A Christian Debate About Gay Marriage

It is this author's opinion to support LGBT civil union through state channels and charters so as to allow the legal recognition and entitlement of protection to all individuals under the American Constitution.

It is this author's further opinion to allow for the church, synagogue, and other faith institutions to declare individually whether to recognize, perform, or sanctify LGBT "marriages' within their congregations. Thus making the distinction between a "civil union" that is legally protected as versus a "heterosexual marriage" as commonly understood by the usage of the term.

For further review and discussion please refer to the sidebar under Gay Rights and Marriage.

R.E. Slater
May 16, 2012

		View	A Christian Debate About Gay Marriage				5/16/12	by RE Slater
		View	Equal Rights for Gay Marriage and How It Affects C...				5/13/12	by RE Slater
		View	Where Christianity Stands on Welcoming and Affirmi...				5/8/12	by RE Slater
		View	The Damage We Do When Not Accepting and Loving Gay...				4/3/12	by RE Slater
		View	Homosexuality: Paul and the Narrative of God's Lov...				1/23/12	by RE Slater
		View	Tripp Fuller on "Welcoming & Embracing"				11/14/11	by RE Slater
		View	Things Traditional Christians and Gay Christians C...				11/13/11	by RE Slater
		View	RE Slater - In Noble Pursuit of Peace				10/18/11	by RE Slater
		View	A Gay Christian Responds to Christ and Culture				9/25/11	by RE Slater
		View	Encountering the Monster That I Am				8/17/11	by RE Slater
		View	New York Approves Gay Marriage				6/28/11	by RE Slater
		View	Gay Marriage in New York				6/27/11	by RE Slater

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A Christian Debate About Gay Marriage
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/current-events/features/29201-a-christian-debate-about-gay-marriage

D.C. Innes & Lisa Sharon Harper

May 15, 2012

Two experts discuss why they do - or don’t - support gay marriage.

This time last week, voters in North Carolina were heading to the polls to weigh in on Amendment One, a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman, effectively shutting the door on same-sex marriage for the state. It passed—with more than 60 percent of the vote.

But you know all of this already, because the nation spent the rest of the week arguing about the outcome in North Carolina. Social media spheres erupted in hot debate. And then the president joined in. Though he'd expressed his support of civil unions, President Obama had long hesitated to make a conclusive statement about the legality of same-sex marriage. But on Wednesday, he became the first sitting president to publicly declare his support.

Amongst Christians, the same-sex marriage debate becomes even more intense, proving divisive in both policy and theology spheres. Even President Obama cited his Christian faith in his decision but acknowledged, "This position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others." So, what does Scripture say about homosexual unions? And what bearing, if any, should Scripture have on the law? On both sides of the issue, believers are striving to determine how their faith should inform their political beliefs.

Today, Christians from either side of the aisle share their views.

A Christian argument against same-sex marriage:

the family is fundamental

D.C. Innes is an associate professor of politics at The King's College in New York City.

Redefining the nature of the family is like trying to restructure the human body. No good can come of it. Underlying every good that we derive from society is the proper understanding and functioning of the family. Where family structure and authority weaken or disintegrate, these goods melt away. That’s why God instituted not just reproduction, but specifically marriage. God gave Eve to Adam to be his wife. She was “suitable” for him. God made no provision—whether in the garden or in Israel or in the church of Christ—for homosexual pairing. None. Indeed, He calls it an abomination (Lev.18:22).

Extending marriage to homosexuals destroys it for everyone. If two men can marry, or two women, what exactly is marriage? Is marriage just close friendship between any two people? Is it the solemnization of any two best friends in a sexual relationship? What’s solemn about that? Is the solemnity in the permanence of it? Surely it is people’s own business how long they want to remain friends and intimate. Why is the state involved? Why is the Church involved? Why are there weddings at all?

Same-sex marriage suggests all of these questions because it is a relationship that, in principle, has nothing to do with the begetting and moral formation of the next generation on which all of life depends. We have weddings as community events because every marriage, God willing, is the community’s lifeline to the future. It’s how we beget and train the next generation. The community has a stake in the permanence and health of the marriage. This is not true of homosexual couples by the very nature of the relationship.

Recognizing the homosexual relationship as a marriage, then, reduces everyone’s marriage to essentially that relationship. Sexual complementarity and childbearing would become optional add-ons, not an essential feature and a natural fulfillment. There would be nothing solemn, therefore, about anyone’s marriage, and no expectation of permanency. The indiscriminate sale of birth control and our easy divorce laws have already taken a heavy toll on our understanding of marriage, though the old ideas persist because of the nature of the union. But equating homosexual “marriage” with heterosexual marriage destroys the basis for those ideas.

It is tempting to bracket the moral question and view same-sex marriage as simply an issue of equal protection of the law. But that begs the question whether a homosexual relationship can, in principle, be a marriage at all.

Of course, nothing justifies personal cruelty toward people who, perhaps through tragic circumstances, are confused in their sexual desires. They are made in the image of God. Like any sinner, they need the love of God’s people if they are going to see the gracious way back to the Father through Christ. But justifying and dignifying sin, and calling something marriage that is not, is no way to love a sinner.

A Christian argument for same-sex marriage:

the end of discrimination

Lisa Sharon Harper is the director of mobilizing at Sojourners.

To be honest, as an evangelical who values the Scripture and justice, this issue has presented me with more biblical, constitutional and just plain practical conundrums than any other political issue. I’m comforted to know I am not alone. But for the purpose of this discussion, I will focus on one thing: same-sex marriage and the question of its legalization in the United States of America—not whether homosexual acts are sin or whether same-sex marriages should be sanctioned by the Church.

Divorce and remarriage after divorce are clearly sin, according to Jesus. Yet no party is rushing to introduce legislation to outlaw divorce. In fact, according to a 2008 study conducted by George Barna, born-again Christians are slightly more likely to have experienced a divorce (32 percent) than atheists and agnostics (30 percent).Thus, even by our own standards, the biblical sinfulness of a private act does not determine whether legislation should be levied to outlaw it.

Given the fact that we live in a pluralistic democracy with a spectrum of experiences and deeply held convictions at play, how then shall we live together?

I agree with Tony Campolo, the prolific evangelical preacher and evangelist who, in 2003, stood in the shadow of the Federal Marriage Amendment and stated in a public debate with his wife, Peggy, a staunch advocate of gay rights, that, “At this particular point, we have to agree on one thing: [gay and lesbian people] are entitled to an end to all forms of discrimination. There should be no legal system that gives rights to heterosexual couples that it does not make available to homosexual couples.”

Are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people human? If they are human, then they, too, are made in the image of God. If they are made in the image of God, then they, too, in Genesis 1 were given free will—the right to exercise liberty over their bodies and their lives. This right applies even when I disagree with the liberties they take. What’s more, the fact that gay and lesbian people are made in the image of God endows them with intrinsic value and the same basic rights and protections afforded to any other human being. To legislate anything less is to set up a society that formally declares a certain class of people as less than human.

The truth is that institutions of marriage and family have been on an ever-changing journey since the founding of our nation. The institution of marriage is not static. It is dynamic—and as a woman, an African-American woman, I say thankfully so.

The Church and society are still splitting over the rightness or wrongness of homosexual acts. But we can know that we are talking about people—people made in the image of God. And as long as we maintain a dehumanizing legal system that gives fundamental rights and protections to some and not to a class of others, our society is in sin.

Excerpted from Left, Right and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics by D.C. Innes and Lisa Sharon Harper, © 2011. Published by Russell Media, www.russell-media.com. Used by permission.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Americans’ Views on Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/14/us/americans-views-on-same-sex-marriage-poll.html

Published: May 14, 2012

60

17

21%

57

26

16%

33

33

24

22

40

39

22

38%

34

33%

24%

38%

Mar. 2004

May 2012

Aug. 2008

There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship.

Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry.

Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry.

7

2

24

67%

10

7

9

11

62%

Don’t know/No answer

Both equally

What is right

Political reasons

Other/Don’t know

Same-sex marriage

Health care

Federal budget deficit

Economy and jobs

Don’t know/No answer 2%

No effect

Less likely

More likely

Don’t know/No answer 1%

No effect

Less likely

More likely

Does Mitt Romney's opposition to same-sex marriage make you more or less likely to vote for him?

Does President Obama's support of same-sex marriage make you more or less likely to vote for him?

Do you think Barack Obama publicly supported same-sex marriage mostly because he thinks it is right, or mostly for political reasons?

In deciding whom you would like to see elected president this year, which issue will be most important to you?

Brian Abasciano’s response to a review of his book on Romans 9-11

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/05/brian-abascianos-response-to-a-review-of-his-book-on-romans-9-11/

by Roger Olson

May 14, 2012

I don’t normally do this at my blog, but friend Brian Abasciano of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical Arminian, has written an important book on Romans 9-11 from an Arminian perspective. An early review appears to misrepresent some ideas of the book and Brian has asked me to post his response here. If you know someone who has read the review in question, please see that they read Brian’s response.

Here is Brian's response:

"Steve Moyise recently reviewed my book (Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis [Library of New Testament Studies 317; New York: T&T Clark, 2011]) for the Review of Biblical Literature (http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=8334).

"I have to say that I am quite disappointed in this review because of its unfair criticism based on misrepresentation of what I actually say and argue in the book. I would not normally seek to respond to a book review in this fashion (i.e., posting a reply on a friend’s blog). One expects book reviews to be critical in varying degrees, and interaction can be taken up in further published work if appropriate. But I think that this review deserves a prompt and direct response in this manner because it actually misrepresents me and the argument of the book. I will not address all of the criticisms Moyise leveled at my book, but try to remain brief and take up those that are based on misrepresentation rather than simple difference of perspective or approach.

"In Moyise’s first main criticism, he gives the impression that I argue that Paul largely derived his view that ethnic Israel’s hardening is temporary from what is said about Edom and Pharaoh, and that everything can be deduced from the local context of Pauls’ Old Testament quotations. But that is simply false. My argument is far more nuanced, arguing that one of those texts contributed to Paul’s view of the hardening as temporary (not that it is the main text contributing to Paul’s conception nor even one of the main texts) and that the other gives some subtle support for the idea in our assessment of Paul’s intention. With regard to the former, I wrote, “It would appear that Mal. 1.2-3 provides *some* of the scriptural basis for Paul’s conviction that God’s judgment of unbelieving ethnic Israel would bring Gentiles to faith and that his merciful treatment of the Gentiles would bring Jews to faith, summed up in 11:30-31” (72-73; emphasis added). With regard to the Pharaoh text, I said that it “gives *some support* to the reversibility of the hardening of 9.18” (212; emphasis added), and then later, on the same page, specify the nature of this support as hinting and subtle. Nowhere do I say that everything can be deduced about Paul’s argument from the local context of Pauls’ Old Testament quotations. However, if Paul was drawing his arguments from the Old Testament texts, as he seems to claim and I believe I have shown, then we should expect a great deal of his argumentation to be elucidated by examination of the Old Testament texts he quotes or alludes to. Moreover, I do examine the original contexts of Paul’s Old Testament quotations and compare them to Paul’s argument. If that yields many striking correspondences, then it behooves us to acknowledge that. Indeed, we should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Moyise himself concedes that I “provide a significant challenge to those who think that Paul had little interest in the original context of his quotations.”

"Moyise’s other major criticism is that I assume Paul’s readers would be able to follow Paul’s exegetical moves. But he again misrepresents what I actually say (unintentionally I am sure). Moyise claims that I argue that Paul’s readers would take ἐξήγειρά σε in the sense of “I have spared you” because they would know that the Hebrew uses the hiphil of עמד (“to stand”), which was rendered by the LXX with διετηρήθης (“you were spared”). I neither say nor imply any such a thing. I do point out that the both the Hebrew and the LXX (i.e., the original context of Paul’s quotation in both language versions) carry the sense of “I have spared you,” and that this accords with Paul’s only other usage of the verb ἐξεγείρω, as well as with his dominant usage of the cognate verb ἐγείρω. These are standard types of exegetical observations for scholarly biblical literature, and it is surprising if Moyise would find it objectionable for them to be cited as support for construing Paul’s intention. But even if he does, they do not make the sort of claim that Moyise claims I make. He has simply misrepresented me here.

"I believe that Moyise and I have sharp differences in our approaches to Paul’s use of the Old Testament, differences that reflect major debates in the field of Old Testament in the New studies. These differences come out in his review, and I have intentionally not addressed them much in this format since such criticisms are par for the course in book reviews. However, Moyise’s two main criticisms of my book are grounded in misrepresentation of what I actually say and argue. That is not par for the course for scholarly book reviews and calls for correction. We should represent others’ views rightly before we criticize them."

End.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BookReviews.org Book Description

http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=8334

Description: Abasciano builds upon his previous LNTS volume, Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9, continuing the project begun in that volume and its intertextual methodology. This method incorporates into a thorough traditional exegesis a comprehensive analysis of Paul's use of Scripture against the background of interpretive traditions surrounding the texts alluded to, with great emphasis placed on analyzing the original contexts of Paul's citations and allusions. Such an intertextual exegesis is conducted in Romans 9:10-18 with an awareness of the broader unit of chapters 9-11 especially, and also the epistle as a whole. Conclusions for the meaning of these passages and their theological significance are drawn. LNTS and SSEJC

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 




 

Why I'm More Afraid of White Picket Fences Than Gangs

http://www.lauraziesel.com/2012/04/why-im-more-afraid-of-white-picket.html

Laura Ziesel

April 16, 2012

I live in a modest apartment in a modest apartment complex in a modest American town. That's one way to say it. Others might say that we live on a rough block in a rough American town. But when they say that, I laugh and judge them. That might sound harsh, but it's the truth. My husband and I have both seen rough neighborhoods, domestic and abroad, and ours is not one of them.

The local park in our "dangerous" neighborhood. Yeah, it's terrifying!

Admittedly, our neighborhood is low on the socio-economic ladder. We do have poverty, single- or absent-parent homes, and some recorded gang activity. Occasionally we see a smash and grab. I'm sure quite a few of my neighbors are illegal immigrants because the police are avoided like the plague. And probably more to the point for many people who make negative observations about our neighborhood, most people who live here are nonWhite and don't speak English at home.

 

We love it. Truly. I could list the reasons why I think my neighbors rock and why this is a home I am proud of, but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about how Christians decide where they should and shouldn't live.

 

In my experience, Christians often make decisions about where they'll reside in the same way nonChristians do. They think about their finances, their desire for space or land or artistry or community, the quality of the education system, their reputation, and their health and safety. I understand this. I've now made five major moves in my life and I see why all of these things are important; these are the natural concerns a person would have when deciding where to live (if they get to decide).

 

But I'm sad that Christians don't often consider more.

 

My husband and I are both in grad school at a Christian university just across the street from where we live. It would make sense that we live where we live. But unfortunately, revelations of our neighborhood of choice have not always been met with, "Oh, why yes, of course you live there." Even from Christians, we often get more of an incredulous response, implicitly and sometimes explicitly saying, "Really? You know how dangerous it is, right?"

 

To be blunt, this makes me irate. On one hand, I become irate because the danger of my neighborhood is so incredibly blown-out-of-proportion that it is comical. But on a deeper level, I become irate because Christians seem to have welcomed the human tendency to flee from discomfort and danger. What if my neighborhood was actually a dangerous place? Should we go somewhere safer?

 

I've written before about The Rise of Christianity and the impact it had on me in college. Perhaps the most vivid image that book left me with had to do with towns that were stricken by the plague during early Christianity. Apparently, once the plague hit a town, healthy residents fled for safety and the towns were left with only the ill and the dead. However, while everyone else was fleeing these plague-stricken towns, Christians were the ones who went toward the danger instead of away from it. They seemed stupid and reckless, but they moved against the flow to care for the sick.

 

To me, the image of Christians moving toward a probable death-sentence while nonChristians fled those towns is one of the single most moving images from my faith. We are people of courage, people who have no fear in sickness or death, people who have hope and want to share it at all costs with the world.

 

Or, we're supposed to be.

 

Even if my neighborhood was truly dangerous, I would hope that my Christian brothers and sisters would be the first to understand my place of residence, or better yet, to move in next to me.

 

Instead, I fear we've decided that where we live should be safe and that we'll only visit rough neighborhoods in groups on service projects or missions trips. We've decided that fleeing from danger is sensible and natural; we've let self-preservation determine our values. We've decided that our children shouldn't ever feel unsafe or uncomfortable, but we've failed to think of the millions of children around the world who know no other alternative. Maybe we sponsor one or two of those children (and that's good!), but we are thankful that we don't have to put ourselves in danger to help them. Our safety is found in our white picket fences and our retirement accounts rather than in the promises of the Maker of the universe.

 

The Maker of the universe, people! Why are we so blind to the influence of our fear?

 

Repeatedly throughout Scripture, God tells his people, "Do not fear... do not fear." But when we sit in a realtor's office to talk about the zip codes we'll look for housing in, are we moving forward in courage or are we shrinking back in fear?

 

As Christians, we should have more than Darwinian survival instincts guiding our decisions about which neighborhood we will be investing our time, money, and resources into. We should be people whose values are shaped by our faith in the Creator God who sent His Son toward the danger instead of away from it. We should be people who move into the neighborhood when everyone else is moving out.

 

 

_________

 

 

 

There are so many additional things to say about this topic...

• It begs for discussion about the false sense of safety found in many affluent American towns.
 
• It begs for discussion about what it means to move into a neighborhood in need without trying to play the savior.
 
• It begs for discussion about physical poverty versus spiritual poverty, which is found aplenty in Stepford, USA.
 
• It begs for discussion about responsible parenthood and love of our children. I get it, but for now I'm stopping here.

 

 

 

 

Nameless Women of the Bible

Life-Giving Widow
http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/05/11/life-giving-widow/

by J.R. Daniel Kirk
May 11, 2012
Comments

The Freely-Given Life.

On several occasions I’ve reflected on the nameless woman who anoints Jesus in Mark 14. She is unique in that Jesus promises that her deed of burial-preparation / anointing will be told everywhere the gospel is proclaimed.

Why remember her?

It seems that she alone, of all the characters in the story, has held together “anointed one” with “the one who must die.”

Another word of approbation is given to a woman a couple chapters before. She, too, is nameless.

It is the widow who gives her own 2 cents.

Her presence here is double-edged, without a doubt.

The scribes have just been accused of devouring widows houses. Enter the widow. Behold how she has put in her whole livelihood.

Check that.

She has put in her whole life (ὅλον τὸν βίον αὐτῆς).

Why would Jesus draw attention to this one person, of all the people in the gospel, and point to her as an example of discipleship? Why is she the great positive example who puts to shame all the others who are giving to God’s work?

Perhaps because in giving her life she has executed faithfully the sacrifice that Jesus lauds in ch. 8:

After calling the crowd together with his disciples, Jesus said to them, All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross, and follow me. All who want to save their lives will lose them. But all who lose their lives because of me and because of the good news will save them. (Mark 8:34-36, CEB)

She has given her life. She has not clung to it.

Unlike the rich man who cannot part with his wares, and unlike these rich who give from the overflow, she has given all.

Yes, she is consumed by the scribes who devour widows’ houses. But then again, such forces lay behind Jesus’ own cross as well.

The Value of Asking Difficult Questions & Disturbing the Comfortable to Wrestle Afresh

Questions and Answers
http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/05/12/questions-and-answers/

by J.R. Daniel Kirk
May 12, 2012
Comments

AI love writing about theological things for folks who aren’t academic professionals. One of the great benefits of being a New Testament professor is that there are thousands upon thousands of pastors and lay people who are interested in the ideas and capable of having insightful conversations about them.

But I discovered something.

I really only like writing about theological things for normal people when I get to set the rules. When I have to adapt to someone else’s idea of what it means to talk to normal people, I’m not so happy about it.

I should have clued into this a long time ago.

Once I was interviewing for a position at a church. They asked me what sort of curriculum I’d use for Sunday School. My answer was basically: I’ve got a seminary degree and a Ph.D.–I’ll use the Bible and other books people have written and make my own. They weren’t so happy with that.

But to the point for today.

When you are preaching and/or teaching and/or leading folks in your faith community, to what extent do you see your task as providing direction through difficult issues? And to what extent do you see your task as raising questions for them to wrestle with?

This week I was revising something I had put together for a “popular” audience. I was revising it under the direction of the editors / readers whose first comment was this:

Author: Please rewrite the introduction. Think of writing it for Sunday school classes – not to raise questions but to provide orientation.

My first (and enduring) response to this in my heart was: “Please tell me what church you go to, because I do not want to attend such a Sunday school!”

But there’s a both/and here. I know it. In fact, I see one of my most important roles as a professor and writer as one of providing direction for asking the right, difficult questions.

It’s more important for me to raise the issues surrounding who might or might not have written a book of the Bible, and allow you to be disturbed, comforted, or otherwise engaged with the issues as you read.

It’s more important for me to highlight the difficulties entailed in signing off on household codes than to provide an explanation for why a NT writer might have made them all better by introducing Jesus into them.

The direction I can give, the value I can bring to the process, is often to disturb the comfortable and cause us to wrestle afresh with the text. I’m less concerned that people will be troubled by issues and more concerned that they will fail to be troubled by important difficulties that have the power to transform our understanding of what the Bible is and how we faithfully live out the narrative contained there.

Just as I was grumping about having to turn my vintage Kirk piece into tame “Sunday School” material, I saw a friends link to this:

It’s a promo video for a new Sunday-School-like material.

At one point, a person in the video says, “I think Animate will spark conversations for adults because we’re not spoon-feeding them the answers.”

Bingo. Christian education for adults.

Ok, so it’s not one or the other. (Either questions or answers.) But still…

Having laid out my own proclivities (and, knowing that I’m more of a provocateur than answer-giver!), I truly would like to hear from you:

• When you preach or teach or lead, how do you think through how much direction to give and how much you raise salient, even difficult or impossible questions?
• When you’re in a group such as a Bible study or Sunday School class, to what extent to you hope the person will be giving direction, and to what extent provoking difficult questions?
• To what extent do you imagine that it’s the leader’s job to direct you–into difficult / impossible questions?!

I’d love to have good conversation about this.

(And, that Animate series looks great–though don’t ask me what “electric, carbonated space,” is!)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For More on the Animate Series - 

Introducing Animate's "Faith Formation Series"

for Adults, Teens, and Kids by Sparkhouse

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/05/introducing-animates-faith-formation.html

Equal Rights for Gay Marriage and How It Affects Christian Ethos Rightly or Wrongly

“Fundamentalism” of the Left

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/05/fundamentalism-of-the-left/

by Roger Olson

May 9, 2012

Comments

I put “fundamentalism” in scare quotes to distinguish its use here from its proper, historical-theological use. It’s proper historical-theological use has to do with the movement of conservative Protestants to oppose theological liberalism in denominations and seminaries (etc.) that arose in the early 20th century and with its various manifestations past and present. In that proper sense, there is NO “fundamentalism of the left.”

However, many people (including yours truly occasionally) use “fundamentalism” to designate a certain mindset and style of argumentation especially within religious circles. That is, it is often used in popular speech (what the Germans call Umgangsprache) to designate an ethos exhibited by individuals or groups. That ethos is usually understood to include a very black-and-white view of complicated issues, a tendency to absolutize doctrinal and moral beliefs most people would consider secondary (at best), and a tendency to use almost any means to oppose, marginalize, silence opponents’ views.

Let me be clear: I do NOT think most “real fundamentalists” (in the historical-theological sense) are “fundamentalists” in the popular ethos sense. Somehow or other, the label was drawn from the historical-theological phenomenon and applied to a certain mentality and pattern of behavior discernible across the spectrum of theological (and sometimes political) views.

I wish there were a different label for mean-spirited religious absolutism. But perhaps one has to go with the flow of language and accept that “fundamentalism” is now widely understood in that sense. That is the sense I mean here when I speak about a “fundamentalism of the left.”

I have been around Christian people and organizations all of my life. I’ve been peripatetic in that regard–having been involved in religious organizations of many different kinds: Pentecostal, charismatic, “mainline” liberal, moderate, fundamentalist, etc. I have observed that some self-identified liberals (theologically, socially, politically) can be just as “fundamentalist” in the popular-ethos sense as extreme conservatives.

One area where this is apparent is the debate over homosexuality among Christians. There are “fundamentalists” on both sides–among those who oppose normalizing of homosexuality (religiously, ethically, socially, politically) and among those who promote it.

I attended a meeting of a professional society of theologians at which the president of the society took opportunity to stand before the diverse members (conservative Protestants, Catholics, liberal Protestants, etc.) to pass around a declaration about homosexuality for signatures. He more than implied that to decline to sign the pro-gay declaration, which would be disseminated in the name of the society, would be the moral equivalent of racism. He knew full well that some present, including most of the Catholics professors of theology, would lose their jobs if they signed the declaration. In my opinion, at that moment, that professional society president was behaving in a fundamentalist manner (in the ethos sense). This is just one example of what I call “fundamentalism of the left.”

Of course, such “fundamentalist” behavior is common among those who oppose homosexuality including equal rights for gay people. But we hear about that all the time.

It is almost impossible to talk or write about homosexuality without being given the “fundamentalist treatment” by people on one or both sides of the issue.

Not long ago I wrote a column advocating civil unions for any two adults. I argued that “marriage,” being a religious institution, should be left to churches, synagogues and other religious organizations. I was vilified by people on both sides of the homosexuality debate. For many gay rights advocates, that’s not enough. For many anti-gay activists that’s too big a concession.

Recently I have been called an “anti-gay activist” for no other reason than that I argued (here) that IF homosexuality is biological/genetic, which I suspect it is, that does not settle the issue of the moral status of homosexual behavior. I used pedophilia as an example of something that MAY BE biological/genetic that nobody would argue is morally right. I most certainly was NOT comparing homosexuality with pedophilia MORALLY. To say that I was is to demonstrate intellectual weakness or dishonesty. I MIGHT be completely in favor of normalizing homosexuality morally, socially and politically AND STILL argue that science cannot settle the issue morally. Nothing I wrote gave any indication of where I stand on the moral status of homosexuality.

And yet, one visitor here posted to his blog that I compared homosexuality with pedophilia. That’s ridiculous. The only comparison I drew was that both MIGHT BE biologically/genetically determined (as predispositions). That says nothing at all, whatsoever, about my moral estimation of them. That was simply and purely description and not at all prescription. The ONLY prescription I was making was against science being viewed as the arbiter of morality.

All one has to do to experience the “fundamentalism of the left” is tiptoe into the mine field that is the debate over homosexuality. One cannot even make non-prescriptive claims (such as that science cannot settle the morality of the issue) without risking vilification.


Select Comments

Charles Kinnaird says:

May 9, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Roger – you are right about there being “liberal fundamentalists.” These days it takes wisdom and patience to engage in healthy discourse and dialogue. I also agree with the concept of civil unions and marriage for which you were vilified from both sides. In the past I have argued that the court house should only provide a license for civil unions and leave the authority to grant marriage licenses to churches, synagogues, etc. That way, any couple wishing a religious marriage would have to bring a civil union legal document from the court house (as they are now required to bring a marriage license form the court house). That way, any committed couple, gay or straight, could acquire a legal document for their civil union and all the rights that go along with it. The church where the wedding ceremony is being preformed would then grant a marriage license to the couple that had already procured a civil union license. It would also allow any church to refuse to grant a marriage license for those unions it does not want to bless. That way, the law and the government have what they need and the church does not have to compromise its beliefs.

I find it interesting that way back in 2004, both presidential candidates – George W. Bush and John Kerry – publicly advocated very similar positions for the right for civil unions to be granted to gay couples so that they could enjoy the same legal benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. For those who may not remember Bush’s stance on civil unions, go to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/26gay.html

rogereolson says:

May 10, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Very interesting! I had forgotten that Bush advocated that. The one area where you and I may disagree is whether churches and synagogues (etc.) need to see a civil union license before performing a marriage ceremony. I don’t think so. The two things should be disengaged entirely. The government should have no say in what persons churches and synagogues (etc.) marry and churches and synagogues (etc.) should not care about the government’s decisions about civil unions.


Daniel W says:

May 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm

Perhaps all legal domestic unions between two consenting adults should be called “civil unions” instead of “marriages” at the state and federal levels. What is considered a “marriage” should be left to churches and other religious organizations. Each religious organization should be able to decide which individuals they consider to be married in God’s eyes. Obviously, the state should really have no part in that. On this issue, I prefer the model of some European nations, in which church marriage and state marriages are separate. In France, if an elderly woman would lose her deceased husband’s pension by becoming legally remarried, she can still get remarried before God in a church without going to the courthouse to procure a legal marriage.

rogereolson says:

May 10, 2012 at 12:30 pm

I have publicly agreed with that and taken a lot of flack for it–including from baptists who would be horrified if the government started deciding which persons are “really” ordained (which was the case in some European countries until recently). I am completely clueless as to the distinction between ordination and marriage when it comes to church and state. Until a century to two centuries ago marriage was always a religious institution. Government only got into the “business” of issuing marriage licenses for the non-religious and to prevent certain persons from being married. We need to take separation of church and state to the next logical level.


Bev Mitchell says:

May 9, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Roger, You remind us, ”Not long ago I wrote a column advocating civil unions for any two adults. I argued that “marriage,” being a religious institution, should be left to churches, synagogues and other religious organizations. I was vilified by people on both sides of the homosexuality debate. For many gay rights advocates, that’s not enough. For many anti-gay activists that’s too big a concession.”

How did I miss this? You make exactly the right point – thanks for having stated it so boldly, and stick to your guns! We Christians rightly celebrate Christian marriage – a marriage before the Judeo-Christian God which seeks the blessing of that same God. How can non-believers honestly celebrate this kind of marriage? Why would they want to? However, and beyond where you may wish to go, if the word ‘marriage’ has become irreversibly universal (religious, civil, Vegas etc.), so be it. An adjective may well be required and ‘Christian marriage’ should do just fine. Perhaps we should make this small change and get over it!

I know this will sound like giving in to many. However, we already have all kinds of marriages that make no reference whatever to religion of any kind, let alone The Christian kind. There appears to be little outcry about calling them marriages. How, logically, does the gay issue make any difference. Why fuss now after the horse is well out of the barn and headed for the next county?

rogereolson says:

May 10, 2012 at 12:43 pm

I would prefer to call what the government licenses “civil unions.” I am often inclined to stick to the original meanings of words when it’s too late. I suspect we agree on the basic issue. I blogged about it way back near the beginning of this blog and I wrote a column about it in the local newspaper. I received harsh e-mails criticizing me for my suggestion. Even some baptists still want our governments deciding about Christian marriage. My question to them is why they don’t want our governments deciding about valid ordinations, baptisms, etc. “Marriage” is a sacrament (in the broadest sense), not a civil institution. In my opinion, churches and synagogues (etc.) should decide whom to marry without government interference or even knowledge. If the couple wants the protection of a civil union, they can add that.


Bev Mitchell says:

May 10, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Roger, Yes, we do fundamentally agree. We also share the tendency, even strong desire, to insist on keeping the meaning of a word after the majority have arrived at a quite different meaning, or worse, many meanings. It reminds me of a book I used to own, but can no longer find, entitled “Good English, and Other Lost Causes”. And yes, marriage is a sacrament – that is, what we do, what we say and what we mean, as believers before the Lord are indeed sacramental. The word ‘marriage’ used to summarize these sacramental acts nicely. I am simply concerned that it no longer does – indeed, as you say, it has been stolen from the faithful. But, the theft occurred many moons ago, and, I think, largely without complaint from the ‘owners’.

It would be wonderful if the state would keep its hands off of the Church’s sacraments. But do we also want people of other faiths, with other sacraments to leave our Christian word alone? Is it indeed a solely a Christian word? Is it reasonable to complain loudly now, especially based on one issue that has so many confusing overtones? Is it reasonable to re-claim sole ownership, after all these decades of neglect?

I’m mostly full of questions today, it seems, but here is another that you are far better equipped to answer than many. While marriage is clearly a sacrament for Christians, what is it considered to be, by Muslims for Muslims, by Buddhists for Buddhists, Jews for Jews etc.?

rogereolson says:

May 11, 2012 at 12:37 pm

To the best of my knowledge all religions have some form of what we call marriage. I have no objection to them performing those ceremonies and observing those institutions. Christians will call ours marriage whatever they call theirs.

Government should offer any two people the opportunity of civil union for specific legal purposes–sharing of property, having the right to visit the other one in hospital and (as assigned by his or her partner) make life and death decisions for him or her, etc., etc. All the rights and privileges of what the government now calls “marriage” would go to civil unions but without any of the religious connotations and without any implications for sex.

Laws against abuse would stand. (For example, adults would not be allowed to enter into civil unions with minors. Parents would still have special rights over their children, etc.) However, any two consenting adults could form a civil union solely (in the government’s eyes) for financial purposes and for purposes of decision making. Everything gay people want when they demand the right to marry would be given them in civil unions. They could call their civil union “marriage” or whatever they want to call it. The government would only issue a civil union license which would permit them to file income tax returns jointly, own property jointly, inherit common property without taxation, etc.

Churches and other religious organizations would decide without government interference who is married (or whatever they call their arrangement that we call a sacrament). For example, a church might decide it will not recognize gay civil unions as true marriages or it might require a civil union license to marry people (or not), etc., etc. A gay couple can become married by finding a church that will perform that ceremony and declare them married (which would only be valid for churches that recognize it as valid). Or they can simply have a civil union and call it marriage, but they could not expect everyone to recognize their civil union as marriage. The two are entirely separate arrangements–one civil and one religious.


Steve Dal says:

May 10, 2012 at 1:31 am

Roger, You simply cannot raise any gay issue now without being seen as an ‘anti-gay activist’. The end. Its past discussion now and rational debate over the various aspects of the issue. Even in the ‘church’.

rogereolson says:

May 10, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Or, I might add, without being seen as a “gay activist” or “pro-gay.” As with abortion, the middle ground is missing and even vilified when you try to work it out.


Rick Frueh says:

May 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm

For every verse about the sin of homosexual behavior there are twenty about greed and hedonism. The only reason I am against abortion or believe homosexual behavior is sinful is because I was born again. I do find it quite curious that a church full of divorce and adultery finds those sins redemptive-ready, while gay sin provides a wonderful platform to trot out our pristine Biblical credentials. (sarcasm alert) Since I endorse orthodox divorce between a man and a woman, and orthodox adultery between a man and a woman. Perhaps a constitutional amendment supporting that?

rogereolson says:

May 11, 2012 at 12:40 pm

I am also appalled that so many even evangelical churches say nothing about serial marriage while condemning monogamous, committed gay partnerships.