Monday, March 05, 2012

M.K. and LGBT Controversies Part 3 - My Response

Welcome back to our conversations with M.K. and the LGBT controversies. If you haven't read any of the conversation thus far I invite you to read part 1 and 2 as it will help give context to the following post. M.K. has graciously answered a few general questions on where he sits personally on LGBT issues, and at this point I'm offering my own response. Although provocative, it should be made clear from the onset that this response is not a personal attack on M.K. It is merely a means to probing us both deeper into what we believe and why we believe it. 

Speaking of, I would like to invite you readers to pose your own questions. M.K. has indicated to me that this is an extremely busy time right now so don't expect a rapid response. There is so much that could be said and asked, so please, go right ahead. Enjoy.

M.K., I’d like to thank you once again for taking the time out to answer these questions for me. I’m glad it has been enjoyable for you. It’s certainly been fun for me as well.

Part 1: The Question of Same-Sex Marriage

To start, I’d like to begin where we left off, regarding the questions of same sex marriage. The rights, responsibilities, and protections afforded to citizens of the U.S. are bound primarily to its constitution. Recently, the U.S. supreme court (whose responsibility is, in part, to interpret the constitution) ruled that under the constitution that the “Defense of Marriage Act” is unconstitutional. This means, at the very least, that the door is still left open for states to recognize same-sex marriage.

I’m not an American, and neither have I read the U.S. constitution. Whether or not same-sex marriage is constitutionally acceptable is not something I’m particularly capable of answering. Regardless, I do know that the U.S. District Judge Jeffrey. S. White, in explaining the ruling, said that “tradition alone” doesn’t justify legislation that targets a vulnerable social group.  I think that you and I would both agree that marriage is something more than “tradition alone.” Rather, it is a covenant before God, instituted by God, for His glory, as a pattern set forth for human flourishing. It’s more than a practical social contract that’s been passed through the ages.

Nevertheless, you state that you “support the right of marriage equality...from the perspective of a citizen of the USA.” And that you “believe that in the case of the way that the United States system is set up, long term monogamous gay couples should be given the same rights to having their relationship recognized by the state via marriage as heterosexual couples.” Is it because of the U.S. system that you support same-sex marriage? Suppose the U.S. Constitution flatly denies the possibility of any marriage arrangement beyond one man and one woman. Would that mean you would no longer support it? Or is there something beyond a nation’s constitution that ought to grant the right for same-sex couples to marry?

As for the church, it may not directly impact their ability to discriminate who they marry, it nevertheless remains a concern. For example, suppose a same-sex couple is recognized by the state as being married, and they begin attending a church that does not believe in same-sex marriage. What is the church to say to them? This where the church must answer the question: What is Marriage? The church may say that even if from a legal perspective they are married, they are nevertheless not actually married. This is because the state only recognizes marriage, but it does not institute marriage. According to the church’s definition of marriage this same-sex couple’s marriage cannot be recognized within the church.

This isn’t just an intramural question for churches. As a Christian, I believe that one of the church’s chief responsibilities is to be a herald of God’s Truth. I do not believe that one’s beliefs are merely private. So while it isn’t the church’s responsibility to write up a blueprint for a nation building, or foreign policy, or economics, etc., it does have responsibility to call out the state when it crosses the line. This is why, when it comes to marriage, the church doesn’t deal with these issues merely within its own walls.

But going back to the issue of the state, if the U.S. system is set up to allow same-sex marriage, what about other non-traditional marriages? Would the same arguments that apply to the acceptance of same-sex marriage also apply to the recognition of marriages between a man and several wives, or pedophilia, or any number of other arrangements? And if so, it also brings into question what interest the state has in recognizing personal arrangements. Why bother with it at all?

It all begs the question: is the granting of same-sex unions an innate right, or the collective will to power?

Part 2: On Sexual Identity

I believe you’ve touched on something a lot of Christians, myself included, and people in the church have not been called out on enough, and that would be their categorization of people based on their sexual orientation. The bottom line is it doesn’t help anyone, and we ought to repent of our errors. The truth is, at the end of the day, we’re all sinners. We’ve all fallen short, and we’re all deserving of God’s wrath, in desperate need of grace.

It seems to me there have generally been two ends of a spectrum that has defined the way we speak about LGBT issues. On the one end, there’s Lady Ga Ga’s “Born This Way” perspective. Through no fault of our own, we are the way we are because that’s just the way we were born. In this perspective, homosexuality is biologically determinative.

I remember a conversation with an old friend a few years ago who said he was gay. (Not as an identity, but as a descriptive term). He believed that homosexuality was a sin, and sought forgiveness and repentance for his behaviours. He later attended an Exodus conference where he hoped to be “cured” of his homosexuality. I told him I personally doubted the effectiveness of a 2 day conference. When he returned he thought it worked, but sure enough, within a couple weeks he was right back to the way he was. It seemed it was deeply ingrained into his nature. His story is very common.

Many Christians are uncomfortable with the idea that people are biologically determined to be homosexual. They believe the problem lies on the other end of the spectrum. They insist it’s entirely a personal choice, and if that if they just repented they could stop what they’re doing. In this perspective homosexuality is an entirely willful decision.

Research shows that neither position is entirely valid. There has been no “gay gene” discovered, but there may be certain biological factors which may contribute to the way one is sexually oriented. Even these biological factors are unclear as to whether they are the root cause. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, as is the case with human brain physiology. There have also been many sociological factors that seem to have an effect on sexual orientation, such as the absence of a Father, or child abuse, etc. While there isn’t one particular scenario that guarantees a certain result, it does suggest that sexual behaviour and orientation is influenced in part by our experiences. Furthermore, sexual orientation is itself not categorically one way or another as the labels may suggest. Even ones sexual orientation seems to fall somewhere on a spectrum.

Unlike the story of my friend who was unsuccessfully “cured” of his homosexuality, there are plenty of stories of men and women who once were attracted to people of their own gender from puberty into adulthood, who later became attracted to people of the opposite sex. This suggests that change can and does happen, even if not overnight or in a complete 180 degree turn. This shows that sexual orientation is fluid, rather than fixed.

In any case none of this should be all that surprising. As a fallen human race we have been given over to all sorts of behaviours and temptations. Heterosexuality is not a saviour to the sexual deviant of any sort. The heterosexual is guilty of sexual sin as much as the next person. No man can perfectly live up to the ideals that God had originally instituted in creation. Whether slave or free, Gentile or Jew, Male or Female, we’re all guilty parties.

Response Part 3 - Gender Roles

I believe that the Bible’s authors unanimously agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible begins with a wedding where God gives Adam a woman, Eve, to unite them together in marriage. While it’s a human institution that reflects human culture, it’s still God’s idea, so it’s crucial for us to understand what the Bible has to say about it. Attempts have been made to re-interpret Scripture to justify alternatives, but I don’t think any of them have been truly successful.

You mention that “many conservative Christians place the idea of the 1950s house wife as some sort of biblical ideal.” I know what you’re saying and I agree. I think that’s tantamount to worldliness. It’s more about promoting old American family values than a truly Biblical portrait of marriage. At the same time the ancient wisdom of the Bible is deeply penetrating, often offending our modern western sensibilities. Even if the Biblical portrait of marriage isn’t necessarily the 1950s housewife, we can’t write it off as being outdated or regressive. Even in the culture of the Apostle Paul’s time his messages on marriage, sex, and even singleness would’ve been radical to many.

You write “[Mark Driscoll] is a man who is surely passionate about what he believes, but I believe his ideas on gender are completely out of line with what the proclamation of the gospel of freedom is actually about.” I personally don’t know Driscoll’s ideas on gender, although I think I may have an idea. Without bothering to speculate, what the Gospel of freedom does to gender roles could mean just about anything depending on where you go with it. It’s a loaded term to say the least.

Freedom is an interesting idea, and I think the how the Bible uses the term is quite different than how it’s often seen today. I like to think of it as follows: When God created the world, and all was good, it was made that all may flourish. Indeed, it was God’s command in Genesis 1:28 that we “be fruitful and increase in number; [and] fill the earth and subdue it.” All this could happen under the condition that Adam and Eve not eat the forbidden fruit. That would bring about a curse, destruction, death.

What is good allows us to flourish. It sets us free. What is bad will lead to our own destruction: death. But what allows us to flourish is to act in accordance with God’s original design in creation. People today see freedom as though it were the absence of restriction. For the Christian, however, freedom is a result of the obedience to the right restrictions. Adam and Eve only experienced true freedom so long as they were obedient to God’s conditions.

Ever since the Fall mankind has been on a path of destruction. Only through the redeeming work of Christ will we be able to experience true freedom again. With all this in mind, how does this speak to gender roles?

The Bible speaks of three institutions that stand apart from anything else--the Family, the Church, and the State. Apart from these there are businesses, sports, and any number of enterprises that the Bible doesn’t directly address or regulate. So long as we act in line with the principles that the Bible commands we are free to invent and operate these enterprises as we please.

If marriage can only be between a man and a woman, this suggests that there are certain differences in the roles of the genders, and I think the Bible speaks this way. Ephesians 5 comes to mind. The two opposites compliment each other, but they may not necessarily be interchangeable. Both genders have their own uniqueness, a purposeful part of God’s creation.

Outside the church and the family, however, I think the role of the man or woman isn’t nearly as directly regulated. For example, unlike the idea of the 1950s house-wife, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to engage in an enterprise outside the home as she sees fit. But whether either spouse is in a career or not, the husband and wife have responsibilities to their own marriage, family and the church that are a priority.

At this point I must admit my own ignorance as far as Biblical studies of gender roles go. You’ve brought to my attention something I’ve obviously taken for granted. That said, I think I’ll go out on a limb and say I think Paul’s principles of the conscience as laid out in Romans 14 are a good example of somewhere to start. On the one hand, I think there are attributes inescapably unique to each gender that go beyond mere physicality. I think it’s only appropriate that we act in accordance with the way God intended. On the other hand there are many things both genders share by virtue of simply being human, and we ought to examine our prejudices. But as Christians we must always keep in mind the very foundations that inform our beliefs, and to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification.” (Romans 9:19).



M.K. This has been an enjoyable and enlightening discussion so far, and you’ve given me a lot to think about. I’m sure you’ve heard similar comments and arguments from others, but I’m very curious to hear your reaction. I trust that while we may continue to disagree with each other we will at least mutually respect the right to our hold our views.