(This is Part Three of the series. To start from the beginning, click here)
III. The Church's Response to Homosexuality (Is the Church Responding to Sin Correctly?)
Let's assume, for a moment, that the Evangelical outlook on homosexuality is incontestable. That the Bible unambiguously condemns gay rights. If the Church's current approach of restricting gay rights is aimed at making a more Christian nation, I believe it's failing-- and the reason is consistency.
My favorite way to demonstrate this is to talk of gluttony. In terms of sin, both gluttony and homosexuality are exchangeable by Biblical standards. Both are considered a 'choice'. Both sins affect the soul and the body. Both sins are on the rise in America, and arguably affect marriage (certainly the effects of obesity affect marriage-- unhealthy parents that die prematurely aren't around for the sanctity of their marriages).
In fact, the Bible is clear as day in how to handle gluttony:
Proverbs 23:2, put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony
It doesn't get any clearer than that. Yet the church has remained mostly silent on the growing obesity epidemic in America. Pastors do not keep obese church members from leading choirs. Church membership does not include a waist line analysis. Schools do not prevent overweight kids from forming groups like they have LGBT kids. Why is this? How are two very similar sins treated so dissimilar?
Therein lies the issue. Even if the Evangelical outlook on homosexuality was correct, their treatment of it has destroyed their authority on it. If a sin is a sin, as Evangelicals fall back on, how can they discuss gay rights over a high-calorie church luncheon?
IV. The Church and the Law (Will You Please Not Bring Up Separation of Church and State Again?)
My final argument for gay marriage rests in how we make laws. Note that I won't bring up the 'separation of church and state'. While there's certainly merit to the argument, telling a Christian that their religious views aren't relevant to lawmaking isn't particularly compelling. That said, there certainly is danger to codifying religious beliefs.
Evangelicals fear gay marriage will destroy the 'sanctity of marriage'. We've already broken down how that simply isn't the case, but let's discuss the logic of DOMA and state constitutional bans.
Christians fundamentally believe that only Jesus can bring salvation. If this is the case, then no other religion is true. So why aren't Christians relegating the rights of other religions? Certainly a gay couple (who, by definition can't reproduce), will spawn less non-Christians than the Jewish couple down the street. Yet we do not prevent Jews from getting married. We do not prevent Muslims from visiting each other in the hospital. Why? Because the rights of others trumps the religious views of the majority. And certainly a country where people choose to be Christian produces more faithful followers.
That's why, even if homosexuality is Biblically wrong, Christians have no place preventing their marriages. We cannot become a theocracy. We do so at our peril. If Muslims became a majority, would Christians defend their right to instill Sharia law? I certainly hope not.
Conclusion
My goal with these posts is to encourage Christians to rethink their position on gay marriage. We are picking a losing fight in these nonsensical 'culture wars', and our hypocrisy is being exposed. Regardless of one's personal opinions of gay rights, restricting the real and tangible rights of others is resulting in a backlash the church cannot handle.
No comments:
Post a Comment