Gay Marriage

Resources to Help Us Navigate Our New Cultural Reality

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Ship in Narrow Passage

The Elders of the church where I serve as pastor met, as usual. Part of our discussion, however, was anything but usual.  While it is not uncommon for this group to discuss subjects to help us more effectively minister, even setting aside occasional Saturday mornings to delve into variant viewpoints of issues that affect peoples’ lives, this is the first time our discussions involved anything that approached the edges of civil laws.  In the end, what was requested at this point was a a handful of resources for our mutual consideration, some things that might prove helpful as we seek to remain faithful – in all respects – in this new cultural “reality” concerning marriage.

It seems to me that there are two aspects we – and other churches like ours – need to navigate: first, how to defend the biblical design for marriage with wisdom and in truth; second, how to wisely, sensitively, and effectively minister to individuals struggling with same-sex-attractions, as well as to individuals and families for whom this is a real and personal issue, and not just a theoretic and/or political hot potato.

What we do not want to do:

  • We do not want to over-react to the new legal definition of marriage, which we believe to be at odds with the biblical definition that directs us.
  • We do not want to act and speak in ways that are insensitive, and/or unnecessarily offensive to those who struggle with, or who are impacted with, issues related to same-sex attraction.
  • We do not want to alienate people we are called to love – some of whom we already love, and who number among our friends.
  • At the same time we do not want to – we cannot – capitulate to the culture, forsake God’s Word as our only ultimate authority, or compromise the gospel in any way.

While it is somewhat cliche, I have long asserted that our goal should be to live and minister in such a way that the gospel be our only offense.  Of course this is not possible, since my sin, and the sin of every other person associated with our church, is real, and our sin is often offensive to those around us.  But I think the phrase nevertheless has merit, as an aspiration, perhaps especially now, as we seek to navigate these new waters.

The resources I am providing here probably help more with the first issue, how to defend and teach our position; offering less help concerning the second, how to effectively love and minister to those with same-sex attractions, and how to effectively love and encourage those who love someone struggling with same-sex attractions and who may be in a same-sex relationship.  This is new ground for pretty much everyone, so I will be exploring to find all I can find, as I expect we will see an increase of people impacted – or at least more people coming forward with both questions and concerns.

Here is an annotated list of resources I have found helpful:

Making Sense of Scriptures “Inconsistencies” by Tim Keller

This is a very good, relatively short, and easily understandable response to those who suggest that by opposing or by not supporting homosexuality Christians are picking and choosing from the Bible.  Keller offers a short primer course on the relationship between the OT & NT, and why that matters in our current climate.

40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags by Kevin DeYoung

DeYoung poses some thoughtful questions for those sitting on the fence on this issue, or who while being Christians are adopting the cultural narrative over the biblical narrative.  These questions could be misused, and become tools for confrontation; or they can be used thoughtfully to encourage honest reflection in a process to renew our minds toward biblical conformity.

50 Resources for Equipping the Church on Homosexuality & Same-sex Marriage

This is a fairly extensive resource list, with links to articles related to a variety of questions many Christians are asking.

The Bible and Same Sex Relationships by Tim Keller

A thorough and practical review of two of the primary books supporting same-sex marriage. In this review Keller outlines six categories that virtually all arguments favoring same-sex relationships fall into, and then Keller addresses each argument.  While this might seem merely academic, my experience is that any dialogue with proponents of same-sex marriage will inevitably involve one or more of these argument categories. Therefore, Keller’s reflections prove to be highly practical.

What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality? by Kevin DeYoung

This is a short book, comprehensive, yet readable.  It is essentially a Readers’ Digest version of a more technical academic book that is on the market.  DeYoung explores the issue from a number of angles, mining the Bible for its authoritative guidance.

Washed and Waiting by Wesley Hill

Written by an Evangelical who struggles with SSA, this is an absolutely helpful little book for those of us who do not struggle with this particular issue.  Hill helps the reader understand the heart & mind of those who experience SSA.  He is clear about homosexuality being sin, yet he also exposes some of the hurtful, insensitive, and unhelpful things that those of us in the church have done – and are prone to do – toward those who do have this inclination.  This is a tool that can help us minister to those struggling homosexuality.

Harvest USA

Harvest USA is a ministry that works with people struggling with all forms of sexual brokenness.  On their site they have a variety of articles, many of which could be of help and interest. What Harvest USA’s resources also can do is remind us that homosexualiuty is but one issue, and that there is a wide range of sexual brokenness that the people in our pews experience.  Homosexuality and SSA is but one expression of brokenness, no worse, and no better than any other expression.  What sets it apart now is that it is the only government sanctioned and culturally acceptable expression.  We must be careful to not over-react to this, nor to under-react.

This is a lot of stuff, but it is also not enough stuff.  I hope those who are concerned about the faithfulness of the church – both to purity and to our mission – will find at least some of these helpful.  But please keep in mind that while this issue has new status in our culture, that our mission and purity have always been held in tension.  We are called and sent into a broken world, a world which has been broken and corrupt in various ways for millenia. We ourselves are no better than the broken world, but rather redeemed from it by God’s grace, through the sacrificial death of Jesus.  When we were called, we were as corrupt and broken as whoever we may be tempted to see as the worst of humanity.  But in Christ we have found mercy and hope.  (1 Corinthians 1.26-31; Romans 5.6-8; Matthew 9.13; 1 Timothy 1.15)

Some Thoughts After the Supreme Court Ruling on Marriage

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

Star Gazing

With a landmark decision, and a monumental example of judicial overreach, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning announced their decision regarding same-sex-Marriage. By the awesome power vested in just five people, marriage has been redefined in our land.  This decision will continue to shake our cultural landscape for years to come, with the aftershocks of both unintended consequences (by some) and intentional-but-hidden agendas (of others).

While some who know me, or who read this blog, may assume my chagrin is in the validation of same-sex-marriage, it is actually far greater regarding the other implications related to this decision.  I am opposed to same-sex-marriage, on the grounds that it is clearly not in line with the design and decree of the Lord of Heaven and Earth.  So I am disappointed, though not surprised, by this decision.  But if this is the law of the land where I live, I can live with it being the law – as long as I am not compelled to comply. It is no greater difficulty than the first century apostles, and other Christians, faced in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, and other ancient pagan territories.  What concerns me more is that I now live in a land where we officially believe that “Rights” are not endowed by our Creator, but rather bestowed by the government.  This is a very treacherous problem – especially in this case where it was not even by a democratic process; and where there is no court of appeal.

Think about it for a moment.  In Nazi Germany the government decided that those who were Jewish had no rights, and that the government had the right to exterminate them simply because they were Jews.  In the Antebellum South, those of African decent had no rights – with relative few exceptions – and were thus allowed to be held enslaved.  Some may argue that this example, especially the latter one, illustrates why the court decision this morning is a corrective, granting freedom to a group of people to marry who were previously denied that “right”.  But look at the root. Both illustrations are similar to the court ruling, all assuming that “rights” are bestowed by the government.  Yet if this is correct, that rights do come from the government, then why would one argue that the institution of slavery was so reprehensible?  Was it not the law of the land? Government dictating who had rights an who did not?  If one argues that the government has the inherent authority to determine rights, then what makes it appropriate to decry the decisions they make about who has rights and who has not?  If a government has the authority to determine who has rights and who does not, then what makes it morally wrong for a government to decide to eradicate some group it determines undesirable?

No, I have no sympathy for the institution of slavery, nor do I support any practice of genocide.  My point is not that the government should not be the protector of rights, but rather that it is not government that is the originator of any rights.  All good governments must protect the rights of all its citizens!  But what a “right” is is not ultimately determined by the government.  As Jefferson (with help from Franklin) wisely assessed and asserted, “rights are endowed by the Creator”, not by the throne of government.

In April, Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to grasp the weightiness:

“This definition [of marriage] has been with us for millennia, and it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Well, we know better’”.

In the end Kennedy must not have found it all that difficult.  By siding with the majority, Kennedy essentially declares: “Well, we do know better.”

In response to the decision, in his published dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts writes:

If you are among the many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation – who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

While there is a sense that I appreciate these words, it still leaves me  – and others like me – with a practical dilemma: How should those of us who disagree with this decision – whether on its own merits, or because of the ripple effects that it will engender in days ahead, or both – how should we respond?  Especially as a Christian, how ought I respond?  Roberts’ words are merely philosophical and political.  They offer nothing practical to the question: So What Now?

My sincere hope is that I will, now and eventually, act faithfully to God, and lovingly to my neighbors (whether I am in agreement with them or not). In short, I hope in time to gain both perspective and wisdom – and wise perspective.  One thing I keep reminding myself is that God is still in control.  And while I mull over the realities of the day, I am also finding some food for thought in the counsel of some others:

Continue reading →

Myopic World Vision

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Blurry Nightlife (Pacula)

I was quite disappointed yesterday by World Vision president Richard Stearns’ announcement  that the mamouth mercy ministry “will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman”.  While I do not agree with  the decision World Vision to cave on the issue of marriage, it was not so much the decision that disturbs me, as much as it was the gauling shallowness of the rationale.

Stearns, with an apparent lack of incredulity, declared that he made this decision for the “unity of the church”.  What a crock.  Whether the decision was valid or not, don’t hide behind such a cowardly and codnescending facade.

I initially read the article with sincere hopes that he would give good reason for the policy change.  I suspect that there are a variety good – or at least plausible – reasons an organization with the scope and mission of World Vision could be led to adopt this new policy without necessarily compromising.  These reasons would probably not apply to groups such as Young Life or Campus Crusade, which are distinctly evangelistic.  But World Vision is primarily humanitarian.  I suspect it is quite possible to make sure people have water, and food, and other necessities, without all who play a role in the logistics necessarily believing the gospel or live consistently with the implications of the gospel.

But Stearns does not come close to giving a reasonable reason – nor, in my opinion, even an honest one.  If he and the organization want to drop a commitment to Biblical authority, that would be their right I suppose.  But please spare us the baloney.

It is insulting that Stearns thinks likening this issue to differering perspectives on doctrines like baptism or ecclesiology is an acceptable argument.  That’s like comparing apples to potatos.  While he has a point that the church is inconsistent on the issue of divorce and remarriage, at least part of the reason for the inconsistencey is because there are both biblical reasons and bibilcal prohibitions for the allowance of divorce.  Each divorce requires church leaders to give diligent, thoughtful consideration in light of the biblical parameters.  Often times it gets messy, because you are dealing with hurting broken people. And while a number of churches are slack because of the complexities of individual divorce cases, it is something altogether to declare behaviors that have no biblical support whatsoever fall into the same category. Increased public support in recent years is not the same as a change in the biblical standard.

OK, no doubt one can find theologians from the denominations Stearns cited who embrace and encourage the support of gay marriage. But then again, every one of those denominations long ago forsook the Bible as their authoritative standard – to be God’s Word.  That is not to say that there are no faithful people in the churches of these denomination, only that the denominations as a whole long ago left the faith of their fathers behind.  Those holding to historic biblical principles are a minority in those groups.  So citing those who have vacated their historic standard as being the authorities on the standard they they no longer believe seems fallacious.

(NOTE:  While my perspective could easily be dismissed as merely a biased opinion, I suspect leaders in each of these denominations would proudly declare themselves to have moved beyond the “primitive” teachings of the Bible.  So I do not think I am saying anything that would be offensive to them.)

No doubt much more will be written on this subject in the days ahead.  In the mean time I thought I would post some other opinions I consider worth reading:

Of course all of these voices are speaking out against the action of World Vision.  Wantitng to be fair, I will update this post and add thoughtful opinions of proponents when I find them.

UPDATE (3/28/14) –  On Wednesday March 26 World Vision reversed plans to change their policy with regards to hiring those in same-sex marriages.  This change came less than 48 hours after their initial announcement.  Below are a few accounts of World Vision’s reversal:

6 Tips for God’s People in Response to a Culture Changed by Court Decree

/ Dennis Griffith / 6 Comments
Rainbow Sunset

While I do not want to become one of those guys who perpetually toots out only one tune, and I certainly do not want to make gay marriage or homosexuality the priamary notes of that tune, I do want to follow up yesterdays post with another reflecting on appropriate responses to the Supreme Court rulings yesterday.  This one is from an acquaintance, John Freeman, President of Harvest USA.

***

As the Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and the referendum of Proposition 8 in California, it certainly seems that the tide of our culture will continue to steadily move in the direction of the acceptance of gay marriage. So, what now? How are followers of Jesus Christ, and the church, to think about and respond to the recent decision by the Supreme Court? It is crucial that the church as an institution, and individual believers, respond well. John Freeman, president of Harvest USA, a ministry devoted to those struggling with sexual sin, thinks that the best response of the church now is to do the following six things:

1. We should not lash out in anger or be afraid

A fight or flight response is normal when cataclysmic events occur. But both these instinctual responses are unhelpful and unproductive. My wife has often told me, “John, when you speak or react out of fear or anger . . . bad things come out of your mouth.” She is usually right. Admittedly, we may legitimately fear where this decision will next take our nation; and we may legitimately be angry over how God’s design for the institution and function of marriage as it has historically benefited society is being hijacked. But we need to keep this in mind: As believers, our true citizenship is in heaven. We must think and act like those whose world has been impacted but not devastated.

I think a more productive response would be that of grief. We need to be grieved at what happened, grieved at the state of the culture, and grieved at how blind people are to the truth. Jesus wept over Jerusalem and her refusal to turn to him as their shepherd, and the Old Testament displayed a similar common response to tragic national events, where the people grieved in sackcloth and ashes.

Just grieve? Doesn’t seem very productive or helpful. It feels so powerless! Yes, but we need to remind ourselves that the “weakness” of the church is how the power of God is best displayed. The reason we don’t have to be angry or afraid is because . . .

2. We need to remind ourselves that God is still on the throne . . . neither slumbering nor sleeping

Although decided in the private chambers of the Supreme Court, this has not happened out of God’s sight. He is the God who knows all and sees all. This is beyond our rational understanding, but by faith we believe that God remains in control over all things, even over the decisions made by man and society that veer away from his wisdom. To respond with anger or abject fear is to forget this

Why God has allowed the acceptance of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage to be so prominent today will remain a mystery at some level. Why he has allowed it to split churches, denominations and families must also be trusted to his providence. We only know what Scripture does tell us: that this is a broken world, a world where his image-bearers are in rebellion against him and his intentional design for creation. Nothing really new here.

We must, as his followers, trust in Him at all times, especially when it seems that ungodliness has the upper hand. This is the courage of faith, and that courage must also move us to . . .

3. Boldly and gently proclaim the ultimate destructiveness of ungodly actions

While many will celebrate this decision as the advancement of an enlightened society and a triumph of inclusiveness and tolerance, the reality is that actions made in opposition to God’s design carry with them significant consequences. Several years ago noted pastor, teacher and author, James Boice, said, “It’s God’s world, not our world. Although we may want to rewrite the rules, we can’t, because it’s God’s world. And sin is destructive, whether or not we admit or agree, it’s still destructive.” By removing the definition of marriage from its historical and God-designed nature as being between one man and one woman, how long will it be before other forms of “marriage” will be legal (such as polygamy and polyamory)? What will be the effect on children and families as we move into territory that is completely new to human society?

These kind of ungodly decisions serve to remind us that the world in which we live is hostile to things of God. It reminds us that we live here as “aliens and strangers,” that we’re temporary residents of a foreign land. But it still remains a world that God so loved that he sent his only Son, so . . .

4. We must not avoid our calling: to engage the culture and all people with the truth and mercy of the gospel.

Even as culture goes off the rails, and we may seem powerless to stop it, we’re not off the hook from engaging the culture and actively loving people. Although we may want to retreat and go into self-protective mode, we must not. The church did not do so as the Roman culture descended into greater ungodliness and injustice. The downward spiral of our society and the increasing celebration of what is explicitly forbidden in God’s word make our sharing the gospel more important than ever! The gospel is the only hope for a broken world and fallen hearts. For this reason the church must not attack and demean gays and lesbians because of this issue. The gospel is a message of hope for everyone; not a platform for condemnation and ridicule. The gospel is heard through the words and deeds of His people. Another way to put this is our need too . . . .

5. “Keep calm and carry on” as God’s people and his church.

During World War II, people in Britain, during the bombing, felt that the world was falling apart. “Keep calm and carry on,” became a common phrase on billboards and posters as a way to encourage the British people. We need to follow this advice as well. How do we “keep calm and carry on” when we see everything around us in a downward spiral and decay? We lean on and trust in the Rock of our salvation, who is still with his people while we continue to carry out his Kingdom work.

We must not let these things have more power over us than they really do. And, thankfully, we still live in a country that allows our views to be heard and we should make our concerns known, about the reality of unintended consequences making further trouble and about the future of religious liberty, two major issues embedded in this controversy. But, again, we should not place our faith in any human political or legal structure as our ultimate protector or savior. Jesus said that his kingdom was “not of this world”—neither is ours. The mission of the church continues. The church cannot be either dismissed or destroyed. It remains God’s vehicle of redemption, worked out through his people. That mission will endure until he returns. And in the meantime, the church—and especially the next generation inside her doors— needs to be strengthened by. . .

6. Relevant and effective preaching and teaching about sex.

The silence of the church on many issues has contributed to the emergence of movements that have been detrimental to mankind (see Germany and the rise of Nazism). It can be argued that the church’s failure to preach and teach about why God’s design for sexuality is good, relevant and functional (even in a broken world) has created a vacuum for the acceptance of same-sex relationships. The church has said “No!” for too long as its main message on sexuality and now needs to say “Here’s how,” or here’s how God’s design for sexuality remains the best venue for people and society to flourish.

***

On a more personal note, I am looking forward to having John Freeman at our church this coming Fall.  On November 9 of this year, John will be leading a seminar, Finding Sexual Sanity in Sex-Crazed Society, at Grace Covenant Presbyterian Chuch in Williamsburg.

If you are interested, check out the Harvest USA blog.  You will find a number of excellent, thoughtful articles on a wide range of matters related to sexual brokenness: Harvest USA Blog

Prop 8, DOMA, and the Unchanging God

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment
Astonished

In light of the two U.S. Supreme Court decisions today, I was reminded of something my friend Mike Milton wrote that is pertinent to the issues related to these rulings.  Here is what Mike wrote:

When the rats begin to scramble on board the ship, it is a sure sign that the boat is sinking.

Self-described freedom-loving libertarians, and now Karl Rove, believe that Conservatives can embrace same sex marriage, or just leave it to the State as it is a personal “liberty” matter. The defense seems to be “Let the State allow whoever wants to be married to be married. It is a legal contract, not a religious ceremony, for goodness sake.”

Nonsense.

The nation we live in is grounded in “inalienable rights” that come from God, not from government. Our government was designed to guard and defend these rights, not dispense or arbitrate them, because they are based upon “inviolable” laws which must not be transgressed, dishonored, or broken.

This is not a so-called “religious” matter, but a matter of “natural law” that transcends government and social trends and attitudes. One of those inviolable laws is the law of marriage. It is a “Creation Ordinance” in that it extends to the very beginning of humankind. It is embedded in our species as surely as murdering another person is or stealing from another is.

Jesus, when questioned about divorce, appealed to this Creation ordinance when he said, “It was not so in the beginning.” He went on to describe marriage as between a man and a woman and in that union, spiritually, physically, and socially, they become one. Biology itself defends the arrangement, and without ever appealing to St. Paul, I could appeal the universal law that is placed in man’s heart to defend heterosexual marriage.

The Church did not invent marriage; however, the Church (and the Synagogue) must seek to bless what God has placed in the very nature of mankind and the order of His universe.

To give in to libertarian or muddleheaded notions and cries for transforming what is encoded into the very law of life is to not only go down with the ship, but share in the culpability of destroying it.

Marriage between a man and a woman is an inviolable law that cannot be tampered with by man. It is lunacy and suicidal to think and act otherwise. And that is just what the Republicans are doing if they join the ranks of conscience-seared and sadly mistaken people who so cavalierly dislodge the veritable cornerstone of human civilization.

Be certain of this: a nation which denies the inalienable rights of nature and of nature’s God cannot stand and will eventually perish. Freedom cannot be shackled in the human soul.

I wholeheartedly agree with what Mike wrote.  And I am disappointed with the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Continue reading →

Cultural Argument Against Gay Marriage

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment
Abstract Wedding

by Randy Hicks

Not many years ago it was unutterable, except perhaps as a schoolyard can-you-top-this, or as urban legend. Yet it is one of the most sensational issues of our time, and an almost-impossible topic to avoid. And, from what I’m hearing, it’s not always easy for people like you and me to articulate the reasons we oppose it. It’s called “same-sex marriage.”

“I know why same-sex marriage is wrong,” I often hear, “but I’m not sure how to articulate its dangers.” Christian friends are looking for a way to relate to those who may not hold the same views, and that’s wise.

To be clear, our religious beliefs do offer legitimate reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. But if we’re to win this important debate and win hearts and minds, we must be able to articulate our convictions in culturally relevant ways.

I’ve had the opportunity to take this debate into the university setting many times, this is what I hear from aggressive proponents of gay marriage:

• They’ve argued that denying them marriage is denying them the ability to have a loving commitment with another person. Frankly, that’s just not true. People love others and commit to others all the time—we just don’t always call it “marriage.”

Continue reading →

Same-Sex Marriage: Some Suggested Reads

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

Ever since President Barrack Obama mad his announcement about the Great Reversal, and his renewed support of Gay Marriage there has been no lack of opinions posted… well, pretty much everywhere.  I considered writing something up, but other pressing matters left me without the time to formulate words to express my opinions.  But I did take the time to read the takes of a number of others.  Some of those I appreciated most are posted below.  I will likely add more to this post as I run across anything poignant on this polarizing issue.

Of special note, I think Mike Horton’s two articles are tremendous. The first is as pertinent for Christians to consider as it’s title is provocative.

What is Your Moral Gauge?

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

Here is a provocative article by Ben Stevens for the Huffington Post: Two Lesbians Raised a Baby: A Response.

The premise behind Stevens’ piece is derived from the logic of  a video of an Iowa college student named Zach Wahls that has gone viral.  Wahls makes a compelling argument that he, though having been raised by two lesbians, has turned out well.  As Stevens writes:

Wahls is arguing that a practice is not necessarily bad if something good can result from it, and that his similarities to other people (others who were raised by heterosexuals) constitute a strong argument for the normative and morally upright nature of homosexuality, and indeed of homosexual parenting.

There seems to be little or no debate that Wahls has indeed turned out well.  And if you have seen the video you will have no doubt about his intelligence or his oratory abilities either. But, as Stevens explains:

We do not evaluate things simply based on whether good or bad may be fostered in their wake. In every sector of life and policy, regardless of the debate, we evaluate them on their own merits and moral qualities.

This is a thoughtful and thought provoking article, with a moral one friend expresses this way:

Evaluate your beliefs, not on whether or not good can result from them but, whether or not they are good in and of themselves.

Considerations for the Gay Marriage Discussion

/ Dennis Griffith / 3 Comments

While I suspect that the question of Gay Marriage is a settled issue for most of the readers of this blog, it seems anything but settled in our culture.  We are inundated by the rhetoric of both activists and those who are merely sincere and sympathetic to the seeming inequalities.

Christianity Today has published an informative article by Mollie Hemingway that brings some further insights to the table.  In short: Legalized Same-Sex Marriage WILL have a negative effect on our culture and, if not yours, the marriages of the rising generations.

Consider just opening paragraphs:

Same-sex marriage advocates frequently ask, “How would gay marriage affect your marriage?” The question is posed rhetorically, as if marriage is a private institution with no social consequences.

But The New York Times, of all papers, argues that gay unions could significantly alter marriage norms. A new study of gay couples in San Francisco shows that half are “open,” meaning that partners consent to each other having sex with other people. The Times says that the prevalence of such relationships could “rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony” by showing straight couples that monogamy need not be a “central feature” of marriage and that sexually open relationships might “point the way for the survival of the institution.”

To read the complete article, click: Same Sex, Different Marriage

Taking Notes From the Pop News

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

7786031-md

It seems like it has been a long, long time since I sat down to write a new post.  In reality it has only been a week that has gone by since I last posted.  But it has been a few weeks since I have been able to take the time to sit down and write with any real enjoyment. 

Since I last posted regularly our church has added an assistant pastor, I have been elected (appointed?) president of the Athletic Booster Club at Sullivan Central High School, Miss California has lost the Miss USA pageant but become the spokesperson for the new religious right, and militant pro-lifers have been thrown in jail for protesting the president in South Bend, Indiana. 

There is a lot that would have been great blog fodder.

I want to just take a moment to comment on the Miss California and Pro Life protests.  In both situations it has been asserted that there is a sense of religious persecution against Christians occuring.  But I am not so sure that things are as clear as some would like to make them out to be. 

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, as almost everyone in the Western world knows, was a finalist for the Miss USA crown.  She was put in, what was in one sense, a difficult position.  She was asked her opinion about gay marriage by an agenda driven celebrity, with no apparent talents, Perez Hilton. In her hesitating  and somewhat aplogetic response Miss Prejean affirmed her support of, not just traditional but, God’s standard and governing of marriage.   The backlash and media coverage that resulted was more than a little ridiculous.  Hilton went on the warpath, ignorantly and offensively attacking Miss Prejean for disagreeing with him.  As has been said by many before me, apparently open-mindedness only opens to the Left.

That event provided some interesting cultural insights. 

First, I am amazed that Pro Gay seems to have become a mark of righteousness. It is not enough for some that people be open and non-hostile to those choosing homosexual lifestyles. In our current culture any scruples about homosexuality is deemed not only ignorant but actually seems to be considered evil.  Pro Gay is not only accepted as enlightened but as a mark of the righteous.  This is peculiar in one sense because the position they espouse (no pun intended) is a minority view even in California. What is even more peculiar is that there is no apparent standard that makes their position “righteous” other than the fact that supporters say so.  What guage are these people using to determine what is righteousness and what is sin?  Romans 1 is being acted out right before our eyes: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie…” (Romans 1.25)

Second, because of her position on this issue, and because of the noteriety that surrounded it, there was an apparent attempt to destroy Miss Prejean.  They dug up dirt to discredit her. They did not have to dig deep. Pictures taken for a modeling portfolio were more revealing than the average conservative Christian girl has posed for.  That was enough to get the hounds howling about her hypocrissy, and some pageant officials questionining her qualification to continue as the reigning Miss California.

I have little doubt that the motive behind releasing those photos was malicious and political.  But I also thought the response given by Miss Prejean and her handlers was a bit weak and pretentious. To merely explain them as the trademark of her profession is not to uphold the standard of modesty her faith calls for.  And to claim that this was happening to her only because she was a Christian is just lame. 

I am not offering a judgement on Miss Prejean for the photos. For one thing, I don’t know when she posed for them nor when she became a Christian.  But I do think that she assumed a role that has become all-too-common among Evanglicals in our culture: victim.  She assumed this role when it was asserted that she was being treated unfairly just because she was a Christian.  We seem to cry “foul” far too often when things don’t go our way, even if there are other factors other than our faith. 

And this, I believe, is also pertinent to those lamenting the arrests of Pro Life protesters at Notre Dame.

In Miss Prejeans case, while there does appear to have been politically driven motive to destroy her credibility, the ammunition against her came from her own decsions and behavior.  Other contestants in recent years have faced scrutiney, and even the loss of their titles, for similar actions, without regard for their faith or faithlessness.  While harsh, the standards were comparable.  

In the case of the protesters at the Notre Dame commencement, the same princile seems to apply.  While I passionately share their position against abortion, and have been both disappointed and outraged by the policies implemeted by Barrack Obama on that front, these people were not arrested because they have trusted Jesus as their only hope and salvation.  The protesters were arrested because they crossed a line of civil behavior.  While their cause is noble, you don’t threaten the President of the United States and expect to have no consequence.  That they are Christians is incidental.  They were not arrested for being Christians, nor for being Pro Life. They were arrested because they chose to cross a line; because they chose to violate a “just” law in order to protest an injustice.  And as the old theme song from the ’70’s TV show Barretta says: “If you can’t  do the time, don’t do the crime.”

Jesus said: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.” (Matthew 5.11) 

I think we create serious confusion and distortion when we complain that we are persecuted for our faith, when in reality we are experiencing consequences of our behavior.  In each of these cases it may reasonably be argued that the consequences were unjust as compared to the actions and the motives. But we must be clear that none of these people were singled out simply for their faithfulness to the Gospel.  If we are unwilling, or unable, to make that distinction then we distort the Gospel, and create confusion about what the essence of the Gospel really is.

My third cultural insight is simply that as Christians we are way too quick to make celebreties.  While Miss Prejean may be a very nice and godly young lady, she is hardly prepared to be the national spokesperson for the sake of the Kingdom of God. She is a 22 year old model/beauty queen. While that certaily does not disqualify her, it harldy qualifies her to be elevated as a Christian leader.  She’s not the first, nor will she be the last. We do the same for athletes and actors.  Consequently, not only do we as an Evangelical sub-culture present a mere cotton-candy face of our faith to the culture at large, we do a disservice to spirituality those we prop up – and soon discard.

I’m afraid that as Evangelicals we are all to often so much like the world that we decry, it is no wonder that they rest of the world cannot tell the difference Jesus makes.

What About Gay Marriage?

/ Dennis Griffith / 5 Comments

 comet-mcnaught

Anger at the disproportionate number of African Americans who voted for California’s same-sex marriage ban “has been widely noted”, says Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe. But “for sheer hatefuless” the “hatemongering” directed against Mormons for pushing the ballot measure can’t be beat.  (See The Week for full article.)

I’ve watched the news with some amazement at the craze taking place in the streets of California.  I have little sympathy for the protesters, at least for the position that is mobilizing them.  But I find myself reacting the the charges they levy: bigotry and fear. 

While concerned about the cultural repercussions if “gay marriage” receives constitutional support, I don’t believe I live in “fear”. In one sense, if this measure passes, some things will become more vividly clear, such as those who are committed to Biblical standards concerning marriage and those who are not.  The words of the Apostle Paul come to mind:

“Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the Word of Life. ” (Philippians 2.14-16) 

In other words, those who maintain the characteristics of godliness shine like stars against the dark backdrop of the culture.  Therefore, if this measure passes in California, and elsewhere, it is not a cause for fear, necessarily, but an opportunity to shine in contrast. 

However, Paul’s words also cause me a little discomfort. 

First, while faithful believers may stand firm and shine in contrast to darkness in the culture, there are others who share our opposition to same-sex marriages who do not shine in the same way. In fact, some don’t shine at all. They are just what they are accused of being: bigoted and fearful.  I’m not sure that the differences of standards behind the sharing of  moral/political positions are always so obvious to those who hold the opposing view.  How, then, can we stand out like stars shining in the darkness, when some who stand with us are only a different shade of darkness from the culture they oppose? 

I’m sure that this difference is all the more distorted because many of us who are driven by Biblical standards are also tainted, to some degree or another, with the sins of bigotry and fear.  Our righteous motives are blended with unrighteous, sometimes even without our being conscious of the mixture.  To whatever extent this is true, the shine on our star is dimmed, at least somewhat.

Second, Paul’s words encourage us to do everything without complaining or arguing.  I’m not sure that from the perspective of the gay community, and their allies, that we Evangelicals have lived up to that counsel.  I’m not sure even from my own perspective that we’ve met that standard. 

Certainly the most militant proponents of “gay rights” don’t want to hear any Evangelical voice (nor do they support our right to a voice), but I am not confident we have exhausted all the means to express our voice.  We have used politics and the media to protect our position.  But have we expressed the full grace of the gospel with equal effort?  I’m not talking about a cheap grace that simply overlooks sin and calls it acceptable. I’m talking about the demanding gospel that demonstrates brokenness over our own sin – past and present – the experience of forgiveness in Chirst that reconciles us to God AND moves us out to love a broken and decaying world.  While this verse in no way mitigates our responsibility – and right – to stand up for righteous things, I have to wonder, if we lived out the gospel, if this was our primary voice, if there would be as many of our opponents who would hope we would just “shut up”.   Our civil rights are not abrogated, but we must not mistake exercsing our common civil rights as that which makes us stars.  It is the gospel embraced, lived out, and faithfully expressed, that makes us shine.  I suspect that is a voice that would be more readily heard.

Let me conclude with this: Many people are quite clear as to what their position is, but not as well thought out about the “why’s” behind the positions. 

Honestly, that is probably true of me.  I’ve given some thought, perhaps more thought than some others have, to this issue, but I’ve been pretty set in my position without wondering if there were some aspects I have been neglecting.  To the extent I have failed to clearly think through this polarizing issue, remaining ignorantly contented in my position, I suspect I am exercsing a form of bigotry.   And to the extent that I am willing to maintian my position without discerning how the gospel can be brought to bear to bring about reconciliation and greater resolution,  I am failing to shine.  I am not suggesting compromise and retreat, but reflection and humility. 

Dr. Geri Huminski has written a thought provoking article for Harvest USA titled: What About Gay Marriage?   Harvest USA is an uncompromising Evangelical ministry that reaches out to those who are effected by sexual addictions.  They offer a perspective, both experientially and biblically, that I don’t find elsewhere.  This article has helped me think more clearly about this culture defining issue.  I am still not sure I am ready to embrace all that is suggested (particularly in regard to taxes and shared benefits), but it is helping me think through both my “what” and my “why’s”.  

My hope is that I will be more shaped by the gospel and the advancement of the Kingdom of God than by the mere maintaining of the political status quo.  I suspect my “position” won’t change much, but maybe my shine can get a polish.