Basically his position is that Lesbians and Gays are called to live a celibate life (not necessarily to change their orientation although he subtly acknowledges that this may be possible). He clearly stands against the church blessing homosexual marriages and ordaining practicing homosexuals as ministers. But he has no problem ordaining non-practicing ones.

Hays may not be an evangelical but he sure is a very biblical Methodist, and one that knows the Bible more than any evangelical I’ve seen. He points out that an often cited passage against homosexuality is Rom 1:21-28, which actually says that homosexuality is the product of the disorder wrought about by sin, and not sin itself as a choice. This is exactly in line with what we know from the scientists who point out that for most people sexual orientation is not really a choice. After all, Romans says “God gave them over…” (Rom 1:24,26,28). This means that the church is in no position to judge someone merely for his/her sexual orientation.

Hays also points out that if you really think about it celibacy puts the LGBT community exactly in the same position as heterosexuals who are unable to find a partner (and there are many of them).

In my view, (I’m not speaking for Hays now), the main problem and the reason why this issue is so hotly debated today is because we live in a culture that glorifies sex, romantic relationships, and marriage. We can see this not only on the pervasiveness of pornography but also on “wholesome” TV shows in which families have a good time. How is the LGBT community supposed to feel in this culture? Obviously they want a piece of it too.

The Church has also been complicit in creating this culture. In many churches, 1 Corinthians 13 is a favorite as a sermon for marriages, even though this chapter is not really talking about marital relationships. As for UBF, of course, it is not guilty of glorifying marriage as romance, but it is guilty of glorifying it as mission. What a load of lies! The fact is that one is in a much better position to serve God and the church as single rather than married (1 Cor 7:32,34-35). This is common sense. A married person has to care for his family first (1 Cor 7:33). The New Testament is full of passages that favor celibacy over marriage. {Think of the following: the Sadducees testing Jesus about the resurrection (Mt 22:30); Jesus saying that it would be better for women not to nurse children when the end is coming (Mt 24:19), the fact that Jesus himself never got married, and Paul himself explicitly says it is better to be celibate (1 Cor 7:8)}.

Yet I remember Friday meetings in Chicago where someone would share that maybe it is better to be like Mother Barry, and then you would hear uncontrolled laughing from the Koreans. I never really understood what was so funny.

As for UBF thinking that marriage is for mission, I think that it confuses a purpose versus a prerequisite. Mission is not the main purpose of marriage, but rather it is a prerequisite. If indeed mission was the sole purpose of marriage, then perhaps I should have married Joshua Jeon. (Sorry my friend for using your name.) We would have been great partners for the gospel. But obviously we didn’t because it is unnatural and we are not attracted to one another.

I could talk about the pitfalls of marriage in UBF at another time. The point is that a church that does not honor celibacy as a feasible option and really as superior to marriage according to the Scriptures is not really in a position to reach out or judge the LGBT community. This applies to UBF and many churches in America. For us to get this issue right, before we even talk about LGBT evangelism, we must renew our minds and not be conformed to the patterns of this world (Rom 12:2). First and foremost there must be a change in our culture about marriage and singleness. Singles should never be looked upon as poor loners and losers, but rather as those with the best potential to spread the Kingdom. Marriage should not be imposed or pressured upon anyone.

As for the political issue (many states supporting or disapproving, and President Obama’s stand) and the fact that the church disapproves of homosexuality, does it then mean that she should take a stand politically on this matter? This is a very complex issue that depends on one’s views about the relationship of the church and the state. I will not deal with this issue here and I myself find it very hard to find the right answers on this one.