I get the Family Research Council’s email updates, mostly to see what the Religious Right is thinking about. Today’s email, offensively, was titled “Here Come the Grooms.” Among other breathless turns of fearmongering phrase, it tells us “When the clock chimes 5:01 p.m. (PST), the California ruling that threatens to undo thousands of years of natural marriage will officially take effect, triggering five months of social chaos that could wreak havoc on every state in America.”
And they wonder why reasonably educated Christians who live in the real world are increasingly unwilling to put up with the marriage our faith to right wing politics? Does anybody really believe that at 5:01 p.m. PST “thousands of years of natural marriage” will be undone? So, suddenly, all of the marriages recorded in my family geneology book going back to the 1600’s are going to disappear? Everything I know from my family and church about loving my wife and children will vanish from my brain?
And does anyone really think there will be “five months of social chaos” starting at 5:01 PST? Gas prices will shoot up to $10 per gallon, the markets will collapse, Wall Street bankers will line up for food stamps, loving moms and wives will march in the streets against their husbands and children… not. Well, the $10 gas might get here, but not because of this court case.
Whatever happend to the Church against which even the gates of hell won’t prevail? If we can’t “win” in American courts or legislatures, suddenly God’s creational ordinances relating to families will be repealed?
As Christians, we have ideals for human relationships, including the very special relationship of marriage. We very often don’t live up to our own ideals even within the Church, even within “natural” marriage. I’d daresay that pornography, workaholism, overconsumption, and just plain selfishness are far greater threats to our Christian ideals of marriage both within and without the Church right now than whether or not secular laws purport to give the status of “marriage” to gay couples. But even if our ideal includes a social order that gives a privileged legal space to life-long commitments between one man and one woman, it’s long past time that we realize we don’t live in a nation-state that endorses our ideals. America is not, never has been, and never will be a “Christian” nation — get over it.
Should we then not advocate for what we believe are civil laws that reflect our ideals? No, we should not cease to advocate for what we believe is right and best. But our expectations have to be realistic, our tone and tactics have to be Christ-like, and our hope ultimately has to be patiently eschatological. Maybe this is a time when we are being called to live faithfully and counterculturally in Babylonian exile as the Church and not as the State. What if all the Christian families in America really practiced what we profess about mutual respect, love and perseverence within marriage? Nothing would then “undo” marriage. And what if we all decided that our attitudes towards our gay neighbors must above all else be to love them as we love ourselves? Maybe then we’d start to become instruments of grace in places where the gospel often doesn’t get a hearing. (And no, “love” doesn’t mean “I’m ok, you’re ok.” One thing it means, I think, is “I’m a mess, you’re a mess — and here is Jesus, who loves to forgive and work on messes.”)
4 replies on “Gay Marriage — The Sky is Falling!”
What is your genuine interaction with someone – particularly someone who formerly claimed to be a born-again Christian – who now lives an openly homosexual life even to the damning detriment of his three children?
Because that’s where this issue – BEGINS for me.
I guess five months of issuing false marriage licenses in some people’s thinking could be relatively compared to “being an advocate for what we believe are civil laws and reflect our ideals.” But for society it is on the least bit of the scale – confusing. It begins to turn to chaos when in five months – and as an attorney I’d think you’d have understood this clearly – the people vote to overturn the judicial activism and to establish a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a unique sexual union that benefits society. The chaos that you mock then becomes a matter of legal standing – what should be done with the licenses and contracts established via the faux licenses. Legal precedent says they will likely be voided.
Put another way – do we wait until the third floor of the house is in flames before we begin to put the fire out?
No argument with me on the I’m a mess and you’re a mess thinking – it’s all true. God in his grace reached to those of us who do not deserve it and gave us something that was out of reach – a relationship with Him.
And make no mistake – we shouldn’t blame the circumstances of the efforts to redefine marriage on the current radical sexual activists of our days – though they are the ones pushing it. It began back when laws began to say “no fault” in divorce courts. And yes – the church was rigidly absent in the debate to remain engaged in the culture then too.
Yet as Christians we have a responsibility towards stewardship of all that God has graciously favored us with.
In relationships – that begins with loving people – YES. But some people’s definition of “love” means to have no opinion about what they may be involved in. And as a son who watched a father ruin his two sister’s lives through reckless abandonment of the faith, and ultimately choosing to live unto his own desires and inclinations – I would be castigated as “unloving” for saying anything about it.
You want MISSIONAL?
I am engaged in an nine year attempt to reconcile my own father to the truth – truth he once embraced that he now rejects, and in doing so wrecked the spiritual outlook on my youngest sister all together.
It’s not “civil laws reflecting ideals” – its sin.
It’s about our choices Dave. It’s about TRUTH. It’s about submitting to the God who gave us that which we did not deserve – even when we did not deserve it, and out of gratitude living for Him!
It’s ALWAYS about choices on the individual level, and encouraging the confusion, advocating the amalgamation, and mocking the chaos – helps NO ONE. Missionally or otherwise.
It’s not JUST love… its TRUTH in LOVE!
And there is a WORLD of difference.
And it seems to me that it just doesn’t make sense for us to lead culture further down the road away from what God has established – as best – for our benefit.
We’re not bystanders in the process. We are citizen governors. And it is our stewardship that God measures – of both our relationships and evangelism, as well as our governing a society with prayerful righteousness.
And here’s the real stinker – if he live in a nation-state that no longer reflects God’s ideals – we have only ourselves to blame. It means we have not lived effective, engaged, and involved Christianity that provided the bright light of truth, hope, and grace to those around us.
Prayerfully advancing the dialogue…
~KMC
Kevin, I don’t think I ever suggested that there’s no “truth” at issue here. I’m guessing we’d probably disagree a bit, maybe quite a bit, on the nuances of how to define “truth” or more particularly about how to define the extent to which fallen and limited human beings can know “truth” (epistemology). But at bottom, we agree that there is real “truth” that applies to everyone, and that this includes the truth that God designed the sexual relationship as something unique and beautiful for a man and a woman committed in life-long marriage. I will be a little bold here and say that “gay marriage” as a phrase doesn’t make much sense to me, because “marriage” IMHO is primarily a theological category that can’t fundamentally be defined as anything but one man and one woman in a committed life-long covenantal relationship.
I love this phrase of yours: “effective, engaged, and involved Christianity that provided the bright light of truth, hope, and grace to those around us.” That’s missional, dude! What I question pretty strongly is whether an email like the one I reacted to in this post has much to do with “hope and grace” — or “love.”
You know 1 Cor. 13 probably better than I do, but I think it fits rhetoric like that in theis particular FRC email perfectly:
I see some truth in the rhetoric of the FRC email, but personally I see no hope, definitely no grace, and no love. All I can say is how it strikes me, but it strikes me as the hateful, angry, strident rant of someone who is afraid of losing secular political power and privilege.
I’m guessing we’d probably also disagree to a significant extent on this notion of political power and privilege in relation to the gospel and the Kindgdom of God. I believe very strongly that the so-called “religious right” (ok, I hate “labels,” but bear with me) slid into a sinful posture of thinking that the exercise of political power is what the Kingdom of God is all about. Yes, we have to be engaged in our democracy, but IMHO we have to be engaged as pragmatists who recognize that this polis is not the Kindgom of God. Two thousand years of marriage can’t be undone — or secured — by any exercise of political power, because the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, which is a counterculture even (maybe, in some ways, particularly) in Western pluralistic democracies.
IMOH, at some fuzzy point, the Christian’s best option in the City of Man might be to learn how to live with, and maybe even suffer in, a minority status. I think Dave Dunbar of Biblical Seminary said it very well here: sometimes we are called to live in exile. My sense of calling right now as a North American Christian, lawyer, professor, etc., who has thought and prayed and read and struggled long and hard with these things, is that this is a time of living in exile, of finding ways to influence culture through vulnerability and service rather than power. Maybe one thing this means for me is that I’ll try to hear the stories and struggles of my gay friends and colleagues, to “eat with tax collectors and sinners,” and hopefully as a fellow beggar to point them towards the Bread of Life — rather than demonstrating angrily against them in the public square.
Yes, there has to be a place and manner even here for proclamation of what we as Christians believe is right and good and true about marriage and of exercising our rights and responsibilities as citizens in a pluralistic democracy. I don’t know exactly the right way to do that in exile — and even as I’m writing about it here, as an untenured middle-aged guy with a family to support in Babylon, I know I run a great risk of being misrepresented, misunderstood and persecuted, and also a great risk of alienating many of my friends from the light and peace and grace of the Gospel.
Dave, in even uttering the proclamation of what is good, right, and true. You WILL offend, even those you sit and eat with.
How do I know?
Because there is no one I have loved more on this earth than my father. As a son who grew up in need of seeing a Godly man to show me (more than teach me) the example of what I was to be – there is/was/will always be a longing to have that relationship. YET.
The mere mention of God’s BEST for him… has become overwhelmingly offensive, hostile, and rejected… regardless of the tone, attitude, or emotion expressed in expressing it.
And understand – while you do not acknowledge it – there is a very legitimate dichotomy that is not only allowable but necessary – as it pertains to the Christian’s involvement in the public square.
Five months of issuing false contracts – to be overturned by the democratic process – DOES issue chaos – at least in the lives of those obtaining the contracts. But even more so for the children who hear and receive confusing messages about what a family is made up of in their local schools. Trust me, California’s homosexually redefined marriage issue is not the primary problem. This was the same state – that less than a year ago approved sex surveys to be administered to FIRST graders, without parental knowledge/consent, asking 6 year olds at the time, “do you ever think of touching yourself *there*?”
And just for some context – you do understand – bc I explained it to you in person, that the e-mail above was written NOT to homosexuals that you are witnessing to. It was written to – as you put it in your condescension, “people who read Left Behind novels”. (I guess you could have just said, ‘Wal-Mart Shoppers’ for the same effect.) But people I just choose to think of as – well – people. Christians in particular that seek to enact God’s BEST for their communities.
Ultimately we probably do disagree on a good many things…
But can we agree that
1. The Biblical text is inerrant?
2. The birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary fulfilled prophecy?
3. That Jesus walked on this earth – without sin – speaking love to those in need, and truth to those in power, and even called those who perpetrated evil – “VIPERS?”
4. That it was his death and resurrection and ascension – that give us the hope of reconciliation?
5. That we are sinners, woefully depraved and incapable of satisfying the price of our own salvation?
6. That in extending that hope of reconciliation we are given a dept to great for us to be able to repay?
7. That in living in that reality we seek to FIRST Honor HIM, Obey his teachings, and love His word?
8. That in doing so we will be called to “render to Ceasar” and also to “love thy neighbor?”
9. That in undertaking the totality of life, from paying our taxes, teaching our children, slaying the dragons and protecting our families, to sharing the good news to those who are lost – all is done as a consistent pointer to the God who made, loved, redeemed, and reconciled us?
10. That in doing so… we redeem our culture, our families, our communities, and our church for the purposes of His Kingdom.
11. And that in doing so – we slow – though we can never halt – the advance of evil as it seeks to devour?
Dave, if we can agree on these. Then we are brothers. And while the dialogue continues we do so on a foundational context of agreement…
Kevin — as to your father, I don’t know the details of that situation, but my heart grieves along with you.
As to your 11 points — I’m honestly not sure how to respond . On the one hand, I want to say, sure, we can agree on all that. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that as to at least some of these things, we won’t define them the same way and our outlooks differ considerably. At the same time, to the extent these 11 points encapsulate the great ecumenical creeds (Nicene and Apostle’s), we essentially agree.
As to No. 3, for example — well, whom did Jesus call Vipers: the religious right of his day. By no stretch of the imagination, IMHO, does Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees justify hateful rhetoric by the church towards the world.
As to No. 11 — your view seems a bit Marcionite to me. There is no “good vs. evil” because evil has already been defeated in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I would rather refer, as I tried to do in my Narrative Statement, to the classical “already / not yet” of the Kingdom of God: we “already” experience the Kingdom of God, even as we know the “not yet” completion of the Kingdom awaits Christ’s return. We do this soberly, knowing that the powers of selfishness and evil actively oppose it, and that God will honor the choices of those who reject the free gift of forgiveness and grace He extends through the cross of Christ. Yet we also do this eagerly and joyfully, knowing that it is the very work of God in bringing peace to the world. I hope this captures the “christus victor” aspect of the atonement without eliding the penal aspect.
As to No. 1 — I really hope you’re not dropping a litmus test on me, but here goes. This is something I’ve tried to study and wrestle with carefully over a long period of time, and I don’t claim to have it fully worked out. Like John Stott and many other evangelicals, I think “inerrant” is a useful but often misused term. In particular, I do not think the “Battle for the Bible” in the 1970’s and ’80’s ended up being healthy or productive.
Thankfully, even most evangelicals today who consider “inerrant” to be an important term hold a much more nuanced view of it than what seems to filter down to the popular level (see, for example, Millard Erickson’s well-nuanced statement in his “Christian Theology.”). So, properly nuanced, I think “inerrant” can serve as an appropriate reference to the fact that scripture reflects God’s character and therefore is entirely trustworthy for the purposes for which it was given.
One approach to this that I think is quite helpful is this statement from Fuller Seminary. I think Peter Enns’ recent blog post on inerrancy also is helpful.
What I said in my narrative statement sums up the way I’d try to succinctly frame this: In addition to the community of His people and the presence of the Holy Spirit, God gave us his written word, the Bible, to teach and direct us. The Bible is the ultimate norm for Christian faith and practice. It is the standard for all our thinking and teaching about who God is, how He expects us to relate to each other, and how He expects us to love and worship Him.
Some books that I have found and am finding helpful in thinking through this (not that I necessarily agree with everything in every one of these books — I particularly have some reservations about Kent Sparks’ thesis — but I’ve found these helpful):
NT Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God
Donald Bloesch, Holy Scripture (see my blogs on Bloesch for highlights)
John Stott, Evangelical Truth: A Personal Plea for Unity, Integrity, and Faithfulness
Telford Work, Living and Active: Scripture in the Economy of Salvation
Clark Pinnock, The Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible
Vincent Bacote, et al., Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutic
Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament
Kenton Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words
Harvey Conn, et al., Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: a Tradition, a Challenge, a Debate
Roger Nicole, et al., Inerrancy and Common Sense
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (section on scripture)
I’ve also just begun to study the “theological hermeneutics” approach, particularly the work of Anthony Thistleton, but have not had the opportunity to dive deeply into that yet.
This should give a sense of where I’m comfortable and uncomfortable with the use of the term “inerrancy.” I hope we are still brothers even if we might differ a bit here (in my view we are, at least).