Gay Marriage, the Law and the Church

When the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage several weeks ago, I wrung my hands for exactly zero seconds.  The outcome was expected, and it was the correct legal outcome.

I do not believe it was the correct moral outcome, but it was the correct legal outcome.

I am purposely making that distinction because it is an important one.  A very important one.

I am not like some within the Christian Church.

I do not believe the U.S. is the new Israel or new Jerusalem.

I do not believe the U.S. is a Christian nation.  It could be argued well that it never has been.

I do not believe we can transform the U.S. into the kingdom of God.

I do not believe it is the Church's job to impose morality through the use of the law.

I believe that well-meaning Christians have tried to impose morality and justice and other such things by the use of the law; however, while managing to get laws passed, it has simply driven certain behaviors into hiding where they lurk until striking out.  (See, Roof, Dyllan and racism)  The changing of laws do not change human hearts.

The Civil Rights Movement

 I do want to take a moment to talk about the importance of the Church working in society for its betterment.  I am the father of two bi-racial girls.  I hazard to think about what their lives would have been like 60 years ago or so.  I hazard to imagine them being required to drink out of separate water fountains and sit apart from the rest of our family because of asinine laws like Jim Crow.  I am most certainly glad those things are outlawed!!

And I am thankful that the thrust of power that came to overturn those unjust laws came through the Black Churches in our nation.  For certain, there were many involved in the process of other religious faiths and traditions, but those represented a minority.  The public figures of the Civil Rights Movement were pastors, and Martin Luther King, Jr. was, of course, the chief figurehead.

King's genius was not simply his passion for non-violence, but also his willingness to call a nation that considered itself Christian to account.  In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," King basically said, "You know, you say that you are Christian.  You say that you follow the Bible.  Why are you not following its basic principles of justice, fairness, and equality?"  It was and is a fantastic letter.

An appeal to such a collective conscience is a master-stroke of genius, and it worked!   It worked brilliantly!!!  To change the laws.  And to change behaviors.

But it did not change the hearts and minds of many.  Perhaps this is where the Civil Right's Movement failed.  For the prejudice that was overtly embodied in Jim Crow Laws and segregation was now driven deep into people's hearts.  And it hasn't gone away at all.

So, should another similar movement be staged today?  Do more laws need to be changed to prevent covert racism?  Should the Church strive for such a thing in this current climate?

I am highly suspect of trying to accomplish such a thing, because the climate of the U.S. has changed and changed dramatically.

A View Backward to Go Forward

The Christian Church is one of the more unique institutions in the global scheme.  90% of Muslims live in the Middle East and Africa.  90% of Hindus live in India.  90% of Buddhists live in Asia.  Only Christianity is evenly distributed throughout the globe.  Christianity has been able to survive under all sorts of governments and rulers--even those that severely persecuted the Church.  In a rather head scratching note, the more the Church is persecuted, the more it seems to grow and thrive.

Part of the reason for this, I am convinced, is that Christianity grew up in a hostile culture.  It clashed with its parent religion of Judaism and also with the surrounding Roman Empire.  It proclaimed that Jesus was God--anathema to Jews and subversive to Romans.  In both cases, the death penalty could be sought for adherents (for blasphemy or for subverting the rule of Caesar).

Yet, despite the danger, one does not see anywhere in the early Church petitions to the governments to legalize Christianity.  One does not see the apostle Paul standing before governors and asking them to change the law.  No.  Paul seeks to convert.  Paul seeks to bring people to Jesus Christ and then allow the power of God to transform those hearts and minds.

It's a far cry from how the Church tends to operate in the U.S. today.  For a brief time, the U.S. adopted our ethical framework when making decisions.  For a brief time, we could count on people being in and understanding what it meant to have a Christian ethical framework.  At one time most of the U.S. had a Christian worldview, but there has been a divorce.

Ethics are no longer rooted in God.

The source and norm for ethics in the U.S. is the Constitution, and the ethical moorings of the Constitution are...

Who knows?

An Ethical Hodgepodge

Reason according to some.
"Do whatever makes you happy as long as you hurt no one," according to others.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," according to more.
"Truth is what we make it; truth is relative," according to others.

We have no agreed upon ethical basis for defining truth, justice, happiness, or the like.  We have no system of ethics underpinning our national discussion.  In fact, what very often happens is a clash between ethical systems without folks even aware that such systems are clashing.

The results can be quite confusing and disheartening.  People are quick to hurl insults toward each other.  Oppressed becomes oppressor.  The opposition gets vilified.  We cry out "do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"  But the practice ends up being "do unto others as I think should be done unto them."

Lord, save us.

Thank God, He has.

Which is why I haven't done any hand wringing.

A Christian Ethical Framework

You see, the Christian ethical framework seeks the will of God.  Believing that God has indeed revealed His will to us, we earnestly believe we should seek it out.  However, when we discover what that will is, we know it is impossible to uphold.  We know we can never live up to it.

Think about this in your own life at this point.  Most of us have a certain standard of how we expect others to live.  Do we live up to our own standard?  Recently, in a discussion, I pointed out that a gentleman called out Christians for being judgmental was himself making a judgement against Christians.  Fortunately, he was of the thinking sort and realized exactly what he was doing.  "It must be a condition of humanity," he said.  I heartily agree.  A condition we cannot save ourselves from.  We need a Savior.

That Savior, according to Christianity, is Jesus who lived the life we were supposed to live--loving God and loving neighbor as self completely; and He died the death we deserved upon the cross--paying the penalty for our disobedience and inability to fulfill God's will.  Jesus did this while we were still sinners--undeserving of such radical love.

To understand that we do not fulfill the will of God...
To understand that we do not deserve God's love and acceptance...
To understand that it was given to us at great cost to God...

Humbles a heart.  It takes away pride in any sort of moral accomplishment one may perceive.  It allows one to see one's own brokenness.  One still seeks God's will, but then understand that God's will includes loving others as we were loved--broken people loving other broken people.  This is done no matter what kind of government sits in power--or what kind of ethical framework is embraced by the surrounding culture.

Gay marriage is legal.
Two consenting adults having sexual relations is legal.
Selling a rock as a pet is legal.
Making millions of dollars without sharing is legal.
Consuming alcohol to excess is legal.
Yelling at your spouse is legal.
Calling someone an a$$hole is legal.
Looking at a woman with lust is legal.

Doesn't mean any of those things are moral, but instead of pointing fingers and decrying the immorality of others, I believe Christians are called to roll up their sleeves and do some very hard work--very hard work--seek conversion of others to the Christian worldview.  To seek the change of heart and not simply the change of law.

The Need for Government

There is no doubt that we need government and we need just laws.  Without government and laws, society falls into anarchy.  There is also no doubt that Christians need to be involved in politics.  We have a duty to work for the welfare of our neighbor (How that gets played out is oftentimes a point of contention, granted.).  I cannot imagine the Church standing idly by while injustice is perpetrated upon people.

And the Church is indeed guilty of both standing by and perpetrating injustice upon people.  We have only to look into our history at the times when the Church held power (middle ages) or--for the most part--walked hand in hand with those in power (Nazi Germany).  In both of these cases, great tragedy befell minorities as the vast majority of Christians supported or turned a blind eye to injustice.

I believe this happens when the Church aligns itself with the structures of power within a given nation.  Therefore, the Church must maintain a critical distance without becoming disengaged.  The Church must have a voice within the public square without aligning itself with any group seizing power.  The Church must be a powerful voice without seeking power itself.  And, oh and this is the tricky part--the Church must not be swayed to endorse any seeking power because of a promise of favorable legislation.

It is far too tempting to allow ourselves to endorse certain candidates who promise action on particular issues to win our votes.  An appeal to our own desire of power and getting what we want through legislation can be very, very tempting.  However, I think that this does great damage to our primary calling--to proclaim Jesus and not the Law.

"For the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed.  It is the smallest of seeds, but when planted it becomes a tree so large the birds of the air long to build their nests within."

The Kingdom of God begins with the seed of the Gospel in our hearts.  It grows as more and more hearts are tuned to God--not to the Laws of a nation.  And the Gospel roots out evil intentions, hatred and prejudice--the very root causes of hatred and division within our species.  But it all begins with the change of heart--the primary focus, I believe of spreading the Gospel--of changing another's worldview.

Not an easy task, but the one mission the Church was given straight from the one who died for the world.

When Gay Marriage Causes Family Strife: Or How to Love Someone I Vehemently Disagree With

    As I promised in my “Pastor’s Ponderings” email a week or so ago, I will be dealing with a submitted question that we received through our new website.  Anyone is welcome to ask questions you would like me to cover in a sermon at any time, so if you have a topic you would like me to cover, don’t hesitate to ask.

    The email we received stated, “Need help/understanding in the part we as a family play when members are involved in a same sex marriage. We have a relative who married in June. Can't and don't want to turn them away, but with Holidays and family gatherings approaching next...help.”

    Now, obviously, this email is from someone who views such marriages as sinful and out of the norm.  There are some in our society, and even in our congregation who do not view such things as sinful.  For these folks, there is no problem in what has been done, and it would cause no strife at all.  Usually, their response to someone who has such concerns would be, “You just need to get over it and change your mind.  They really aren’t doing anything wrong.  God made them that way, and you should just accept them as they are.”  Essentially, they would tell you, you are the one with the problem, not your relatives.  You are the one who needs to change, not them.

    On the other hand, there are those who believe just as strongly that homosexual marriage is sinful and the problem resides with those who engage in it.  They are the ones who need to change or keep their relationships completely and utterly private so that it doesn’t cause any discomfort to anyone else.  Keep such matters to yourself and do not flaunt it in my face.  I don’t want to see it; or hear it; or think about it.  It’s your problem, not mine.

    This tends to be the extremes that we get pushed toward in dealing with such matters, and the real issue is never tackled by either side.  The real issue is not who has to change.  Let me say that again.  The real issue is not who has to change.  The real issue is how do we live and interact with others who do not share our views about life and morality.  Again, I will repeat: the real issue is: how do we live and interact with others who do not share our views about life and morality.

    In the extremes of this issue, one side says, “I can’t interact with you unless you fully accept me.  You have to change.”  The other side says, “I can’t interact with you unless you change your lifestyle or bury it deep.”  Both expect the other to change to accommodate because, “by God, I am right.  You are wrong.  I don’t need to change, and you do.”  This leaves little room for maintaining a relationship when lines get drawn so firmly.  In fact, when lines are drawn in this manner, it makes for some very, very uncomfortable situations, to say the least.

    But what if there was a way forward in which acceptance is not a requirement for relationship?  What if there is a way forward in which we could love someone and interact with someone even if we consider them unlovable?  What if we can indeed accept that another’s position is wrong, yet love that person anyway?  Is such a thing possible? 

    I think it is.  Full disclosure at this point.  I believe very strongly that Scripture condemns homosexual marriage.  I believe that any sexual relations outside the bounds of a marriage relationship between a man and a woman is sinful.  God intended this gift to be used between a man and a woman within those boundaries.  I think Scripture is absolutely clear on this despite those who want to offer up all sorts of other interpretations.  I know what you have to do to get those interpretations, and if you applied those methods to the whole of Scripture, you basically can make the Bible say any darn thing you want it to say and excuse any and every behavior known to humankind.  That being said.  I also have relatives who are homosexual.  My wife’s uncle came out of the closet quite a few years ago and was in a very steady relationship until just a couple of years ago.  My wife and I regularly met and stayed with her uncle and his partner.  I also have an aunt who I am pretty sure is homosexual, but she hasn’t exactly made public profession because it would cause quite the ripple in the family.  Yet, she and her partner have been together decades, and I love them both dearly.  Therefore, I come at this issue from the particular standpoint of one who believes that homosexual marriage is sinful, but loving family members who are and who quite possibly are homosexual and have had long term relationships with exclusive partners.  How can I hold such things in tension?

    There are a couple of things that guide me along the path.  The first is St. Paul’s admonition to the church in Corinth.  This particular passage does not get a lot of playtime in churches as it takes a back seat to Jesus’ comment in Matthew 7, “Thou shalt not judge because with the judgement you give, you will receive.”  I have argued all along that Jesus’ admonition here does not mean we aren’t supposed to judge things as right and wrong–that would be absurd.  I mean, honestly, does anyone believe we should say, "I cannot judge a child abuser because Jesus said I shouldn't judge?"  That is the consequences of extending this teaching all the way down.  No one believes or practices this.  Even Jesus didn't--especially if you read through the Gospels.  We can and should judge right and wrong, but we shouldn't take it to eternal consequences.  We shouldn't judge whether or not a person is or is not loved by God.  I personally have argued this is exactly what Jesus meant, and I think  Paul fleshes that out perfectly in 1 Corinthians 5.  He says, “11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside.”  “Outside” refers to those who are outside the church.  They are non-believers.  We do not offer judgment here.  We only judge those who are within the church–those on the inside. 

    At this point, you may be ready to pounce on me and say, “Well, okay, but aren’t we supposed to get everyone in the church?  Isn’t the goal to get people to become Christian?  Aren’t we supposed to point out to others that they are sinful and they need to avoid hell–therefore, they need to stop sinning?  And what do we do about all those folks who have joined the church who still practice gay marriage and homosexual behavior?  Don’t we have to confront them as well?”  And I’m going to play the devil’s advocate for just a moment, because remember, this issue cuts both ways.  Because there is another side which is ready to pounce and say, “So what do we do about all those people who are rendering judgement on gays and lesbians?  What do we do about those who are judgmental and self-righteous; who look down their noses at anyone who believes differently than they do; who won’t love and accept people who are different than they are?”  You see, we still haven’t really resolved anything even with guidance from St. Paul here.  So, where do we go next?

    I think we go to the Gospel.  I think we’ve got to get to Jesus.  We’ve got to look at what He did and what He has done.  And to do just that I want to look at John chapter 8–our Gospel lesson.  Believe it or not, I have seen this lesson used both to condemn homosexuals and to bolster a case for acceptance.  But I want to get away from rendering such judgment for the moment, and I want to deal with this passage as it stands, and then to take us through the implications.

    The story progresses straightforwardly enough: a woman is caught in the act of adultery, and she is brought before Jesus by the scribes and the Pharisees.  Now, whether or not they were peeking in the windows or what to discover she was committing adultery, I don’t know.  What I do know is that her life hangs by a thread.  She knows that her life hangs by a thread.  The scribes and Pharisees know that her life is forfeit according to the laws of Moses.  Both Leviticus 20 and Deuteronomy 22 have passages demanding that the adulterer and adulteress be stoned.  (Which raises an interesting question of where the guy is in all of this!!!)  This woman is all but dead; she knows it, and the scribes and Pharisees know it.

    But they also know it is an opportunity to trap Jesus.  If Jesus allows this woman to be stoned, He will be seen as callous and uncaring.  If Jesus allows the woman to go free, He can be accused of telling people to break the laws of Moses–and of God.  “Teacher, this woman was found caught in the act of adultery.  According to the laws of Moses, we are supposed to stone her.  What do you say?”

    Jesus wrote in the dirt.  Apparently, He didn’t want to answer.  Apparently, He wanted folks to figure it out for themselves, but the scribes and the Pharisees kept pushing Him.  They kept asking.  They kept demanding an answer. 

    Jesus finally replies, “Let the one who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

    We are told that one by one, all drop their stones and leave.  And here is where things get interesting, in my estimation.

    The only one left with the woman is Jesus.  Think about this for a minute.  Everyone else has dropped their stones and walked away, except Jesus.  Jesus is still there.  Why is this so important?

    Let me ask you this: is Jesus without sin?  Yep.  Think about that again for a minute.  If Jesus is without sin, could He have cast the first stone?  Could He have brought the punishment of death upon this woman who was caught in adultery?  Yep.  Absolutely.

    But does He?  “Is no one left to condemn you?”  He asks.

    “No one, sir,” she replies.  Yes, they have all gone, but Jesus is still there.  Jesus still holds her life in the balance.  Her life is completely and utterly in His hands.  Whether she gets that or not, I don’t know.  So I do not know how she receives these next words–they may have come with a shock as she realizes He could have cast the first stone; or they could have come with relief as she discovers He will not cast a stone Himself.

    “Neither do I condemn you,” Jesus says.  “Now go and do not sin again.”

    Think hard about those statements and in the order they appear. Think really, really hard about them and the actions leading up to them.  Think about what Jesus has done for this woman.  Think about how He just saved her life.  Think about how close to death she had come and how now she has another chance.  How do you think she will respond to hearing what Jesus said?  How do you think she will walk away from this encounter with the man who saved her life and then said, “Go and do not sin again.”?  Will she follow His instructions?

    Would you follow His instructions if He just saved you from a painful, horrible death?  I’d imagine you would.  If someone saves you and shows you great love in their saving acts, you generally take their advice and teaching. 

    And the question I have for each and every one of us here this morning is this: if you want another person to change what they are doing, are you willing to save their life and show them great love before you ask them to change?  Are you willing to endure the ridicule of modern day scribes and Pharisees–whether they be on one side or the other–to show such love in hopes that another person will change?  You see too often, we in the church are very willing to tell people, “Go and sin no more.  Change your life or you will go to hell.” or what have you without a single note of compassion, love, or mercy.  We expect the other person to change without any cost to ourselves.  And then we get angry when they get angry with us.  We end up in a vicious cycle of blaming and finger pointing because we ourselves have not been transformed by the Gospel.

    “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world may be saved through Him.”

    You see, Jesus didn’t just save that woman caught in adultery.  He also saved you and me.  We were and are living in sin.  We have been caught in our brokenness.  We have not followed the laws of Moses.   We deserve death. 

    But Jesus took our place.  Jesus died the death we deserved.  He saved us because He loved us.  And he still loves us.  He still has great mercy and compassion on us.  And when we realize this, it changes us.  It leads us to repentance.  It leads us to fight against the sin in our own lives.  And it leads us to proclaim what Jesus has done–to tell others what He has done for them as well.  Because when the Gospel takes root in our lives, we know that we don’t change other people.  We know we can’t make their hearts move in another direction.  Only Christ can. 

    Which finally brings us to the answer to the original question.  How do you deal with someone who you disagree with?  Who you believe is living in sin?  Who you would like to see change?  First, be changed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Let it transform you so that you show great love to others.  Second, share what Christ has done for you.  Third, let Him bring about the change, for He will do the same to others as He has done in you.  Amen.

And Onto Polygamy

Imagine seeing this article from CNN just a decade or two ago.  Bet you wouldn't have seen it.  Or thought of it.  This stuff used to be on the extreme fringes of society, but now, it's making opinion headlines.

And it is little wonder.

Ethics in our nation has made a monumental shift over the years.  I have argued (based on the work of Richard Neuhaus) that our nation's great experiment was to have our laws founded on Judeo-Christian principles without establishing Christianity as the formal, national religion.  There were numerous reasons for this, and I will not go into those again.

What has progressively happened is a tectonic shift away from those Judeo-Christian principles and an ethics based in science/reason. 

I personally am not worried about this shift in our nation.  The Church in all of its expressions has existed and even thrived in cultures which were hostile to it.  And our nation is far from hostile to religious expression.  It just no longer bases much of its moral law upon it. 

Once gay marriage would have been unheard of.  Now, several states allow it, and the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Polygamy is next on that slope.  Strictly adhering to the Constitution, I see nothing that can prevent polygamy laws from being struck down.  Consenting adults are basically allowed to do as they please.

Now, before anyone starts saying, "Polygamy isn't Christian."  Please, take a look at your Bible.  Polygamy is never outlawed in Scripture.  There is only one prohibition against it, and that is only for a bishop of the Church.  In fact, some of the greatest pillars of the faith in the Old Testament practiced polygamy in some form or another: Abraham, Jacob, and David to name a few.  In each case, polygamous relationships led to some pretty unhealthy results--which is one of the reasons I do not support such a thing--but it is important to note that God remained silent about such marriages.

Christian tradition in reading Scripture and seeing the negative results of polygamous marriage has discerned God's expectation for marriage to be between one man and one woman. 

In the culture which surrounds us now, I believe the Church must be a faithful witness to this in spite of the laws which change.  I believe we must be ready to argue, without anger, angst, and with respect to others who share a different view, for the sanctity of the one man/one woman relationship--allowing for the brokenness of relationships and the reality of divorce; never condoning it as God's will, but offering grace and mercy.  We must be ready to defend our position with much more than, "God said it should be that way, and the Bible says so too." 

Remember, the Bible never condemns polygamy.  If we meet someone who knows what the Bible says, we will lose the argument right then and there.  It is important to know the reasons behind our teaching, and I encourage everyone to study up on the matter.

We will need to know our stuff more and more as our culture and laws become more and more secular and reason based.