« Poll: Pre-Marital Sex More Acceptable than Pornography | Main | Faith, Science, & the Resurrection (Part 1) »
May 29, 2012
Why the Church Should Still Publicly Oppose Gay Marriage
Not opposing same sex marriage may not solve Christianity's image problem.
In a previous post, we presented reasons churches should NOT oppose gay marriage. Now we present Matthew Lee Anderson's case for churches to oppose same-sex marriage legislation.
Few aspects of our public witness on ethical and political questions are as contentious and difficult as the questions of gay marriage and gay rights. The watershed announcement by President Obama that he too now supports full marriage equality for gays and lesbians (though he incoherently wants to leave that “right” to the states) has ignited introspection among many conservatives over whether it would be better to no longer defend traditional marriage in the public square. The danger is that articulating this particular social good has the byproduct of creating resentment and hostility from those who disagree, thereby corrupting Christianity’s attractiveness by unnecessarily aligning it with a political stance.
It’s worth noting, I think, that the legal developments around marriage have the appearance of being victories for conservatives but are essentially nothing more than rearguard actions. The moment a position has to be codified into law it has ceased to be the law of the land.
And yet, as someone with broadly conservative instincts I’m not yet ready to give up articulating a traditional view of marriage in public and working to support it theologically, socially, and by even by law. After all, gay marriage may not be the “foregone conclusion” that many folks think it is.
The generational voting pattern in North Carolina was considerably closer than people might have thought, and polling may be less conclusive on the side of gay marriage than it appears.
What’s more, untangling the religious liberty issues that will arise upon the expansion of marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples will, I suspect, prove far more challenging than many people realize. This is especially true if the logic of the case for gay marriage treats anyone who opposes it as bigots—regardless of whether they are or not. Yet calls to end “religious based bigotry,” a phrase that simply targets anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons, are common fare for public discourse on the question. The strategy of equating opposition to gay marriage to opposition to interracial marriage leaves no room for people to object to that form of union for any reason whatsoever without being fundamentally bigoted. And that will create considerable social problems for Christians in many areas of life. A wedding services provider, for instance, who objects to gay weddings for religious reasons may have to decide between staying in business or violating their conscience. There’s no easy answer to that situation—my only point is to suggest that not opposing gay marriage may not solve Christianity’s image problems like we are increasingly promised.
At its core, the question of gay marriage is not simply one of tax benefits or social prestige: it is a question about how our society will organize itself and whether we can recognize permanent gay unions without marginalizing people who disagree. As Christians, we have no need to fear marginalization. It is simply what we can expect as long as we follow Jesus. But as Christians living in a participatory democracy, we are given a seat at the table and allowed to chime in on deliberations. Which means having the freedom to not run after stigmatization, either.
Perhaps the most important reason to continue to organize our society around defending and promoting tradition marriage is that, well, it’s true. We may take it as true on special revelation, but what’s true there is true from general revelation as well. The effects of sin may make secular reasoning less persuasive, but that is not a new problem and, by and large, it has not stopped Christians from playing in public in the past. In fact, one of the most successful social reform movements in American history—the Civil Rights movement—used a combination of secular and religious arguments the way traditional marriage defenders are trying to do now.
None of this means that traditional marriage proponents can or should continue with the sort of strategies they have employed in the past. But cheerfully, winsomely, and steadfastly stating the truth is what we are called to do. That message will be harder to hear if our dominant institutions—like our government—are set up in such a way as to oppose it.
Comments
You say that a wedding service provider may have to choose between violating their conscience by taking on a same-sex wedding and going out of business. That's a far better place to be in than at the moment where a wedding services provider doesn't even get that choice.
If we can only maintain our religious freedom by denying freedom to others maybe we need to ask why we value freedom so much... and then apply the Golden Rule.
Posted By: Cameron | May 29, 2012 7:46 AM
"Perhaps the most important reason to continue to organize our society around defending and promoting tradition marriage is that, well, it’s true."
Or, on the other-hand, with this...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
and this...
http://www.gcmwatch.com/4752/pastors-and-adultery
Perhaps, and I'm just say'n here, that before we go "defending and promoting tradition [sic] marriage" we get our own house in order first lest we fall victim to Y'shuas admonition of "Why do you stare at the speck in your brother's eye, and ignore the plank in your own."
Posted By: sheerahkahn | May 29, 2012 11:12 AM
So...
Umm...
Other than special revelation...
Where is the argument?
There is no continuing reason for the civil definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. Marriage, in that realm, has changed. If we, the church, recipients of special revelation, want to say otherwise, fine. That isn't going to matter in the wider culture, nor should it. What marriage is has nothing to do with what the government says it is. Let's remove ourselves from the whole business, and if we get persecuted inside the church... then yes, we have a claim to rights. Otherwise we're just clanging symbols in a world that doesn't even recognize they are instruments.
Posted By: John L. | May 29, 2012 4:43 PM
"To do nothing can be just as sinful as doing the wrong thing, and homosexuality assaults the very image of God - something we as confessing Christians should be very very concerned about."
Yeah, about that...you see, doing something often comes off as "doing something for something's sake!" because, really, that's all there is...and since you brought it up...
"Should the church have played no part in the abolition of slavery or the advancement of the civil rights movement?"
How far do you think the Church would have gotten if the very Christians involved with the abolition of slavery were slave owners themselves, and unrepentant slave owners at that?
And how far do you think Martin Luther King would have gotten as a Christian if he let his, and I might add understandable feelings of alienation, prejudices guide his responses and not Y'shua?
So, with all that...perhaps, just a thought for you and anyone else who wants to go off half-cock and be the front man for "homosexuality assaults the very image of God" is make sure the rest of the people behind you are spotless in their marital history.
Posted By: sheerahkahn | May 29, 2012 8:42 PM
In 1Cor chapter 5, Paul scolded the church harshly for not expelling the immoral brother from their fellowship. God did not, through Paul, say they all had to be "spotless" first. When someone is purposefully, defiantly saying that their sin is not a sin, and they will continue to participate in it, they are to be expelled. And yes, my church also expells people who divorce for unbiblical reasons as well. And yes, there are plenty of us who were virgins when married (we were 29 when we got married), and have been faithful for over 27 years. But the point is, that God did not add the caveat that you do.
Posted By: kelly | May 29, 2012 8:53 PM
kelly, you are talking about a matter concerning discipline WITHIN the church. But that's not what's being discussed. This article and the conversation that has followed is about how the Church should respond to gay marriage in the PUBLIC square. That's a more complicated issue.
Posted By: Bill Williamsta | May 30, 2012 3:27 PM
I sympathize with Athix's shock at the pro-homosexual/compromising comments, though I cannot say I am surprised. I was actually more surprised that CT even allowed an article that mildly, irenically suggested that Christian churches ought to oppose the social and legal legitimization of homosexual marriage.
Of course all homosexual practice is wrong. Of course churches should fulfill their prophetic office in declaring so. Of course the allure of fickle "public image" should measure little to none in the estimation of God's people. Speak the truth and trust God to work His holy will in convicting sinners and calling a people to Himself.
Anything less is "Christianity Astray."
Posted By: Richard | May 31, 2012 8:33 AM
Can someone point to me a convincing argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on religious principles? I don't see that, and that's the only argument that will be heard in civil society today, I believe.
And among believers, we still ought to consider: What morality ought we to legislate? Lying is immoral, but we don't legislate the lie--only certain cases where lying becomes fraud or deceptive advertising. We believe that extra-marital affairs are immoral, but do we think we ought to make that illegal?
What really is the motivation to make or keep gay marriage illegal? I hope not to change hearts--we certainly ought to know that laws can't do that.
Missing in this discussion is the complicated relationship between morality and legality. What good can governments do? What goodness ought they require of citizens? What good are they incapable of accomplishing?
Aren't their times when God would have us advocate for a government that allows people to do wrong? (Such as a government that allows people to worship gods other than He?)
Posted By: Nate | May 31, 2012 3:53 PM
@ sheerahkahn- I am familiar w/ you from your multitude of postings on this discussion forum, and sometimes I agree w/ you while other times I do not. That being said I just have to say that your final "thought for me" is neither original nor persuasive. The church is composed of sinners (and to echo Paul, I'm the chiefest in my own estimation), but that does nothing to abrogate our responsibility to peacefully and lovingly oppose sin in our culture or to be a witness to a sinful world, rather I would say it should motivate us. Christ's sacrifice paid for all of my sin, and to get caught in self-deprecation and personal penance to a degree that mires me in inactivity when I should act positively cheapens His work on my behalf on the cross! We must not give up our prophetic responsibility as Christians in a fallen world. Isaiah, Ezekial, Jeremiah, Stephen, John, etc., etc., were not sinless, but they didn't wait for spotlessness before speaking out.
To risk offending you Sheera, since I don't know what kind of sense of humor you have, I would point out that before you go off "half-cock" at someone else you believe is going off "half-cock," you should examine your own propensity for going off "half-cock." :D
@Nate- You said: "Can someone point to me a convincing argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on religious principles? I don't see that, and that's the only argument that will be heard in civil society today, I believe."
Nate, the only reason to oppose homosexuality and/or gay marriage that matters in the eyes of Christ IS religious-based. That is what this Christian forum is ostensibly here to discuss. Whether civil society listens or whether it does not is not our responsibility. Personally, I ultimately believe gay marriage will be the law of our land, btw.
Now, if I wanted to make a secular / sociological argument against gay marriage, I could do so quite ably, but it would have no place here.
I will say it is funny how following God's law always seems to result in a healthier, happier, and more blessed (overall) society in spite of man's fallen nature - with the opposite also being true.
Posted By: Athix | May 31, 2012 5:51 PM
"but that does nothing to abrogate our responsibility to peacefully and lovingly oppose sin in our culture or to be a witness to a sinful world,"
I agree, but herein is the issue...when our own house is a wreck telling our neighbor to straighten his out marks us as hypocrites.
And that is exactly what we are being labeled as...hypocrites.
Sure we're a broken people, and yes, we freely admit that, but herein is the issue that kind of sticks in my craw..not sure about anybody else, but it does to me.
When the world in it all it's nastiness, all it's betrayal, in all it's corruption and refusal to admit wrongs...still values marriage far more than Christians do...yeah, I really find it hard to argue against the promulgation of sin when our own house is...well...I'm not even sure what to call it anymore...not different than the world? I don't know.
I think, and this is just me, but I think if we want to confront the world about this...we really need to show that as a community of believers...marriage is important enough that divorce is not an option for us.
Until we get to that point...all we're doing is doing something for somethings sake, and I think that will come around to bite us...which, currently, it seems that our faith's past indiscretions are doing right now.
"To risk offending you Sheera, since I don't know what kind of sense of humor you have, I would point out that before you go off "half-cock" at someone else you believe is going off "half-cock," you should examine your own propensity for going off "half-cock.""
My personal motivation is this...I'm not a follower of G-d because I want to be safe and cozy in a cocoon of feel-goodedness...though, as I write that it does seem to have an attraction for me now...hmm, something I'll have to think about.
Anyway, risk it. The truth is often times served best right then and there...and yes, my sense of humor is rather rough, but I got your meaning.
My response is: Fair enough.
Posted By: sheerahkahn | June 1, 2012 11:14 AM
Christians should continue to oppose same-sex "marriage" because it's the right thing to do. The opposition should, of course, be done with civility. Christians "render unto Ceasar" the things that are Caesar's. Christians more importantly "render unto God" the things that are God's. Christians are - first of all - citizens of God's kingdom. The LORD God is King of kings, and Lord of lords. Christians give Him the utmost and highest of their selves, their souls and their bodies. As for Christians' citizenship in the country in which they reside, it is always secondary. Christians do their civic duty, vote and give their voices to the issues, but the results are left in God's hands.
Posted By: Bob Brooke | June 1, 2012 1:19 PM
The main reasons for opposing same-sex marriage that do not depend upon a Christian worldview are as follows:
First, the PURPOSE of marriage as an institution favored by government. It is not, and never was, a sex license. Marriage is given certain benefits because of its foundational role in producing and rearing children. Plenty of data exists now that indicates that the very best situation for doing that is in a home with a married mother and father. Although loads of anecdotal evidence shows that single parents, divorced parents, step-parents, and same-sex couples CAN do a great job, the government puts its thumb on the scale in favor of what they see as the option most likely to advance their interests (just as they do with home-ownership over renting, charitable deductions, taxing capital gains differently than wages, etc.)
Secondly, if we DO redefine marriage as a license for sex with whoever makes the adults most happy, rather than in terms of the children, there is no way to do so in such a way as to close off practices that currently are regarded as undesirable or perverse in the same way that same-sex relationships once were. Polygamy or consensual adult incest are no less legitimate desires than homosexual activity. Indeed, there is more historical evidence of both (even within the Judeo-Christian tradition, and certainly around the world) than there is for what we currently are contemplating. If the government had the right to define marriage as a twosome back when Utah sought statehood, they have just as much right to define it as requiring a man and a woman now. If arbitrary definitions are not allowed at all, than so must be arbitrary definitions based on numbers or consanguinity. Indeed, (and please don't think I'm trying to poison the well with such talk, I'm talking about the law), there could even be a similarly coherent argument in favor of bestiality. We don't give animals a chance to consent to becoming our food, our pets, or our lab rats. If our own desires (even those of a numerically small minority) in the sexual sphere are really on a par with civil rights, that's a pretty wide road.
Of course, folks will argue that such things could never happen, that there's no way the slippery slope could go so far. But I remember being assured after Lawrence v. Texas, and DOMA, and DADT, that we would never get to where we are today.
All that said, I reject the idea that we as Christians are obligated to form or defend our opinions without regard to our faith. People vote for and advocate policies and candidates all the time based on whatever factors they chose, some of which are pretty crazy. Ours is a consistent and thoughtful worldview with a long and respected intellectual tradition. There are plenty of worse reasons we could have for our political views.
Posted By: Coach Sal | June 4, 2012 8:01 AM
1) If homosexual practice is a violation of Biblical standards but we choose not to object to gay marriage, how will we know when there is potential violation of a Biblical standard we should endorse? 2) If prohibition of gay marriage in the church is proper and allowing gay marriage for society in general, what do we say to the gay couple that seeks to enter the life of the church?
Posted By: Marshall Gillam | June 5, 2012 4:40 PM
My reply is more general, I suppose, but may apply here as it does elsewhere. When we have failed to share the love of Christ in a way that allows others to see Him through us, we instead resort to using collective political power to influence the law of the land, to force others to believe like we do, or at least to behave in ways that we find acceptable. This may not be what Jesus had in mind...
Posted By: Paul | June 14, 2012 6:32 PM
I really like reading a post that will make people think.
Also, many thanks for allowing me to comment!
Posted By: energy etfs | December 13, 2012 7:17 AM
It is in reality a great and useful piece of info. I am satisfied
that you shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us
informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
Posted By: Troy | December 26, 2012 1:48 PM
This post will assist the internet people for building up new web site
or even a blog from start to end.
Posted By: Marsha | February 14, 2013 6:33 AM
Right here is the perfect web site for anyone who wishes to understand
this topic. You understand so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I personally would want to…HaHa).
You certainly put a new spin on a subject which has been written about for decades.
Excellent stuff, just wonderful!
Posted By: Kendra | February 14, 2013 7:33 PM
Its such as you read my mind! You seem to know a lot about this, such as you wrote the book in it or something.
I believe that you just could do with a few percent to force the message
home a bit, however instead of that, this is excellent blog.
A fantastic read. I will certainly be back.
Posted By: Inez | February 19, 2013 7:10 PM
Everything is very open with a clear description of the challenges.
It was definitely informative. Your website is very useful.
Thank you for sharing!
Posted By: Miles | February 23, 2013 12:16 AM
I needed to thank you for this fantastic read!! I definitely
loved every little bit of it. I have got you book-marked to look at new stuff you post…
Posted By: Nell | February 27, 2013 9:13 PM
Can I just say what a relief to find someone that actually
understands what they are discussing on the internet. You definitely realize how to
bring an issue to light and make it important.
More people should read this and understand this side of the
story. I can't believe you aren't more popular because you definitely have the gift.
Posted By: Rhys | March 1, 2013 5:28 PM
Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you can
be a great author. I will always bookmark your blog and will often come back at some point.
I want to encourage you to continue your great job, have a nice day!
Posted By: Marilyn | March 16, 2013 5:46 PM
Post a comment: