Tuesday, March 14, 2006
ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE IMITATION OF CHRIST
Thanks to Amanda Warren for stimulating my thinking on this topic.
1) My "old" position, at the beginning of this post:
The "traditional" definition of marriage is too ingrained in the institutions and ideas of our American culture to helpfully be changed to include homosexual unions. Therefore I think that there should be "civil unions" which give same-sex couples all of the legal rights and privileges of heterosexual marriage, but does not encroach on the "traditional" definition of marriage. This would also ensure that no lawsuits would be brought against Christian churches who refuse to perform "marriage" ceremonies for same-sex couples, thereby protecting their freedom of religion.
2) What would Jesus do?
MT 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Jesus would not have been upset about the so-called "homosexual agenda," and would not have defended the "traditional" definition of marriage. (Though He surely would have taught on why God's ideal is a heterosexual union.) He would not have resisted the homosexual advocates, but would have gone the "extra mile."
What would the extra mile have looked like today? For all the churches to say, "Okay, fine. Broaden the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions." But then also say, "We no longer perform 'marriages,' but we do perform 'Christian unions,' which are only between heterosexual couples and do not confer any worldly benefits at all. If a Christian couple is still interested in the legal benefits of 'marriage,' they should also see a Justice of the Peace to have the appropriate ceremony performed."
3) The point?
Many Christians today demand that the same-sex couple be the ones to bend. Either they must, A) never have anything that commpares to marriage, or B) have something that compares to marriage, but it should be given a new, made-up name like "civil unions."
But didn't Jesus call Christians to sacrifice themselves for the world? Aren't Christians to be the ones to take it on the chin? Shouldn't we be the ones to change our "name" for something? Why turn people away from Christ over an eight letter word? Even if we called it "potato," wouldn't it be the same concept of a union before God of two people committed to each other? The apostle Paul says,
1CO 6:7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
Shouldn't we "die to ourselves," in order that the world would see the love of God in us? Of course, for this to work, all the churches in the country would have to be onboard. I guess that's the rub. How many churches out there really have Christ as their pattern? and how many have given up on the path of Christ, and are instead trying to win the "culture war" using the political weapons of their particular party, whether Republican or Democrat.
Perhaps I will give up my current position, which is only based on pragmatism and a cynical distrust of the ability of American churches to actually put the interests of others before themselves?
***********************UPDATES************************
4) Jesus and Marriage
Of course Jesus wouldn't back down from sin, or change His idea of what God commanded. I am not saying that we change our ideas of what is sinful or allowed for Christians. I did say, "He surely would have taught on why God's ideal is a heterosexual union." However, my point is that He would not have gone to the lengths that many Christians are going today. He would have affirmed marriage as between a woman and a man, but would He have stood in the way of the world wanting to change the definition? (That is what I meant by "defending the traditional definition.")
For example, in Matthew 19:2-12, Jesus responds to a similar quibble about marriage, namely divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses allows a man to divorce a woman "who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her." The dispute at the time was between the two rabbinnic schools of Shammai and Hillel. Shammai emphasised "something indecent," meaning unfaithfulness of various sorts. Hillel emphasised "becomes displeasing," which could be something as small as she burned his dinner. Jesus very clearly teaches on the topic, and clearly sides with Shammai (and God).
However, Jesus did not embark on a political campaign to restrict how Moses' decree of divorce was interpreted. He did not seek to pass any laws regarding divorce. Instead, He proclaimed and taught about the Kingdom of God (and Himself as the doorway to it), and expeceted those who responded to the call to have a righteousness that "surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law" (Matthew 5:20). Perhaps we should do the same in our current situation? There is a difference between affirming what God says, and passing laws that affect how everybody, Christian or not, should live.
5) Our first stumbling stone- the apostle Paul opens a door
Where did we get our interest in political activity? Instead of giving a long historical lecture, I would like to look at some verses that open a door for Christians to engage in the political world.
1CO 7:17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.... 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
To me, this passage is critical. Paul is frequently faulted for "supporting slavery." He did no such thing. But he pointedly did NOT embark on a political campaign to end it. He was preaching the gospel, and thought that was more important. But in this text, he adds a caveat- IF you can get your freedon, then do so. At this point the door has been cracked open. We are not to mindlessly "remain as we are," for if the situation changes we can change with it. (See also Paul's letter to Philemon, where the escaped slave who has become a Christian decides to return to his master, but Paul entreats the master to not take him back as a slave, but as a brother.)
Should the situation change to where we can procure freedom for all slaves, then we should do it. In the 18th and 19th century, political developements such as democracy in America and England allowed for full abolition. These were Christians who were leading the way, such as William Wilberforce in England (spurred on by John Wesley). These were good political campaigns that were spurred on by love of neighbor.
But where does it end? At what point have we gone too far?
6) Our second stumbling stone- the apostle Paul puts up a doorstop
For Paul, there was a definite boundary on our activity in the world- namely , we should not bring reproach to the gospel. If people are going to be upset at us, it should be because they do not like the message of Jesus' salvation for all, purchased through His death and resurrection. For example, Paul's letter to Titus says:
TIT 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2 Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. TIT 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. TIT 2:6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. TIT 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Some would like say that these commands are given because they are God's "traditional roles," and are God's ideals for all cultures, particulary the part about wives being "subject to their husbands." But seeing all of these as norms for all time would contradict the previous verse where Paul tells slaves that they can obtain freedom if the chance arrives. The text clearly says what Paul's motivation is for telling Christians to generally live in line with the patterns of the society of his time, except where it would be sinful.
-so that no one will malign the word of God (probably meaning the gospel, not the Bible- see here, part 2)
-so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us
-so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
For Paul, the advance of the gospel was of paramount importance. For example, after arguing in many of his letters that believers do not have to obey the Law of Moses anymore, he himself tells us that "To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law" (1 Cor 9:20). Not only that, but when he prepares to take Timothy with him on his missionary trip in Acts 16:3, he has Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews who lived in that area." In Acts 21, he joins in some Jewish ritual purifications in order to keep peace with the "many thousands of Jews (who) have believed." His priority is clear:
"On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ." (1 Cor 9:12)
7) The American church today and the idol of Christendom
We have given up putting our hopes in the spread of the gospel, and are instead interested in "winning the cultural war." But I have some things to say that might be hard for many American Christians. First of all, we have never been "a Christian country" (see here ). We certainly were founded by many who were Christians, and Christian ideas were certainly involved, but that is not the same as being a "Christian country."
This one is going to be rough: The promise in 2 Chronicles 7:14 has NO application to America:
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
This clearly refers to Israel, who are "called by God's name," and it was based on the promises of Deuteronomy, where God says He will establish them as a people in the land He will give them.
Ever since the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, Christians have flirted with the idea that we can take over governmental power and impose a kingdom of God on earth. It is an idol that we must destroy.
I believe that many Christians in America today see their only hope in politics. George W. Bush, or the Republican party will save us. Nobody says this, but many live like it. I used to. But is is a false gospel, which should be rejected. I am not saying that we should not be involved in politics (the apostle Paul gave us an open door), but I think many are in over their heads and need to step back. It has been shown that when people in America hear "Christian," they also think "Republican," and vice versa. This did not happen through mere political involvement, but through desparate and uncritical political involvement. And it surely impedes the advance of the gospel. The apostle Paul would pull his hair out. And Jesus mourns for those who will never consider the claims of the gospel because they see it tied to a certain poltical agenda.
8) Love the sinner, hate the sin
We are always told that we should hate the sin, but love the sinner. But how does one actually do that? I am trying to define a way where we can actually do that. Let's show homosexuals that we really do love them. I have always seen the threat of lawsuits against churches as one result of legalizing same-sex "marriages," and so I opposed them. "Let them have their own category, called civil unions." But this where I was brought up short by the Sermon on the Mount. WE are the ones who should be inconvenienced (willingly!). WE are the ones who should put others first. Therefore, why don't WE change? If the connection of a legal contract ("marriage") and a religious union ("marriage before God") causes problems, then why don't we choose to give up our privileges (1 Cor 9:12,15,19, Matthew 5:38-42)? We will no longer perform "marriages" but will still join (heterosexual) couples together in the eyes of God.
If we say we are defending the "traditional definition" of marriage, then why aren't we also seeking to outlaw all divorce, except for "unfaithfullness?"
If we would go the "extra mile" with same-sex marriage, THEN the country would know that we are not invested in politics, but in the gospel. THEN they might choose to consider its claims. And THAT is what Jesus and the apostle Paul and the Bible wants above all.
When Jesus returns and sets up the Kingdom of God, HE will enforce the traditional definition of marriage. But I think we have gone through the open door Paul gave us too far. We have neglected the other side of the coin. For in the same passage that Paul tells slaves to get their freedom "if they can," he also says:
1CO 7:29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
We should use the things of this world (politics), as if not engrossed in them. Are we?
1) My "old" position, at the beginning of this post:
The "traditional" definition of marriage is too ingrained in the institutions and ideas of our American culture to helpfully be changed to include homosexual unions. Therefore I think that there should be "civil unions" which give same-sex couples all of the legal rights and privileges of heterosexual marriage, but does not encroach on the "traditional" definition of marriage. This would also ensure that no lawsuits would be brought against Christian churches who refuse to perform "marriage" ceremonies for same-sex couples, thereby protecting their freedom of religion.
2) What would Jesus do?
MT 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Jesus would not have been upset about the so-called "homosexual agenda," and would not have defended the "traditional" definition of marriage. (Though He surely would have taught on why God's ideal is a heterosexual union.) He would not have resisted the homosexual advocates, but would have gone the "extra mile."
What would the extra mile have looked like today? For all the churches to say, "Okay, fine. Broaden the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions." But then also say, "We no longer perform 'marriages,' but we do perform 'Christian unions,' which are only between heterosexual couples and do not confer any worldly benefits at all. If a Christian couple is still interested in the legal benefits of 'marriage,' they should also see a Justice of the Peace to have the appropriate ceremony performed."
3) The point?
Many Christians today demand that the same-sex couple be the ones to bend. Either they must, A) never have anything that commpares to marriage, or B) have something that compares to marriage, but it should be given a new, made-up name like "civil unions."
But didn't Jesus call Christians to sacrifice themselves for the world? Aren't Christians to be the ones to take it on the chin? Shouldn't we be the ones to change our "name" for something? Why turn people away from Christ over an eight letter word? Even if we called it "potato," wouldn't it be the same concept of a union before God of two people committed to each other? The apostle Paul says,
1CO 6:7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
Shouldn't we "die to ourselves," in order that the world would see the love of God in us? Of course, for this to work, all the churches in the country would have to be onboard. I guess that's the rub. How many churches out there really have Christ as their pattern? and how many have given up on the path of Christ, and are instead trying to win the "culture war" using the political weapons of their particular party, whether Republican or Democrat.
Perhaps I will give up my current position, which is only based on pragmatism and a cynical distrust of the ability of American churches to actually put the interests of others before themselves?
***********************UPDATES************************
4) Jesus and Marriage
Of course Jesus wouldn't back down from sin, or change His idea of what God commanded. I am not saying that we change our ideas of what is sinful or allowed for Christians. I did say, "He surely would have taught on why God's ideal is a heterosexual union." However, my point is that He would not have gone to the lengths that many Christians are going today. He would have affirmed marriage as between a woman and a man, but would He have stood in the way of the world wanting to change the definition? (That is what I meant by "defending the traditional definition.")
For example, in Matthew 19:2-12, Jesus responds to a similar quibble about marriage, namely divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses allows a man to divorce a woman "who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her." The dispute at the time was between the two rabbinnic schools of Shammai and Hillel. Shammai emphasised "something indecent," meaning unfaithfulness of various sorts. Hillel emphasised "becomes displeasing," which could be something as small as she burned his dinner. Jesus very clearly teaches on the topic, and clearly sides with Shammai (and God).
However, Jesus did not embark on a political campaign to restrict how Moses' decree of divorce was interpreted. He did not seek to pass any laws regarding divorce. Instead, He proclaimed and taught about the Kingdom of God (and Himself as the doorway to it), and expeceted those who responded to the call to have a righteousness that "surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law" (Matthew 5:20). Perhaps we should do the same in our current situation? There is a difference between affirming what God says, and passing laws that affect how everybody, Christian or not, should live.
5) Our first stumbling stone- the apostle Paul opens a door
Where did we get our interest in political activity? Instead of giving a long historical lecture, I would like to look at some verses that open a door for Christians to engage in the political world.
1CO 7:17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.... 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
To me, this passage is critical. Paul is frequently faulted for "supporting slavery." He did no such thing. But he pointedly did NOT embark on a political campaign to end it. He was preaching the gospel, and thought that was more important. But in this text, he adds a caveat- IF you can get your freedon, then do so. At this point the door has been cracked open. We are not to mindlessly "remain as we are," for if the situation changes we can change with it. (See also Paul's letter to Philemon, where the escaped slave who has become a Christian decides to return to his master, but Paul entreats the master to not take him back as a slave, but as a brother.)
Should the situation change to where we can procure freedom for all slaves, then we should do it. In the 18th and 19th century, political developements such as democracy in America and England allowed for full abolition. These were Christians who were leading the way, such as William Wilberforce in England (spurred on by John Wesley). These were good political campaigns that were spurred on by love of neighbor.
But where does it end? At what point have we gone too far?
6) Our second stumbling stone- the apostle Paul puts up a doorstop
For Paul, there was a definite boundary on our activity in the world- namely , we should not bring reproach to the gospel. If people are going to be upset at us, it should be because they do not like the message of Jesus' salvation for all, purchased through His death and resurrection. For example, Paul's letter to Titus says:
TIT 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2 Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. TIT 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. TIT 2:6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. TIT 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Some would like say that these commands are given because they are God's "traditional roles," and are God's ideals for all cultures, particulary the part about wives being "subject to their husbands." But seeing all of these as norms for all time would contradict the previous verse where Paul tells slaves that they can obtain freedom if the chance arrives. The text clearly says what Paul's motivation is for telling Christians to generally live in line with the patterns of the society of his time, except where it would be sinful.
-so that no one will malign the word of God (probably meaning the gospel, not the Bible- see here, part 2)
-so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us
-so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
For Paul, the advance of the gospel was of paramount importance. For example, after arguing in many of his letters that believers do not have to obey the Law of Moses anymore, he himself tells us that "To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law" (1 Cor 9:20). Not only that, but when he prepares to take Timothy with him on his missionary trip in Acts 16:3, he has Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews who lived in that area." In Acts 21, he joins in some Jewish ritual purifications in order to keep peace with the "many thousands of Jews (who) have believed." His priority is clear:
"On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ." (1 Cor 9:12)
7) The American church today and the idol of Christendom
We have given up putting our hopes in the spread of the gospel, and are instead interested in "winning the cultural war." But I have some things to say that might be hard for many American Christians. First of all, we have never been "a Christian country" (see here ). We certainly were founded by many who were Christians, and Christian ideas were certainly involved, but that is not the same as being a "Christian country."
This one is going to be rough: The promise in 2 Chronicles 7:14 has NO application to America:
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
This clearly refers to Israel, who are "called by God's name," and it was based on the promises of Deuteronomy, where God says He will establish them as a people in the land He will give them.
Ever since the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, Christians have flirted with the idea that we can take over governmental power and impose a kingdom of God on earth. It is an idol that we must destroy.
I believe that many Christians in America today see their only hope in politics. George W. Bush, or the Republican party will save us. Nobody says this, but many live like it. I used to. But is is a false gospel, which should be rejected. I am not saying that we should not be involved in politics (the apostle Paul gave us an open door), but I think many are in over their heads and need to step back. It has been shown that when people in America hear "Christian," they also think "Republican," and vice versa. This did not happen through mere political involvement, but through desparate and uncritical political involvement. And it surely impedes the advance of the gospel. The apostle Paul would pull his hair out. And Jesus mourns for those who will never consider the claims of the gospel because they see it tied to a certain poltical agenda.
8) Love the sinner, hate the sin
We are always told that we should hate the sin, but love the sinner. But how does one actually do that? I am trying to define a way where we can actually do that. Let's show homosexuals that we really do love them. I have always seen the threat of lawsuits against churches as one result of legalizing same-sex "marriages," and so I opposed them. "Let them have their own category, called civil unions." But this where I was brought up short by the Sermon on the Mount. WE are the ones who should be inconvenienced (willingly!). WE are the ones who should put others first. Therefore, why don't WE change? If the connection of a legal contract ("marriage") and a religious union ("marriage before God") causes problems, then why don't we choose to give up our privileges (1 Cor 9:12,15,19, Matthew 5:38-42)? We will no longer perform "marriages" but will still join (heterosexual) couples together in the eyes of God.
If we say we are defending the "traditional definition" of marriage, then why aren't we also seeking to outlaw all divorce, except for "unfaithfullness?"
If we would go the "extra mile" with same-sex marriage, THEN the country would know that we are not invested in politics, but in the gospel. THEN they might choose to consider its claims. And THAT is what Jesus and the apostle Paul and the Bible wants above all.
When Jesus returns and sets up the Kingdom of God, HE will enforce the traditional definition of marriage. But I think we have gone through the open door Paul gave us too far. We have neglected the other side of the coin. For in the same passage that Paul tells slaves to get their freedom "if they can," he also says:
1CO 7:29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
We should use the things of this world (politics), as if not engrossed in them. Are we?
