Bob...

...thank you for some sensible, sacred, life-giving reasoning on this battle-line-drawn issue

...I think you are lining up behind what Jesus would do

Bob's position of the civil authorities using the term "civil union" for everyone's civil, contractual agreements makes perfect sense to me. In fact, it echoes something I read by Tony Campolo some years ago. The word "marriage" is sacramental, even for those of us who aren't in formally sacramental denominations; the government should use language that more rightly reflects their area of authority and stay away from religious language.

I get heat from all sides because I am a strong supporter of civil unions for any adults who wish to enter into such contractual agreements sanctioned by the state; it's the only humane thing to do and, in the spirit of giving to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, makes sense. Our society strives to live up to the ideal of all people being equal before the law (civil law). However, I oppose being required by law as a church leader to sanction same gender sexual unions that I believe the Bible does not allow for. "Marriage" as sacrament ordained by God is between one man and one woman.

But this doesn't mean that we have to be horrible to same sex couples who live in loving, committed relationships. When Christians act in meanspirited, judgmental and unloving ways towards others for whom Jesus also came to rescue from death, it shames God and brings the Gospel into ill repute. We can love others and be the good news to them without endorsing everything they do or believe. I'm hoping so because I am well aware that I'm often wrong about a lot of things and I hope I can still have a place at the family table.

On the other hand, I will not be bullied by the left into giving up what I believe is a high view of Scripture and what I believe God's design is in those pages. The left also presents an ugly face when there is a knee jerk retreat into name calling and demonizing without willingness to listen to others; vice goes both ways.

Civil society and the Kingdom are not the same thing and it's a mistake for either side to attempt to usurp the authority and purvue of the other. Bob's right -- too many more of these Prop 8 battles will sink the church; but, considering how political it's all become in the past decade, maybe it should sink as it is to be resurrected more like Jesus and less like "us".

This is what I've been saying for years!

Let the hateful comments begin...

While I tend to stand in the same court as those of you who extend reason into this argument, I do find myself struggling with the "rights" issues. As a single woman, I can (and have) put together a will stating who is to take care of and receive my property when I die. I have created a power of attorney for healthcare so that I can choose who will take care of those decisions on my behalf if I am not able to. If there are children involved, there can be legal documents drawn up as to who will be the guardian/caregiver for those children if the parent dies. So I don't get the "rights" thing. We all pretty much have the same rights - it's just a matter of putting them down in legal documents that will be enforced in a court of law when the time comes.

Prop 8 has really nothing to do with the church. It has everything to do with the "general" publics view on SSM. Sure there are Christians involed in that voting group who voted but on Prop 8 but there others who voted for Prop 8 that I'm sure aren't believers. Christians cannot initiate compromise when dealing with scripture and sin. If we do where will it stop? A point that is being missed in all of this is that when one becomes a Christian a life change starts to happen. If it doesn't one is not a follower of Jesus. In the case of homosexuallity it is a lifestyle chosen by an individual not some chromosome malfunction. So, no, I will never compromise the Word to accomodate someone's choice to sin. I will, however, gladly meet any homosexual, pornographer, drug addict, thief, etc. And show them the life giving Jesus that can free them of and forgive them for the choices that they've made. I agree that the "Body" must reach out and display love to the gay community but I will never take away or add to the Word of God to accomodate sin in someones life. I would be guilty of that same sin!

Certainly Christ loves homosexuals and so should we as Christians (I Corinthians 6:9-11). We are all sinners in need of The Savior (Romans 3:23).

The government, however, is to punish what is evil and praise what is good (Romans 13:3, 4). The government is not to reward people for sinful lifestyles. I realize that governments can and often do reward people for sinful lifestyles, but that is not their design by God and this certainly should not be approved by Christians.

Our role as Christians needs to be to speak out for what is good and right and to expose what is evil (Ephesians 4:15; 5:11, 12). (By the way, given enough time, nearly 100% of "committed" homosexuals end up being unfaithful to their partner)

Yes, speaking up for what is right and calling people to repent for sin is going to cause many to hate us - even though we love them. (II Timothy 3:12; Luke 6:22).

Furthermore, Jesus said, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets." -Luke 6:26 We must be very careful to never accomodate sin in order to win over the people around us.

First of all, since when does the example of the Netherlands (who, by the way has drifted in moral, spiritual and marriage decay), been a good example? They will be the first to admit that after 800 years, things have not gone so well there.

In Canada, we need to obtain a license, and can choose Justice of Peace marriage or church marriage (for purpose of witnesses). Nothing wrong with that. It's a good system. However, where it fails is when Justices have to go against their religious beliefs and simply against their conscience and are forced to marry a homosexual couple. This "forcing" trods upon the human rights of the justices and ministers of our nations. So the "HUMAN RIGHTS" goes both ways. That is why MORAL legislation that considers the WELL BEING OF THE ENTIRE SOCIETY, for the purpose of that society GROWING and FLOURISHING, rather than dying or sick, or unable to reproduce in a natural way, is so important.

If we must talk "rights" I suppose I could say I have a right not to be exposed to sinful lifestyles, nor have them thrust upon my children in school or through curriculum, labeled as "human rights", or alternative lifestyles that we must "tolerate". Uh uh. There is still, and will continue to be a need to DISCOURAGE people from pursuing lifestyles THAT ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH OF THE GENERAL POPULATION. If one must talk human rights, I have the right to be discriminatory towards persons who may influence my children for evil. As a believer, I will be gentle and kind, but I don't have to in any way accept their lifestyle, nor do I ever need to compromise on that issue. There is still the WORD OF GOD, that never changes in its message. We just cannot ignore those scriptures, and say that this lifestyle of homosexuality is okay in anyway.

Let's take the example from the Bible please. Something about Lot escaping from a large city that was hit with terrible destruction.....

I would be urging all my homosexual friends to run, flee, repent from this lifestyle, seek God, turn from it, be wise - don't do it.

SLIPPERY SLOPE ON THIS WEB SITE.

Yikes.

And HUMAN RIGHTS don't seem to bring very much freedom to Christians, did you ever notice? But Jesus did warn us that the message of the Cross, and a holy lifestyle would bring a sword, not a warm fuzzy blanket.

The author of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been rethinking the "hate speech" portion. Let's pray that something good comes of that review.

Ekklesia- a question- are you in favor of criminalizing divorce? How about gluttony? Those are sins, right?

Can't we see that having no *law* against gluttony isn't the same as condoning it?

The love affair with Paul needs to end! Paul and the Epistle writers are not infallible and in the cases of SSM are totally taken out of the historical context! Jesus in the Gospels and supported by the archaeological evidence did not speak to SSM or anything to do with GLBT issues. Jesus did talk about sitting down with those who society deemed 'enemies, evildoers, and cast offs' and show them the Kingdom of God. Jesus did not sit at the table and castigate, but he sat at the table and loved people.

I think that marriage is a church institution. There are congregations and institutions that will marry. Those congregations will be a place of refuge. Some congregations will bless the union but not marry, so be it. And if you want to ban marriage go ahead and do it. But don't put God into this.

The hate in this speech reminds me of an Iranian saying; 'if you see a blind man kick him, why be kinder than God?'

Amen!

Here's is what I see as the ongoing roadblock with this type of issue. If we are to speak out against sin, then we need to talk about ALL sin. Are we up in arms over a christian divorce rate that equals that of non believers, what about fornication, adultery etc.
As the young folks say-we've got to keep it real.

“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian concept of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question–how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the [Muslims] tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. (HarperCollins: San Francisco, 2001 ed.) pg. 112

I completely agree. I've never been accused of being liberal (theologically or politically), but I might get a new 'first' here.

Bob,
I'm not exactly standing up for Ekklesia. But I think you're jumping the gun on your rhetoric...I didn't catch from the Ekklesia's post that they were for criminalizing homosexuality. Nor do I see Ekklesia arguing that no law is equal with condoning.

And please, let us not present such silly arguments about legislating morality...we do all the time. My guess is that you're for criminalizing rape, incest, murder, etc.. I've heard people argue for "freedoms" in such moral issues as sexuality and abortion because they are "not hurting anyone", but I don't see how a Christian could. We know things like pornography, fornication, and adultery hurts everyone involved and society as a whole. Certainly, the bible also warns us against homosexuality.

The fact is, because our society is a secular mish-mash, we are left with a somewhat arbitrary set of legislated, criminalized immoral acts. I'm NOT for criminalizing every moral failing nor am I arguing for some sort of theocratic Christendom. But it seems your response was more emotion than thought, missing the bulk of Ekklesia's post ...at the least your argument was inconsistent with how we all live.

Hi,

My first thoughts when I read something like this is:

My Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"

I guess the first way to think of this, does the Bible say that Homosexual acts are sin. I believe they do.

I also believe that homosexual orientation is from the fall. This is not Jesus desire for anyone.

I say this from hanging out with the homosexual community in my College Days. These were the folks I spent lots of time with.

We are to continually create and flesh out God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. His Kingdom is established by love. We are to express His kingdom through love. Homosexual acts are not based on love but brokeness & rebellion.

If the Bible says that Homosexual activity is sin, why would anyone in love create a legal structure that facilitates a lie that reinforces people to live an illusion about their identity and live a life that will eternally separate them from His Love.

I think people are not being gracious and loving toward homosexuals but cowardly and selfish by not holding fast to the truth of God's love and God's holiness.

Helping people destroy their identity and eternity is not an act of love.

Tim

France and Germany have civil ceremonies for everyone, and then a church wedding for those who desire such. In addition, France also has a P.A.C.S., where any two people can set up a legal relationship, despite their sex or relationship (you do have to be at majority age, which is 18 in France). Two people can have legal responsibility and guardianship over each other, the whole ten yards, and has to be dissolved legally as well. It is not a marriage as such, but it is one way that two people can set up house.

Quite frankly, I prefer this to a civil ceremony, and it seems to work quite well here in France.

Ericpo,

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that the root of many Christians' opposition to gay marriage stems from their view of scripture. ("Paul and the Epistle writers are not infallible") Clearly, then, to say Bob Hyatt's remarks are filled with "hate" is a gross mischaracterization.

In his entire article on the email newsletter, Bob explicitly pleads for those who support gay marriage to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with them as "haters," for this very reason.

...

Sexuality cuts to the deepest part of us--it is no wonder this issue is so contentious. I don't know what it is like to be gay, but I do know that we, the Church, have hurt many gay people deeply. I hope that Prince of Peace will bring real reconciliation in his wisdom.

Amen to Bob Hyatt's statement. I've been saying likewise for years. The state sanctioning marriage is just as ridiculous as the state sanctioning baptism or any other vows—anything where they butt into something that's solely meant to be performed or officiated by the church.

Gay marriage is not the issue unless you're (wrongly) suggesting the state does have a say in it, and intend to use the state to stop it. But look at the mess that the state has currently made of marriage: Anyone can be married and divorced, for any reason or none, without mandatory counseling, with minor concern for any children's well-being, without legal considerations (even though marriage is legally binding in ways that many partnerships aren't). Most secular marriages are a mockery of everything God intended—yet those are "sacred" simply because they're heterosexual?

Christians need to speak out against the degradation of marriage in general. That they're only fixated on gay marriage simply goes to show that it's not about seeking God's best at all; it's about homophobia.

Re: Carol's comments that "Prop 8 has really nothing to do with the church. It has everything to do with the "general" publics view..."

According to an AP story: "The ban drew its strongest support from both evangelical Christians and voters who didn’t attend college, according to results released Dec. 3 by the Public Policy Institute of California.
Age and race, meanwhile, were not as strong factors as assumed. According to the poll, 56 percent of voters over age 55 and 57 percent of nonwhite voters cast a yes ballot for the same-sex marriage ban.
People who identified themselves as practicing Christians were highly likely to support the constitutional amendment, with 85 percent of evangelical Christians, 66 percent of Protestants and 60 percent of Roman Catholics favoring it.
The poll also showed that the measure got strong backing from voters who did not attend college (69 percent), voters who earned less than $40,000 a year (63 percent) and Latinos (61 percent).
The poll was based on a phone survey of 2,003 California voters in the Nov. 4 election who were interviewed from Nov. 5-6. The sampling error was plus or minus 2 percentage points."

Both sides generally agree that the anti-gay movement considers same-sex marriage its best battleground.

Anti-gay movement? Did I miss a memo? What anti-gay movement?

Here's a question: What about a heterosexual Christian couple that has a church wedding, but rather than getting a civil union, just cohabitates? Are they living in sin? Do we want the woman to go without the legal protections that a civil union would provide? If they get divorced, are she and the children less entitled to support from the husband because the state considers them to be merely boyfriend and girlfriend? On a secular level, how would you tax them? Would they be unable to get the savings of filing jointly?

If we go this route, I think a civil union should be a pre-requisit to a church marriage. The church cannot enforce the bond the way the state can.

Google "anti-gay movement". There are approximately 534,000 hits.

Timothy, I completely see where your coming from. State endorsement of the Scriptures and Church is arguably a biblical concept, and would be beautiful if implemented correctly. As a democracy, we have a fairly unique opportunity to make that happen; however, I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

Before we can expect for that to happen, we must see our culture transformed. Before works of the government (the nation) can mean anything, even if we could accomplish them by questionable politics, the workers must be willing - even enthusiastic. If society is repulsed by our proposed laws, we need to work on society first. This is the way our government is intended to work, and it's a great motivation to tend to more important things.

We get very anxious about politics. Jesus had something to say about getting anxious, although he didn't explicitly apply it to anything but basic necessities... "For all these things the nations of the world seek after, and your Father knows that you need these things. But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you." - Luke 12:30-31

I agree with this idea. I think of my marriage as having a civil and a religious component. The civil component protects me and my husband under the laws of the state (inheritance, hospital decisions etc). The religious component is the vow we made before God. We gain not materially from this, but spiritually. If I had been married 150 years ago or so my husband would have made an agreement not with me but with my father, as I, being a woman, wouldn't have had individual rights, so the notion of marriage in the eyes of the state as having an unchanged history is bogus. Indeed I'm quite sure that position was defended by scripture at the time too.

I'm not sure the point of the law is to legislate moral codes or even should be, I think the law is there to protect the innocent and vulnerable.

Hence the law often does not legislate against pornography but legislates to keep it away from the vulnerable and innocent. Its alwasy in this day adn age very hard to keep laws that inhibit freedoms without protecting

One single national authority is simply not capable of governing a nation of 300+ million wildly diverse subjects. Either you are willing to compromise your convictions so as not to "offend" and be ruled by someone else's covictions...Or you are not. It's a simple choice.

Why would a Christian accept state licensure & regulation of the institution of Marriage to begin with?

by "state" I'm referring to the Weber/Hobbes/Hegel/Marx'ian view of the state as an all-powerful entity. NOT the soverign state of Georgia et. al. or the National Authority. So "the state" can mean any government entity (though for the last 143 years, it has increasingly come to mean Washington)

Marriage is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman and God. The state has no place whatsoever in legislating, regulating or interfering with this covenant.

If two people choose to enter into a business contract with rights of survivorship (entities which have existed for centuries!)...they have every right to do so, and it is none of my business.

Regardless of my doctrinal views on homosexuality. Legislating/restricting someone's conduct will not change their heart.

Perhaps those who call themselves "Christians" should spend more time following the great commission; knocking on doors, spreading the Gospel of Christ...and less time complaining about the abominations of the world and legislating them into the dark corners of society.

When will we finally realize that "good government" is an oxymoron and stop trying to obey God through elected representatives that have already sold us out?

Marriage and civil government was created by God. He ordained capital punishment as a measure of civil government, Gen. 9:6, and ordains it in society, Rom. 13:1-7. Religion could not properly be maintained without the civil government, and civil government could not be civil without religion. While they influence and protect each other, separation of church and state should prevail.

I still have no clue how to read this article. I subscribed 2 weeks ago; WHAT NEXT?

Thanks.

Since Out of Ur wouldn't do what they promised and provide me a way to read the article in its entirety, I was able to get Bob Hyatt to do it; thanks, Bob! Couple of comments: to K.W., I think that you've introduced a red herring into the whole equation. Christians DO speak out on all sorts of marriage issues, but 'gay marriage' is making the headlines these days, not because Christians are picking this fight, but because it's being brought to us. 'Homophobia' is a silly little word that we use when we lack an argument, and while there may be some people out there who are truly fearful of homosexuals, this fight isn't one Christians are itching to have, but rather feel compelled to in the wake of the decline of our society morally.

To John M, I believe that the 'moral' dimension of marriage for a Christian would be tied, in Bob's scenario, with the 'church wedding' part of the equation. There'd be no 'living in sin' if a couple chose, for whatever reason, to ignore state sanction of the union. I agree with Bob's basic take, by the way, but in the event 'gay marriage' becomes the law of the land, as a pastor, I will no longer sign marriage licenses for ANYONE, and as a married individual, I may seek to have my marriage 'de-recognized' by the state. I have little interest in agreeing to a definition of 'marriage' that is watered down in this way. It's not what I signed up for...

problem with this concept is that in america, if a same sex couple goes to a church to get "married" and the pastor does not want to perform the cermony.....the couple will sue the pastor for emotional distress...

I do, and always have, agreed with Tyler's quote from C.S. Lewis. It remains true to democracy and pluralism, both of which are important (in my opinion) facets of U.S. government.

While the final authority for a Christian is the Bible, that does not mean that the entire populace must be held to that same authority, just as I would not want to live in a place where I was forced to live under Sharia law. The authority for the U.S. government is the Constitution, not the Bible nor Christian "values".

Yes, exactly! Instead of giving marriage to homosexuals, the state should just give out civil unions to all! Then it's no longer a political issue, and churches can take whatever side they see fit. It is the right solution, I've been saying it for a long time now...

This solution sounds like a really sensible one, but it is a short sighted. You might find that the state does not object to you stepping out of the 'cultural war' but thereis one thing that you have not thought about, human rights. In Europe if you claim that you are doing something for religious reasons like standing against women priests or same sex marriages, you face prosecution under human rights legislation irrespective of if you are church or not.

This was such a nice discussion. It was actually a pleasure to read and I was surprised really because I was honestly unaware that so many of my fellow Christians had such nuanced opinions on this issue. I agree wholeheartedly with the article, and I expect that the GLBT community would agree with it as well. Its an equality issue, not a religious one. We are free to live as we like, and we should convince people to follow God by our actions, not by forcing them to act a certain way under the law. That doesn't change anything in anyone's heart! Great job on the C.S. Lewis quote, as well. I had forgotten that one. :)

Good Lord, I've been waiting for someone in the mainstream evangelical community to SAY THIS. I can only hope that this is brought out in future debates over the issues as the best, most reasonable solution.

(Now, CT editors - won't you consider giving something like this more attention in your magazine? It ought to be read by more than just your Out of Ur readers.)

This will only work if they are content with not forcing us to support their civil unions in other ways. Such as forcing employers to provide healthcare to their partner etc.