right now in canada the big deal is the fight for the traditional definition of marriage. i have struggled with this. i believe strongly in marriage. i think that it is one of the greatest illustrations we have of relationship with God, and one of the greatest opportunities we have to love on people (in and through the marriage and family). i also believe the practice of homosexuality is a distortion of God's good intention for us and contrary to his good plan for us. however, i cannot in good conscience join the fight for the traditional definition of marriage.
why? several reasons. i think that the church on the whole (there are exceptions) has done a terrible job of loving those we don't like. homosexual people already face persecution in our culture, and instead of providing a safe haven the church has contributed to the persecution. we have become a place where people are afraid to admit their weaknesses, struggles, and sinful behaviour for fear that they will be judged, condemned, or shunned. i am afraid that fighting to defend the traditional definition of marriage only contributes to an already ugly image that our culture has of the christian church. i realize that Christ told us that the world will hate us, but are they supposed to hate us because we hate them back or because our love and acceptance is so radical that they can't stand it?
donald miller in searching for God knows what puts voice to some thoughts that have been developing in me better than i ever could. here is some of what he said:
A moral message, a message of us vs them, overflowing in war rhetoric, never hindered the early message of grace, of repentance toward dead works and immorality in exchange for a love relationship with Christ. War rhetoric against people is not the methodology, not the sort of communication that came out of the mouth of Jesus or the mouths of any of His followers. In fact, even today, moralists who use war rhetoric will speak of right and wrong, and even some vague and angry god, but never Jesus. Listen closely, and I assure you, they will not talk about Jesus.
In my opinion, if you hate somebody because they are different from you, you'd best get on your knees and repent until you can say you love them, until you have gotten your soul right with Christ.
I can't say this clearly enough: If we are preaching morality without Christ, and using war rhetoric to communicate a battle mentality, we are fighting on Satan's side. This battle we are in is a battle against the principalities of darkness, not against people who are different from us. In war you shoot the enemy, not the hostage. (pp. 190-191)
9 comments:
hey b. i hear what you are saying, i believe, but let me summarize to make sure i hear you rightly. the church has done a poor job of loving whomever society has had a tough time loving. even beyond this, she has been volatile with people who have a different message from her. the response is not violent (either physical, rhetorical, whatever) confrontation, but subversive love adn acceptance. specifically, since you believe engaging the traditional def'n of marriage issue as continuing the very errors described above, then churches should not "fight" for the traditional def'n. is this right?
if it is right, let me offer another way to think about it. personally, i think you are correct up to a point. the church is not a political lobbyist group and should not be a political force just like other such groups (e.g., some kind of Beef Association, Public Workers, Teachers Unions, etc.). this is right--and as the church has engaged in the "fight" in this manner, she has been wrongheaded. in other words, the church can't speak as the church as a whole on the issue.
still, the church is made of Christian Canadian citizens who hopefully think theologically about the issue of same-sex marriage. she engages in political theology. what is hte responsibility of the governing authorities in this issue? while it would take too long to spell out here, i believe a good case can be made for gov't being responsible to pass judgment on issues like this very one. gov't passes judgment based on the tradition of the people she serves adn represents and then enforces her judgment. the question then we have to ask, if what i have said is true, is whether the Canadian tradition warrants the changing of same sex marriage.
two other things to consider in the debate: 1. the judicial rulings of certain provinces to allow same-sex marriage makes decisive legislation on the issue vital. basically the courts are making laws they like, rather than interpreting the law as it now stands. so, it comes down to the House and our members of parliament. 2. does gov't have the right to redefine something it did not invent? marriage is not something the gov't invented and one has to wonder whether the desire to reinvent it is warranted.
to me this is not an issue about keeping people from being married, but about reminding the gov't of its responsibilities and limits. (it's a short step from redefining marriage to saying refusing to marry certain people is a denial of their constitutional rights.) my own belief is that some sort of civil unions for homosexuals complete with the benefits of marriage is a suitable alternative. i don't say this as the church being a political force, but a Christian trying to be engaged theologically in politics and being reminded of my mandate to love. i hope i haven't squelched discussion on this important issue that you have bravely raised and may take flack for sharing your opinion. peace.
ap, thanks for your comments. you raised some good and significant points, esp. regarding a christian's role in politics. this (a christian's role in politics) is an issue where my thoughts are still in development.
here's my main concern: the church as an institution should not be involved in politics, yes. however, what is the church but a fellowship of individuals? therefore, when a single christian takes action in the name of christian beliefs or of God, they are representing the whole church, like it or not. i am afraid of what people are hearing from us christians in this. are the words we speak words of love or words of battle, of fight and win and us and them?
maybe we should be involved politically. i liked your point about us reminding the gov't of their proper role and of limiting the court's abuse of power. however, why do we get up in arms about this issue? if it's truly about limiting the gov't and courts, why didn't we get up in arms long ago? the courts have been reinterpreting laws and making up their own versions for years, especially in the states. i think that in the mind and hearts of most christians it is more about the morality of homosexual unions being called marriages and the fear of the repercussions for those of us who perform marriages than it is about the political issues involved. and getting up in arms for reasons of morality and fear i believe is wrong.
i also agree with your idea about homosexual unions with rights and privileges. i think the heart of this issue is a desire in the homosexual community to be accepted and valued. where in our political agenda do we ever hear of alternatives being offered? i haven't heard it anyway. all i hear about is how awful this is and how it has so much potential to harm our future and how we should lobby the gov't to keep the traditional definition of marriage. i hear no voice of concern for the needs of homosexuals. i find no sensetivity or listening ear. it's just a harsh "this is wrong and we should stop it to protect our children from the evil in our culture."
rubbish! absolute rubbish! as christians we are not to live in fear of our culture. we are to engage it with the love of Christ - a love so radical and accepting of every person no matter their vice that it causes us to be ostracized, looked upon as different, and ultimately persecuted - but we change the world in the process. not by legislating morality, but by helping individuals find new life in Christ. this is the role of a christian. our highest aim is not to craft laws that protect us or create a moral culture, our highest aim is to introduce people to Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world! where in this is Jesus? where do we hear about that? i haven't heard it. maybe i missed it, i don't know, but i believe that is the voice that should be heard loud and clear above the issues of politics and gov't and courts' abuse of power.
if there is a way we can do both, let me know. but i haven't seen it yet.
...like you said ap, i also hope i haven't squelched any debate on this. i love a good debate. i'll get passionate and rant, but i hope others feel free to do the same. i need people to disagree with me, debate with me as i develop my ideas in life. without those kinds of discussions my thoughts will only grow inward. bring on the flack.
brando, you ask some significant questions. let me list the ones i am most intrigued by and talk about them.
1. isn't the church a fellowship of individuals?
ap: absolutely! and for this reason one person can speak without speaking for the church. since the church has spoken as an institution (or, "the Christian right") it will be hard to speak Christianly (which is what I am trying to do) without being thought of as "speaking for Christians." the antidote is not less speech and action, though, but more speech, more speech, more speech.
2. why does homosexuality raise such a hubbub?
ap: great question. i don't know. without denying the issue's importance, though, i also want to ask why we aren't known more for caring for the poor? caring for the sick? etc. this is a hotbed for reasons of (unfounded?) fear, although i don't think fear is itself a bad reason to speak Christianly in the political realm. it's not that homosexual marriage should become less an issue (although maybe our spirit towards it should change), but that others should become way more important.
3. (can't find a question, so i'll talk about your statement.) love and acceptance need not be the same thing. i think acceptance implies neutrality and neutrality is exactly what Christianity isn't....and exactly waht we both have a problem with (i.e., neutrality to poverty, neutrality to corruption in gov't, neutrality to...?--not that all Christians are this way, but at least some are--and i'm sure you could find issues towards which I am pathetically neutral when i shouldn't be.)
homosexuality and redefinition of marriage will be detrimental to any culture's future...just as broken families, run-away dads, marriage as contract (talk about this, please, church!), etc. are detrimental to culture. the solution is not silence, but more speech, wider speech, and more Christian speech.
4. where is Jesus?
ap: to be honest, it likely depends on the individual and their heart--which is a problem in itself. personally, i hope Christology forms my political theology and aim to make this happen. some of your other concerns raised in th last paragraph put up red flags, but it may be something (i suspect it is) that we would come to agreement on over a longer face to face discussion.
hope i've answered and talked about some of your concerns.
you're giving me good things to think about ap.
when i say acceptance, i am speaking of acceptance of the value and worth of persons, not of behaviour. it seems to me at times in our zeal to protect and fight that we neglect this fundamental issue. i am not advocating neutrality, but a love that is overwhelming. instead of focusing on the wrong behaviour, focus on Christ and his acceptance of the person. it's not an either or, it's a 'which voice is louder' issue.
i just finished watching a World Vision video as i am preparing for our 30 Hour Famine youth event tomorrow night. it was about becoming a responsible global citizen, you know...fair trade and good water and all that. i find myself realizing that i think it important to get involved politically for those kind of issues - feeding the hungry, poor and what not. so why not the homosexuality issue? why am i so hesitant?
i'm not sure. but i think for me it has to do with which voice is loudest and i hesitate to contribute my voice to make a collective voice louder if i'm not sure it's entirely helpful or beneficial or right.
please continue the dialogue. i am really trying to sort through all of this.
when you say more speech, i agree in principle. but i wonder how do we navigate that line between standing for what is right and loving those we disagree with when standing for what's right means that those we disagree with hear a voice of hate? this is the central issue i am struggling with. are we to plow through with the truth, letting the casualties fall as they may? or is our primary business introducing lost people to Jesus Christ, and if so should all other objectives be measured against that one primary objective?
is there a difference between loving people in a community setting and politics? how should christians conduct themselves in the political arena? are the gloves supposed to come off when people try to make sinful practices an accepted part of our society? i just don't understand or know how i can rally against homosexuals in an attempt to contribute to a healthy society and still have any chance whatsoever of speaking the love of Christ into their lives.
is my behaviour as a christian supposed to be different when dealing with individuals than it is when dealing with politics? what i mean is this. if i were to be spending time with a homosexual person, getting to know them, developing a relationship with them, essentially loving them, i would not intentionally bring up the subject of the moral rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. i believe that it is God's job to convict them of sin, not mine. i would do my best to love them, to accept them as a person of value to me. if they asked me flat out what i thought, i would tell them the truth, but i would not start that conversation myself. that would be my approach with an individual. now, say that i am still in relationship with that person. how would that relationship change if they knew that i was fighting my hardest to protect our country and future from the damaging effects of the homosexual lifestyle?
honestly, i don't know, but i don't imagine it would be a very helpful thing in the relationship. what should be my highest priority? preserving my relationship with that person, or contributing to the health of our society? what if it were relationships with five homosexual people, or ten, or maybe fifty?
i am asking real questions here, i don't know the answers.
hey brando, you ask good questions and they are ones i'd like to have the questions to once you find them!
i think i need to clear one thing: when i am speaking for more speech, i am not speaking against homosexuality, but against gov'tal hubris and their overstepping of boundaries. this is a negative message that flows from the positive message that Jesus is both Lord and Christ and that because of this the responsibility of gov't is limited drastically as a result. the same message of the Lordship of Jesus is what i speak to homosexuals, thieves, liars, and other sinners, myself included. i don't think i am acting in two separate ways here...or loving people separately in politics than in the church. the same message is what drives my action in both instances.
thanks for clarifying on acceptance. we agree.
interestesting...you're right brother...you did raise some eyebrows...
why disconnect all together, though? what would be better...disconnecting from the battle that is so real, or being a voice of Christian love in principle amongst the battle? It's not battling against the homosexual person's worth or rights, but protecting the value of the familial role in society. Familial and societal dysfunction, which could be defined with homosexuality, promotes not unity and wholeness, but confusion. Rights for the homosexual person? Yes, no different than any other citizen. But to change the definition of marriage altogether, while the state of marriage and the family in society is already on a decline, would plummet the stability of the familial role in society even farther!
So maybe we need some Christians to stand up and address the issue at large from the perspective of societal effect, not religious effect, showing love for the people, and not the "belief".
I do believe that Christians do need to take a stand to protect the religious freedom that is given to us, to a certain extent, in the Spirit of Christ of course; however, there will come a day when this freedom will be taken away. Will we still be trying to fight to get that freedom back, or will we simply be trying to live out our faith, and love out our faith? Without housing a "losers" mentality, is the Church going to "fight" this forever? Our focus needs to be eternal, the question is, how does that fit?
Good dialogue, guys. AP, you mentioned the idea of "civil unions" as opposes to "marriage" as though it was a new idea. I've actually heard this idea come up more than once in the news and basically the homosexual community thinks it's a joke. It's not that they just want the rights and freedoms (eg spousal benefits on taxes and such) of married people; in their eyes letting them marry makes them "equal" to heterosexuals in the eyes of society while a "civil union" puts them in another category on the outskirts of society.
I say all this not as someone in support of homosexual marriage but just as a way of clarifying the issue.
hey whitey. i did not intend to pass this as an original idea...it is not in the least. it is simply one i can affirm while thinking theologically.
good comments angela, and thanks for the clarification whitey.
ap, i agree with you about speaking against govm't hubris and all that you said. i could easily get on board with that. but i'm not sure how often i hear that argument among the christian community. i wish i heard it more. i think it is a great reason to be active in the political arena. this seems to be for christians, however, a fight about the morality of homosexual marriage, not about government overstepping their bounds. this is the kind of fight i was referring to in my original post. a fight for morality is, in my opinion, a losing battle without love.
here's something i've been thinking on lately regarding this dicussion. i remember having a conversation with my dad one time about the different denominations and how some are so legalistic and conservative and others are at the other extreme. he said something to the effect of, "maybe God has these different groups in place to show the church (or world)something." we were talking specifically of groups like the pilgrim holiness church i grew up in or the strict mennonite and amish communities. they seem so estranged from society. my dad's comment helped me to see the good in them instead of focusing on what i disagreed with or didn't like.
and i wonder, is this issue similar? does God perhaps give some people a passion for protecting the sanctity of marriage and others a passion for loving the outcasts? does God give people (or lead people into)passions or convictions that we sometimes see as conflicting so that the church will be a more well-rounded whole?
i like to think so. as i have experienced this discussion, i realize that i have weak points in my belief system. there are components i struggle with and haven't found resolve for. but there is still an underlying conviction that i haven't found an answer for. is it better for me to fight for a moral conviction or love for an eternal relationship? those two may not need to be mutually exclusive, but i suspect that in the eyes of many homosexuals they are. so i find myself torn between feeling responsible to take action politically and feeling responsible to show love to the homosexual community above anything else. i have not found resolution yet. so i continue to question, to search, to explore. thank you all for your help in this process.
Post a Comment