It should be apparent by now that Christians do not agree on what the “Christian” response should be to homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage. Even when some share the same position of the morality of homosexual there can be disagreement on the political response to it.
Is this the Christian response to same sex marriage?
One day after Amendment 1 was approved by voters in North Carolina (see “Christians, homosexuality, and Amendment 1 in North Carolina: three views”) President Barack Obama announced that ”At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Obama cited his Christian faith as inspiration for his decision mentioning the sacrifice of Christ and the Golden Rule. This has upset and disappointed his Christian supporters who maintain a conservative stance on the matter (see “Obama’s gay marriage support riles religious conservatives, but political effects not yet clear”). Others like Tony Jones (see “Obama Gets Off the Pot on Gay Marriage”) have expressed excitement. Jones wrote, “Kudos, Mr. President. Thanks for doing something so deeply Christian.”
So what is the “Christian” thing to do?
Some would say he did not do the Christian thing at all. The Christian thing was done in North Carolina yesterday. Katrina Fernandez lives there and she said she would vote for the amendment because she didn’t think it was loving for her to approve of the homosexuality (see “Because I Don’t Hate Gays I am Voting AGAINST Gay Marriage…”). Rachel Held Evans expressed the exact opposite sentiment (see “How to win the culture war and lose a generation”) writing:
“And when it comes to homosexuality, we no longer think in the black-at-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people from the LGBT community to consider homosexuality a mere “issue.” These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And Amendment One hurts like hell.
“Regardless of whether you identify most with Side A or Side B, (or with one of the many variations within those two broad categories), it should be clear that amendments like these needlessly offend gays and lesbians, damage the reputation of Christians, and further alienate young adults—both Christians and non-Christian—from the Church.”
Christian Salafia agree with Evans that what happened in North Carolina was not Christian, but rather oppressive. He wrote in “I Still Have a Dream…Thoughts on Amendment 1″,
“I am thankful for those who work so hard for injustice and inequality, because they draw me nearer to God and to peace in Christ through loving and blessing those who surely would curse me.
“Let us mourn with those who have been deemed unequal. Let us stand, united in love, with those who,
like the woman at the well, are told they are unworthy of even the life God breathed into them.”
In a very cautious response titled “NC Amendment One and President Obama” Matt Emerson questioned the position of using Scripture this way while ignoring the passages that seem to speak against homosexuality. He wrote,
“…for those who support gay marriage, there is one camp that says “who cares what the Bible says.” There is another, though, that seems to think that the Bible actually supports homosexual marriage, relationships, etc. I saw one man post that God gave the Ten Commandments but Moses gave Leviticus, so we just need to look to the Ten Commandments and not the rest of the Law. That clearly indicates a lack of understanding about the purpose, both historically and literarily, of the Law in the Old Testament. Leviticus is not so easily dismissed. Then our President says today that he is being biblical by paying attention to the Golden Rule, to love our neighbors as ourselves. What the President seems to forget is that the first part of the Golden Rule is the Great Commandment, which is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. The clear command there is to love not just any God, but the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible has very clear things to say on how he made men and women and what kind of relationships he intends for them.
Emerson is concerned by the response of conservative Christians as well though:
“I am struck by the lack of biblical literacy from virtually every voice in this discussion. Let me start with Christians. It seems that we have little sense about what politics does and does not achieve. My brothers and sisters, “we won” is not an appropriate response. Patting ourselves on the back is silly. Moving forward with anything less than continual proclamation of the gospel of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ with the somber realization of the lostness we face is simply missing the point. Politics does not bring victory over sin, death, hell, and the grave – Jesus does. Laws do not change people’s hearts – the Spirit of Christ does. Elections will not bring this country to be a picture of God’s Kingdom – God the Father and his electing purposes will do so when he sends his Son to restore all things at the end of the age. Don’t get me wrong, we ought to vote in a way that reflects God’s Kingdom, and in doing so perhaps some will be confronted with the reality of God and his created order. But please don’t act like temporal laws in a temporal government will ever bring about the true spiritual change that’s needed to redeem hearts, minds, souls, and bodies for Christ.”
So what is the Christian thing to do?
We Christians must discuss the following matters:
(1) Is homosexuality a violation of Christian ethics? If so, on what grounds? What is the role of tradition? If our view is based biblical passages what is our hermeneutical approach since it could be argued that our Scriptures have been used to promote slavery, the oppression of women, and so forth.
(2) What is the role of Scripture in this discussion? Emerson asks a question that needs to be answered by progressives: Can we throw out Scripture? If we can throw out Scripture on homosexuality why use Scripture at all? In some sense this is a matter of hermeneutics yet again.
(3) Does our views on the morality of homosexuality dictate our response politically? Some say yes, if someone finds homosexuality to be immoral they should vote for the government to support it. Others do not find a biblical prohibition so the answer is quite obvious: yes, Christians should fight for homosexuals to have equal civil rights. Others hold a more dichotomous view: homosexuality may be immoral, but we shouldn’t use government to dictate morality. Then there are those who hold the view of Tony Campolo (one I think I share): marriage shouldn’t be the business of the State in the first place, so to debate the “legality” of same-sex marriage is to begin the conversation at the wrong place.
I don’t have answers for this. Sometimes I feel like someone watching a tennis match as arguments go back and forth at a speed too quick for my eyes and mind. If I were to make a prediction it would be this: for the church in the western world most Christians will come to affirm homosexuality as normative while Christians in the rest of the world maintain the more traditional view. I am not saying this is how it “ought” to be, but I think that it is how it will be. Much like Christians before Constantine would have been quite taken by the thought of a Christian serving in the Roman military so many Christians now cannot fathom homosexuality as a non-issue. Much like many Christians now who have no problem with the idea of Christianity being compatible with military service so I imagine many if not most Christians will feel about homosexuality–at least “monogamous” or committed homosexuality.
Whatever the church does the church cannot fail to remain prayerful on this matter. We must ask for the Spirit to guide us, to open our eyes, and to maintain unity in our midst.
May 9, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Hi Brian, a useful addition to the debate. I like your three questions but in the context of Amendment 1, I would place them in reverse order. If Christian’s reach a conclusion that it is not their role to enforce Christian morality on non-Christian citizens then we don’t need to look at the other two questions. Obviously the other two are useful in other contexts – such as should a Christian minister perform a same-sex marriage? Or should a Christian enter into a same-sex marriage?
As you might have guessed my take on it is that Ceasar’s laws (and his sword) should not be employed to enforce a Christian moral / ethical practice on those who for whatever reason have not chosen to follow Christ. Some traditions of Christianity like to tithe 10% to the local church, but would we want to legislate that all within a County or State should be legally compelled to? Similarly many Christians, on Jesus teaching would refuse to serve in a military force, but we wouldn’t want to pass a law saying that no-one should be allowed to enlist.
Once we get past the point about legislating to enforce Christian morality as law (without the Spirit of Christ to enable its fulfillment), I think we can then join the debate on a more even footing. We’ll be talking about the democratic argument (tyranny of large numbers), the civil / human rights argument (protection of minorities), cause and effect arguments, harm and benefit arguments etc – and I think that as thoughtful Christians we will have a lot to contribute to these discussions – but it won’t be from the perspective of “my God tells me not to do it, so I’m gonna make sure you don’t get to do it either…”
I liked your Consatntinian point too!
May 9, 2012 at 5:57 pm
I was going to say the same things as anoigmatic about the order if your questions, the answers to which I agree are not nearly as glaringly obvious as many on both sides would make it out to be.
Also, I was intrigued by your passing remark, …”Christians before Constantine would have been quite taken by the thought of a Christian serving in the Roman military… I am intrigued. Please tell me more.
May 9, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Have you read Mark Noll’s The Civil War as Theological Crisis. I read it as I was exploring issues of hermeneutics and found his discussion on biblical issues of slavery fascinating. He suggested it was the Evangelical, even those that had a position against slavery, that were most opposed to making slavery illegal because of their understanding of the scriptural support of legal slavery. It is a much more nuanced argument than that but it clearly is against the standard line of Christians were mostly abolitionists that I had been told all my life.
I don’t have a good position right now but I think you are hitting the main issues.
May 9, 2012 at 6:27 pm
anoigmatic
Indeed, (3) is most relevant to the discussion of how to handle the matter in the public sphere, but I think (1) and (2) are important. Even when we don’t think a particular matter should be legislated (e.g. same sex marriage) we can’t avoid the influence of our faith (e.g. Christian responses to human trafficking). You may be right about the order, but I don’t think we can ignore (1) and (2).
Steven
Now I coud be off base, but as far as I can tell it was pretty unanimous in the early church that Christians shouldn’t be in the military. There appears to be exceptions, but it seems like a general consensus. Of course, since I read Diana Butler Bass’ book on church history I am cautious. I don’t want to say that just because it seems that all preserved writings on this subject swing one way that all Christians agree, but as far as I can tell they did.
This is a paper I wrote several years ago. The link seems to be having trouble. If it doesn’t work for you let me know: http://nearemmaus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/leport-the-christian-doctrine-of-war-and-military-participation-from-pentecost-to-constantine.pdf.
It isn’t a great paper, and it is quite old, but I think my view has remained pretty much the same….though I am open to correction.
Adam
I haven’t read it, but that sounds like a informative read. These types of issues may help us think through our current dilemmas.
May 9, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Going a bit OT – re Christians before Constantine on the subject of military service; I completely agree (Diana Bass point notwithstanding), that even during a period of great doctrinal dispute it was regarded as unthinkable by all brands of early Christianity that a Christian would become, or remain, a soldier. A similar point may be made regarding “Christians before Calvin” on the subject of interest-bearing debt. or perhaps even “Christians before what 1945? 1955? or even more recently” on the subject of divorce – and on that issue we have a pretty unambiguous saying of Jesus to contend with!
On the Amendment one debate there has been a lot of argument by poor analogy (Homosexuality os like alcoholism / homosexuality is like race etc), but I’m going to risk it by making one here. Will the same-sex marriage debate be this generation’s divorce, debt or military service issue? One which looking forward seems so intractable, but looking back (after a doctrinal reveral) seems almost inevitable.
I agree there is an important place for Question 1 and Question 2 dialogue – especially within the Body of Christ, but I wonder whether the overall shift in the culture has already taken place, and such questions are soundign irrelevant and out of touch to those outside of the faith community – who are also those we most want to reach out to and converse with…
May 10, 2012 at 12:16 am
to say that marriage shouldn’t be the business of the state would deconstruct a lot of the marriage-related law that has evolved. is the campolo view just an ‘out’ for not voicing an opinion on how we vote now, or is the idea that we should totally remove marriage as a legal/economic entity? (vast implications for parental rights, property rights, divorce settlement, inheritance, tax filing, alimony, etc., for all kinds of couples). and how would non-religious or anti-religious couples marry?
May 10, 2012 at 12:30 am
my question had more to do with compolo’s idea that any marriage shouldn’t be the business of the state, than specifically with gay marriage. the only difference i see between civil unions and gay marriage is one is perceived to have a stigma, while proponents hope gay marriage will be seen as ‘normal.’ it’s also a fight the gay community identified as one that could be won (google interview with gay marriage founder evan wolfson). He calls it ‘an engine for a larger discussion that moves people’s understanding of who gay people are.’ It is not the end goal, if i am reading his answers correctly.
May 10, 2012 at 6:59 am
I think blogger Denny Burk has a good argument — if interested, it is http://www.dennyburk.com/president-obamas-scriptural-defense-of-gay-marriage/
May 10, 2012 at 7:19 am
No offence, but your president is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. From his words and actions, either his ‘Christian faith’ is some faith different than the one Christ taught, really has little value, or it is a merely a political convenience (and not sincere), judging the tree by the fruit it produces.
The question about Christian’s not knowing what to do with ‘homosexuality’ is not a lack of clarity on part of the faith, but an artificial construct created by politics. Homosexuality is sin, like adultery, worshipping false Gods, etc. Christian’s struggle with it because society makes homosexuality as an expression of love (so says society) sacrosanct and therefore beyond criticism or reproach.
The tension Christian’s feel is always present but in this instance at the forefront; between loving the sinner whilst addressing the sin. Social (and legal) support for homosexuality makes addressing the sin in any meaningful Christian manner, neigh impossible, without the possibility of facing social or legal consequences. Likewise, the same social and legal support for the sin makes even loving the sinner more difficult because our love is directly confronted by our conscience.
In being called to love our neighbour, we are not being called to their sin or sinfulness, rather we are called to love God’s image in them (since man is created in God’s image [Gen 9:6][James 3:9] – which means a consequence of our call to love our neighbour is really a call to evangelism, because our Christian hope is to see the image of God perfected in them.
For a Christian to simply ‘love their neighbour’ whilst ignoring their sinfulness is ‘loving one’s neighbour’ in a worldly way, not in a Christian way and this is exactly why society wants to make homosexuality in-addressable.
The presidents words here are hollow and worldly, hardly Christian (even if he uses faith as a lever).
May 10, 2012 at 8:09 am
I think Steve’s curiosity regarding the pre-Constantinian Christians comment probably has to do with your phrase “quite taken by the thought” which means something like “attracted to,” whereas I think you meant to communicate the opposite.
May 10, 2012 at 8:23 am
Unfortunately, Luke, I was as clueless as Brian thought I was.
Brian’s paper was extremely helpful in feeling in my knowledge gap on this issue. I had never quite realized the extent, depth, and prominence of early Christian pacifism. Thanks!
May 10, 2012 at 8:33 am
anoigmatic
This is very possible. It is one of those transitions that occurs gradually. The only possible counter example would be gender roles and gender equality. This is one that many think should be a past issue, but it pops up again and again. It is possible that homosexuality has a similar place in Christian dialogue.
Peter
Good questions, it has been a while since I read Campollo on this subject. This is his most recent post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-campolo/a-possible-compromise-on-_b_826170.html
As I understand it he would want marriage to be something the state doesn’t dictate at all. As you noted that would have trickle down implication….implications I haven’t deeply considered.
May 10, 2012 at 8:45 am
Brian, I’ve heard it proposed the other way as well, that it is completely secularized (i.e. since it is the state that issues the certificate, the ceremony would be detached from the license issuance and of no effect). It seems to me neither of these arguments advance the dialogue – since advocates on both side simply shift position in favour of their world view; proponents of the sanctity of marriage in a traditional sense would want it detached from the state, whereas advocates of homosexual marriage would want it going the other way.
May 10, 2012 at 10:59 am
I am reminded by Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5…. “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” When we are caught up in the battle for flesh and blood instead of not, as Paul suggests through his letters, this becomes an issue for the state in “Christiandom.” Since this is also in all likelihood, a debate that the Church maybe losing—at least in terms of press right now, and probably will lose in the future. It maybe prudent to change our tactics now before we become an institution full of “haters and bigots” and thus no longer socially valuable….because we’ll no longer have the power to impact.
We of all people ought to know and understand the world is fallen, and what seems right is wrong and what is wrong is right….how can we thus expect the non- believer to follow? When we do, I think we belittle the conversion and take us back to the Medieval Church, before Evangelical Christianity existed, where if we just raise them in the Church and force them to do it, they’ll be A-OK. Instead, we should focus on changing their vision from worldly to heavenly…. the change must be bottom up for us, and God will work it from the top to bottom.
May 10, 2012 at 11:50 am
Barobin
Like you I tend to think there are some things that the church shouldn’t try to control in society, but I don’t hold to this as a hard and fast principle. For instance, as a Christian I feel like inequality based on race and gender isn’t something I can ignore. I would vote against policies that I felt harmed the poor or made life more difficult for the immigrant. So it is one thing to let the world be the world while we are the church, but sometimes being the church means challenging the world.
I don’t know that this is one of those issues, but I am sure you understand my caution.
May 10, 2012 at 1:04 pm
I find myself more trusting of those who admit and, like me, do live in the tension between what the Christian faith says and how that manifests itself politically. It’s not an easy or fun place to be some times, but somewhere deep inside me, I feel it’s where we’re called to live.
As a society, we’ll be arguing about the political answer for years. Just like it took about 100 years to move from the end of the Civil War to the Civil Rights era, the wheels of change turn slowly but I believe, as King said, the arc of the universe bends towards justice.
Regardless of what one’s personal opinion of homosexuality is, that’s between them and God. When it comes to society as a whole, however, using one’s faith to (essentially) codify persecution and discrimination of a group of people simply because you believe it to be a sin is, in my opinion, wrong. We are all responsible to, and for, each other. How can we bear each other’s burdens when we tell a group of people to go sit in a corner? How can we love our neighbor when we tell them, through our laws, that they’re not worthy of being loved?
In using scripture to back up any statement, one must look at when it was written, what it was addressing, and who it was addressing. Like the saying goes, a text without context is pretext for a prooftext. It’s simply asinine to think we can take items from scripture, like the holiness code, and simply plop them into modern society, ignoring ~5000 years of human and societal development. We can, however, delve into the context and see how that paradigm may be applicable in modern times.
Just my thoughts…. oh, and thanks for the shout out!
May 10, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Brian: I certainly do understand the caution…it is quite the balancing act we have—especially in a democratic republic. I only wish we got as spun up about war as we did homosexual unions.
However, if we must get involved, we must approach this much differently than we have. Those that typically represent “our” side of the debate are brain domes and haven’t realized yet that, “punching, wrestling, and breaking that wrist” is not acceptable language for the debate, nor is it Christlike (and they read quickly over 1 Cor. 5). So the actual debate will be muddied because of our lack of unity as a Church, and the media attention to those who do not actually represent Christ, nor intelligent discussion. What we need is our philosophers and theologians to be involved and step up…because as long as this debate is framed like the Civil Rights debates, we will lose and be strawmanned and identified as those slave supporting Christians 150years ago.
And I think that is the problem here… those who do speak, tend to speak by quoting the Bible. Which of course is meaningless to those who aren’t believers. These sorts of issues can only be approached through a common grace sort of way; i.e. non-believers having the common grace to realize that it is not morally acceptable to treat a human being like that.
May 10, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Marriage is not religious and has been a staple of human culture way before Christianity even ever became a popular religion.
Let’s not impose Christian definitions of marriage in a nation that is a metling pot of various peoples and cultures.
May 10, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Danny: of course marriage is religious…look at those cultures you speak of. i challenge you to find one culture that did not insert some sort of ritual or have a muthos behind marriage. this whole scular business is a recent thing.
May 10, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Christian
Indeed, this is a subject that may be debated for generations. We live in a time locked tension. I hope our children and grandchildren can exhibit clearer thinking than our generation. Of course, they will owe us to some extent.
It is very important to provide hermeneutical justification when quoting passages of Scripture. Too many are comfortable with contextless proof-texting.
Danny
I don’t think it is as easy as you suggest here. As Barobin noted, there is a very religious element to the very idea of marriage–a commitment, a ceremony, etc. If it is completely secular than it is basically an economic contract alone.
Also, as a Christian I am cautious to avoid using politics to Christianize others, but the statement you make is a double edged sword. It could be argued that you want some Christians to just lie down while you enforce your views of marriage on them. Do you see how your statement could be problematic?
May 11, 2012 at 6:18 pm
John the Baptist spoke out against Herod’s lack of sexual ethics on biblical ground probably knowing it would cost him his life. Jesus dealt with the ethical issues of divorce and remarriage appealing to the creational, man/woman, two-becoming-one flesh model. Instead of giving the people a very merciful ideal of marriage, his view was more stringent than the Law’s.
My point is I think Christians lose their nerve in this whole debate. Rather than defending what seems to be the obvious standard we tend to go soft in the name of being accepting.
May 11, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Erik: I would say the difference with Jesus and John the Baptist though, is that they were dealing with Jews, the People of God.
May 12, 2012 at 11:24 am
Like you, Brian, I am worried what this issue is doing and will do to the church, both with respect to internal divisions and how outsiders or those on the border perceive us. Is it possible to have a traditional view on human sexuality without being seen as homophobic? Can we do anything to defuse the antagonism between the church and the gay community, or has the debate become so polarized that it’s impossible besides embracing the sexual revolution? Sometimes I feel like the answer to both questions is no.
One thing we need to think about if we’re going to remain orthodox on sexual ethics is the place of celibate people in the church. We need to ensure that, whether you’re gay or straight, not getting married does not mean being unhappy and lonely and unloved your whole life. We need arrangements to make sure celibate people have plenty of love (even if not romantic) and community, especially in today’s simultaneously super-connected and disconnected world. Perhaps some sort of Protestant pseudo-monasticism (though with less retreat from the world) or arranging for married couples and singles living together in communities. I’m not sure what exactly, but this is something that I never hear people talk about.
But even without the gay issue, this is important. For a variety of reasons, it is more common in our generation to still not be married (by no choice of your own) well after people in previous decades would have tied the knot and even had kids. This is especially true with women, who outnumber men both in college degrees and in the church. I’m only 25, but when there are plenty of people (again, especially women) in the church well into their 30s and still single, we need to ask what do they do if they never get married? The question of homosexuality just makes it more important.
Also, sensationalized preaching on sex (like a certain pastor in Seattle) is very insensitive to singles of any orientation and should be off-limits.
May 12, 2012 at 11:28 am
Joel, you might be interested in reading Wesley Hill’s Washed and Waiting. It is the best book I have read about being intentionally celibate and gay. It isn’t perfect. But I think he has a better understanding of human sexuality and spiritual issues than most Christian marriage books I have read.