If you haven’t heard, there is currently a federal trial underway in California between two parties on opposite sides of the same-sex marriage debate. While one party says the democratic process (e.g. Prop 8) should decide whether same-sex marriage is permitted, the other says it is unconstitutional to discriminate against homosexuals by not affording them the right to marry.
As you may have expected, Christians are keeping a close eye on the trial and are concerned about what the outcome might be. Actually, “concerned” is a bit of an understatement. Many Christians are downright fearful of the possibility of same-sex marriage and, as a result, pour enormous amounts of time, energy, and resources into campaigns to prevent it from becoming a reality.
It is not hard to see why – homosexuality is sinful according to the Bible (most notably, Romans 1) and the people of God cannot, in good conscience, condone the sins of someone else…even if they are not a believer. Of course, there are many more sides to the conversation and reasons why homosexual marriage may be bad for society as a whole, but my point is not to address that debate directly.
Rather, I want to ask the question: how should Christians respond to the same-sex marriage debate – or any moral/political debate for that matter?
To answer that question, I’ve come up with three questions (for now…there may be more) that will be helpful in determining which moral/political pursuits are worth our time, energy and resources and which are not.
Is It a Matter of Justice?
Over and over in the Bible, the people of God are called on to stand against injustice. The message is clear: God hears the cries of the oppressed. In fact, it was because the Jews were severely oppressed while in Egypt that they were not permitted to oppress others. So God instituted laws with provision for the poor and needy in mind. Later in the Old Testament, various prophets stood over and against the Jewish people leveling accusations of injustice against them.
And then Jesus comes on the scene talking about “the least of these” and how when we take care of others, we are taking care of God himself and when we oppress others, we are oppressing God himself.
All of that to say, God cares about injustice and so should his people. So if the issue at hand is one that is related to justice, we absolutely should spend time, money, and resources on it. Anything less would actually be unchristian.
Will it Change Hearts?
This is a question that goes ignored all too often. The assumption is that if something is right, it shouldn’t matter if people really agree with it or if it will change their hearts, it still needs to happen. But if hearts are not changed by whatever moral/political pursuit we have our eyes set on, any change is likely to be short-lived or ignored altogether. The reason is simple: people cannot perform for very long. Further, many sins can be played out in more than just one way. Banning a strip club in your town may be good, but people can still access porn or have affairs.
This external holiness that was not motivated by heart change was one of the sins of the Pharisees. They were intent on cleaning the outside of the cup, but they left the inside filthy. Jesus called them whitewashed tombs – they looked beautiful on the outside, but their hearts didn’t match their actions and they were dead inside (Matthew 23:25-28).
Jesus wasn’t impressed with external holiness then and he wouldn’t be impressed with it today.
Does it Further Our Goal?
This is the most important question. At the end of Matthew 28, Jesus gives the Church her purpose and goal in this world: to make disciples. If we succeed in all other things and cease to do this, we will have failed completely. And if we fail in all other things and succeed in making disciples, we will have done our job well. Even if we were able to curb injustice and set up a moral world where people didn’t harm each other or engage in sinful activity, we know that all have sinned and thus fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). What good is it to gain the whole world and lose our souls?
So no matter how moral America or the world becomes, if we are not making disciples, we have to ask: what’s the point?
If a piece of legislation or moral issue cannot be answered with a “Yes” by at least one of these questions, it is not worth it. Just because we might have something to say to a particular issue doesn’t mean it is worth it for us to make it a priority. This is a matter of focus – something the Church lacks. We can either get caught up in every fad and issue that comes around and respond or we can say a simple, “no” when that temptation creeps up.
We cannot serve two masters.
Disclaimer:
I am not saying it is wrong for us to vote in accordance with our conscience or faith. If we have the opportunity to cast our vote, we should – that is one of the many benefits to living in a democratic society. Rather, I’m asking the Church to decide what her priority is going to be and stick to it, even when there are other issues that come up that we might care about.
What do you think? Does the effort to preserve traditional marriage pass the test? Should there be additional questions added?
Good questions. Let me suggest some further probing though.
Justice? Who’s sense of justice? God’s, hopefully. While we might carefully consider just how patient God is in the meantime, is there any doubt as to His divine sense of justice as mankind flies in His face?
Btw, is ‘personal freedom’ the ultimate value to be guarded as ‘just’? Or is it perhaps the high-value that Jesus modeled… ie, self-sacrifice?
And are we only considering the personal freedom of the adult (much like our Supreme Court wrongly preferred the mother’s freedom v. the unborn baby’s freedom)? Should we consider children issues & family values in this discussion?
Will it change hearts? Great question to ask. Is this also asked before legislating against rape, murder, speeding, embezzlement?
Great Commission? The Whole Commission — including ‘and teaching them to obey everything I’ve commanded you’?
When the Lord taught us to pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done… on earth as it is in heaven”… what position does that logically suggest re aligning our sense of ‘justice’ along with His?
Which laws do we wish to legislate which run contrary to God’s communicated will?
By: IndyChristian on February 9, 2010
at 11:24 AM
Thanks for commenting, IndyChristian. As to your thoughts:
“While we might carefully consider just how patient God is in the meantime, is there any doubt as to His divine sense of justice as mankind flies in His face?”
-What are you suggesting?
“And are we only considering the personal freedom of the adult (much like our Supreme Court wrongly preferred the mother’s freedom v. the unborn baby’s freedom)? Should we consider children issues & family values in this discussion?”
-No to the first question and yes to the second.
“Will it change hearts? Great question to ask. Is this also asked before legislating against rape, murder, speeding, embezzlement?”
-I don’t think it is, but hose actions are worthy of the Christian’s time because they are matters of justice – not everything needs a “yes” from all three questions to make it worth it.
“Great Commission? The Whole Commission — including ‘and teaching them to obey everything I’ve commanded you’?”
-I cannot tell if you agree with what I’ve written or not, but I lean towards not so I’ll answer your question with that in mind. This part of the great commission that you’ve quoted is not separate from the first. In other words, making disciples means teaching people to obey Christ’s commands. This isn’t two different instructions of making disciples and then teaching all of the non-disciples to obey Christ’s commands as well. At no point in his great commission can someone say that Jesus intended for his followers to moralize non-believers.
“When the Lord taught us to pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done… on earth as it is in heaven”… what position does that logically suggest re aligning our sense of ‘justice’ along with His?”
-Not sure what you’re asking here.
“Which laws do we wish to legislate which run contrary to God’s communicated will?”
-This depends on what God’s “communicated will” is. What do you think it is and what laws do you think run contrary to it?
By: Ken Eastburn on February 10, 2010
at 8:32 AM
I think it is an issue of justice. Can it be just that the state withhold shared pension rights from same-sex couples, for example? It’s one thing to say that Christians should not condone sin, it’s quite another to say that the state should disadvantage or oppress people that most Christians regard as sinners. Most Christians call themselves sinners, so advocating discriminatory laws against sinners could have unintended consequences. So yes, it’s a question of justice.
As for changing hearts … if someone moves from promiscuous homosexual, to married homosexual, to married Christian homosexual, that must surely entail an education of the heart. The church’s opposition to state recognition for same-sex marriage stands in the way of its true mission, and it is contrary to “render unto Caesar.”
Sen McGlinn
By: Sen on February 10, 2010
at 1:30 AM
Hey Sen,
Thanks so much for your comment! I appreciate you taking the time to interact and hope that as we discuss we will give each other an enormous amount of grace. First, I want to agree with you about how the state should not oppress those who are sinners by mere fact of them being sinners. We are all sinners, of course. That said, I think we can agree that the state has an interest in punishing sin when such sin is oppressive of or imposes on the rights of others. We wouldn’t call that oppression, though, we’d call it justice. But as for the state’s job of protecting against sin, you and I agree.
Now, when it comes to the changing of hearts, I feel I must clarify something. Please know that I clarify this not to offend yourself or anyone else, but as a matter of conviction about what I believe and what I see as I read and study the Bible. Homosexuality is sin. It is not the worst sin, all sin causes us to fall short of the glory of God (even the sins that we consider insignificant like white lies, greed, gluttony and the others that seem to fit rather well in American society), but the Bible maintains that it is sinful. Once someone becomes a Christian, it is expected that they would gradually, by the power of the Holy Spirit, turn away from and repent of their sin. With that in mind, I find a “married Christian homosexual” to be inconsistent with Scripture – at least as long as the Christian doesn’t see a problem with their homosexuality. That is not to say that once someone becomes a Christian, they cease to have an attraction to members of the same-sex, but in order for that person’s faith to be authentically Biblical they must begin a process of turning away from practicing homosexuality as a matter of obedience and love for Jesus Christ.
Please know that I say this with the utmost love and humility. I sincerely hope that my saying this hasn’t put you off to the point to where we are unable to dialogue about this respectfully. If you’re still willing, I’d love to continue this conversation either here publicly or over email. Let me know!
By: Ken Eastburn on February 17, 2010
at 9:02 AM
We agree then that the state has no business discrimating against same-sex couples versus mixed-sex couples, in the distribution of legal rights and duties.
I am inclined to think that homosexuality itself is not a sin; that its negative social effects and the scriptural condemnation of it have both arisen from most societies’ denial of the right to marry, which has meant that homosexuality has only been practiced in unrecognised and often fleeting and promiscuous relationships. In my own tradition, the Bahai Faith, pederasty has been condemed, and again that relates to a society in which wealthy men commonly kept boys, and homoerotic love was normally directed to youths. But we are in a different world today, not the world of Leviticus or the New Testament or even the 19th century world in which the Bahai Faith arose. If there is the possibility of homosexuality practiced within a marriage, without promiscuity and without exploitation of the young by the old, is it still by definition a sin?
For comparison: usury is condemned. But when the elements of personal exploitation are removed, and we put our little savings in a savings bank that pays interest, is this still a sin? Or harvesting the corners of a field is forbidden, but isn’t it wasteful to leave them, if one farms in the middle of the prairie and there’s no-one for miles around who would want to glean?
Having said that – the question in California and eventually the states in general is not homosexual practice, but same-sex civil marriage. Supposing that one thought all forms of homosexual sex are sinful, and supposing one took an interest in your neighbours’ sins, how would one know whether a same-sex couple were in fact engaging in homosexual sex? Or whether they are “turning away from practicing homosexuality as a matter of obedience and love for Jesus Christ?”
By: Sen on February 17, 2010
at 11:04 AM
Glad you came back, Sen!
“If there is the possibility of homosexuality practiced within a marriage, without promiscuity and without exploitation of the young by the old, is it still by definition a sin?”
-I think the Bible says it still is. Homosexuality is not a new thing as if the Bible had no concept of it (obviously). I’ve heard the argument that the Bible’s writers (most specifically, Paul) would not have condemned monogamous homosexuality sinful had he had the opportunity to see it. But I just can’t accept that as a valid argument. Paul knew of homosexuality and he knew of monogamy…I think it a stretch to say that he wouldn’t have had the insight to put the two together and consider it a valid option if he truly felt it were valid.
“…how would one know whether a same-sex couple were in fact engaging in homosexual sex?”
-As in a same-sex couple who act married in all ways except they don’t have sex? While I think that might be better, I don’t think it ideal. Paul encourages believers to abstain from even the appearance of evil.
By: Ken Eastburn on February 17, 2010
at 11:24 AM
I think Christians often stigmatize homosexuals without understanding Romans chapter 1. If we understood what Paul was saying, we might find more compassion in our hearts toward homosexuals. Although Paul identifies homosexuality as a sin in Romans 1:26-27, homosexuality is not singled out in the passage. Paul lists other sins as well, including:
worshiping and serving created things rather than the Creator
greed
envy
murder
strife
deceit
malice
gossip
slander
hating God
insolence
arrogant and boastful
inventing ways of doing evil
disobeying parents
senselessness
faithlessness
heartlessness
ruthlessness
Chances are, reading this list, we react by saying, “Well, that one is not so bad,” but Paul says according to “God’s righteous decree . . . those who do such things deserve death.” All these sins are symptomatic of “having known God but not glorifying him as God, nor being thankful.” As such, Paul’s indictment in Romans 1 is not only against the individual sinner, but more so against the culture. What about pop culture is not insolent and arrogant? Yet the church spends more time trying to emulate pop culture than we do condemning it.
Homosexuals become an easy target for our judgmental attitudes because their sin is visibly different than our own. When a homosexual says, “I can’t help myself,” we say, “Yes, you can! Read Romans 1!” and we turn around and gossip or slander him without acknowledging we’re condemned by Romans 1, too. We view homosexuals as a special threat, but we conduct business with those who are deceitful and even malicious. Maybe we even conduct our business in a deceitful or malicious way. We should not condone homosexuality, but we should not single it out as if God hates it more than he hates our own arrogance. Would we endorse a constitutional amendment against arrogance?
All sin is rebellion against the divine order that God has established. Yet do we truly seek to live according to divine order? Or, do we merely seek to assert our own disorder into the lives of others?
By: John Ramsey on February 17, 2010
at 6:34 PM
If the Old Testament Law never saved a soul (Galatians 2:16), then what impact do we expect any current moral legislation to have?
By: John Ramsey on February 10, 2010
at 8:57 PM
Reading this was like finally being able to articulate the sense I have of how the church should take part in law-making and politics. We can legislate morality, but we cannot legislate souls for Christ. I’m saddened when I see fellow believers throw their resources at political causes to make us a more Christian nation when – in fact – we will not be a Christian nation until every knee bows before God. It’s not our laws that make us Christian, it’s our hearts. If we witnessed with the same energy we campaigned, what a difference we might make! Thank you for your thoughtful writing on this.
By: Deb on February 12, 2010
at 4:40 AM
Good thoughts. I love Greg boyd’s approach. (the myth of a christian nation). Watch him at http://duodigest.blogspot.com/2010/01/myth-of-christian-nation-greg-boyd-on.html
By: Chris on February 14, 2010
at 6:17 PM
What a brave post. I fully agree with the fact that we have to maintain a spiritual standard, but you are so right, GOD LOVES PEOPLE. People who are confused, who are hurt, who are normal, who are great…HE LOVES PEOPLE. And what do “we” as “christians” look like when we appear to the world to be more against everyone than FOR anyone?
Great post…
By: brewster on February 15, 2010
at 7:12 PM
Thanks, Brewster! Curious to hear your thoughts about what it looks like to be FOR others.
What do you think?
By: Ken Eastburn on February 16, 2010
at 2:12 PM
John,
Thank you for your recent comment:
“We should not condone homosexuality, but we should not single it out as if God hates it more than he hates our own arrogance.”
I completely agree.
By: Ken Eastburn on February 18, 2010
at 7:32 AM