The reason that matters to me is that your religious dogma and beliefs should not control other people's Constitutional rights. Your theology is not everyone's theology, not even every Christian's theology. The fact that many Christian churches and pastors already bless gay unions should mean that those who oppose on theological grounds are trying to make their theology the chosen theology of the state.

Nice work Chad. I particularly agree with your points about this fight being harmful to our witness. I wrote an article with some thoughts on the the topic last week here. My basic premise is that these culture battles are a distraction for the church from our primary mission of making disciples. I see some way forward in distinguishing between the legal and religious components of marriage.

If homosexual acts are condemened, then why would one believe marriage to promote the "acts" would be looked on favorably? If the act of homosexuality are condemened through the teaching of the Bible, why would you want to be married by it, under the Church roof? Is marriage the ends to justify the means (push acceptance on everyone) or is it an attempt to disgrace/breakdown the teachings? If it is for the benefits, then change the law on hospital visits, inheritance and such. Look at the last comment that other churches are doing it, so it must be alright, and if you are not you are wrong. Soon the government will have to pass laws to protect those who do not believe in gay marriage. Oh wait, they already have to for the military (look it up). When would you address "sin" on this subject or will you keep going along as if nothing was wrong? Would we not be as guilty for not saying anything? If I don't agree with gay marriage, then I am a homophobe, not a Christian?! I agree with you on that we should welcome anyone into the church, and help anyone, but what about mutual respect?

I am actually for gay marriage. But I think your split between justice and morality, while a good idea doesn't work in this situation. Primarily because many people that oppose gay marriage, opposite because of what they consider injustice of gay couples parenting. They would view gay couples parenting as an injustice toward the children.

Just a thought.

Fantastic breakdown of a complex issue. I'm Christian and I do believe that gay marriage should be legal, for many of the same reasons. I disagree with you about the Biblical injunctions against it - the Bible says a lot of things we don't take literally, including condoning slavery - but I do agree that individual churches/denominations/religions should be welcome to put whatever restrictions on membership they like. If your church doesn't allow gay people - or divorced people, or people who drink alcohol, or women who wear pants - that's totally within your church's right to discriminate. That's part of being God's flock (or insert other deity of your choice here). However, your church should not be able to prevent *people from other churches/denominations/religions* from acting within their beliefs - even beliefs that conflict with yours. That's a big part of what the separation of church and state was about in the first place.

While I have a lot of sympathy with the position that you articulate here, I think that opposition to same-sex marriage should be undertaken on the grounds of justice and the common good. It is not about private morality and sexual practice, but about the social purpose of the institution of marriage, and its service of the common good. Same-sex marriage jeopardizes this purpose and risks compromising the common good.

Excellent breakdown of reasons for Christians not to fight gay marriage. You expect just 5% to agree with you, but I think there are more of us than you think. Or else I'm more of a minority than I realize.

Wouldn't the state be able to tell a church they must perform same-sex marriages ONLY if the church was acting on behalf of the state in the first place? Why not just give up the privilege of having the state legally recognize religious marriages?

As gay marriage becomes legalized throughout the country, it seems like churches will either need to be civilly disobedient, fight for special legal protections, or separate a religious marriage from a civil marriage. Couples who want to be married in the context of the Church can do so privately, and would apply for legal recognition separately. It would go one step further in drawing the boundaries you mentioned between church and non-church, Christian and non-Christian.

Chad,

I also appreciate your article. It presents some perspectives that are not understood comprehensively from a headline. Thanks for your thoughtful writing.

For two decades I have said one seemingly inevitable "consequence" (IMHO) of gay marriage will be the removal of tax-exempt status to churches that violate the "civil rights" of homosexuals by refusing to perform their marriages. Imagine the economic ramifications of churches—particularly property-intensive ones—that suddenly have to pay property taxes while simultaneously losing the ability to offer tax deductions on donations.

I find this very hypocritical. You can't claim others shouldn't "impose our Bible-based understanding of right and wrong" through the legal system by advocating your view is reflected in the legal system - i.e. - no standard.

Marriage is not for having sex and coupling. Marriage is to create families with children. Children deserve both a father and a mother. There is no benefit to society if marriage is redefined. A stable society depends on stable marriages between men and women. Once that is redefined, there is no real need for marriage. Marriage becomes unnecessary. If you look at Scandinavian countries you will see that they fully accept gay marriage. You will also see that marriage itself has almost fully disappeared. Sometimes we need to look at the big picture, and what the ramifications mean for all. Liberalized laws will result in changed attitudes about the purpose of marriage. Children will be left out of the equation. And if you want to shout that marriage is NOT about children, then what institution is about children?
Even when you set aside one's religious beliefs, this is still a slipery slope to abyss of no marriage at all. That's the life ahead for our kids. That's really sad. THINK think think on these things more than feel feel feel.

I hadn't thought about creating a greater distinction between Christian and non-Christian, but it makes sense. I had heard before the idea of two separate ceremonies.

One, a civil ceremony for those who wish to create property rights, inheritance rights, visitation in hospital, and the things that currently come with the term "marriage", that is created, and sanctioned, and regulated, by the state. Two, a religious ceremony in which two individuals promise to commit to each other and to God for the rest of their life. A previous comment mentioned something like this.

Such a distinction would allow everyone to be happy. Christians who oppose "gay marriage" would be free to refuse to participate in civil ceremonies, which they currently do. And those who "want the benefits of marriage" would have it.

Listen to the words at almost any church wedding: "By the power vested in me by the State of [Indiana, Florida, Oregon, etc.] I now pronounce you man and wife". The State uses the Church, and the Church should refuse to be used in this way any longer.

I really like the argument that Christians should not wonder why sinners continue to act like sinners, and that we should allow them to do so, with the result that we stand in greater distinction to them.

Your discussion presupposes that all those wishing to be in a gay marriage are unbelievers.

Did it ever occur to you that a great number of those wishing to be in:
1) Committed
2) Monogamous and
3) Church-held
...marriages - and who would value a body of witnesses to their oaths pledging monogamy and integrity...

Did it ever occur to you that an awful lot of those people would be Christians who happen to be gay?

No, it's clear you did not.

It would serve you well to think through this issue more deeply, and reconsider whether every gay person is outside the family of God simply because they were born with a same-sex attraction they would never in a million years have endowed themselves with.

It's not God's ideal. Neither is muscular dystrophy. Neither is blindness. Neither is congenital heart disease. But it exists, and God can be honored in such people and in such relationships, if they are truly committed to His honor and glory.

But when straight believers refuse to reconsider how poorly the few issues in Scripture have been treated with traditional, solid hermeneutics and contextual study, and even consider the possibility that the church has been wrong in what the Bible might or might not say about committed, monogamous, same sex relationships (as opposed to licentious sexual relationships - straight or gay) then where can homosexual Christians find the community support to LIVE lives of integrity before God?

"Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life."

Think deeper. Look again. And look with better eyes, think with a prayerful spirit, and try to leave the bias of hundreds of years of reinforced church perspective aside when you do. You might find that God really is doing a new thing in these latter days, and putting His spirit and deeper understanding in the most unlikely of places.

Thank you for wording this so well. I have agreed very strongly with your first two points--morality vs justice and the harm to our witness--for a long time. I see Scripture urging Christians to show compassion to the marginalized, and the LGBT community certainly has faced more than their fair share of condemnation and oppression from society.

Your third point is one I had not considered. What a marvelously biblical and countercultural way of stating it. We are not called to "win," in the culture wars or anywhere else. We are called to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow after Jesus. Any attempt to mold a fallen world to our liking indicates that our treasure (and therefore our hearts) is more on earth than in heaven. Thank you for that very poignant argument.

A few answers to the comments above:

I'm a law student who's spent the last 9 weeks immersed in Supreme Court cases, and I don't think you'd have churches losing their tax exempt status for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies. Freedom of association and freedom of religion precedence would not allow for that.

Gays and lesbians are already allowed to legally adopt and foster children, so the argument that we should oppose gay marriage for children's sake is flawed.

I think marriage equality is about social recognition. I hear this idea used by Christians as an argument against it. "They want us to accept that their behavior is ok." I would argue it's about much more than that. One of the most isolating and damaging things a person can go through is feeling that they are not accepted. When we hold a hard line on homosexual behavior, LGBT people hear, "I don't accept you as a person."

A single heterosexual person is usually not asked in detail about whether or not they are sexually active when they join a church. It's not the focus. Sexuality shouldn't be the focus for anyone who walks through the doors of a church. Our job is to point people to Christ so that the Holy Spirit can convict them of sin. And only people who feel accepted will open their hearts to His message.

Very interesting take.

I do believe that anything that worsens or degrades the state of things, could be great for the church.

I remember after 911 we had a bunch of new faces in our church...at least for a little while.

People who lament how badly the homosexuals are treated by Christians seem to forget how homosexuals were, and are, treated by *God*. God does not have a moving, flexible plumb line of what is right and wrong. Homosexuality was always an abomination, and it will always be an abomination.
Your attempts at consoling them and telling them how right they are, are in direct opposition to God. It is God who says that they are unnatural, and an abomination before Him. Anyone who accepts them as members of churches without their first repenting of their sin, has a church that is lukewarm at best, and will be spit out by God as told in Revelation.
And my church disfellowships people who divorce without a biblical reason, as well as homosexuals who do not repent. Light does not belong with darkness, no matter how much you like darkness. They need to be disfellowshipped until they realize that it is sin that is controlling them. It is not like we are animals and cannot control our actions. In fact, if one is a Christian, they are indwellt by the Holy Spirit and CAN and MUST control their actions. A book called "The Holiness of God" by RC Sproul doesn't cover homosexuality to my recollection, but it's a great book about how holy God is, and how He is unable to be with unrepentant sinners.His book gives you a real sense of awe about God, if you are a little weak in this area. It's an enjoyable book.

So Christians should express their voice and vote on issues regarding justice, but somehow in your thinking changing the ageless definition of marriage is not an issue of justice? Give me a break. You are splitting hairs to avoid a moral fight. Why not just say that Christians oppose gay marriage because it goes against the moral standard of even pagan societies and has been universally rejected until current times? Christians believe in supporting a universally accepted standard on marriage and not letting that standard be destroyed. How about Christians just approving of righteous standards that are accepted by non-Christian society when those standards are supported by biblical teachings? This article is so full of discrepancies and inconsistencies that it hardly deserves an answer except that it represents many Christian voices who are willing to compromise righteousness for the sake of not offending some of the ungodly.

Nice perspective.

Do people really think that opposing gay marriage will make LGBT people go away? Or stop having relationships? Or make them repent? Did the prohibition cure alcoholism? Is it the law that convinces people that murder and rape are wrong?

Honestly, what is there to actually gain by opposing gay marriage? (Other than a pat on the back that we "stood up" for God, as if He needs defended)

I agree it could be good for the church because many have not dealt with the issue and have taken a kind of "hide your head in the sand" approach to the topic. If it is thrust upon them unexpectedly, some have dealt with it poorly. We really need to do a better job of reading trends and then responding, rather than thinking "never in my church!" I remember several years ago saying to a Sunday school class that we needed to think of our response if a gay couple were to walk into the church. They just looked at me like a deer caught in the headlights. Low and behold, several years later a gay couple did come to the church for a time but when asked about how they would be received they were told they would be prayed for. On another occasion, a woman who wanted to join and admitted that she couldn't agree with the church's stance that it was sin, was not allowed membership--and she was straight! If this topic forces us to have real dialogue and wrestle with all the questions, concerns, implications, etc. that's a good thing if we don't get stuck there, but rather allow it to propel us to love and action. Often we avoid issues because we just don't want to deal with them. But avoidance is not the answer. This world is changing and will continue to change, whether we get on board or not. For once, I'd like to the Church at the forefront rather than lagging behind.

The state mandating that churches perform civil unions, is as much a violation of "separation of church and state" as the church attempting to form policy based on theological distinctives. It is constitutionally untennable in either case.

I concur that gay marriage is most likely inevitable and that in many ways it will force the church to think more deeply on how we protect the biblical view of marriage in our own house.
Gay marriage will reveal... all being my opinion...
1. Verifiable statistics of the divorce rate among homosexuals (which will be higher than heterosexual)
2. An honest assesment of the increased health risks that happen in the homosexual community (whether in monogamous relationships or not) Just look up statistics by the CDC.
3. That marriage means something much different in the homosexual community. Generally speaking, homosexual marriage (particularly with men) will be much more "open" than it has typically been considered acceptable for heterosexuals.
4. All forms of sexual expression/parnerships will be more and more accepted in culture.
5. Verifiable statistics of how prevalent domestic abuse and violence is in homosexual marriage--even more so than heterosexual marriages/partnerships.

David, you wrote:

"Did it ever occur to you that a great number of those wishing to be in:
1) Committed
2) Monogamous and
3) Church-held
...marriages - and who would value a body of witnesses to their oaths pledging monogamy and integrity...

Did it ever occur to you that an awful lot of those people would be Christians who happen to be gay?"

I don't think that fact was lost on him. But the thrust of the article was why legalizing gay marriage would be a good thing for the church. One of the points Mr. Hall made was the Church should not impose Christian standards not associated with justice to non-believers. Our jurisdiction, he says, is the church. But here's the good news for you. There are churches that have wrestled with the Biblical evidence and would be willing to marry a gay couple without violating their conscience. Those who are Christian and gay and want the blessing of a Christian wedding have places to go to. I will grant you that such communities are rare, so I understand your frustration. But such communities are not non-existent.

But there are other Christians and other churches who have also wrestled with the Biblical evidence and have come to different conclusions and convictions. I try to be respectful to those who have reached different interpretations than mine. But I admit that it is frustrating to me when those who disagree with me simply assume that it is because I have not thought through the issue deeply enough, or that I have not treated the relevant texts with traditional, solid hermeneutics and contextual study. That is simply not true. It is not true of myself, and it is not true of many other serious Christians who share my convictions. I HAVE thought about this issue deeply. I HAVE studied it seriously. I am always open to the possibility that my interpretation of Scriptures might be wrong; and, in fact, there are other issues in which, after much deep study and thinking, I have come to realize that I WAS wrong and so changed my beliefs and actions accordingly. But this is not one of them. And some parts of your post express an attitude that says, "If you only thought about it deeply enough and studied it seriously enough, obviously you would agree with me!" And that is a very dangerous attitude for anyone on either side of the argument to hold.

Interestingly, you alluded to the man who was born blind in John 9. You and I agree that homosexuality is not God's ideal, and yet it exists. I'll even go so far as to agree that God can be honored in such people. As Jesus said, the man was born blind so that the works of God might be displayed in his life. And how was this done? Jesus healed him! The blind man could now see! He didn't stay blind. He didn't accept his blindness. He didn't say, "Well, I was born blind, this is just the way God made me, so it must be OK." Encountering Jesus changed him. Now, I don't know what this would look like for a homosexual person. I don't buy into the claim that homosexuality is some disease that can be healed. But encountering Jesus in our lives should change us--everyone of us, whatever vestiges of the curse of sin are in our lives--somehow. Simply accepting our condition and remaining unchanged is not an option, at least not according to the story in John 9 that you brought up.

Wow. This made my head spin, in the best way possible. Nice work man

Chad,
While I don't fully agree, thank you for a provocative, thoughtful prod to consider the issue again.. I question a couple of your statements.
1) If we restrict our advocacy on law to the "justice" issues you identified, Christians could not have a voice on adoption, prostitution, abortion, drug abuse, etc. While a libertarian view of government may sit well with gospel proclamation, it is not the fullness of our gospel witness not using the god given rights we have in this nation.
2) Defining the issue as "restrict[ing] whom sinners can marry" is gross misrepresentation. Every married and unmarried person is a sinner and marriage has always been "restrictive" in number, age, gender, consanguinity, etc. This sentence does not meet the standard of the rest of your fine piece. .
3) Changing marriage laws will not satiate the culture nor build bridges of connection. The call is to abandon Scripture both in cultural acceptance and inside the church. See Steve M's comments above.
4) If the goal is to allow us to suffer for our faith, we should advocate for anarchy, abandon the right to vote, become pacifists and isolate from the culture fully. Then we can learn to suffer.

Or maybe we should advocate the social and cultural reasons that gay marriage is not beneficial to society, and keep the scriptural appeals to those that embrace them.

God created the relationship of marriage between one man (husband) and one woman (wife) as a picture of the relationship of Christ (the Bridegroom) to his Church (the Bride). Any other kind of human sexual relationship is a perversion of that picture and that is why God condemns it. Divorce is a perversion; heterosexual sex outside the bounds of marriage is a perversion; and homosexual sex is a perversion. I grew up in the midst of the 'sexual revolution' ; "make love, not war" "if it feels good, do it", "marriage is just a piece of paper". Our nation and the church think that we can somehow escape from the judgement of God for our sexual rebellion. No nation ever has and we will not. Only through repentance of the church for our tolerance of sin WITHIN the church body will healing come to our nation. If you think they aren't after your little boys, just remember the motto of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, "Sex before 8 or then it's too late".

My Dad used to ask me,;" If your friends want to jump off the GW bridge would you do the same"?
I would change the question for this context. "If your friend wants to kill him/herself should you facilitate it.
Homosexuality is deadly, both spiritually and medically.
Whether your worldview is biblical/creationist or Darwinian this lifestyle is unnatural and should be opposed at all levels. To do anything else is to deny the scriptural mandate to love our neighbor.

Every society, Christian or not, has marriage.

The purpose of marriage in every society is to provide various things. Some of what marriage is intended to provide:
1. It provides the society with new members.
2. It provides for the wellfare and training of these new members.
3. It provides for the protection of women.

Society rewards marrried people by, among other benefits, allowing the pension to be paid to the spouse when the other spouse has died, giving lower (supposedly) tax rates, and allowing tax deductions for children.

Gay marriage represents an attempt to provide none of what marriage provides in all societies, but to get the financial benefits from society.

The notion that "it will hurt our witness" and therefore we should think about modifying it, is defintely "out of UR," not out of the Bible.

Hi, just a quick historical tidbit. Constantine was not the Emperor who enforced Christianity on the Roman Empire, he only legalized it. He publicly practiced his paganism until his deathbed baptism. It was Theodosius II I believe who banned paganism and shut down the pagan philosophy schools. Just a historical tidbit that a lot of people miss.

About six months ago I was given the opportunity to gift my unused wedding dress to a local woman. I announced through my blog that God had moved me to give my $700 wedding dress away for free, and waited. An hour later I received an email from a woman here in Alabama who could not afford a wedding dress but was about to be married. We talked privately via email and she revealed to me that she was gay and planning to wed her now wife. She also said that she understood if I didn't want to give it to her, because I'm a Christian. But the answer was clear for me from the moment I read her email. God moved in my spirit to give my dress away. I prayerfully offered it to whatever stranger needed it. And I believe with my whole heart that God brought her into my life and mine into her's. I gave her my dress, my compassion, my support, and my encouragement, and I'm proud to say she and her wife are now my very dear friends.

I'm a Christian. And yes, I believe homosexuality is not God's plan. But I also believe that I am NOT God. It is NOT my job to sit as judge and juror of all who pass through my line of sight. We like to pretend that as part of our Christian witness we MUST go out of our way to demean homosexuals and remind them that we think they're going to Hell. Oh Christians...how arrogant we are. How easily we forget that we too are wretched in His sight and only saved by grace...grace we don't deserve.

We are a minority: being passionate Christians but believing in the legalization of gay marriage, but that's okay. God's still in control here. He knows what will be and He knows our hearts. At the end of the day He doesn't care what political party we subscribed to or what church we attended. He'll care about our fruit. It has always been about our fruit.

I suggest reading 1,2 and 3 John about light not mixing with dark. And the Bible specifically says that only believers are children of God, and that others are children of satan. You use your human reasoning to make it sound all good and say it's "all about the fruit". It isn't. The verses about the fruit are important, but there's the REST of the Bible that talks about sin and says things like do not let others into your house, etc. You've already let satan corrupt your thinking, and if you think that's good, I'm sorry for you.

Sharon, I'm sorry my comment made you angry. Though it was unintentional, I ask your forgiveness for doing so. I am a poor and pitiful creature on this, sometimes confusing, journey toward being the kind of representation God asks me to be. I haven't quite got it all figured out yet. However, I'm going to believe you made your comment in love, with only my best in mind. So I accept your love and would hope that you pray for me as I continue seeking Him. Sincerely, Tamara

I didn't mean to come across quite so angry, so sorry about that. I was thinking it's almost ok to have given the dress to her, while being clear that you believe that homosexuality is a sin because God says it is. That would show that Christians can be giving, while not accepting their sin. But I would draw the line at being friends with them, based on those books of John, and the other statements in the Bible, such as wiping the dust off your shoes, etc. Being their friend shows acceptance, IMO. God bless.

I want to clarify both for the poster and the commenters - the state HAS NEVER and WILL NOT require a church to recognize a civil union (whether it be heterosexual or homosexual).

Currently, the state ALLOWS churches to grant the state rights associated with government approved civil unions when they marry a couple in the church, however churchs are not required to recognize a couple as married if they were not married in accordance with their religion's sacred traditions.

Because we are a mostly Christian, heteronormative society, we have forgotten that being "legally married" (aka granted a civil union) is still different from committing to the holy sacrament of marriage with the blessing of God (aka "to get married"). Marriage is the sacred act of two people bonding together in a specific religious setting.

There are some Christian churches that do not recognize the "marriage" of a man and woman because they went to the local JP or had some other type of nonreligious ceremony. If you & your partner join that congregation after you were bonded in a civil union according to the government, that church can (and sometimes will) require you to have a religious ceremony before becoming a full member of the church and to have your marriage recognized by that church.

In this same way, I believe, that homosexual couples can be legally bonded together, but that does not mean that any church has to recognize it as a valid marriage - just as they do not have to recognize a heterosexual couple as married because they meet that state's requirements for "common law marriage".

I personally wish we could live in a world where the government had no say in what marriage is or who is "technically" married, but that is impossible because we need to have a structure set up to prevent things like forced marriages or marriages of underage children, etc etc.

First, I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated #2 and your commentary. I think a lot of gay Christians, liberal Christians, and non-Christians have been trying to explain that to evangelicals for a VERY long time.

I'm not sure #3 is valid for several reasons. 1. In point of fact, I don't actually believe a state can tell a church they MUST perform same sex marriages, but I would be open to legal opinions. The private property of churches means they have legal control over what goes on in their buildings. 2. Pastors in churches have the option of performing or not performing legal marriages, by which I mean, they can choose not to sign marriage certificates for anyone at any time for any reason. 3. A pastor may choose not to sign ANY marriage certificates EVER and relieve himself or herself of any liability. (And IMO, this is probably a good idea, for lots of reasons other than liability.)

Churches and pastors are protected also by the separation of church and state, as much or more than citizens are and should continue to be protected from religion by the same code and laws

Sharon, I wonder if you were aware that those verses about not associating with sinners, or "disfellowshipping," refer to the Church's official excommunication (i.e., barring from the Lord's Table) of unrepentant sinning baptized *believers* (temporarily, for the purpose of discipline--and this decision is made by pastors/priests/bishops, not lay people). They do not refer to our friendship or association with seekers or unbelievers (who should not be taking Holy Communion, anyway), whether they attend church or not. It does not mean we cannot be friends with sinners! How else are such folks supposed to know we love them or understand the love of Jesus? Look at Jesus who was maligned by the religious self-righteous as "eating with tax collectors and sinners." That was the very thing He was criticized for by the religious leaders of His day. Now, if such friends are a temptation for us to sin ourselves, that is another issue. Then we may need to keep aloof for our own weakness' sake, but not because "God can have nothing to do with sinners." The very Incarnation of Jesus Christ refutes the misunderstanding in that last quoted sentence about how it is that our sin separates us from God (i.e., it's not God who moves away from the relationship--it's us, sinners!)

10-4!

For everyone who is so confident that legalization of gay marriage will force churches into civil disobedience: Have you considered what happened when the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws? How many churches lost their tax-exempt status for not performing a marriage between a black person and a white person? Why are you so sure this time will be different?

Thanks Chad for helping us all to face this issue. One last thought: I am quite directly the response to the brokeness of this world. My father came to this country as a war refugee. War is the product of a broken world. And so am I. When the disciples asked Jesus if it was right to divorce for any reason, Jesus replied that the writ of divorce was Moses' response to a broken world....the hardness of hearts. It was not the ideal, it was a response to accommodate the reality of brokeness. The desire for relationship, same-sex or otherwise, is a response to brokeness. So how did Jesus respond to brokeness? He redeemed it! He did not remind people of their brokeness (their sin). He identiifed with lost, sinful people, the product of brokeness and redeemed their situations and ultimately their lives.....with his life. That was His response to brokeness! If we are His followers, then what will our response be? That is the most important question this issue raises.

Al asks, "So how did Jesus respond to brokeness?...He did not remind people of their brokeness (their sin)."

Joh 4:16-18 "Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, 'I have no husband': For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband"

If that isn't Jesus reminding someone of their brokenness and sin, then what exactly is it?

This post, and the comments, are part of a healthy conversation occurring among Christians. I'm on a journey of trying to understand how Christians should respond to various issues involving gays. Chad's thoughts continued the spurring of my views, and I find myself in general agreement.

In my lifetime, I've seen the church make room for divorced people, to sexually active singles, and to cohabiting couples (all once shunned). I nephew of mine, once a dynamic Christian, accepted his sexual orientation as gay but found no understanding in his church. He now describes himself as agnostic, and neither the church nor Christ have any place in his life. That crushes me.

I would much rather have divorced people, and persons sexually active outside of marriage--AND gay persons--be part of a church fellowship than to live totally outside of any church fellowship. We fear that their sin will "contaminate" us. But I want Christ to be part of their lives, no matter how small a part, and to help them along on their journey toward Christ. I can't do that if I shun and reject them.

But there are valid arguments on all sides. My journey of understanding continues.

Your thoughts seem "christian" on the outside but when you look further make no sense whatsoever. You say, "But we Christians are all-too-willing to force non-Christians to live according to our standards." Well first to say everyone is enforcing some sort of standard/morality the difference with Christians their source is the Bible which is Truth. Legislation can't enforce good/goodness (only christ can change heart) but every law is a legislation of morality. You shall not steal, you shall not murder is a moral law. The question is what is the source of that law (Bible is only truth). So your statement bases everyone's morality equal, so flawed view.

The church/christians shouldn't shut homosexuals out if it's a sin they are trying to overcome (we all struggle with sins), but if they are living a homosexual lifestyle that is a different thing....same goes for someone just having heterosexual sex all the time (outside of marriage), that is a problem that needs to be dealt with and person should be lovingly told this behavior is hurting you. (out of wedlock sex, just like homosexuality destroys the family too, God wants restoration of families). So to say that legalizing gay marriage is a "non-issue", that is a defeatist mentality. God still is holy and it's the Christian responsibility to help shape society through our actions, VOTE, relationships, raising children etc. Think of William Wilberforce and his Reformation of Manners in England. Through him God changed society, and helped eradicate the sin-filled society.

History shows when we embrace such behavior as normal, society begins to decay. First was sexual revolution, then now its the homosexual revolution, next it could be the polygamy revolution...if you think that is an impossibility think again.

Your 3rd view is a complete misunderstanding of God's plan for his creation. He doesn't want us to live in a freedom-less society, that is absurd. God first set up elective representative government with Moses (given by jethro) and history clearly shows where God's word has formed the foundation of a society the more freedom the society has (greatest example is U.S.), One example: where in the world do you think we got the idea of electing representatives? It's not a pagan idea it's a biblical idea. That's just one example of numerous that are found in our Constitution. Another is trial by jury (peers), having 2 or more witnesses, etc. So the idea that God wants us to lose our freedom so we can suffer for Him is just a wrong understanding of God's purpose for his creation and understanding of Bible. He wants to restore that which was lost after sin and He has been doing that since Christ died. Just look at nations with more freedom and you will see those who embrace liberty and have Biblical principles in their foundation are more free than those who don't. "Where the spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty!" Consider Washington's farewell address, "Of all the disposition that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." (when he referred to religion he was meaning Christianity). So Washington clearly says that for nations to be free and live in liberty they need God of the Bible and the morals that are clearly laid out for us.

John, I don't see where you find elective representative government in the Bible. It's certainly not in Exodus 18, the story of Jethro that you alluded to. The "chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, of tens were not elected by the people, but rather were chosen by Moses. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against representative democracy. But there is nothing particularly Biblical about it.

Deut. 1:13....The people selected the individuals and Moses swore them in using today's terminology. The Judges were also elected among the people. (Deut. 16:18)...very clear...

Bill,

John is a Dominionist.

His writing and his reasoning is cemented with Dominionist theology, and there is no reasoning with him with direct quotes from the Bible, or rational discussion based on the bible.

Sheerahkahn

You have no idea what you are talking about..Don't dare call me something when you have no idea....I am presenting my view with clear scripture and if you don't believe it just read the scripture which apparently you haven't...and 2nd I have presented using examples in history....and by your reasoning you would have us or any free society that can elect representatives to elect immoral, characterless leaders. So I can thank you for promoting such anti-biblical/anti-christian ideas......All I ask is for you to READ the Bible without any agenda before you read it...It's clear as day just use your mind...

"You have no idea what you are talking about.."

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about because you are not the first to speak such things, and secondly, that you accuse me of ignorance truly begs the question of whether you are aware of what you are promoting...which is something I cannot answer.

http://theocracywatch.org/dominionism.htm

You think what I am saying calls for Theocracy...haha....wow do you not understand our foundation as a country and what our founders gave us and what they meant?....read true history please (meaning original sources)...and yes you are ignorant of American history and more importantly God's history and what He wants for people and nations....stop thinking you know all the answers and see what God has to say (laid out plainly in Bible).

"You think what I am saying calls for Theocracy...(et al)"

Yes, Mr. John, I do, and no I'm not reading the bible or history here, I am reading you.
Only you, and what I am reading is a dominionist screed.
And you are doing very little to dissuade me from that thinking, in fact, you're reinforcing it.

So you say you can be dissuaded, I highly doubt that since you clearly already have the bias....but if you want to read something amazing from an organization that is solid read here....

http://providencefoundation.com/?page_id=1899

Please read

I look at this debate and I wonder...if we as Christians are not to try to influence law and bring morality to our country then I fear we must apologize to 6 million Jews, because the Christian Germans apparently didn't do much to stop the racial cleansing (with some exceptions) either. Whether it is "right" in secular eyes to try to legislate morality to me is not the correct argument. the Bible stands very clear on these issues, and I think we should at least attempt to paint the lines on the sides of the road to keep people from running into a ditch...at least make them THINK about their choices.

This is to show I have read the post you have provided, and this quote comes from the bottom of which I feel best represents the content of the site you have linked, and your ideology.

I neither comment on the veracity of any of the content, nor comment further on any more of your posts.

This quote is to be my last comment with bolded as emphasis...

"The eventual worldwide rule of Christ, as depicted in St. John’s Revelation, can only come through heartfelt, joyful, worldwide acclamation. There is not, nor could there ever be, another way."

Though I sympathize with your article, I cannot agree on any point. Frankly, I am not concerned if two men marry or two women marry or a man marries his dog, as long as I am not forced to participate in the foolishness. The problem is that advocates of same sex marriage have gone on record repeatedly stating that they will not be satisfied until the local Church be forced to participate in their marriage vows. This is a matter of record, and easily found on Google. In states where same sex marriage is legalized homosexual activists are already suing Christian Churches and businesses to force them to support their stance regardless as to their faith. You say that this gives us an opportunity as Christians to suffer for our faith. That is an ignorant position. No Christian in the early Church ran to the Coliseums yelling "We're Christians - kill us", but hid in catacombs for survivals sake. If we keep backing up as Christians it won't be long before we're trampled - and that helps no one. Better to pass an amendment to stop the nonsense using the legal means we as free citizens have, and let those who want to marry a pet turtle do so privately in their own homes without forcing the Christian to buy the rubber.

Chad, you makes a great deal of sense with the exception of a subject like abortion. There are some topics that the church can remain silent on especially when it comes to consenting adults and situations where there is no harm done. It could be argued what difference does it make if a man or woman does not have Christ. If a person doesn't have Christ then it makes no difference. When a person has Christ and brothers and sisters can come to love and share and instruct a person in Godly behavior this is good. If a man or woman doesn't have Christ THEN BEHAVIOR GOOD OR BAD means nothing. If a couple is living together their behavior matters little if they don't have Christ. Again the one exception I feel strongly about given our involvement with society and the government that is as a church would have to be abortion. We have babies that can live outside the mother's womb but are terminated for the slightest emotional or physical reason. Church has to speak for the innocent and those that can speak for themselves. Issues of euthanasia, assisted suicide and the new conversations exploring and even supporting eugenics has to be met head on by the Church. We cannot remain silent and life is a risk especially innocent life. Does the church remaine silent regarding capital punishment. There are situations church can hold off on judgment leaving judgment to God. There are times we have to say something even if we are coming across unreasonable. Good luck. Corky Riley.

this is a brilliant article, but there is one fundamental flaw in the logic. The issue of sin is not merely moral. Sin does not only separate us from God, but lead us to otherwise happy and fulfilled lives. Sin destroys. it always has and always will. Suppose that the state wanted to again permit slavery. Would we oppose it as a church, or simply state that we would not practise it ourselves? Do we oppose abortion, or merely suggest that we as Christians choose another way. By no means do i suggest that we have a right to demand that others be forced into our way of thinking, yet is this not the fundamental truth of democracy - that we have the right to sway public opinion and allow the masses to choose for themselves. Imagine down the road the challenge we will be creating as same sex couples begin to come to Christ and need to undo what they have spent years doing. We are not the state, but are fools when we keep silent.

Curtis, I really agree with you that we must speak up as Christians on very important moral issues. We have a president who voted 3 times for infanticide while in the Illinois Senate, who is very pro-abortion, not just here, but forcing other countries to allow it if they want our financial aid, and very pro-homosexual. He seems indifferent to the people suffering who are unemployed, while he could easily create thousands of jobs by opening up oil drilling once again, and allowing the Keystone Pipeline. He wants to worsen things by stopping all coal production as well. People are always concerned for the poor, and they should be, but can't connect the dots of a president who is basically turning down tens of thousands of jobs while we're in a depression similar to the Great Depression, if they actually showed the true figures of the unemployed.

It's difficult to see Christians who still blindly stand by him despite all of his unbiblical decisions, and him being considered by many, as the worst president in American history. And no, it's not by just bigots and racists, it's his decisions, and lack of action. He stands silent while thousands of Christians are being persecuted throughout the world, yet is quick to jump in in the case of one black young man, before the facts are known. Christians around the world are wondering-where IS this president, and why won't he even attempt to put an end to the killing of Christians by muslims. He won't even admiit the obvious, that the muslims are killing Christians in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, but instead he calls it "tribal wars".

In any case, if the church won't stand up for God and the Bible, NOBODY will. We are the last ones with the possibility of changing things around, by prayer and actions. We do not differ from Germany under Hitler if we don't say these things must be stopped. Nobody else is standing up for basic morality. God judges us not just individually, but by the churches we go to, and by our nation. Sodom and Gomorrha is a demonstration of God's wrath when there is nobody left (but Lot who was saved because he was righteous). God doesn't change, and we very well may see His wrath in our nation if things don't change.

Sheerakahn,
So what do you mean by what you wrote? That Christ isn't the only truth? Or what? Anyways....

For me the question is does the LAW of God save or sanctify? The Biblical answer is that it does not. Imposing on others a law we ourselves do not keep is the essence of self righteous hypocrisy.

So, while agreeing with the author here on most (I quibble about one detail but then I am fussy like that), I actually go further than he does.

If we don't love as Christ does we have not the right to stand up for anything at all.

Instead of taking the speck out of society's eye let us consider how blinded we are by the forest of planks we carry about with us.

If the State wants to legalize gay marriage they would be wrong to think that that makes it right, but it is not our business, not until we get the fruit of the spirit which gives us the right to claim prophetic witness.

Until then we are hypocrites and busybodies

"And the goal of the church is to nurture followership of Christ, not to get secular laws to match biblical standards. Too often we think we have “won” something by getting laws to match the mandate of the Bible, but a true victory for the church is a God glorified by willing worshipers, obeyed by eager servants, and followed by faithful disciples."

YES!!!

Steve, to do as you suggest ignores what the Bible teaches. The Bible is a lot more than a few well-known verses. One verse does not negate the general teaching of the Bible overall. Everyone takes the one well-known verse about judging, and they ignore the other 50 verses, and also paragraphs written about how we SHOULD judge and rebuke fellow believers. John 7:24 - "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
Also of course, in 1Cor chapter 5, Paul scolds the church for not throwing the immoral brother out. The Bible also tells us not to even eat with immoral brothers. 1Cor 5:11 "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." This is a far cry from your idea of totally ignoring, as you seem to suggest, other believers who are living immoral, willfully sinful lives.

Yes, we can eat, as Jesus did, with unbelievers, because this is one way the Gospel is spread. But go to a concordance and look up the word rebuke. It is used many, many times, and as a good thing, to help guide other believers who are going astray. The Bible says much more about judging and correcting righteously rather than remaining silent while seeing obvious sin. We have to exercise judgment all the time, to see if what we're being taught is true or not, and whether other's behavior is a sin to God, and of course watch for sin coming into our own lives, etc.
1John 3:7 "Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning." This shows that "practicing" homosexuality is a sin and from satan. God is not wishy-washy about sins. But it seems the average Christian is seemingly not very knowledgeable about what the Bible really teaches.Most people seem to know a few well-known verses, but you can tell they have not sat down and really read the books of the Bible. And when they haven't read the books of the Bible, you get a very distorted picture of what the Bible really teaches. 1Tim 5:20 "Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning."
Luke 17:3 "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him."

Some take a light attitude to sinning. True believers don't want anything to do with sin. Like someone else said, we're not even to eat with an immoral brother. Paul in Romans, and other books, make it clear that being a believer is not a license to sin. As you can see in 1John, if we claim to love God but we don't keep His commandments, we are a LIAR, and the truth is not in us.

Legalizing gay marriage is bad for the individuals, it's bad for the church, and it's bad for society. No sin is good, whether a person is a believer or not. And I'm not saying we should force religion on someone else, but God's laws are for all humans. A sin is a sin, the Bible says that God's moral code is written in every person's heart. The Bible says that if someone is not a child of God they are a child of SATAN. How can it be good for a church to say it is good? I think it's clear that any church that ok's and even "blesses" homosexuality would be evil to God, because God says it is an abomination.

1John 2 "By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “ I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked."

The god of this world, satan, is happily gaining more and more power and blinding more people's eyes every day. People are saying that evil is good, and that good is evil, just like the Bible predicts.

Also, have you thought about the non-believers in Noah's time and the non-believers in Sodom and Gomorrha who reaped the consequences of their actions while still on earth?? Do you really want to be a silent bystander when God shows his wrath to a society that has removed Him from every single place that they can, and that is killing millions of innocent babies, and a society that is even promoting homosexuality with parades, and teaching their young children that this SIN, is actually "good"? Do you want to stand before God and answer to Him why you voted for a president who positively promotes these evils, not just here, but around the world?

In reality, it is an abomination to God, WHETHER OR NOT the person is a believer. And if you think it doesn't affect anyone other than the couple involved, you're wrong. It is being forced to be a subject taught in classrooms, and taught as a "good" thing, to children who don't know better. Just this week a Christian photographer was sued by a lesbian couple because they didn't want to photograph their wedding. People used to say this just involved people in the privacy of their bedroom, but it goes much, much further, and the churches NEED to stand up to satan and the world and say it is wrong, because it IS wrong.

Well done Chad.
If grace is all sufficient then we must trust it and be guided not by rules but by mercy.

I like your idea. Another aspect of this is that it would allow an individual congregation/pastor to teach "why" we wouldn't allow or conduct a wedding our facility even though we're not against the issue of marriage itself.

More satisfying to me would be a total separation of marriage. There would be a 'religious service' and a 'state service' and the rights and obligations do not intrude on to each other at any level. To have the blessing/presence of the church and the state's rights you'd go through two different services with different licenses/agreements/covenants.

Alan

"To have the blessing/presence of the church and the state's rights you'd go through two different services with different licenses/agreements/covenants."

Actually, this was proposed by the moderates of both sides, and shouted down by the more vocal of their respective sides...and considering the outcome...yeah, as you can see who won that one.

The only caveat to your point was that the original idea was that any two adults who wanted to enter into a civil union could do so through a contractual liability that is limited to two adults of age of consent.
The state would not recognize the term "marriage" as it is defined as a religious term, and thus the state had no jurisdiction in legislation of the "religious terms."
Therefore, any "marriage" ceremonies would be the domain of "religious" affiliation and unrecognized by the state for legal and tax purposes.
Thus two adults can apply for a civil union, meet with a state lawyer so that both sides understand the terms, conditions, and liabilities of the civil union, and once both parties agree to the aforementioned due diligence, the state lawyer would sign off, and the "couple" would sign the state recognized contract, and publicly notarized.

Under the state, they would be engaged in a civil union for taxation and legal purposes only.

Should the dissolution of the civil union occur, based on the contract that both parties signed would reflect how assets and debits would be reassigned.

If the couple, after signage, wished to engage in a religious ceremony...that would be their right to do so, but without State recognition.

don't know if that was what you were saying, but that was the framework that was put forth...but like I said, the louder voices from both sides shot that puppy down like a balloon at a skeet competition.

Corky,
You are right about abortion. I thought I listed that horrid practice alongside others in the section on morality vs. justice, but I guess not.
I know some see abortion as a personal rights issue, but I see it as an issue of justice for not-yet-born humans. Just as blacks were treated as sub-human beings for hundreds of years, so are the unborn treated today. As Christians, we should do everything we can to prevent abortion.

I think what you are aiming at is the question, "How do Christians engage in public discourse?" Your justification for asserting that legalizing gay marriage may be good for the church is based on your opinion that Christians should not force biblical standards or beliefs upon those outside the church. I would agree that asserting the validity of an idea or a value based solely on religious authority or tradition does not carry weight in public discourse. Rather, we need to consider what is good and what is right for society as a whole. When discussing public issues like gay marriage, our arguments and justifications for our opinions need to be based on what will lead to a healthy society. A careful examination of gay lifestyles and gay marriage will provide the evidence for any concerned citizen to see that good public policy will encourage monogamous, heterosexual marriage. In a search for truth and goodness, we have to also concede that many of our cultural values contribute to marital infidelity and divorce, both of which are destructive to society. We may not be able to legislate values that lead to healthy marriages, but we can advocate for policies that provide protections from public endorsements of licentiousness and wreckless sexuality. Christians have been given light--divine revelation--which helps us to know what is good and what is right. The more we reflect that light in public discourse, the more that our nation as whole will benefit.

I agree with your position on Legalizing Same Sex Marriage. I also agree when you say that it will help create and for people to see the fine line between Christians and Non-Christians.
I do not condemn homosexuals because I am not God. I am also not for it because the Bible clearly states that God is not in agreeement with all of these alternative families that society has created.
However, I don't walk around bashing them or belittlling them because I am NOT going to stop talking about God or believing in God and in Jesus my Savior and Reedeemer. Therefore I just leave people alone. I mind my business and preach Jesus every opportunity and I don't want anyone trying to tell me what I can or cannot say so I just leave people alone.

Unbelievable. So you don't think that the sin of society has any affect on future generations? And just because they aren't Christians that the sin doesn't affect them, the society, and future generations? And have you read why the Canaanites were cast out of the land? Homosexual perversion was one big one. The unintended consequences of this type of thinking are so numerous it is hard to describe; not the least of which it makes homosexuality completely acceptable. So if a young person is growing up in a household with two homosexual parents, just how is that person (male or female) going to learn about gender specific issues. Unbelievable. Go back and study the scriptures.

Regarding the legalization of gay marriage, the primary concern should be what is best for society. If it is generally best for children to be raised in a loving home environment by their biological father and mother, we should enact and uphold laws that support that ideal. Marriage, defined as the union between one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation and child-rearing, should qualify for special rights and privileges.

I am a Christian and believe that every word in the Bible is the inspired word of the Holy Spirit yes sometime I need to go to the Greek or Biblical Hebrew, but there is no wiggle room to fit my agenda, the only person I am to correct is a brother or sister, the rest is up to God, I am a vessel for His use to be an exsample to be ready in season and out to ansewer questions about the Gospel, I was told and believe that only 10 to 15 percent of people living in the USA are true Christians and I believe you ether are or you are not. I know and have read about Pastors who are not Christians but Wolves in sheeps clothing and I know GOD IS ON THE THRONE, He is in charge of EVERYTHING. So if my Government wants to legalize Gay marriage I will vote against it and so will all other Christian that should end the problem since only 5 percent of the POP. are gay. I just do not get it if there are sooooo many Christians living in this Country how did all these UNCHRISTIAN laws get passed.
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

dup...I am a Christian and believe that every word in the Bible is the inspired word of the Holy Spirit yes sometime I need to go to the Greek or Biblical Hebrew, but there is no wiggle room to fit my agenda, the only person I am to correct is a brother or sister, the rest is up to God, I am a vessel for His use to be an exsample to be ready in season and out to ansewer questions about the Gospel, I was told and believe that only 10 to 15 percent of people living in the USA are true Christians and I believe you ether are or you are not. I know and have read about Pastors who are not Christians but Wolves in sheeps clothing and I know GOD IS ON THE THRONE, He is in charge of EVERYTHING. So if my Government wants to legalize Gay marriage I will vote against it and so will all other Christian that should end the problem since only 5 percent of the POP. are gay. I just do not get it if there are sooooo many Christians living in this Country how did all these UNCHRISTIAN laws get passed.
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

dup....I am a Christian and believe that every word in the Bible is the inspired word of the Holy Spirit yes sometime I need to go to the Greek or Biblical Hebrew, but there is no wiggle room to fit my agenda, the only person I am to correct is a brother or sister, the rest is up to God, I am a vessel for His use to be an exsample to be ready in season and out to ansewer questions about the Gospel, I was told and believe that only 10 to 15 percent of people living in the USA are true Christians and I believe you ether are or you are not. I know and have read about Pastors who are not Christians but Wolves in sheeps clothing and I know GOD IS ON THE THRONE, He is in charge of EVERYTHING. So if my Government wants to legalize Gay marriage I will vote against it and so will all other Christian that should end the problem since only 5 percent of the POP. are gay. I just do not get it if there are sooooo many Christians living in this Country how did all these UNCHRISTIAN laws get passed.
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

dup...........I am a Christian and believe that every word in the Bible is the inspired word of the Holy Spirit yes sometime I need to go to the Greek or Biblical Hebrew, but there is no wiggle room to fit my agenda, the only person I am to correct is a brother or sister, the rest is up to God, I am a vessel for His use to be an exsample to be ready in season and out to ansewer questions about the Gospel, I was told and believe that only 10 to 15 percent of people living in the USA are true Christians and I believe you ether are or you are not. I know and have read about Pastors who are not Christians but Wolves in sheeps clothing and I know GOD IS ON THE THRONE, He is in charge of EVERYTHING. So if my Government wants to legalize Gay marriage I will vote against it and so will all other Christian that should end the problem since only 5 percent of the POP. are gay. I just do not get it if there are sooooo many Christians living in this Country how did all these UNCHRISTIAN laws get passed.
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

I enjoyed reading your post, and several that followed. I just think it relfects a naievity to a much larger agenda that is using homosexuality, among other issues, in societally devastating ways.

Very gutsy article Chad! I work with some lesbian women on the Board of Directors of a local sexual assault centre that I volunteer with. They are wonderful, passionate committed women whom I feel blessed to know! One of them was rejected from her family of Pentecostal ministers, when she came out. I present a very differnt view of Christianity to her. I am in support of civil gay union as partners should have full protection of the law but am against the church marrying homosexuals. We are called to love everybody as Christ loves and died for all. How dare we think that we can take God's role and judge others? I believe that there are bigger issues that gay marriage conveniently distracts from, such as the ones you mentioned. It is NOT our job to force our particular interpretation of theology down another's throats. It is our job to be God's voice of justice and love in the world and that includes praying for and being compassionate towards our homosexual friends. As Christ so aptly said "Let you who are without sin throw the first stone."

domine vobiscum

Am I missing something here, or is there no mention of the theology of God's sovereignty as being part of the crux of Christian belief? God created this world and gave this world laws to live by for our own good, based on His omniscience. Yet this author would have us think that bringing those laws into the societal context of government is wrong! By what comparison to God's wisdom of rule or the conviction of our professed faith can you come to that conclusion? Christians are simply trying to obey God's directives in preventing sinful practices and are obligated to use the laws of this world to promote His Word. Regardless of beliefs, God rules this world and just because someone does not recognize or accept that, does not dispel the truth of it. Sin is meant to be called to accountability by Christians, not tolerated under any circumstances of society or culture and God establishes the earthly means and methods for Christians to serve His will in that process.

This whole subject of humans behaving worse than animals is theologically not connected. I do agree with the fact that we all have our own theologies on various issues. But there is one truth-God's mind. If animals are wiser, and have not advanced to our state of brainlessness, such that we have to believe that we are born with a mindset, which is contrary to human nature, I beg to disagree. Gay people have got their logic twisted, and as such, they cannot claim to have a credible interpretation of God's word. We must accept the fact that everyone is right to believe and practice what he like. This assumption has a first cause; That THERE IS NO GOD, and that we are omnipotent and are free to do whatever pleases us.
Christianity follows the teachings of Christ, and any view not supported by Christian theology, is not Christian. Let Gayism have its own Ecclesia (Church) and worship its own God, but not be making any claim to our God whom they do not want to be subject to.

You're some solid ground with this. Like it or not you're onto a bigger theological principle: Luther's two Kingdom theology. It's beautifully biblical and if it were embraced by the church in the west, the gospel would explode again. Western Christianity has done an incredible job of spreading God's law and marginalizing God's gospel.

It is unfortunate to view same--sex marriage solely on how many more seats in a church may be filled. One of the real issues is the effect of homosexuals on young people. They have no offspring of their own--so in order to promote their sexual deviancy, they confuse and seduce youngsters into this life of hating themselves while participating in harmful acts.
The individuals who participate in homosexual acts have more sexually transmitted diseases and more incidence of suicide--due to the harmful nature of the acts upon their bodies and souls.

Is the Lutheran Church so desperate for people to fill the pews that it is considering condoning unhealthy activities that are clearly sinful according to our God?

Chad,
I don't normally post comments (ever) on articles or blogs, but I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your perspective articulated here.

I grew up with a best friend who I found out was gay. He struggled so much with the alienation and acceptance of his church and family. I in no way condone homosexual acts, but I believe the Bible condemns hatred and judgment (which he received from myself and others) as strongly or more strongly than wayward, rebellious sins. I absolutely agree about the truth of the Gospel not needing a country's laws to validate it.

Jesus rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's. He hung out with those that society ostracizes, which (in much of America) includes the LGBTIQ community. And he definitely sided with those the religious people wanted to get all legalistic on and stone to death.

Thanks for sticking your neck out there for this one.

Jesus is incredible in his brilliant warfare tactics. So much better than ours. And such a better battle to fight.

Thanks,
Evan

1) Very well put.
2) If you think you offended 95% of the readership with your early clarifications, you are clearly a massive optimist. ;-)

Leviticus 19:18
“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
"Passion"
I think of this word with fondness. I think of the Passion of Christ, as represented over and over through the years during holy week. I know this is a horror story, but it is what happened, and I try to live remembering this. I think of this and know that being 'passionate' alone is not enough, but that it matters what one is passionate about...I know many people and organizations are passion filled and express their beliefs strongly and with eloquence. Yet many a soft word shines brighter with less fanfare or glory and inspires even greater. The words “I love you” – speak deep truth and commitment and passion. Yet Christ’s words “Love one another” seem to falter and shine less strongly – poor marketing?
No, rather, the passion there is not self-oriented. It is other oriented. I want to be passionate about what Christ is passionate about. “Jesus Wept”! Passion! What was it that caused this but a heartfelt love for people – People who were being led astray, abused by the system, and left for dead outside the elitist’s rules and laws. It would seem that the Episcopal Church in America is trying to engage in a passionate arguing for similar goals: “Inclusion of those outside the rules and laws of the established norms of society and religion”?! However passion is not what Jesus was advocating for. He was asking why the people were being led astray, why the elitist’s rules were wrong, and their hearts more wrong still. The same is sadly true today. It’s not about equality and inclusion, but rather that Sin, is being called acceptable again, just like in the case of the religious elite of his day.
I am passionate about loving. I am humble enough to know I fail miserably at it. And yet I still know I am a sinner, saved by grace, and called to follow Christ and pick up my passion, um I mean cross daily, and submit to his authority. I am passionate about many things of this world still. I am a football ‘fan’, a baseball ‘fan’; I listen to music every day, many types and volumes, and wish everyone would too. However, I am still sometimes a down my nose looker at those who I am called to love, and when I catch a glimpse of some lumber sticking out of my face, often at another’s urging, I promptly swing it at them, um I mean gracefully repent. But my passion is being stirred lately because of the ‘worst of all sinners’ – Paul? No LIBRALS! I misspell it on purpose, so those who may think I am talking about them will not take offense and hate on me any more than necessary, for my own good and the good of my fellow man. These Liberal stations on TV, the politics, the hate, the vitreous vomitus mass of passion spewed about as if it were the only truth you should think or hear for that matter. It nauseates me and makes me passionate about soup (don’t want to offend), or nature photography ( everyone loves that), or even an occasional rant on FaceBook (so common these days) – these can be overlooked as long as we don’t offend or criticize or say some one is (gasp) wrong…
I am sorry if that was offensive to someone (the writer has been sacked). If you have followed me to this conclusion, I applaud you. I know Jesus loves sinners, because he loves me. My particular sins are no less or more ‘sinful’ than anyone else’s – they are still sin though. Passion for Christ and his kingdom has killed many an unbeliever or the hearts of many – to our shame. But, if I can say one thing to help another, in his or her search for the real God, whom I attempt to serve, that I will be passionate about all day long! I believe the way to truth is and can only be found in true humility and selfless love – putting some besides me first, and hoping I am graceful enough to recognize their needs. This lets me see love the way I hope I am supposed to, the way I hope Jesus asks me to love. By telling the truth “sin is sin”, and that I am not perfect, but that he calls us to himself – where a Holy man died for me and you – Passionately