Love Free or Die Love Free or Die was the first film of my Sundance Experience, and in many ways it was the perfect way to start this adventure. The content of the film served as a catalyst for the ongoing dialogue my companions and I have been engaged in. I will attempt to elaborate on that content and its ensuing dialogue, but will first give a short critique on the technical aspects of he film. As a documentary work, Love Free or Die contained all the elements of a successful piece of filmmaking. It’s content was engaging, it was beautifully framed, and carried the plot’s development to a satisfying climax. However, I was mildly put of by the heavy handed treatment of the characters who did not agree with the film’s point of view. An example of this is found in the cinematographic effects applied to the scenes involving Rock Warren. These scenes had a “grainy” feel to them, and were lit in such a way as to cast a shadow on Warren’s eyes, which gave him a very villainous quality. This use of lighting was accompanied by a dissonant score, which further conveyed the sense of villainy. The dialogue that the film sparked has proven to be the defining conversation of Sundance for me. The issue of LGBT acceptance and ordination by the church is the hot button topic of our time, and as such its dominance is deserved. Our conversation has revolved around two key points in the debate; is homosexual action sin, and if so how should we respond to it? To the first point, after a careful consideration of the biblical texts, there is only one passage that seems to speak directly to the issue (Romans 1) as it appears in our modern context, and while my personal interpretation of the text is that homosexual acts are sinful, I am able to allow that a different understanding of that text may be valid. This leads directly to the second, and arguably, the more relevant of the two. The issue of ecclesial response to the subject is where the rubber meets the road. This question for us revolved around First Corinthians chapter five, wherein Paul outlines the churches proper response to a willful, sexually immoral act. At the outset, this passage seemed to give a tangible example of the church’s proper response to an issue such as homosexual acts. However, as we studied this passage we discovered that it was addressing a very specific act; incest. So the next logical question seems to be “Is incest comparable to homosexuality?” and we discovered that it is not. The issue of incest explicitly violates three of the Ten Commandments, and fundamentally defies Christ’s mandate that we are to “…love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt. 22:36-40). The issue of homosexual acts is not in violation of ether of these two groups of commandments, and as such does not warrant the same treatment as a case of incest. Thus, we can say with confidence that the biblical approach to homosexual acts is not to expel the transgressor from the assembly. We can then ask how we are to respond to such an issue, and we here can turn to the example of Jesus, who consistently served those He came into contact with by meeting their needs, and then calling them to a holy life. It is important to note that it is not the other way around. The restoration came first, and the call to holiness second. In keeping with the model of Christ, we can then affirm that our call is to love and serve all people, and to live in community with those who profess Christ as the “…Way the Truth and the Life”(Jn. 14:6) and call them to holiness. This does not mean that we should commit the sin of rebellion by acting against our conscience in speaking and living contrary to our understanding of Scripture. If that understanding is that homosexual acts are sinful, we must be faithful in affirming our beliefs. But we must also be careful to avoid the sin of pride by assuming that our understanding of truth is the right one. The very nature of an idea such as absolute truth is that it is independent of interpretations, of me. I am only charged with seeking it to the best of my abilities. It therefore follows that our primary call is to follow the example of Christ in loving homosexuals, restoring them to the community of faith, and calling them to holiness, as we should to all who profess Christ. And after the call to holiness, if they disagree with our understanding of the bible, our mandate remains unchanged. And I am confident that if we are faithful to this mandate the truth will be revealed by our obedience.