• Its interesting, Jesus never argues. Instead, he silences his opponent with words that are sharp but really not all that effective in chagning those who oppose him. Yet, we continue to argue while he chooses to speak to those who are willing to be transformed. We want to change those who have no interest because we fear a world that isn’t church. I wonder what does the church in America look more like, Christ or America? IS there a problem here?

•

The only time we see Jesus violently react is in the Temple, the house of God, where they have made the house of GOd a den of robbers, a place of injustice, where people no longer depend on God but the ways of culture to make a living. Where doe Jesus really affect change in a political act? What makes our vote different from the Pharisees who were locked others out of the gates of heaven?

• Power that comes from this world is wrong no matter which way you frame it. There is only one power and it is a cross with Jesus and now his church upon it. In our submission to the governing bodies we show others how to submit. In our submission to one another we raise others up. But in our vote we WIN by a large majority based on our rights and our power produced by those rights. We do not stand as seperate and apart we stand with culture that despite a perhaps morally right vote negates the sin in our own lives. To pass judgment in that way, through a vote, we do not recognize our own unworthiness, instead we raise ourselves up against those who see us at war. We may be called to love our enemies but I am pretty sure we are not called to make them.

Lastly, I am not saddened by these blogs or concerned that debating is wrong. I am concerned with us being Christlike to the extreme. When I see your name extremist, I hope that this means one who exhorts and then takes up his cross for in exhorting it is God’s power working through the proclaimer, in a political voice it is fear that drives the vote. I am TRULY THANKFUL for the challenges that these blogs present us as Christians. However, if nothing else maybe we will all keep our blogging clean and free from bleeding ears (sorry for the poor Tyson vs Holyfield allusion). God bless you and I hope he continues to make you an extremist! Grace and peace, Les

Too many people are content to just seek out and consume reaffirmations of their own views. That’s one way to avoid arguments, but I don’t know that you learn much.

I certainly do not claim innocence. The Lord knows I can’t and so do I.

Your point of view has some appeal. Neither side should be self righteous. Both sides should recognize their guilt and seek reconciliation with God.

However, the issue remains. People were asked to vote. Saying that both sides are wrong doesn’t resolve it. Either homosexual marriages will be permissible in Texas or they will not.

A vote against defining marriage the traditional way would be one to officially remove another bright-line rule of conduct in our seemingly endless march toward a more and more permissive society.

There are sound reasons so many want to hold firm on this bright line rule (traditional marriage). Among them, for me, is one closely connected to your idea that we all need to acknowledge our heavy burden of guilt and release it to His control. You are, of course, right. However, some people, do not recognize their guilt. I was once one of them.

As an unchurched person, I could not begin to take one step toward God until I broke my own internal moral code in a big way. Otherwise, why should I need a Savior? I did and have all too frequently since. What if everything around me had told me my behavior was okay? It would have been harder to recognize my own guilt and thus harder to turn back toward God.

That internal code is innate in some sense, but it is also nurtured, shaped, and defined by civil society and the rules we choose to impose through government.

As our civil society continues to becomes more and more libertine, where do the unchurched get a recognition that they need a savior? Divorce has lost most of its stigma. Adultery is hot on its heals in some circles. If virtually nothing is forbidden and nearly everything is endorsed, then what will cause a pang of conscience in anyone?

In that sense, this issue is probably a symbol for much more. A last stand of sorts.

The proposition under discussion above has since passed with about a three-fourths majority. Every voter, on both sides, was a sinner in need of a Savior. The people who voted in the majority are not better than those in the minority, and I would guess that most of them don’t think they are. However, they do want to hold firm to a historical standard. That doesn’t make them Nazis — which was the original point of this post. We can make that distinction, can’t we?

We speak often of living as Christ, dying to self, etc… But do we take this seriously. We stand strong on our positions like the Pharisees and pity the Gentile dog of a woman who submits to Christ because she knows that the real power to heal is when she admits her lowly position. And at the same time we would rather be Jesus drawing in the dirt, with his quick witted rhetoric that saves, than the adultrous woman who knows she has been caught but is saved by his wit. This man whom she had never even met lets her go with simply a gentle command to sin no more.

Yet, both sides want to claim their innocence (or maybe its their rights, these days the line seems really blurred) rather than simply admitting to the heavy burden of guilt and releasing it into his control.

For me this is about my faith, the churches faith to truly trust in his power. It is my own lack of faith that will not allow me to live in Exile because out in the desert there is no evangelism accept maybe of self. In the desert their is only complete dependence on him.

Let me be clear though, this does not eliminate conversations that can form and nurture both sides into a healthier understanding. When are we going to realize that growth can only occur when we quit taking the axe to each others hearts? Debates demand winners, conversations seek to learn together and in our case from a common story still rooted in God’s power of deliverance and his promise, which one do you think we ought to be about?

Lastly, its funny because even in my writing of these words I feel a sort of intensity in me. Why? I think it’s because it is how we are bred in this world. Only the strong will survive. Oh that we can redefine earthly strength and power toward the glorified submission of the cross.

Grace and peace to you, Les

I wonder how one who votes against those who oppose us believe they can hold their hand when they see a war with us going on. The truth we believe in can’t be accomplished on a cross but only in the arogance of our American citizenship. Where is our faith in the Almight God? We wonder why he “doesn’t work like he used to?” Perhaps our lack of faith and willingness to pray has been relented for our voice.

The harshest voices on this website might ought consider who they are really serving with their dogmatic self-righteous commentary of those who realize we don’t know the full power in our GRACIOUS judge. If you don’t think it will be gracious on that day, I pity us all for I am undoubtedly bound for destruction. May we seek to be more like Christ on a cross than the mighty eagle that flies free.

Though I presently am convinced that any form of homosexual behavior is wrong, I am aware that some are arguing that homosexual activity between one monogamous couple in a covenant relationship is not condemmed in scripture. I am open to the possiblity, but I would need to see a strong convincing argument (I will admit that I have not taken the time to research this subject much on my own).

So what should we do with people who struggle with particular ills? This is where the Christian church has failed miserably, as it has regarded certain ills as tolerable while discriminating other ills and those who are guilty of those certain ills as beyond redemption. If I struggle with envy, am I beyond the grace of God? I believe there needs to be a qualifying question: Am I struggling to overcome my envy but am so weak in that area that I stumble occasionally (or even often) - or - have I just rebelliously said “to hell with overcomming my sin of envy, I will just continue living as an envious person?” The later is a rebellious heart but the former is a penitent heart that has a weakenss.

So what happens when a Christian’s major weakness is some sort of sexual sin? There are some Christian who would be fine with just branding them with a scarlet letter, humiliating them even more, and showing no grace to them. They justify themselves saying, “We’ve gotta protect oursevles from this perverse person.” Nonsense, in Luke 7 how interesting it is that it is the sinful woman welcomed at Jesus’ side and it is the merciless Pharisee who is scorned by Jesus.

I am still convinced that homosexuality is a sinful behavior, along with adultery, incest, fornication, pornography, etc… But nobody who struggles with any of these sins deserves to be treated as though they are a diseased specimen in need of banishment from the church house. Maybe if more Christians would see their church communities as a redemptive hospital for the sin sick, even those often unspeakable sins, then maybe more people would actually find healing rather than shame. Just maybe the spiritual discipline of “confessing sins one to another” would not be a destructive tool (and I have personally witness a narcissistic individual use confession as a personal weapon of destruction and manipulation on a weak Christian — and the outcome is what you would expect)

…And just maybe then more people who are struggling with some real tough issues would stop trying to fight the battle alone and instead allow their brothers and sisters in Christ to bear their burdens with them.

I have not for a second ever not acknowledged yours or anyone else’s humanity. You indeed are human, are loved and lovable, are worth dying for. You do not need to “get” me to do that. What you really want, though, don’t you think, is to have me (or someone else) actually only recognize a part of your humanity, namely your homosexuality? Now I am going to ask you to recognize something about me.

You’ve no doubt heard about sociobiology. It is the belief that a person’s genes, that each person’s DNA right down to the nucleus in each cell, is selfishly interested in transmitting itself into the next generation. Human DNA, according to sociobiology, longs for life in perpetuity. In fact, the sociobiologist makes this point: Everything biological, this overwhelming display around us, reveals that reproduction is what life is all about.

(OK. Now I know you might suspect where I am going with this, but I promise I am going somewhere else.)

What I am left with this is this: homosexuality seems to give the middle finger to sociobiology, even to all of the blatantly fecund natural world. Homosexuals do not seem predisposed, or predirected, toward passing their DNA into the biological future. At least that is what I, a heterosexual, perceive.

Now, I am equipped by God or evolution or both to hate the smell of rotting flesh and to pull away from the heat of open flame. Both are dangerous to health. What if I, as a heterosexual male, am equipped to find a subset of humans not interested in passing along their DNA, content even to let it die with them, something to be well, avoided (for lack of a better word)? What I am actually saying is this: It seems that nature has endowed some heterosexuals with an aversion to homosexuality. We all surely have heard about the love gene, the alcoholism gene, the depression gene, even the God gene; there appears to be a gene for everything under the sun. Well, what if there is a homophobia gene? What if my homophobia is genetic?

And that is what I am going to ask of you now: I am designed by nature to be homophobic, to view marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman; my very cytoplasm avoids homosexuality; my homophobia is something I cannot help. In fact, I have been homophobic since I had my first sexual impulse: I knew the second I saw Julie Jones’ breasts that I was a heterosexual. With all that admitted, can you please recognize my homophobia as part of my humanity, essential to it, inseparable from my very essence? Will you protect my right to be what I can’t help but be; will you work with me to celebrate my homophobia in a grand dance of diversity? Will you work with me as I am true to myself?

OK. Again, I recognize that I’ve asked some tough questions. But there is nothing fallacious or facetious about them. I am sincere: I can’t help my homophobia (though I would not call it that). What do we do? Am I less than human for being homophobic?

Peace to you all,

Gnade

First, Wes commits the logical fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam. I know, perhaps it is pedantic to point this out, but it is helpful to note that Wes’ fallacy - the appeal to pity - is logically irrelevant. If he wants to truly “dialogue”, then he needs to hold his feelings within the confines of reason.

Second, it is something of a reduction to say that the Holocaust was directed at Jews and gays. It was directed at all humans: Christians and gypsies were killed, as were German nationals who opposed Hitler. No group is entitled to claim a unique place in the death camps, though, in sheer quantity we know that the Jews were soundly victimized. I wonder what percentage of Down Syndrome chiildren were likewise exterminated.

Third, Wes reduces love. Sorry, but that is what he has asked for: Love, to him, is acceptance. But Wes is only partly right: Love is acceptance – within truth. Love separates sin from sinner; disease from diseased; death from the dying. Jesus, contrary to popular opinion, did NOT teach “Love your neighbor as yourself.” That He merely affirmed it as the highest ethos of Jewish morality is clear. But the problem with that Jewish principle is that it makes each person the standard of love. Hence, the heroin addict can say that he was only loving his neighbor as he himself would like to be loved when he shares his needles with other users. The man who provides a prostitute for his son might argue that this is the sort of gift he wishes his not-so-loving father had given him.

What do we know that Jesus taught about love? We know this: His calls to love are rooted in the only NEW commandment He issued (the mandate of Maundy Thursday): LOVE EACH OTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU. The difference and newness of this commandment is astronomical, for now we have a standard – The God of the Universe in Christ. And how has the God of the Universe loved us in Christ? He has loved us by rebuking and rebuffing us; He has loved us by insisting that we crucify ourselves with Him; He has loved us by insisting that we shatter ourselves against the Rock (or be crushed) so that He may meld the fragments to wholeness. Christ is confrontational in His acceptance; His tolerance is rife with expectations. Christ, the standard of love which must inspire our love, is indeed all about accepting sinners — at a price; the price which is His death, and the price which is our death when we submit our whole being to the purifying love which is God.

Wes, sadly, reduces God’s love to something tepid and uninspiring. Wes makes himself, how HE WANTS TO BE TREATED, as the standard of what love is. But that is not love; it is wishfulness.

Sorry, but that is what I think. Am I wrong? Perhaps. I’ve been known to be wrong many times. But I think a serious look at Jesus’ new commandment yields only one conclusion; the Golden Rule is insufficient. Why else would Jesus issue a new commandment?

Of course, this opinion is entirely my own: I’ve not read it anywhere or heard it preached or taught. I am not saying that it originated with me (I do not know); I am only saying that I can take the blame for its heresy if it is indeed shown to be erroneous. In fact I would welcome anyone to steer me toward the light if I am found to be in darkness.

Peace to you all (including you Wes),

Gnade

To concede my point a bit, I admit that I was very angry when I posted earlier…which is never a good time to open one’s mouth. However, I still stand by my belief that God is love and love is justice.

Again…I would not have understood what I meant by all that only three years ago. My paradigms and viewpoints have all been changed by my studies of black theologians, liberationists, and feminists. In some sense we are simply speaking different languages. This is why I suggest that I am mostly wasting my time…we see the issues so drastically different that dialogue–that true communication–is difficult if not impossible. This is not a character statment about either one of us…it is just a statement of the fact that a few short paragraphs on a blog do not equal a true dialogue between Christian brothers. For that, I think it would require several hours, a lunch, and some “face time.” Then we might be able to actually communicate and see the humanity in one another. I regret that this is not an option for us. True dialogue like that would actually be appealing to me.

According to my friend, this amendment would determine if a man’s gay “husband” could visit him in an emergency medical situation. It would also determine if a woman’s “wife” would be allowed to retain custody of an adopted child.

According to your friend, the amendment will also lead to the gas chambers. Forgive me if I’m skeptical.

Although, as Wes said, I think people who DO think gays will burn if they don’t “convert” probably don’t care what happens to their medical coverage, or their inheritance rights. THAT is a tragedy.

That just doesn’t follow. Millions of people believe in John 14:6, perhaps even you. Does it follow, that none of these people “care what happens” to non-Christians? Perhaps what you see as a lack of concern for their economic benefit, is actually a great concern for something far more important.

Travis said:

[Those opposed to gay marriage] have argued for a slippery slope, though their slope usually ends with the assumption that allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legal consent of men marrying horses and pedophilia becoming legal. That, to me, is a bit dramatic.

This is not a slippery slope argument, and the point is not drama. Generally, it is a response to the sort of thinking under discussion here, where Rex said, “I think you make a good point concerning the difference between a law against gay marriage and a law against stealing. The former is a choice between consenting adults and the later is an action that brings harm to someone else.”

The point is to challenge one who approves of homosexuality to distinguish between that private, consenting sexual behavior which should merit tolerance and/or approval, and that which should not. The best example is not bestiality or pedophilia, but rather consensual adult incest. How could you respond, for example, if a 30 year-old man and his 28 year-old sister came to apply for a marriage license citing every single argument that the pro-homosexual marriage side of this debate has made?

You can’t. The point is not that this will lead to brother-sister marriage, which it eventually might (though such unions would probably be rare). The point is that logical consistency would require you to sanction the brother-sister marriage. Rather than a slippery-slope, it is highlighting inconsistency on the other side. Most proponents of homosexual marriage would not sanction the brother-sister union. Hence, they are inconsistent in condemning as close-minded bigots all of us who believe in the Biblical prohibitions against both homosexuality and incest. When it comes to incest, they too are “close-minded bigots” but don’t admit it. Of course neither of us are bigots at all. We all believe that it is legitimate to make moral judgements about the appropriateness of certain private, consensual, sexual behavior and to write those judgements into laws about marriage and other matters. We only disagree about the details.

I’ve never seen an adequate response to this reasoning, not even from relatively thoughtful homosexuals like Andrew Sullivan.

Brian said:

I would just like to point out, however, that proponents of equality in state recognition of marriages are by no means the only ones to use overheated rhetoric.

No Brian, but one should not excuse the other.

No one is asking for rights based on what people do under the covers.

Instead, gay people are asking that our families (including our children) be afforded the same protections that other families are afforded.

Then explain how a cohabiting, unmarried, heterosexual couple who are personally, though not “officially,” committed to one another for life are treated any differently under the current law than an identical homosexual couple. The issue is not about civil rights, it is about redefining marriage and demanding government approval.

Wes said:

OK…I am “the homosexual.” Although I have a name…Wes. Thank you for NOT acknowledging my humanity so well that you even refuse to call me by my name.

I have very little to say here because I think we all agree that time spent on your webpage is, for me, a waste of time.

It’s only a waste of time if you want it to be. If you want it to be constructive, it can be. But, why waste time posting to tell me it is a waste of time? Either be willing to engage in a dialogue or don’t bother.

Instantly questioning the motives of those you disagree with and painting them as Nazis is not constructive. That was the point of my post. Your humanity exists because you are a creature of God, Wes, regardless of whether I use your name as often as you would like me to and regardless of whether you happen to notice when I do, in fact, use your name.

I think your reaction to this entire issue is out of all proportion to reality. That’s why I called B.S. on your note, but don’t take it personally. It doesn’t mean I hate you. It means I think you are wrong. Period. My post, the amendment, Christian disapproval of homosexuality — it’s not all about you. It’s about ideas much bigger than you. If you showed some respect for that notion, you might get more respect in return.

First, concerning my citation of the holocaust. Please recall that it was the Jews AND GAYS who were murdered by the Nazi camps.

Some of the guards and some of Hitler’s henchmen were also homosexual. What does that have to do Proposition 2 or the price of condoms in San Francisco?

Wes also said::

To all: Finally, I am going to completely resist commenting directly to those of you who have spent most of your time discussing this topic as a human-less issue (and in a rather hurtful manner at times). This is more than just some theory that Christians should be sitting around theologizing about (as fun as that can be). This is about real people’s lives. That is why I began with the statement about people voting on my humanity. Please don’t forget the Christian command to love people. Jesus didn’t pause to think about the theological implications of dining with whores. He just sat down and grabbed a fork.

What happened after dinner? Did He tell them to go have a fabulous night of whoring? I don’t think so. It was probably something more like, “Go and sin no more.” Of course this is about real people. It’s about fundamental issues of right and wrong, which is why folks get worked up about it. If you don’t want others to pretend to know what’s in your heart, don’t pretend to know what’s in theirs. People who choose to discuss these things without getting hyper-personal — those who may use a bit of humor to lighten the mood (e.g. the San Francisco comment above) are not being inhuman or inhumane.

This has been a very hard day. Today I have forced myself to read blogs that I cannot help but allow to affect me. Though you may not care, it does hurt me to hear so many of you disregard my life, my love, and my feelings. Thank you for continuing the pain that caused me to leave the conservative church that used to love me. Thank God for the other churches who still show love.

Wes, it is fascinating to me that you can be so self-righteous in your condemnation of supporters of Proposition 2, and then turn around and demand their approval with equal self-righteousness. Are you not disregarding the life and the feelings of those who sincerely hold true to their understanding of Scriptural teachings about homosexuality? Who are you to judge “conservative churches” or the hearts of those who disagree with you as loveless? I’m constantly amazed at how judgmental the high-priests of non-judgmentalism can be.

Love does not equal unconditional approval. Not for you, me, or anyone. Everyone deserves hell, including you and I. Likewise, no one earns forgiveness and no one can demand it. We all have to decide which is more important — our life and our feelings, or God.

Travis, your view is this: that the state should recognize your view of “definition” and “marriage”–namely, that the state position should be that a diverse country must permit people to “define definition” (your words) “differently” one from another; and that the state should make me live in a place that permits me to keep my definition to myself without limiting others.

If this is the case, then it requires that my definition of marriage and “definition” is not given the same status as yours: Yours is embraced by the state because it is seemingly broad; mine ignored because it is seemingly narrow. Mine does not matter while yours does.

Let me put it this way. I want to live in a country that permits me the pursuit of happiness. Well, part of my pursuit of happiness is to have a state define marriage in sacrosanct and traditional terms. Why am I not permitted this? Why should my definition, or the majority definition for that matter, not be the prevailing paradigm, if that is what makes the majority achieve happiness?

Another analogy. Imagine standing before a tolerant school board. Each objection you raise, each affirmation to an idea you offer is greeted with this: “We tolerate your right to say that, sir, and we acknowledge your right to free speech. Thank you.” Now, when I say NO to a school board, I just don’t want my free speech to he heard, I want it to have ontological impact: I want it to effect change, to have power, to be a real NO (or a real YES).

What you are suggesting is that my definition of definition, or my meaning of meaning, or my definition of marriage is perfectly fine—for me, in private—but I have no right to expect my beliefs to be standardized in culture. Why then, do we permit ANYONE’s beliefs about “marriage” be adopted by culture or the state?

When you say that “Such a recognition does not require one to give up their own personal beliefs about marriage,” you make something of a blind error. What if one of my personal beliefs is that the state should not permit gay relationships to be given marital status; and another one of my personal beliefs is that I should work to ensure that the state does not define gay marriage as such. Must I not have to give up one of my personal beliefs if the state does indeed legalize gay marriage? And what if one of my personal beliefs is that the state will not ever do such a thing? Will I not have to give that up too, if gay marriage is endorsed?

Lastly, do you mean to imply that all people’s beliefs matter in this context? Are some beliefs best decried, despised, rejected, even expunged? Do all beliefs really matter?

Just being too philosophical for on-the-fly typing, but peace to you anyway, and thanks,

BG

But, for now, I want to quickly note that if you re-read my post, you will see that I did call you by name, and I linked to your site.

Of course, most legal provisions are immediately conferred upon a man and woman at their wedding ceremony. But even here they are not afforded final control over death-and-dying issues (at least in many states) without signing numerous legal certificates beyond the marriage certificate. A will is still required if a couple, settling an estate post mortem, wants to avoid probate court regarding certain possessions not legally shared by name (if a house is in my name and not my spouse’s, it is not necessarily conferred to my spouse upon my death).

I think it disingenuous when a gay marriage supporter argues that all that is being sought is equality of rights. That is not what is REALLY being sought. What is being pursued is reductionistic: it is even an effort to change not only traditional conceptions of marriage, but also of love and personhood. This is more than a legal battle; it is an ontological one as well.

Peace to you all,

BG