Misty
Irons
Since
the church believes gay marriage is wrong for religious reasons, it is in the
church's best interest to support gay marriage for civil rights reasons.
Wasn't
sure you heard me the first time? Then let me be absolutely clear: Conservative
Christians should support gay civil marriage.
It is fairly clear the Mrs. Irons has some sense of
the controversy that her article will engender.
Why?
Because the question of whether to allow civil same-sex marriage is a civil
liberties question, and maintaining a respect for people's civil liberties in
this country is always to the church's advantage. In fact, it is absolutely
essential for the church's survival in a pluralistic society.
In this short paragraph, Mrs. Irons has raised a
number of issues that she will unpack below.
Essentially, what she has here done is accepted the homosexual
propaganda concerning the nature of homosexuality, and that this practice, at
least in part, be understood under the rubric of civil liberties.
For
obvious reasons we Christians have always been adamant supporters of civil
liberties when it comes to freedom of religion. We have even managed to be
consistent in this principle by not opposing the rights of Buddhists, New
Agers, or even Satanists to meet, because we realize that to do so would
equally undercut our own right to assemble. Perhaps the thought of undermining
religious freedom sends through our minds flashes of those days when the
Emperor Nero used to ignite Christians as human torches to light the streets of
Rome at night. The persecutions against the early church have ingrained into
our Christian consciousness the incredible value of living under a government
that protects the interests of religion.
Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected
right that the courts have extended even to groups that could not have been
imagined by the framers. Homosexual
practice, however, is not an issue of religion.
Should “gays” be treated as a distinct minority with all the rights and
privileges pertaining thereunto? Even in
terms of religion, however, not all religions or religious practices are
equally protected. Religions which
promote animal sacrifice, drug use, or tax rebellion are not permitted those
particular practices, though they are allowed to argue for their legality. In other words, the government sees fit to
places limits on any religion or philosophy that may be harmful to
society. If homosexuality may be proven
ultimately to be harmful to society, then the government has every right to
legislate against it or to withhold privileges from it.
But
in the case of civil same-sex marriage, instead of recognizing the civil rights
issue at stake here, we oppose the idea, quoting Bible verses and appealing to
morals, nature, tradition, history, and the fear that Western civilization as
we know it will come crashing to the ground. All of these arguments are
related, of course. They are an appeal to that part of American society in
which Judeo-Christian values are still deeply rooted. For even in America at
the dawning of the 21st century, many
people's understanding of morality and nature still reflect the vestiges of the
Western Christendom of our heritage, as do their ideas of tradition, history
and an ideal society.
Should the church oppose sin? Should it oppose societal sin? Were the 19th century
abolitionists wrong to clamor for change concerning slavery, which is opposed
in Scripture only by way of implication?
What about Christian civil rights activists in the 1960’s? By this logic, they should have kept quiet
and supported the status quo, right?
Historically, the church has viewed homosexuality as a perversion, with
no more right to legal protection than adultery, rape or murder. Due to the “postmodern” change in cultural
consensus, this may have changed (as Mrs. Irons points out below, quoting Bible
verses doesn’t prove our case to our neighbors anymore)
We
do not, however, argue against civil same-sex marriage in the spirit of calm
persuasion. There is desperation in our tone. There is also a great deal of
fear and mean- spiritedness in our rhetoric, to the point where we even accuse
homosexuals (without much proof, I might add) of being child molesters and
sexual predators, and of seeking to corrupt our youth by recruiting them into
their "lifestyle."
Some do use these types of arguments, and neither this
article nor my response may here address their correctness. More pertinent would be asking whether it is
the job of government to legalize sin? Should Christians simply quietly sit by
the way and allow the godless to redefine the meaning of sin and to sculpt the
society in which we live after their own desires? In other words, do we, as Christian citizens
in a free society, have the right and responsibility to voice our concerns and
to persuade others of the rightness of our position?
I cannot resist, with regard to the assertion above,
to adduce one biblically based observation.
Rom 1:18-32 is concerned with the state of the pagan world, and the
result of God’s judgment on sinful humanity in its rebellion against the true
God. Homosexual perversion (note that
Paul describes it as “contrary to nature”) is included as part of that
judgment. Pertinent here is the idea
that the descent into immorality is an ever increasing spiral. It is not difficult to see that one level of
immorality leads to another over a period of time, and that such immorality is
certainly not a stabilizing factor in society.
There
are probably many people who think they are justified in having such fears, but
it seems to me it is more than just paranoia that feeds our frenzy. We feel
deeply threatened, for we sense that we are losing the battle. Not simply the
battle against homosexuals, but the battle to hang on to what we still think of
as "Christian America."
At
one time in this country we could count on quoting a verse from Genesis or
Leviticus before Congress or the Supreme Court and that would be the end of the
debate. No more. The consensus of common biblical values on which we had once
depended is giving way to the pluralism of a postmodern society. And seeing the
disastrous handwriting on the wall, we have become politically desperate, and
so we lunge at the enemies of Christendom with a ferocity that rivals that of
even the most radical gay activists.
Should the church therefore not be in zealous pursuit
of the truth? Should Christians not
speak prophetically to society with a view toward limiting sin? What are the implications of this view for
abortion, or euthanasia? Bestiality is
mentioned below, but what about polygamy or other “alternative family lifestyles?”
I would argue rather that it is incumbent for the church to speak directly to
the loss of the moral consensus in society, and to speak forthrightly of the
consequences, both temporal and eternal.
Rethinking
Our Political Strategy
I
suppose we can continue living in denial, stubbornly bailing water out of the
rapidly sinking ship of "Christian America." Or we can get in touch
with reality and realize that we need drastically to change our political
course. The future of the Christian church in America lies with the
preservation of civil liberties, not with the dogged pursuit of our Christian
moral agenda to the annoyance of everyone else. Christians of all people ought
to take interest in making the preservation of civil liberties in this country
a top political priority, because as a group of religious people in a pluralistic
society, we uphold moral standards and traditions that the rest of the country
thinks are at best outdated and at worst harmful.
This is pure pragmatism. Does the church proclaim the truth and call
all within its hearing to obey uncompromisingly, or do we capitulate? Is preserving our “civil liberties” more
important than bearing witness to God’s holy nature? Mrs. Irons here seems to suggest that we, as
Christian citizens, may not have a political agenda. Where does she get that idea?
As
a sub-culture that is often a counter- culture, we worry that someday our right
to live according to our religious beliefs will be taken away, and we discuss
such concerns among ourselves to no end. How often have I heard Christians
express fear of having their children taken from them by Child Protective
Services because of their belief in corporal punishment? How often have I heard
Christians express concern that the current sentiment that automatically
equates religious beliefs with intolerance is stigmatizing them, threatening to
undermine their ability to get work in certain fields, or their chances in
court of being declared a fit parent? With the current rise of the
homeschooling movement, Christians wonder whether the government will attempt
to quash the movement or allow people the right to decide how their children
should best be educated.
1.
The homeschooling movement is far too mainstream at
this point to be quashed, with more than just conservative Christians involved.
2.
Are Christians willing to pay the price for
discipleship even in a culture in which they are no longer popular? Whom do we
obey, God or man? Of course, we do need
to continue to support genuine civil rights, and use every legitimate means to
combat the kind of abuses reflected in the catalogue of Christian fears
above. I personally think that the
possibility of this sort of abuse on any kind of systematic official scale is
vastly overrated by many Christians.
However, even if our obedience to the will of God should directly
contribute to the loss of civil rights, are we willing to be obedient and
proclaim the truth?
It
was these kinds of fears of being marginalized from American politics that gave
rise to Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and the Christian Right in the 1980's.
We felt ignored, and our response was to band Christians and other religious
leaders together to make our voice heard. Fueled by the abortion controversy,
we rallied ourselves into becoming a formidable political force in the
favorable climate of the Reagan-Bush administration, and that momentum
continues to propel our movement forward to this day.
The
problem is, our political aim was not simply to protect the rights of
Christians. It was to enact moral change in society that would affect everyone
regardless of whether they agreed with our views. We have sought to push a
moral agenda instead of lobbying for civil liberties as we should have. If we
had focused on civil liberties, we would have made progress in securing the
rights we wanted for ourselves, and made a valuable contribution to securing
the rights of our fellow Americans in the process. We could have still taken on
abortion and concentrated primarily on defending the rights of the unborn
child.
The Christian Right political movements suffered from
lack of depth and leadership—affairs could have been handled much better. However, what is amusing about Mrs. Irons’s
observations is that this is precisely
what every group attempts to do, liberals, environmentalists, you name
it. Government is all about attempting
to get everybody to do what the government thinks is right. Political parties, special interest lobbies, et al. exist
to persuade the government and society in general that their vision is the
right vision. When conservatives used
the same approach as the liberals, suddenly the liberals shouted “unfair” and
wanted the right of conservatives to be part of the system to be sharply curtailed. Again, we as
Christian citizens have every right and even the responsibility to live, speak,
and vote as Christian citizens.
If the liberal finds this objectionable, he needs to be reminded that he
does not have an absolute guarantee to his own group’s consensus, and that
“power sharing” is a fundamental part of our republic.
But
instead we supplemented our arguments with a lot of religious rhetoric that
served only to alienate everyone else. Our strategy of taking our Bibles into
the voting booths and transforming preachers into politicians betrayed our
self- interest, and our lack of interest in the concerns of the rest of the
population. Christian politics has not been about religious freedom. It has
been a power grab.
Since when has “grabbing power” been a bad thing, as
long as it is done according to the strictures of our constitution, and does not
limit the legitimate rights of others?
Maybe
you don't have a problem with that. "Since Christ is Lord of the nations,
Christians ought to be in charge," I have heard many people say. The
problem is the Bible argues just the opposite. It says that Christ's lordship
is the very reason why we can submit to the government without worrying so much
about whether Christians or non-Christians are in charge.
The
apostle Paul writes, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist
are established by God" (Romans 13:1). God is the one who invented civil
government and it is through this institution that he rules the affairs of the
world. And he doesn't seem to be terribly concerned if non-Christian or even
un-Christian people are in power, as if their presence is going to foul up his
program. He can handle it just fine because he is, after all, Lord of the
nations.
Written to Christian living in heathen Rome, Romans 13
addresses the issue of the Christian’s relationship to the government, and his
duties therein. Essentially, the
Christian is to be a good citizen of the government and the nation in which he
finds himself. What Romans 13 does not
address is every detail about what it means to be a good citizen, or what
government will look like when it consists of Christian magistrates. We live in a society which makes it possible
for Christians to be part of the decision making process, and to put Christian
magistrates in office. While the passage
is not irrelevant to the discussion, it also does not support the weight that
has here been placed upon it.
Thus,
it should be no surprise that when we look to the New Testament for instruction
on incorporating Christian beliefs into the laws of the land, we are met with a
deafening silence. Jesus, in fact, rebuffed the Jews of his day who sought to
hail him as a political revolutionary against the oppression of Roman rule. His
famous admonition, "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to
God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21) teaches willing submission
to the state regardless of whether its laws are "Christian" or not.
The apostle Peter concurs with Jesus, "Submit yourself for the Lord's sake
to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
etc." (1 Peter 2:13), as does the apostle Paul as we have already noted.
I willingly stipulate this, with the same
qualification as above. Of course,
Christians have also always believed that we do not obey the laws of the land
when they ask Christians directly to disobey God, Acts 4:19-20.
Since
Jesus and the apostles have little to say about politics, except that we should
submit and not worry about who is in charge, why are we devoting so much of our
energies trying to legislate the Bible?
I can think of several possible responses to this, not
the least of which is that general morality is part of our creation in the
image of God, and that Paul appeals to creation, nature, and conscience in his
discussion of such issues (cf. Rom 1:18-32; 2:12-16, inter al.). In encouraging the magistrate consistently to
enforce the moral law, we are simply helping him to maintain a stable society
in which the church and other institutions may operate most effectively. We are, in other words, allowing him to
fulfill his commission as a “minister of God” in a way that is consistent with
general revelation.
Also, I am not at all convinced that the church should
have such a limited role in the general culture. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were given
the responsibility of bringing all creation under the dominion of the Lord
(time fails us to unpack all the implications of this). Without being able to argue the case
extensively here, let me assert that the “great commission” of Matt 28:18-20 is
simply the republication of the dominion mandate in a way that is
redemptive-historically appropriate to God’s new creation in covenant
relationship to Christ. The spiritual
dimension of this republication does not mitigate in any way the general
applications inherent in the original mandate, but provides the thrust and
emphasis that must accompany the original dominion taking in a fallen world.
Now, certain general principles are enunciated which
emphasize the kerygmatic nature of this task.
Scripture leaves particular application of these principles open. Historically, we have a number of examples
where Christians have deeply transformed the general culture, including the
later Roman Empire and Holland under Abraham Kuyper. Are these examples of perfect Christian
societies? Certainly not, not this side
of glory. What they do show is that it
is possible for Christians to bear witness in the present to what the fullness
of Christian society may look like in the eschatological future. How did these transformations take
place? Primarily through the church
doing what the church does best, which is proclaim the truth and teach people
to live as disciples of Christ. As more
and more individuals in society shift their spiritual citizenship from the
kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, they become more and more able to
effect change in the general culture.
The actual methodology that such Christians employ will, of course, vary
from culture to culture and from period to period.
If
there is any political goal we might legitimately pursue for ourselves as
Christian citizens, it is to exist peacefully in our society without
harassment. "I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and
thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in
authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness
and dignity" (1 Timothy 2:1-2). But not being harassed means that we don't
harass others. Notice that right on the heels of another Pauline reminder
"to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient," the
apostle, as if foreseeing the political mess we would get ourselves into today,
also exhorts us "to malign no one, to be uncontentious, gentle, showing
every consideration for all men" (Titus 3:1-2).
If first Tim 2:1-2 and Titus 3:1-2 were the only Scriptures to address
Christians' relationship to society, then this would be a valid
observation. Also, these exhortations in
no way conflict with the process of legitimate societal reform, of taking every
thought captive to the obedience of Christ (1 Cor 10:4-5), which involves not
simply submission of immoral thoughts to the Lord, but the dismantling of the
various idolatrous philosophical constructs arrayed against the Lord of glory.
Therefore,
since the church's primary concern with relation to the state ought to be the
protection of our right to freely practice our religious beliefs, our political
strategy ought to be twofold: 1) making sure we don't turn public opinion
against us by being pushy, overbearing, and malicious; and 2) supporting the
rights of other people also to exist peacefully in this land, because in doing
so we secure the same for ourselves.
The conclusion
claimed in this paragraph is unsupported by the evidence given. Now, I agree fully that Christians ought not
to be “pushy, everbearing and malicious.”
I also affirm that Christians need forthrightly to proclaim the truth and stand for the truth
even when that simple proclamation is unpopular. And unpopular it will be, as
Stephen discovered in Acts 7, or as students I knew back in the ancient days of
my college career, whose evangelistic book table was shut down by complaints
from the gay student union, simply because they included pamphlets which,
without other comment, quoted Rom 1:18-32.
I also have to disagree with the assertion
here. There are plenty of historical
examples in which Christians have stayed quiet, peace-loving folks who
nevertheless found themselves afoul of the authorities or despised by the
general culture. That our culture
respects our rights is wonderful and an occasion for rejoicing, but it is
itself derivative from the Christian influence prevalent in American society in
the early days of our nation.
The more
Christians retreat from society, the less guarantee there will be that our
rights will be respected. The logical
conclusion of this type of thinking is not respect for pluralism per se, but
the Amish. The church, due to several
factors, no longer has the influence that it once had. Mrs. Irons would have us go all the way and
joyously affirm our cultural marginalization, rather than devise strategies,
beginning with personal and ecclesiastical reform, for reclaiming our lost
influence. The church was once hailed as
the moral compass of the nation. Should
we yield to “postmodernism” as an unstoppable cultural force, or should we
remember that we are the church, against which the gates of hell can never
prevail?
Supporting
other people's civil liberties doesn't say that we necessarily agree with their
views of morality or religion. For instance, we don't agree with Buddhists and
yet we don't hesitate to stand up for religious freedom. What it does say is
that we are willing to get along with others and demonstrate the same respect
for them that we wish for ourselves. This is not some radical new idea. It is
simply practicing The Golden Rule: "However you want people to treat you,
so treat them, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).
If a person or a group wishes to be treated in a sinful fashion, do we
accommodate them? The central issue here
is whether or not homosexual marriage should be treated as a valid civil right
by Christians (I stipulate that the general culture may come to this
conclusion, but that is not the issue here).
The question then becomes the nature of law. Is law arbitrary, simply the dictates of
particular cultural consensuses at any given time? Or does human law, at its very root, reflect
(however imperfectly) eternal verities as a direct result of the fact that
human beings are created in God’s image?
Paul, as we have seen, ascribes to the latter position. The fact that all human cultures tend to
replicate the Ten Commandments early on
in their histories provides anthropological support for Paul’s inspired claims
(as though they need confirmation from such a source).
It is odd that Mrs. Irons quotes Matt 7:12 in support of her
antinomianism at this point, since according to Jesus, the golden rule is the
sum total of the law given to Israel. It
therefore can in no way conflict with that law, but rather shows that obedience
to God’s revealed will, either the specific case laws given to Israel in her
period of redemptive history, or in terms of the moral law for the church (as
understood through eschatological realization in Christ in the New Testament
era) and for society in general for
people created in God’s image, is fully consistent with the summary of the law
that we call the golden rule.
The
Validity of the Gay Civil Rights Argument
This
leads us to the issue of civil same-sex marriage. Most Christians oppose it,
thinking this one is a no- brainer. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and
so it would seem obvious that same-sex marriage is completely out of the
question, right?
Well, essentially, yes. Scripture
not only classifies homosexual relationships as a sin, but includes them among
the capital crimes of the OT (which careful analysis will indicate have the
highest societal and spiritual “pollution” factor). While I part with theonomy when it attempts directly
to apply the Mosaic civil code to the current period of redemptive history, it
should still nevertheless be apparent that homosexual activity is nothing to be
advocated in any form by Christians, nor accorded any legitimacy whatsoever. Specifically, it is related to the
commandment against adultery, and so is a violation of the moral law which
above we have argued is binding on all human beings everywhere. As already noted, Paul describes homosexual
activity not in terms of any violation of the Mosaic civil code, but as a
violation of nature (Grk. para
phusin, Rom
1:26), so that Paul is essentially
arguing from the creation covenantal paradigm, and not the
redemptive/eschatological
To put it in non theo-speak, legitimate civil rights, yes. Perversion, no!
But
Christians need to take a second look at this issue. Gays and lesbians have
built a pretty solid civil rights case in favor of why they should be allowed
to marry. For one thing, Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U. S. Supreme Court
once wrote, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'
fundamental to our very existence and survival." For another, homosexuals
are the only group of people in American society who are legally barred from
marriage. As long as the state refuses to recognize same-sex marriage, they
cannot legally marry the person they love.
1. I doubt that even
old Earl had homosexual marriage in mind when he penned these words.
2. The claim is
patently false. Homosexuals are free to marry
anybody of the complementary sex whom they choose—they simply are not free to
marry someone of the same sex. Children
are not free to marry, nor are pedophiles allowed to marry children. Are their civil rights therefore violated?
3. Let me suggest
that whatever emotion homosexuals feel for one another, it cannot be legitimately
called “love.” I am willing to admit
that it may feel like love, and that it may even involve an imitation of the
kind of caring and commitment that one finds in creation-design heterosexual
marriage, but it is in fact nothing less than a perversion of true love. Once again, Mrs. Irons has adopted far too
much of the enemy’s definition, rather than a fully biblical understanding.
This
is something to think about. If you are a single heterosexual adult in America,
regardless of your race, religion, or ethnicity you have literally millions of
marriage possibilities. But if you are a homosexual adult living anywhere in
America, regardless of your race, religion, or ethnicity your opportunities for
legal marriage are zilch (unless you go to Vermont, where you can enter into
same-sex civil union). The only kind of marriage that can be legitimately
granted to you is one you must enter into dishonestly, swearing before God and
these witnesses to a love you don't really have.
But
the kind of marriage homosexuals seek doesn't even involve swearing before God
and these witnesses. What they want is a secular marriage granted and
recognized by the state, and we can keep the religious institution of marriage
homosexual-free if it makes us happy, they say.
There are a number of homosexuals who wish to have church sanction for
their relationships. Is the desire to
legitimize immoral activity equivalent to the right to such activity? The cultural consensus, due to the
ineffectuality of the church and the downward spiral of moral decay, may change
with regard to perversion, but should the church go along? Also, how long do you think it will be before
an evangelical church gets sued for preaching against homosexuality, or refusing
to marry a homosexual couple, or perhaps, firing a homosexual organist? For someone who below makes statements about
the depths of sin, the comments above are singularly naďve.
People
think that by allowing civil same-sex marriage, it won't be long before we'll
allow people to marry their sister, or their pet iguana. But isn't there a big
difference between a person who chooses incest or bestiality against the normal
marriage options available to him, and a person who is only capable of being
sexually attracted to someone of the same gender, so that without the right to
enter into same-sex marriage he or she is left with no marriage option at all?
People who like having sex with family members or dumb animals are making
perverse sexual choices. By contrast the vast majority of homosexuals did not
choose to be homosexual. They are people who find themselves attracted to other
people of the same sex for reasons even they cannot explain.
The comments in the paragraph above show how successful the homosexual
campaign to create legitimacy for their perversion has been. Less than 50 years ago, the majority opinion
was that homosexuality was every bit as “perverse a sexual choice” as
bestiality or incest (and those who knew their Bible knew exactly what Scriptures
to quote to prove it). I am sure that
the people who want to marry their sister or their dog could make the same
claim, that they find themselves attracted to the object of their affection
“for reasons even they cannot explain.”
Lee has perhaps protected Misty from some of the unfortunate realities
of the sinful world in which we live. I
have several times received spam email advertising the delights of bestiality
(my ISP’s are getting better at filtering this stuff out, fortunately). There are newsgroups on the Internet devoted
to these very subjects (bestiality and incest) and yet other “perverse sexual
choices.” Practitioners of these
perversions are even now in the process of seeking legitimacy, much as the gay
rights movement has been doing, and it is in the gay rights movement that they
find their inspiration.
Am
I saying that the civil rights argument rests on understanding homosexuality to
be an unchosen condition? Absolutely. And so this is a golden opportunity for
us conservative Christians to finally get our heads out of the sand and start
looking into this question for ourselves, instead of blindly accepting the
anti-gay rhetoric of religious right leaders. Why do we believe people choose
to be homosexual? Have we ever asked an actual homosexual person to explain his
or her homosexuality to us?
Chances
are we have not, because most of us have never had a close enough relationship
with someone who is gay to build the trust for such personal things to be
shared. We are so quick on the draw when it comes to whipping out our Bibles. Then
we get trigger-happy, demolishing every protest with yet another verse that
condemns homosexuality as a sin.
We have had friendships with more than one homosexual, including a
“couple” who adopted in China at the same time as we. Let me suggest that these considerations are
quite pertinent to personal evangelism, pastoral counseling, and therapy, but
not at all to the official position of the church and the need to call sin what
it is, the need to expose the “fruitless deeds of darkness” (Eph 5:11). Yes, sin may be deeply entwined with the very
core of our being and the complexities of human personality, and yes, we must
show maximum compassion for people lost in the dark maze of human
depravity. However, allowing people
freely to practice their perversion does nothing to help them out of it.
Mrs. Irons, on the other hand, would have the church support the
practice of sin, when Scripture calls us to do precisely the opposite, to
expose (and restrain) the practices of hell.
In
making such condemnations, we don't usually distinguish between homosexual
attraction and homosexual sex. The latter is obviously the outworking of the
former, but as far as the former is concerned, have we asked ourselves how it
is that one chooses to be attracted to people of the same sex? How many of us
have taken the time to consider how such a thing might work?
Let me paraphrase for comparison: have we ever asked ourselves how it
is that one chooses to be a white supremacist, how it is that one chooses to enjoy
humiliating members of another race?
Or lets try this one: have we ever asked ourselves how it is that one
chooses to cheat on one’s spouse, how it is that one chooses to be attracted to
another woman (and certainly does not know how or why that particular person,
but he feels it really strongly…)
Or: have we ever asked ourselves how it is that one chooses to be a
murderer, how it is that one chooses to slaughter little children for sexual
thrills…
Even if we are called to minister the gospel to such people, and
understand their sin better so to bring the hope of the gospel to them, we are
certainly not called to legitimize their sin.
Some sins are so heinous in their consequences that it is difficult even
to care about the why…
[I
have omitted several paragraphs that I have already effectively answered]
Why
not simply take the common sense route? Why not acknowledge that apart from a
miraculous work of God, it appears that for the most part a gay person's
chances of successfully adopting heterosexual feelings are about the same as a
straight person's chances of successfully adopting homosexual feelings?
Repentance and conversion are a miraculous work of God, and is
precisely the reason why we proclaim the Gospel. However, if society itself recognizes the
difference between right and wrong, then this provides a much more coherent
framework for proclaiming the Gospel.
For the church effectively to allow the substitution of the world’s
definition, to stipulate calling evil good (Rom 1:32), is, at the very least,
to lose all integrity even in humanly defined terms. The church therefore needs to do whatever it
may to support societal cohesion based on the moral law.
A
civilized society ought to recognize that there is a big difference between
homosexuality thus understood, and perverse and irresponsible sexual practices
such as incest and bestiality. Thus, it is only appropriate to respond by
treating homosexual persons humanely and allowing them to live their lives with
dignity and respect. And whatever we as Christians might conclude about the
morality of homosexuality before God, we also have to realize that with respect
to society a gay person's open acknowledgement of his or her homosexuality is,
in a very real sense, an act of personal integrity.
Mrs. Irons would do well to consider what she means by “civilized” and
how it may be defined. Her naďve use of
the term is, of course, profoundly influenced by Christianity, and what she
takes for granted that a civilized society may practice is by no means guaranteed
apart from a consensus based on Christianity and the moral law.
The
Incoherence of the Conservative Christian Position
The
leaders of the Christian right don't seem interested in acknowledging the
complexities that surround the issue of homosexuality. They have glossed over
the difficult questions and gone straight for the emotional jugular, talking
about family values, the future of our children, and the decline of our nation,
in order to rally an American moral majority behind them. But once again, what
we are really concerned about is pushing our Christian moral agenda because,
let's face it, we don't really care what the majority of Americans think about
morals. If we did, we would be saying that we would willingly acquiesce to what
seems to be an increasing majority of Americans who think that giving your
child a swat on the hand for defying parental authority is tantamount to child
abuse.
I have above admitted that the leaders of the Christian right have not
always been effective, though I think that my analysis and Mrs. Irons would be
quite different at the foundational level.
However, again, the question must be asked, to what extent do we have to
analyze the complexities of sin in order to take a stand against it? I am sure that there are quite serious
political and philosophical differences between Islamic terrorist groups and
neo-Nazi terrorist groups, but are those difference really important when one
discovers the bomb in the bus terminal?
They are pertinent when we wish to persuade an individual from one group
or another, but once those differences are considered, we still have the same
thing to offer:
1.
Repent!
and,
2.
Sin no more!
Again, as any analogy, this will fail if pushed too far (it does not
address the legitimacy of criminalizing homosexuality, though my earlier
comments address this somewhat), but let’s not confuse our responsibilities and
rights as Christian citizens, nor the response of the corporate church, for
personal evangelism and counseling.
Let's
go back to the question of whether homosexuality is a choice. Let's say, for
the sake of argument, that Christians are right in believing that it is a
choice, so that once same-sex marriage is legally approved in society, numerous
people begin converting to the "gay lifestyle" and the number of
same-sex marriages begin to rival that of heterosexual marriages. Do we really
want to see majoritarian politics prevail in such a situation? What if
homosexuals were to manage a moral majority that began to view heterosexuality
as unnatural? Or perhaps more realistically, a majority that viewed the
church's religious prohibition against same-sex marriage as illegal
discrimination? Imagine how it would be for us as a religious community to have
to fight for our civil liberty against such an onslaught. That is exactly the
position we have put the gay community in when we rally public opinion against
their right to marry.
Once again, this type of argument assumes the validity of the gay
rights political position. While the
church in the United States may one day come to a position in which it is
persecuted, allowing the godless free reign to practice their rebellion against
God is simply not the right response.
That
is why we need instead to work toward some kind of mutual respect between our
two groups. Perhaps we should even sit down at the bargaining table with the
gay movement right now and say, we will respect your right to same-sex marriage
in the civil arena as long as you respect our right to exclude it from our
churches. Then we ought to join forces and fight like the dickens to keep civil
liberties at the forefront of American politics to ensure the protection of our
respective interests.
Mrs. Irons wants us to be co-belligerents with homosexuals, whose very
existence God finds an abomination? If
she can prove 1) from Scripture and 2) from historical legal precedent that
immorality may be a protected civil right, perhaps I’ll join her bandwagon. Until then, I’ll continue proclaiming the
Gospel, including God’s opinion of homosexuality, and what I feel should be my
response as a citizen of this republic.
Let me also suggest that this strategy is just plain unworkable. The antithesis runs too deeply for any such
combination of interests, and as soon as the gay rights coalition gains enough
by way of political power, it will soon seek to protect its own interests by limiting the interests of other
groups.
The
problem is we don't feel the need to go to such lengths to safeguard our
religious freedom because we smugly take for granted that it will always be
there. Such complacency has blinded us from seeing how we actually threaten
religious freedom when we dismiss gay rights on the grounds that homosexuals
choose their condition. Because if homosexuality is chosen, then what about the
fact that many of us have chosen our religion? Those of us who are born-again
Christians never tire of talking about that moment in our lives when we
"made a decision for Christ." Are we now saying that people who
choose their "religious condition" don't deserve religious rights
either? Does it not bother us that gay writers David Boaz and Stephen
H. Miller have already pointed out our hypocrisy on this point?
The inverse argument here is of course a fallacious argument. We, whoever “we” are, are
saying no such thing. As I have argued,
freedom of religious “choice” has long been a constitutionally protected
right. What Mrs. Irons has to do is prove
that this right is, even by way of implication, extended to a perverted sexual
practice.
[My responses at this point run the risk of being repetitive (as in
fact, Mrs. Iron’s article is becoming somewhat repetitive). I therefore will only include a few more of
her points to which I will respond by way of emphasis, and then conclude.]
We're
afraid that supporting civil same-sex marriage will send a message to the gay
community that Christians approve of homosexuality? Well, believe me, the gay
community is under no such delusion. For years they have listened to our
arguments against homosexuality ad nauseam and can even quote all the
pertinent Bible verses back to us by heart. But if that doesn't convince you,
perhaps it would be more helpful to look at it this way. Which is the worse
sin, supporting civil same-sex marriage and giving gays and lesbians the
impression that Christians approve of their homosexuality; or opposing it and
continuing this political campaign of smearing the gay community with
half-truths so as to prevent people from entering legally into committed and
sexually responsible relationships in violation of their civil rights?
I fully agree that it would be sin on our part to smear the gay
community with half-truths. Let us
rather be fully truthful in proclaiming the entire truth about homosexuality
from the biblical perspective.
If
we're so concerned about the message we might be sending, why not look at it as
sending a message that we approve of committed relationships and sexual
responsibility? Aren't these the values that we have been trumpeting at our
fellow Americans for years? Aren't we the ones who are always condemning the
promiscuous "lifestyle" of gay men? Why not look at gay marriage as a
step in the right moral direction?
This is a bit like viewing totalitarianism as a step in the right moral
direction from a previous state of anarchy.
It doesn’t solve the problem, it merely changes the outward appearance,
allowing one group of people to oppress the rest (rather than everybody trying
to oppress everybody else). Similarly,
providing a stable environment to practice sin ultimately contributes to the
downward spiral that is in everybody’s interest to avoid.
In
fact, one of the main arguments the proponents of civil same-sex marriage use
is that marriage is a morally good thing for homosexuals. Hearing gay writers Andrew
Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch argue eloquently on this point is like
listening to any staunch conservative praise old-fashioned family values. For
they argue that marriage grows a person up, stabilizes a person emotionally,
and forces a person to be responsible toward someone else. They even point out
that civil same-sex marriage would benefit society by helping to curb
promiscuity and to civilize gay men. The strength of such arguments has, in
fact, caused some in the gay community to oppose the same-sex marriage
campaign, because they see it as a concession to the Christian right-wing moral
agenda.
How absolutely fascinating that some in the homosexual community would
be consistent with their own presuppositions.
Now, in this case, is the good outweighed by the bad? What is most important? Hitler revitalized the German economy, built
good roads, loved children and dogs, and was a good orator. Is that why we remember him? Do we wish the church of the 22nd
century to look back on us as those who yielded yet a bit more to the tide of
cultural change, or would we rather be remembered as the church of the first
century, which stood for the truth of the gospel no matter what the cost?
Yet
we should not make the mistake of thinking these people are begging for our
compassion on their moral plight. They want their rights, not our pity, and it
is important that we consider this issue from that angle. Otherwise we will
think, as we Christians are so prone to thinking, that we can justify opposing
their right to gay marriage as long as we do it lovingly. But I'm not sure if
people understand what we mean by that. Frankly, I'm not sure if I always
understand what we mean by that. The impression I get from homosexuals is that
given a choice between having us drench them with our loving Christian
compassion while we open up our Bibles to Leviticus, versus having us listen to
their arguments rationally and objectively and then grouchily concede to them
the point, they would overwhelmingly prefer the latter.
True love does not mean giving people legal permission to practice
their sin. It means telling them that
they are sinners on their way to hell.
We may use various cross-culturally sensitive ways to communicate this
message, but if we lose that base line, then we are no better than Pearl S.
Buck and her “indigenous” approach to missions that so grieved Machen and other
biblically sensitive Christians of the early 20th century.
Paving
the Way for a True Testimony
By
trying to deny the gay-straight club the right to meet because of moral
objections to homosexuality, Christians were undermining the very right that
they themselves had once fought so hard to establish. Did Christians rally for
the Equal Access Act in the first place because they were such die-hard
libertarians? Apparently not. Civil liberty was only a means to getting our
way. Then when the principle worked against us we did not hesitate to undercut
it. We tried to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs because we saw that
some of those eggs were going to people we didn't like.
This case is not truly parallel, and does not support Mrs. Irons’s
contentions. Of course, the Supreme
Court makes these kinds of distinctions all the time, including what counts as
a civil right. Shall we allow them to
make that distinction with no input from a biblically informed perspective?
It
is high time that we grow up and learn to play fair. Freedom for us means
freedom for someone else too, even our fellow Americans in the gay and lesbian
community. Is that too high a price to pay? Of course not. Civil liberties is
what gives Christians the freedom to pursue our moral convictions in this
country in the first place. It is what guarantees a future for ourselves and
our children in which we will be able to practice our religious beliefs free of
harassment and fear. It is what paves the way for us to make a true moral
impact on our culture, not by trying to legislate the Bible as if that will
change people's hearts, but through leading by example as Jesus commanded us:
"Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).
Of course, Christians may fairly employ more than one avenue to
encourage the spread of truth and an environment in which the Gospel really
makes sense. Certainly we cannot
legislate a change of heart, but we can encourage the laws of the land so to be
written that they remind people of what is right and what is wrong, thereby
adding one factor that the Holy Spirit may use to increase people's awareness of
sin.
Playing fair? How about playing
God’s way?
How
will this help forward the gospel of Jesus Christ? A wise Christian minister
once said, "Reasonable persuasion can thrive only in an atmosphere of
liberty. It is quite useless to approach a man with both a club and an
argument. He will very naturally be in no mood to appreciate our argument until
we lay aside our club." [1]
Everything that I have read
about and by Machen indicates to me that he would be appalled to be cited in
support of such a program. The
proclamation of the Gospel means the proclamation of God’s holiness (as best
exemplified by his law, revealed both in special and general revelation). It is with that club precisely that we attack
the sinner, for how else will she realize her sinfulness?
Conclusion of
Response
In
my response, I have myself used various arguments and rhetorical devices to
point out what I see to be the flaws in Mrs. Irons’s reasoning. I would also add the following assertions:
1.
As
stated in the introduction to my response, the issue here is not about the
sinfulness of homosexuality—to that, both Mrs. Irons and I agree. The issue regards whether or not such
behavior may be permitted in society, and in what way Christian citizens
(operating in the world, though not of it) should respond, and, as a related
issue, the nature of the church’s corporate position on permitting homosexual
marriage as a civil right. I do not
believe that my response is either exhaustive or definitive, though I think I
have made a certain contribution in revealing some of the problems involved
with Mrs. Irons’s approach.
2.
A
paper such as this often reveals people’s true theological positions. In this case, I have proved myself to be
largely Kuyperian, seeking to see the Ten Commandments (as the summary of the
moral law) to be the essential starting point for what may constitute
legitimate law in this nation. I believe
that Mrs. Irons is simply drawing to its natural conclusion thinking influenced
by the eschatological approach of Meredith Kline, which sees what I would
consider a drastically reductionistic approach to the law, and a departure from
traditional reformed thinking on the law.
Much of what is assumed in the paper needs to be carefully argued and
debated.
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam…
· Home