Linkage: Bigger Issue than Same-Sex Attraction?

Followers of Jesus, if we are not careful, can make being a Christian about morality.  When we do this we begin to weigh our sins, and usually the other person's sin weighs more than mine.  I think that is especially true when it comes to homosexuality.  Christians like to condemn and criticize homosexuals for their sin, because it something that majority of us don't struggle with.  Yet another sin, like gluttony, we overlook and make excuses for because it is an issue with which we struggle.

James Engelbrecht has this article at Christian Standard addressing this very topic:

Individuals with same-sex attraction make up as much as 6 percent of the male population and 4.5 percent of females (though some studies estimate half that). Those are not insignificant numbers, especially when same-sex attraction involves you or someone you love. 

Thus began Mark Moore’s February 12, 2012, column, “How Should the Church Relate to Those with Same-Sex Attraction?” Here’s the rub. As a follower of Christ, I hear Christians say: 

“Keep your nose out of my private life.”
“It’s my body.”
“Christians aren’t called to be judgmental.”
“It’s not a sin. I’m this way due to a complex interaction of biology, my family, and societal factors.”
“I’m not sure how God feels about this. God made me and loves me the way I am.” 

I have family and friends dealing with same-sex attraction, but I’ve never heard them say these things. Instead, these comments came from overweight Christians.

Continue reading Bigger Issue than Same-Sex Attraction?

Follow @PaulBSteele

Linkage: How Should the Church Relate to Those with Same-Sex Attraction?

Homosexuality is becoming a bigger and bigger challenge for the Church.  Part of the reason is because of the increased tolerance of homosexuality at large and how gay rights has become such a hot button political issue.  One of the realities that Christians need to remember is that Jesus came to save everyone and when we erect walls that prevent people from coming to Jesus we are being unfaithful to the call that God has given to us.

I appreciate these thoughts from Mark Moore on this subject.

Individuals with same-sex attraction make up as much as 6 percent of the male population and 4.5 percent of females (though some studies estimate half that). Those are not insignificant numbers, especially when same-sex attraction involves you or someone you love. 

The church traditionally has not been particularly welcoming of such individuals, and a number of Scriptures have been cited to validate responses that are sometimes violent—verbally, emotionally, occasionally even physically. 

Because I am a follower of Jesus Christ, it is unconscionable for me to reject in the body of Christ some of the most spiritually sensitive and emotionally/socially vulnerable individuals in our society. Consider that during Jesus’ earthly ministry, he never got angry with sinners. Rather, Jesus’ most vituperative responses were reserved for his own disciples when they rejected children (Mark 10:14), the Pharisees when they rejected healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:5), and the Sadducees when they debarred the poor and foreigners from the temple through their economic structures (Mark 11:15-18).

Continue reading How Should the Church Relate to Those with Same-Sex Attraction?

The Constitution, Same Sex Marriage, Judicial Opinion, and Law

On Friday April 3, 2009 the Supreme Court of Iowa ruled that the Iowa Law that essential defined marriage as between one man and one woman unconstitutional according to the Iowa State constitution. It was indeed an historic decision, and people on both sides of the issue are very emotional about the outcome.

Being a Christian and a Libertarian there are two sides of this issue that I have to consider. The first side of the issue is figuring out how the Church can best reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel. This is what I told my congregation on Sunday:

This ruling is one more piece of evidence that we are living in a culture that has rejected traditional Christian morals, morals which have been the foundation of our culture for a very long time. We have to stop and ask ourselves: Why is the culture rejecting Christian morality? Why are 3 out of 4 Christian youth leaving the faith once they leave home? Why has church attendance dropped in this country from an average of 75 people per week in 1998 to 70 people per week in 2008? Why do 67% of Americans say that religion has lost or is losing its influence in this country?

Besides asking those questions we have to think about how we are to reach out to homosexuals. The Church has done a very poor job in this area. We have either ignored them, and hoped that they would just go away, or we have made them feel that because they were homosexuals they were going to burn in hell. This should be a wake up call for us, because we have been called to reach out to all people and help them understand that their true identity is found in Christ Jesus. We have to help them discover life, the life God created them to live, without compromising God’s Word.

This is my main concern. I want people, regardless of who they are or what they have done, to find freedom, forgiveness, love, and life by following Jesus Christ. The Church needs to build bridges rather than erect walls when it comes to these very controversial issues.

The second side, and what I want to focus on today, is the constitutional issue. Our freedoms are protected by the Constitution. From whom are our freedoms protected? Our freedoms are protected from the government by the Constitution, so it is very important that we hold the government accountable to the Constitution, whether it is at the national level or the state level. When the government ignores the Constitution what results is the loss of freedom and eventually tyranny .

Through constitutional ignorance we have allowed the government to ignore the Constitution, and the result has been that our liberties and Constitutional protections are slowly taken away from us. A great example of this constitutional ignorance at work is seen in this historic decision by the Iowa Supreme Court which called Iowa’s marriage law unconstitutional.

In light of that ruling the government agencies are racing around to change documents so that the paper work will be ready for same sex couples to marry in Iowa. People have assumed, from the governor to the legislators to the news media to the average citizen, that now the law of the State of Iowa is that marriage is either between a man and a woman or a same sex couple. The problem is that no law stating that has been passed. All that has happened is that the court has ruled on Iowa’s current marriage law, and their opinion is that the Iowa law is unconstitutional.

If we were really following the Constitution the next step that is to happen is that Congress is to review the law in question. Upon their review of the law they can do one of two things: 1) they can say they disagree with the court’s opinion and affirm that the law is indeed constitutional or 2) they can agree with the court’s opinion and make the needed changes to make it constitutional.

Yet the process doesn’t end there. If Congress follows option number 2 and makes the changes, then the governor, or the president, can either reject and veto the bill because he thinks the original law is constitutional, or he can sign the new bill into law.

Once the new bill is law, if an average citizen has a problem with it, they can take it before the Supreme Court for a review. The Court can then give their opinion on the new law. This way a law is constantly under the threat of Judicial review. A judicial opinion isn’t under that type of threat, that is why it is so important for Congress to properly respond to the Court’s opinions, our freedoms are protected when a law has the potential of being reviewed.

If Congress follows option number 1 then the law, which the court has ruled unconstitutional, can once again be thrown into the lap of the court. This can go back and forth and back and forth, but here is where we, the people, can step in. If we agree with the court that the law is unconstitutional we can vote for candidates who agree with us and promise to change the law. After all our congress people represent us. When we follow constitutional procedure the voice of the people is heard, rather than the voice of special interest groups with money to spend.

The reason that same sex marriage is becoming legal in the state of Iowa isn’t because the voice of the people was heard on the issue, but because the Iowa State Congress is too gutless to follow through with their Constitutional responsibility. Judicial Opinion is not law, it is merely a recommendation about the constitutionality of a law. A recommendation that Congress can listen to or they can affirm the constitutionality of the existing law. Either way the ball should be back in the court of Congress.

The real tragedy of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling isn’t that homosexuals are given the right to marry (if that is the will of the people then it will be law), it is that the Constitution is ignored and a legal opinion, something the people have no say in, is on its way to becoming law. Not only does it become law, but it becomes a law that cannot be challenged, because there is no actual bill that has passed legislative procedure to challenge.

There is every reason to be sadden by the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision. Don’t be sad that a small group of people were granted a right, but be saddened that we have allowed the government once again to ignore the Constitution. Remember, by ignoring the Constitution the government cannot only grant rights, they can also take your rights away.

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” ~ James Madison

* From now on I will not use marriage in relation to same sex unions. A union can only be called a marriage if it is recognized by God as such, and same sex unions aren't marriages in God's sight, regardless of what the State wants to call them.

Evaluating a Comment

Tony Jones has started a comment of the day feature on his blog. I found his first comment of the day very interesting, and I thought I would share it with you as well as adding a comment of my own. The comment is from a commenter identified as Jimil. This is what he said:

For our constitutional scholar, there is no right of sodomy, nor is there a right to sit at a lunch counter, nor is there a right of self defense. In the United States we have a living constitution that affirms fundamental liberties. Most recently, Justice Scalia found a new right of self defense in the Second Amendment and thus protected the rights of individuals to own handguns for self defense. Similarly, rights of privacy have been found. It is good that our Supreme Court protects us from government intrusion in private matters.

For our Bible says so crowd, I suspect you know your argument is completely flawed. I suspect you know dozens of behaviors condoned by the Bible that you do not accept (slavery & polygamy) and restriction you reject (women speaking in church & wearing clothing of mixed threads). I'm not sure why you would bother posting something so dishonest. You did not open the Bible and discover a revelation that homosexuality was wrong.

This, is a serious point, "The person who hates homosexuals will say 'go ahead, there's nothing wrong with it'. But true love warns of dangers." I believe in my heart that those who suggest the love of gays & lesbians is equivalent to smoking are harming gays and lesbians. I think it is evil and missing the lesson of Jesus Christ that it is Love and not Tradition that acts as our guide. That said, I recognize the concern, and I take you at your word.

The world is evolving out of this prejudice. Soon, we will look back at this as we know looked back on prohibitions against interracial marriage. Then, as now, people called the relationships unnatural and worried about the children. Then, as know, there were many hateful bigots attacking people with wickedness in their hearts. But, then, as now, there were people genuinely concerned and worried for the fellow humans. I disagree strongly, but I respect the position.

I believe one of the most important things we can do as followers of Jesus Christ is to examine the thoughts, philosophies, and “truth” that we encounter each and everyday. If we are not intentional about examining these things then we risk being lead astray by a nice sounding lie. Not only should we examine the thoughts we encounter, but we need to share our thoughts as well, for the purpose of exposing other people to different thoughts.

That is what I want to do with Tony Jones’ comment of the day. Jimil brings up some points I think need to evaluated and addressed, especially if we are going to deal honestly with same-sex marriage. It is easy to start throwing stones, and not address what is being said.

First, let us look at this idea of a “living constitution” and rights. What is the purpose of the Constitution? To put it simply its purpose is to limit the size and authority of the Federal government. The responsibilities and authority of the Federal government are plainly outlined in the Constitution, and if a responsibility is not given to the Federal government then it is a responsibility of the State government. Marriage, in a legal sense, is a responsibility of the government. Since we do not find the responsibility of regulating marriage given to the Federal government, then we can assume it is an responsibility given to the State governments.

The people of California are perfectly within their legal right to define marriage between one man and one woman. At this point we have not made a moral statement, just a legal one. The people of California who do not like the law can either stay their and try to convince the rest of their citizens that it needs to be changed, or they can move to a State that allows gay marriage. That is part of the beauty of our Constitution. Laws can be changed and the direction of the government can be altered by the will of the people.

Now, if we as citizens of the United States want to give up the States’ right to define marriage and give that responsibility to the Federal government, then we can amend the Constitution. It is the the process of amending the Constitution which makes it a living document, not the ability of judges to interpret the Constitution to fit their opinions. Legally, homosexual marriage is State issue, and if the majority of the people desire for the definition of marriage to be between one man and one woman, then they are free to do so. That doesn’t mean it can’t be changed, but the change must be done legally.

Second, is it dishonest to call homosexuality a sin if we ignore other parts of Scripture? The first issue we have to deal with is whether or not the Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin. I think it does. Romans 1:18-32 is one text that shows this. Another is 1 Timothy 1:9, 10. On top that, same-sex marriage is contrary to God’s design for life. Check out what Jesus said in Mark 10:2-9, which I will comment on in a moment.

Am I highlighting the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality and ignoring other parts of Scripture? Probably, but let us look at the examples the Jimil brings up. Does the Bible condone slavery? I don’t think so. It makes allowances for slavery, just as it makes allowances for divorce, but the Bible doesn’t condone divorce. Jesus said of divorce (Mark 10:2-9) that God allowed for divorce as a concession to the hard and evil hearts of people. It was God’s plan from the beginning that a man leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (further evidence that God doesn’t recognize same sex marriage). I would suggest that God allowed slavery for the same reason, as a concession to our evil and hard hearts. The reason I say this is because as we move into the New Testament we find the seeds of change that are planted which lead to our present understanding that slavery is wrong. One of those seeds is 1 Timothy 1:10 where the apostle Paul lists slave traders (as new translations of the Bible correctly translates) as people who contradict right teaching. Another seed is found in Colossians 4:1 where the apostle Paul tells slaves owners to be just and fair to their slaves. What is more just and fair than granting their slaves freedom?

What about polygamy? While there may not be a “shall not” about polygamy in the Bible, I don’t think that God condones it. I think that it is obvious, by what Jesus said, that marriage is between one man and one woman. But there are other reasons why I think polygamy was something that God allowed rather than condoned. One reason is the men of faith in the Old Testament who had more than one wife. God reveals these families to us in all of their disfunction. Jealousy, favoritism, and other family problems were rampant. Isn’t it possible that God allowed us these stories to show us the negative consequences of not following His design?

Let us take some time and look at some of the commands God does give us. In Deuteronomy 17:17 God tells Israel that when they have a king, the king should not take many wives. While God doesn’t condemn polygamy here or specify that marriage is to be between one man and one woman, He did reveal to them the dangers of having multiple wives. Again, I think God is making a concession to people for their hard hearts. His desire is that as people follow Him that they would mature to the point of accepting His design for their lives.

It shouldn’t surprise us then as we move into the New Testament that we do find a command about one man and one woman as God’s design for marriage. Not only do we have the words of Jesus in Mark 10, but we also have the guidance of the apostle Paul. In 1 Timothy 3:2, Paul tells us that a leader of God’s people must be the husband of one wife. The way I see it is a progression from the command about kings of Israel, where the restriction was simply not to have many wives, to a command of only one wife for the leaders of God’s people, the Church. Rather than condoning polygamy, God allowed it so we could mature in our thinking and understanding and eventually accept His original design of one man and one woman as marriage.

Jimil also claims that we ignore biblical restrictions like women speaking in church? There is debate within the Church on this issue, but one thing we know is that women have taught God’s people from the beginning. In the Old Testament there was Deborah who was called a prophet (Judges 4:4). In the New Testament we run into Anna the prophet in Luke 2:36. Then there were the missionaries, the wife and husband team of Priscilla and Aquilla. Since it was unusual for the wife’s name to be mentioned first, it is thought that this meant that Priscilla was the leader/teacher of the duo. I would suggest Paul’s restriction of women speaking in church was a general rule for a culture where women tended to be less educated than men, rather than an universal law for all Christians.

The Old Testament restriction of not mixing fabrics went the way of the dodo along with the food restrictions Israel had to observe in order to be separate from the world. What did Jesus say about food? In Mark 7:17-19 Jesus tells His disciples that food can’t make you unclean because it doesn’t come in contact with your heart, and by saying that Jesus declared all food acceptable. Let us use this principle for the law of mixing threads. What we wear doesn’t come into contact with our hearts, and so it doesn’t matter what it is made of, all types of fabric are acceptable.

Jimil claims that we who say that same-sex marriage is wrong are following the way of tradition rather than Jesus’ lesson of love. I dealt with this a little bit in my pondering from yesterday, but let me summarize what I said. One of my favorite stories of Jesus is His encounter with the rich young ruler. In Mark 10:21 we are told that Jesus looked at this young man, who had an interest in God and eternal life, with genuine love, and yet Jesus allowed him to walk away from God’s Kingdom. Why? Because the young man didn’t trust Jesus enough to provide him with life. The young man believed that his happiness and life depended on his riches, and he walked away from Jesus. What does this tell us about the love of Jesus? It tells us that in love Jesus told the young man the truth about following Him. Jesus didn’t water it down, and what He asked of the young man was difficult, as difficult of leaving a romantic relationship, and Jesus allowed the young man to choose whether or not he would do it and follow Jesus.

If we are to follow Jesus’ lesson of love, then it means that we are truthful about what it means to follow Jesus. It is not loving to allow people to believe they are part of God’s Kingdom when they are not willing to trust Jesus with their lives. Sure there will be people who say that it is not fair, unloving, and intolerant, but it is the truth. This principle has application for more than those struggling with homosexuality, it has application for all of us who hold on to parts of our lives rather than trusting Jesus to provide us with the life God created us to live (Ephesians 2:10).

My greatest desire is to help people live the life God created them to live, and that life is found on the other side of trust and obedience. Let me be very clear about this point: The life God created us to live isn’t about marriage, sex, or romantic relationships, it is about following Jesus. Jesus told us that if we are not willing to give up our relationships then we are not worthy of Him (Matthew 10:37-39). If you can’t give up a romantic relationship in order to follow Jesus, then you are not worthy of Him. That goes for those in sinful heterosexual relationships as well.

The last thing I would like to comment on is the statement Jimil makes that “The world is evolving out of this prejudice.” I don’t care if the world is evolving, because how I live isn’t based on what the world says. The apostle Paul tells us:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2; ESV)

What the world thinks about homosexual marriage is irrelevant, what matters is what God says. Unlike the examples I have given about slavery and polygamy, I don’t see the seeds of change found in Scripture. What I find is the opposite. What I see is that God reinforces the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman. That is God’s design from the very beginning.

The Church needs to tread very carefully about how we allow the world to influence us. Read the letters to the seven church found in Revelation 2-3. What you will discover is that Jesus has harsh words for those churches that allowed the world to influence them, whether it was their doctrine or how they lived. We can delude ourselves into thinking we are being loving and tolerant, and be very far from God.

Left on the Outside

{Luke 13:24-28; ESV}

“Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us, then he will answer you, I do not know where you come from. Then you will begin to say, We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets. But he will say, I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil! In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.”

Emotionally this is a difficult Scripture accept. Even though the words come from the mouth of Christ Jesus, we would like it not to be true. If it is true it means that not everyone will be part of the Kingdom of God, and that includes people who worship with you every week. This is not an issue of church attendance or style of worship, but it is an issue of character and faith. It is not the person who says Jesus is Lord who is part of the Kingdom of God, but the person lives their lives based on the Lordship of Jesus.

This, I believe, is the root of the discussion about homosexuality and the Church. Their are people who can’t come to grips with what Jesus says and they want to believe that no one is exclude from the Kingdom, especially if they have declared their love for Jesus. And so you have Emergent leader Tony Jones writing (How I Went From There to Here):

In any case, I now believe that GLBTQ [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer] can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

It is true that each one of us struggles with sin, and if it was up to us to live a perfect life to be part of the Kingdom of God then we all would be in trouble since none of us do. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we are going to do what God asks us to do, even if it is difficult to do. That is the issue. Our faith is seen in our obedience to God’s commands, especially when it is difficult to do. When Jesus is King then we will obey Him and thus be part of His Kingdom, but if we are not willing to obey then we will be on the outside.

Take the rich young ruler as an example. His story can be found in Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-22, and Luke 18:18-24. This young man was a moral man, which is evident by his attempt to keep the commandments (it is my opinion that when he tells Jesus that he has kept the commandments he indicates that when he has sinned he has followed the Law to deal with that sin). He is a ruler, which means he has the respect of the elders of his community (probably the local synagogue). He is also wealthy, which would be a sign, in that culture, that he was blessed by God. The passage even tells us that Jesus looked on him and loved him. Yet, at the end of the story we discover that the young man is left outside the Kingdom of God. Why? The reason Jesus didn’t let him in was because he was unwilling to let go of his wealth and trust Jesus to provide him with life.

The person who is unwilling to give up his/her sexuality and trust Jesus to provide them with life is in the same position as the rich young ruler was in Yet it is also so much more than that. Each of us have issues and sins that we need to give up so we can follow Jesus. The only way we can be part of the Kingdom of God is to submit to the Lordship of Christ Jesus, and that requires obedience.

That is the message the entire Church needs to hear, and not just homosexuals. Remember what Jesus said in Luke 13? There are many people who have committed to their local church, who teach Sunday School, who sing songs of praise, who read the Bible, and yet do not trust Jesus with their lives. They don’t adjust their lives to His will, and the result is that they will be left out of the Kingdom. Just because we many not struggle with homosexuality, doesn’t mean that we are part of God’s Kingdom. To be part of the Kingdom we must recognize Jesus as King in our lives. That isn’t just about saying words, it is about how we live our lives.

• Point to Ponder: To be part of the Kingdom of God requires us to submit to the Lordship of Christ Jesus.
• Passage to Remember: Luke 13:24-28
• Prayer to Pray: Lord God, help me to see those areas of my life that I need to adjust to Your rule, and help me not to condemn others, but to speak the truth in love.