To Morgan:
In response to your post, I'm probably going to raise your ire on a few points. But I expect you know that, if you were going to write that post in the first place. :-)
There is no question that the Church, a loose organization of thieves, beggars and other lowlife scumbags, frequently gets it wrong, no matter what you substitute for "it". However, whether or not the Church correctly applies the "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach, it remains the correct approach. Why? Because that is PRECISELY what God has done and continues to do. He commands (not recommends) it: "Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." If the Church "completely focuses on grace and acceptance" they are proposing a cheap grace, one that provides no relief due to the lack of actual sin from which one needs to be saved. God will not honor the efforts of those that propose a cheap grace any more than He will honor the efforts of those that preach "God hates fags".
But what IS the sin in the first place? Well, let's look at the nature of sin a little before we look at specifics. I am created with a propensity — no, an ADDICTION — to sin, regardless of what that sin might look like. I don't think God cares about one sin more than another (though He does care when the natural consequences of a sin creates suffering). Further, that addiction to sin is not the sin itself. Therefore, I don't believe being created with homosexual tendencies or desires is any more a sin than being created with a tendency to lie.
But what is the sin?! Let's work on the basis that sin must be a conscious, complicit act — a choice to do wrong (however you define "wrong"). Even if tending toward homosexuality is not a choice, participating in homosexuality IS a choice every single time. Let's try that statement with a few different sins:
Again, the desire to sin is not the sin itself. The desire to sin may or may not ever change; some people are "delivered" from pornography, while others struggle with it every day. (Some people experience both deliverance and the daily struggle. Satan is tricky that way.) But that desire to sin "gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."
Let's do the same word substitution with part of your blog post:
Christians need to come to grips with the fact that science, psychology, and popular culture might be right about unrighteous anger not being a choice. I won’t deny that some people really really want to change, and some people who go into programs to try to change really do come out changed. But most do not. That’s just the facts. The Church continues to want the world to be black and white, and it just isn’t.
Feel free to substitute anything you clearly think is sinful and see how you feel about that statement. Should the Church be accepting of people with a tendency toward unrighteous anger? Of course! At the same time, the Church has a responsibility to encourage those people to struggle against those tendencies; to do otherwise is to become the church in Corinth, allowing (and even bragging) about how accepting they were of sinful things that grieved God.
"But pcg, you argued above that we have an ADDICTION to sin. How can you reconcile that with the claim that sinful acts are by CHOICE, since addicts often have no capacity to choose their actions?" My response to that is to go back to James 1: at one moment in time, the homosexual, "by his own evil desire, [...] is dragged away and enticed." At some point in time, it is a choice. By some later point, the ability to choose might be impaired, just as a meth addict becomes nearly incapable of choosing not to use — all because a choice in the past influences the ability to choose now.
Consider choices in my life: I chose to engage in unprotected premarital sex with my first wife. As a result, she became pregnant with Andrew. No matter how hard I try — and some men in this reprobate world try very, very hard — I cannot choose not to be a father. But that is a natural consequence of my earlier choices, and does not excuse any of my behavior now. That is, I cannot say, "I never asked for this" and act with disregard for what I believe to be right, using my position in life as a crutch. (The analogy breaks down, as every analogy does, as being a father is not really seen as sinful by anyone. Still, it's no worse than your "Hispanic" analogy. ;-)
To quote Paul: "What shall we say, then?" I haven't addressed whether or not living in homosexuality and playing that out is actually a sin. I believe it is, but I am not qualified to argue apologetics on the topic. (Besides, that is potentially an even more polarizing discussion, getting into what the Bible really means when it says X and Y, or what ancient Rome was really like, or why God allowed polygamy, or whatever.) I believe whether you believe it is a sin or not is critical to how you approach the subject; if you do not believe that it is a sin, you will not speak out against it — why would you?
So then the question might become: "If you do believe engaging and living in homosexuality is a sin, how do you speak out against it?" I believe that is the crux of your frustration with the Church, and to a great extent I share that frustration with you. I do not believe the answer, though, is to relegate homosexual acts to "the thing that makes us different" any more than "conditional acceptance" is the answer. You need to realize that many honest, God-fearing Christians really and truly believe that it is a sin, and not just a distinction like having blue eyes versus brown eyes. Not speaking out against sin is, itself, a sin. Likewise, those same Christians need to realize that "speaking out against sin" isn't the fruit of the Spirit: it is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Any response to any sin whatsoever that does not incorporate that fruit is ultimately not from God.