This is part of The Idea Camp’s Sexual Orientation week, gearing up to next week’s unconference in Las Vegas. The Idea Camp will take place next month (Sept. 27 & 28) and will feature a number of speakers and conversations based around the Church and sexuality. Find out more.
Several years back, my sister Amy and I were driving somewhere and we ended up on the topic of politics.
I’m not sure how it happened but we began talking about abortion, stem cell research, same sex marriages and more. She never really voiced her opinions but asked a lot of questions about mine.
And at several points of the conversation, I think she was a little surprised by what I told her.
One in particular — same sex marriages.
I was thinking back on this conversation this week and wondering what I would tell her today.
Now more than ever, the same sex marriage debate has come to the forefront of our public debate.
And sadly, the same things that bothered me about the debate in 2004 still bother me today.
On one side, we have a vocal (religious) “right” who claim moral superiority and are fighting for the “sanctity of marriage.”
On the other side, we have progressives who claim political superiority and are fighting for “freedom and justice for all.”
As I told Amy that day, we can sit and debate the morality of same sex relationships all day. We can yell at each other, wave our signs and boycott companies who don’t agree with us and yet at the end of the day, very few (if any) of us will really reconsider our position.
The biggest hurdle I see is that my morality will never match your morality — and vice versa. I will always be convicted about things you’re not convicted about and you’ll always be convicted about things I’m not convicted about. My list of “righteousness” will seldom match your list (hence legalism in the Church).
However, as Americans, I firmly believe that the rights granted to one group of people should be granted to all people. If the government choses to recognize my marriage to the person I love — they should also recognize your marriage to the person you love — whether that be to someone of the same sex or the opposite sex.
Unfortunately, too many Americans have come to the belief that the government should legislate morality for all — and I hardily disagree with this idea.
First of all, I simply don’t believe it’s the role of the government — American or otherwise.
Second, cultural morality shifts from day to day. What’s deemed moral or immoral today may change next year.
Third, if I agree that the government is to legislate morality, what argument do I have when culture does shift and I’m in the minority and people are wanting to force their ideas of morality upon me.
Personally, I believe the role of the government is to protect it’s citizens from injustice and oppression — wherever that threat may come from.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…
This includes freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom to marry whomever you please.
That means we all need to recognize others are going to see the world differently that we do — and we should build spaces of grace around us instead of building walls of exclusion.
And because someone sees the world differently than us — we don’t have the right (or need) to constantly proclaim our opinions to the world — whatever they may be. Instead, we earn the right to be heard through loving others.
So, what about the morality aspect of it all?
Honestly, I’m still wrestling with the “moral/Biblical debate”
While I would have said same sex relationships were a flat out abomination years ago, my understanding of Scripture is that God is far more concerned about how we treat and love others than who we choose to love and marry.
We have been called as followers of Jesus to love unconditionally — regardless of all else. How can we really be “set apart” if we refuse to love those who see the world differently than us?
I also know there are a number of dear friends who have wrestled with their own sexuality and found peace in finding a loving God who accepts us just as we are — which is more than I can say about most of us.
And personally, I would much rather err on the side of recklessly over-loving than that of exclusion or under-loving someone. Or to adapt what the Dalai Lama has said, “My religion is very simple. My religion is love.”
Want more? Read my interview with Adele Sackler or listen to Thomas’ interview with her on our podcast (part 1, part 2)
Jonathan –
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about this important issue. I don’t think that same sex marriage is wrong/sinful according to scripture but, at the same time, I understand and accept that many people do — but, like you, I don’t think those who believe that same sex marriage is immoral should expect same sex marriage to be outlawed.
To take your thoughts further, I would say:
If there was proof that same sex marriage was harmful to society, that making same sex marriage illegal would work for the greater good or that children suffered in families of same sex marriage then there could be grounds for same sex marriage to be illegal – but there is no proof … there is only opinion and belief.
I believe that not only is it unconstitutional to make same sex marriage illegal, I also believe that denying same sex marriage is a greater risk to children of same sex relationships, a greater risk to the greater good and an unjust act.
IMO the bottom line is that those who wish to make same sex marriage illegal have the burden on their shoulders to prove that it is in the best interest of the greater good to deny the right to marry to same sex couples and there is just not sufficient evidence. Therefore, without sufficient evidence, it becomes an unconstitutional and unjust act to oppress a whole group of people based on “what has always been done” or based on beliefs or opinions.
As a Christian the bottom line for me is wrapped up in your statement:
“And personally, I would much rather err on the side of recklessly over-loving than that of exclusion or under-loving someone.”
Thanks Liz for sharing your thoughts!
You’ve written some great posts on this issue as well and they’ve helped challenge me as I wrestle through it.
Thanks again for all you do!
Jonathan –
I appreciate your thoughts on this difficult issue. It is unfortunate that we live in a world where such things must be debated, but the world has fallen and Christ has not yet come.
I think your breakdown of the issue into the political/legal aspect and the moral/religious aspect is helpful. It is important that while some see these as equative, America is not a “Christian nation” nor a theocracy.
On the political front I would prefer that the government had no role in marriage at all. If people want to enter into joint legal agreements (such as common property, inheritance, etc) that should be the only role the government plays. Likewise “benefits” could be extended to people outside marriage (I see advantages of this outside of same-sex couples, for instance say an unmarried person wants to have their health plan cover their parent). In this way, churches would be free to marry or not marry who they please, because as I understand it marriage is a uniquely religious institution. The biggest fear I have is that if/when same sex marriage is broadly legalized that churches could be forced to marry same sex couples. The fear may seem irrational, but there already have been cases such as a wedding photographer being sued for refusing to shoot a same sex ceremony on religious grounds (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340). So I’d rather keep the government out of it. Churches (and other religious institutions) should be able to act as they are convicted not otherwise.
Now as to the moral/religious argument. Too much of the so called ‘scholarship’ arguing to rethink how we look at the Bible’s view on homosexuality is very questionable. Much of it falls victim to the ‘I can’t believe that a loving God would do that’. God is God and we are not. We do not get define justice for God, He alone is just. If it appears He is acting unjust the problem is ours not God’s. Second there is tendency to place contemporary paradigms on the ancient text, so we say “well maybe homosexuality in the Bible was evil, but today homosexuals can be in loving committed relationships, so the Bible doesn’t apply. There was recently a version of this argument which tried to equate taxcollectors in the New Testament to homosexuality. The idea being, taxcollectors were hated at one time but we don’t hate IRS agents now, do we? Then why should we condemn homosexuality? The problem is that Jesus explictly spoke against the culture, eating with taxcollectors, choosing one for His inner circle. He never condemned them, but rather showed them as a victim of a cruel society. It may be tempting to say, well aren’t homosexuals victims of a cruel society too? The important difference here is that it was Jesus (i.e. God) making the call here, not man. Remember God is God and I am not. The argument would have weight if their were a sin that was condemned in the New Testament, that is no longer a sin. However this is impossible since God alone determines sin and He has spoken finally in His Word.
Another prominent argument is ‘God made people homosexuals so He must love them as homosexuals.’ (Again this argument tries to put a contemporary paradigm on the Bible) Biblically this argument falls on its face. First, we are ALL born sinners completely undeserving of God’s love. Yet God loves us not because of our sin, but in spite of it. Now some people may be born with genetic or other disposition towards a particular sin. This does not mean that this is now permissible. Our genetics are fallen and may cause us to struggle deeply. Still God is glorified in our weakness, He wants to rescue us.
While it is tempting to talk about evolving morality, that maybe God did at one one time think such and such was wrong He has changed His mind, yet again we make God in our image, not His. I would agree that the Church needs to love everyone, homosexuals included, and show that love in a real way. However it is not loving to permit or encourage sin (which is why I feel the Church, as religious and not political institution, should not marry same-sex couples). You don’t love an alcoholic by buying him beer. You love an alcoholic by listening to his struggle, encouraging him to get at the deeper issues of pain and emotions. You love an alcoholic by showing him Christ.
The Church should love and not condemn homosexuals, yet the Church needs to be clear that homosexuality is in fact wrong. Now the Church should not be more concerned about homosexuality then other sin in our world (as it seems to be now). The Church is called to speak the truth, but to speak the truth in love.
My purpose here is not to set off a debate, but to share a perspective.
Lee, totally appreciate your perspective! In writing this and sharing my thoughts, I hoped to spur discussion and various perspectives — not debate (which I think is the overall goal of the Idea Camp to begin with).
In all honesty, I would have no problem with the government staying out of marriage as a whole. And for a long time I thought that would be the easiest solution to it all, however I’m not certain that’s the best idea as it takes us down a different “slippery slope” and I’m not sure it would be the easiest route through the legislature either ;-).
While removing the government from marriage, churches would not be required legally to marry anyone and everyone, yet it also wouldn’t stop anyone from being “married” through their own authority of choice.
I heard the story about the wedding photographer being sued and it greatly saddened me — for both parties. To sue because someone doesn’t want to photograph a wedding seems absurd to me — and to be so caught up in your “religious views” that you’re unwilling to be there for another person saddens me as well. It seems there was little grace offered by either party — and perhaps that’s what saddens me the most.
I think the law can/should be written that allows religious freedom under the law. I don’t know the law in Utah, but we never hear of people being sued because they refuse to take part in polygamist wedding ceremonies. I wonder if it’s because more grace has been extended or because the laws are written to protect everyone involved..
As I mentioned, I’m still wrestling with the morality/sin issue of this topic. I’m not ready to say homosexuality is not a sin. I’m much more inclined to say it’s still a sin just like my struggles with pornography and over eating is a sin. But we haven’t outlawed pornography or buffet lines yet.
Thanks again for your input and perspective. Hope you and your family are doing well. We should get together sometime soon!
I agree that getting the state out of the marriage issue, would be politically difficult, but that would still be my preference. If someone wanted to consider themselves married, that is fine, but would have no legal weight (nor would any other marriage). The state could provide a channel for common property and the like (call it a civil union, whatever). My guess would be alot of couples (i.e. cohabiting couples) would opt just for the legal option and forgo any religious aspect (and thereby enjoy various legal benefits). If I remember right, there is an Anglican diocese in California that has recommended its churches to no longer perform weddings at all, but rather perform ‘blessing ceremonies’ for these reasons.
I agree that the photography case shows a lack of grace but I can see the perspective of the photographers as well. As a (God-willing) future ordained pastor, I would not want a legal obligation to marry any couple. I would only marry couples for example who went through premarital counseling, that shared religious views, etc. If for example, a Muslim couple wanted to be married by me, on the one hand I would want to extend grace and show the love of Christ, on the other hand I may be doing a disservice to them performing a ceremony that is more properly understood by an imam (i.e. I would be performing a ‘Christian’ wedding, which may differ/offend Muslim family members).
I definitely agree about what you say about no sin being greater then another. This is the problem with the debate, in my view. Too often “us versus them” leads to condemnation instead of understanding. What we need here is ears to hear and hearts to love. After all, we are still waiting for the Kingdom.
I’d love to get together sometime, do you still work downtown? I do.
“I would only marry couples for example who went through premarital counseling, that shared religious views, etc. If for example, a Muslim couple wanted to be married by me, on the one hand I would want to extend grace and show the love of Christ, on the other hand I may be doing a disservice to them performing a ceremony that is more properly understood by an imam”
I think what you suggest should be a great buffer for many pastors/churches when it comes to marriage. I know many pastors who say they only marry couples whom they give pre-marital counseling to as well — and of course the pastor would be in charge of what the counseling contains. I’d imagine that would limit a lot of marriages the pastor/church has an issue with if they wanted to pursue that route.
Yeah, I’m still downtown. Our office moved to next door to South Side on Lamar (across from DPD HQ). Let me know when you’re free.
Totally understand the tension Dan! I appreciate you helping spur this conversation as well!
Thanks for addressing an important issue in this conversation about sexual orientation! I can totally appreciate your perspectives. I think that many people who want to preserve the sanctity of marriage would probably still be outraged even if it were to be called something different but with the same legal rights.
I think that my view of showing people love and respect would put me more in alignment with what you share, but I do want to still esteem the spiritual side of what marriage means… and that makes it tough to reconcile issues like this.
Great post, and great discussion! Thanks!
Jonathan
Good thoughts friend.
The gay marriage issue is one many good folks disagree on.
I want to pose a broader question not unrelated to the above issue. It is:
Is there a principle or issue that unifies the citizens of this nation?
Would love to read your comments…anyones really.
Thank you!
Good question Mike.
We definitely have our divisions!
I think there is always commonality in every issue. We all agree that people should be “free” but to what degree is up for debate. We all agree that people should not be “oppressed” but to what degree is also up for debate. We can generally agree that we should help our neighbor in their time of need – but we’d probably all disagree about the method or what we should or shouldn’t be forced to do. And I think we can all agree that humanity as is is broken but we all have our own opinions on how to fix it.
Perhaps we can all agree that the United States is a a giant tossed salad and not a melting pot. Rather than everyone melting into one giant pool of mush – we all bring our separate and individual flavors and opinions to the table to make a beautiful salad.