-
Website
http://christians-against-prop8.tumblr.com/ -
Original page
http://christians-against-prop8.tumblr.com/post/57227463 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=421550894...
I think the anti-homosexual bias by the church is often perceived as hate for some of the reasons you've listed. There are far more important topics that deserve attention, but this one seems to receive an inordinate amount of it.
It's also seemed to me that Christianity, in so far as it doesn't approve of gay marriage, can simply make this clear by not allowing such unions to be made in their churches. To craft legislation that forces all of society to submit to these beliefs is either arrogance or bigotry - or both.
To be honest, I'm a little torn about the issue myself, but I'm not going to go into here on your blog. Suffice it to say that, regardless of what I feel, I don't feel certain enough of it to try to convince others to think as I do.
Cheers and Happy Halloween!
- Whateverman / Jon
PS. came to your blog from the comment you left at the Raytractors
"The Cultural Argument Against Gay Marriage":
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved=&preview...
This is not about discrimination. I'm tired of people accusing Christians of being akin to racists. Even Jesse Jackson and other civil rights leaders have rejected the comparison between the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for civil rights. As Jackson said, “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”
Also, I totally disagree with you that marriage equals sex. Sex is the consummation of it where the two become one flesh, but sex in and of itself does not constitute marriage. Otherwise, why was Tamar disgraced when Amnon raped her? In your view, she would have been fine because she would have been 'married' to him. Although being "one flesh" is part of marriage, marriage is much larger and bears much more significance than just that.
And I am grateful for your voice.
- Genesis 2:24
Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH."
- 1 Corinthians 6:16
Paul was clearly referencing Genesis 2:24 in the 1 Corinthians 6 passage which is what Jesus also used to define marriage to the Pharisees when they asked him about divorce (Matthew 19:5 & Mark 10:8). In fact, Paul again referenced Genesis 2:24 when he explained the roles of Husband & Wives in Ephesians 5:31.
I don't have a seminary background and so I admit I can be wrong but from my readings of 1 Corinthians 5 & 6, Paul addresses sexual promiscuity & immorality and the consequences of it.
In v.16, Paul relates "one body" with the "one flesh" from Genesis 2:24. We know Genesis 2:24 refers to marriage (as used also in Matthew, Mark & Ephesians by Jesus & Paul). Therefore it's plausible that "one body" can refer to marriage.
Now one who joins himself with a prostitute becomes "one body" with her or marriage as we deduced from above. So what is the act of "joining himself with a prostitute"? One can easily deduce it as noncommittal sex. Why else does a man go to prostitute? And yet even this act of noncommittal sex w/ a prostitute, according to this passage, results in the Genesis 2:24 "one body" which is marriage.
I'm just trying to clarify my points and maybe you can provide deeper insight, but as of now, it looks relatively clear and logical to me. I am open to correction though.
Based on the theological preaching and teaching I've received, predominantly from listening to sermons of Rev Tim Keller. I am of the position that marriage is a lot more than sex. To respond specifically to Gregory's argument that Paul believed the contrary according to 1 Cor 6, I offer this analogy. Let's make being married like being a world-class concert pianist, sex like gifted use of your hands and being with a prostitute like breaking your wrists while snowboarding. I believe Paul expresses outrage at the man (who, by the way, is never specified to be married and committing adultery) with the prostitute and goes on to quote from Genesis 2 about marriage not because he regarded what the man had with the prostitute as identical or even comparable with what he has his wife (or with Christ as I believe Paul means here), but rather because the very nature of being married (or in Christ) or a world-class concert pianist carries with it an intrinsic, vital and important though not entirely interchangeable aspect of sex or gifted use of your hands that the act of being with a prostitute or going snowboarding stands in direct violation to and betrays a lack of understanding of your identity of being married (or in Christ) or a world-class concert pianist. But to conclude that marriage equals sex or being a world-class concert pianist equals having dexterous hands only would both be bad conclusions.
I too am open to correction.
Let me dissect it even further: Let's say a man drugs a virgin and forces sex upon her without her consent but uses a condom and does not inflict any other physical harm, is there anything wrong with that?
Is that worse than a man forcing a virgin to kiss him? Is that worse than a man forcing a virgin to slow dance with him? Is that worse than a man forcing a virgin to go on a date with him? Of course it is!
Because in essence what the man has done is force marriage upon the virgin. Her life will be completely altered from that one act of rape no matter how clean and tidy he was. A part of her identity will always be tied to him because through his rape, they have become "one flesh" despite her objections.
That's why I have no sympathy for rapists and believe they need to be punished to fullest extent of the law just like murderers.
Personally I always vote NO on any Proposition by default. It takes me a huge amount of thought and research to even consider voting YES. There is seemingly much more concrete evidence of what happens with a NO vote because the status quo will remain. The consequences of a YES vote will always be a huge risk because everything is ultimately based upon assumptions. Still, sometimes it is worth the risk.
I still don't know if Proposition 8 is worth the risk because it will open up a huge can of worms.
Because of the fallen nature of mankind, there are human laws that may not exactly follow God's original intention. One such example is Divorce. In both Matthew 19 & Mark 10, Pharisees ask Jesus if it's lawful to Divorce. Jesus repeats God's original intention and "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." And yet Moses wrote about Divorce (Deuteronomy 24) because of the sinful nature of Man (Matthew 19:8 & Mark 10:5). But again, Jesus clearly states that it was never God's intention to Divorce.
The World's definition of Marriage (even without same-sex marriages) is MUCH different from God's definition of Marriage just as the World's definition of Love is MUCH different God's definition of Love. Our World will always be in Darkness but because we have seen the Light, I of course hold our Brothers & Sisters in Christ at a much higher standard.
So when it comes to the World, I know we should fight for laws that protect human rights to live but should we force upon laws that the World in Darkness will NEVER understand (until of course they've accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord & Savior)? That is the question I am struggling with.
ON CHRISTIAN MORALITY AS A FRAMEWORK FOR LAW
You asked the question, "Why legislate this piece of Christian morality upon people who aren’t Christians?” Why force secular society to submit to God’s law if they don’t believe in God? Really good question that I have wondered myself. But I think legislation does indeed reflect and enforce morality. And I don’t think you can have real morality apart from God. A lot of societal morality is also Christian morality. For instance, both society and Christianity believe it is wrong to murder someone, so indeed we have laws banning and punishing murder. What we have here in the case of marriage then is society’s definition of marriage conflicting with the Christian definition of marriage.
There is a huge difference in society-defined morality and Christian-defined morality. Christian morality is defined on absolute terms by God and His Word. Society-defined morality is based on utilitarian principles for the good and order of society. The danger though is that the societal majority can simply be wrong. Some things are just not morally right, even if the majority deems it convenient and prosperous. What do we do in those cases? What if society starts advocating marriage between consenting, sibling adults (hey, why not keep wealth all in the family?)? Or bestiality because hey, it feels good to some people and it doesn’t hurt anyone? We have the same conflict with abortions and euthanasia. Are vegetables hooked up to a breathing machine as well as unwanted births simply unwanted burdens that are inconvenient and draining to society? People who are for abortions and euthanasia then risk choosing what they want based on what works for them, and not necessarily what is right. Relative morality is a dangerous, slippery slope.
I think morality can only be understood according to an absolute standard. (Otherwise, who is to say that terrorism is wrong? What if the terrorist believes he is moral in killing innocent people?) So this is why Christians are fighting to support Prop. 8. Again, not to discriminate against people, but to uphold God’s absolute standard and definition of marriage that is for all people, not just for Christians. Remember that throughout history, even non-Christian civilizations recognized and honored marriage between men and women, not between men and men. They may have had gay relationships, but no other civilization or culture has sought to redefine marriage to include gay relationships until now. Again, marriage is not just a legal issue, but also a moral one. In fact, it transcends cultures, eras, races, and societies.
ON LOVE AND JUSTICE
Marriage is not just about loving someone and being committed to them -- it is a public declaration before God and society that a man and woman would covenant to be committed to each other. Voting YES does not mean gay people can't be committed to each other – I just wouldn’t call it 'marriage'. Yes, Jesus tells us to love one another. But loving someone does not require supporting what they desire or letting them do what they want. To me, Love does not equal tolerance or enablement, so much as it equals compassion, gentleness, friendship, valuing the others' worth, and ministry. I do have a few gay friends that are Christian and I do believe I am called to love them, but not necessarily agree or compromise my values to support their lifestyle.
For God and for Jesus, they make it very clear that Love is intricately tied to Obedience. One can't say one loves God if one doesn't obey His commands (John 14:21, 23). So for me, I have a very hard time voting (which for me is the same as personally endorsing or affirming) something that I know is contrary to God's commands. Also, my understanding of Justice, especially from Isaiah, is that it is intricately tied to Righteousness. They're almost always spoken in the same breath! :) It is justice and righteousness to advocate for and protect the oppressed, to help widows and orphans, etc., but not necessarily to condone sin. It's interesting to note that the only Justice sinners faced in the OT was God's wrath, but in the NT, they were faced with more Mercy, rather than Justice. Mercy and Grace seek to love, value and restore the sinner, all while not condoning the sin. Such a mystery to me how God does it! :) Like Jesus didn't offer justice to the adulterous woman, but rather said, "You are forgiven, now go leave your life of sin." So for me, Prop 8 is not about Biblical Justice, although a case can be made that it is about secular justice. As Christians, we need to differentiate between the two types and also challenge our assumptions.
Also, here's why it is a matter of integrity for me -- If this Prop 8 vote only meant that society approves and affirms gay marriage, that is one thing. However, because we are calling it 'marriage', I take issue because that term is really God's term, His original idea. Marriage to me is not just a legal, civil thing, but also a spiritual and sacred institution that reflects Christ and the Church ultimately and is God's design. So in calling it 'gay marriage', it gives the illusion that it is acceptable, not only in society's eyes, but God's eyes as well! That to me is deceiving (is that too strong of a word?). Making gay marriage legal gives gay couples a false sense of security that what they are doing is moral, acceptable, and even pleasing to God (as some will get married in the church). To me, that would not be the loving thing to them and it would be doing them a large disservice (even in eternity).
Again, just want us to challenge our assumptions and definitions a bit in thinking about this issue. Thanks for engaging in this discussion!
No matter how much marriage is under attack, God's original design for marriage will NEVER change.
I think the fundamental issue is God's original design for mankind which is to worship Him and have a personal relationship. Not having a personal relationship with God is a infinitely a greater abomination than homosexuality and yet should we have laws that impose God's will onto those who do not know God? In essence, should we have laws that force people into a personal relationship with God?
God was very specific as to who he was directing the Mosaic laws which were the people who knew Him. God prefaces the Ten Commandments with "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." (Exodus 20:2 & Deuteronomy 5:6) It's interesting how God doesn't refer to his role as Creator (which would encompass all people) but rather Savior. God's Laws were always meant for those who are saved. They were NEVER meant for the unsaved.
God's law will never save those who don't know God. Only Jesus can save them. My fear is that Proposition 8 will even harden some hearts and make it even that much more difficult for people to be open to receiveing the Gospel and I feel that is a MUCH bigger crime.
I would even argue that gay marriage actually helps the welfare of children. Three percent of babies born in the US are available for adoption, which is, very sadly, more than the number of parents willing to adopt. And nearly half of these children (65,000) are adopted by gay parents! And even still, we need more adoptive parents, lest we allow "our" children to continue languishing in the foster care system or underfunded institutions. These are the children who go on to have the dysfunctional lives Hicks describes, not the children of same sex couples. (And while we're at it, why doesn't anti-abortion rhetoric address adoption, foster care, or donating to children's homes? The church must discuss this, especially if abortion should ever become illegal). Since so many gay couples are adopting children, I would actually prefer for them to be married in order to fortify their commitment to one another, because gay or not, two parents are better than one, both practically and emotionally for child and parent. However, I do know a number of social workers who are against gay marriage and yet would never prevent same sex couples from adopting.
I also disagree that marriage is solely for procreation. Should we prohibit reproductively-challenged men and women from marrying? Marriage is very much about "adult desires" and I think Song of Songs paints a very clear picture of that. In fact, God created us in a way to yearn and crave for the day we will be reconciled, or "married", to Jesus, our bridegroom. And whether gays/lesbians recognize that or not, they too are wired to want the love and intimacy that marriage confers because it points to the good news of God's kingdom come on earth: our wedding day. I pray that God would speak to the gay community through this marriage paradigm, that Jesus himself is also burning with desire to be married to his people, despite Satan's attempts to blame and accuse.
As for marriage and God, I just see Church-sanctioned marriage and state-sanctioned marriage as two completely different things. As I mentioned in my blog, my husband and I had a civil ceremony a month before our wedding for some legal purposes, but we we did not consider ourselves to be married, especially in the eyes of God. We live as "aliens and strangers of this world" and are here to share the love of Jesus, not to institutionalize a God-ordained morality. The separation of church and state is what allows people to worship other gods, even though as Christians, we believe that true worship is reserved for Jesus and idol worship is the mother of all immorality. But it is that same separation that should also differentiate state marriage vs. church marriage and societal morality and Christian morality.
At today's training, I learned that Billy Graham, in response to being asked how he could support Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, said, "It's the Holy Spirit's job to convict; it's God's job to judge; and it's our job to love." That speaks volumes to me about how the Church should respond to the gay marriage debate. Whether or not one thinks same sex attraction is wrong, the Church should be loving this community that has been burdened with rejection, depression, and suicide (highest suicide ate of any group or community). This is already how we respond to the battered and victimized woman who wants to leave her husband, even though we know that scripture says that divorce outside of adultery is wrong.
This is not an easy topic and I also struggle with my own desire to keep our culture pure and safe, especially for my future children. This whole "Girls Gone Wild" thing with straight women experimenting with their sexuality freaks me out. Every year, it seems like that stuff just keeps getting more and more normative and even....funny? I was at a wedding where my friend started to jokingly freak me on the dance floor, and I'm thinking that this is wrong, ironically wrong, on so many levels. We must viligantly guard ourselves. I do think it will be harder for Christians to stand by our convictions as abstinence will only become increasingly freakish to popular culture. But I don't think making gay marriage illegal will mitigate the cultural shift that is already happening at breakneck speed. And furthermore, I don't think pushing that agenda is the best way for us to love people or share the gospel. It is too easy for us Christians to fall into Pharisee-like ways of thinking and doing, while losing sight of the larger picture of God's calling for us to love and forgive others as Christ did for us in our sin.
So that's the core issue here. It's not about legal rights. It's about whether or not the favor and approval of the community is a right. Don't you think the community should be able to decide who they bestow favor and approval on?
This is what the California Supreme Court wrote in their majority opinion:
“First, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. Thus, it is apparent that affording access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples.”
If anyone can prove that the opposite is true then I will fight to keep it from being overturned. But I see no way that we're saving anyone's soul here. And if we're not saving souls for Christ through the actions we take in His name, then what the heck are we doing, exactly?
What I wanted to add is that I agree with Sean in that fighting for Prop 8 (and I would like to add treating homosexuals as sinners) is creating more alienation of God, and it could make people turn against Him. Also, during the times of slavery, there is proof showing letters of priests and ministers using quotes from the Bible to approve of slavery, and we know now that the Bible does not condone slavery.
It breaks my heart that people are using the Bible again to discriminate, and we're moving away from showing God's love. And I'm sad that people are afraid of opening-a-can-of-worms. Is that why we are still living in this type of society?