The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to hear a case challenging the Washington D.C. gay marriage law.
It seems that a group of residents wanted to put the revocation of the law on the ballot, as was done previously in California. Their petition was denied, and the law kept on the books without the imprimatur of the voters of the District.
In response, a Washington pastor, Anthony Evans, has declared the existence of a “civil war between the church and the gay community.” Of course, Evans hastens to add that this is an unwanted civil war, and “we love our gay brothers and sisters,” but apparently war is at hand because “we have a right as religious people to have a say-so in the framework of religious ethics for our culture and society.”
I was recently given an extended history lesson by my friend David Sehat. His book, The Myth of American Religious Freedom chronicles important episodes in the history of dissent from the traditional Protestant Christian mores in America (review here and here).
Here’s the punchline: when in the history of America Christians have sought to uphold, and impose, a “religious ethic” for society, we have time and again been the perpetrators and preservers of inequality, prejudice, and injustice.
When blacks were fighting for freedom from slavery, we white, empowered Christians developed biblical arguments for sustaining dominance over the black race.
When women were fighting for equal access to voting, to work, to the protections of the legal system, we Christians invoked biblical patriarchy to sustain their subjugation and prevent them from being recognized as persons protected by the law with equal access to its protections and freedoms.
When workers were fighting for just working conditions, we Christians invoked convoluted theological and biblical arguments about why they needed to simply obey their masters as the Master and get off the picket line.
When Martin Luther King Jr. was leading peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience, our great hero Billy Graham warned that we have to obey the laws of a government even if the law is unjust.
Will we not learn from our history?
To my fellow Christians: when we try to make society after the image of the Bible as we read it, we become perpetrators of the injustice, impression, and baptizing of cultural status-quo that Jesus came to root out, free us from, and transform. The fight over legalized gay partnerships is but the latest in a long string of episodes where we have failed to bring to the “other” the freedom and justice we believe God wants for all people.
Or, if that language sounds too loosy goosy to you, try this. We have refused, in our fights for “religious ethics in society,” to love our neighbor as ourselves, we have not yet learned to “do unto the other what we would have done to us.”
Our attempts to perpetuate our ethics through the legal system has repeatedly moved us from the blessed co-confessors with Peter that “You are the Christ,” to those who stand in need of the rebuke, “Get behind me, Satan.”
For Peter, this came when he would not see that to be Christ is to be a suffering servant. Peter wanted a war. For us this rebuke comes when we will not see that our call to love is a call to be suffering servants, even to those whom we might see as our enemies. Will we really fight a war? Can we imagine that when we stand with Peter rebuking Jesus for setting aside the way of glory that this time we will be recipients of a commendatory “Well done, good and faithful servant”?
Repeatedly when I read the Gospels with my New Testament Introduction courses, we are made aware that the disciples and other first century Jews were looking for a war to free them from Rome. That’s what the Davidic Messiah was supposed to do. But Jesus goes to the cross instead.
If, in our purported following of Jesus we find ourselves promising civil war, we can rest assured that our expectations of what discipleship means stand in as much need of correction as those of Jesus’ first followers.
So, Rev. Evans, I don’t need your civil war. Because I love my gay brothers and sisters, even as you claim for yourself, and because Jesus shows me that Christian love is taking up the cross rather than taking up the sword, I part company with you here and stand by them.
Amen. We ought not proclaim or even contemplate joining any war, real or metaphorical, and the history of Christians using the sword (whether literal or of the law) is an ignominious and bloody one that shames us and betrays Christ. We have been, too often, the oppressors rather than standing with the oppressed.
It may be true that US Christians have in the past used scripture to rubberstamp an injust status quo, damaging our credibility in the process. I think it is also true that our society has benefited unconsciously from MANY laws and customs with Judeo-Christian roots. (How about a post on that, Mr Kirk?)
Also, in the examples you cited (blacks, women, workers) it is possible to make a strong biblical case for equality, which is exactly what Martin Luther King did. Gay rights is a very different case for us Christians because the Bible is unequivocal on the subject. If we endorse or say nothing about gay marriage (the keystone of gay rights) we are endorsing something that scripture tells us flat-out is sin.
The USA is one of the last western societies where Christian mores still have a hold, but even here that hold is loosening rapidly. I think the effects will be both good and bad. Good because the Church is not a political entity, and it thrives in adversity (witness China). Bad because…there will be adversity and after that, persecution. Already certain professions are forcing Christians to uphold certain positions against their consciences or else find themselves ostricized and out of work.
So should we go to “war”, politically? No, but nor do we need to accelerate the marginilization of Good. And we can at least use our votes to slow our culture’s descent, however certain that descent may be.
And, while we’re about it, let’s also end our opposition to legal abortion, so that even more can enter into ‘the freedom and justice we believe God wants for all people.’
While I don’t think that the rhetoric of civil war is helpful in this context, nor that Christians should regard the political and legal establishment of Christian moral norms as their primary political task (which should always be that of being the Church), the equation between the various causes mentioned above and that of the case for gay marriage is assumed, rather than argued at all. How exactly does gay marriage represent an instance ‘the freedom and justice we believe God wants for all people’? It strikes me that your approach is just a convenient way of dodging an uncomfortable and difficult debate, and a situation where we might actually be called to make a stand.
Christians have certainly been the cause of oppression at points in the past, but we have also often been a voice for the oppressed – for prisoners, for abandoned and mistreated children, for slaves, for mistreated workers, etc. Refusing to take a political stand because we might be the cause of oppression is a grossly naive position, resulting from a very one-sided telling of the effect of Christian’s involvement in politics (a side that should warn and caution us of the stakes and dangers of political stands, but not prevent us from taking them).
In particular, in the context of the sexual revolution and its values, Christians have been one of the few voices speaking up for the interests of such parties as children. Children have been the ones who have suffered much of the consequences of a society in which sex and reproduction are increasingly separated from each other, where abortion is widely practised, where marriage is no longer so clearly oriented towards the interests of children, where divorce is considerably easier, where children have to be ‘chosen’ and ‘wanted’, rather than being gifts that we need to learn to be open to. Christians have been the voice for the marginalized and poor in society, who suffer the most from the loss of a marriage culture. Christians have been the ones who have been speaking up against the form of hedonic marriage that is almost wholly subject to the needs and desires of the marriage partners, neglecting others who do not have the same voice, and against the reduction of marriage to a mere lifestyle choice.
For many of us who oppose gay marriage, these are the sorts of issues that are at stake in changing understandings of marriage. While it may be easy to paint this as merely another case of oppression (just as opposition to abortion and easy divorce could be portrayed in the same way), perhaps it would be worth considering the possibility that the desire to resist oppression might be a key motivator for people on both sides of this cultural debate.
GC & Alastair,
For me the lesson from history comes down, in part, to the very idea that we should be attempting, as Christians, to form a religiously mandated fabric to our society. What does it mean to love my neighbor as myself, do do unto others as I would have them do to me? Here is where true religious freedom comes in.
If Muslims were the most influential voices in American politics, what sorts of openings would you want them to leave you as a non-Muslim living in society? Would you want them to mandate that your eating be restricted to their norms? Your worship? Your ability to marry? Should you be forbidden to marry at all because you could not marry withing the Muslim faith?
With the opposition to gay marriage we have a religious more that we are attempting to enforce throughout society. In doing that, we are doing to others what we decidedly would not want done to ourselves.
The other important point for us to realize is that in their own historical contexts, the people making the arguments for integration, gender equality, and the like were equally convinced of the clear biblical instruction on their positions–and at times they were correct about that clear biblical support which more directly spoke to the issue at hand than this issue does.
What I “learned” is not that we can foist the label “justice” on everything, but that we often find ourselves on the wrong side of history when we attempt to force Christianity upon the people of the United States.
The norm of marriage is hardly something that is peculiarly or exclusively Christian. The norm of marriage being for a man and a woman is one of a small set of norms that are transcultural and virtually universal. This doesn’t have to be a religious argument at all.
The doing unto others argument seems very weak to me. It is extremely narrow in its attention, obscuring a number of important ‘others’ from our view. If I were in a gay partnership I would be rather irritated at people opposing our getting married. If I were an unmarried pregnant woman of limited means, I might be angry at people preventing me having an abortion. If I were a couple with children in a ‘loveless’ marriage, I might be frustrated at laws that made the process of divorce difficult. However, these are not the only ‘others’ that we need to take into account.
The idea that ‘doing unto others’ means refusing to impose restrictions on people who have genuine concerns that we can sympathize with doesn’t really get us very far. Our first task when seeking to ‘do unto others’ is always that of learning to see the ‘others’. Only when we have learned to see the others will we be able to ‘do unto them’. It seems to me that the advocates of gay marriage (as the advocates of easy divorce and abortion) have not adequately performed this essential moral task. As a result, supporters of gay marriage risk becoming unwitting oppressors.
Alistair, it’s actually not an uncommon position for folks to affirm homosexuality and oppose abortion. The idea of protecting the innocent who cannot speak for him or herself is in many ways more amenable to the social activism that agitates for the rights of marginalized groups who as it stands are not treated as equal or protected under the law. Allowing adults to make a decision about joining their life together is not the same category as disallowing the termination of a life.
Of course, the innumerable issues about choice, liberty, etc., that surround abortion in the context of social constraints, poverty, and the like (some of which you draw in) do highlight that the abortion debate is much more complex than folks on the right sometimes acknowledge.
The other important point for us to realize is that in their own historical contexts, the people making the arguments for integration, gender equality, and the like were equally convinced of the clear biblical instruction on their positions–and at times they were correct about that clear biblical support which more directly spoke to the issue at hand than this issue does.
I think this is quite false, Daniel. It’s a big rhetorical stick you use to great effect, but there’s a difference between bending scripture to support the status quo because the scripture happens to have some authority that can be co-opted, and adopting an unpopular position simply because scripture happens to support it. Are you seriously saying that Christians resisting redefining marriage (as opposed to suppression of gay rights) to include same sex relationships will be seen in 500 years as the same as those who supported slavery? Can you honestly not see a difference here?
The other huge mistake can be seen here:
Here’s the punchline: when in the history of America Christians have sought to uphold, and impose, a “religious ethic” for society, we have time and again been the perpetrators and preservers of inequality, prejudice, and injustice.
Please. This is absurd. For a predominantly Christian country, there is the simple statistical reality that there have been huge numbers of professing Christians on both sides of every debate in our history. But your blanket condemnation throws out the wheat with the weeds. How can you possibly condemn the bad on THESE GROUNDS without condemning the good as well? You condemn the Christians who defended slavery, but if you merely want to stop imposing a “religious ethic” on society, you lose every good movement as well.
The final problem is this question of norms. What you are in fact advocating for is the establishment of a secularist norm in direct conflict with the teaching of the Christian faith that you yourself are expositing on your site. Love your neighbor as yourself indeed – the secularist position is simply not neutral. The question of how we as Christians should give space to conscience of non-Christians in a predominantly Christian society is an important one. Making a law which directly contradicts Christian teaching goes beyond this. This is not neutral. Why Christians should ally with secularists in forcing secularist norms upon Christians and Muslims alike is beyond me.
Wonders, too briefly:
Regarding the difference b/t slavery and gay marriage, yes I see the huge difference: the NT explicitly uses Jesus to enforce subjection of slaves to masters but nowhere directly addresses the issue of gays getting married in civil society and what Christians who don’t think gay marriage is correct should do about it. There is a huge difference.
The truth behind the paragraph you call “absurd” is that in the actual judicial decisions that enforced the unjust status quo with respect to slavery and women (in particular) explicitly cite Christian norms. That’s the point of the book I cited: there was not a judicial standard of religious liberty, and the imposition of “Christian” standards perpetuated these injustices in the jurisprudence of the US.
The law does not bind the conscience of Christians: it allows for people who do not share our scruples to act on their own rather than ours.
Daniel, you ignored my point. Granted that Christians on both sides defended their positions on Christian grounds – your argument attacks the abolitionist as well as the defender of slavery. Do you deny this?
I deny that my argument does so. I argued that the perpetuation of the injustice in the legal system of the US was long sustained on Christian grounds.
There is a paradox here, Wonders, I’ll not deny it. I’m claiming that the Christian thing to do is to not force other people to act like Christians. And, I’m suggesting that this “you should be free to not be me” Christian ethic is one that has traction in the political sphere in a way that “you have to be like us” Christian ethic does not.
Daniel, if gay marriage passes it will not just be gay lives that are affected. Govt will require ALL OF US to change our functional definition of what marriage is. Think of the implications for Christian business owners, educators, counselors, etc.
Again, this is already happening. Catholic adoption agencies that have existed since the 19th century have been forced to close their doors because they won’t place children with gay couples. Psychiatric Organizations have refused to register Christian practitioners who won’t counsel gay couples. In England just this week, Christian innkeepers were fined for refusing to give a room to a gay couple, even though they had a longstanding policy of not giving rooms to unmarried heterosexuals as well (which the govt had no problem with). In Canada, Christian pastors can face fines and other legal action for preaching that homosexual sexual activity is sinful.
We would be naive to think these things are not headed our way if gay marriage passes.
GC: yes, there will be challenges in figuring out the way forward as gay marriage becomes a standard, and legally sanctioned part of our culture.
When the rich try to oppress and exploit the poor should we stand back because the rich will be offended?
I am not sure how far we should try to impose a Christian ethic on society but let us be sure that our objection is because we consider it wrong in principle to impose a Christian ethic and not simply because the ethic in question doesn’t suit our political predeliction – right or left.
That’s an argument that the government / law should regard everyone equally, not give preference to the people with money or power. That would seem to be the same line of argument as one would make for gay marriage. And it’s one you can make based on the idea that the law exists, in part, to ensure that even the minorities experience the full freedoms experienced by the empowered majority. It’s just that secular argument that the law exists in part to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority that makes both viable arguments for the public sphere. And that’s different from saying, “Nobody can do this because the Bible says so.”
Your objection was to Christians imposing a Christian ethic that seemed to target detrimentally a minority group. I just gave another example of a minority group a Christian ethic may offend.
I agree that Governments should protect minorities, at least I agree to a degree. However, absolute freedom in any society is impossible. Governments must balance individual freedom with forbidding behaviour that is harmful to society.
Paedophiles (a minority group) would like freedom. Pornographers would like freedom. Nudists would like freedom to walk through the streets as they wish. Monopolists would like freedom to dictate prices. Islam would like to impose shari’a law on its followers. Sometimes minorities do need to be supressed for the public good.
I think the question as to whether Christians have a right/duty to impose a Christian ethic on society legislatively is a good one and worth discussing but it too easily gets confused with other issues such as a) is what I think is a Christian ethic really a Christian ethic b) is it a Christian ethic I like c) Is it a Christian ethic society will like.
You raise a number of interesting parallels. One that I think it’s important to strike down at the outset is the pedophilia parallel. Because it’s not. Two people choosing to have a sexual relationship is a very different animal from the power dynamics and abuse involved in pedophilia.
I accept this, though not completely.
If homosexuality affected only the consenting adults involved that would be great but of course this is a myth. In fact the homosexual world is a much bigger world than what happens between two individuals in private. It is often a world of grooming minors. Pederasty is never far away. It is deeply promiscuous and highly sexualized.
In the UK, Peter Tatchell a leading spokesman for,, and the acceptable face of the homosexual community in the UK…
‘… gave an example of a New Guinea tribe where ‘all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood’ and allegedly grow up to be ‘happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers’.
And he concluded: ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’
Pedophilia and the homosexual community are not hermetically sealed worlds. Neither, of course, are pornography and pedophilia.
The evil of pedophilia is perhaps transparent but I doubt if the homosexual world bears much scrutiny.
John,
Attempting to establish guilt by association is a tactic I hope everyone in this discussion would be above. It is meaningless that homosexuality is not “hermetically” sealed from any other influence or social milieux in society. The same can be said for heterosexuality only much more so since the vast majority of child abuse is done by heterosexual males.
Condoning adult consensual homosexual relationships in no way – none whatsoever – implies condoning child abuse in any form. You should drop this argument it is ignorant and offensive.
Aric
I did say that I agreed in part with Daniel. The topic was homosexuality. Had it been heterosexual sin then the parallel stands.
Sexual sin of any kind gains traction where the culture promotes sexual misbehaviour (sexual relations outside of marriage). The worst excesses proliferate in a climate of sexual laxity and degeneracy.
Leaving aside the issue of Christian input, how much freedom should the state give to lifestyles that contribute to degeneracy, that destabilize its roots? We return to the familar dilemma of the freedom of the one over the good of the many. It is not an easy question to answer.
Daniel,
I raised the case of abortion for two reasons. First, it is a case where it seems quite clear that ethics, grounded in large measure upon Christian convictions about life, are being imposed upon people in society. Second, it is an example of a case where a zoom lens view can be quite misleading. We need to expand our vision to include within it parties that are habitually excluded. For instance, in the case of abortion we need to look at the effect that it has on unborn children, on our concept of children more generally, on fathers and partners, on past and future generations, on communities and society more generally.
It is precisely such a ‘wide-angle lens’ approach that leads me to believe that gay marriage is oppressive and that an approach that sees it purely in terms of not getting in the way of individuals who wish to marry the person of their choice is hopelessly and dangerously myopic.
The institution of marriage is about far more than the granting of social approval and recognition to committed sexual partnerships. The institution of marriage protects and marks out a realm where we negotiate and experience some of the deepest realities of our human nature – sexual difference, procreation, kinship and blood relations, and the movement between the generations.
The institution of marriage protects the interests of children, their right to a lineage and a stable home, the norm and ideal of a relationship with one’s biological parents. By restricting sex to something to be undertaken within the lifelong commitment of the bonds of matrimony, the institution of marriage provides for the interests of children, presenting sex as a responsible act that needs to be open to potential consequences. This openness to the gift of children stands opposed to the sterile ideal represented by gay marriage, where sex is detached from consequences, where no child is unwanted or unchosen, where no child can make uninvited demands upon our lives.
Marriage expresses the value and importance of relationships that traverse the realm of sexual difference, bringing the two halves of humanity together in a union that transcends, negotiates, and creates a loving compromise of sexual differences. It recognizes the distinct phenomenology of human bodies, whereby male and female sexed bodies bear a natural relationship to each other, and the bodies of children bear a natural relationship to those of their parents.
Marriage protects the interests of society more generally and of past and future generations in the passing on of the social capital, which is a further reason why the openness of marriage to procreation and protecting the norm of biological kinship is important to it.
Marriage has traditionally functioned as a norm to which relationships are expected to conform, and as a participation in a larger transgenerational social project. Its norms and ideals are not merely placed upon married couples, but on society more generally (the expectation that people will be sexually abstinent outside of it, for instance). Gay marriage is merely another step in reorienting marriage to primarily serve the interests of individual couples and their bespoke lifestyle choices. The reduction of marriage from a norm to a lifestyle choice (is the argument for gay marriage really about expecting the gay community to conform to the norms of marriage or about validating a lifestyle choice?) has large social effects, most especially among the poorest.
GC comments on the effect that the change in the functional definition of marriage will have on Christians. Although this is a valid concern, I believe that the social dangers are far greater than this, reinforcing trends that have been ongoing for some time.
As for your claim about equality, you are just begging the question. ‘Equality’ is an empty word, unless it can be demonstrated that, relative to a particular standard, people are in fact equal. No one argues for the equality of blind and sighted drivers.
The issue here is whether, relative to the ends served by the institution of marriage and its grammar, committed gay partnerships (not, note, gay persons) are equal to heterosexual ones. This has to be demonstrated, not merely assumed.
I would argue that gay marriage is profoundly inequitable. Gay marriages would receive the privilege and status enjoyed by heterosexual marriages, while being incapable of serving or being open to the same ends. This isn’t justice at all.
Very helpful comment.
Re legislating for ethics we should remember in the one example we have where it was specifically directed by God
a) the morality imposed was not God’s ideal but took account of what the moral tone of the nation could accept(divorce was permissible because of their hardness of heart).
b) even God-given legislation did not prevent the slide of the nation into gross injustice and depraved behaviour.
Political power is a very weak weapon in the fight for morality. It is at best a holding game. Where the gospel no longer has influence on a nation moral legislation will do little to stem corruption.
I’m in agreement with Christian thinkers that propose marriage is not a civil issue as much as it is a theological one, so Christians have the liberty to define it as they please (and vote, act etc. accordingly). There’s no “common ground” rational principle that we can all agree upon which will lead to perfect civic unity & peace. As many have noted, that’s a dead project.
I’d favor the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. Civil Unions for all. Let “marriage” or other equivalent ceremonies or rituals be defined however various religious groups wish to define it, but let no civil, legal, or economic benefits attach.
Yes, Aric, I think that this is actually a better solution than trying to keep government in the marriage debate.
And, ministers cannot have the power of state invested in them to proclaim the two united. A civil ceremony/paperwork for civil unions, a religious ceremony unrecognized by the state for churches to marry who they believe can and should be married in the sight of God.
As a minister I am extremely uneasy about functioning as an agent of the state in any way. I’d far prefer it be removed from my job.
Actually, I would go the other way. It seems to me the bible re marriage as a civil institution rather than a religious one. It is viewed as creational and Jesus teaching(in Matt 19)seems aimed universally rather than as a specific ethic for his followers.
Having said that, there appears to be a covenantal aspect to marriage in Scripture (suggesting God is invoked as witness) within what was essentially a civil contract.
Thanks for this post. I agree.
Intersting how uneasy we get when discussing the issue of gay marriage. Arguments in opposition that liken homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality seem a callous, irresponsible way of dodging the issue altogether.
Other arguments that attempt to paint a chilling view of how our world will fall apart if we support gay rights bring to mind ominous language used in attempts to derail the Civil Rights movement. Is this anything but fear mongering to justify oppressive laws?
“Govt will require ALL OF US to change our functional definition of what marriage is. Think of the implications for Christian business owners, educators, counselors, etc.”
It’s understandable that among Christians there exists a wide range of personal beliefs regarding the morality of homosexuality.
It can indeed be frustrating to have others interpret the issue of human sexuality differently than I might. What’s incredibly sad however is in arguing so vehemently that gays should not be allowed to participate in various aspects of our society, we further the notion that gays are “other” and “alien”. Does this not communicate to our children that it’s OK to treat certain kinds of people as less valuable than others? How then can we be surprised when children are bullied to the point of tragically taking their own lives? This is not to say that the blame falls on those who argue in opposition to gay rights, but can we both claim these individuals are “abnormal” or “different” while at the same time expecting our children to treat gays in their classrooms no differently than others?
I guess we must ask ourselves what is more important? Standing by what we believe to be correct principals (which Mark Twain so brilliantly points out do change over time), OR doing everything we can to stand IN BETWEEN those who are at any given time made to be marginalized and those who would be the oppressors. Where did Jesus place himself in these instances? Where do we place ourselves?
Perhaps the misunderstanding comes from the difference in looking at this topic as an issue to be discussed, rather than seeing it as something which deeply affects people on a daily basis. I wager those of us who tend to “emote” do so because this strikes us as something more important than an argument to be won or lost.
I should bow out of this discussion, and will. It is sad that some seem determined to emotively present the view of others while seeing themselves as thise with largesse.
It is even sadder and not in the least understandable that among Christians there exists a wide range of personal beliefs regarding the morality of homosexuality. It raises questions regarding the definition of the word Christian.
Well Jeff your hubris staggers me. You claim the moral high ground once again. You care while others don’t.
Let’s not assume my suggestion was that others don’t care. I was only wondering at whether we care about the same things. For better or worse, that seems to be where the divide lies.
John, while you did manage to attack my character, you don’t seem to have addressed any of the actual questions posed. I would be interested in your thoughts as someone who clearly shares a different viewpoint than mine.
Jeff
Sorry if I was unnecessarily acerbic. Let me make my own position clear and hopefully in the process address your points.
1. I believe all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage to be sinful and harmful. This includes homosexuality.
2. I believe homosexual behaviour to be a particularly obvious example of a reversal of the natural order that results in a self-destructive lifestyle for those who pursue it (Roms 1).
3. Just as strongly as I believe that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and destructive I believe people who in their sexuality are homosexual should be treated, as all people should, with dignity, respect, acceptance and love. I would wish to teach children to respect the humanity of all while discriminating whether human behaviour is right or wrong.
4. I believe it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin. This is our functional response to all flawed people i.e everyone (including oneself). If I may refer to the most demonised group in society without being thought to make them equivalent to homosexuals, it should be our response to paedophiles too.
5. I believe that all our behaviour as human beings affects other people to a greater or lesser extent. No behaviour is socially isolated or socially without consequence. As a result socially there can be no such thing as absolute personal freedom. Governments must decide if certain behaviour is so detrimental to society that it should be curtailed by legislation. The freedoms of the individual must be balanced against the good of the many.
6. I do not know how far, if at all, a ‘Christian ethic’ should be imposed on society. In general I am chary of this. However, in a pluralistic democratic society every individual has the right (some may say duty) to argue for what they believe to be for the common good. The hope is that as arguments are presented the democratic judgement of the people will be wise and good and just laws will result. Alistair’s comments above seem to me wise and I hope persuasive. However, I am realistic enough to recognise that wisdom is not always heeded and as I believe true wisdom is biblical wisdom I believe the more post-Christian a society becomes the less likely it is for biblical wisdom to have a fair hearing far less prevail.
6. I believe that the way forward where differences exist is to present reasoned arguments as gently and courteously as possible (I am flawed in this far too often). Reasoning and seeking to do so dispassionately, should not be misunderstood as not caring, rather the opposite.
Finally, I care about homosexuality and what it means.
I care that people embrace a lifestyle that is destructive and will bring upon them God’s wrath. I care that we may so sanatize and normalize homosexuality that some who may have otherwise suppressed these desires and found ways to live with them apart from yielding to them will by our neutralizing embrace them. I care that by so doing these same folks may be that bit further trapped in sin and that it may be that bit harder for them to turn to Christ. I care that through legislation re civil gay marriage the institution of marriage is being eroded and the stabilising mores of society are being dismantled. I care about how this will adversely affect the next generation.
I care that the church does not speak with a single voice re the sin of homosexuality. I care that in the church as in society efforts are being made to turn black into white and declare the clear, unclear.
I care above all that in all of this God’s glory is diminished. I care that his image is being deformed. I care that his will is being defied. I care that his grace and mercy are being disdained. I care that his church is being disloyal and dishonest.
Thanks, John for laying out your thoughts in full. I appreciate the time you’ve taken.
Hallo JRD Kirk,
I don´t want to comment those abundant commentaries you have had, but only on your article. I´ve tried to understand your position, but it´s not so easy. Firstly, you´re an NT professor. Secondly, your professorship is in Fuller TS, which belongs to evangelical stream of Christianity. I recall some of its lecturers, maybe already in retirement, i.e. Peter C. Wagner, Jack Hayford, etc., which place your FTS in the similar group with the pastor you´ve criticized. But I might be wrong.
Beside this institutional matters, I think how you compare Jesus and the apostles with the problem you have had in the USA is not legitimate. I can say that Jesus would against homosexuality also. Even to divorce a married wife or husband already considered adultery by Jesus. Don´t you think so? It is a clear as glass. The problem is not about it.
The problem is about civil rights. For me, those homosexuals have the same civil rights as those heterosexuals.
Thanks, Daniel. The primary issue is less about homosexual marriage and far more with imposing our ethic, however good it may be, on another.
As I mentioned in a short article a few years ago (from a Canadian perspective), no amount of legislation will ever make Canada (and the USA) into a Christian nation. Religious pluralism provides Christians with a voice at the table and we should make our ideas clear so as to better the world we live in. However, we have to stop short of attempting to force those ideas on another. Christianity has never been about force, but grace through faith; freely given and freely received. I have re-posted the article on my blog for those interested.
All the best.
Article – “Church and State” – http://jeffkclarke.com/2011/01/22/church-an-state
Just posted this question in another forum, but John’s posts here made me want to post the same in this forum as well.
Can Christians be homosexual? Why or why not? I haven’t seen a straight answer to this (unasked before now) question, especially as I’m new to this blog and I think it might help clarify the issue.
Jake, great point. And no, I don’t believe it has been answered by those in opposition of gay rights. They continually bring up homosexual “behavior” rather than meet head on the reality that there are individuals who would consider themselves homosexual while not engaging in sex outside of marriage (or whatever other relational commitment is legal to them at the time – but this is another paradox entirely; what if Christian heterosexuals happened to live in a society that made it illegal for THEM to marry? Should they be required to abstain as well?)
Jake
Yes Christians can be homosexual in orientation. That is they can feel homosexual attraction. Homosexual attraction is just one of the many forms of sinful corruptions which our human hearts are prone to.
Sin is not the same as temptation. Sin is giving into temptation. When someone gives in to homosexual attraction, when they welcome it in their mind, feed it and act upon it then they are sinning just as when a heterosexual person allows illegitimate heterosexual desire to grow and develop in their mind and to be acted upon.
Someone who habitually permits sinful thoughts to flourish in their minds cannot be certain of salvation. Someone who deliberately and habitually practices what the bible sees as sinful has no reason to believe they are Christian.
John,
Given your position–wouldn’t pornography be a larger concern then? It’s tough for me to see how we can condemn homosexual marriage at the same time the porn industry flourishes.
Jake
Both are wrong. I have focussed on homosexuality becuase that was the topic of the blog. Any member of the church who is enslaved to pornography has little reason to assume he/she is a believer. The same applies to any who are enslaved to greed or coveteousness. The problem with greed is that it is not so easy to determine as sexual sin like homosexuality.
Fair enough, as pornography was my example rather than one included in the post; I just question the usefulness of debating this issue when there are larger ones. You exclude most (if not all) people from the title “Christian” with your position, even if you restrict the category to sexual sin. I think most of the cases would fall outside the category of homosexual desire.
Jake
You are right, many are excluded from the category of Christian by this definition. I fear this is the reality. Entering the Kingdom of God is difficult and few do. In the words of Jesus,
Matt 7:13-14 (ESV)
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
If we ask on the basis of this, ‘Are there then few that are saved?’. The answer of Jesus comes to us again,
Luke 13:23-24 (ESV)
And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
So much for grace, huh?
Titus 2:11-14 (ESV)
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
Jude 1:3-4 (RSV)
Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Grace creates holiness and grace can be abused.
Absolutely! That is the order: grace first, then our response to God’s grace. I only commented because the previous post seemed to imply that we need earn our salvation.