Posted by: tjlyttle | November 12, 2006

how to start a fist fight part 2

I want to make you feel. Because I think the worst thing we can do is separate our morality from our feelings. I want you to feel humanity, I want you to feel Jesus’ life and words. Because most of us know plenty of things, but few of us feel. I want you to feel those things so bad, I just might get under your skin. And that’s ok for me, if it causes you to feel.

Gay marriage is another burning issue of our day. I’m just going to come out and say it, I think two people of a homosexual orientation should be allowed to marry each other. I think the church should support legislation that would enable gay and lesbian couples to have, at the very least, civil unions. And I’m sure that right there, in two sentences I have probably angered a few if not a lot of people. So allow me to explain why I think the way I do.

Ok, one of the biggest arguments against same sex marriages is that it will undermine and destroy the value/sanctity of the family. Let’s say that it does, let’s say that same sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of marriage. I highly doubt it will devalue marriage more than we already have. Pornography destroys the sanctity of marriage. Extra-marital sex destroys the sanctity of marriage. Working too much destroys the sanctity of marriage and the family. The fact of the matter is that we have undermined the value of marriage and the family way before the issue of same sex marriage became an issue. The fact that the same percentage of evangelical Christians get divorced as people who don’t claim to be followers of Christ is pretty telling. While it is true that same sex marriages could possibly undermine the family structure, its only one of many such threats to family. If we really care about the sanctity of marriage and family, we would spend less time watching tv and surfing the internet, and we would spend time with our families. But due to the fact that a majority of people today (inside and outside of the Church) speed their through day consumed by activity and loneliness, I’d have to question how important marriage and family really is to us.

By supporting gay rights, does that automatically mean that we are supporting their lifestyle? I personally do not think that it does. Just because I think that people of a homosexual orientation should have the freedom to marry each other does not mean that I think they are in God’s will. It simply means I think they should have the freedom to marry who they want to. It is not our job to make sure the world is living up to our standards. Here’s some scripture:

 

 

6The mind of sinful man[a] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[b] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

Romans 8:6-8 (NIV)

 

 

 

12For what have I to do with judging (A)outsiders? (B)Do you not judge those who are within the church?

1 Corinthians 5:12 (NASB)

 

 

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 12:17-21 (NIV)

I often wonder how much would be different if instead of shunning the homosexual community, we rallied behind them and pushed for their rights? What if we saw them as individuals who, by simply being fashioned in the image of God, deserve the same rights that we have, instead of condemning them? I think you would see the Church having a much better opportunity to bring these people to the foot of a Rabbi who offers unlimited freedom from bondage. Instead, by and large, the Church has gone to great lengths to put great distance between us and them. Instead of judging them at at distance, (which from the verse above, Paul says is not his job) we should be sharing life with them. This is what Jesus would have done. The book of Luke says that Jesus hung out with notoriously bad sinners. People with bad reputations.

Once again our attempts to legislate morality will not change things. Even if we ban civil unions or same sex marriages, people will still engage in the homosexual lifestyle. If we ban same sex marriages,  why don’t we make pornography illegal, so that anyone who looks at pornography would have to serve jail time? I can guarantee you that if that was the case, our churches Sunday morning attendance would drop dramatically. Just because Jesus shared meals with sinners did not make Him a sinner. The religious leaders of the time thought so. If the Church were to take up the banner of gay rights, I assure you that we would indeed conquer evil with good. And let’s be really honest, in many ways we have made the lgbt community our enemy. We have told them that they can’t come to Jesus unless they stop being gay. We have asked them to fit their camel through our needle’s eye.

I know that another big issue is if we should allow same sex couples to adopt/raise children. While I do think it is true that it is best for a child to be raised by a mom and a dad, I often ponder a question. “Are children better off with no parents or with gay or lesbian parents?” Just because a couple is of a homosexual orientation does not mean they are incapable of showing love or affection. I would say that children would be better off with parents who are in a homosexual relationship than with no parents at all. I also think its possible that a significant number of orphaned children could be adopted by same sex couples. Once again, I would prefer there to be a mom and a dad, but then again, there are a lot of dads who are terrible fathers, who is to say that just because it is two women raising a child that they will do way worse than a man and a woman?

Obviously, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is sin. That it’s outside of God’s perfect plan for our lives. But so is legalism. Anytime our morality gets in the way of us loving people, I believe something is wrong. If you want to see people leave their homosexual orientation, don’t vote to restrict or deny rights, step out and love people with all of God’s love. I can guarantee you that if our first response was to love people instead of judge/condemn them, homosexuality wouldn’t be nearly as big of an issue as it currently is. I’ll end this post with some Derek Webb lyrics:

Love Is Not Against the Law

politics or love

can make you blind or make you see

make you a slave or make you free

but only one does it all

and it’s giving up your life

for the ones you hate the most

it’s giving them your gown

when they’ve taken your clothes

it’s learning to admit

when you’ve had a hand in setting them up

in knocking them down

love is not against the law

love is not against the law

are we defending life

when we just pick and choose

lives acceptable to lose

and which ones to defend

cause you cannot choose your friends

but you can choose your enemies

and what if they were one

one and the same

could you find a way

to love them both the same

to give them your name

ok. discuss.


Responses

  1. I agree Teege, with most of what you said. Overall, it’s so much easier to hide behind the typical “christian” political rhetoric, and just keep the LGBT group at arm’s length.

    Sin is sin, right? If you argue the slippery slope against gay marriage, couldn’t someone argue against us that we’ll just keep imposing our rules on everyone? We “win” gay marriage and it gets banned. Great, what’s next? What else can we impose on our society? If we shun people for being homosexual, we have to shun everyone for any sin. There is no distinction.

  2. I would point out that when we go to a marriage these days we see two different marriages. One where they light one candle and blow out their own (signifying become one before God) and another where they sign a piece of paper that gives a name change and some tax exemptions.

    For gay marriage one of the unions would not be acknowledged by God and so we need not work ourselves overly much if they were to say something like “God joined us in holy matrimony!” because we know this isn’t the case.

    As to the other… if we have no problems seeing heterosexual couples marry that might never have kids (doing it just for the tax break), may beat their kids, may provide terrible role models for their kids to follow, may never even love their kids then I see no difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual union under the governments standards.

    Granted I think that this will ultimately be bad for our country (God doesn’t condemn things without reason), but we are called to love, not to judge. Love is the only thing that will break through hardened hearts.

  3. Teege,

    I also agree mostly with what you said. My exception being that I don’t think the church should “support legislation that would enable gay and lesbian couples to have, at the very least, civil unions.”

    I think it’s prudent for Americans to want to remove legislation that allows the government to define things like marriage. I don’t think the government should have a place there, and that people should be able to live with and have sex with whoever they want, and that “marriage” should be given to anyone that want’s it.

    I don’t think Christians should support homosexuality by any means. There is a fine line there. I think the church should love everyone and give the world the best picture possible of what kind of a guy Christ was. I think we should live with and eat with and love everyone, absolutely including gays.

    But Jesus didn’t say it was OK to be dishonest, immoral, etc. He loved those people and called them out of those things – with mixed results. I think we should totally be involved in people’s lives, no matter what they’re into. I don’t think being gay is worse than any other sin. When someone tells me that they’re struggling with pornography, I don’t reject them at all. Several people in the Rock can attest to that. They can also attest to the fact that I don’t say “Hey that’s great, isn’t it cool that everyone can find that on the internet with such ease! I totally accept you!”

    I tell them some contextual variation of “Bro, I forgive you. There’s no condemnation for those in Christ. You know what you did was wrong. What are you going to do to stay out of that in the future?”

    I’m not ok with immorality. I’m really not. David, a man after God’s own heart hated evil. That has some hard implications for me. It means I have to balance living out Christ’s love towards everyone, but still hate sin and depravity. I’m not willing to swing the pendulum towards the “Right” of cold “morality” and I’m not willing to swing to the “Left” of acceptance of everything. Because we shouldn’t accept everything. We should accept everyone but not everything.

    If people in America want to get the government out of marriage issues and reverse all legislation that allows the government to define marriage, I’ll fight for that cause. If people want to just add new legislation that adds same sex marriage to the list, I can’t stand for that. I’m not going to look Jesus in the eye some day and say “Yea, I made it alot easier to be gay in America – all in the name of love.” God isn’t emo, guys.

    I’m definately not hiding behind morality. But for the love of God (and I mean that), morality is good. It’s not a bad thing. Being cold in our morality is wrong. That’s being a pharisee. I’m not going to agree with anything that swing a pendulum all the way to the other side of an issue. I’d rather fight on the side of balance and moderation. Judge that as you will everyone.

  4. nate- once again, i question whether supporting rights for the homosexual community automatically means we are approving of their lifestyle.

    I also don’t think passing legislation to give the homosexual community the same rights we have will “make it easier to be gay in America”. People will have homosexual orientations no matter what laws we pass.

    My main reason for thinking the church should support legislation that grants homosexual persons the same rights that we do is that it promotes equality and would cause the homosexual community to see that we do care for them as individuals. We are not giving homosexuality rights and privileges, we are giving people rights and privileges. Paul also commands us to give a reason for the hope that we have in Christ, I don’t think we have offered the lbgt community many chances to see the hope we have, and I think this could possibly be one such way.

    thanks for your thoughts, they are challenging me, I’m still chewing on them. Love you bro. xoxo.

  5. Nate – One of the main reasons behind the government defining marriage is that it gives tax breaks (and other rights I assume) for couples so that it will give an advantage to those who might produce the next generation of our country. This has nothing to do with changing the Bible’s definition of marriage.

    Teege – I may be wrong in this, but I think that advocating a very liberal government will end up biting us in the end. By that I mean that eventually the government will frown big time on religion as it is too intollerant. This will bring about some massive persecution for Christians and may even end up with it being banned. I understand this and still would push for its advocacy as they would get to taste the full effects of their chosen poison. I’m ok with this because just when Christianity is seeming like its defeated is when I believe Christ will be coming back. We should all know that it isn’t for this world that we are intended for, but rather the next.

  6. Steve- Ah yes, you have caught on to my scheming, haha. In all seriousness though, I don’t want a Christian government. It didn’t work for Constantine, it won’t work for us. The Church has always shined the brightest under persecution. Not that I want to elect a bunch of evil men and have the government trample everyone, not at all! But the Church will work best apart from the government. I want people to have the freedom to make choices, and for the Church to influence people to the point where people are making choices that honor God because they want to. I think the lines between church and government have been blurred, and a weakened church has been the result. But I also have confidence in the Church, for Jesus told us that the “gates of hell will never prevail against us”!

  7. in one sense, the government can define marriage to be whatever they want and it won’t affect God’s definition. The problem is that the church has sold its soul to the government for a “tax break”, and now the government controls what most people consider to be marriage. I say the church take back “marriage” and the government can do whatever it wants to with “civil unions”, etc. Marriage amendments are a silly band-aid “solution” just emboldening activists who are willing to use subversive marketing-style techniques to gain favor in the hearts and minds of more and more people. The end result will be (maybe already is?) that Christians will be the enemy. Good luck showing love then… “Yay, 56% of people in the state think marriage is between a man and woman! Our team, Team Morality, has won! ” The reality is if there continues to be a team mentality, “Team Morality” is playing to not lose and the other team is playing to win. You don’t have to be a big sports guru to know what happens in that situation.

  8. I cannot believe I waited this long to start reading your blog, TJ. I’m practically crying at my ignorance. Like musicians hit their heads against walls saying, “I shoulda wrote that song,” I’m hitting my head here.

    Keep it up, brother. See you Friday.

  9. Erik,

    Thanks for your post. It clarifies what I was trying to say very well. I’ve been thinking for about 18 hours now “How do I re-phrase what I said to communicate it more fully?”

  10. what? i flat out don’t agree with you, nate! :)
    oh by the way, i have a minimal understanding of law here, but some of the tricky part is that if US law is silent on the issue, things often revert to what British common law says, and i know of “common law marriage” states that don’t have any law defined but basically inherit what common law says. so legally, turning over the definition of marriage in the direction of less government control is probably really idealistic. someone who knows more about law can correct me where i’m wrong here…..

  11. “so legally, turning over the definition of marriage in the direction of less government control is probably really idealistic.”

    :(

    When you say “really idealistic” you mean “unrealistic”, don’t you?

  12. so legally, turning over _______________ in the direction of less government control is probably really idealistic

  13. I get the sense that most people think that if everybody hated Christians that it would be nigh impossible to be a Christian. I would say that the time when the fewest salvations occured was when everybody was a “Christian” and it was frowned on to not be one.

    If God is for us, who can be against us?

    I think it would be awesome if they concretely separated government civil union and church marriage. Too much these days people are married because they put on a show for the pastor they just met so that they’d appear to be “good moral people” when they’re just unacknowledging sinners. I wouldn’t be surprised if some pastors just think “I’ll let God sort it out and I’ll take some money for His kingdom and myself”.

  14. Thankfully, I know for a fact that none of Stonebrook’s pastors would ever consider that approach.

  15. I’m tired I’m not certain whether not I’m with TJ’s original thoughts on this one. I think I can be honest when I say it’s not my personal problem, or one I foresee having.

    On that note, I’ll say I support the government ackowledgement of homosexual marriage becuase it shows that we don’t shun them. If we don’t shun them, they can stay near us, and when that happens they get to see our lives dedicated to God. In other words, short-range testifying.

    We do have to walk a very narrow line where we support the people but not their cause or their lifestyle.

    As for the people who fight for anti-homosexual legislature using the Bible as their backing, they are political-religious extremists. Political because they tend to pick a fight and never listen to the other sides’ arguement. Religious because they pick one verse and treat it as the only thing for their position to such an extent that they ignore other parts of the Bible that would provide context and clarity. To be honest, these people tend to be low on my totem of respect.

    As to whether or not they would provide good parents for children. Compared to a heterosexual couple, I am going to say no. I beleive that children need both a mother-figure and a father-figure, which are easier, for the most part, to find in a heterosexual couple as opposed to a homosexual one. Kind of hard to have a mother-figure when you’re stuck with two dads. Whether or not having homosexual parents is better than having no parents, I do not know. I bring myself back to the issue of father- and mother-figures and I honestly do not know.

    On the sanctity of marriage. I think that marriage is between two people, not between two people and society. If we hold ours inviolate, then we have done well in that respect. As far as society is concerned, marriage is a tax break.

    It’s late and I doubt I’m making sense, so I’ll just do this now.

    My bottom line:

    As far as governments go, let homosexual marriages happen, I think good things will happen.

    As far as churches go, don’t support the decision, but do nothing to hinder it, except refusing to officiate. This applies chiefly to pastors. If two people of the same gender want to get married, don’t call them down, don’t tell them they’re going to hell. You’ll just make it worse. You can tell them you don’t approve, but it’s not your place to stop them.

  16. “As far as governments go, let homosexual marriages happen, I think good things will happen.

    As far as churches go, don’t support the decision, but do nothing to hinder it, except refusing to officiate. This applies chiefly to pastors. If two people of the same gender want to get married, don’t call them down, don’t tell them they’re going to hell. You’ll just make it worse. You can tell them you don’t approve, but it’s not your place to stop them.”

    I can agree with this. This is one of those statements that can get torn apart in terms of the individual thoughts (ie “let homosexual marriages happen, I think good things will happen.”), but as a complete statement in the context of itself, I’ll agree.

    Are you Alex from Linden?

  17. Yes, it was. Pretty hefty for a first-ever comment.

  18. Thanks for taking the effort and having the motivation to communicate to those who listen to you something that needs to be a part of the dialogue and which I wouldn’t have put forth the effort to say myself. I agree mostly, and then I have a lot of views that are affected by my perspective that would make what I have to say a bit more biased than would be optimal for getting my point across to those who need to hear it.

  19. [...] gay marriage. For compare and contrast purposes, you can revisit my previous blog on gay marriage here. I think I still maintain some of the sentiments I expressed in the earlier blog, but I also think [...]


Leave a response

Your response:

Categories