Once upon a time, Martin Luther divided the Bible in half. There was gospel. And there was law. If I may employ his taxonomy without endorsing its validity: the editors of Christianity Today asked a bunch of evangelical leaders about the gospel response to the judge’s overturning of Prop 8, and what they got instead was the law response.
Prop 8 was a ballot measure in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It was passed. And now a judge has overruled the voters.
So now that a judge has decided that gays can legally marry in California, what is the “gospel” response?
Without rejecting efforts like Proposition 8, politically conservative evangelicals should shift their focus toward equipping the next generation of leaders with the philosophical and theological training they need to affect society and government from the “top-down.”
Commentary: “Jesus, how about when you reign on high you sit one of us at your right hand as president of the world superpower and the other at your left as chief justice of its judiciary!” “You don’t know what you ask, can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism that I’m going to be baptized with? … You know that the Lords of the earth lord it over their people… it shall not be so among you.
The decision of Judge Walker could lead to a Supreme Court ruling as charged as Roe v. Wade. Christians who thought they would be able to just sleep through this issue will not be allowed to.
Commentary: Ok, so “not sleeping” means defending our religious conviction as the position of the Federal Government? To arms, my comrades! To arms! This is the “good news”? For whom, exactly?
…we should focus our efforts not on swaying political opinion but on teaching people what the Bible says about God’s plan for marriage and the family.
Commentary: so “the gospel” is about teaching the right things. If only we teach better all will be well!
Two of the people surveyed hit the nail on the head, and I suppose that’s why they surveyed so many folks: so that each of us can find someone we think got it right and identify the others whom we think are the sell-outs. (Self-deprecating irony alert.)
Alan Chambers, who actually knows gay people, said this:
I believe that our attitudes towards people (internal and external) are just as important as our positions on the issues at hand. So, when I first saw the news that Prop. 8 had been overturned, my very first thought was, “Dear Lord, please let the Christians who speak in response to this share your heart and not their judgment.”
And Jenell Williams Paris said this:
An even more immediate challenge for those who believe marriage is properly between a man and a woman is to live with genuine love and concern for homosexual individuals and families in our local contexts.
The overall thrust of the responses was that we need to figure out how to establish the reign of God on earth by establishing the law of God in our states.
But when Jesus was asked what, exactly, that law is that is to govern our participation in the reign of God he said, “Love the lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might; and, love your neighbor as yourself.”
The “Gospel” response to Prop 8? “How do I love my homosexual neighbor as myself?”
Each generation we look back in horror at the things that have been done in the past, taking refuge in the thought that, had we been there, we would have defied the majority and fought for what’s right. How easy retrospect is!
- “If I had been in Calvin’s Geneva, I would never have approved the burning of Servetus!”
- “If I had been at the Westminster Assembly I would have stood against the regicide!”
- “If I had been alive in the Middle Ages I would never have gone on crusade!”
- “If I had been alive during the Spanish Inquisition I would have been a voice for grace!”
And, every generation we are given a mirror in the issues of our own day to reflect back to us that, no, had we been alive we would have capitulated to power and injustice–would have refused to ask, “What does it mean to love my neighbor?”–just like those who came before us did.
Oh no, if I had been alive in the first century I would never have participated in his crucifixion. And I know that because I faithfully hold fast to everything that’s written in the scriptures and pour my life into seeing that it’s upheld!
Yes, there were those in the first century as well. And they weren’t the followers of Jesus but the Pharisees who went off with the Herodians to plot how to kill him.
If I had been alive in the 21st century, I would have forced the Christians in my community to ask, “What does it mean to love your homosexual neighbor as your Christian self?”
No, you didn’t.
Amen to the power of infinity.
I think a lot of Christians, pastors included, could benefit from actually getting out of the pews and church offices and get to know some gay people. I like that you point out that Alan Chambers “actually knows gay people.” His response obviously comes from actually seeing the person rather than seeing only their sin.
When I worked in a church, I only dealt with this on a very philosophical (what if?) level. Working with gay people, as I currently find myself doing, has really challenged me to understand what it truly means to love my neighbor.
Can you speak to what loving our homosexual neighbour might look like in terms of political action and activism, or are you advocating political inactivity for sake of personal friendliness. I of course agree that we Christians, both personally and corporately, need to exhibit love and compassion to our homosexual neighbours, but you might be oversimplifying what that looks like at the voting both in our current political context.
I think it mostly looks like the opposite of what’s occurring. I think it looks like creating a political means for homosexuals to have the same civil liberties and perks as married heterosexuals. Ideally, in my estimation, this means that the state gets out of all marriage, has a category of “civil union” that can be entered into by any two adults, and leaves churches to call things marriage or not marriage and to act accordingly.
Yes, there is always an element of speaking the truth that is entailed in true love, but I must say that I am struck that Jesus’ truth-speaking tends to be toward people who knew the Bible and weren’t loving their sinful neighbors.
Shame on Jesus for not spending his time and prophetic energy calling out the Roman Empire for its many evils! Was there no Fox News, no Focus on the Family then?
What you said about getting the government totally out of the marriage business is what I was looking for. I totally agree with you’re main point in the post, reiterated by several in the comments below that when Christians get overly focused on the political implications and thus devote all their energies to political solutions, the love that is supposed to define us as Christians gets lost. But when the corrective approach can be summed up by “its not how you vote, its how you love”, which artificially divorces how we live from how we vote rather, we miss an opportunity to push Christians to integrate our emphasis on loving our neighbors with our political stances and activities. I see the latter as what you’re pushing for (though one or two of the commenters have seemed to push for totally marginalizing the kingdom implications of how we vote) and I’ve been looking for a concrete political message that will concretely express our commitment to both God’s love and God’s justice – I think the idea of making marriage entirely a religious issue and thus fully moving it to the church side of the church/state separation is the best way to do this. That way we can work for the full equal rights of homosexual unions without violating the spiritual/sacramental status of marriage as we conduct it in the church.
Just to be clear, I think loving our neighbors outside of the voting booth is of first importance and we Christians have a lot to make up for, or at least a lot to call our prominent leaders to answer for, in this arena; I just want to make sure that in this concern we don’t overlook the (secondary) importance of connecting that love into all aspects of our lives, including our political campaigning and voting.
I love that! “How easy retrospect is!” I hadn’t considered that before.
When I look at issues like this I ask myself, ‘Brandon, is THIS the real issue, or is this an effect of some deeper issue that we don’t want to address.
To me, Adam Nigh (above) may have inadvertantly hit this on the head.
Voting has become a way for the public to passively force people in to a particular, preferential mode of behavior. In voting for or against something, one is able to press a button and disengage from the process any further.
Votes for Prop 8 became a way for Christians to force believers and non-believers into their preference for marital structure, yet disconnect from their responsibility to love people like they love themselves.
The voice of Prop 8 then becomes: We love you, but you don’t want you (homosexuals) to enjoy the same government-given rights and freedoms that we (heterosexuals) regularly enjoy.
I have found that the deeper issue here is that some Christians have realized that they are unable to meet the ridiculous standards they’ve created for the world. So instead of dealing with that issue, some find it far easier to vote those standards into existence.
If some Christians were legally held to the same standard which they’ve created for others, I imagine positions might change fairly quickly.
As you hinted at in your post, this is an issue that is far more complex than can be addressed in a short comment. Agreed, our Christian response should be to love all. Yet the court’s ruling, if allowed to stand, has potentially devestating consequences.
For example, if homosexuals are allowed to be married, can the state mandate that I (as a hopefully soon to be pastor) marry two homosexuals, even though it goes against my beliefs. (Note: the courts have already required doctors to do elective procedures that violated their religious beliefs.) In this case I think we are called to walk a fine line between condemning the judge’s overreaching power grab and show love (respect) for the homosexuals in our lives.
It’s no great act of bravery to say “thank you for this post,” but I will do so anyway.
Hello Daniel,
Having myself grown up in the inner sunset….I am quite familiar with the fog….it seems like this fog…..the fog creep seems an apt metaphor for theological reflection that seems to increasingly reflect the theology and ethics of menlo park…not to mention the arguments. AS IF….the acceptance and celebration of homosexual relationships is a necessary element of loving one’s neighbor is specious. I live and move in a quite conservative evangelical world…and I have never heard it argued that homosexuals should not be loved and embraced as individuals loved by God. All laws involve judgment concerning ethical norms. This particular ethical norm does is unsettled in our society. I certainly can accept that it may be settled in a way that I don’t find to be righteous. It seems to me and I have not followed the story closely at all…but it seems at first glance….like this particular judge was able to discount…a referendom simply because he did not agree with the referendum. I have noticed a number of people thanking you for this post. I do most certainly appreciate your reflection on a difficult issue of the day, but your reasoning is most weak.
Hi, Luke, I’m glad you keep coming around and reading despite your regular frustrations with the positions advocated here. I can’t say that launching into ad hominem arguments about “weak reasoning” is constructive–especially when the reasoning hasn’t been understood.
I find it “weak reasoning” and “foggy thinking” to think that “nobody says we shouldn’t love our homosexual neighbor” means that we are actually advocating “loving our homosexual neighbor” as something to which we have been called. The homosexual neighbor is not on the radar screen of most of those interviewed for that article. That was the point.
Also, I never said that we have to celebrate homosexual relationships. I am theologically opposed to homosexual relationships, but this does not tell me what I’m supposed to do about such relationships or how to love my homosexual neighbor.
Finally, it is the job of the judiciary to overturn unjust laws. The Great State of Alabama did not vote to desegregate. Some of this judge’s reasoning was loopy. Some of it was good. But in general, overturning an unjust/unconstitutional law is his job. As a mob we do not tend to act justly–especially when we have the power.
Daniel
You’re avoiding an examination of what follows if we quietly/”lovingly” allow gay marriage (sic) to pass.
If gay marriage passes in the Supreme Court (where it is certainly headed), it will be the official US government position that non-endorsement of gay marriage is un-American and essentially hateful. That position will be taught in schools as the correct, obvious, normal position. Your children and mine will have to sit in class and hear their parents described in similar terms to slave-owners and wifebeaters.
It will also inevitably result in laws that prevent anyone opposed to gay marriage from practicing medicine, psychology, psychiatry, counseling, etc, or providing adoption services – UNLESS that person pledges to work against their conscience. THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING.
In my profession, I often work alongside homosexuals. We get along great and I do whatever I can to show Christian love. I also know that if they knew my position, most of them would want nothing more to do with me. This is because we have allowed their side to control the language of the debate. If you’re not for them, you “hate” them.
What I’m saying is, we can be as loving as we like (and indeed, we should be) but we will continue to be marginalized to the eventual point of persecution. I don’t relish the thought of my children being persecuted for thir beliefs, so I will use whatever political means are available to me to prevent or at least delay that.
GC,
You said
“In my profession, I often work alongside homosexuals. We get along great and I do whatever I can to show Christian love. I also know that if they knew my position, most of them would want nothing more to do with me.”
I believe this illustrates one of the points of this artice beautifully.
Preface: I understand where you’re coming from as I once held these views, as well. I used to work along side GLBT people all the time, but I felt that I needed to hide how I felt about them.
When they discovered how I felt about them, they weren’t angry; they were hurt that I didn’t trust them enough to be open about how I felt. They said I was being decietful, and they were right. I was being deceitful.
I required them to accept me how I was, but didn’t have the courtesy to extend the same to them.
If you’re loving people in a way that you would want to be loved, what reason would be given for them to hate you?
Jesus love people right where they were and most loved him for it.
Perhaps it’s our idea of Christian love that needs to be amended, not secular law.
By your brief comment, it appears like you tolerate homosexuals as far as your business dealings go, but loving them, like you want them to love you, appears to be off the table, so to speak.
You said:
This is because we have allowed their side to control the language of the debate.
I disagree. This debate is largely fueled by conventional religious tradition and structure. It is that group that is controlling the language of this debate. They are simply trying to be included in the the rights afforded to the majority.
You said:
If you’re not for them, you “hate” them.
Again, I disagree. This us vs. them binary may exist with some GLBTs, but I would challenge that it is most certainly not the prevailing thought among them.
It is this insecurity and fear of the unknown that motivates these binaries. They are unhelpful to the conversation.
Brandon, you do a lot of presuming.
I do not and would not shy away from stating my postion if the issue came up but I’m obviously not going to walk up to the guy and say “Chris, I can see you’re gay. I just want you to know that I think it’s sinful for men to have sex with each other. So, are we okay? Great, back to work!”
Thank you for clarifying, but I don’t believe my assesment to be necessarily presumptuous. It’s about being authentic and transparent.
People can aware of how others feel and believe and still respectfully disagree. It’s when one makes an attempt to hide those things that issues unnecessarily develop.
“I don’t relish the thought of my children being persecuted for thir beliefs, so I will use whatever political means are available to me to prevent or at least delay that.”
Just like Jesus did.
Luke-
You are partially right. The judge in this case ignored seven million voices in overturning a state constitutional amendment and his decision to do so was predicated on personal beliefs versus the rule of law, state and federal. He was wrong legally to do so and based on his justification of his decision, I believe he was wrong morally as well.
But I think you may have missed the thrust of what Daniel was trying to convey. Even though the ethical norm has not been settled (or the legal norm, for that matter), our Christ-like or “Gospel” response in embracing our homosexual neighbors is not supposed to begin when this issue is “settled”. In this instance, “loving our neighbor as ourselves” isn’t a de facto embrace of homosexual relationships, just as disagreeing with homosexual marriage doesn’t equate one with being homophobic or hating homosexuals. I think the idea of homosexual marriage is an oxymoron, but that isn’t supposed to prevent me as a Christian from sharing the gospel of God’s love (and all that may entail) for the homosexual, with the homosexual.
This is a difficult issue(no one said being Christian was easy) because it seems as if both sides of the issue (Christians and proponents of homosexual marriage/homosexual lifestyle) are talking past one another instead of participating in a genuine and sincere dialogue. As Christians, we are called to affirm scripture on this issue of marriage and its divine ordination and at the same time affirm by embodiment, the command to love our neighbor. A cruciform love, no less. Thus I don’t think it’s an “either/or” position as much as it is a “both/and”.
Lastly, I happen to disagree with the notion of “top down” training expressed by Matthew Lee Anderson. I believe the reverse to be true: to affect meaningful change, I think it starts from the “bottom up”. If Christian values based on the gospel are not taught and developed in people prior to becoming leaders, that teaching, and their potential acceptance of that teaching, is less likely to happen.
So Christians shouldn’t vote now?
I do not presume to stand in judgement of Christians who do vote, but I don’t feel that is the correct way to effect the type of transformation we would like to see. I don’t see anything from the teachings of Jesus that promotes forcing people into a particular mode of behavior in order to manifest the Kingdom of God.
I’m certainly not saying that voting is the only means a Christian should use, it’s just one small civil act that lets the state know where you stand. Would you not use your vote to promote social justice?
And as for forcing people into a particular mode of behavior, again, you’re using the language of the other side. Do you actually believe that gays are currently being “forced” to do anything against their will? On the other hand, Christians being forced to act against conscience or else be fired would seem to fit that description.
I suppose I don’t look to the state to enforce my preference.
As one who follows Jesus, I believe that it is our actions toward one another that compel transformation, not the government. Now, the government may get on board with that transformation, but the government’s support is not necessary for me to act in a particular fashion.
I choose not to vote and have never been registered to vote, so I could not use my vote to promote social justice. I do, however, use my actions to do justice.
Language of the other side? What does that even mean?
In asking, “Do you actually believe that gays are currently being “forced” to do anything against their will?”, I believe you’re asking the wrong question. The premise of that question requires that the gay community enjoys the same equal rights as the straight community, regarding marriage.
If gays had the equal right to marry, and they were being legally forced not to, then your question might be accurate.
Yes. I do believe force is being used against the GLBT community. Though, it is quite subversive.
It’s not distinctly saying, “You can marry because you’re gay”. Proponents of Prop 8 won’t come out directly and exclaim, “I don’t want you to enjoy the same freedoms that I enjoy because your sexual orientation repulses me”, but they can hide behind a ballot box and let the legal system render consequence due to their preference, in their convenient absence.
I would also add that one who knows or works with some gay people is quite different than one who maintains personal friendships with people who are gay.
It’s very easy to judge another from a distance. It becomes much more difficult to judge someone when you’re personally invested in their life and they in yours. That kind of friendship requires honesty and transparency. The kind of honesty and transparency that does not exist when one simply knows some of those people.
It is quite easy, and common, to play situations out to their worst possible outcome. I find this even more common among some Christian groups when faced with a situation that goes against their preference and/or understanding of Scripture.
What if, rather than playing situations in our mind to the worst, we simply existed in the environment in which we find ourselves? What if we took Jesus’ words seriously when he said not to worry about what we’ll eat or wear or not to resist those who want to hurt us?
It’s counter-intuitive, I know. But what if?
And as far as ministers being forced to officially marry against their personal/religious convictions, I would submit that this was precisely Naaman’s situation when he inquired:
“But may the LORD forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this.”
Elisha’s response to this question was, “Go in Peace!” (2 Kings 5: 18-19)
There is ample grace.
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for your encouragement. Great post! By the way, not only do I know some gay people, I was one of them many years ago. So glad we serve a God who is rich in grace and reality. Both attributes drew me to Him and continually change me from the inside out.
Alan
Now this was a great read with lots to think about. What an amazing gospel response to the issue surrounding Prop 8. One thing I ask is that I sometimes wonder … I know that the scriptures speak of marriage being between one man and one woman and that was God’s original intent and not taking away from that I do sometimes wonder if Jesus would have participated and influenced Prop 8 or if he would have responded differently.
I find it interesting that you are speaking of gay people as the other. What if “they” are in my, your, eucharistic community (which they are)? Then they are “we,” right?
All Chirstians and all pastors know gay people in their churches — they just may not know that they are gay. In the same way, all Christians and all pastors know people who are commiting adultery, but they may not know about that either. The point being that we need to have compassion for others and judge ourselves ‘that we would not be judged’. Maybe these sorts of societal events will help us to learn that we are living in a post-Christian culture, and that we need to learn how to deal with that in love.