have an opportunity to establish a foundation of safety within the church upon which unmet sexual and relational needs can be nurtured through deep spiritual community. This will require acceptance and safety. Acceptance is not approval: acceptance is simply a sincere realization of the inherent worth of human beings no matter what gender or sexual orientation they have and a compassion for how difficult it must be for one to forever give up expressing desires that involve romance, love and sex. We can work in concert with the Spirit of Christ to be a healing balm toward all who live with unmet needs: the orphan, the widow, the single person, and yes – the LGBT person as well.

Question: Why do you think homosexuality became so detested by society, as opposed to any other sin listed in the Bible?

Answer: I have pondered this question for years. I do not have a definitive answer, but I do have two ideas. First, heterosexual desire is recognized (by most, at least) as God’s intention through creation, history and biological design of male and female. Any kind of sexual activity beyond male and female is viewed not only as immoral: it has historically been viewed as unnatural (perversion). No wonder many cultures throughout time had severe punishments for same-sex sexual activity (regardless of whether it involved romance/love – or not). I am NOT promoting punishment: this is a mere historical fact. Second, throughout the Old Testament, God helps Israel defeat armies by earthly means. Yet in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God does not use an earthly army: he sends holy fire from heaven to destroy these cities because of their immorality. In light of this, I wonder if this set in motion some deep inner sensitivity about the dangers of homosexual sexual activity. This is not intended to elicit a debate about why God destroyed these cities. The questioner simply asked: why all the focus on this particular sin? I am simply postulating what I have considered over the years. I would encourage Christians NOT to rest too easily on these ideas for Ezekiel 16:47 challenges us: “Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.” If that were the standard for God to send holy fire from heaven, we in our day should fear not for the LGBT community but for our own sins.

Question: When someone wrestling with same-sex attraction surrenders their sexuality: do they become more attracted to the opposite sex or remain attracted to the same sex? What does that journey look like? In your own struggle, how were you able to escape the temptations of same sex attraction and instead pursue a healthy relationship with your wife? You said you still had some same sex desires but that you gave that up to God. So, does that mean God was asking you to change who you were, how He made you?

Answer: I make it clear every time I speak that I have not experienced a full release from same-sex attraction. In some seasons, I experience a surprising degree of freedom. In other seasons, same-sex attraction is quite strong. People coming out of homosexuality report a wide range of outcomes. Women report greater degrees of freedom from same-sex desire over the long-term. This is likely because women experience sex “more” through emotions, while men experience it “more” through physical release. Some men experience long periods of freedom from same-sex attraction. Most men do, however, report that material levels of same-sex attraction resurface over time. If that is the case, then what difference has Christ made?

In my case, I always believed that the attractions defined me as “gay” and that my options were to either live a lonely life or find a boyfriend. I lived my teens and early twenties desiring romance, love and sexual expression with a man. Ultimately, I experienced a committed, long-term relationship. Yet when I surrendered my life to Jesus, HE came to live in my heart. I experienced a mental, emotional and spiritual release from “gay identity.” God entered my soul and this “release” occurred instantly. I still deal with desire (strong at times), but I no longer feel an identity attached to the desires. I no longer feel I can ever act on such desires.

The journey looks different for everyone. Here is what it could look like. First, such a person must dive deep into Jesus Christ. If anyone is going to “lose their life in order to gain life,” we all need to be prepared to DIVE DEEP into the presence of Christ. This is where our unmet needs will be nourished. Second, regular mentorship and accountability is needed. Third, involvement in a holistic recovery program that does NOT target homosexuality is recommended (one such program called Celebrate Recovery is widely available throughout the United States). Fourth, journaling about your life story before God will open doors to insights you will need for the journey ahead. Fifth, move forward into God’s will. You should not sit around waiting to be healed. You should go on a mission trip or otherwise express your gifts, talents and purpose in the Kingdom of God. We are not seeking perfection: we are seeking God’s will. You will never be perfect, but you may find deeper healing by being fully immersed into the purposes of God in the church. Sixth, commitment to fellowship and community is imperative. Deep emotional needs – as well as needs for non-sexual physical intimacy – can only be met in community. Seventh, do NOT make getting married your goal. Instead, a surrendered life is what you want to aim for. As you can see, these steps are helpful to ALL people who give their lives to Christ.

Kang and I shared our full life stories with each other in only our second week of knowing one another. We were not interested in dating each other: we were simply in the same young singles group where we all shared our testimonies. All this is to say: there was no hiding of my past from her or anyone in my church. I was given the opportunity to disclose my life to those who cared most intimately for me. That was a healing force in my life. By the time Kang and I began dating, we knew everything about each other. We entered the relationship with eyes wide open. We had the freedom to break it off if things did not work out. No one in our small group was pressuring us to marry. We were given the freedom to go slow. In our case, by the time we started dating, we were deeply in love. We did not date to date: we dated to marry. I discovered that a deep emotional and spiritual love can produce sexual desire. That is what happened in our case. We know similar couples where there is not much sexual desire or sexual activity. But just to let you in on a little secret: we know MANY heterosexual couples where sexual activity has slowed down over the years for a variety of reasons. For women, having children can change their desires significantly. For men, they can sink into unhealthy trends where they masturbate instead of bringing their sexual energy into the marriage. All marriages will face their challenges.