Responding to Gay Marriage

Everyone is sharing their thoughts on the Supreme Court’s recent decision to establish marriage as a right to any two people (regardless of gender). And from the intensity and number of both positive and negative reactions, this certainly does feel like a momentous step in our nation’s history. I wanted to bring together some rambling thoughts I’ve had on this issue and point to some resources that may prove helpful.

1) This is not a simple question.

Should we be against “gay marriage” in the civil arena? In light of developments and where we are now at, many Christians would say “of course!” But it isn’t as easy as that.

On this question I have been moved (in a humane way) by the desire of two people for mutual connection and a permanent relationship, and especially about their need for legal status when it comes to end of life scenarios and other important concerns. Some thought “civil unions” was a way to permit this and yet hold marriage for one man and woman, as it has always been. But that solution no longer is viable, it would seem. For more on this line of thinking (the plight of those who experience same-sex attraction) I strongly recommend Wesley Hill’s book Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (read my review here).

I have also been keenly aware of just how clear Scripture is on the nature of true marriage and the intent of marriage – to be a picture of Christ and the church. Redefining marriage doesn’t change its nature, it just lessens the idea and makes it more of a bland, pliable entity. Joe Carter explores that angle well in an article for Tabletalk called “Defining Marriage.”

A third consideration has been the futility of legislating morality. I can hold onto a biblical definition of marriage but allow others to have their own opinion – why do we have to force others to live up to Christian values? Additionally, should the church really be focusing so much on political questions? John Piper didn’t think so, and I agreed. Furthermore, focusing clearly on the marriage issue can tend to obscure the Gospel and imply that Christianity is just about morality. This is why I was leery of the Manhattan Declaration. Yet, morality and law do go together, some laws clearly are moral concerns. And encouraging a good society – protecting children and the rights of biological parents, these factors all make this particular issue (gay marriage) one that may very well be worth fighting, just from a pragmatic standpoint.

2) What about America?

Many Christians love America, and to a certain extent I do too. So how should we feel about our nation’s embrace of gay marriage?

Well, I agree with John Piper that we should weep over the “institutionalizing” of sin that it represents. And we should not be afraid of standing up for truth and owning the offense of the Cross.

But in another sense, America has always been a pagan nation. We can certainly pray for God to bless our country, but the direction she is going puts the lie to the commonly held assumption that America somehow deserves God’s blessing. Christians are citizens of a heavenly country, and God used this sociopolitical nation to advance his Church, just as he used other nations in other times. God is doing big things in other places, and we don’t have a corner on Him.

3) How is the Church to respond?

If you don’t click on any link in this post other than this one, that would be fine. Russell Moore’s article in the Washington Post is incredibly helpful with regard to this question: “Why the Church should neither cave nor panic about the decision on gay marriage.” Read that and be encouraged.

As for strategy when it comes to pastors and how they go about marrying heterosexual couples only and avoid legal troubles, I actually think Roger Olson’s proposal is worth considering. Be sure to read his follow up post too.

And of course, we should continue to resist the pressure to reinterpret the Scripture. Kevin DeYoung has given us a very helpful book that clearly explains the arguments being made that try to say the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexual practice. His book addresses the chief arguments and opens up the Scripture in a clear and forthright manner – and is careful to be charitable and loving in its tone. The book is from Crossway and is titled simply What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality?

Finally, we should not be surprised if we are misunderstood and hated. Jesus promised this: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19). Persecution is promised: “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). A martyr complex will do us no good.

In conclusion, let me just share a link to a post I wrote on the occasion of gay marriage being legal in Minnesota. My comments there apply to today as well: “Marriage, Meaning and Minnesota: How to React to the News that Gay Marriage is Now Legal.”

Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?

changeinbeliefAl Mohler sees the writing on the wall. A “new Moral McCarthyism” will soon be asking each Christian this question: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” Based on our answer, they stand ready to denounce us as backward, hateful bigots.

Mohler’s comments come in the wake of President Obama announcing that Pastor Louie Giglio would pray the invocation at his upcoming inauguration. A quick about face happened when a liberal watchdog group uncovered the fact that Giglio once preached an “anti-gay” message. It turns out that Giglio’s message was standard, orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality, and hardly anti-gay as such things go. The Christian message has always been that all sinners need salvation, and to be a man or a woman, is to be a sinner. Sin comes in a variety of flavors, and homosexuality is just one of many. Sure some Christians have been more hateful and more vocal about that sin than others, but faithful Christian pastors, have always been careful to condemn the sin, and remind everyone that we are all equally guilty of offending a holy God.

Russell Moore commented on the outcry that the NY Times and others helped to circulate, as follows:

After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.

Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”

The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.

The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.

In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.

Ed Stetzer wonders how America will respond to this latest example of the shunning of religious people from the townsquare:

This can be an important moment as America, the media, and President Obama’s administration to consider a simple question. Are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have held since their foundation? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan, or speak against injustice?

Moore doesn’t wonder but declares, “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”

Moore goes on, and I encourage you to read his entire piece on this subject. But I think you get the picture. To even hint that you ever have believed or held that homosexuality is anything but commendable, upright behavior, is to break today’s moral code. If there is no forthright and frank repentance or clarification, then you are out of the “in club.” You are outside the bounds and not fit to speak in the public square. No, not even to merely pray at a public event.

Mohler’s piece explains this point further, and he also demonstrates that Giglio’s withdrawal was more of a dis-invitation than cordial back-out. Giglio was not so much saving face as standing by his principles, and ensuring that this furor dies down so as not to encourage a misunderstanding of the gospel. Maybe Giglio should have made a bigger to-do about his harsh treatment by the McCarthyites. Maybe he should have been firmer. There could be merit to these reflections, but we are not Giglio and don’t need to go there.

Instead, I think we should ponder why this takes us by surprise. Some aren’t surprised, but most are. We have been lulled to sleep by the compatibility of Protestant Christianity with America’s self-help capitalist gospel. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-intentioned practitioners of the American Christian cult. The cult that equates freedom and democracy, lady liberty and all she stands for, with the cross of Christ and the Bible’s gospel. No, the America which once taxed Baptists for not participating with the official state church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the public which reveled in the printed tabloid’s lurid details of the public sex-lives of Alexander Hamilton and other leaders, and the humanistic upper class which once embraced Charles Finney and Billy Sunday’s religious appeal to reform the brutish man’s spirit by taking away his brandy — that is much like the America we find today who so readily condemns anyone who doesn’t embrace moral relativism and the libertarian virtue of the time.

Christianity in America today is far less persecuted and far more lightly treated than it has been in most other times and places around the world. We have enjoyed an exceptional period of freedom and ostensible public respect. But such a time is soon to end. Now fewer Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, than those who don’t. And this drastic change in the public’s perception has come about in just a few short years. Meanwhile, the church has hemmed and hawed and often evolved in its views along with the culture and our current president. But as Mohler reminds us, the time for thin-skins and hesitation is past. We risk having no gospel at all, if we do not address homosexuality as sin.

So even as the faithful determine to not give in to culture’s demands on this front, we should be mindful, as Joe Carter reminds us, that Jesus has promised us that the world will hate us. We shouldn’t be surprised. And in light of such a knee-jerk tendency to be alarmed over any expression against homosexuality, we Christians should be especially careful in how we phrase our answer to their incessant question. We will too readily be misunderstood. Christians need to stand against homosexuality, but not as a goal in itself. We need to stand for morality, but not bereft of the grace and mercy which make Christianity unique. We must be resolute but not compassionless.

Christians everywhere, in pulpit or pew, in the office cubicle or the backyard party, need to be ready for “the question.” We can’t be afraid to “come out of the closet” with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the gospel and how it speaks to people everywhere, straight and gay. And we need to be broken and humble rather than cocky, defensive or stand-offish. We need to be the very heart and mind of Jesus when it comes to answering this question. We need to speak His words, in His manner and with His winsomeness. May our careful speech woo the lost to Christ. And may the darker these days get help us to draw closer to the light of truth and be ever more effective as an outpost in this sin-darkened world (Phil. 2:15-16).

Dr. Russell Moore: A Gospel-Centered Response to the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood

Dr. Russell Moore struck gold in his comments Friday on the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s reversal of their decision to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. I really appreciated his viewpoint and wanted to share some of his article posted on Christianity Today here.

Some pro-life persons might wish that the Christian churches had as much influence in the public arena as Planned Parenthood, that we were able to mobilize as many callers and threaten as many boycotts. Some might see this as a sign that we need more money and respect. After all, if some Christian foundation had more financial firepower than Planned Parenthood, Komen might have stood firm…

In all of this, though, we can gain an opportunity to see what the abortion culture is all about: cash. Planned Parenthood and their allies use the thoroughly American language of freedom of choice and women’s empowerment, but what’s at stake, as seen here, are billions of dollars…

The answer for those of us who cherish the lives of women and their children, regardless of stage of development, isn’t to long to compete with Planned Parenthood in the influence that comes with massive amounts of wealth. It’s instead to see, first of all, how our own captivity to Mammon devolves us in the same way…

We don’t need a Christian foundation to compete with the merchants of death. We don’t need one more coalition with enough signatures to counter the threatened boycotts of the abortion rights peddlers. And we sure don’t need to sell bumper stickers with a line drawn through a pink ribbon.

What we need, first of all, are churches who recognize that this isn’t all that surprising. Mammon is a jealous god, and he’s armed to the teeth….

And then we need to demonstrate what it means to believe that a person’s life consists in more than the abundance of his possessions.

Let’s stop highlighting how God “blesses” the millionaire who tithes. Let’s stop trumpeting the celebrity football players and beauty queens as evidence of God’s blessing. Let’s show that God has blessed us in a Christ who never had a successful career or a balanced bank account, but who was blessed by God with life, and with children that no one can number, from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language.

Planned Parenthood has won this one. They spent a lot of money, and they’ll make a lot of money. And they’ll do so off the shredded corpses of children and the raped consciences of women. If Jesus’ kingdom were of this world, we’d be fundraising to keep up with them.

But what we have is greater than that. We have a word that tells a pregnant young woman that we believe her Down Syndrome baby is a gift, not a health care burden. And we can offer the kind of gospel that cleanses the conscience and offers what outlasts money and power: life and that to the uttermost.

Let’s work to legally protect women and children. And let’s grieve that old Mammon has won the day, again. But let’s not grieve like the pagans who have no hope. When it comes to the struggle for life, the color of victory isn’t pink like a ribbon. It’s red like a cross. [Read the full article]

More TGC Resources on the Gospel in the OT

Three panel discussions were hosted at The Gospel Coalition by BibleMesh.com. The panel discussions which promise to be insightful and helpful, were well attended. The BibleMesh Blog has posted the video from the panel discussions. I’m going to want to carve out some time to watch these.

Gospel Coalition-BibleMesh Panel 1: What I have learned after years of preaching Christ in the Old Testament [moderator: Owen Strachan / on the panel: Alistair Begg, Mark Dever, and Philip Ryken]

The Gospel Coalition-BibleMesh Panel 2: Getting to Know the Bible Personally as One Grand Narrative [moderator: Michael McClenahan / on the panel: Kent Hughes, David Jackman, and Ligon Duncan]

The Gospel Coalition-BibleMesh Panel 3: How to Teach Children and Youth the Gospel Story [moderator: Greg Thornbury / on the panel: Russell Moore, David Helm, and Kimberly Thornbury]

BibleMesh is the software for an online, whole-Bible discipleship course, and helps sponsor The Gospel Coalition Preaching Christ in the Old Testament resource page. You can learn more about BibleMesh at BibleMesh.com.

Eucharistophobia, the Common Cup, and Moore on Communion

I recently came across some posts by Dr. Russell Moore (dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) on the subject of Communion. He has contributed to Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper (a Zondervan Couterpoints book). From what I’ve seen in his post, and from the reviews at Amazon, Moore’s “Baptist” view is much more sacramental friendly then what is typical of Baptists. He prizes Communion in a way many Baptists don’t.

I’ve argued on my site for the Lord’s Supper being more than just a memorial, and also for it being more than just a thimble-sized drink with a mini-cracker. It seems Moore makes the same points.

I encourage you to take the time to check out a few posts by Dr. Moore. I’ll provide some excerpts below.

…many of our congregations come to the Table quarterly or even less often. If you ask (and I have), some of these pastors and church members will say it’s for fear of an overly ritualistic understanding of the Supper, or in order to keep the congregation from growing callous to the Supper out of repetition. But the repetition is kind of the point…..

The Lord’s Supper is proclamation, the Bible tells us: it speaks to us of the past crucifixion and the present kingdom of our Lord Christ (1 Cor. 11:26). And that’s just the point. We ignore the Supper because we don’t understand the role of gospel preaching for the believer. ~ from Why Is the Lord’s Supper So Rare?

A little bit ago, I wrote here about the scandal of the infrequency of the Lord’s Supper in so many American conservative Protestant churches. It’s a gospel issue, I believe. Our eucharistophobia atrophies gospel preaching in our churches more than I think than we realize. But imagine how you could reclaim the gospel focus of the Supper in your church….

The Lord’s Supper then should never be seen to be an afterthought, tagged on to the end of a service, perhaps after the final musical number of a visiting youth choir. This doesn’t mean the Supper needs to take a great deal of time. There’s no mandate to have a “special Lord’s Supper service,” …

The Supper should require though the same pattern as the Passover and Jesus’ institution of the Supper: explanation of God’s redemptive act followed by the enactment of it in the meal. Sinners shold be called to see in the bread and the wine their own crucifixion through the crucifixion of the Christ in whom they are hidden (Col. 3:3). It should be an opportunity to present to sinners the tangible evidence that their transgressions are forgiven. ~ from Getting the Gospel Back at the Lord’s Table

The Christian concept of the church as household necessarily entails a recovery of the Lord’s Table in our churches, especially in “low church” evangelical congregations who have, for too long, defined our vision of the Lord’s Supper too heavily on what we don’t mean.

Table fellowship is a sign of familial solidarity and of the messianic reign. This is why Jesus was so revolutionary when he announced, “Many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11 ESV), and that’s why Simon Peter was so reluctant to sit down with the uncircumcised.

So why do our evangelical Lord’s Supper services so often look like the clinical communal rinse-and-spit of fluoride at an elementary school rather than like a loving family gathered around a feast table?

Often I’ll preach in churches about the Lord’s Supper and will call on congregations to go back to using a common loaf and a common cup. I’ll challenge the churches to recover the sign of bread being torn, not daintily picked up in pre-fabricated bits. I’ll call the congregations to drink the wine, together, passing along a common cup.

I’m not offended by people disagreeing me on this. I’m just stunned by the reason they most often give for dismissing this ancient Christian practice: germs. ~ from Swine Flu and the Common Cup

Be sure to read the posts in their entirety (they aren’t very long). You can also listen to a message by Dr. Moore on Why the Lord’s Table Matters. Also feel free to see my posts on the Lord’s Supper, and also on something Moore mentions in relation to Communion: preaching the Gospel to believers.