gay-marriage

Chicken With a Side of Politics, Business, and Religion Causes Indigestion

Frank

One night while I was in college, I was pulling an all nighter with some friends when the munches came. So like any other college student, we debated what brand of cheap pizza would torment our stomachs in the morning. “I will not eat Domino’s” expressed one friend. She then explained how the CEO of Domino’s donated significant money from the company’s profits to pro-life groups. It was also right around this time that Eddie Vedder wrote “pro-choice” on his arm with a sharpie prior to playing a song on MTV. You might say this was a coming of age moment for me. No longer were brands apolitical. Even favorite musicians had an opinion; often strong ones at that. The innocence was gone.

At this time I identified more with the College Republicans than with campus ministry. The Michael P Keaton capitalist in me recognized that a private company had the right to spend their profits however they wished, just as consumers had every right to not give those companies their patronage. Musicians could hold an opinion, and listeners could choose not to buy their albums.

With this attitude in mind, I really wanted a Chick-fil-A sandwich yesterday. One, because I happened to be traveling in the Southeast and there aren’t any restaurants back where I live. And two, I thought it would make a good anecdote for this post. Unfortunately, my terminal at Atlanta’s Hartsfield Airport didn’t have one, so I settled for pizza instead. From Pizza Hut, not Domino’s.

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure if I wanted to wade into this debate. The doctrinal and political leanings of Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy are not news. And I think this whole firestorm has been fed by fuel poured on by the media. Yet the heart of the issue is right in the wheelhouse of the theme of this blog- in our democratic, capitalist society, what is the best way to stand up for our convictions in the public square?

In the context of the Freedom of Speech, Cathy didn’t do anything wrong. But was it the wisest approach?

Jesus was relatively apolitical. When the Pharisees tried to trap him into speaking out against Rome, he turned the tables on the instead. Paul wrote about soldiers who don’t concern themselves in political affairs while instructing Timothy to not get wrapped up in useless quarrels and debates.

In practice I think this would allow for financial support for causes when done in private, or vocal support when independent of business. I think you get yourself in trouble when you mix the two. But then again, I think it gets messy when you mix religion and politics in the first place.

Yet you could argue this is a moral issue, not a political one. But if it were not for the politics, would we even hear about this? And since Cathy so strongly supports “traditional marriage” is he as vocal opposing divorce? Or warning against workaholism? So how should he have expressed his convictions and how should we, as Christians have responded?

Others have written plenty on this already. Matthew Paul Turner, Rachel Held Evans, Alise Wright, David Kenney are just a small sampling. And Get Religion has done an excellent and thorough job scrutinizing the media attention this has received. (In order, Where’s the Beef, The Internet Honors Stupid Stories, The Media’s Irrational Fear of Chick-fil-A, Shocking AP Quotes, Hating on Chick-fil-A)

Please review these viewpoints, the pros and cons of boycotting or “eating mor chikin”, and tell me what you think the most Christ-like approach would be.

Update: A friend of mine, who also happens to be gay (yes, it is possible for a conservative Christian to have gay friends; shocking, I know!) posted this link showing the “Top 50 homophobic Chick-fil-A tweets” on his Facebook account. I know this is polarizing, but does it necessitate this kind of response? Warning in advance, the language in those tweets are beyond crude and definitely NOT Christ-like.

(Hah! I just noticed a typo of financial was auto-corrected to fanatical, completely changing the point of that sentence. Typo corrected, carry on)

Either Or

Frank
You cannot be compassionate without accepting.
You cannot serve without enabling.
You cannot forgive without being tolerant.
You cannot challenge without judging.
You cannot preach the Gospel without condemning.
You cannot promote something without opposing something else.
Religion divides, politics unites under causes.
Politics divides, religion unites under causes.
You cannot follow Jesus without voting _________

Do any of these seem unreasonable to you? They all sound perfectly logical and have just enough truth to believe. But they are all lies that Satan has used to have us argue that either politics and religion are one in the same or that one cannot have anything to do with the other. And we buy into the lies and divide our churches and our society along lines drawn by politics.

I was browsing through a couple of websites last night, from each side of the political aisle, both claiming to be Christian. I could not believe the hate and divisiveness that permeated every topic, every discussion. Each side assumes that you cannot be for a Social Justice gospel without voting a certain way, nor can you be against immorality in our culture without voting a certain way. Is it possible to  be compassionate yet still hold a high standard of morality?

One side argues that Jesus hung out with sinners, never preached about politics, and had in his small group of apostles an insurrectionist and a swindler. Oh and of course, his first miracle involved alcohol.

The other side argues that Jesus preached morality and religious purity and called his followers to repentance.

Why can’t both be true? So long as politics gives us a choice of either/or between two candidates, we assume the same applies to our religion. Jesus didn’t preach about politics even though he lived under an empire that promoted infanticide and embraced homosexuality because he cared more about how we live than how we vote. Any one of the Gospel writers could have added commentary to fit their political views but they didn’t. God gave his Law to the Israelites not to make them morally superior, but to separate them from the world around them. So following Christ is about how we live, separate from the world’s values; not about how we vote or what social cause we embrace.

But this does not mean to throw away your politics, rather it is a call to not put your faith in it. Instead put your politics into action:

  • Are you pro-life? Then love the unwed mother, accept her when her family rejects her.
  • Are you for the sanctity of marriage? Then remember the commands to keep the marriage bed pure, the definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13, that marriage is as much about love as it is respect and that divorce is as much, if not more, a threat to the traditional family as gay marriage.
  • Do you preach against the immorality in our culture? Then preach against every sin, from gossip to gluttony, with the same amount of bile and venom you spew against the gay community.
  • Do you embrace and accept homosexuals? Then remember that although Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery he commanded her to leave her life of sin.
  • Are you compassionate towards the downtrodden, doing what you can to heal? Recall Jesus’ words to the man healed by the pool to stop sinning or something worse may happen.
  • Do you believe that our nation is a Christian nation? Then remember that you are citizens of Christ’s Kingdom first and that the first command of the Kingdom of God that Jesus ushered in was to repent.
  • Remember that someone’s station in life may have come about because of sin, yet it is an opportunity for the work of God to be displayed.
  • And before you judge the speck in another’s eye, remember the plank in your own.

Unlike politics, following Jesus is not an either/or proposition; it is all or nothing.

Flashback Friday: Walking in Another’s Shoes

Frank

***Originally posted on August 24, 2009. Posted in the wake of the Court overturning California’s Proposition 8. It’s been a while since I kicked this hornet’s nest…***

One of my goals with this blog is to be even-handed in my analysis and commentary, though I do have obvious religious and political beliefs. That doesn’t mean I’m not open to taking a different point of view. Walking in another’s shoes, so to speak, and these two articles do just that. They both highlight how one’s worldview impacts their decisions. By reading these articles, I gained a great deal of respect for both men because they are consistent in applying their worldview, something I seldom see in the present culture-war.

The first is about Ted Olson, a conservative lawyer who is fighting to overturn Proposition 8 in California. His defense of gay-marriage is based on his conservative principles to keep the government out of our personal lives. You can’t argue that he’s not consistent with his conservative view of government, in contrast to a conservative view of social moors taken by many politicians and activists. Now, I’m not about to change my opinion on gay-marriage. However, given the background in this article I will concede the point of “fundamental right” though I still worry about the “slippery slope” and disapprove the means by which homosexuals are trying to gain this right. (Specifically, not responding to Prop 8 with a proposition of their own and instead throwing a legal hissy fit)

The second article is about the “abortion evangelist” (gotta love the sensationalist headlines) LeRoy Carhart. I don’t approve of his practice, but I understand his motivation for providing it. I also admire that he does stick to his guns. In one example, “Carhart asked her what she would do if she had to carry the baby to term. ‘She didn’t say she was going to kill herself,’ he says. ‘She said she would put it up [for adoption].’ He turned her away..” I do regret that he feels the way he does about his own safety. I hope he realizes that not everyone who is opposed to abortion wants him dead. But given the slant of the article, I don’t expect that perspective to be conveyed. What is also important to glean from this article is how tragic abortion really is and that criminalizing it only marginalizes those who “need” (I hesitate using that word, but I think it’s appropriate here) the service. The real war against abortion needs to be against this need (“abortion should be available, but rare”). Think simple supply-demand economics. Legal restrictions to abortion reduce the supply which only increases the cost (emotional and physical in addition to financial) to women. Instead, the demand needs to be brought down. And no, I believe showing pictures of fetuses to women entering a clinic is too late to have any measurable effect. Instead the preciousness of life (via Scripture) needs to be emphasized alongside the value of reserving sex for marriage. There is a moral case for family planning.

In both of these cases, it can be seen how their careers are guided by their respective worldviews. But neither worldview is Biblical. Get Religion points out that the profile of Ted Olson only mentions that Olson is “not a regular churchgoer”, and Newsweek fails to mention any religious affiliation of Carhart. Yet, while we may not agree with them, we should take the lesson that our lives should be guided by some particular worldview. As Christians, our worldview should be built on being Christ-like and “what would Jesus do?” I also think it is important to be open-minded and respectful of others’ worldviews. I linked these two articles above despite my being against both cases. It is always important to see the other side of an argument. That may sound wishy-washy, but I’m not saying “we can both be right” or “truth is relative”. Instead I’m saying that I disagree with, but respect your opinion, just as you are free to disagree with mine.

Walking in Another’s Shoes

Frank

I hate the first post after a lengthy (lazy) hiatus. There’s always so much to cover since my last post, but at the same time I want to be timely. While these articles may be dated (at least relative to the 24-hour news cycle), I believe they are too relevant to not be read.

One of my goals with this blog is to be even-handed in my analysis and commentary, though I do have obvious religious and political beliefs. That doesn’t mean I’m not open to taking a different point of view. Walking in another’s shoes, so to speak, and these two articles do just that. They both highlight how one’s worldview impacts their decisions. By reading these articles, I gained a great deal of respect for both men because they are consistent in applying their worldview, something I seldom see in the present culture-war.

The first is about Ted Olson, a conservative lawyer who is fighting to overturn Proposition 8 in California. His defense of gay-marriage is based on his conservative principles to keep the government out of our personal lives. You can’t argue that he’s not consistent with his conservative view of government, in contrast to a conservative view of social moors taken by many politicians and activists. Now, I’m not about to change my opinion on gay-marriage. However, given the background in this article I will concede the point of “fundamental right” though I still worry about the “slippery slope” and disapprove the means by which homosexuals are trying to gain this right. (Specifically, not responding to Prop 8 with a proposition of their own and instead throwing a legal hissy fit)

The second article is about the “abortion evangelist” (gotta love the sensationalist headlines) LeRoy Carhart. I don’t approve of his practice, but I understand his motivation for providing it. I also admire that he does stick to his guns. In one example, “Carhart asked her what she would do if she had to carry the baby to term. ‘She didn’t say she was going to kill herself,’ he says. ‘She said she would put it up [for adoption].’ He turned her away..” I do regret that he feels the way he does about his own safety. I hope he realizes that not everyone who is opposed to abortion wants him dead. But given the slant of the article, I don’t expect that perspective to be conveyed. What is also important to glean from this article is how tragic abortion really is and that criminalizing it only marginalizes those who “need” (I hesitate using that word, but I think it’s appropriate here) the service. The real war against abortion needs to be against this need (“abortion should be available, but rare”). Think simple supply-demand economics. Legal restrictions to abortion reduce the supply which only increases the cost (emotional and physical in addition to financial) to women. Instead, the demand needs to be brought down. And no, I believe showing pictures of fetuses to women entering a clinic is too late to have any measurable effect. Instead the preciousness of life (scripture) needs to be emphasized alongside the value of reserving sex for marriage. There is a moral case for family planning.

In both of these cases, it can be seen how their careers are guided by their respective worldviews. But neither worldview is Biblical. Get Religion points out that the profile of Ted Olson only mentions that Olson is “not a regular churchgoer”, and Newsweek fails to mention any religious affiliation of Carhart. Yet, while we may not agree with them, we should take the lesson that our lives should be guided by some particular worldview. As Christians, our worldview should be built on being Christ-like and “what would Jesus do?” I also think it is important to be open-minded and respectful of others’ worldviews. I linked these two articles above despite my being against both cases. It is always important to see the other side of an argument. That may sound wishy-washy, but I’m not saying “we can both be right” or “truth is relative”. Instead I’m saying that I disagree with, but respect your opinion, just as you are free to disagree with mine.

Walking in Another’s Shoes

Frank

I hate the first post after a lengthy (lazy) hiatus. There’s always so much to cover since my last post, but at the same time I want to be timely. While these articles may be dated (at least relative to the 24-hour news cycle), I believe they are too relevant to not be read.

One of my goals with this blog is to be even-handed in my analysis and commentary, though I do have obvious religious and political beliefs. That doesn’t mean I’m not open to taking a different point of view. Walking in another’s shoes, so to speak, and these two articles do just that. They both highlight how one’s worldview impacts their decisions. By reading these articles, I gained a great deal of respect for both men because they are consistent in applying their worldview, something I seldom see in the present culture-war.

The first is about Ted Olson, a conservative lawyer who is fighting to overturn Proposition 8 in California. His defense of gay-marriage is based on his conservative principles to keep the government out of our personal lives. You can’t argue that he’s not consistent with his conservative view of government, in contrast to a conservative view of social moors taken by many politicians and activists. Now, I’m not about to change my opinion on gay-marriage. However, given the background in this article I will concede the point of “fundamental right” though I still worry about the “slippery slope” and disapprove the means by which homosexuals are trying to gain this right. (Specifically, not responding to Prop 8 with a proposition of their own and instead throwing a legal hissy fit)

The second article is about the “abortion evangelist” (gotta love the sensationalist headlines) LeRoy Carhart. I don’t approve of his practice, but I understand his motivation for providing it. I also admire that he does stick to his guns. In one example, “Carhart asked her what she would do if she had to carry the baby to term. ‘She didn’t say she was going to kill herself,’ he says. ‘She said she would put it up [for adoption].’ He turned her away..” I do regret that he feels the way he does about his own safety. I hope he realizes that not everyone who is opposed to abortion wants him dead. But given the slant of the article, I don’t expect that perspective to be conveyed. What is also important to glean from this article is how tragic abortion really is and that criminalizing it only marginalizes those who “need” (I hesitate using that word, but I think it’s appropriate here) the service. The real war against abortion needs to be against this need (“abortion should be available, but rare”). Think simple supply-demand economics. Legal restrictions to abortion reduce the supply which only increases the cost (emotional and physical in addition to financial) to women. Instead, the demand needs to be brought down. And no, I believe showing pictures of fetuses to women entering a clinic is too late to have any measurable effect. Instead the preciousness of life (scripture) needs to be emphasized alongside the value of reserving sex for marriage. There is a moral case for family planning.

In both of these cases, it can be seen how their careers are guided by their respective worldviews. But neither worldview is Biblical. Get Religion points out that the profile of Ted Olson only mentions that Olson is “not a regular churchgoer”, and Newsweek fails to mention any religious affiliation of Carhart. Yet, while we may not agree with them, we should take the lesson that our lives should be guided by some particular worldview. As Christians, our worldview should be built on being Christ-like and “what would Jesus do?” I also think it is important to be open-minded and respectful of others’ worldviews. I linked these two articles above despite my being against both cases. It is always important to see the other side of an argument. That may sound wishy-washy, but I’m not saying “we can both be right” or “truth is relative”. Instead I’m saying that I disagree with, but respect your opinion, just as you are free to disagree with mine.

The Things We Do for Love

Frank

“Mawage. Mawage is what bwings us togevah todayy…” (From the Princess Bride, thanks Peter for the inspiration!)

I know I said I was going to shy away from gotcha headlines, but I couldn’t resist with these two stories today.

First is a moving piece (yeah, I said it) from a gay couple who are one of the few whose marriage was upheld by the California Supreme Court earlier this week. The other is of the notorious priest, ‘Father Oprah’ who left the Catholic Church so that he can marry the girlfriend he recently got busted with.
What do these have to do with one another? The irony to start. In one case, long standing tradition and legal precedence prevent gay couples from being married (the couple in this case call themselves the “lucky ones”) and in the other, long standing tradition and legalistic precedence prevent priests from being married. And I don’t necessarily agree with either. (Yet somehow some consider me a bigot, go figure) The irony is that Evangelical Protestants would be quick to defend the priest on the basis of being able to marry whomever he chooses on the basis of love, yet that is the very same argument used to support gay marriage that they vehemently oppose.
Not that I side with either of these couples, however. The description David Schmader gives of his ceremony and the tearful toasts from their fathers is just as possible with a Civil Union. Interestingly, in the subtitle of his article he says he doesn’t “feel” married since the California Supreme Court decision. I’ve been married for five years and I wonder what being married feels like. I know what love feels like and I know what stress feels like, but I don’t need a marriage certificate to experience either.
Meanwhile, Father Alberto Cutie’ made an oath before God to remain celibate in his calling. (Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. -Matthew 5:33-37) He says, “I believe that I’ve fallen in love and I believe that I’ve struggled with that, between my love for God, and my love for the Church and my love for service.” But we are told by Jesus that to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” is the Greatest Commandment (Mark 12:28). And we are also instructed that to follow Jesus, we “must deny [ourselves] and take up [our] cross daily and follow [him].” (Luke 9:23)
And that’s the problem in both of these cases. Neither is willing to deny themselves and take up their cross. That’s not a popular stance, but then Jesus didn’t live to a ripe old age on account of his popularity either.

The Things We Do for Love

Frank

“Mawage. Mawage is what bwings us togevah todayy…” (From the Princess Bride, thanks Peter for the inspiration!)

I know I said I was going to shy away from gotcha headlines, but I couldn’t resist with these two stories today.

First is a moving piece (yeah, I said it) from a gay couple who are one of the few whose marriage was upheld by the California Supreme Court earlier this week. The other is of the notorious priest, ‘Father Oprah’ who left the Catholic Church so that he can marry the girlfriend he recently got busted with.
What do these have to do with one another? The irony to start. In one case, long standing tradition and legal precedence prevent gay couples from being married (the couple in this case call themselves the “lucky ones”) and in the other, long standing tradition and legalistic precedence prevent priests from being married. And I don’t necessarily agree with either. (Yet somehow some consider me a bigot, go figure) The irony is that Evangelical Protestants would be quick to defend the priest on the basis of being able to marry whomever he chooses on the basis of love, yet that is the very same argument used to support gay marriage that they vehemently oppose.
Not that I side with either of these couples, however. The description David Schmader gives of his ceremony and the tearful toasts from their fathers is just as possible with a Civil Union. Interestingly, in the subtitle of his article he says he doesn’t “feel” married since the California Supreme Court decision. I’ve been married for five years and I wonder what being married feels like. I know what love feels like and I know what stress feels like, but I don’t need a marriage certificate to experience either.
Meanwhile, Father Alberto Cutie’ made an oath before God to remain celibate in his calling. (Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. -Matthew 5:33-37) He says, “I believe that I’ve fallen in love and I believe that I’ve struggled with that, between my love for God, and my love for the Church and my love for service.” But we are told by Jesus that to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” is the Greatest Commandment (Mark 12:28). And we are also instructed that to follow Jesus, we “must deny [ourselves] and take up [our] cross daily and follow [him].” (Luke 9:23)
And that’s the problem in both of these cases. Neither is willing to deny themselves and take up their cross. That’s not a popular stance, but then Jesus didn’t live to a ripe old age on account of his popularity either.

I wish they all could be California girls…

Frank

No, not really. Especially if they’re anything like Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Is anyone tired of this yet? She was asked a question on gay marriage from an openly gay host whose only claim to fame is running an online tabloid and having a name similar to Paris Hilton. She was open about her faith in interviews leading up to the pageant and California is home to the controversial Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. What did she expect to happen?

So she lost. So she said it was because of her answer opposing gay marriage. So what.

So Miss Prejean did what Evangelical Christians have learned to do, not from the example of Jesus Christ, but from their political brand of American Christianity (TM)- she played the “persecution” card. Now she’s a celebrity to the Religious Right (scroll down down at the 558 mark and listen to the podcast if you want to hear this “great” interview) and a spokesperson for the National Organization of Marriage (I’d never heard of it before she came along, and I’m against gay-marriage).

Yes, the Perez Hilton went over the line by taking her response personal instead of crediting her for her honesty and not being tempted by peer pressure to be politically correct. He then left the line far behind in his rear view mirror when he went public calling her a “b—h” and “c–t” just because she thinks differently than he does. But that does not come close to equalling Christian persecution.

I’ve written several times before criticising the “persecution complex” of American Christianity (TM), and I’ll repeat myself by saying her crying about losing a beauty pageant is an insult to the thousands of Christians across the globe whose lives are threatened because of their faith.

Did I mention this was a beauty pageant? An celebration of vanity if there ever was one. And last I checked, vanity is a sin. It doesn’t help her cause that she got breast implants before the competition and that they were paid for by her California sponsor.

I’m sorry, but I have little sympathy for this woman. Was she treated unfairly? Yes, of course. Was it because of her faith? Not sure if it was as much a matter of faith than of politics. Is she being persecuted? Yes to a degree, but only because she’s elevated herself to the level of national celebrity. I’ll certainly pray for her and wish nothing but the best, but I won’t claim her as speaking for me, my politics, nor my faith.

Instead I turn to Jesus, who never backed down from persecution. “At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ “(Luke 13:31-32) But his goal wasn’t political or to change the social norms (though admittedly he did speak out against some of them, emphasis on some) but instead to offer redemption to the world through shedding his blood.

Culture War: Be Prepared- Gay Marriage, Continued

Frank

This is my last post on this subject. I hear Santa in the distance and I have a lot more ground to cover in the next week. But there are still some open arguments regarding Newsweek making the “Religious Case for Gay Marriage” that I haven’t covered.

My first post went over the all too often poor examples of marriage in the Bible. I made the case that just because the examples aren’t what we’d call today “traditional marriage” doesn’t mean that we should discard the Biblical commands regarding marriage. I also defended these same commands against the argument of cultural relevancy- that the rules were for the time, and don’t apply to us today.

My last post then went to define marriage both civilly and religiously using examples from the Bible for each. I left with the conclusion that because of the nature of the sacrament of Marriage, that there can be no Biblical justification for gay marriage.

Yet the author, Lisa Miller, makes the claim that, “scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be married – and a number of excellent reasons why they should.” I already pointed out that scriptures actually do give us good reasons why gays and lesbians should not be married, but now I want to look at why you could make the argument that scriptures do, in fact, give many reasons why they should.

  • Old versus New Covenant

The first argument for the Bible not disallowing gay marriage is the fault of the Religious Right and their narrow reading of the Bible. Levitical Law calls homosexuality an “abomination” (Lev 18:22 -‘detestable’ in the NIV) but calls eating shellfish (creatures of the sea without fins and scales) the same. Yet, I doubt those who proclaim “God hates fags” would also say that God hates Red Lobster and everyone eating there. It is important to remember that we are not under Levitical Law. Jesus died “once for all” (Heb 10:10) and established a “new covenant” (Lk 22:20) and “fulfill[ed] them [the law]” (Mt 5:17) so the Levitical Law no longer applies to us today.

That’s not to say there’s not wisdom in those laws. These laws were written thousands of years before we understood disease and bacteria, yet there were laws about isolating contagious lesions, avoiding coming in contact with blood, not eating animals that died because of disease, not eating scavenger birds (also an abomination), or pork that we know today carries trichinosis.

So do we throw those laws out? Not if they’re affirmed in the New Covenant. I already noted that Jesus explicitly defined marriage, affirming the Genesis account of a man leaving his family and becoming one with his wife. But Jesus never explicitly discussed homosexuality. Paul, on the other hand, does. In Romans, Paul describes how the sinful nature has driven those who have chosen to reject God and explicitly calls out homosexuality:

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom 1:26-27)

It’s worth pointing out after quoting this, that Ms Miller notes that the Anchor Bible Dictionary comments that the Bible never refers to sex between women. Yet the above passage does exactly that. She wants to use that reference to claim that the “unnatural relations” described above don’t necessarily mean monogamous homosexuality. I’ve heard this argument elsewhere. Either it’s claimed that this scripture refers to homosexual prostitution related to pagan ceremonies, or that it refers to homosexual acts between heterosexuals (that’s a tough one to prove since homosexuality, as our culture defines it today, is never defined in the Bible).

She goes on in her argument that Paul’s condemnation is “really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery.” Funny, those words could be used to define the culture around homosexuality today. But she quotes the scholar Neil Elliott who argues that Paul is referring specifically to the Roman emperors Nero and Caligula and that the condemnation isn’t against someone who commits any of these acts individually, but rather those who commit these acts collectively. Uh, huh. I won’t quote it here for space, but read the first chapter of Romans and tell me honestly if you can reach the same conclusion. Besides, Paul can’t be referring to specific people in this passage. This passage sets up the definition of our sinful nature and our shared need for salvation. If this only applied to Nero and Caligula, then I guess he’s writing the whole book of Romans just so those two can be saved. I wonder then why he talks about Mosaic Law since neither of them were Jews. Hmmm.

  • David and Jonathan

It’s an old argument that David and Jonathan had something else going on than just fighting along side one another. The quote “he loved him as he loved himself” shows up a couple of times in 1 Samuel 18 and again in 20 referring to Jonathan’s affection for David. However, isn’t that phrase just a re-wording of the Golden Rule? And is it that uncommon for two people who share battle to develop a kinship that words cannot describe? Ask a veteran of WWII if they “loved” any of their fellow soldiers in this way and I’ll bet you’d get a unanimous response. Besides, there’s nothing wrong, or even unexpected, for men to have bonds with other men that seem to go beyond the bond these men have with the opposite sex. Think about drinking buddies, bowling night, Monday Night Football, paintball, MMA, and so on and so on. There’s just something about bonding with the same sex and it has nothing to do with sexuality. Women have it too- gossip, fashion, scrapbooking, etc. You can then relate to David’s feelings upon hearing his best friend had died. “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

  • The Gospel of Inclusion

Perhaps the strongest case for permitting homosexuality is the inclusion preached by both Jesus and Paul. It is often pointed out that Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery in John 8. That is then used as a blanket example that Jesus does not condemn sin. Yet that ignores the ending of the story where Jesus explicitly tells the woman, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (Jn 8:11)

Paul wrote, “there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ” (Gal 3:28). Biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann is quoted in the article using this scripture to support gay marriage. I guess if we’re neither male nor female, then it doesn’t matter who we marry. But again, that is contrary to the sacrament of marriage, as described earlier. In addition, that also takes that quote out of context because Paul is relating that the New Covenant applies to all, not just Jews, and that supersedes the Jewish customs of circumcision and diet.

Yes, the Gospel of Jesus is inclusive. He did not tolerate sin however, and neither did Paul. “What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” (Rom 6:1-2) “But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature.” (Gal 5:13) God’s grace that comes from Jesus’ death on the cross is the Gospel of inclusion. Jesus died for all, and that includes homosexuals. But he also called on all of us to repent of our sinful nature, whatever that may be. There is no religious case for gay marriage, and to argue that there is ignores much of the Bible and reads meaning into verses that isn’t there. But in order to refute that, you need to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (1 Pt 3:15-16)