Thursday, May 10, 2012

What is the Role of the Christian Within the Same-Sex Debate?

The news media, the blogosphere, Facebook, and Twitter have all been buzzing the last 48 hours with Amendment One passing in North Carolina and now President Obama’s statement that he supports gay marriage.

So, I ask again, what is the role of the Christian within the same-sex debate?

Is it our responsibility, as Christians, to legislate morality?

I am a heterosexual, married Christian. I believe in the sanctity of marriage as defined biblically (i.e., one man and one woman within the context of the Jewish and subsequent Christian religions).

However, if we want to legislate morality against those we believe are “defiling” this biblical concept of marriage, should we not also then legislate against adulterers, or those claiming the word “marriage” within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheistic civil union?

The point, I think, for Christians to understand is that we live in a secular nation, not a theocracy, and we are never going to change a culture through legislation. We change culture through changing people, which is ultimately done through the power of God.

What do you think?

22 comments:

  1. Some are idealistic, yes, but I think many more people are afraid of what the government policy might become in regards to what a church can or cannot do or say. In other words, they're afraid of becoming what England already is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The only thing one may ever legislate is morality. It just depends on whose morality. Parking laws are legislating morality. It's deemed moral (right) to give preference to the handicapped for instance since it would be a burden for them to park and then travel distance. Name one law that is not a legislation of morality. The healthcare law is a legislation of morality. You are advocating something that is impossible!

    In a sense we have legislated against adulterers. In divorce court it may be a consideration for a wronged spouse and it should be. The state has every right to deem marriage between a man and a woman as proper marriage. For those of the same sex to marry is not marriage and this truth should be affirmed by both the church and the state.

    ReplyDelete
  3. cannot change the nation through legislation since we are not a theocracy? Then the church never should have insisted through legislation to abolish slavery or grant civil rights. Would you accept that the strategy should have been "change hearts" and maintain the status quo in the South. To be consistent it must be what you would have advocated. How about the Nazi laws implementing the final solution for the Jews? Change Hitler's heart?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim,

      Thanks for your thoughts! You make some great points worthy of consideration! In fact, I am not even sure how to respond at this moment!!

      Thanks for keeping me thinking!

      Delete
    2. Jim, Dan,

      I think we need to ask ourselves what role we expect our government to fill. My expectation is more of a limited government that exists to protect things along the lines of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In that context, government needed to be changed to stop oppressing the life and liberty of the Blacks in the South and Jews in Nazi Germany.

      Along the same lines, I'm not sure why the government needs to create laws banning gay marriage. I can't think of a way gay marriage infringes on my rights, and in fact preventing gay marriage may be limiting the personal liberties of those who are homosexual.

      Some Christians argue that gay marriage should be banned because it is "sinful," "outside of God's plan for marriage," etc. To those with this view, I ask them if the government should outlaw all such behavior. How about starting with homosexual relations outside of marriage? Next we include heterosexual relations outside of marriage. What laws should we put on the books regarding these behaviors? What should our police and court systems do to enforce these laws? Should we investigate and prosecute? What should the penalties be?

      As a Christian, I have no interest in my government enforcing Biblical Behavior. I don't know why Christians are get so worked up about the behavior of those outside the Church. And then to address it, they think the most effective or Biblical method is to create government rules, rather than demonstrating Christ, being salt and light, making disciples, etc.

      Steve

      Delete
  4. So, due to the fact that we live in a secular nation. Of which I disagree, our countrys laws and constitution are bassed upon biblical morals. My qusstion to you is this...why is murder illegal? the concept of Murder is a biblical law.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Jim to some extent about the difficulty of saying we can't legislate morality, whether America is a theocracy or not. I've found Phillip Blond to be helpful in regards to understanding what is fundamentally the problem here (not just gay marriage, but the whole legislative processess founded upon mere exertion of the will). I've posted many of his lectures on my fb, so you can get to them from there. I'd be interested in what you think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm always grateful that you throw in an author you have been helped with...you are such a scholar!! I will have to check out those lectures.

      Delete
  6. I couldn't agree with you more Dan. Why do we as Christians think the best way to spread christianity is to force biblical morals on society and make them conform to 'our way of living'? We are set apart from the world, we (christians) are called to live by a higher moral standard. The world is lost. God has given them over to their lusts and to depravity by His choice. We are called to love the lost, not protest against them. What would be more effective, voting against and protesting same sex marriage, causing strife and hatred towards Christians and more importantly Jesus; or loving them and building relationships with them in hope that they will see the Love of Christ in us. It is God's kindness that leads us to repentance.

    I would take it one step further and say that as a Christian, I don't believe getting involved in any politics. This is why I choose not to vote. As an ambassador of Christ, why should I get myself entangled in the affairs of this world, this secular society? And yes, Anonymous, We do live in a secular society. If you believe otherwise than you are naive. We are called to love others and preach the gospel of Christ, not protest and picket and force God's law on an unbelieving society. God can take care of that Himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan,

      I am always trying to work through the tension of how much to be involved with the world's junk...

      With that said, I think Jesus was actually a bit more political than we want to assume. Warren Carter, in his "The Roman Empire and the New Testament", has some interesting ideas about Jesus's politics.

      Delete
    2. Ryan, you misunderstood. We Do live in a secular society but the moral basis of our constitution and every liberty we have today in the U.S.is because of biblical morals. By the way I find it odd that you stay out of politics. Why? If you have the opportunity to vote down abortion are you saying you would decline to vote? How bout slavery, or if given a voice for unborn children in china who's parents already have exceeded the one child law... are you actually telling me/us that if given the opportunity to have a voice in the matter that you would remain silent? I don't think you can provide a single scripture for remaining silent. Christ told the Pharisees that they had no clue as to what they were talking about, that they were essentially secular "religious" people. Paul claimed his rights as a roman to make it hard on his persecutors... but you, you want to sit Idelle by and watch the world burn. Why even preach the gospel to nonbelievers? After all God can take care of that himself I fear it is you who is naive my friend. Just think about it...every thing you say and do is political in one way or another. I hope if given the chance to have a voice you will change your mind and use your voice. Not for who 'they' tell you to vote for but for someone who actually represents what you stand for with out compromising on any values. Good people are out there. (and they are not romney or obama or ron paul they all suck)

      Delete
  7. Interestingly, that's the same logic that Billy Graham used about civil rights. He didn't think legislation was the way to end segregation. He wanted it to be done through the hearts and minds of people. MLK said we couldn't wait to change people's hearts and besides, government policy often does change hearts over time. So why doesn't it work in this case?

    In any case, no nation (secular or otherwise) stands on morally neutral ground. Everybody is legislating somebody's morality. Whether we have an obligation to legislate our morality as Christians depends, in part, on whether you think Christian morality is the best way to achieve the common good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Peter. You are always so measured!! I wish you lived closer so we could hang out and have these discussions in person!!

      Delete
  8. I would rephrase that you can't legislate morality to, "legality isn't morality". It may possibly be, but it may not. I'm guessing most people here would agree that Abortion isn't moral, but it is legal. In the same same way most people would likely agree, I hope, that murder is immoral(lets just say in most cases and leave the cases where people would argue there's a grey area now for convenience). "Legality isn't morality" is a phrase that I've embraced and it's helped me a great deal. I would say to Jim that there are numerous parking and traffic laws that aren't in the least bit moral, the only moral argument you can make is whether it's right or not to obey them based on the morality of the state. With all that being said let me dive into gay marriage.

    Gay marriage is ridiculous. It will always be ridiculous even it ends up being made legal in all states. The US didn't used to have any marriage laws and they were instituted in the late 1800's to keep track of inter-racial marriages. Obviously marriages occurred and marriage existed before these laws were enacted. This is an insult to their credibility in my eyes. Patristicsandphilosophy is quite right to worry about the legal consequences to churches here. This is already beginning to happen. I spoke with a Lutheran pastor I'm friends with and they've faced the possibility of law suits from homosexual groups if they're not allowed to rent out their churches. To their credit the Lutheran Church(Missouri Synod, not the more liberal ELCA) will stop doing weddings before they allow homosexual's to have ridiculous and blasphemous ceremonies in their churches. This is one incident in a mid-west state, but I'm sure it won't be the last. To me that is a reason to fight against the legalization of gay marriage, ridiculous as it is. Too many groups are promoting an agenda and complaining about their so called rights, but they'll instantly go out of their way to trample others beliefs. So even though I argued the State's roll is irrelevant, it won't be because of the potential other problems it will cause. So when someone says we're shoving our Christianity down their throats, they're committing the same crime.

    I think as Christians we need to Separate homosexuality into 3 categories. First is homosexuality itself, which God isn't too fond of and we shouldn't be either. Second are homosexuals themselves, obviously we need to love them and be good witnesses of the faith to them. Third is the homosexual agenda which is certainly being pushed and I believe we should push back against it. Homosexuals only represent 2% of the population, a non-religious friend of mine just wouldn't believe me. This is surely due to their vast over representation in popular media. Ironically I doubt the majority of homosexuals even want to be married, making it an extremely small minority.

    Briefly on Dan's thoughts of Buddhists and atheists, there's a certain logic to that. The only thing I would argue is that those cases actually mirror or mimic Christian marriage. Whereas gay marriage is unorthodox enough it differs more than those cases, at least from my point of view. Okay I've rambled on for quiet a while. Thanks to anyone that's bothered to read all this, I hope it made some kind of sense. This is Matt N by the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. All parking laws are a reflection of morality imposed by someone. Name one that isn't.Meters? Time restriction? Snows lanes? All are a reflection that it is "right" to park or not park in a given time or place. Ryan, I agree with you regarding laws are not the best way to "spread" Christianity. I don't know of anyone or any recent theologian who holds that view. I would say it is no way to spread Christianity at all--we do that through Gospel work. However, it is a God-given duty to restrain evil in society and thank God this limited view of Christian commitment was not practiced by MLK,Jr., Willliam Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Christians have a right to legislate and whenever they or anyone else legislates they are legislating morality. You cannot, I repeat, it is impossible, to legislate anything other than morality by definition.

      Delete
    2. Jim,
      I just want to comment quickly on one point. you said

      "it is a God-given duty to restrain evil in society"

      What exactly do you mean by that? When I read the Bible, I read we are to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”(Luke 10:27) and "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." (Hebrews 12:14). When it comes to restraining evil, the Bible teaches "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong...For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."(Romans 13:3-4).

      If we were to just take that statement by itself, that we could easily justify vigilante justice, which I'm sure some fringe people would. So, is it really a christians duty to 'restrain evil'? I would agree that we should help those that are oppressed by evil, but in what ways and how far do we go? are we being oppressed by the gay community that we should take legislative action against them? Just some thoughts, sorry if I'm all over the board here.

      Delete
  9. Law doesn't change people, Jesus changes people. Isn't that the point of the gospel?

    ReplyDelete
  10. i know i'm late to this party, but similar conversation happening here, at my blog http://www.mjkimpan.com/2012/05/22/two-cents-on-gay-marriage/#more-1512. wonder if you'd be interested in sharing your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ryan,

    The Scripture you quote is an example of restraining evil and it is ordained by God. Should not Christian participate in what has been ordained by God? Agree, the Bible condemns vigilante justice and so should Christians. Slavery I believe was lawfully ended through the events of and following the civil war. John Brown in the name of God falsely tried to take things into his own hands. Taking Dan's logic to its conclusion the civil war would never have been supported by Christians nor should they support the amendments and legislation to abolish slavery.

    Are we oppressed by the gay community? Great question. Was Lot oppressed in Sodom? He was forced to conform to their view of morality. If he didn't give over the men/angels he would have been violated himself. Same sex activity does prey on the innocent and many have had their lives ruined. The state has every right and reason to agree with God that marriage is what He says it is and nothing else--union of a man and a woman--a profound mystery which refers to Christ and His Church. No matter what is legislated or what anybody says same-sex marriage will never by marriage. There is some good theological work taking place regarding what is referred to as R2K--Reformed Two Kingdoms. The traditional Reformed view is there is only one kingdom--the earth is the Lord's. R2K mostly comes from a misunderstanding of Luther but it is nowhere found in the original Reformed tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ryan,

    and yes we are called to restrain evil. We may do that lawfully through contacting our elected officials, peaceful protest. Would you be OK with Christians marching with MLK,Jr. to end Jim Crow laws in the South? This in my view is an example of loving the Lord with your heart, soul, mind and strength. Does that just refer to worship services and not to vocation and civic duty? May Christians run for election? Vote? The two kingdoms approach in inherently incoherent. The key is to act lawfully and peacefully. If things do not go our way we cannot take things into our own hands.

    Calvin did extensive work on this and only advocated overthrow of tyrants if there was a consensus government in place that could take the place of a tyrant. And he counseled overthrow only as a last resort. Many Reformed argue that our American Revolution was an example of a lawful overthrow. I'm not convinced Calvin would have agreed. I think Christians in good conscience could have interpreted St. Peter's exhortation to "honour the king" as a reason to oppose the rebellion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. spent the last several minutes looking through the comments on this post.

    dan, curious as to your thoughts (in the last paragraph, particularly) here :: http://mjkimpan.com/2012/06/01/the-issue-is-not-homosexuality/

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please forgive what may at first appear to be arrogance, but may I point out that no one commenting so far seems to have quoted pertinent scriptural instruction on this very subject? "I have written to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--NOT AT ALL MEANING THE PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD WHO ARE IMMORAL (emphasis mine), or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, or an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF MINE TO JUDGE THOSE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH? (emphasis mine) Are you not to judge those inside the church? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." 1Cor 5:9-13

    I don't think the apostle Paul could be any clearer, or speak more directly to the subject at hand, especially in light of Jesus' own statement, "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it." John 12:47

    But the problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the Kingdom of God, its coming to earth by invasion through believers, and the "now but not yet" nature of it. Are not Christians too often much like those who would make Jesus king by force?

    ReplyDelete