I was up early this morning, earlier than I normally am on Sunday morning. Over the weekend I’ve been thinking about what should I say to my church this morning, if anything about Friday’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Some thoughts (don’t know if I’ll share any or all of them this morning in church, but here you go)…
-
God is still on His throne. None of this is a shock to Him. He is not surprised. Yet listening to some reaction from my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I wonder if they believe that.
-
The world is not ending, it will one day when Jesus returns, but this ruling isn’t guaranteed to hasten His arrival.
-
We live in a broken and sinful world so why are we surprised when people act broken and sinful?
-
We need to make sure our own house is in order. Critics of those who oppose same-sex marriage have a point when they discuss the divorce rate in traditional marriage and evangelicals in particular. The divorce rate among Christ followers should be lower, but sadly that is not the case.
-
Those in favor of same-sex marriage are not the enemy, the Bible makes it pretty clear who the enemy is, (Ephesians 6:12).
-
As followers of Christ we need to speak truth in love, (Ephesians 4:15).
-
Do not look at those celebrating the ruling with disdain, if we were to put ourselves in their shoes we would feel the same way.
-
Political answers will never adequately address spiritual problems, if at all.
-
We have as a Church, by and large, failed to minister to the homosexual community. When our only engagement with this community is political in nature we’ve missed the mark and are being disobedient. That needs to change. We should find ways to build bridges with the homosexual community to Christ’s love (and by that I don’t mean condone the lifestyle).
-
My friend over at Evangelicals Anonymous, who hasn’t been posting regularly but did post on this said something that we need to keep in mind when looking at potential consequences:
I believe most homosexuals simply want to be treated equally from their perspective and have no desire to sue churches, see pastors in jail, or cause a scene in any way.
-
Iowa Independent cited a recent University of Iowa poll that showed 60% of those under the age of 30 support same-sex marriage. I would suggest it is pretty reflective of younger evangelicals as well. Does this mean homosexuality is any less sinful? Not at all. It does show that by and large (and not on this issue only) parents are not adequately teaching kids to look at issues from a Biblical worldview. I know I’m going to take some flak from some younger evangelicals on that, but I’m sorry. Those opposing same-sex marriage have been wrong in not showing love to homosexuals. Some (not all) younger evangelicals in their reaction to the other position are guilty of showing love, but never communicating truth on this issue. It isn’t either/or, the biblical response is both/and.
-
While we shouldn’t just address this politically, it is not inappropriate to do so. Christians who choose to contact their legislators need to remember – frame your argument from a civil point of view. Talking about “God’s law” is not going to be effective. We do not live in a theocracy. We need to talk about societal pitfalls, etc., demonstrate social science evidence, etc. Be winsome and respectful.
-
If an attempt at a marriage amendment fails, we are people who do respect the rule of law and democracy. We need to obey our governing authorities provided doing so does not make us violate God’s word (if changes in the law later on requires churches to marry homosexuals, or not preach on homosexuality – like what you see in Canada, etc.).
There is more that could be said on this topic, and I’m sure I will post more as we get updates.
Update 4/9/09: Linked by Christianity Lived Out.
70 Responses to “Responding to the Iowa Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling”
Comments (68) Pingbacks (2)
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
What, pray, gives the majority the moral right axiomatically to define what's natural and what's unnatural?
Truth is not a majority vote, as a rather smart man once said; if you're going to question the existence of a natural order, in a serious and honest matter, you might want to look for a philosophy group. If you'd really like, I can look for a good write-up of the general discussion?
Really, really short version of why homosexual sex isn't natural:
Sex, AKA the reproductive act.
Homosexual sex: a mimicking of the reproductive act without possibility of reproduction.
See also: chemical contraception, physical contraception, masturbation.
This is a Christian blog: we believe in objective morality and an objective reality. (even if we, as humans, are highly flawed)
A large part of your disagreement seems to come from a misunderstanding on why we believe what we believe.
In other words: My way or the highway.
What a succinct summation of the homosexual lifestyle activists perspective!
I know that's not how you meant it, but it is still accurate.
Accepted only on the condition of compliance with something that's unnatural to them.
Refraining from sex is “unnatural?” Goodness, better turn out all those rapists and pedophiles– restraining their urges is “unnatural” and thus an unfair demand!
What other desires is it “unnatural” to restrain?
Overeating?
Violence?
Sarcasm?
If this is your position, then stop reading now; for the rest, I'd like to postulate that the way, the frequency, and with whom we have consensual sex for recreation is our own business and not that of those who would judge us for being different from their ideas.
And this is highly relevant, since the original posts calls for the immediate stoning of all those thought to participate in homosexual activities.
Oh…wait… it didn't say that? It objected to redefining a religious union in a manner that's never before existed?
And no argument claimed that ideas were sinful, only that actions were?
Oh, what a relief!
Thanks for checking back. I didn't see your response yesterday. My point about SSM not affecting my marriage was more directed at some who've said that it demean their marriage. But really, nothing outside one's marriage can do that. Nobodies marriage became any less.
As for sibling marriage: I'll continue that discussion where it originated:
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=2435#comment-...
Civil laws are subject to change, as can also happen with opinions within societies. Religious views can also change over time, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume they change very slowly or not at all. Although the civil and religious authorities use the same word, 'marriage' don't conflate the two: They've never meant quite the same thing. To be concise, one could call them 'civil marriages' or 'civil unions' distinguish them from 'religious marriages'. The Iowa Supreme Court didn't touch religious marriages.
Even 'marriage' among religions can vary: Catholics might not formerly recognize the marriages of some Protestants, particularly among the divorced.
Could you please make an argument, rather than assertions backed by appeals to authority?
Sorry, I don't understand. What appeals to authority? Could you reformulate your request?
I agree that the ruling extends and thus redefines the classes of people who can get civil marriages. That is a change. I don't agree that the change 'destroys' the experience of marriage per se, particularly among those who previously could get married under the old interpretation. I likewise don't think marriages were 'destroyed' in the past when it was redefined by courts to allow mixed-race couples.
Already happened. It works pretty much the same way as any other divorce. One problem is getting divorced in states that don't recognize the original marriage.
when you have sex with another person that is not open to procreation, you are misusing sex and essentially treating the other person as an object
I take it, then, that my wife and I have been sinning having monogamous sex these past 30 years since her hysterectomy?
it is better for children to grow up with both a mother and a father, and that society has an interest in maximizing the probability that children will do so
This is one point where one should remember the quote about lies, damn lies, and statistics. If you're going to apply statistics to gay couples with children, them for heaven's sake also apply them to straight people with children. How many children of straight people are growing up abused, traumatized, with just one parent, hungering because all the money goes to drugs and booze? These kids then are still better off than adopted or natural children of gay couples? Why are idealization and wishful thinking permissible arguments when putting down a discriminated minority, but not the other way around?
society also has a huge interest in minimizing divorce to a much greater extent than we do
Let's all become Catholics and that problem is solved!
Yes, yes–I like a nuclear, intact family, too. But that's 50% wishful thinking these days: precious few nuclear families are intact anymore; they aren't robust enough. The natural, resilient family is an extended family, but we don't have those now since society decided that extended families had to go so we'd all get out there and consume more. A heterosexual union is no guarantee for a positive environment for children, and too many children are growing up without that environment. Is it then better that all these deprived children are left to their own measures or put in some kind of foster care than allowing interested homosexual couples to care for some of them? Misery isn't going to go away just because you know the prescription against it. Homosexuality isn't going to go away either: it's a fact of animal biology, and, failing effective action like they recently took in Iraq, it's going to be with us for the foreseeable future. Why do you keep telling us how it ought to be when neither you nor I can change the way it is?
unless they address housing issues I object to homosexuals serving. If they address the housing issues that come along with it – fine.
Segregate them so they don't defile you with their sinful presence. (Mt. 9-11.) Put them in their own unit that you can send off on the first suitable suicide mission. Seat them in the back of the bus. Nothing changes.
Here's a quote from my book: “Woe unto you, pharisees, hypocrites.”
Excuse me? Now look who is being judgmental.
Do you even understand, no of course you don't…
Soldiers have to share quarters, have common bunk rooms, share showers, etc. It would not much different than sharing all of that co-ed.
I suppose you don't have a problem with that though either.
I didn't say put them in their own unit, just not share the same dorm.
Also to say that would be done to send them off on a suicide missions is offensive.
That is true, happened up in Sioux City already 2-3 years ago with a lesbian couple. I think that was a civil union though from Vermont.
Update:
Vermont just became the first state to legalize SSM by legislative decision. The Govenor's veto was over-ridden, 23-5 in the senate and 100-49 in the house. I wonder where they got the additional five votes in the house.
Great thoughts Jeff. I read that on your blog as well. For some reason I didn't get this comment until now since Disqus filtered it as spam. Strange, don't know why it would. I'll have to be sure to check the spam filter a little more often.
I have often wondered why homosexuality is called out on the carpet as a sin so frequently. Can anyone address how homosexuality is 'more' of a sin than adultery, greed, promiscuity, etc etc – any one of the wide panoply of self-centered sins that should be commanding our attention. . .yet homosexuality some how attracts more attention than the sins that afflict us all? Good Heavens, if gays don't belong in church due to the 'a priori' argument that they are 'openly sinning' – the pews should therefore be emptied of the rest of us. Neither you nor I would have a seat before Christ. And clearly he came for ALL of us. Sin is the stamp on the admission ticket. . .or did I miss something?
I find so little in the Bible regarding either homosexuality OR marriage, compared to the great expenditure some Christians spend on it (again, compared to other sins.) Neither marriage nor being gay apparently preoccupied Christ as much as it does us.
I've never said that it was more than a sin than those other items, actually the contrary.
I don't agree with you statement about “I find so little,” anytime you find the phrase “sexual immorality” in the New Testament – which is the Greek word porniea it is referring to homosexuality and marriage. Besides just because it isn't mentioned a lot as other topics doesn't mean it isn't important.
I wouldn't say a lot of time has been spent on it either. In the 17 years I have been a Christian I can remember only one sermon on the topic. We'd probably focus a lot less on it if it weren't for activism done by homosexuals.
Also you probably don't find much mention of it in the Gospels, because it wasn't exactly common in Israel. He did speak on lust and adultery, and they way he described marriage in Matthew 5 & 19 makes it a given that is meant to between a man and a woman.
Who on this blog said homosexuals weren't welcome in the church?
Tis is a VERY sad day. I can't believe the people have no vote as I'm sure there must be some pay off for the democrats in their decision.They are also afraid to let the people vote as they know the out come. People do not want this in Iowa or any other state!!!!!!!!! Have They Lost Their minds???? This has greatly lessened the value of marriage in Iowa.This goes against the laws of nature.What will They do to us next. Just think of 2 women or two men together makes me sick.No wonder society has been punished with AIDS. We need PRAYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!