The Southern Baptist Convention passes resolution on gay marriage

Andrew Walker and I recently co-authored a resolution on marriage to be considered by our denomination’s annual meeting. I am happy to report that the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Columbus, Ohio just approved that resolution, and you can read the full text below.

This is a momentous time in our national life. In the aftermath of the sexual revolution, Christianity in America stands at a crossroads. We are finding out what it means to bear witness to Christ in a culture that grows increasingly intolerant of our ancient faith. Nowhere is that conflict more acute than in what Christ teaches us about sexuality and marriage. With the Supreme Court poised to rule on the matter later this month, the conflict will only grow more pronounced.

Christ’s teaching about these matters has become in our day a line in the sand—even among those who call themselves Christian. People are choosing either to stay faithful to Christ’s teaching or to array themselves against it. Already, we have been seeing Christian leaders forsake Christ’s teaching on marriage—some who were among us but who are among us no more (1 John 2:19).

It is for this reason that faithful Christians are having to retrench and restate with clarity what Christ has taught us. And that is what Southern Baptists have done today. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not comprehended it (John 1:5). But it shines nonetheless.




WHEREAS, God in His divine wisdom created marriage as the covenanted, conjugal union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:18– 24; Matthew 19:4–6; Hebrews 13:4); and

WHEREAS, The Baptist Faith & Message (2000) recognizes the biblical definition of marriage as “the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime,” stating further, “It is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race”; and

WHEREAS, God ordains government to promote and honor the public good and recognize what is praiseworthy (Romans 13:3–4); and

WHEREAS, The public good requires defining and defending marriage as the covenanted, conjugal union of one man and one woman; and

WHEREAS, Marriage is by nature a public institution that unites man and woman in the common task of bringing forth children; and

WHEREAS, The Supreme Court of the United States will rule in 2015 on whether states shall be required to grant legal recognition as “marriages” to same-sex partnerships; and

WHEREAS, The redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will continue to weaken the institution of the natural family unit and erode the religious liberty and rights of conscience of all who remain faithful to the idea of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and

WHEREAS, The Bible calls us to love our neighbors, including those who disagree with us about the definition of marriage and the public good; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Columbus, Ohio, June 16–17, 2015, prayerfully call on the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the right of the citizens to define marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman; and be it further

RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists recognize that no governing institution has the authority to negate or usurp God’s definition of marriage; and be it further

RESOLVED, No matter how the Supreme Court rules, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirms its unwavering commitment to its doctrinal and public beliefs concerning marriage; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the religious liberty of individual citizens or institutions should not be infringed as a result of believing or living according to the biblical definition of marriage; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention calls on Southern Baptists and all Christians to stand firm on the Bible’s witness on the purposes of marriage, among which are to unite man and woman as one flesh and to secure the basis for the flourishing of human civilization; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists love our neighbors and extend respect in Christ’s name to all people, including those who may disagree with us about the definition of marriage and the public good.


  • julia nolastname

    “That Southern Baptists love our neighbors”

    If this is what you’d call love, I wish you’d love me less. No, really, I can do without your love.

    • Travis Henderson

      It’s obvious to everyone but themselves that they’re merely rationalizing their hatred and fear. The good news–for reasonable people simply looking for equality–is that they’re losing. And frankly, I’m glad they’re doubling down on their bigotry. It’s driving more and more young people away from Christianity–a good thing, in my opinion.

      • Rob Thomas

        “He did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.”
        Might wanna check your comment again, this time in light of scripture.

  • Ike Lentz

    “…some who were among us but who are among us no more…”

    Denny, are you saying that people who disagree with this resolution aren’t christians anymore?
    Maybe you’re just being hyperbolic for effect, but I’d be interested in your answer.

    Also, do you think that same logic would apply to all the christians- like jonathan edwards- who came down on the wrong side of another social issue- slavery- 200 years ago?

    • Roy Fuller

      You raise a good question. A review of posts on this blog suggest language which can easily be interpreted to mean that those who disagree with Burk’s views are not Christian. While Burk’s response to your question below is helpful, his language in other posts suggest otherwise. As evidence I suggest looking at the post from June 10 where he compares those who disagree with him on same sex marriage to the false teachers in Jude, saying, “they had denied the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which is the essence of spiritual death.” If I am wrong, and I would hope that I am, I would urge Burk to be clearer in his language with regard to what he believes about those Christians who disagree with him.

      • Ike Lentz

        Yes, I find this confusing. It seems like sometimes that language is used by SBC types for rhetorical effect, but when pressed, they back off.

    • steve windon

      Steve Windon
      I’m sure it’s not disagreement with the resolution that would disqualify one as a Christian. Rather disagreement with God’s Holy Word would be a disqualification, I would think. I think you’re desperately seeking a new hermeneutic and you’re just not going to find it in Scripture. Bad news – God hates sin, all sin and condemns those who practice sin to hell. Good News – God gave His only Son to die the death I deserved for practicing that sin. He tells me to “go and sin no more”!

  • James Bradshaw

    ‘RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists recognize that no governing institution has the authority to negate or usurp God’s definition of marriage”

    The government already extends legal recognition to couples whose relationships the Bible would not sanction: interfaith couples, previously married heterosexual couples, etc. On the other hand, Kings David and Solomon would not find their many wives recognized by American law (though they were considered legitimately married by Scripture).

    I think traditionalists can find better ways to uphold and encourage their ideals than fighting the legal recognition of couples who are seeking to eschew promiscuity for commitment.

    By the way, the date of this convention in Columbus, Ohio coincides with Gay Pride week there … an interesting bit of irony.

    • buddyglass

      Yeah. The quoted portion is what I mainly disagree with. Denny actually agree, I think, on who God considers “married” in the spiritual, cosmic sense. Where we disagree is on the issue of whether Christians are obligated to attempt to bring the secular, legal definition of “marriage” into alignment with God’s criteria. I don’t think there’s any such obligation. In fact, I might go so far as to say Christians are obligated not to oppose expansions to the secular definition of marriage, so long as they don’t grant legal coverage to harm innocents. For instance, Christians should oppose expanding marriage to allow adults to marry children since that would give legal coverage to child abuse.

    • Brian Oakley

      The situations you site as being scriptually unacceptable were not same sex marriages. That is the difference. Also, same sex marriage does not mean commitment. Most homosexuals in “committed” relationships have an average of 6 other lovers outside their “committed” relationship. And regardless if civil authorities say same sex marriage is ok, that still doesnt change Gods mind.

      • Geneva Vaughn

        I agree. Thanks for the resolution info. Haters are going to get on a Christian topic to discourage; its not working! “THEY” may win the battle; but Christians win the war! Everyone is entitled to HAVE an opinion; but expressing it is not an encourage option at times. It is better to keep your tongue….

  • Chuck Rich

    Have we reached a point in our culture where we are marked as haters and bigots for standing for the truth of scripture? Christianity used to be the moral compass that held our country together. Whether you were a believer in Christ or not, there was at least a recognition that Biblical truth was inheritently good. Now, we’re entering an age where what was good is now considered evil and full of hate. Isaiah 5:20. Futhermore, there are other religions that behead homosexuals and throw them off buildings. Yet, the target is painted on the Christian cake decorator who politely objects to baking a cake for a gay wedding, is labeled a hater and put out of business.

    This debate is not simply about same sex couples that just want to be left alone to marry in peace, ironically in a time where the national divorce rate is over 70% and more and more couples regardless of sexual orientation are opting out of a long term committed marriage altogether. No, this is one of many attempts to force Christians to not only comply but embrace a world view that will eventually be void of anything that God sees as good. A supreme court ruling in favor of gay marriage is only the beginning. If we don’t stand for truth now, there soon won’t be a line left to draw.

  • Samuel Ramos

    Loving our neighbors does not represent to approve their sin. All christian have the moral and spiritual responsibility to not only teach but to live what the Holy Bible states. This is of course if you believe in the Lord and Jesus Christ.

    • buddyglass

      Loving one’s neighbor may mean, however, not leveraging the state to punish their sin and/or not denying them certain legal designations on the basis of that sin.

      For example, I think it’s a sin to blaspheme God. At the same time I’d say it’s “unloving” for a believer to advocate that blasphemy become a crime.

      Of course, there are other situations where loving one’s neighbor very much does obligate the Christian to support leveraging the state to punish sin. For example, we probably both agree that Christians are obligated to support the continued criminality of murder.

    • buddyglass

      God also said, “Though shalt have no other gods before me.”

      Does that settle the issue of whether it should be legal in the United States to worship gods other than the God of the Bible?

      God also said, “Though shalt not commit adultery.”

      Does that settle the issue of whether adultery should be illegal?

      • Gus Nelson

        If the Bible is true, then it’s already “illegal” to worship other Gods or to commit adultery. This is, I think, to some extent what the SBC is trying to get across with this resolution regarding gay “marriage.” Whether a political institution of any kind does or does not recognize what God has ordained doesn’t change what God has ordained. So what you’re asking is whether human beings should put themselves in a position of passing judgment on what God has already ordained.

        • James Bradshaw

          Gus, what you’re asking is for a society governed by Biblical law. Societies that have sought to do as such have proven to be just as tyrannical and oppressive as any far Left regime. Look st Calvin’s Geneva or Spain under Ferdinand.

          • Gus Nelson

            James: As a believer, of course I think society ought to be governed by God’s law. Human beings, however, tend, as a result of sin, to corrupt what God has ordained. We should, nonetheless, strive to follow God’s law as closely as possible, even when in our human frailty we miss the mark. There should be a level of humility involved here, as well. Perhaps that may have been missing in Spain and/or Geneva? In any event, if God’s law is good, just, and righteous as God is good, just and righteous, then does it not follow that those are the laws that we should follow?

        • buddyglass

          If the Bible is true, then it’s already “illegal” to worship other Gods or to commit adultery.

          I don’t follow. It seems like you’re confusing “illegal” with “wrong”. Not everything that’s “wrong” is (or should be) illegal.

          Whether a political institution of any kind does or does not recognize what God has ordained doesn’t change what God has ordained.

          I’m in full agreement with you here. Same-sex couples that legally marry are not actually “married” in the true spiritual sense of the word.

          In legal terms, however, they are. What I’m not seeing is the compelling reason why I, as a believer, should strive to deny same-sex couples access to the legal designation we call “marriage” so as to keep the criteria for that legal designation as close as possible to God’s criteria for one-flesh marital union.

          In some cases I do see a compelling reason to fight to keep the “Christian” view enshrined as the law of the land. For instance, if there were a movement afoot to expand the legal definition of marriage to allow adults and small children to “marry” then I’d say the believer is obligated to oppose it. Not because adults sleeping with small children is “wrong”, per se, even though it obviously is, but because giving legal cover for adults to sleep with young children is not “giving justice to the weak” or “upholding the cause of the oppressed”, both of which believers are called to do.

          “So what you’re asking is whether human beings should put themselves in a position of passing judgment on what God has already ordained.”

          Maybe I’m thick, but I don’t think that’s what I’m asking. I’m asking whether a believer who holds to the strict biblical definition of marriage is further obligated to strive to keep the secular legal definition as close to the biblical definition as possible.

          • Gus Nelson

            Buddyglass: I’m not confusing anything. That’s why I put the word “illegal” in quotes. Moreover, while wrong and illegal aren’t always the same in our human conception of things, it is certainly clear that wrong is “illegal” in the sense that in God’s law they’re one in the same. It’s wrong to lie, but it’s not always illegal, for instance, in the human framework, but in God’s framework it’s “illegal” in the sense that it breaks God’s law. Perhaps I should have drawn this out more fully in my first comment. I do think believers are obligated to strive to keep the secular legal definition as close to the biblical definition as possible. If the Bible is, in fact, God’s word, and if God is holy, righteous and just, then are not God’s commands and laws what is best for people? This being the case, the believer ought to seek what is best. If the secular law and the Bible clash, then the believer has a choice to make.

            • buddyglass

              “I do think believers are obligated to strive to keep the secular legal definition as close to the biblical definition as possible.”

              Here’s where we disagree, then. I recognize situations where the believer is obligated to advocate for liberty, even when said liberty may be used to act in ways that are contrary to God’s design.

              To give one example, I think believers are bound to advocate against laws that criminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults. Not, by the way, because I consider said acts to be morally neutral. I don’t.

              Do you propose to bring the secular, legal definition of “free speech” in line with God’s law? That is, blasphemy against the God of the Bible and/or course language aren’t protected speech?

              What about “freedom of religion”? Bringing that into line with God’s law would seem to preclude the free worship of false gods and idols.

              If the Bible is, in fact, God’s word, and if God is holy, righteous and just, then are not God’s commands and laws what is best for people?

              Yes, God’s commands are what’s best for people. At issue is how far you’re willing to go to compel people to do what’s best for themselves.

      • Scott McCauley

        buddyglass, the logic of opposing redefining marriage is not [if God forbids it, then we should have a civil law against it]. The logic is [if it’s harmful to the long term well being of our society, then our government should not endorse it].

        • buddyglass

          The logic is [if it’s harmful to the long term well being of our society, then our government should not endorse it].

          If that were the case then SSM opponents wouldn’t frequently point out the sinfulness of homosexuality and biblical invalidity of same-sex marriages. Right? How is that stuff relevant if the question hinges solely on whether same-sex marriage i.e. “igood for society as a whole”?

          Moreover, since God’s design is good and virtually all sin has earthly consequences, one can probably make the case that every sinful act is, ultimately, “harmful to the long term well being of our society”. Blasphemy, fornication, gluttony…you name it.

          But I’m willing to deal with the issue in terms of long-term harm. Two thoughts there:

          First, I’m not convinced allowing same-sex couples to access legal marriage is ultimately harmful to society in the long-term, relative to the status quo where same-sex relationships, procreation and adoption are all legally permitted.

          Second, even if there is long-term harm that doesn’t automatically argue against allowing same-sex couples access to legal marriage. Plenty of other vices are harmful in the long-term that we nevertheless make legal room for on the basis of individual liberty.

          • Scott McCauley

            I can’t control how other Christians argue their case. But from my perspective, the biblical references become valid when defending why a Christian baker, for example, as legitimate grounds for refusing to service a same-sex ceremony for religious reasons.

            Regarding your second issue with my “long-term harm” argument, Redefining marriage would go beyond making “legal room for” this “vice”. It would take the same vehicle created to promote, strengthen and encourage development of families and apply it to, in my view, a harmful, and unquestionably sub-optimal “family unit”. We already made “legal room for” this “vice” by abolishing laws against the homosexual act itself. That’s one thing, but actually promoting it by giving it the same recognition as traditional marriage is just plain bad for our country.

            • buddyglass

              I can’t control how other Christians argue their case.

              Granted. My point was just that many believers who oppose same-sex marriage seem to do so expressly because homosexuality is sinful and same-sex marriages aren’t spiritually valid.

              Redefining marriage would go beyond making “legal room for” this “vice”. It would take the same vehicle created to promote, strengthen and encourage development of families and apply it to, in my view, a harmful, and unquestionably sub-optimal “family unit”.

              Question: would this logic not also apply to the re-marriage of individuals divorced for illegitimate reasons (in the biblical sense)? Such marriages are, arguably, not marriages at all. Much like same-sex marriages. We already make legal room for these individuals by not prosecuting their adultery should they decide to shack up. Isn’t allowing them to marry again taking a vehicle designed to promote, strengthen and encourage the development of families and applying it to a unquestionably sub-optimal family unit?

              On a completely separate note: same-sex couples can already produce children (via a donor or surrogate) and/or adopt. So these sub-optimal family units are already forming. Given that, what is the net effect of allowing same-sex couples access to legal marriage?

              1. Will more same-sex couples decide to raise children if marriage is on the table?

              2. Among same-sex couples that do want children, is putting marriage on the table going to increase the rate at which they successfully produce (or adopt) them?

              If the answer to both of those is “no” then how does putting marriage on the table negatively effect children?

              • Johnny Mason

                Buddy, read anything by Ryan Anderson. He has answered this question elegantly countless times. His articles have appeared on this blog and he is deemed the premiere voice for traditional marriage. It hurts children by purposely denying them a mother or father. It hurts children by making the claim that mothers and fathers do not matter and are interchangeable. The net effect is enshrining this into law. The law is a teacher. The law will now say mothers and fathers do not matter. We have seen happen before, when we enshrined no fault divorce into law. We have seen what happened when we enshrined sexual licentiousness into law.

                So enshrining same sex “mirage” into law will not strengthen families or society. It will not encourage marriage or families. It will do the exact opposite.

                • buddyglass

                  It hurts children by purposely denying them a mother or father.

                  That’s only the case if said children would actually have a mother in father in the absence of legal same-sex marriage. The comparison isn’t between “child with mother and father” and “child with two same-sex parents”; the comparison is between “child with two unmarried same-sex parents” vs. “child with two married same-sex parents”.

                  Same-sex can already adopt and procreate (via donor or surrogate), so the status quo is “children being raised without a mother and father”.

                  “It hurts children by making the claim that mothers and fathers do not matter and are interchangeable.”

                  Simply making a claim doesn’t hurt children. Accepting for the sake of argument that not having both mother and father is significantly disadvantageous to children, legally recognizing same-sex marriages only hurts children if it causes more children to wind up in that situation (i.e. two same-sex parents).

                  Convince me that’s going to happen. Because I’m not sure it will.

                  We have seen what happened when we enshrined sexual licentiousness into law.

                  Would you prefer to roll back that decision and jail people for sexual licentiousness?

                  • Johnny Mason

                    what the legalizing SSM does is further distance children from marriage. It solidifies marriage, not as an institution to raise children, to bind the child with his mother and father, but as an institution centered on adult desire and romance. It says that mothers and fathers do not matter and are interchangeable. It will also further commodify children, since having children will now be about satisfying the desires of adults. We are already seeing the commoditization of the womb, with surrogacy and gay adoption.

                    Adoption has always been a bitter sweet endeavor. It is sweet for the adoptive parents because they will be able to raise and care for a child, and it is bitter because the only reason he is being adopted is because he has suffered great loss. So adoption provides a mother and father to a child who has none. But with the moral decay of families through the sexual and cultural revolution and the further decay brought about by LGBT movement, adoption is turning from providing a mother and father for a child into providing a child to satisfy the yearnings and desires of adults.This discussion always talks about the needs and “rights” of adults, but continually ignores the needs and rights of children, with the primary right being raised by their biological mother and father, and absent that an adoptive mother and father.

                    All the convincing you should need is to look around and see the increase in surrogacy, the pricing of the womb, and the commodification of children. Hear the voices of those raised by gay couples who yearn for a mother or father.

                    So legally recognizing SSM shouts from the rooftops that kids have no need for a mother and father. That adult desire is all the matters. That marriage, as an institution, serves no purpose, or that its primary purpose (the raising of children) is no longer valid.

  • Joe Dallas

    Thank you for the hard work you put into this, Denny. This resolution reads well and will help equip believers in general to better articulate the Biblical position.

  • Gary Brumley

    Not to split hairs here, but I always cringe when I see the language “gay marriage” when we should be talking about “same sex marriage.” The two are not synonymous. Gay refers to the sexual attractions of an individual, whereas “same sex” refers to the genders of the individuals entering into marriage. Gayness in marriage isn’t the issue at hand. We’re not debating whether or not individuals with same sex attractions can enter into marriage (marriage being defined as between a man and a woman). There are many Christians who experience same sex attraction who are nonetheless faithful to Christ and faithful in marriage (again, to a person of opposite gender).

    • Brett Cody

      Actually Gary, same sex marriage doesn’t exist. It is a sinful fiction. It would be better labeled “so-called same sex marriage”…though just refusing to carry out the charade in order to tickle the ears of the ‘enlightened’ will bring on a surge of vitriol. Note the recent Jenner ordeal. I think deep down they know the power of semantics.

  • Louise Moore

    What is so hard for liberals to understand, God loves the sinner and hates the sin, homosexuality is an abomination before God, frankly God instituted marriage for a purpose, man and woman, if people choose to turn their back on marriage, that is a choice they make God gave us a free will, judgement day will come, we can rationalize all we want and fight and all but God is God and He gave us a rule book, our problem today is we want it our way, not Gods, look at the mess we are in no morals, if man chooses man and woman woman don’t tell me I have to accept it cuz it “aint going to happen. Read what the book says and He must have had a reason to tell us to “study to show ourselves approved etc.

  • Lydia Hines

    Lydia Hines I was born into and raised in a religious(Christian) family. What I believe is that our government must remain separated from religion. That is what the Constitution calls for and what the Bible teaches (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s….). Therefore the Supreme Court must side with gays. Southern Baptists who don’t want to do business with them can close their business or go to jail when the lawsuits find them guilty. What we must NOT allow to happen is one religion blatantly obey the law. No religion should be above the law!

  • Ian Shaw

    Just seems like it’s going to come down to a battle royal between two faiths. Christianity vs. the state (secular humanism- which is a religion)

  • Pam collins

    Thank you to the brave & undoubtedly to be persecuted leaders of the Southern Baptists. You lead your congregations well. The Gospel, that our fallen world so desperately needs, will thrive under spiritual leaders like you. We are fighting for those in a bondage that is not defined by men but by God. Of course those in this particular bondage do not understand, but we will continue to love them & fight for them.

  • Ronald Bytnes

    I believe the bible to be the word of God and that no man has the right to change the meaning of those words. No man and no government has that right. As this nation strays from the word of God, it is becoming more and more evident that Gods blessing on this nation are being removed. Specifically we are being allowed to just do as we please and when we have God completely out of our lives we can only blame ourselves for the outcome. We can turn back to God in true repentance. It starts in our own hearts. Collectively we need to turn back to God.
    The wrath of God awaits this country when we choose to ignore God.
    Gay marriage is against Gods word and should not be allowed as law in this country.

  • Vicki Lambert

    People read your Bible. You have to stand for something and you can’t change Gods word. People make mistakes and that’s human nature. There’s no hate in this decision, or bigotry. It’s merely Gods word.

  • Grace Vanausdall

    If you call yourself “Christian ” then that to me says you believe Gods word, the Bible. We must love everyone but hate the SIN. Gods word is TRUTH!

    • Gus Nelson

      You are correct in saying that it is wrong for SBC ministers to officiate at weddings involving previously divorced parties who divorced for unbiblical reasons. If gay marriage were only a church issue, then you would be profoundly correct in your claim of inconsistency. Where your analogy fails, however, is that former divorcees aren’t seeking legal protection for their sin in a manner that will impact Christian conscience and practice in this country. This is the issue the SBC was addressing here.

      • Jeremy Erickson

        Actually, the reason that divorcees aren’t seeking such legal protection is that they already have it. No-fault divorce has been legal for decades. Why is it a bigger problem for Christian conscience to bake a cake for a gay wedding than to treat a man as no longer married despite his “until death do us part” promise?

  • Karen Anne

    Karen Anne
    My husband and I raised our daughter in a believing household. I knew from the time she was 7 that she might be a lesbian–not because she was sexual, but because she wasn’t like my other daughters. I prayed. She was always prayerful. She was fantastically effective in all aspects of her life. She has tons of friends, excels in school, is a National Merit Scholar, is a wonderful daughter. My daughter is a lesbian. When she told me, she said that she spent years googling things like “How not to be gay.” She didn’t want to be gay because of the way it is looked at in our society. But she is a lesbian. She asked me what I thought, and I said, “God is love.” Even if it is somehow a sin (which I doubt), it is the same as being overweight, having multiple marriages, being unkind, judging anyone else for anything ever. We all need a Savior. I do. My daughter does. Should we kick out the fat, the tax cheats, the adulterers, the mean-spirited, the hateful, those who look upon others in lust? We’d have no one left. My daughter is a lesbian. I love her and God loves her.

    I humbly request that you don’t try to make her miserable. I humbly request that you respond only in love.

    • Christiane Smith

      Hi KAREN,
      Your family’s experience is so like my best friend’s situation . . . her daughter also, from a young age, ‘knew’ she was ‘different’, but she did not inform her parents until she was in her teen years in high school. I have known my friend’s daughter since she and my own daughter were two and a half years old and in Montessori school together . . . and she is very dear to us. I could never ‘judge’ her or want to see her suffer from something she did not choose, and I know we all don’t yet know everything about what causes these differences.

      Karen, I don’t think people want to be unkind. Most people don’t. Please try to forgive those who are. God bless you for wanting your child to be spared the unkindness of those who know no better. We humans are already ALL burdened way to much to lay unkindness on the backs of one another. If, as Christians, we receive gifts of grace, there is no better way to use it than to help in bearing one another’s burdens along the Way.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.