Disclaimer: This post may offend some readers, in various ways. Its purpose is not to judge or condemn or scold, but rather to tell about my own transformation and growth and mistake. Please keep that in mind. Also, you won't get the full scope of this post without reading the comments at the bottom.
I have been having an ongoing conversation with an acquaintance of mine--I call it a conversation, but often enough it's been more like an argument. But anyway, it has been a discussion of religion, the Bible, God, gods, skepticism, and especially our differing views on pretty much everything to do with homosexuality. I'll call this person Hugo, for no particular reason. As I write this, I desperately hope there's no way it could be taken offensively, because I literally just picked the first random name to pop into my head.Anyway, I personally believe the Bible is pretty clear about God's view on homosexuality. I believe God has told us through the Holy Spirit as He fashioned the Bible that homosexuality is a mis-use of God's gift to us of our sexuality--one mis-use among many, I should say. My friend strongly disagrees with me, and we battled back and forth on this and related topics for some time, but finally Hugo seemed to resign himself to the fact that it wasn't going anywhere. I had been thinking the same thing, but had been to stubborn to admit it. His only remaining question for me was about my stance on the hot issue of "gay marriage" in the United States: "Can you detail what the arguments in your mind are why in America same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married?"
I stared at the screen, very aware of the sweat accumulating on my fingers. I began a mental inventory of all of the reasons I had that we as a nation must "defend marriage," and was surprised to find it less compelling in my head than it had been in my heart. The only arguments I could come up with had to do with protecting the followers of my particular faith from a likely damaging doctrine and practice. Sure, that sounded a little self-centered. A little like "watching out for my own interests." But surely that's what any demographic in this country does, at this point? Sometimes it seems like every man for himself and may the loudest voice win. It's not right, but that's just how it is...
My conscience pricked as I tried to justify myself and my church before Hugo and before God. But what choice did I have? I might not fully understand why the church is so set on preventing the legalization of gay marriage in this country, but who am I to defy the authority of the church? How many Christians have gotten it into their heads that they were right, and the church wrong, and then gone and become heretics, leading others from the truth to lies, simply because they couldn't accept that the pastor knew better than they did?
This is getting much longer than I initially intended, as they usually do, so I'll cut to the chase. Hugo ended our conversation, disgusted with me, and I thought that was the end of it, but God had other plans. I continued to ponder the justifications I had offered for my stance on gay marriage, and the motivations I had for it. I realized that what it came down to was fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of difficulty, danger, and persecution. I considered what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:12 about not judging those outside the church. I considered the reactions I had seen from so many people outside the church. Angry, disillusioned, feeling not the love they were supposed to feel, but rather judgement and hate.
Then this morning, God put the nail in the coffin, as it were. A guest speaker at church spoke about the glory of God. About how God is the Ultimate in everything good: good, power, glory, love, creativity...everything. He moved on to our role as Christians, "little Christs." Mentioned that Christ told us two signs by which the world would know that we are from God: our love and our unity. Funny that he didn't mention our apologetics or our doctrines. Now I am not saying those should be compromised, but they are not the primary means by which lost people come to know God.
Which was more effective, this pastor asked me after the service, at rescuing people from the clutches of alcohol and prostitution--Prohibition, or Awakening? Judgment and imposing our values on others...or loving them in spite of our differences, the way that God loved (and loves) us?
I no longer wish to contribute to the world's view of Christians as oppressive, selfish, or judgmental by insisting that this secular democracy uphold my moral beliefs regarding homosexuality. Do I still consider this to be a sin? Yes, along with a great many others of which I am guilty and worthy of death. Do I think that the church should strictly uphold Biblical values within its own leadership, at the risk of strife and persecution? Absolutely. Do I want to be called a heretic by some who might read this and disagree with me? Not really, but if that is the price for being where I believe God wants me to be, then so be it. I don't want to live in fear of the unknown anymore, but in trusting that God is mighty to save, and able to work things out for the good of those who love and trust in Him. If that means that some of my taxes go toward paying for "Adam and Steve's" pension plan down the road, okay. That's the government's affair--not mine.
When I first considered writing this, I'm ashamed to admit that I was afraid that when he saw it, Hugo would read it and smile smugly to himself and think, "Told ya so, Peter. You were being jerk, and now you see the light. It's only a matter of time before you see things my way on the rest of it." Then I realized it doesn't matter if he does, and I suspect he's much more sporting than that. And besides, humility is good for me. I need consistent strong doses of it, and God makes sure I get them even when I try to avoid it--especially when I try to avoid it. I'm sorry, Hugo, for making you sick to your stomach, and I hope this helps to calm it down--not only for the sake of calming your stomach down, but for my conscience, and for God's frown.
If anyone has comments or questions, feel free to hit me up.
Peter – First, thank you for your honesty, humility, and openness. It is a question that I have struggled with for some time. And I must admit that for myself, my desire to reconcile my beliefs about homosexuality as a sin, with the world's disagreement, was often selfish. I was uncomfortable being thought of us judgmental, backwards, hateful. That though is hardly a reason to back down, as "God did not give us a spirit of timidity." It was also hard to accurately express my words but here's some thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) The Church often puts too much stake in our efforts to shape the secular world. Not that it isn't important or we shouldn't try - there are spiritual and societal implications to these things. But if God was God in Rome, in Hitler's Germany, and in North Korea today - He is certainly God in America no matter what laws we mistakenly pass.
2) Much of the scorn for the Church's defense of traditional marriage in the face of homosexuality is our own abysmal record of marriage. When divorce, abuse, and promiscuity statistics are virtually the same in and out of the Church - it often rings hollow to want to protect marriage in other instances. We absolutely need to do a better job of standing against all of those and standing for the traditional, God-fearing marriage/family that was ordained from the beginning.
You've done a good job of sticking to your principles regarding sin while allowing for the world to continue on its course. I fear though that such logic will pass many people by - that it will be mere background noise drowned out by crippling hate or devastating "anything-goes." Thus, I cannot come to the same conclusion as you for a few reasons:
1) Though I struggle with the words and thoughts in decrying homosexual marriage - the argument for it essentially boils down to "Because it feels good/I want to." That's not enough reason for my 5 year old to get out of going to bed let alone undermining thousands of years of human (not just Christian) history/policy.
ReplyDelete2) I believe the slippery slope is already in motion and it becomes harder and harder to stop. It didn't (or won't start) with homosexuality - rather with divorce, abuse, etc...The genie may well be out of the bottle, but I will not throw the stopper in the air and say "who cares." A luke-warm church is made all the more irrelevant for its contrast with the red-hot hateful dogma that is so often portrayed. I am fearfully confident that polygamy, bestiality, etc will follow as efforts for change/normalization in the future.
3) There is a sociological as well as religious argument to be made against homosexual marriage - or more broadly and accurately - for traditional marriage. The students I work with on a surface level clearly have a need for a mother and - that which is usually lacking - a father. (Now are 2 loving "mom's" better than an abusive father - surely- but ultimately, I want 'best' not 'better.') You can't attempt to take 50% of what makes us who we are out and expect the same result. Chicken soup with no broth is just chicken.
4) Marriage in the Bible is more than a definition of how we should live on earth - it is a model for how Christ is with the Church. Further distorting our relationships here is not conducive to helping further the understanding of God's love and sacrifice for us.
Christ was clear to the women caught in adultery - and I think various parts of the Church (and myself certainly at various times) lost part of one aspect or another. He said, "Your sins are forgiven, now go and sin no more." We frequently are unable to love the sinner and speak against the sin.
Neither my own relationship with God nor His love for the world will change as a result of constitutional amendments or presidential decrees. Still I pray that God will allow me and others to speak the truth with love - on homosexuality and so many other areas.
Love you bro, and please don't see this as a criticism, but merely a statement of my own beliefs/explanation of my own thought-process. Happy to discuss further.
You've made a much more compelling argument for defending traditional marriage than I could, Tim. Thanks for that, because that way this is a much more balanced conversation. Here are my thoughts in response to what you've written, not so much counterarguments as immediate reactions:
ReplyDelete1) Do you think that the best efforts of the church in America will be enough to prevent our descent on the slippery slope you've described above?
2) Are there any instances in the NT in which the church compelled outsiders to live by their standards of holiness? It seemed to me rather that Paul implied in 1 Cor. 5:12 that we cannot expect those outside the church to hold themselves to the same standard.
3) The picture I see of the church in the NT is one of a remarkable Christian society living in the midst of a larger pagan/non-Christian society. It's as if the stark contrast between the two made the church and the faith all the more attractive to those outside? (More darkness = stronger light?)
4) Christians are the body of Christ on earth, at this time. We are meant to reflect God's love to the world. Does it hinder our ability to do that when the world sees us (rightly or wrongly) as hateful, oppressive, and judgmental? Isn't part of God's love for us that He allows us to choose for ourselves either obedience or disobedience?
Love you too, Tim. I wish God would send us an email about this one...
Thanks Peter - if I was coherent it's because you framed it well. I think we both believe the same thing - just a matter of how to approach it. For your questions:
ReplyDelete1) Not sure if the slide can be stopped or not. If the best efforts are more of the same - probably not. If they're truly spoken with God's love - perhaps. Not sure it matters in the end (as far as should we try) whether on this topic or any other, I think God calls us speak out. Jesus knew in a very real sense the hearts of the Pharisees and yet did not give up on them.
2) Not sure the church compelled outsiders to believe as they did - though certainly Christian leadership against slavery and other issues has been keenly needed throughout history. I certainly think that "God is love' should come before "God hates sin," though as it says the Law is needed to better understand grace. One could claim that since 70% of Americans claim Christianity that brings the vast majority under the scope of authority. That aside though, marriage is very much a religious issue and for better or worse the issue of a civic gay marriage has been intermingled with religious recognition of the same - a definite "church" conflict. Perhaps removing the term "marriage" as some have suggested would help but I don't think it's a complete solution.
3) I think you're largely correct about the NT Church being almost a separate society. I think two big differences - they were better at maintaining their own sanctity. In addition to divorce as I mentioned yesterday, pornography is as rampant in as out of the Church. Amish and monks are admired to a certain extent but do they much influence society? Don't think so. The other reality is that in Rome there was no opportunity for public discourse. Democracy affords us that and should allow us to voice even unpopular opinions.
4) The last is the crux of the matter and one I'm not as sure of. Is it better to speak with love and be seen as hateful or to remain silent and be seen as ambivalent...if the Church is silent, how then will others hear of God and His righteousness; if the Church is hateful how then will others see God and His love. I think it's important (though never easy) to speak humbly, acknowledge that sin is sin and we all share that, and focus on God's redeeming love. As I said, our eternity does not rest with any government body - but I think in the meantime we should engage the process and use the opportunities it affords to present that love.
I read a good editorial on CNN today actual from a conservative minister who basically said "homosexuality" was not necessarily a "fight" Christians chose - its somewaht a byproduct of society - there are other moral issues that are equally or more important in a sense, but the media and society is pushing this particular one and so the conversation commences. I think it better that it not be a one-sided one.
Hope that makes some sense. let me know if you get that (or any other) email from Him.
Some sects of protestants are always, it seems, going on about "the" church. Surely you don't think Christianity is a monolithic entity with a centralized authority? Are Christians who affirm gay couples not Christians, then, in your book? "The" Church always seems to boil down to "the churches which mostly agree with me." Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteSeveral of your "arguments for defending traditional marriage" are not relevant arguments at all, for the following reasons: "Because it feels good . . . is not enough reason for my 5 year old to get out of going to bed let alone undermining thousands of years of human (not just Christian) history/ policy." Maybe not, but is the pleasure gained from eating different kinds of meals, mac and cheese, chef salad, etc, enough to justify not feeding your kid cold porridge for every meal? The simple fact that something is pleasurable or desired is not reason enough to denounce it either. What you want to say, I think, is that this action is both pleasurable and objectively wicked, and thus, like a kid not getting to stay up late, it can be forbidden by the state. However, same sex couples who support each other through life and contribute to their communities can only be said to be wicked if you espouse a fundamentalist view of the bible, and this is not compelling justification in a secular society. As a foot note, your implication that all of human history has had the same level of affirmation of SSCs as the christian church is demonstrably, easily, and surprisingly erroneous.
"Now are 2 loving "mom's" better than an abusive father - surely- but ultimately, I want 'best' not 'better.'" I want to clarify that we are talking about the legality of same sex marriage, not their level of perfection. Besides the fact that same sex couples already can and do raise children (and seem to do it well), and that gay parenting is a separate issue from gay marriage, the fact that you want every child in america to have the "best" is hardly justification to deny marriage rights to SSCs. Even prison convicts on death row are granted the right to marry. Single parenting is clearly not ideal (though it may be much better than some mother/father parenting possibilities) it is in no way illegal, and i can't see it ever will be in a secular democracy. So, let's stay on task here.
"anything-goes." "Because it feels good/I want to." "who cares." I would like respectfully to take issue with your implication that the proponents of marriage equality argue, imply, or secretly hold these types of sentiments as the tenets of belief which motivate them. This is a deplorable straw man. Realize please that in this debate your main opponents are not nihilists, but people who believe their god or divinity blesses virtuous committed couples, whether they be same sex couples or not.
"There is a sociological as well as religious argument to be made against homosexual marriage - or more broadly and accurately - for traditional marriage." The defendants in the California Prop. 8 case were unable to show that this supposition is true, in a court of law. I can elaborate if this sounds preposterous to you.
Hugo
I will only reply to your first comment here, Dom, since the rest seem to be addressed to Tim. He can answer if he wishes. Christians of many denominations refer to "the Church" or "the church" in several senses. In some cases of this blog I referred to "the church" meaning the branches of the church with which I have the most interaction at this stage in my life, the ones which primarily seem to oppose same-sex marriage, and often enough its legalization. In other instances (do I think the church should uphold strict...?) I would mean any hypothetical Christian church. A third sense would be what should really be called "the Church," which means the entire body of Gentiles whose sins have been covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. This is what is meant in the Apostles Creed by "the Holy Catholic Church." Sorry about the confusion.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't meant to show confusion, rather to ask for some justification for "the definite article." The reason I asked for this justification was illustrated i hoped by my question, "Are Christians who affirm gay couples not Christians, then, in your book?" which you sidestepped.
ReplyDeleteOk, now a point of actual confusion: Does your use of the word gentiles in the end there mean you don't think jews ever go to heaven? Just curious.
Hugo
Gotcha. I did not mean to sidestep it. I just lost track of it. I don't make a practice of saying outright that a person who claims to be a Christian is not a Christian. I would at least say that such a person or church is very misguided in that particular category. Though of course no person or church is without its faults.
ReplyDeleteI think any Jew who accepts Christ as his righteousness will. So I suppose that if I am correct they would also belong to "the Church". In the Bible, Jesus seems to say that simply being descended physically from Abraham does not cut it. I would certainly not consider myself anti-Semitic though.
I wasn't thinking that the blood would do it (get someone into heaven), silly, i was thinking of the whole being a good person thing. But protestants, i'm remembering now, usually say that no matter how saintly, it's not good enough, right? amusing.
ReplyDeleteThe book of Hebrews seems to make this pretty clear, as does Revelation 5. I have actually read (and experienced on a limited basis for myself) that the "better" a person of God becomes, the more clearly they see how unworthy they are but for Jesus' redeeming sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteI know you aren't trying to be anti-semitic, but from where I'm sitting, it does seem an awful lot like you're now making salvation a prize in the raffle of the accident of one's birth. Now that we're a bit off topic, can you remind me, how does your church answer the question of the salvation of those people who can't possibly be expected to have heard your jesus story in their lifetimes?
ReplyDeleteHugo
That wouldn't be specifically anti-semitic though, would it?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, some Christians would say that is why Jesus gave the Great Commission, because such people will not be saved. From my limited studies, this seems to have the strongest Biblical backing.
Because my (and others') sensibilities rebel at the thought of this seeming injustice, some hope that God would arrange for a "Plan B" for people to hear the Gospel, perhaps through some sort of direct revelation or simply God's discernment. This seems to be only a hopeful wish though. I don't recall ever having read anything in the Bible to support it.
I have read repeatedly that God is both just and righteous though, so I trust that He knows more and He knows best.
Right, it would be better to call it protestant chauvinism rather than antisemitism. Much better, right?
DeleteI maybe possible for your imagination, but it boggles mine that jesus would have given the grand commission only 2 thousand odd years ago, considering the 98 millenia or so where homo sapiens lived existences somewhat governed by disease and hunger, only to be given the prize at the end of not getting into heaven by reason of being born too early. That in conflicts between what your god given reason dictates (such as what a just and righteous god would do), and what is written in the bible, the bible gets preference is an interesting trend. God forbid you let that it is a hopeful wish stop you from putting some faith in it. ;)
Again, the Bible doesn't inform us of some things we'd like to know, like exactly how God determines salvation prior to Jesus. But it indicates a few who certainly are saved, so it can be assumed there's some way in which a B.C. person's faith in God was "credited to him [or her] as righteousness" to bring salvation.
DeleteI suggest we let this conversation peter out for the time being, since we're not getting anywhere with each other anyway, and we're now starting separate comment threads on our comment threads, lol.
Hokay. Too bad your relative never replied to all the questions i initially directed at what he wrote. That would have been more on topic.
DeleteHugo
Also, remember that from a Christian perspective, this whole existence thing is not some game that God is refereeing...it's a war that God is fighting.
ReplyDeleteGod, much like the CIA, needs to stop funding, training, and creating his future combatant adversaries, as I've said before. I wonder how else god is like the CIA?
Delete**I hope (and am sure) you and other readers realize that when I as a Christian refer to a "war," I by no means mean a physical earthly one, but rather a spiritual one.
DeleteYeah, gotcha. Peter and i had a lengthy conversation on the nature and alleged origins of devils earlier, and that is to what the CIA comment refers.
Delete