This is a response to a reply in Svenska Dagbladet. SvD does not publish rejoinders, but Lina and the National Board consider it important that Olof Edsinger and David Ekerbring's text does not go unanswered, and that we as a community get to participate in the conversation that is about us and our lives. Therefore, we publish the response to their text here instead.
Links to the texts
In a reply to Per-Olof Eurell regarding the free churches' approach to LGBTQ people in front of Olof Edsinger and David Ekerbring that "it is a matter of course that God loves all people".
That we have reached this consensus is nice to hear, but unfortunately Edsinger and Ekerbring's actions point in a different direction.
The churches are more than involved in this. In the Christian Rainbow Movement, there are many queer Christians who have been excluded from their church contexts, whose family and friends have renounced the relationship with the individual, throwing them into existential, relational, ecclesiastical, and in some cases, actual homelessness. You don't have to be a psychologist to understand that this creates a crisis in a person's life, a crisis that leads to ill health and the risk of suicide. We don't need a future to "expose which attitude in reality reaps the most victims". Exclusion reaps the most victims. Exclusion causes people to lose their faith and leave their churches. But far worse, exclusion kills.
But it is also entirely possible to stick to a "classical Christian sexual ethic" and at the same time treat LGBTQ Christians in accordance with God's unconditional love. It is quite possible to combine a "classical Christian sexual ethic" with an action in accordance with the grace of Jesus. An action that treats LGBTQ people with curious openness instead of harmful condemnation, conversion attempts and exclusion.
It is time for the Pentecostal Charismatic Free Churches to realize that their actions are directly harmful to the individuals they claim God loves. This is evidenced in both research and a large number of individual stories.
I have no ambition to change your theology. Your relationship with God and your interpretation of the Bible is yours to live. But I wish you could change your treatment of LGBTQ people, so that more people can come from your context without the trauma that kills. Or even better, that the LGBTQ Christians who so wish have room to remain in the contexts you represent - without feeling that they are being suffocated.
I am happy to hear that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, are welcome to the contexts you represent. Does it also apply to all people, regardless of gender identity? And are we welcome as who we are, or is it a conditional invitation that requires us to stifle who God created us to be?
If Olof Edsinger and David Ekerbring are serious about us being welcome to their context, and that they truly believe we are loved by God, then I expect them to be open to further conversations about how we can jointly counter the unhealthy LGBTQ -Christians experience. Because although we may never find a theological consensus, something I neither see as necessary or even desirable, I hope we can share a longing for a world where none of God's beloved children believe they have lost their right to life because of who they fell in love with or what pronoun they feel comfortable with.
I'm not looking for debate, I'm looking for conversation and collaboration. Let's have a coffee. I invite.
Lina Landström
Förbundsordförande Kristna regnbågsrörelsen – Riksförbundet EKHO