1. Feminism is good. Why is it good? Because it's valuable to have choices, and taking away choice, while less confusing, is inherently a bad idea. Choice develops critical thinking, which is far more important than opposable thumbs. I respect my friends who want to stay home with their children - and I respect the ones that like to work and give their daughters different role models. I don't think there's anything inherently bad about choosing whatever path works for you. I never saw myself as a mother, in part because my own mother was miserable. It was not a time when she could have put her considerable intelligence and mad skillz to other tasks then say, wiping up our little handprints from the refrigerator. Also, let's consider that women who are appalled at the idea of feminism on their blogs are missing the fact that feminists made it possible for them to HAVE blogs - namely by ensuring that women would learn to read and write. Oh, and the ones extolling Biblical Womanhood and what have you? I salute your right to have a different opinion, but frankly, you're wrong. Because you know why you CAN vote? And read all those Graceful Womanhood books. That's right. Feminism.
Also - if one more woman starts a sentence with "I'm not a Feminist or anything, but..." I'm going to belt her one. It's not like saying you're a child molester, you know. You can own it.
2. Man's Relationship to Man is Far More Important Than His/Her Relationship to God: So be nice. Pick up your dog's poo. Don't yell into your cell phone on the bus. Stop cutting people off in the Trader Joe's parking lot. Oh and when someone says hello, smile. It won't kill you.
3. Dogs Make Everything Better: Except for sex. But really, can you think of any other experiences where having a dog with you doesn't improve it? Win-win, people.
4. It's Useless to Fight With Your Family: You won't get anywhere. I know this for a fact. My sister and I have had the same fight for over 30 years. Neither of us have budged.
5. Clothes Make You Feel Better: The right outfit at the right time on the right person? Priceless.
6. It's Better to Love Fruits and Vegetables: They're here. They're good for you. Get used to it.
7. It's a Waste of Time Trying to Figure Out Why Someone Broke Up With You: You'll never know. It doesn't matter. But believe me ladies, it wasn't because he was intimidated by your strength and purpose and womanliness. If it was, you were not dating a man.
8. Other People's Children are Important, Too: I always vote for school budgets because those children are going to grow up and populate my neighborhood, and if I put a Keep Off the Grass sign up, golly darn it, I'd like them to be able to read it.
9. Gay People Should Have the Right to Marry: Why? I'll tell you why. Because it isn't your business, and I don't care what your [Insert Deity/Belief System] tells you. There is no marriage in the Bible. Marriage began as a way to join property and that's that. If you want to put ribbons around it, then add the Rainbow colored ones, please. And if for some reason you think it is your business, what say we all get to vote on every Patty Ann Klumper and Ralph Nicknack that gets engaged in Ferris Puke, Idaho? Wouldn't that be more fair? I mean, are Patty Ann and Ralph going to be the best parents? Raise them in the [InsertDeity/Belief System] you follow? Homeschool? No? It's a slippery slope, isn't it? My only quibble with gay marriage is that it means I get invited to more weddings with more bridal showers and more gifts to buy and more What to Wear questions, but you know, for less bigotry and hatred all the way around, I guess I can buy one more Williams & Sonoma Silver Plated Toaster Slice Remover Fork Set.
10. I Own the World's Most Adorable Dog: Fact, people. See below as he cuddles up to Hapa Boy.
In other news, it is cold in Seattle. It is gray. It is dark at 4pm. Thanks for asking. :)
46 comments:
I take issue with number 2. because in Seattle, it seems it *will* in fact kill some of these mofos if they smile. I will never ever EVER get used to these people who say "hello how are you, oh what an adorable dog...blah blah, etc" - all friendly like yet with a poker face.
And dull eyes. (worse is the squealy overcompensating-for-the-freeze type who tells you how pretty your not washed for three days hair is).
Also, the dog + Hapa Boy = itchy? sneezy? happy?
Surfing over from Kelly's "generation cedar" blog. I thought your points were absolutely spot-on and downright terrific. And I'm a Christian! I loved how you maintained a jolly, good-humored attitude. I had a blast reading your comments. Reasoning with Kelly is pretty well useless. But sometimes it's fun just to try. Good show! You are always welcome at my blog, I love dissenting opinion, too.
"Well, you know - why are you all preaching to the converted? Literally? Heh. I'd LOVE if someone who disagreed with me came upon my blog. Seriously - what a dull world if everyone agreed on everything."
Hi. I filtered over from Kelly's blog. And I'm assuming you meant what you said about someone who disagrees with you commenting here :)
Not here to pick a fight. Just take you up on your offer...
Hope it's alright if I comment on this post.
1. I think people would do well to more distinctly define their terms. I have no argument with the idea that historical feminism has aided in the advancement of women's social concerns. No one wants to be mistreated or seen as a "second class" individual. My personal problem with modern "feminism" is that there are some very aggressive--to the point of being obnoxious-- branches of feminism which still appear to be unappeased (in spite of all the benefits we may now receive). Just as rude, obnoxious religious people are offensive, so are those who are "in your face" with claims that they fight for "equal rights", be they for women, animals, gays or whatever. The battle then, turns from campaigning for the ability to be treated with dignity and respect and becomes one that promotes superiority of one group over another. And in the process can infringe upon the freedoms of others. Not every aspect of a particular cause is "good"
2.Being a Christian, I would have to disagree with this statement. Not because I think people aren't important, but because my God is to be considered *more* important. The most important "rule" for a Christian is to love God above all else, and the 2nd most important is to love our neighbor as ourselves. We must have God on the throne in our hearts, and this will naturally lead us to treat others with respect and kindness. Even when we disagree with someone, it is not to be done in a self-righteous, unloving manner. Sadly, not all people who claim to be Christians actually live this out. I've messed that up myself at times, but He is faithful to show me when I have failed to do what is right.
3. I can appreciate dogs from a distance.
4. Totally agree. Although I don't think I have ever had an ongoing fight with anyone in my family.
5.Considering the alternative, I would agree clothing is a must :)
6. Love me some produce!
7. I've not had any experience being hurt that way, but agree it would be a waste of time trying to figure it out. People don't always make sense, anyway--and when emotions are involved, it can be even more confusing.
8.Won't disagree with the main point. Although I don't agree that increasing taxes via school levies is the best way to show I care. I'm not sure how giving a school system larger amounts of money will ensure that the children will be literate when they leave. If a person wants to learn something, they will, whether or not they have the most up to date curriculum or building in which to study it.
9. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and I personally cannot approve of the practice. But I can accept that I am held to a standard that others may not recognize. However, as gay lifestyle and marriage gain social acceptance and legal ground in our country, I and many other Christians will increasingly be considered to be bigoted or be breaking the law if we fail to SUPPORT what the Bible clearly states is a sin. As American citizens, shouldn't we have the right to also live in the way which our own consciences direct us? When a person's push for "equal rights" interferes with my ability to live and teach my children according to our family belief system,the justice system then becomes abusive toward me. I'm not whining, just pointing out that if someone else chooses a lifestyle that I do not view as "good", it is between them and God. If, as a result of new legislation, I am then being forced to teach my children that this lifestyle is not a sin in the eyes of God (because some people believe that if we say it is sin, then we are being "hateful"), then my right to religious freedom is being infringed upon. That may not be the intention of some who want to legalize gay marriage, but it is likely to become a reality. Biblical Christianity does not allow for believers to accept sin as good. But, despite popular belief, neither does it encourage us to behave in a spiteful, arrogant manner as we hold to our standards.
You know, I posted a couple items about my thoughts on gay marriage and homosexuality in general. If you are interested--I mean not looking for something to argue about, but truly are interested in reading a differing perspective-- you are welcome to pop into my blog http://onmysoap-box.blogspot.com/search/label/homos*xuality
As I said, I didn't come here to start a fight...just wanted to let you know that not all Christians think the same. We all have our weak points and can make mistakes as we try to do what God has called us to do--that is to live our lives in obedience to His direction.
If you feel I am being unfair or rude, I assure you, it was not my intention.
10. I agree, for a dog, yours is pretty cute.
Respectfully,
Heather
Hi Elizabeth and Heather -
Thanks for visiting, and leaving your comments. I mean that. I actually started this blog as a way to keep my friends in Santa Fe up to date with my life when I moved to Seattle, but the truth is that it's fun to have a forum to grouse and write. I can't blame Kelly for using hers in the same way, can I? :)
At any rate, I appreciate that there are different ideas about the world out there. Obviously I'm joking when I claim to be always right - although the women in my family seem to all have this in common, I'll admit that. Heh.
By the way, Heather - my housemate is gay and she and her wife are quite devoted to each other (her wife is in the process of moving here). Whatever it says in the Bible, I don't believe that any kind of love that powerful is a sin. I understand that you do, but it really is a lovely thing to witness. I'm just saying.
But then, I'm a rabid dog lover. So we may just have to disagree on a couple of points. :)
MOD
Heather,
Exactly how would the civil rights of marriage---which would give me the ability to visit my partner in the hospital, among other rights that most married couples don't even realize they have---impede your ability to teach your children whatever you want?
MOD,
I certainly can't blame you for using your personal blog to air your personal opinions :) We obviously don't see things in the same light, and as I said, I only stopped in as it appeared you wanted someone who didn't agree to give you something to discuss...
However, if I misunderstood that, I will happily leave, as it is not my intention to come in here to try to argue or make you feel uncomfortable.
Although I don't mind discussion with those who don't see things my way, I don't appreciate it when they only act as though they want to try to win an argument. If you view me in this way, please say so and I will not bother you here again.
Janet,
Before I try to answer your question, I want to restate that I did not come here looking to insult or preach at anyone. My perspective on this subject is that I am wasting my time to try to convince a gay person they are wrong simply on the basis of the evidence that their sexual orientation does not line up with the teachings of the Bible. It is a matter of the heart and is not approachable from a strictly logical perspective. Please understand I am not attempting to "convert" anyone.
I don't fear or hate homosexuals and was unaware of the content of this post when I decided to take up MOD on what I perceived to be an offer of discussion.
Interestingly, I was recently contemplating how, as a Christian, I should respond to the issue of gay marriage--if the situation occurred. I did post about my thoughts, and shared the link in my initial comment in case there is any interest in my general attitude toward the subject. I'm not sure whether you would find it helpful or offensive, but it is there, nonetheless.
We most definitely have differing worldviews, and I'm not sure if I can adequately explain my concern about gay marriage being legally defined...but I feel it is the right thing for me to at least try, since you asked.
I am fully aware that many gay couples want nothing more than to be able to peaceably enjoy what we know as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and are simply seeking what you view as equality under the law. My understanding is that what is being asked by a majority is that the legal definition of "marriage" be simply expanded from that of "one man and one woman" to include "one man and one man" and "one woman and one woman". I do believe that for many, the motives are nothing more than you are real people, with real relationships and real feelings and you are legal citizens and don't wish to be denied legal protection/benefits based on the fact that you have a same-sex relationship. Am I correct, so far?
Here is my concern, from my perspective-- Laws are typically enacted to help protect the citizens of our country/state from abuse of various sorts, be it to their person, property or freedom. The more "specific" these laws become, the more likely they are to cause problems for the people who are not included in their protective sphere.
There is a trend in our country at this time for many people to abuse a law or constitutional right, which was intended to be a good thing that ensures fair treatment to all. This can create a situation which requires more specific laws to be set forth.
While I am not accusing YOU specifically of wanting to interfere with the way I raise my own children, the precedent of establishing gay marriage will open the door for unethical homosexuals to be able to fall back on their newly legitimate married status to be able to push more aggressive acceptance of the gay lifestyle on those who do not see it as right.
With a new law as backing, there would be the potential of having an unethical someone (or many someones) file (and win) a totally bogus "discrimination" or "harassment" lawsuit. This would, in effect create a need to further define what is and is not legally acceptable behavior and attitude toward homosexual marriage --which certainly would eventually affect those of us who are obligated to recognize it as sin.
The possibility is real. This pattern can be seen in the way much of our country has appeared to redefine the meaning of "free speech" and "freedom of religion" to be "you can think whatever you like, but if you act on it in public (no matter how unobtrusively) you can be offending someone else who doesn't share your belief--therefore, speak freely to yourself, and by the way, don't wear 'Jesus loves you' t-shirts to work".
On the job "harassment" no longer has to be actual physical or verbal abuse but simply that a person "feels" they are being singled out and picked on because they are not doing their job correctly and the supervisor told them so. The rules which were originally meant to protect employees from being unfairly treated are now being abused by some employees in order to "get even" with a boss they don't like. I did not make up this particular instance, as I know someone who was threatened this way. So I know there is always a very real potential for "good" rules to be abused.
I could mention at least one other instance I personally know of how protective laws have been abused, but it would take far too much comment space, and I am sure I have gone on long enough.
Having said all that, I will absolutely acknowledge that my idea of how the legalization of gay marriage *could* affect me and my family is mostly speculation, although it is based on some of the societal trends I have seen elsewhere.
Well, there you go.
As I said, I am not expecting you to fully understand what I am thinking. But please believe I say it without wishing any ill will on those who do not agree with me.
Heather.
I welcome opinions, Heather - all of them. If you and Janet want to debate positions, I won't stand in the way. I think that the blogosphere allows discussion where none would ever exist before - and that's a wonderful thing.
Obviously, I believe that any marriage, no matter the gender, that is based on love and support is not wrong. I also don't believe in home-schooling, to tell you the truth. I believe in great public schools and great libraries - and that we should work towards that as a country. In my opinion, home-schooling should be far more monitored and regulated than it is at this point.
But these are my opinions. I'm sad that others don't agree with me, as I'm sad that Prop 8 passed in California. However, you have a right to your beliefs. I'm absolutely okay with you sharing them here - and I welcome you to my little corner of the Internets any time. :)
Now to my opinion. This:
"The precedent of establishing gay marriage will open the door for unethical homosexuals to be able to fall back on their newly legitimate married status to be able to push more aggressive acceptance of the gay lifestyle on those who do not see it as right."
Is kind of odd, if you'll forgive, me. What "more aggressive acceptance" can there be? As Janet said, she just wants to be able to raise children and visit her wife in the hospital if God forbid something happens.
With a new law as backing, there would be the potential of having an unethical someone (or many someones) file (and win) a totally bogus "discrimination" or "harassment" lawsuit. This would, in effect create a need to further define what is and is not legally acceptable behavior and attitude toward homosexual marriage --which certainly would eventually affect those of us who are obligated to recognize it as sin."
Really don't think that's going to happen. Don't worry. My gay friends are far more concerned with their own rights then suing!
Janet is far likelier to sue me for not providing our old dog Toffy with her percentage of treats. Heh.
MOD,
I appreciate your offer to allow me to come in and air my position. discussion can be good if at least one side is open to changing their perspective. I'm thinking that isn't the case, here :)
As I said, I am NOT accusing Janet (or any of your gay friends) of wanting to do anything more than she stated herself. I do not personally know any of your gay friends and it would be wrong of me to assign motives to anyone personally.
I was merely trying to point out that laws can be (and often are) abused by people who are more interested in grinding a personal gripe axe than in seeing true justice be delivered. It already happens with other laws and even company policies. And once those new special circumstance laws are instated they do often interfere with freedoms of other people who are not in any way intending harm.
You asked "What more aggressive acceptance can there be?" than instituting a gay marriage amendment. And I did try to explain what I meant by "more aggressive acceptance" in my previous (unfortunately lengthy) comment. Actually, you quoted part of my thought on that immediately after you asked the question. My answer really is in there!
You seem to feel I am unreasonably concerned. I'm not overly anxious, just aware that there is the potential that such an amendment to marriage COULD, in the future interfere with the way we (Christians) are able to speak freely of our own belief when it might be overheard by someone who is overly sensitive to the fact that not everyone thinks the same.
I suppose time will tell.
As far as home school vs. public school goes, I believe one's opinion in this is due to his/her basic worldview. Unless you are willing to change that, you wouldn't understand the reasons many of us do it. Just as my worldview does not allow me to call homosexuality a good thing.
Again, it is not my wish to debate either issue with you. I don't want to degrade the discussion into what can be misconstrued as a personal attack.
I'm going to let my comments stand without further, uh, "comment" on the subject. I'd much rather part ways knowing we disagreed on your blog (because you said it was okay), and it didn't dissolve into snottiness and name calling.
Have a great evening,
Heather
Hey folks,
First off, I think this is a great conversation--everyone seems more interested in explaining than blaming/converting. Good conversation on the internet is a rarity.
Anyway, my thoughts on this is that the 'gay marriage' conflict is really mostly a terminological one.
Please pardon my bullet points, but I find I communicate more succinctly this way:
* 'Marriage' currently has two meanings: a religious/social meaning and a legal meaning.
* I believe that separating those two meanings would clarify things greatly.
* Have the term for the legal recognition of a partnership be 'civil union,' for all couples, straight or gay. Essentially, I'm saying the gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage as a social institution, but just recognize that civil unions are commonly desired legal contract, just like a will or a driver's license.
* Have the term for the religious/social meaning of that partnership be 'marriage.' This would keep the gov't out of people's social lives. Couples should be allowed to get married without registering the fact with the gov't.
Theoretically, this semantic solution solves most of the stated conflicts I've heard:
* Equality: gays and straights have equal access to legal services & recognition of the gov't because the gov't solely deals with civil unions.
* Religious freedom: those who believe that marriage is solely between one man and one woman can continue to believe such. Their churches shouldn't have to marry gay couples if it is against their religion; schools shouldn't talk about marriage at all--just civil unions, etc.
In the end, I'm really just saying that we should separate church and state on the marriage issue. :)
Janet, Heather: I'm curious as to whether this kind of solution would be acceptable to you.
Numbers 4,5,6,7, and 8: Ditto!
As for 1,2, and 9: I'm a Christian. Further commentary would be superfluous.
Number 3: Neutral. Thinking of getting a pooch for the kids, but the husband questions whether they'll be as responsible as they're aying they'll be. We'll see. I think a dog might be fun.
Oh, in response to Heather's wish for more dissenters on her blog:
It can really be wearisome when you write posts that draw a lot of dissenters. At least that's true for me and I don't even have CLOSE to as many detractors as Kelly over at Generation Cedar.
Still, the occasional healthy debate is good because it helps me to think, sharpens my ability to articulate what I believe and why, and in some cases, causes me to rethink some things and do my homework.
Terry, I need to clarify that the opening of my first post was not *my* wish. That was a quote from one of MOD's comments that was made on Kelly's blog.
Personally, although I don't mind being exposed to differing opinions within the Christian faith or even opposing worldviews, I have no desire for someone to come stomping through my blog just for the sake of debating an issue in which they have already decided they are not willing to yield. I'm fine with comparing worldviews, or discussing areas that appear to be contradictory--as long as it is done respectfully. I don't visit other people's blogs just so I can start pointless arguments and would hope others would extend the same consideration to me.
To be perfectly honest, I share my faith because God requires me to. As long as I am welcome, I don't mind sharing...even if I may not convince a blog author with my statements. Only God Himself can cause a person to see Who He is. I'm okay with that.
This is MOD's blog and I have no problem with being "un"invited to comment if I am perceived to be hostile or argumentative. There is no point in making a nuisance of myself where I am unwelcome.
Hapa Boy,
I apologize for letting your comment sit unanswered for so long. I really was not ignoring you, but wanted to spend time praying and thinking over your observations and suggestion.
This is somewhat embarrassing, because, as I asked for wisdom, the answer I got was to just tell the truth. And I protested, "But I did!" I stated as clearly as possible what I (and many other Christians) are concerned about with the legalization of gay marriage. It is true that we stand to lose some of the freedoms to voice what the Bible says about homosexuality if gay unions are, in fact, legally recognized.
As some specialized rights are granted, others must be taken in order to make room. I can use slavery as an extreme example that just about anyone would understand: When the Emancipation Proclamation guaranteed that African-American slaves would be considered free citizens, it slammed the door on the white slave owners "right" to be able to own another human being and force them to work without proper compensation, if so desired.
Now, in NO WAY do I support the concept of slavery, but feel this might help illustrate how passing one law that re-defines our nation's current legal status could possibly interfere with existing freedoms of those who are not recognized in the newly passed legislation. It has happened. It does happen.
You know, if the only problem that the gay marriage issue introduced was with terminology, I do think your solution would provide a satisfactory legal compromise.
If this were strictly a matter of civil rights, I could see how a clarification/amendment that stated something like: "All citizens who are engaged in a legally recognized civil union (one which requires a state-certified marriage certificate) are able to partake of ALL benefits that the government offers" would probably be acceptable to just about anyone.
I understand that the government laws do not always represent my personal beliefs, And, without the specific recognition of *gay* union as "marriage", (in a religious sense), your proposal probably would satisfy the desire to maintain or be granted our "civil rights", no matter who we are.
Actually,God recently ran me through the wringer concerning *my* "rights". So, that really isn't an issue with me anymore. I happen to enjoy my freedom, but do recognize I am not "entitled" to any special treatment. I even felt it was a blog-worthy revelation :)
Ok. Back to the Truth...in case anyone is curious ;) I do understand that my reference to God is as though He is real, and that I actually communicate with Him. I also know I cannot convince anyone else of this, but am obligated to give Him due credit whether or not others choose to believe me.
Beyond the consideration of what *I* stand to lose over legalized gay marriage/union is an overarching context of why the homosexual lifestyle is a problem for Christians in the first place.
Yes, the Bible designates it as *sin*, but too often Christians focus in on this ONE aspect of a bigger picture. Gay people are often seen as "the bad guys" who are trying to take over the world with some secret agenda.
But the Truth (not "mine", but what God has actually said) is that the acceptance of homosexuality as "good" is part of a package deal. It is a natural result of a rejection of His existence and/or authority, and also of a lack of thankfulness for Who He is by those who do recognize Him as God. When we choose to turn our backs on Him as Creator and Lord, He has stated that He will allow us to think we are doing what is right according to our own ability to reason things out.
We are all born with this natural tendency to fight against God's standards, and we all are offered the opportunity to let Him correct this problem. Those of us who choose to continue on as our *own* authority are said by Him to be in rebellion.
I don't mean to play "Sunday School" here but i couldn't figure out how to be able to state my point without the above as background.
Anyway, the reason Bible-believing Christians cannot accept homosexuality as "just another {benign}lifestyle option" is that the Bible specifically designates it as one of several possible signs that a person is actively rebelling against Him. I would be placing myself in a position of rebellion if I were to approve of the homosexuality itself. This, in my opinion, is why the issue of "gay rights" can be such a hot button topic for Christians.
I don't believe God hates gay people. He just cannot overlook it when we choose to do our own thing rather than listen to Him. I don't hate gays and have no problem with treating them in a civilized, considerate manner. I would not feel smugly satisfied upon hearing that a gay person was ill, injured or abused. They are people and I absolutely believe God wants me to treat ALL people with kindness and dignity--even if I disagree with an aspect of how they choose to live.
As someone who is in agreement with what the Bible teaches about God and the relationship of humanity to Him, I can't, in good conscience, agree with statements which specifically condone homosexuality. I think I can understand how this could be misunderstood to mean that I am hateful toward gay people.
But I'm not. And it can be a very un-fun position to be in as I tend to be a "can't we all just get along" type of person.
Thanks again for the opportunity to speak here.
Heather
Hi Heather,
Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to my post--I really do appreciate it. This is so much informative and pleasant than the screaming pundits on TV ever are. :)
To make sure I fully understand your post, allow me to see if I can summarize it in my own words:
1. Christians shouldn't condone sin
2. Homosexuality is defined as a sin in the Bible
3. Therefore Christians shouldn't condone homosexual marriage (or civil unions), as that would be condoning sin.
I hope this is a reasonable summary, bullet-pointed, as I'm wont to do. :) Assuming that this is a reasonable summary, I can't fault the logic--condoning homosexuality is clearly wrong if you're a Christian.
But, as you point out, there are many signs of 'rebellion from God. If 'sin' is disobedience from God, then doesn't it follow that all sins are equally bad? In other words, lying is choosing to disobey God, just as killing is choosing to disobey God. (Obviously, from a civil society point of view, killing is far more serious problem than lying; I'm just pointing out that from God's perspective, both are equally disobedient acts.)
To bullet-point-itize my argument:
• Sin is about being disobedient to God. Therefore, in the eyes of God, all sins are equal. (Again, we're talking about sin, not damage to society--clearly some acts are more damaging than others)
• There are many state-condoned acts that are disobedient to God that are codified in US and state laws. Examples include state-condoned killing (war), state-condoned worship of other Gods (freedom of religion), and state-condoned lack of obligation to honor our parents.
• It is unclear to me why is homosexual marriage is considered 'special' enough to merit all that extra effort to fight, compared to other state-condoned sins.
• Therefore, it feels to me that the motivation to fight homosexual marriage comes from some reason other than the general motivation to fight against state-condoned sin.
Does this make any sense?
If you would take the time shed some lights on where my understanding is mistaken or missing some information, I would really appreciate it. I really am interested in understanding your point of view.
Hapa Boy for Senator 2012
Oh, Hapa Boy, I'm such a fan of you (and Mother of Dog, of course).
There's a lot here that I'd love to comment on, but bedtime approaches. In the interest of brevity, just a few points for now:
-I find the separation of legal and religious marriage to be a very logical, rational solution. It's quite consistent with other aspects of the idea of separation of church and state, too, isn't it? After all, I was issued both a birth certificate and a baptismal certificate, but those were two entirely separate events. This solution (the separation of legal and religious marriage) would also allow those churches who believe that gay people are as capable and worthy of loving, lasting partnerships as their straight counterparts to bless those unions in the same way that they bless marriages. That's a missing voice in this conversation---the affirming church.
-Heather, I am always hesitant to compare the experiences of one minority against those of another. However, I find your use of the metaphor of slavery interesting. Certainly, one could say that the rights of slaveholders changed following the Emancipation Proclamation! It is, however, very difficult for me to see this as anything other than, well, just. Very, very just and right and, dare I say?, Christian.
From a legalistic standpoint, you seem worried about something that MIGHT happen. I still don't understand exactly what it is that you're worried about, given that free speech is rather protected in the U.S. However, what I worry about---specifically, the legal ability of hospital personnel to not allow me to see my partner were something to happen to her---happens EVERY SINGLE DAY in this country.
Seriously, protecting your ability to criticize my life (which in no way impacts yours)---a right that would not change were the law to codify my relationship---is more important than allowing me these most basic of rights? I don't understand it.
I do respect your opinions, however, and your willingness to engage in dialogue. I believe that it is your intention to treat others with kindness and dignity; I wish that I could somehow express to you how damaging to me it is that my very loving relationship is afforded no dignity in your worldview.
Janet
Janet,
I'm not sure how much of my other stuff you have been willing to dig through. I tend to ramble, I'm afraid.
Perhaps I need to learn how to "bullet point" my comments.
:D
Although I have not changed my opinion on the possibility of loss of right to freedom of speech/religion, I do need to apologize for my initial statement about that being a main reason I am against gay marriage.
After I made those comments, God got my attention and showed me how *my* claim to "rights" about pretty much anything is irrelevant to my duty as a Christian.
I was selfishly reacting to the potential change to my freedoms that granting gay marriage rights could cause.
I do not deny that you are in a caring relationship and only wish to have it recognized and rewarded as such by the government. This subject is truly a matter of the heart, and we all have very real emotions, which is part of the reason it is often so difficult to discuss it in a respectful, civilized manner.
Please try to understand that it is not *I* who "criticize" your life. God has made a statement about homosexuality, and I need to accept it as true. I do not have the authority or desire to order you to stop being gay or to insist that you cannot live your life as you desire. It isn't my job to demand that you obey God--but I AM expected to tell the truth about what He says. My position is that I simply cannot endorse homosexuality as "good".
Due to being unable to approve of homosexuality, I also cannot support an amendment to legalize gay marriage/union but have realized I am not to be whining or spiteful if something is passed regardless of my lack of agreement.
********************************
Janet said: I am always hesitant to compare the experiences of one minority against those of another. However, I find your use of the metaphor of slavery interesting. Certainly, one could say that the rights of slaveholders changed following the Emancipation Proclamation! It is, however, very difficult for me to see this as anything other than, well, just. Very, very just and right and, dare I say?, Christian.
********************************
I absolutely agree with the above statement and did not intend to insinuate that I think that gays and African-Americans have the same issues or that the experiences are equivalent.
The thought was strictly limited to the potential effect caused by the government recognizing and granting status to a particular societal group. It can (either directly--as in abolition of slavery--or indirectly--through additional legislation) affect other people.
I know you don't understand where I'm coming from on the "loss of rights" angle. That's okay, though, as I never intended to come here to "prove" anything.
As I said, that particular aspect doesn't matter now, anyway.
Hapa Boy,
It appears you have a constituency! If you don't already, perhaps you should author your own blog...
I have run out of time for now but will respond to you as soon as possible. You have asked some very thought-provoking questions and I am excited about being able to continue this discussion!
Heather
As Hapa Boy's biggest fan, I must say - he really is the most rational thinker I've ever met. Scientists are like that. (Plus he's very cute when he's thinking rationally.)
Heather and Janet, thanks for being so thoughtful on here. I love being able to facilitate this dialogue. I may not always agree with you Heather, but I admire how seriously you take the task of explaining your beliefs.
UM. You might want to grab a snack and pull up a comfortable seat. This turned out to be REALLY long.
Mother of Dog,
I do appreciate you allowing a conversation on here when you obviously do not agree with me.
Hapa Boy,
I want to thank you for questioning my (or perhaps the general "fundamentalist Christian") perspective. Whether or not this discussion impacts your personal religious leanings, God has most certainly shown me some amazing things through your inquiry.
Having my faith and values questioned in a way that REALLY encourages me to think and ask God for the answer (rather than react out of emotion or throw out a "party line" that "everyone else" uses), has tremendously impacted me in ways I cannot adequately express here. So many things which I have been working through are finally starting to make sense, and all I can say is that this is an AWESOME opportunity which I would never trade. I can hardly wait to be able to write about this!
Again, THANK YOU!!! :)
I haven't figured out how to bullet-point my comments but will try to be less long-winded with my statements. (edit--it didn't work)
* To answer your 3-point summary of my previous post, I would say YES, that is a logical conclusion.
HEY! That was a quick and direct answer--There IS hope for me (please pardon the happy dance...)
Okay, I'll try to answer your bullets in order:
** Yes, in God's eyes, sin is sin. And yes again, some *acts* of sin have much more damaging and far-reaching social and personal consequences.
** Yes, there are many state-condoned acts which are disobedient to God. I do wish to specifically speak on the examples you chose.
War: you mentioned this as being against God's law. This is one of those seemingly "contradictory" subjects in the Bible. While murder (defined as: one individual taking it upon himself to kill another for PERSONAL reasons--fit of rage, bigotry, revenge, etc) IS specifically described as sin, God Himself did send His people, as a nation, to war against the Canaanites as they entered the land which He had promised to them. He ORDERED them to kill all of the inhabitants of the land as they encountered them. The reason is that He knew the Israelites would learn the idol-worship practices of the Canaanites and either incorporate those practices into their worship of Him or turn from God completely.
The Bible teaches that we are, as a general rule, to submit to government leadership as all governments are allowed to exist because God has given His permission.
While *murder* is wrong, killing is not necessarily sinful for a Christian who has been called by the government to serve his country for a JUST cause (such as the freedom of black slaves or protection of another helpless and abused entity).
Even with the instruction to obey authority, it is essential for a Christian to have a conscience which is fully subject to God's direction, because there ARE Biblical instances of civil disobedience which God has honored--in Exodus, there is an account of Hebrew midwives being ordered by the Egyptian king to kill newborn babies and not only did they NOT do it, they lied about why the babies weren't getting killed. The reason given is that the midwives "feared God"--or rather--placed God's authority on a higher plane than an evil earthly king's personal vendetta. They recognized the killing of babies as murder, and obeying the kings decree would have been a direct offense against God Himself.
There are several more instances like this but I need to move on, I think. My point here is that state condoned *war* and *capital punishment* do not necessarily HAVE to be contradictory to God's command to not murder. The litmus test is whether or not the killing is done according to the way GOD specifies is just and right. The determining factor is that of authorization.
From a Christian's perspective (sticks neck WAAAAAAAAAY out into liberal blogosphere), abortion would better fall under the heading of state-sanctioned murder.
God's attitude toward those who would cause miscarriage/abortion (loss of a pregnancy):
Exodus 21:22-25 "This is what you must do whenever men fight and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely. If there are no other injuries, the offender must pay whatever fine the court allows the woman's husband to demand. If anyone is injured, the offender must pay a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a bruise for a bruise, a wound for a wound.
Now, I'm NOT trying to "get into it" over women's rights or when a "fetus" is considered "viable". I am only pointing out that God has stated that if a person causes a woman to prematurely end her pregnancy (even if it is accidental) there is to be restitution made to the family. If there is injury or death to the baby OR woman, the offender was to be punished accordingly.
God says NOTHING about how far along in the pregnancy the woman was (most of us will figure it out on our own around 6-8 weeks, so according to God any known pregnancy that is ended through violence is considered murder). This also says NOTHING of whether the woman wanted to be pregnant or even if she deliberately jumped in the way to TRY to cause miscarriage. It says the one who caused the damage should be held responsible. And if the child OR woman died, so did the one who caused the loss.
In the mind of a Christian,state approved abortionists are clearly violating God's law. If we truly believe the Bible, then we must oppose this state-condoned act of murder.
(please hold the rotten tomatoes, I am moving on...)
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Was instituted as a safeguard against the government being able to demand that all citizens worship a particular way. Taken in it's original context, it is not sinful for a Christian to support this amendment.
The fact that idol worship occurs as a result of this option to freely choose is not something for which we (Christians) are held responsible by God. However, we are not to give our approval of the worship of other gods. "Tolerance" indicates the endurance or allowance of something and is not equivalent to whole-hearted agreement.
* As a Christian, I personally do not approve of the government interfering with the way I relate to my children. But then, I do love, train and care for my own children and feel confident that I could do this far better than any stranger. I expect dog owners who love their pet and and know it's likes/dislikes/personality quirks/habits could at least partially relate to this concept. ;)
Cases of abuse and neglect SHOULD be cause for the government to step in but that is because children are citizens and should be able to expect the same protection from the government to which ALL Americans are entitled.
Other than that, I cannot think of an occasion that I would approve of the state usurping a parent's ability to rear their own child.
So much for "short and sweet" :S
* Why is homosexual marriage so "special"? Excellent question! I'm afraid it doesn't have a short answer, though.
Where to start? First, I suppose I need to refer back to my statement about abortion. Gay marriage is not the only state approved sin to which Christians pay special attention.
However, homosexual union/marriage is the current " bargaining table" issue. So that is naturally where a lot of people will focus for now. Abortion hasn't been forgotten, but it is already legalized, and will likely not be going anywhere in the near future.
Before continuing, I want to point out:
1. Not all who say "I am a Christian" are in fact, "Born Again". Jesus even says this.
2. Even true Christians are not perfect. Being forgiven for our sin does not mean we never do anything wrong. However, we SHOULD be able to recognize the wrongness of sinful actions and be willing to be corrected and turn away from the sin when it is brought to our attention.
Under fact #1, I would say that "Christians" who rail hatefully against homosexuals about how they will burn in hell and those who gleefully support physical or verbal abuse of gays are simply hiding behind the Bible and using it as an excuse to freely unleash their venom under the facade of Christianity. I have to set this entire group aside as to why they would make homosexual marriage their "pet project". Those who use derogatory or filthy words, are openly hostile or vile about their disapproval of homosexuality are not Christians and they do NOT represent a true picture of the Christian faith.
Under fact #2, I first hold up myself as an example. Please note my original response to this topic. I apparently am an "evangelical, fundamentalist, 'born again'" Christian. However, I did allow the temptation to think of myself FIRST (sin nature which has been forgiven but not entirely erased) to cloud my perspective on what God really says about homosexuality and WHY I cannot approve of it.
Some Christians will cite the Biblical account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence that approval of homosexuality is the "final straw" that will ensure God's swift and terrible judgment on a city/nation. So, fear of judgment plays in here.
The accompanying thought is that if we speak out against legalizing gay marriage, then, if God chooses to destroy America because of the way we (as a nation) have chosen to go, then perhaps the Christians (and whoever listens) might be spared.
Or, perhaps the idea is that enough people will turn away from sin that God might completely set aside His anger and allow us to continue on as a blessed nation. This concept is supported by the account in the book of Jonah.
Another reason that homosexual marriage is considered perhaps "more worthy" of opposition than some other sins is that the Bible sets forth marriage from the beginning of Creation as being between a man and a woman. Mother of Dog, I have read that you don't believe marriage goes back that far in history, but it is there--both in concept and in name. Of course, you still would need to accept that the Bible is an actual factual account for it to add any weight to your opinion...
There are several passages in the New Testament that hold up the man-woman marriage relationship as a picture of Christ and the Church. The Jewish culture of that time had betrothal and marriage traditions that helped enhance that picture. Some of Jesus' parables made reference to these customs and His contemporaries would most likely have readily understood what He was talking about.
However, most of us (either not being Jewish at all--or being modern Jews) don't have ready access to that particular picture. We would need to do some culture/customs research before a lot of it would make sense.
Anyway, with the distinctive differences between men and women, God intended for marriage to help us get a better idea of what is the Christian Church's relationship and duty to Jesus.
Note to Mother of Dog: I realize you have been reading and posting on the "submissive wife" aspect of marriage. And I understand this concept offends you. I sometimes feel offended as well--when I am thinking only of what is being asked of me. But when I look at it the way God actually means it, I understand why this is important.
Here is the other side of that instruction:
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it.
Wives are instructed to respect their husbands and consider them to be the head of the home. But Christian husbands are also required to make personal sacrifice in the relationship--to the point of laying aside all of their own selfish desires and looking after what is best for their wives.
Since the Bible specifically states it is "husbands" and "wives" who are necessary to properly portray this picture, then homosexual unions in some way will change this dynamic--the symbolized scene becomes either (God-God) or (Church-Church).
I don't read that non-Christians are expected to care about this. And my own understanding is that only Christians are required to take this seriously as there is no written order to go out and battle the gays of that time over their lifestyle. However, there is neither given any release for believers to actually approve of homosexuality.
Before I sign off, I want to add divorce to your list of state-sanctioned sins. Unfortunately, this is one which many Christians seem to readily accept rather than even mildly protest. Although there ARE specific instances when it is Biblically acceptable for Christians, divorce in general also seriously wrecks up the marriage portrait which God wants us to paint.
I do believe it is not my place to judge other people. God sees each person's heart and will weigh it Himself. I'm not saying that I think all divorced people are going to hell--but as you pointed out concerning the subsequent effect of a sin, the consequences of this particular one can be extremely damaging.
Personally, I would site my Facts #1 and #2 as common reasons why divorce is so widespread within the mainstream Christian church today. This, among other problems is an obvious flaw of the modern American church. Just about anyone can see it, so I won't try to deny the truth.
The Bible also has stated that God isn't any happier with hypocrites than He is with "sinners".
Well, I don't know if this helps with your understanding or not--I'm not very good at condensing and dispensing information.
Heather
Hi Heather,
First off, my apologies for the late response--I'm traveling on business right now and don't have a lot of time. I should also apologize, as this post will be a half-response. :(
Secondly, thank you for the long and thoughtful response--it really helped me understand your positions a little better, although I'm not sure that we're much closer to agreement. But you did actually make me consult the Bible, so that's progress there. :)
I do appreciate your facts #1 and #2: not all who claim to be Christians really are, and that even those who are Christians are imperfect. I'm also not trying to accuse anyone of anything; I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind the thoughts, regardless of one's ability to act ideally.
Ok, enough caveating. I'm going to try to summarize this thread, as the amount of detail, while invaluable, has the side-effect of making it intimidatingly long. :) I'm also not going to address some of the side-points, in order to focus on the core issues. As always, please feel free to disagree with my summary.
The central conflict of this discussion is:
• Whether Christians should attempt to legally prevent OTHERS from doing any of those things they deem as 'sins.' I didn't detect any disagreement from you that Christians should attempt to prevent state-condoned sins, although we disagreed about some of the specific sins I picked as evidence of state-condoned sins.
• Whether the disproportionate effort of fights against some sins (e.g., gay marriage/union, abortion) as opposed to others (divorce, honoring one's parents, etc.) makes many suspicious of Christian motives, since all sins are equally bad in a theological sense.
So my question is most directly: do you agree that Christians should attempt to decrease state-condoned sins, either by preventing new ones or by repealing existing ones?
• If the answer is 'no', then my initial question remains: why pick gay marriage/union as a sin worth vigorously fighting compared to other sins?
• If the answer is 'yes', then delving into the details of our disagreements of which sins have become state-condoned would be the next step. And the ball is in my court on that one--you already gave a good amount of detail on that front that I haven't yet responded to. I just wanted to clarify what your answer is before we dove into those details. :)
Looking forward to your response!
Hapa Boy,
I understand that you don’t have a lot of spare time—and don’t blame you at all for wanting to narrow down the focus of the discussion before continuing your response.
Your comment about consulting the Bible made me smile. Not because I think I now have a chance to somehow maneuver you into “salvation” with a witty argument (not that I’m capable of coming up with one, anyway), but because that is EXACTLY what your questions have been prompting me to do. Of course, our reasons are very likely to be different, but still… My time spent in consulting God and the Bible for His Truth (rather than simply regurgitating what I have heard or spouting off something that “sounds good”) has increased phenomenally the last week or so. I honestly am thankful for your decision to join the conversation, and if your perspective changes in the process of discussion-or sometime later, I have to give God the credit as He is the one who causes people to see Who He really is.
Concerning my facts #1 and #2, I do understand that you were not making accusations—Hopefully I didn’t appear to be defensive. I just wanted to be sure to point out that the response that Christians make to the topic of homosexuality is not always based squarely on Scriptural truth. The varying reactions (and reasons behind them) do not always accurately represent what the Bible says. That can often interfere with the ability to discuss such things even within the Christian community. There is also a 3rd “fact” which I think might be pertinent to my being able to answer the question of whether Christians should be politically active and attempt to prevent state-condoned sins. But I will hold that for the moment as I noticed something from a previous comment that needs attention.
Before I can move on to answer your direct question, I think I need to back up and clarify something I said earlier. This is my response to your question about “all sins being equal in God’s eyes”:
*****
** Yes, in God's eyes, sin is sin. And yes again, some *acts* of sin have much more damaging and far-reaching social and personal consequences.
****
While the statement I made is essentially true, it can also be misleading. It’s my own fault, as I was trying to succinctly state my thoughts and skipped over some details that I recognize but didn’t articulate. :/ This is what I should have said:
****
Yes, in God's eyes, sin is sin—in that it all is counted as rebellion against Him. He has stated that if we break even one aspect of His Law, we have broken “The Whole Law” because it stands as a single unit. I’m going to include a couple of verses from the book of James as reference: “For whoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For He who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ But if you do not commit adultery, yet if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the Law. “
–James 2:10-11
Every person is guilty of rebelling against God in at least one area and so no one is “better” or “worse” than anyone else from that perspective. Before Him, we all stand condemned as lawbreakers.
“for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”, Romans 3:23
And yes again, some *acts* of sin have much more damaging and far-reaching social and personal consequences. Please note that the Old Testament Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy detail a multitude of sinful acts and the subsequent penalties, which the leaders were to carry out. It is not necessary to read the entire list to realize that God actually did make a distinction concerning the severity of certain sins and gave the Israelites instructions to punish offenders accordingly. In other words, He didn’t automatically prescribe the death penalty for every infraction.
Also, in Numbers 15: 22-31 God makes a distinction between unintentionally and deliberately sinning. From my understanding, the penance for incidental sin was the same for all forms of transgression and was not nearly as severe as what was required for most willful acts of disobedience. I’m thinking this particular exception wouldn’t work for a second offense, as the requirement would by then be known.
****
I thought I had better be more precise about what I meant so that we can be working from the same definitions if you still want to discuss this. It would be inaccurate of me to simply say, “Sin is sin is sin” and not acknowledge that God Himself created a system which recognized that some actions are indeed more offensive or destructive (on some level) than others.
Heather
Hi, Mother of Dog, I'm just a random passer-by (I was reading generation Cedar and was intrigued that someone else with non-patriarchal views was reading and even commenting). I hope it's ok to ask a completely off-topic question to Heather here, as I want to quote something she wrote here :) - if not, feel free to delete my post.
Hi Heather, I think it's cool that you're engaging here. Debate might not make anyone change their minds, but might bring understaning of the other side's viewpoints.
I wanted to ask you about this: "God Himself did send His people, as a nation, to war against the Canaanites as they entered the land which He had promised to them. He ORDERED them to kill all of the inhabitants of the land as they encountered them. The reason is that He knew the Israelites would learn the idol-worship practices of the Canaanites and either incorporate those practices into their worship of Him or turn from God completely."
Do you think this is good and just and if so, why? I ask, because fragments of the Bible like these (eg Numbers 31, and all the other instances of God telling Israel to commit genocide on other peoples) was one of the things that made me stop regretting that I had no faith. I can't comprehend a morality where killing a whole people because they made others turn away from God is considered just. And I'd like to understand :)
Krysia,
I would be pleased to try to explain what I believe, although I should say that I have neither received any seminary training nor do I subscribe to a particular denomination. My answer may not match anything you have already heard or read.
I did read the passage to which you referred and from a human perspective, it does seem quite harsh that God would direct the Israelites to kill anyone. Because God is all-knowing, and I am not, I cannot presume to know all of His reasons for His decisions.
However, I must say, “Yes”, I do believe God is good and just in all His ways.
My reason is that I ask a different question than the one you pose. I wonder why, as Master Designer, Author, Creator, and Sustainer of all life, does God allow any of us to live? We all have rebelled against Him (broken His Law/declined to honor Him) in some way and God, as the Owner of the universe, has the right to do whatever He wants with us. According to the Bible, we all deserve to die.
From my perspective, I see God as merciful and patient as He allows the people He created to ignore or speak ill of Him as we often try to take for ourselves the credit for any intelligence, talent, beauty or sense of justice that we might display. I am thankful He finds pleasure in glorifying Himself by choosing to offer Eternity with Him to those who are willing to accept His Supremacy.
While I do understand that what I say can cause offense, or just seem stupid, I can’t help but want to share the truth about God with others as He has been so generous to me. In spite of the fact that He knows my many flaws, He still has given me the opportunity to call Him Friend instead of Judge.
Krysia,
I realized that I may appear to be contradicting myself as to the reason God would have one people group exterminate another. In the portion of my comment which you quoted, I did state *a* reason--and then in my answer to you, I stated that I do not know all the reasons why God would choose to do something. What I meant by that is: God may give an explanation as He sees fit. But He is not obligated to reveal every reason behind His instruction.
As I read my Bible, I see that one reason God instructed the Israelites to be warring against other groups is that of helping to preserve the purity of the people whom God had claimed for Himself. What I cannot explain at the moment is specifically WHY He directed the people to do the killing when He had demonstrated that He is perfectly capable of removing opposition without anyone's help. The answer may very well be in the Bible, and I could speculate as to the purpose, but am not familiar enough with those accounts to be able to state anything definitely at this time.
It is a subject worthy of further study, to be sure.
Heather
Okay Hapa Boy,
Did you happen to read my post concerning the idea that “ all sins are equally bad in a theological sense”? I really am not trying to be a pain by backing up and expanding my thoughts—I just sometimes forget which points are important to define when talking to someone who does not share my worldview—and who may or may not have read any of the Bible. I do think that it also might help you understand a little better why (with Christians) there is often a disproportionate effort to prevent legalized sin of one sort over another.
I am not deliberately trying to be difficult, but my first answer to your question: “do you agree that Christians should attempt to decrease state-condoned sins, either by preventing new ones or by repealing existing ones?” is both “yes” and “no”.
Being a [real] Christian means that there are some shared core truths, but God also uses our personal consciences to lead us daily on an individual basis. Fact #3 is that Christians are not “cookie cutter” people. Due to different personalities, backgrounds and life experiences, we all bring something unique to our Christian faith. And, as long as we are willing to listen to Him, God continues to teach each of us a little differently than He does every other Christian.
There are many areas of life in which the Bible does not specifically dictate how, or even whether, we are to participate. We can often find related principles that can be applied, but no cut and dried marching orders. In such instances the individual Christian believer must take the issue before God and ask Him for wisdom. I don’t know how much you interact with Christians, but I expect Mother of Dog can verify that even online, Christians often can get into some really hot debates over whether we all should be doing xxxxxx or participating in yyyyyyy. And, while there are definitely some things that none of us is free to do, sometimes it really is okay for certain Christians to be doing something while others must abstain.
Some Christians are adamant that they are to take a strong political stand. These are often the ones who publish newsletters, start petitions, keep abreast of what is happening in Washington, etc. Others feel equally as strongly that they should stay completely out of the political arena—and they don’t bother to keep up with politics or exercise their right to vote. Still others fall somewhere in the middle. This phenomenon could perhaps be likened to what happens in an organization such as the Democratic Party. While the overwhelming majority may have similar beliefs and values, some of these people might be socially moderate while being extremely liberal on the fiscal end—or vice versa. Some may be ultra “green” while others are exceedingly wasteful. Some have high-end office jobs while others are skilled laborers—or teachers—or artists. Many are admirably civil and thoughtful, while others are “in your face” obnoxious-and-proud-of-it. Some are intimidatingly intelligent and others are… not. The same could be said for members of the Republican Party. Being an individual with a slightly different perspective does not negate the fact that one is a card carrying, party-loyal member of the group.
You know, if you still have access to a Bible, it might be worth your time to look at Romans, chapter 13. It was written by the Apostle Paul and specifically addresses Christians and government. Reading the entire book of Romans would probably give helpful context, but I won’t push for that—Anyway, Paul writes that we are to be obedient to whatever government we are living under, as all governments exist only because God has allowed them. American Christians happen to be a part of a representative republic, and within the framework of our legal system, we have been given the right to vote and even speak against laws that we see as wrong, based on our values/religious beliefs. By applying the principle in Romans 13, a Christian who feels his conscience is leaning toward political activism, *and* is keeping his activity legal, does not appear to be doing anything wrong.
Although I cannot give an absolute answer for whether “all Christians” should try to prevent/alter the existence of state laws which condone sin, I will, on a personal level, answer your question “yes”. While I am not a hyperactive “religiotician”, I do believe that if I am “asked” for my input, it is acceptable to cast my vote according to my understanding of the Biblical definition of sin. It also appears that a large proportion of Christians may feel similarly, so it makes sense for the discussion to take this path.
Have I been sufficiently irritating yet? :D
Heather
Heather, I wanted to let you know that Hapa Boy is in LA on business this week (sniff. I miss him) but he is reading your posts, I promise! I'm sure he'll answer your last posts when he returns -
Thanks, MOD.
Sorry you're missing him. I hate to be left "alone" when my hubby has to be out of town.
I *think* I answered his question, so I will just wait for his response.
H
Hi Heather,
Thanks for your answer. Don't worry about causing offense or seeming stupid. If I believed in what you do, I would probably be trying to get through to other people too, because who wants fellow human beings to be damned for eternity?
I hear you on the issue of not knowing God's reasons. I can understand such an argument :) As for the question why God allows us to live. I could ask it, but then I'd get to the question why did God create us at all, when he must have known we would rebel, and then suffer etc. Theodicies are interesting, but rather full of paradoxes...
Additionally I don't know that creating a living being gives one authority over it. I realise parenthood is a weak analogy (oh well, religion uses it too), but I don't believe a parent has the right to kill their child because they aren't honoring.
Of course, if I could accept that God is the source and yardstick for everything, maybe things would make more sense. But the mental gymnastics this would involve for me are too hard! I don't have any philosophical or theological training either.
All the best,
Krysia
I am late to join this conversation, but I would like to contribute if that is okay. I wandered over here from Terry's site, which I love.
Here is where I am coming from: I am absolutely a Christian. I want to make it clear that I am not just kind-of-sort-of a Christian. I am serious about my faith and I even believe in submitting to my husband and all of that.
That said, I am supportive of gay marriage. I know, that is just crazy. Here is why:
1) I think that the separation of church and state is really super important.
2) Because of this, I agree with Hapa Boy in that the state should have no control over marriage at all. We should have state registered civil unions and church-based marriages.
3) I do think that Christians tend to treat homosexuality as "worse" than other sins. But if you read the New Testament, you may notice that while Jesus does not mention homosexuality, He does mention divorce. In Matthew Chapter 19, Jesus says that if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else, you are guilty of adultery. Adultery is up there in the Ten Commandments. Do we see evangelicals rallying against divorce and remarriage? Nope. I think this is inconsistent, at best.
4) In Matthew Chapter 22:34-40, Jesus is asked what the most important commandment is. He answers, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and soul. And love others as you love yourself." Please notice that He doesn't say WHICH others. So that means everybody, and that includes homosexuals. Anytime I get worked up about the sins of other people, I ask myself if I am following the most important commandments. I have a lot of sins of my own, we all do. And I have a lot of loving God and loving other people to do.
Thank you for the thought-provoking blog!
Hi Heather,
My apologies for the rudely late reply to a conversation I started. :( My explanation (not excuse) is that I was traveling for work for most of the month of December and once I (finally) made it home, it was the holidays, my brain was so fried that I doubt that I could have formed a coherent sentence, let alone discussed intelligibly. And then work stacked up on me from my time off, and then suddenly it is 2009. You know--life happened. :) But I hope that you're still checking for my ludicrously overdue response, because I have been wanting to get back to you.
Anyway, I hear you about how Christians aren't cookie-cutter (evidenced by tarynkay's post, which I greatly appreciated)--and that individual conscience leads to a variety of activities. So, I guess I'll accept your equivocal 'yes' and 'no' answer to my question of whether Christians should decrease state-condoned sins. :)
But I now realize (thanks to your response) that I asked the wrong question. A better question is 'when Christians *do* feel compelled to take action to decrease state-condoned sins, why have they chosen to fight against gay marriage in particular, of the many state-condoned sins?
Tarynkay points out that Christ never spoke homosexuality (I haven't verified this, but I believe it); but He spoke repeatedly and strongly about several other sins--such as wealth. In this way, Christ was distinctly anti-American (or, given the order of things, Americans are distinctly anti-Christian). Yet I rarely hear any Christian speak against the glorification of wealth in this country--in fact, many fundamentalists preach that wealth is a sign of favor from God, and that one should tithe in order to become wealthy (like it is some sort of investment scheme).
So I come back to my central point: by the highly selective fight against condoning the rather 'minor' sin of homosexuality (all sins may be equal, but Christ didn't really bother much with homosexuality in particular), I can't help but feel that the Bible is being used as a justification for anti-homosexual feelings.
Even more sadly, we can't chalk up this anti-homosexual inclination to 'radical' Christian groups (a la the Aryan Nations, which also claims to be Christian). I've not heard of any Christian groups go out of their way to speak up against this form of 'oddly selective' fight against this one minor sin. At least with racism, many Christian churches (and not just black Baptist churches) spoke against the Klan's belief that blacks were intended by God to be inferior servants (the 'sons of Ham' argument from the Old Testament, I believe it's called).
My favorite parable in the Bible, the one that best represents Christianity to me, is the one where Jesus refuses to condone the (legally-mandated) stoning of a woman caught in the act of adultery. When pressed, he simply says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." He didn't condone adultery (He told her to 'go forth and sin no more'), but he didn't take civil action against it either, even though it adultery was against both the law of the land and of God. I take from that parable (and His many other similar statements) that Christians are to work vigorously on reducing their own sins, and yet not be so concerned with eradicating the sins of others.
Homosexuality is clearly a sin in the Bible. But working so hard to prevent civil homosexual marriage feels to me like the mob gleefully wanting to stone to death a woman under the guise of "God's Law." I can't help but feel that Christ would rather have the mob disband, because no one is sinless enough to cast the first stone.
Again--thanks for this discussion, and I hope I'm making sense. I'm writing this pretty late at night. :) If you respond to it, I'll try to write back in under a month. :)
Hapa Boy,
Mother of Dog let me know you wouldn’t be able to answer for a while. No offense taken. In all honesty, God has had me occupied elsewhere and I was not able to give this answer the appropriate attention until now. So, now I’m the one who is holding up the conversation.
Yes, tarynkay’s post does illustrate how different we can be. I had some thoughts there, but will answer your question first.
I want to be sure to state that I am NOT trying to speak for all politically active believers, as I am sure there are many personalized reasons for why a person would feel a need to aggressively try to change/block various laws.
The extent of my own political activity generally stops with voting my conscience on issues that cross the ballot. Occasionally I will sign a petition that I feel accurately reflects my belief. I do not engage on a political level because I think I should be able to force my morals on others but because the petition/voting process is a primary way for American citizens to have their voices be “heard”. If I become aware of a proposed law, which does not hold to God’s Biblical standards, I cannot vote in favor of passing it. Neither do I believe I can sit silently by and say nothing when I see that as the equivalent of approval. If God someday shows me that I should not even vote, I will stop.
Okay—the gay marriage vs “other” state condoned sins question. Why make more of “this” particular one?
1.The legalization of gay marriage is an issue that has recently been brought to the nation’s attention. I explained my own political position above because I think this is where many Christians are. Those with my perspective aren’t saying that legalized gay marriage is necessarily worse than legalized abortion, divorce or pornography. But rather, gay marriage is the topic that is currently “on the table” and where national focus has been directed. For Christians such as myself, the motive and purpose is predominately that God says certain behaviors are wrong so our own consciences do not allow us to approve of legal measures that condone the behavior. We don’t see gay marriage or active homosexual behavior as worse than other sins—just the one that is being considered for legalization at this time. Does that make sense?
2.I know I pointed this out before, but I want to reiterate my statement about fake, hateful “Christians” who truly are “homophobic” and very loudly use the teachings of the Bible to “support” their cause. This is tragic and because these particular groups are usually quite obnoxious with their views, non-Christians tend to lump us all together and think Christians all hate gay people and we all agree with the disgusting prejudice that gay people are somehow the nastiest creatures to ever walk the planet. Just wanted to make sure that you understand that (regardless of the noise made by such groups), TRUE, Bible-believing Christians do not spew profanity and slur-laced language that singles out any group as being MORE deserving of God’s wrath than any other group.
3.There is concern that legalized gay marriage will create a hostile environment for those who believe that we are required by Jesus to (peacefully) share our faith. Potential loss of free speech and the right to talk about the complete message of the Bible can occur if a gay marriage precedent is set. It could then be considered “discriminatory” and “hateful” to simply state that the Bible calls homosexual behavior sinful. While this scenario is not a certainty, it is a possibility. What makes gay marriage a central focus here is that homosexuality is not simply an activity (like stealing) that can be spoken against as wrong or potentially harmful. It has now been claimed as a distinctive identity, which a Christian must either quietly accept or risk being labeled as a bigot and then penalized. This reason could be summed up as being a fear-driven reaction to the recognition that Jesus told the truth when He said that His followers (and the beliefs we hold as true) would not be appreciated by unbelievers. I think many politically active American Christians are simply hoping to avoid being singled out as being “hateful, dangerous, radical, fundamental religious zealots” for publicly saying what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. If there is no law, which specifically favors homosexual marriage, then there is less likelihood of a Christian getting in legal trouble for sharing his belief. ---(If you recall, I went here when I first posted. Neither gays nor Christians relish the idea of being considered social outcasts. But God has a way of allowing me to make public statements, which, upon examination do not hold up to Biblical teaching. Jesus never told us we could expect to live under favorable political or social conditions.)
4.The account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20-19-28). While I realize that many do not agree that the Bible contains reliable historical information, I am relating this point from the perspective of someone who absolutely believes that the account is true. Brief summary: The cities are about to be destroyed by God due to the level of wickedness they had attained. Two angels (which appeared as men) were sent to warn one man (named Lot) to get his family out before the destruction occurred. Lot insisted that the angels stay in his home overnight. The men of the city found out about the strangers and demanded that Lot hand them over so that they might “know” them (Genesis 19:5). (some newer translations specifically say “have sex with”—in this instance it is referring to what is now known as “sodomy”). This appears to be the only SPECIFIC sin that is listed for the inhabitants of these cities. There is often a linking (by Christians) of the open acceptance of homosexual behavior with the total obliteration of a society. I am not saying that all Christians think that being gay is “the worst” sin imaginable but that when a society openly embraces homosexual behavior as good, it is often seen as the proverbial “last straw”. There is also a recurring connection throughout the Bible between God’s judgment and what happened with Sodom and Gomorrah. Those who say we believe that the Bible is a communication from God to humans would be unwise to ignore these passages.
5.There is also the passage in Romans 1, verses 18-27, which is often used by Christians to condemn gays who act on their sexual inclinations. There are three verses (24-27) that appear to be specifically referencing homosexual activity, and some believe that this is evidence that the acceptance of homosexuality is of greater consequence even though there is an extensive list of “other” sins that occur elsewhere in the passage. If you have access to a Bible, it might be helpful to read those verses.
In light of point #4, some Christians become “political” in an attempt to turn the laws of our country away from what appears to be a one-way path to certain judgment.
I know this is not an exhaustive list. With the exception of #2, true Christians can be motivated by a combination of the aforementioned points—I am sure there are Christians who will say I missed something completely,
To be more precise with my thoughts, many Christians who “target” homosexuality on a political level are:
1.Responding simply because it is a current topic and they were “asked” via the voting process. It is a matter of personal conscience and wanting to keep the conscience clear by not approving of something that God says is wrong. There is sadness over the already legalized sins, and many petition and vote to overturn those decisions. But it has been noted that it is often extremely difficult to retract an existing law that proves to be damaging in some way.
2.Not true Christians but have no trouble invoking Biblical teachings in order to support a truly hateful anti-gay agenda. This can have the effect of making it appear that all Christians believe that the embracing of homosexuality is the worst possible offense that a person can commit.
3.Concerned that Bible-believing Christians, as a group, will end up being marginalized and penalized as “hate groups” for publicly stating what the Bible teaches about homosexuality.
4.Of the belief that American government’s approval of homosexuality is possibly the final nail in the country’s coffin as our morals slide farther from Biblical standards. Speaking politically against legalized gay marriage may not turn the tide, but it does allow Christians to visibly separate from those who are unconcerned with the possibility of God’s punishment of those who refuse to accept Him as God.
5.Romans 1:18-27 is often cited since there are verses that specifically refer to what the Bible calls “degrading passions”, women exchanging the “natural function for that which is unnatural”, and men committing “indecent acts” with each other.
I’m not sure if any of this has enlightened you. Having to think through your questions and ask God for insight has helped me immensely in some areas of my own understanding of what should be my focus as a Christian.
Well, this has gotten really long again. I still had some thoughts on tarynkay’s remark and your own statements concerning Jesus and his teachings. For now, I’ll stop here.
Heather
Hi Heather--I'm glad you wrote back. I'm responding in just 13 days this time. :)
Anyway, I'm going to do my 'usual summarize & respond' bit.
What I heard you say is that while you're not politically active, you vote your conscience and sign petitions you believe in. That makes total sense to me--I believe that's what most people do.
But I'm now curious--if there were a vote on whether to remove the separation of church & state and make Christianity the official religion of the US, would you vote for it?
Moving onto the comments (that I thank you for numbering):
1. Legalization of gay marriage. Essentially, I heard you saying that gay marriage isn't a special sin--it's just the topic right now. And again, that makes sense--society asked you what you thought (held a vote) and you spoke your mind (voted to make gay marriage illegal).
2. I'm with you on that some 'fake, hateful "Christians"' (to quote you) use the Bible as justification for their hatred. And I think it is sad that 'real' Christians get lumped in with them. The fact that you're willing to have this conversation speaks well to the variety of Christian beliefs, and that what we see in the press is not 'all Christians' (thankfully). But again, it would be easier to not paint all Christians with the same brush if we saw some 'real' Christians denounced the un-Christian behaviors of the 'fake' Christians. But I just don't see that, at least not in the popular media. And I should reiterate that the fact that we're having a civil conversation about this tells me that I shouldn't lump you in with the 'fake' Christians. :)
3. Concern over legalization of gay marriage creating a 'hostile' environment to share your faith and belief that being 'gay' is sinful. I honestly don't feel this is a good 'legal' justification for voting to illegalize gay marriage. As long as our society remains committed to protections for free speech, Christians will be able to say that homosexuality is a sin regardless of the legality of homosexual marriage. The same way that homosexuals (and liberals heterosexuals like myself) will be able to say that there's nothing wrong with it while it is currently illegal. While legalizing gay marriage might make stating the position that 'homosexuality is a sin' *less popular*, I don't believe that the loss of popularity of an opinion (or even being labeled a bigot) is a sufficient reason to deny someone legal rights afforded by our society for heterosexuals. Freedom of speech is about not restricting access to sharing ideas--it doesn't guarantee equal acceptance of those ideas. But if someone steps over the legal line past disliking someone's speech to suppressing it or engaging in other illegal actions, then we have laws to prevent it. Telling homosexuals that they are going to burn in Hell isn't illegal in the US; even telling them that you *want* them to burn in Hell isn't illegal. I'm only saying that it should be illegal to deny someone the legal protections of a civil union based on sexual orientation. So to circle back to our original topic: I would be content with getting rid of marriage entirely from the law, leaving marriage to religion, and civil union to secular society.
So to sum up: I personally don't feel the 'fear of being labeled a bigot' argument should carry much weight because we (currently) have ample protection against illegal suppression of free speech.
3a. As a side note, you used the phrase 'specifically favors homosexual marriage'--to clarify, we're talking about a 'better' marriage for homosexuals, but rather the same marriage. We are, however, talking about explicit *protection* of that equal marriage because there are some in this country who would not honor the legal protection that someone has. Just the other week I saw an article where one partner of a gay couple, who had been given the power of attorney when medically incapacitated through a *will* was denied visitation of her dying partner because the hospital that she was taken to didn't recognize gay marriage. But it wasn't a marriage that gave her the visitation rights--it was a will. The same kind of will I have that gives my friend Jeremy, even though neither of us are homosexual, the power of attorney for me if I'm incapacitated. So now, *my* rights as a heterosexual male could be infringed if I am unlucky enough to have a car accident and be taken to a nearby religiously-affiliated hospital. Because they might suspect that Jeremy and I are lovers, as opposed to good friends since college.
4. Opposing legal marriage as a means of preventing destruction of society (a la Sodom and Gomorrah). You cited the story of Sodom & Gomorrah as another reason that those who believe in interpreting the Bible literally would have to oppose gay marriage. For one, I don't believe that the 'sinners' in Sodom & Gomorrah were *marrying* each other, but were engaging in homosexual sex, and promiscuity. Which is not illegal (in many states), and is generally not enforced in the rest. So I don't really see a direct connection between Sodom and Gomorrah and gay marriage.
The one possible indirect connection is the general fear that homosexuality itself will increase, as the stigma surrounding it decreases, and the concern that legalized gay marriage may increase homosexuality. This is most likely to be the case; some homosexuals probably refrain from sex out of fear of discrimination or even bodily harm or murder. But all scientific evidence points to being born gay, not 'choosing' it--any more than I 'chose' to be heterosexual. So, by my definition, homosexuality is a 'natural' act, as they were born with that nature. And to me, the only justification for suppressing natural acts is if it causes direct harm (violence, etc.). I don't see how what two consenting adults do in their bedroom causes direct harm.
4a. As a side note, I've never really understood why some Christians fear the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah--God clearly gave warning to Lot, who was spared. Only the wicked perished (well, and Lot's wife, who clearly liked the wicked). In some sense, why wouldn't Christians be OK with another Sodom & Gomorrah? It would demonstrate God's wrath towards sin, and God's preferred people would not be harmed.
5. I did re-read Romans 1:18-27 (the second time I've had to break out the Bible in this conversation!), and agree that it seems to declare homosexual activity sinful. I am not debating whether the Bible, in totality, is against homosexuality; I was merely calling out that Jesus himself didn't consider that particular sin important enough to speak about personally.
That all said, thank you for taking the time to continue this conversation--I have also found it very useful in refining my own thinking and am enjoying having a respectful conversation with a Christian on this topic.
But to reiterate from the beginning of this post--if there were a vote on whether to remove the separation of church & state and make Christianity the official religion of the US, would you vote for it?
--bill
Hi Hapa Boy (would you prefer Bill?),
Would you believe I noticed your newest comment the day it was posted? This response has been sitting on my computer for several days now, waiting for me to finish.
1. You asked if I would vote to make Christianity the official religion of the United States.
Short answer: No. While I vote my conscience on individual issues, I would not vote to make Christianity the official religion of our nation.
Expanded version: Jesus didn’t come to set up an earthly kingdom (John 18:36-37). His followers aren’t instructed to try to change/create laws in order to forcibly prevent non-Christians from doing the things that are contrary to Biblical teaching.
The concept of a “Christian empire” has not worked historically and has repeatedly proven to do very little to further true Biblical Christian faith. What we have seen instead is corruption of the Scriptural message, various abuses by power-hungry religious (note, I didn’t say God-fearing!) leaders, and persecution, torture and murder of anyone who questions or disagrees with the state-church’s official decrees. There might be a lot of nominal “Christian converts” who fear punishment for bucking the established system, but the focus of Christianity is not simply about making outward behavioral changes so as to fit better into a society.
The Law of the Old Testament was meant to show us a picture of God’s righteous and absolutely holy nature—and where humankind currently stands in contrast. It was never intended to be a list of “to-do” items that earn us God’s favor. The Law basically acts as a mirror, which shows us EXACTLY how corrupt our fallen nature really is. Apart from a regenerated heart through the presence of God’s Holy Spirit, we resent His sense of justice and we like to do things that are contrary to His definitions of “right”.
There is no way to “trick”, force, or intellectually convince others into believing that the Bible is God's Word and that Jesus Christ is Who it says He is. While He expects us to share what the Bible says, God is the only one Who can enlighten a person’s heart so as to cause him/her to understand and accept what is being said. Christianity is based on a supernatural, God-worked change of heart—and the change of behavior follows. It’s not about simply following a list of rules. Making a country officially “Christian” to try to get an EXTERNAL conformity to Christian teachings ignores the point.
2. During this conversation, it has been mentioned that Jesus never addressed homosexuality. Please note that I am addressing this newly popular concept rather than the commenter who introduced it. She simply has made reference to a teaching and I am not trying to pick a personal fight. There currently is a movement among some Christians to focus strongly on what Jesus said and downplay the rest of the Bible’s teachings as “secondary” or even irrelevant. The idea behind this is that since we are followers of Christ, then His statements should take precedence over every other aspect of Scripture. I try to stay away from foolish satellite issues on which Christians often focus. But I want to answer the implication that “Jesus didn’t teach it so I don’t need to worry about it”.
While I believe many people just want to follow Jesus’ instructions to “do unto others as we would have done to us”, it is a mistake to isolate the teachings of Jesus Christ from the rest of the Bible.
A. Jesus’ own words were: “ Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17) He goes on to speak strongly against anyone who would say that even the smallest part of God’s Law was no longer relevant.
B. Jesus was/is God. John 1:1-3 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.” The “Word” refers to the person of Jesus Christ. In the book of John (10:33), the allegations that the religious leaders brought against Jesus included that of blasphemy (claiming to be equal with God). He HAD equated Himself with God and spoke with authority that only God can claim. The book of 1 John (verse 5:7) states “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” (MKJV)
C. As God, Jesus (the Word) ABSOLUTELY would have had a strong perspective on homosexual (and every other sin) behavior. But the Old Testament Law (which He upheld as 100% valid) already had made a point of condemning it. The Bible (Romans 3:23) states: “for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. The main purpose of the Old Testament Law was to point out that we people are incapable of being “good enough” to make up for our self-centered, rebellious nature. In John 3:16-21, Jesus also said that He did not come to the world to show people all their errors but to show us the only way to avoid the inevitable destruction of all who continue to rebel. Jesus’ purpose for coming was not to further condemn people who are already estranged from God—but rather to offer the only possibility of reconciliation to anyone who will accept that we are unable to help ourselves.
D. While He didn’t specifically speak against homosexuality, Jesus DID speak against self-righteous, hypocritical and deceptive religious leaders who attempted to usurp God’s authority in order to further their own agendas. He was especially harsh to these people because they were the ones who had spent their lives studying the teachings about God’s nature and the prophecies about their promised Deliverer but had twisted the teachings of God for personal gain. And they refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah because they had built their own little “kingdom” and didn’t want to give up their cushy positions of authority to a “nobody” carpenter—even if He was God. The Jesus who berated the religious hypocrites of His day is the same Jesus who will one day judge those who today mishandle Scriptural truth (such as the parts about WHO Jesus is and which aspects of Scripture are important) and teach others to do the same.
Christian believers sometimes make honest mistakes due to lack of understanding or having been told something that they didn’t double check. I’m not perfect either but am willing to study, ask God for wisdom and obey when I need to correct an error in my own heart. We are all told to be sure that the Christian teachers we listen to are really preaching the truth according to the Bible.
Many people think the Bible is a collection of religious myths with a smattering of historical data—and that Jesus was a “good moral teacher”, but wasn’t really God. The Bible itself indicates otherwise. Unbelievers are free to think whatever they want, but Christians cannot simply choose to believe the Bible verses we “like” and toss the rest of the text.
The Bible is either all God’s word or it is not. If it is, then every part is important. If it is not, then there is no sense in following any of it because there are dozens of other religious teachings that talk about being “nice” without expecting believers to accept that we all have transgressed God’s Law and that Jesus is the ONLY way to reconciliation with God.
3. (your comment) I agree with you that Christians shouldn’t be concerned with losing our right to free speech. But, not so much because I place a lot of confidence in the stability of my Constitutional “rights”. Whether or not we live in a “free society”, the words and actions of a Christian are never to be motivated by fear of some sort of punishment. My first few comments on this post indicate that I personally “went there”. And God turned me right around.
4a (from your comment) I can see how it would be annoying to have us constantly talking about “sin” and “hell”, and “repentance” as though our sole purpose in life is to try to make non-Christians feel guilty and worthless. And I can see how our insistence on admission of sin before God, and a subsequent turning away from sin as the only right thing can be seen as an attempt to judge others and force a specific morality on people who don’t want it. However, Christians that really have been changed in our hearts do this because we feel an urgency to warn others that the eternally just and righteous Creator of the universe is absolutely real and has made a decision to, at a future point in time, destroy the world and its rebellious inhabitants. He will then judge the souls of everyone who has ever lived and only those whose sin has been covered by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ will escape a very real and dreadful future. The attitude of true Christians is NOT “Turn or Burn, you disgusting waste of humanity” but rather “I care enough about you (even a stranger whom I have never met) to offer you the truth." What you do with that truth is between you and God. Because of this concern, I cannot risk omission of any aspect of this truth. I don’t have that authority. Not being God, I have no idea who will and will not listen and I find it horrifying that anyone would take pleasure in stating that “homosexuals (or anyone else) are going to burn in hell”.
Running long again…before I sign off, I wanted to let you know that your inquiry and observations have sparked several serious conversations between my husband and me. We both have been asking God to show us what is true as this conversation has unfolded and he had some recent thoughts, which he posted on his blog—While the first few paragraphs are very similar to what I wrote here about Jesus’ view of sin and why He didn’t specifically mention homosexuality, the second part looks at the account of the woman caught in adultery. He does a lot less rambling than I. If you are interested I have placed the link below.
I can’t say enough how excited I am to be able to have this discussion!
Heather
http://helmetslayer.blogspot.com/2009/02/scribbling-in-sand.html
Hi Heather,
Thanks for your responses again. I think I pretty much understand many of your positions now, but there's a few points left that I'm still curious about. In the interest of avoiding distraction, I want to only address those two points:
1. You say that you wouldn't vote for an amendment to the constitution to end the separation of church and state, because "Jesus didn't come to set up an earthly kingdom (John 18:36-37)". But this feels like a contradiction to me: your process of voting (vote your conscience) would eventually lead to a Christian state--as a new initiative came up, you'd vote your conscience. If enough 'morality' initiatives came up and you voted on all of them, we'd end up having a Christian state, regardless of an amendment to the constitution.
So why is it OK to vote to make Christian morality the law in a very narrow case (the particular 'sin' of homosexual marriage) and not in the broader case (voting to make Christianity the official religion)? If this contradiction is OK, where does it stop? I assume you would vote to end legal abortion--but would you vote to end legal divorce, or to prohibit work from happening on the Sabbath? Or to punish failing to honor your parents?
2. You said that you believe the entire Bible (Old & New Testament) is equally important and still valid. I know many Christians say that, but the practice of following the Old testament is pretty selective. The Old Testament is filled with practices and laws that go unobserved. A few examples:
• Leviticus 15:19-30: Menstruation renders the woman unclean, and practically everything and anyone that she touches or comes into contact with something she touches. The only atonement for that is to bring animal sacrifices to her priest, 7 days after her period ends.
• Leviticus 11:7: declares eating pork is unclean and not to be done.
• Leviticus 19:27: prohibits cutting the hair at the sides of the head, or clipping a beard.
These are just a few other prohibitions and declarations in Leviticus--the same book that says that homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13).
So why is it OK to eat pork & cut your hair, but not engage in homosexual sex? The same book of the Bible declares all of them sinful.
BTW--I remember reading all this in Leviticus a long time ago, but I should admit that I needed this website as a reference:
http://www.fallwell.com/selective%20quotation.html
Again--please don't take this as an attack; I'm just trying to understand how what appears to me to be a contradiction, doesn't seem to be a contradiction to you.
Thank you again for continuing the conversation. And thanks for the link to your husband's blog--I did read it, and I'm encouraged that you're both open-minded and willing to engage with those who don't believe as you do.
--bill
URG--just to be clear, I'm not in any way implying that I'm completely free of contradiction in my own moral belief system. But I am always trying to reduce them, and am curious as to how people handle their own moral contradictions. :)
Bill,
I would like to thank you for the way you have conducted yourself in this conversation with my wife. I very much appreciate the tone of the conversation.
Heather will probably answer your questions, that is up to her and I don't want to interfere. However, you have asked about "Christian morality" and why it is ok to impose it in some cases and not in others.
What I would like to ask you is the following. Do you believe there is a such thing as a moral absolute, or is all morality relative?
I believe that God is the measure of all things, as He is the originator of all things. Morality is His idea, not mine. I don't always have to reason it out, I just need to know what my instructions are. Since he is bigger and smarter than I am, there are times when He will not seem logical to me. The ultimate question at that point, is, who do I trust when I don't understand? Am I going to usurp His place and be the ultimate decider of right and wrong when He doesn't make sense to me?
Ultimately, we all have to decide if we are going to trust God, or ourselves. I have chosen to trust the originator (or inventor, if you will) of DNA. The one who says he spread out the universe with his hand. He is obviously beyond me, and my own attempt to comprehend Him will always at some point fall short. I was talking to one of my daughters about this the other day. At work I carry a 12 foot tape measure. If I decided to measure the world with that tape, I would be in sad shape. The problem would not be with the world, it would be with my tape. It is just too small. I find myself in the same place when I try to make God "make sense"
This is not to say there are no answers to your questions, and I will be thinking on them. If you would like I will try to explain my reasoning on them at a later time. I do realize however that you did not ask me, you asked Heather.
Craig
Bill,
I’m not offended by your questions. You have challenged some of the Christian rhetoric that gets thrown about in response to the topic of homosexuality (and our understanding of God’s Law). Over the past few years, I have learned that there is a difference between “discussing my faith” and “defending my personal opinions”. It doesn’t hurt me a bit to carefully examine my beliefs to be sure I’m not just repeating what I’ve heard or making things up. You have not been rude or demanding, and I have no problem talking with someone who is genuinely trying to understand what I believe.
1. I think perhaps you overestimate the power of my vote :) Fair enough question, though and I don’t want to simply rattle off something in an attempt to “save face” by trying to defend personal preference as though it is Scriptural directive. I had to sort through my emotions first and determine what I am willing to defend as true.
In the course of this discussion, it was pointed out to me that it is not the *intention* of those who are voting pro-homosexual marriage to directly assault the freedoms of those who do not support the concept. Likewise, my vote is not *intended* as a means to “take over” the country for Jesus. I honestly do not believe that my vote has much bearing on the establishment of laws in this country. Various court rulings redefine our laws all the time and the general public doesn’t usually even know what is happening until after the fact. Voting according to conscience does not simply mean I vote for whichever major political party “appears” to support my values. It means that my vote needs to be something I can live with AFTER the ballots are counted. If that means I vote third party, or not at all, then that is what I will do.
Craig mentioned that ALL law is based on SOMEONE’S concept of right and wrong. He is correct, but that is his point, so there is no need for me to pound on it.
In our country, law-abiding citizens are allowed the privilege of having their voices be “heard” by way of the voting process. The Bible gives no specific directions as to whether we can or should participate in such an activity. Therefore it is not Biblically defined as sinful for me to vote as long as I am obeying the law as I do so. Now, if I was trusting in political maneuverings to save me in some way, then that qualifies as idol worship and the Bible is quite clear on that point.
However, the potential effect (however remote) of casting my vote may indeed indicate a contradiction between what I say I believe and what I actually do. I’ll have to continue to pray for direction in this issue. Millions of Christian believers have been born, lived and died under horribly oppressive governments that were determined to eliminate those who hold to the Christian faith-either by physical force or through control of what is taught. These believers never had the opportunity to legally say “I protest what is happening in this country”. I do not view my legally gifted right to vote as being a “hill on which to die”. Jesus did not come to “Christianize” whole societies, but rather to offer sinful individuals a chance to be reconciled with God before facing Him on judgment day. If my exercising the privilege to vote interferes with your ability to see who Jesus really is, then it isn’t worth it to me to continue to do so.
2. After visiting the website you linked, I can understand a little better how many people think “fundamental” Christians are bigots and hypocrites who like to toss out convenient Bible verses in order to support a particular view. It is an unfortunate fact that many Christians (fundamental AND liberal alike) tend to form opinions and then pick through the Bible to find verses that support those preconceived notions. This is backwards. I want to point out that the site specifically targets Jerry Falwell’s teaching and then automatically paints all “fundamentalist” Christians the same black shade. Jerry Falwell may very well have misused Scripture but that does not mean that “all fundamentalists” agree with him or are selective about what we hold to be true.
As a “fundamentalist”, I want to be very clear that I do not hold the idea that homosexuals have chosen to be such. I believe some people can inherently possess a tendency to be attracted to members of the same sex in the same way that others are prone to overeat, or steal, or be violent when angry. We are all born under the curse that occurred when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. I have had a personal battle with sugar addiction for most of my life. I didn’t ask for it and it isn’t easy to fight when most of the other people I know seem to handle it just fine. It doesn’t really affect anyone else when I eat one too many cookies. However, the Bible says that a lack of self-control is sin. What I cannot do is redefine this tendency to sin as “normal, good and healthy” and then embrace it.
While I don’t want to get distracted by the website, I wanted to address one other thing I saw. http://www.fallwell.com/interrpetation.html This is the author’s note about “interpretation” and how the determining factor is whether the text is “reasonable” in light of “modern cultural norms” as understood by “intelligent, thoughtful people”. He is mistaken.
This is what the Bible itself says: 2Peter 1:20-21 “ First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
This means that God’s Word can be interpreted by God alone. Other passages state that He reveals His truth, in His time, to those who humbly ask Him and are willing to wait for His direction. It is entirely possible for a very intelligent person to read a passage and misunderstand it. Even Christians make mistakes when we become prideful or impatient in trying to understand certain concepts. God doesn’t honor human arrogance or halfhearted interest. In light of this, I can easily see how a self-righteous religious fanatic, a casually curious reader and an angry skeptic could all read the exact same passage, each come up with a different “interpretation” and ALL be wrong.
In saying that the entire Bible is important and all parts are equally valid, I mean that all parts serve a purpose and are not to be twisted, ignored or tossed out as irrelevant just because we may dislike or misunderstand something about them. While I do believe the Old Testament Law is an important aspect of Scripture, I did NOT say that I believe Christians (or anyone) should be actively practicing Old Testament Jewish Law. It isn’t a contradiction but is not an easy thing to explain to a non-believer. To be honest, a lot of professing Christians do not understand this concept.
I want to be as direct as possible when answering this second question because I take seriously the suggestion that Christians are being “selective” (and thus are dishonest) with our use of Scripture. Because I do not associate with any particular religious denomination, I am working on the answer “from scratch” rather than cut-pasting a sermon or Bible commentary and I appreciate your patience. If you are still interested in my explanation, I will try to have my thoughts collected as soon as possible.
Heather
Hi Craig,
Sorry for the late response, but I *attempted* to post last week, only to be told by MOD that she never received it. Grrr. Anyway, I'll try again--this time I'm going to save what I write until I see it posted on the website. :)
Anyway, I tried to summarize your argument and got this:
• God is not self-contradictory
• Therefore, any *apparent* contradictions within God's laws/teachings reflect our human limitations of understanding, not an *actual* contradiction of God's laws/teachings.
Is this a fair summary? If so, I'm inferring that you also recognize some *apparent* contradictions within the Bible and Christian teachings. Your way to resolve it is to take it on faith that your limitations are preventing your understanding why they aren't *actual* contradictions. My resolution is to assume they are contradictions until someone shows me otherwise.
So it feels like we're back to square one--I argue that the Bible cannot be the sole guide for secular society, because its morality often *appears* to be self-contradictory and those *apparent* contradictions create civil unrest (like with the abortion & gay marriage issues). To be really clear--I'm not saying Christianity (or any other religion) has no place in society. In fact, I would fight vigorously to ensure religious freedom. But I would fight to prevent any religious teachings from being part of secular law UNLESS it also passed the bar of reason or evidence.
To come full circle back to the initial question that started it all: why is it not OK to allow any two people to have a civil union if they want it?
1. While I can agree with everything that you said on #1 (and am quite happy that you also don't vote along party lines), I feel like you sort of didn't address the question--why are you comfortable with voting for a single moral issue (prevent gay marriage) for Christian reasons, but not for voting to "Christianize" (your word, not mine) all laws?
To put the question from the opposite perspective: you said that you wouldn't vote to make Christianity the official and exclusive religion of the US because Jesus explicitly said that an earthly kingdom was not his goal (John 18:36-37). So why is it OK to vote to make any Biblical teaching the law? It would seem to me that trying to make the US into a theocracy slowly (law by law, as it comes up) is still an attempt to create an Earthly kingdom; it's just a very slow way. :)
2. I completely agree with you that it is unfair to say that Jerry Falwell represents all fundamentalists, and that it is too easy to pick and choose verses from the Bible to support one's pre-existing opinion.
And I'm glad to hear that you don't believe that people choose to be homosexual--there really isn't good evidence for that. And I also agree with you that just because one doesn't choose to be homosexual, it doesn't make it 'not a sin' (as far as the Bible is concerned)--it just makes it a burden that a person has to carry. (BTW--I can sympathize with the sugar addiction--I have to carefully curtain my voracious appetite for chocolate myself, as MOD can attest to.)
It's pretty clear that human (mis)interpretation of the Scripture could lead to some severely different interpretations--many ugly parts of human history have come from disagreements about interpretation of religious texts (and not just Christian either--the Sunni-Shia split as well).
But I am looking forward as to understanding how you resolve the (apparent) contradiction between believing in the entirety of the Bible but not choosing to practice Old Testament Law. I definitely appreciate your willingness to try to explain this to me 'from scratch' rather than give me pat answers that you've heard.
And by way of closing, I have to say that MOD and I have discussed how pleased with how thoughtful you (and Craig!) have been in letting us ask to understand your beliefs. It has been so refreshing to hear from Christians who are willing to patiently explain your beliefs to us, and not just yelling. The yellers tend to get the air time, but I'm hoping that your style of Christianity is more common than the yeller's style. :) I hope that we're doing the same for you, but for agnostic liberals (who have their own problems with anti-Christian yellers).
Bill,
That is a fair summary of my position.
I would re-phrase your "inferrance" about my "recognizing contradictions" by saying simply that I do not understand everything about God that I know to be true. This is not a problem for me, as it is how we as finite humans approach much of life. I know a man who is in his late 50s and has a nursery. He has been in this business since his late teens. I have never met anyone in my life who knows more about trees. However, I have heard him state repeatedly that he has more questions about trees than he has answers. He does not understand everything that he knows.
I would say that every person's "god" is how they explain that information. You seem to say it all falls within the realm of logic or reason. I say it belongs to the inventor of logic and reason. I would be very nervous to try to claim that God is not reasonable simply because I don't understand everything I know.
To attempt to answer your original question, I would say the "framework" I work from in that area is the same Jesus did. He said to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar, and to God the things that are God's" God has given government certain boundaries, as he has the family, the church, etc. When people are asking for "civil unions" they are asking the government to sanction their union, and even support it in certain instances (such as monetary benefits, adoption rights, etc.) I happen to believe the government has a God given responsibility to uphold certain moral laws. I believe governmental sactioning of same sex civil unions is outside of this boundary.
I believe there is an absolute Moral Standard that comes from God, rather than each of us having our own arbitrary moral standard.
I believe Marriage is a social institution that God instituted at creation between one man and one woman. This was before the 10 commandments or the Law of Moses, and was universal.
When people point to the Law of Moses (at this point in the discussion) and ask why I would not vote for Levitical Law to be instituted, I answer in this way.
I believe the Bible teaches that God has been in a process of revealing certain things to the human race since creation. This revelation has gone through various stages. First he created, and displayed his vast creativity in nature. At the time of Noah, God displayed his judgment (and willingness and ability to do so) with the flood. (God instituted government at this time) At the time of Moses, God set a nation aside and made them a people unto himself. He miraculously provided a place for them, and also designed a government for them. This was to illustrate that even if God did this, mankind would still reject him, and they did. Much of the law pointed forward toward Jesus. Much of it was symbolic. They were literally supposed to keep it, but it pointed forward as a symbol of things to come. Jesus has come and fulfilled the law. Much of the symbolism has now fallen away because the thing it pointed to has arrived.
This is a major theme in the book of Hebrews.
This was a long answer, but the point is that one must read the whole Bible in context. It is a story that starts at a point and goes in a direction. Different things have been required at different times. We are not in the same time as Moses, and the requirements are not the same.
Jesus did not set up an earthly government. He said his kingdom was not that sort, if it was his followers would have prevented his arrest and execution.
So one might ask how I know that homosexual behavior isn't in the same category as wearing mixed fibers, or eating pork. The answer is that it is mentioned repeatedly in the New Testament as well as a sinful behavior.
So what I try to do in public life, is live my life in a way that reflects the unchanging moral standard God set forward. This requires me to study the entire Bible and ask God for wisdom as to how it is applied. This also requires me to love others as Christ loves them. Some say that pointing out that something is wrong is not loving. But that is not logical. If my 4 year old daughter is running with scissors, I stop her and point out that it is not a good idea. I take the scissors. She might get angry with me, but my reason for confronting her is that I love her. God says that homosexual behavior is wrong and harmful. Since I believe He is real, and right, I do not support that type of behavior. This does not mean I would hate the person, or that I don't sympathize with their struggle. But the behavior is still wrong, and God says it is harmful. To silently sit by is unloving.
Now to be sure, many Christians get that it is wrong, but miss that God loves them and Jesus DIED for them. This breaks my heart, to be sure.
Well, I have gotten awfully long winded. Thanks for your patience.
Craig
Hi Craig,
Thanks for your thoughtful response--you brought out 2 key ideas in a way that helped me understand where you're coming from. I really appreciate that, as I feel like I understand your position much better. While I want to address both ideas, I want to focus my response on the original question: why not remove all references to marriage from the law and just call them civil unions, and let 'marriage' be a religious/social institution, rather than a legal one?
You addressed this specifically when you said "I believe governmental sanctioning of same sex civil unions is outside of this boundary." ('this' referring to the responsibility of gov't to uphold 'certain moral laws'.)
I believe this is a key disagreement because you see civil unions as about 'God's moral law' and I (and the law, btw) see civil unions as a contractual arrangement between two people who have chosen to give to each other a set of legal powers (including sharing property, child custody, etc.). Because exchanging these legal rights is a common want of the people, rather than requiring people to hire lawyers to write up a complex contract every time people wanted to do this, they created a template to make it easier & cheaper to do.
So, from a legal perspective, it is unclear to me why civil union contracts are 'special' and should have different criteria than other contracts. (I'm assuming that you would not agree to preventing homosexuals from entering into other legal contracts, like business partnerships or wills, etc.) So this is why my solution would be to remove the language & concept of marriage from the law, and leave it to social institutions (churches, cultures, etc.) to define it as they wish, including as 'one man, one woman'.
I'm not sure we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on whether civil unions *should* be a moral issue or not. :) I say it shouldn't be and you say it should. But I'll point out a few things:
* not all illegal things are immoral, and not all immoral things are illegal. Traffic laws are useful (a 55 mph speed limit isn't a moral issue--it's just pragmatic) and lying isn't illegal (outside of contracts or slander/libel).
* most of the 'moral' based laws we have are when we can definitively point to demonstrable harm--murder, bodily injury, stealing, etc. While there is a great deal of speculation, I've not seen any proven demonstrable harm caused solely homosexuality. The problems homosexuals bring to society seem to be the same as problems heterosexuals bring.
So again: why deny homosexuals the ability to enter into this specific kind of contract, as opposed to any other kind of contract? As a corollary, some homosexuals have entered into contracts that give them all the legal rights as married people without using the civil union template--they just got a lawyer to draw up the exchange of legal rights and signed the contract. Would you make those contracts illegal as well?
I would really like to talk about the other point you raised (about the apparent inconsistency of the bible actually not being inconsistent but rather the slow revelation of God's truths) but I've already gone 3 weeks without responding, and I can't afford to spend any more time on this right now. My apologies for how late I am in responding, and how incomplete my response is, but life got a bit chaotic there for a few weeks.
Thanks, and looking forward to your (and Heathers!) response.
--bill
Bill,
In short, I would have to say you have a good point about government getting out of the "marriage" business. I have considered this myself and don't have a really good answer either way.
My own thoughts (not necessarily biblical) about this would stem from the idea that God instituted 3 separate authority structures that must respect each other, but should be independent of each other. The home or family, the church, and the government. All should stay within their respective realm of influence, and respect the others when life coincides. But how this should look in real life is complicated and I don't have it all figured out.
All three answer to God for the way they fulfill their responsibilities. They are given authority in order to serve, not oppress. As the husband and father, I am to live as though I will give an account to God for how I fulfill that role. President Obamma will have to do the same, as will leaders of the church. By the way, I would rather stand with the godless politicians on that final day than with much of the so called church leaders. But that is a separate topic. I find that Jesus was much harder on religious leaders than he was government officials. It does appear that he will deal harshly with government officials when he returns, though.
The Bible says that laws are for the lawless at heart, which is what makes it so messy. You see, I think that it is very possible that both the church and the government should get out of the "marriage" business, as far as sanctioning them or oversight goes. However, when a man walks out on his wife and children, who will hold him accountable in this life? (God will after this life, but there should be justice in this life as well, I am sure you would agree) If people were basically good, this would not be an issue.
I am personally not interested in interfering in private contracts. Jesus told his followers to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. My understanding of the intent of this statement is that I am to be a good citizen and be supportive of my government as long as it does not expressly contradict what God has told me to do. (If the government told me to go out and shoot babies, I would have to respectfully disobey and then respectfully suffer the consequences of this disobedience.) So, since the involvement my government asks of me in society is to pay my taxes, obey the laws, vote, and even be involved in the political process representing my personal understanding of right and wrong, I do so. This is why I vote on the gay marriage thing. If this right/responsibility to vote was taken away from me, I would respectfully submit. The government officials will answer to God for what they do, and I will for what I do. Make sense? From that perspective, I am involved, because "real world" that is where we are. Ideally, if I was made king for a day, I might design things differently than they are, but we have what we have. (probably a good thing, I would most likely really mess things up :-) So I stay involved in good faith with my fellow citizens, and trust God to orchestrate the results.
Hey, take your time with your response. I am enjoying the discussion. One favor to ask, as I have not been checking back much. When/if you respond, could you comment on my blog letting me know so I don't miss it?
Thanks again,
Craig
Hi Craig,
Once again, my apologies for the late comment--I've been traveling almost non-stop for a month. Good foresight in telling me to post on your blog, rather than checking back. :)
Anyway, I'm starting to see some common ground between us, which is quite nice. I definitely agree with you that most 'so-called' church leaders do not seem to be interpreting the bible the way that I do. :) I also completely agree that legal protections for children is an unquestionably vital responsibility for the gov't, due to their vulnerability. The goal of rule of law is to provide equality and justice for the vulnerable and disenfranchised--and children are both of those. I also fully respect your position on how Christians to act in relation to the gov't--follow all laws that don't force you to behave in a way that forces you to commit a sin. From this context, I've always understood the abortion debate and the civil disobedience surrounding it.
But I don't see the gay marriage issue as similar to abortion in several key ways. Namely, the people involved are adults--they don't need to be protected by the gov't in the way that an unborn (person/fetus) may need protection. Secondly, it is unclear to me how permitting gay marriage in anyway requires Christians to commit sin--no Christians are required to entered into a gay marriage. (Some churches might have to perform marriage ceremonies, but only if they are running their churches as a public business, because they rent their church to the public, not just members. But they rent their spaces to non-believers as well.)
So, to borrow your analogy, you're not being told to shoot babies. The only thing that gay marriage is asking for is to permit gay people to have equal access to the same legal rights as heterosexuals--of being allowed to be considered 'kin' before the law. Or am I missing something? Is there some way that two gay people becoming legal kin forces a Christian to commit sin?
Assuming that this is the case, that I'm not wrong in concluding that Christians won't be forced to commit sin if gay marriage is legal, then it feels like Christian opposition to gay marriage is not actually rooted in the Bible. What is the justification for singling out marriage as the one way that homosexuals should not be considered equal citizens before the law? Especially if marriage (in the eyes of the legal system) is just a set of legal rights two people give each other--the same as any other legal contract?
Bill
Bill,
Let me try to explain how being silent on the gay marriage thing seems like a sin to me. I believe that marriage was instituted by God in the beginning. You will find this in Genesis 2. Jesus referred to this as well in Matthew 19:8. So as an institution, I believe God is the one who determines what it is. God ordained government, and it answers to him. (Romans 13) In Jesus' day, they were under an authoritarian government. In the United States, we are in a representative form of government, which means we are actually part of the government rather than just being under it. Just as Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesars in relation to taxes, (I referred before to being a good citizen) I believe I am to be let my voice be heard as a part of the government - a voter. If I do not represent what God says is right (he defined marriage, not me) then I am being irresponsible in my limited role in government.
Now the Bible also teaches that God controls governments, so if He allows me to be shouted down, I will not be violent, I will always respect those around me. (or I hope so, I am not perfect, and sometimes do things I know I shouldn't)
So while I will always show personal respect to every fellow man, I must speak up for what the Bible teaches is right in the public square, as long as I am allowed the right to do so.
As to what is legal vs. what is right or moral, I believe that government has a responsibility before God (as the inventor of government - my interpretation of the first part of Genesis 9) and answers to him. There can be bad law, and God will hold those who make bad law accountable. I don't want to be part of making what God would consider a bad law. See Proverbs 17:15
Does that make sense to you?
Now this is not to say that I am in favor of what the government has done with heterosexual marriage. Did you know that the government considers itself to be the primary party in a legal marriage? The man and wife are secondary to the government by the government's definition. This makes the children essentially property of the state. In the Bible I see God as the primary party in marriage, and the man and wife answer to Him, not the state. The Bible says that children are a heritage of the LORD, not the state. So I don't really like what the Government has done there either. However, I am required by God to obey the government, so Heather and I are legally married. If the state ever tried to exercise their claim over my children, I would have to depend upon God to protect his prior claim. I hope it doesn't come to that.
I hope you find my answers to be consistent. In effect, I believe right and wrong stem from how God sees things. Right and wrong does not stem from how you, or I, or the state sees things. I believe he is the author of the very idea of right and wrong, and that we really do answer to him.
Craig
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the quick response. You are definitely being consistent with your previous answers, but so have my questions--which gives me the feeling of going around in circles a bit. :)
I'll take another attempt to break out of the circle. Here's my summary of your first paragraph--as always, please correct me if I misunderstood:
1) God created the institution of marriage, and therefore gets to define it
2) You feel that, when asked to vote, you should 'represent what God says is right'
My responses to those points (consistent to my previous posts, I hope) is that:
1) I acknowledge that marriage is originally a religious concept and it was co-opted into the legal arena. But when we vote, we're voting solely on the *legal* concept of marriage. But since people either don't understand that distinction or don't care, I originally asked Heather why a semantic change (calling them civil unions instead of marriage) wouldn't solve the problem. It would return the label 'marriage' to being strictly a religious/social institution, and 'civil unions' would be solely a legal institution. But neither she nor you seem to like this solution.
2) Your approach to voting (casting a vote to 'represent what God says is right') is a step towards eroding the separation of church and state. Because, if you're consistent, any vote that comes up on any issue that has religious implications, you would vote make the law reflect what 'God says is right'--which is the definition of a (democratic) theocracy. So while you said that you *wouldn't* vote to repeal the separation of church and state in general, you still voted theologically on the issue of disallowing the *legal institution* of homosexual marriage. I find this inconsistent. To be consistent to your approach, if a vote came up forcing all businesses to close on Sunday (in order to keep the Sabbath) you would vote for it.
It feels like, at this point, we need to agree to disagree. While I believe you when you say you don't want a theocracy (even citing that Jesus himself seemed to not want that), but you voted for theologically on this one issue, despite the fact that gay marriage would not force you (or any other Christian) to commit sin.
Everyone is certainly allowed to have any criteria they want when they vote--they can vote for a candidate because the candidate is against abortion or wants to end the war or because they simply like the candidate's race. These are all equally *legal* criteria to vote. But when people start voting to deny equality under the law for a minority group, they are voting against rule of law and equal protection of the law, whether they see it or not, or whether they care or not. It still makes us all dangerously vulnerable to oppression by the majority and the powerful.
The poem 'First they came…' by the German Pastor Martin Neimoeller sums it up far better than I ever could--here's an English translation:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
If there's ever a vote to reduce the legal rights of Christians to be Christians when it doesn't harm others, I will vote against it; I hope that you'd do the same if they come for the annoying liberals. :) Perhaps we can agree to agree on that.
And on a lighter note, I've been wanting to say this for a while, but didn't want to distract from our more serious conversation--I'd think that Christians would be *for* gay marriage, on religious grounds. After all, the sin is not to *be* homosexual, or to get married, but rather to have gay *sex*. And marriage has been shown to effectively decrease sexual activity in couples, so it might work on gay couples as well. :)
--bill
Bill,
Yes, our statements and questions have both been consistent, and perhaps we should agree that we just disagree.
My basic stance is that right and wrong exist independent of the law, and that the law should reflect that. I think we both agree so far.
My next basic stance is that God is the author of right and wrong. I still have not found where you go for your definition of right and wrong.
It seems that having the government approve of both kinds of marriage under a different name is what you suggest. I don't really want the government to be involved in either kind of marriage, but one mistake in this area doesn't excuse making another of the same in my opinion.
To clarify, I don't think there has been a gay marriage vote in Idaho, and I didn't see a clear difference on the national level last time.
As to the separation of church and state, I have a couple of thoughts.
First, the founding fathers simply prevented the government from regulating church, they did not prevent the involvement of religion in government. In fact by behavior they all endorsed the involvement of religion in government. Thomas Jefferson discussed the "separation if church and state" independently of the Constitutional Convention. This was a minority view at the time. Neither George Washington, John Adams, or Ben Franklin would have agreed with that position.
Second, I personally believe that the church, state, and family are all separate; but all are under God.
Lastly, if you check history, you will find that our form of government came from Bible believing people who believed much like I do. We believe in protecting personal freedom because the only way to be saved is by a voluntary choice and personal relationship with God. You can't regulate that, it only comes from freedom. So, yes, I would defend your freedom with my life, just as Jesus purchased your freedom with his death. However, I define freedom as the ability to do what is right. Not just the license to do whatever I want.
The Declaration of Independence was based on the idea that all men were created equal and endowed with unalienable rights by their Creator. This meant that they believed we have an obligation to step in and protect men from tyranny when the oppressive government encroaches upon the rights God had given every man. Our founding fathers believed (and many fought for it) that God the Creator was the originator of all men's rights. The civil war was the end result of that belief, as our nation recognized that it was wrong for one man to own another based on the color of their skin. (see the Gettysburg Address . . Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. . ")
Now I know people tend to go straight to the slavery in the Old Testament Law as an argument against this position. However, look closer at that law. There was no jail in the Old Testament Law. This law was based on restitution. When you committed a crime, you were obligated by law to the victim - not the state. You became a slave when you couldn't pay your debt or committed a crime you couldn't pay for. You could not be a slave for more than 7 years unless you volunteered for life long servitude. For a master to abuse a slave resulted in automatic freedom to the slave. So we can't equate the slavery in God's law with the atrocities that happened in our nation, it's comparing apples to oranges.
The French Revolution was democracy without God, and resulted in a bloodbath followed by tyranny.
As to your lighter comment . . well . . I won't touch that one, but I get your point.
I realize this is pretty long, and brings up lots of things we haven't discussed yet. Just more food for thought. I think I understand your position pretty well, but I still don't understand where you base your idea of right and wrong. Can you help me with that one?
Craig
Post a Comment