Now, I wouldn't say I'm "celebrating" the decision because it doesn't apply to me directly, but I will say that I am in support of it. I don't own a rainbow flag and I probably wouldn't be waving it if I did, but I do believe that a position of loving acceptance of homosexuals in a state affirmed marriage relationship is not unChristian. This is my attempt to answer those questions for those who want to have the discussion. I am not infallible, so take these answers for what they are, one man's attempt to honestly answer a very difficult question.
1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?
I have over the last 5-7 years come to the belief that every expression of human love that reflects the genuine, faithful, grace-filled, selfless love of Christ is to be celebrated. A qualification: some will say that homosexual marriage is not selfless, but I would suggest - as a married heterosexual - that it is as selfless as heterosexual marriage.
2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?
Lk 10:25-37; Mt 22:23-30; Acts 10. However, the purpose of this question is draw all argument from scripture where the conservative belief in inerrancy and literal interpretation can be used to force the argument. I do not believe in inerrancy in that sense, infallibility or simply inspiration would be a better way of understanding my view of scripture.
3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?
Sexual activity is not what is celebrated in marriage. It is the relationship of commitment, faithfulness and trust that is to be celebrated. With the exclusion of true sexual intercourse, many of the acts of sexual activity within heterosexual relationships are not radically different from those same acts in homosexual relationships. The only sexual activity celebrated as a blessing in the scriptures in reference to original design appears to be one that leads to procreation. This sexual activity is, in fact, *commanded* in the original design. However, Jesus indicates that celibacy is also a viable option. Paul, for his opinion, indicates that celibacy might even be a better choice than marriage. The natural conclusion is that the sexual activity is not the blessing, but the committed relationship within which the activity occurs.
4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?
Which verses demand that marriage depict the relationship between Christ and the church? However, the image of Unity in difference is not limited to sexual difference. Two people of the same sex have only one less difference than two people of the opposite sex. Similarly, the marriage relationship illustrates God's committed, faithful love for his children in its reflection of his committed, faithful, selfless love. An inferior reflection of this love can be evidenced in any marriage relationship.
5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?
If I didn’t, I wouldn’t hold this position. Jesus didn’t come to a perfect world, he came to a broken one. I believe he would be as “okay” with homosexual marriage as he is imperfect heterosexual marriage.
6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?
In Mt 19:4-12, the question the Pharisees ask regards *divorce. Jesus quotes this verse in order to assert the permanence of marriage, not the sexuality of marriage. That said, the passage Jesus cites does *assume the heterosexual relationship of marriage. However, the question Jesus is answering has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. How could it, in fact? Such a question would not have been addressed.
7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?
Infidelity, specifically adultery and sexual relationships outside of the intent of fidelity.
8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?
No one who knows anything about the Greek language would argue against the fact that the passage in Romans 1 does, in fact, refer to homosexuality. However, there are a few caveats that should be observed.
- The “type” of homosexual behavior described here is not defined. Note that these men “burn” (ekkaio - were kindled ) for sex with other men. Paul says, in 1 Cor 7:9, in reference to heterosexual marriage, that it is better to marry than to “burn” (purow - to be set on fire). The implication is that the issue here is the lustfulness of the sexual desire. Clearly, Paul is describing homosexual behavior as the consequence of departing from God’s will. However, he is assuming the prevalent understanding of homosexual behavior of the time, which, according to those who have done the research, was almost exclusively self-gratifying, generally exploitative, not infrequently violent and essentially without fidelity of any kind.
- Paul’s emphasis in this passage is idolatry, the turning upside down of our purpose as “idols” representing God to his creation in worshipping the creation. The homosexuality here depicted is associated with that worship. They “did not acknowledge God any longer.” In what way is a believer with homosexual orientation (whether genetic or psychological) who is involved in a committed relationship and who seeks to worship God refusing to acknowledge God?
- There is a long list of additional attributes beyond homosexuality associated with those who have given themselves over to idolatry and abandoning God. Examine those professing Christians who are involved in homosexual relationships and see if you can match up those attributes as well. Similarly, examine those professing Christians heterosexual relationships and see if you can match up those attributes any more or less successfully.
No. The numerous passages like that 1 Corinthians refer not to “heaven” specifically, but to the “Kingdom of God.” The Kingdom of God is as much “here and now” as it is “there and then” (heaven). The choice of 1 Corinthians 6:9 seems disingenuous. A parallel passage would be Gal 5:19-21 in which “anger,” “envy,” “jealousy,” “dissension” and “drunkenness” are included in the list of sins that keep a person out of the “Kingdom.” If these sins keep us out of “heaven,” I am afraid it will be remarkably sparsely populated and many of our ministers will be unavailable to us there.
As to the Revelation passage, I would remind anyone who reads the Book of the Revelation that is a highly symbolic book and there are few who are willing to claim a complete understanding. I suspect it serves a similar function as the 1 Corinthians and Galatians passages.
10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?
See #7.
11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?
It is not what those individuals failed to grasp, it is what they had not yet dealt with in their culture. Of course they had dealt with forms of homosexuality, but not in the context of a democracy, not in the form of a large-scale movement of homosexual individuals seeking committed monogamous relationships, not in terms of the marriage relationship. Whether or not one wants to admit it, this is a unique situation in history. Every generation faces questions that previous generations did not. Each generation has to answer those questions in light of scripture, reason, tradition and - in my opinion - experience (which is just another aspect of reason).
While we’re asking questions, however, let’s consider a few more. What did Peter understand that Abraham, Moses or the other disciples had not grasped when he opened the way for Gentiles in the Church? What did Paul grasp that Peter didn’t when he dared to confront him (Galatians 2)? What did Luther and Calvin think they understood that a thousand years of Christianity had not grasped? It should also be noted that there is a wide doctrinal difference between these men themselves, appealing to their combined authority might not be the best idea.
This is a question designed to intimidate. So I will feel free to ask a question in return. Why do some evangelicals call up names from history when it’s convenient and ignore them the rest of the time?
12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?
The same ones I am making right here. Now, your turn. How would you explain to patriarchal societies that they ought to make more room for women in ministry leadership positions given the predominantly patriarchal nature of the scriptures? How did we argue that even though scripture justifies slavery in both Old and New Testaments, that we should forbid it in the United States?
13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?
This has no relevance to the question. Nonetheless, I will answer it. Was I motivated by personal animus and bigotry when I, for most of my life, defined marriage as only between man and woman? Maybe. I think I was more motivated by the culture around me defining marriage for me. We don’t question things unless we have a reason. Over the last 20 years, we have been compelled to consider this question more carefully and our answers have changed. Keeping the same opinion forever is not a virtue.
14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?
Studies show that it doesn’t really matter. I think children do best when they have a home that is loving, nurturing and safe. According to the statistics, there are 17,900,000 children in the world in need of adoption. Would you prefer them to live on the streets?
15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup
What research would you point to in opposition to this?
16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?
That should be based on further research and will likely be the subject of future litigation. The state obviously has a role. The separation of church and state forbids the church from asserting any control in this area.
17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?
Of course it points to something more than emotional and sexual fulfillment. The end and purpose of marriage, as identified in scripture is companionship (it is not good to be for man to be alone), intimacy and procreation (go forth and multiply). In the first sense, homosexual union meets this purpose. In the second, it arguably cannot. However, it should be pointed out that not all heterosexual marriages meet this purpose, either. Should those be considered sinful or unacceptable? Should those who use contraceptives or other forms of birth control to directly contravene this second purpose be penalized as well?
18. How would you define marriage?
Given that marriage is a cultural and religious concept, I think more discussion is needed on this subject. I would start with "a permanent and faithful commitment of two people in partnership, companionship and love."
19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?
No. It should be noted, however, that various cultures throughout time have allowed this. Such cultures include those affirmed in the Bible and - on a literal interpretation of scripture - the patriarchs of the Judeo-Christian faith. Nonetheless, I think it can be proved with relative certainty that this is, genetically speaking, a horrendously bad idea.
20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?
Yes. Many cultures have permitted polygamy, including Biblical cultures. However, I think it is a profoundly bad idea in that it has a tendency to dilute the marriage elements of companionship and intimacy (though increasing the element of procreation). Within an exclusive relationship between two people, strong trust can be developed. In a relationship of more than two people, trust is endangered and one or more of the members of the relationship will always fear isolation or abandonment. Further, legislatively speaking, this would be a practical nightmare.
That said, we live in a democracy. Christians don’t get to decide the legal definition of marriage for everyone else. I have no control if the majority decides to accept polygamy as part of the legal definition of marriage. I have control only over my own decisions including what I model or teach to those within my sphere of influence. I will model and teach a choice that more accurately aligns with God’s purposes, fosters his Kingdom and creates a higher likelihood of joy, peace, fidelity, trust, satisfaction and hope in the monogamous marriage relationship.
21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?
Again, in a democracy, I don’t get to control who or how many people get married. I will always teach my family that marriage is intended for two people, ideally male and female, and not to marry someone of close relationship because it is creepy and tends to produce genetic abnormalities and disease.
22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?
There *is* a federal age of consent. If not overridden by as state law, the federal age of consent is 18. Considering the various cultures throughout history, including Biblical cultures, this is an abnormality. Individuals were often married at significantly younger ages. There should be an age of consent in any culture that defines when young people are able to fully understand and be held accountable for their legal, ethical and societal agreements.
As for me, I will teach my own children that marriage before the age of 18 is a stupendously bad idea. However, this is unlikely to be a problem in our culture. The actual marrying age of individuals has increased over time rather than decreased. Given protective parental attitudes, I don’t see this reversing.
23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?
I would argue no. However, once again, we live in a democracy and it is not my right to make my beliefs into a universal decision what is marriage as defined by the state.
24. If not, why not?
Not least because it would be a legislative nightmare. Beyond that, it’s not my right to make this determination for another person or for society at large. Traditionally, marriage is essentially a specialized heterosexual best friend relationship with legally, culturally and religiously affirmed sexual and legal benefits. I’m not sure what *new* relationship that could be conceived to place under this category of marriage. If someone wants to marry a turnip, it’s not my problem. As an ordained person, however, if they want ME to perform their wedding, I’m going to tell them no… and perhaps advise psychological counsel.
25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?
Absolutely. Naturally, this does not go without qualification. If your religious belief interferes with your role as a legislative official, then you surrender certain aspects of your religious practice whenever you function in that role. You shouldn’t apply for the job of executioner, for example, if your faith prohibits you from killing people. In the same way, don’t assume the role of Court Clerk if your faith prohibits you from giving a marriage license to a gay couple.
26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?
Of course! Again, with qualification. Sometimes people use their “faith” as a means of manipulation and/or profit. But I would stand up with anyone of any belief, especially my brothers and sisters in Christ, if their freedom of religion was actually being violated!
27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?
Certainly! As long as the Evangelicals and Catholics aren’t shaming and bullying the gays and lesbians while they’re asking to be defended.
28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?
The church really doesn’t have a way to “ensure” or control anything of the sort. The church holds out the picture of the selfless love of God in Christ. It teaches this love. It lives this love. The reality is that the church can’t control people except by individuals breaking relationship with those who choose to act in opposition to the teaching of Christ and the church.
29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?
By “open,” I assume you mean “not monogamous.” The church should reach out to these people as much as possible to communicate Christ’s love and purpose for them. If they are hurting or damaging other people in the church by their actions - whatever they are - it should be brought before the church as a whole. If absolutely necessary, then, members of the church should break relationship with them for the good of both parties.
30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?
Yes. Just like it is a sin for heterosexual person to do the same. Just as gluttony is a sin. Just as jealousy is a sin. Just as war is sinful. You get where I’m going with this?
31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?
They will teach believers in Christ that their purpose is to pursue the Kingdom of God in all its attributes of faithfulness, wholeness and selfless love. Nonetheless, each person chooses whether and to what degree they participate in that Kingdom. This has always been the case.
32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?
Love that strives to put the other above the self.
33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?
“Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?
God’s commands, as summarized by Jesus are:
35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?
No. It’s impossible to love someone unless they agree with you on everything. No… wait… that’s *controlling someone else. Of course you can love someone and disagree with their decisions!
36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?
Many things have changed for me about my understanding of faith over the years. A faith that grows will always change as we seek God honestly and truthfully and do our best to submit to what we discover. I have come to love Christ more. I have come to accept other people better. I have learned to judge other people less. I have learned to pursue the Kingdom more faithfully.
37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?
Ahhh… here is the rub. God didn’t call me to be a “traditional evangelical.” God called me to follow Jesus. Many Evangelicals have this troubling tendency to assume that they are the only *real Christians. Evangelicalism is new on the Christian scene, as are several of its “traditional distinctives.” I am an evangelical in that I believe that the fundamental call of Christ is to meet the greatest fundamental need of humankind: to help people understand and accept the love of God as illustrated by Christ and to work toward his Kingdom.
38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?
I would suggest that “Orthodox Christianity” is largely dependent on who is defining “orthodoxy.” You are simply defining Christianity in your own terms. On the other hand, there are numerous open and affirming churches where people are joining Orthodox Christianity as defined by the creed, where people are being called to the pursuit of God and his Kingdom and missionaries are going out into the world to share that love.
39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?
I do. Of course that depends on your definition of “the church.” If you mean “committed to your view of the evangelical church,” then no. If you mean “committed to the Scriptures” as equivalent to “committed to inerrancy,” then no. If, on the other hand, you mean commitment to the body of all believers throughout time and space, commitment to Christ the Redeemer and his Kingdom, commitment to the Scriptures as a locus of truth to be reasonably interpreted in the context of the world around us under the influence of tradition and the Holy Spirit.. then yes. Yes, I genuinely, desperately do.
40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?
The sins of selfish lust that see the “other” as an object for the satisfaction of the self instead of the beloved of God. The sin of rebellion against the commands of Christ to love God and love others selflessly. The sin of turning away from God and refusing to acknowledge him in Christ.
Of course! Again, with qualification. Sometimes people use their “faith” as a means of manipulation and/or profit. But I would stand up with anyone of any belief, especially my brothers and sisters in Christ, if their freedom of religion was actually being violated!
27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?
Certainly! As long as the Evangelicals and Catholics aren’t shaming and bullying the gays and lesbians while they’re asking to be defended.
28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?
The church really doesn’t have a way to “ensure” or control anything of the sort. The church holds out the picture of the selfless love of God in Christ. It teaches this love. It lives this love. The reality is that the church can’t control people except by individuals breaking relationship with those who choose to act in opposition to the teaching of Christ and the church.
29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?
By “open,” I assume you mean “not monogamous.” The church should reach out to these people as much as possible to communicate Christ’s love and purpose for them. If they are hurting or damaging other people in the church by their actions - whatever they are - it should be brought before the church as a whole. If absolutely necessary, then, members of the church should break relationship with them for the good of both parties.
30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?
Yes. Just like it is a sin for heterosexual person to do the same. Just as gluttony is a sin. Just as jealousy is a sin. Just as war is sinful. You get where I’m going with this?
31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?
They will teach believers in Christ that their purpose is to pursue the Kingdom of God in all its attributes of faithfulness, wholeness and selfless love. Nonetheless, each person chooses whether and to what degree they participate in that Kingdom. This has always been the case.
32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?
Love that strives to put the other above the self.
33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?
“Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?
God’s commands, as summarized by Jesus are:
- Love God.
- Love others as you love yourself.
35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?
No. It’s impossible to love someone unless they agree with you on everything. No… wait… that’s *controlling someone else. Of course you can love someone and disagree with their decisions!
36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?
Many things have changed for me about my understanding of faith over the years. A faith that grows will always change as we seek God honestly and truthfully and do our best to submit to what we discover. I have come to love Christ more. I have come to accept other people better. I have learned to judge other people less. I have learned to pursue the Kingdom more faithfully.
37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?
Ahhh… here is the rub. God didn’t call me to be a “traditional evangelical.” God called me to follow Jesus. Many Evangelicals have this troubling tendency to assume that they are the only *real Christians. Evangelicalism is new on the Christian scene, as are several of its “traditional distinctives.” I am an evangelical in that I believe that the fundamental call of Christ is to meet the greatest fundamental need of humankind: to help people understand and accept the love of God as illustrated by Christ and to work toward his Kingdom.
38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?
I would suggest that “Orthodox Christianity” is largely dependent on who is defining “orthodoxy.” You are simply defining Christianity in your own terms. On the other hand, there are numerous open and affirming churches where people are joining Orthodox Christianity as defined by the creed, where people are being called to the pursuit of God and his Kingdom and missionaries are going out into the world to share that love.
39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?
I do. Of course that depends on your definition of “the church.” If you mean “committed to your view of the evangelical church,” then no. If you mean “committed to the Scriptures” as equivalent to “committed to inerrancy,” then no. If, on the other hand, you mean commitment to the body of all believers throughout time and space, commitment to Christ the Redeemer and his Kingdom, commitment to the Scriptures as a locus of truth to be reasonably interpreted in the context of the world around us under the influence of tradition and the Holy Spirit.. then yes. Yes, I genuinely, desperately do.
40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?
The sins of selfish lust that see the “other” as an object for the satisfaction of the self instead of the beloved of God. The sin of rebellion against the commands of Christ to love God and love others selflessly. The sin of turning away from God and refusing to acknowledge him in Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment