Since LEO’s April 9 cover story on Sojourn Church, there’s been plenty of debate and gnashing of teeth over what the church believes, especially as it relates to tolerance toward homosexuals. That includes some debate online here at the V.V. and in numerous letters to the editor of LEO.

This week, I think, LEO puts the subject to rest while asking the key question in the debate: Can Sojourn legitimately claim to be a tolerant church while preaching that homosexuality is a sin?

That’s the question Stephen George asks in response to a letter from Sojourn’s Mike Cospers, which was about as reasonable an explanation I’ve read of the Sojourn philosophy. It sounds like this — gays are welcome at the church, although they can’t be members unless they want to change their orientation. If they want to stick to the gay lifestyle, they can participate in any church activity, without admonishment, except membership. I wouldn’t call that intolerance, and I’m glad that Cospers attempts to distance the church from the fundamentalist followers of the religous right.

Cosper’s letter includes a challenge, though, that should provoke some thought and dialogue. He wrote that there had been talk of boycotting the church’s activities, and challenged anyone who would participate in such folly to consider how hard it would be to be consistent — that it would be difficult to apply some sort of test of philosophy before doing any kind of business with others — if you truly wanted to boycott those with whom you disagree.

Which brings me to my point –  making a decision on whether to associate with someone, or do business with them, shouldn’t include a test of their religious beliefs. We know that it happens, though, and people who choose to buy products and services based on the owner’s religious views are free to do so. And I’m free to criticize them for it.