Marriages and Uncivil Unions

The current debate regarding whether or not our government should sanction homosexual marriage is interesting on several levels:

• It calls into question the extent to which government as a secular institution can or should promote an essentially religious “institution”
  
  
• It confronts us with whether the current legal protections and rights generally extended to heterosexual marriage should be extended to all committed “living relationships”
  
  
• It doesn’t really address problems ensuant upon a judiciary interfering with decisions of the majority of the polis, if you will, as observed in the state of Massachusetts

C. S. Lewis essentially argued that outside of a theocracy, which should not, and in fact, cannot, exist within the human framework aside from divine institution (vis a vis Israel in the Old Testament, in which the monarchy existed alongside the priesthood as the direct vehicle of the rule of God over his people), human government should not attempt to usurp the ability to sanctify human relationships. Human government should simply establish a method to recognize the legal aspects of human relationships, and indentify the manner in which those relationships in turn related to the “state”. The sanctification of human relationships, Lewis argued, is simply not the provenance of human government, but rests with God. Certainly on the theological level this is indisputable fact. The instructive words in Genesis, “therefore what God has joined together, let not man put asunder”, establishes the fact that human interference cannot supersede divine intention.

What we are actually debating in the United States is misdefined. We are not, in fact, debating the “definition” of marriage, which, in fact, the state has no business defining. It is already defined by the Sovereign God of the Bible, and as his rule is not subject to referendum or recall, his definition is authoritative and binding. What we are debating is the extent to which certain legal protections and benefits should be applied to living relationships other than the generally accepted and religiously sanctified joining of one man and one woman. This issue is complicated by the fact that our government has, with continually decreasing subtlety, long been in the business manipulating varieties of social behavior through tax incentives. While one might not, in fact, be strictly morally opposed to homosexuals establishing a legal framework for the definition of certain governmentally recognized fiduciary relationships (such as estate planning and property rights), and we would not wish to interfere with hospital visitation rights, Christians are in general morally opposed to such rights existing unreservedly in areas such as adoption. It is also questionable whether certain benefits such as health insurance, or right of survivorship with military or social security benefits, should also be legally required. And it is, in fact, a valid question that if homosexuals are given “equal protection” rights based upon the legal definition of a “class”, to what extent can we persuasively argue that such “class” protection should not be extended to other possible “classes” or human relationships? Recent documentary coverage on 60 Minutes has already detailed the growth of polygamy (which is already legally “restricted”) in the Unites States. What, then, is to follow? Should polyandry (multiple husbands) be protected? What about the relationship between adults and pre-adolescent children? Can we still outlaw pedophilia? How about relationships between humans and animals? If animals should be broadly accorded rights, as is argued by P.E.T.A., should relationships between humans and animals be codified in this manner?

Some may consider such speculation “fear mongering”, as though such questions were not being seriously debated already (remember the priest who was a member and public champion of N.A.M.B.L.A., the North-American Man-Boy Love Association, the dark and little publicized underbelly of the homosexual lobby?). These issues are at the heart of the “marriage amendment” debate, which expresses the very real fear that without formal constitutional restraint, the public will on such questions will not matter when confronted by an increasingly activist judiciary. While I tend to agree with C. S. Lewis, that human government should develop an appropriate policy for the recognition of sanctioned human relationships and leave the religious aspect, the sanctification of such relationships, to the church (or synagogue, mosque or temple—if “sanctification” is used in the generically religious sense), I do not feel it appropriate that our government so recognize and promote every possible relationship. I believe that history minimally recognizes what might be considered conventional “marriage” as the foundational relationship of human society, our current post-modern culture tends to debate such conclusions as simply the product of an archaic religiously-based patriarchy that should be discarded as one might discard out-of-fashion clothing. It is this attempt at radical deconstructionism and willingness to make us all victims of a vast social experiment of the intellectual elite that should indeed give us pause.

These considerations are not new. They are as old as the Roman Empire, the debauched civilizations of Canaan (of which Sodom and Gomorrah were only representative), and of Noah’s era. And we should not allow ourselves to get sidetracked by fancy rhetorical footwork into ignoring the real issues. Do I believe that the government should recognize “civil unions” as opposed to marriage? Absolutely. In a secular system, the state has no power to “sanctify” a marriage. But should any and all definitions of human relationships be recognized by “civil unions”? God forbid!

Members of the Church at Laodicea

You may have gathered from my choice of favorite links that I tend to be philosophically conservative—in theology, economics, and politics I tend to lean to the “right”. And your conclusions would be largely correct. “Largely”, I say, because in fact, when it comes to issues involving just distribution of the wealth of the world, the protection of life, and the stewardship over the bounties of God’s creation, I tend to wander a little left of center. Some might even accuse me of being...horrors!...“liberal”. I think such facile positional pigeonholing masks a sinister sophistry that allows us to avoid hard questions for pre-digested “answers”. And the resulting cacophony of cross accusations and holier-than-thou rhetoric spewing from both sides obscures the real needs of our society with the fog of warring words.

While I think that our representative government and its maze of bureaucracies are the most ineffective and inefficient tools to use in addressing the pressing needs of people and the world (though far more just than other forms of human government), I think that as Christians, our commitment to a radical obedience to our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ calls us to walk a narrow and difficult path. Charity, like hospitality, must surely begin at home. But if it stays at home and doesn’t venture forth to minister to the despair of a fallen world, offering more than a euphemistic “be warm and filled...God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life...”, then not only are we not “fulfilling” the Great Commission, we have not even begun to obey it. Incidentally, a command may not be “fulfilled”—it may ONLY be obeyed.

You might be surprised that the topic most often addressed in the Bible is the proper use of money, as emblematic of the resources with which we have individually been entrusted by an abundantly generous God. Scriptures addressing the just disposition of resources emphasize our obligation to help the poor and downtrodden, the aged and infirm, the weak and fatherless. The piety of poverty and simplicity should not, however, be considered inimical to financial acuity and industry. Rather, we are taught to be spare with ourselves that we might be generous to others, and thus demonstrate, in a practical manner, the reality of our faith. This is the difference between the “pompatus” of love, and the impetus of love.

To our shame, Christian evangelicals, as a vocal source for repentance and renewal within the church, have been strangely silent, blind to the point of self-delusion concerning the crying need that surrounds us. At a dizzying pace we continue to construct our large “meta” churches with even larger “worship” centers to pleasure ourselves with pious entertainment and bask in the warmth of our sodden, self-deceiving spirituality. But our complacency regarding the injustice that surrounds us accuses us before God and the watching world. We will travel around the world (or finance the travel of someone ELSE around the world) to deliver a gospel tract, but we won’t travel across town, or even across the street, to reach out to a neighbor in need...assuming, of course, we even KNOW who our neighbors are.

Some with wounded sensibilities might protest, saying, “But we must employ our wealth for the benefit of our children. After all, doesn’t the Bible instruct us that one who doesn’t care for one’s family is worse than a heathen? Jesus himself said, ‘The poor you have with you always,’ didn’t he?” But how often do we see families bestow a largesse upon children who, unable to appreciate their abundance, spend staggering amounts of money to adopt a “shabby chic” appearance? How often do we see grandparents, old, lonely and in ill health, languish at their pre-mortuaries, yearning for a visit from their financially successful but ever “too busy” progeny. Jesus confronted the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his day, who used the excuse that their possessions were bequeathed to God (“corban”: dedicated to God) and were therefore unavailable for the support of their parents.

Laodicea was among the wealthiest of the seven cities of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). In the book Major Cities of the Biblical World, edited by R. K. Harrison, the scholar C. J. Hemer of Tyndale House, in Cambridge, England, writes: “Laodicea...grew to affluence as a commercial city at a major crossroads of the country. It had one serious disadvantage, namely, the lack of good drinking water, for nearly all the many streams of the district are from hot springs, clouded with calcareous and other impurities...The rings of line deposit inside the pipes testify plainly after nineteen hundred years to the fact that this water...was warm and so impure that it must have made the traveler vomit.” He goes on to relate that Laodicea “was a great banking center”. It manufactured “woolen garments from a locally developed breed of ‘black’ sheep”. It was also a highly reputed center for training in the healing arts. Its specialty was ophthalmology, and it “made money from the sale of eye ointments”. Consider, then, the Book of Revelation (3:14-22), in which John the apostle was commanded to write the following sober words to the church at Laodicea:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation: I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth! You say, “I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.” But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him and he with me. To the one who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and set down with my Father on his throne.

He who has an ear, let him her what the Spirit says to the churches.

My Testimony

I believed in the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ when I was 16 years old, through the testimony of a friend of the family. Enthused with my new faith, yet poorly schooled concerning the Christian life and the nature of spiritual conflict and daily obedience to my Lord Jesus, I struggled when confronted with the temptations of college in the ‘60s. I later became involved with the campus ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ, which proved of some help with my spiritual life. I believed I had been called to the ministry, and sought to continue my education at Dallas Theological Seminary. It was there that I discovered that seminary preparation was not designed to address issues of besetting sin or spiritual immaturity, but to further prepare the mature for service.

I had struggled with homosexual temptation, and became involved in a sinful liaison outside of seminary. I praise God that he granted me no peace in my deception, and eventually, in despair, I took the autumn of my senior year to go to L’Abri to seek answers. The personal ministry of Francis Schaeffer was instrumental in planting the seed for true repentance. But my lack of practiced commitment when I returned to seminary resulted in a return to sinful behavior, and an attempt at suicide. I left seminary, became involved with the homosexual “community” in Dallas, and descended into drug use and dissipation. Nevertheless, when I was encouraged to become involved in the Metropolitan Community Church of Dallas, I could not. God would not allow me to deny fully what I new to be true, though I denied in practice. When I reached the nadir of my misery, I went to a deacon in a nearby Baptist church, who urged me to contact my family and return home. My family, who were Christians, received me with open arms, and the long, slow road of repentance and healing began in earnest.

Mine was not a dramatic "healing" or overnight change. I had years of struggle, punctuated by failures, remorse, repentance...and progressive transformation. In all of this, God would not let me go, and I clung to my belief in Jesus Christ as my salvation, hope, and Lord of my life. But what I believe was the turning point in my life occurred some years ago, after I had decided to shut the door on my past behaviors and actively pursue heterosexual relationships, including dating and possibly marriage. I was attending OSU for professional continuing education in the restaurant business. Because of my increasing knowledge of HIV, I realized my former lifestyle had presented some risk (although my actual participation in high-risk behavior was minimal), and decided to get tested as a precaution. It was the outcome of this test that set me back on my heels...I was, in fact HIV positive. In fact, the clinic at the school I was attending for continuing education in my career indicated that I had been HIV positive for some time.

The implications of this discovery were stark, and the impact on my future plans was dramatic. I realized that I would probably not be able to pursue my continuing education or career as I had planned. And I also realized that seeking a relationship with a woman—my hopes of marriage and family—was no longer an option. Such a relationship would put a woman's life at risk, and subject her to an emotional stress caused by my possible incapacitation and subsequent care. I did not believe that I could not truly love a person and knowingly subject them, even with their full knowledge and assent, to such risks. So my choice was difficult, but clear. I could seek friendship, but could not seek a spouse. I would live a celibate life, with all that it entailed. And I must tell my family, who were largely unaware of my struggles with sexual preference.

Fortunately, my family accepted the news with shared grief and mutual support. I finished my classes and returned to live at home with my parents. Later, I moved to Boston to seek work, but was made aware that there was a seminary north of Boston in South Hamilton, where I could complete my degree. I spoke to an administrator at the seminary, who accepted me as a student on a provisional basis. By the grace of God, I also received medical attention from a Christian doctor who had spoken at a church I attended in Boston, and God has seen fit to prolong my life. As I matured, so did my understanding of the forgiveness of God and His power in my life. I was supported and encouraged by my family and my church (often an all too unusual situation in people seeking to overcome homosexual passions and activity in their lives). And rather than seek the fellowship of people struggling with the same issues (which I deemed could be dangerous, and a potential source of temptation, given the emotional dynamics of such a situation), I sought out fellowship with heterosexual couples and individuals, in order to "re-socialize" my life in a more appropriate context.

I completed a seminary education at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in 1993 and returned home, where I participate in teaching a Sunday School class, minister through a blogsite and forum, sing occasionally, and am open to God's leading. I am committed to Jesus Christ as my salvation, my life, and my Lord. I am not free of temptation, but, by God's grace, such temptations have become infrequent, and God has preserved me from falling. I sometimes mourn the inability to seek a life's partner, a woman whom I could love and who would love me, for my frame of reference has indeed changed. But I have learned to rely on God to meet my emotional needs, and God's provision of loving parents, a supportive church, and some close heterosexual friendships has enabled me to rejoice in my life and his abundant mercy. I believe that every day I live is a gift from God, and that I will die no sooner and no later than God shall allow. God, in his sovereign grace has brought me through the devastation of disobedience and the harsh results, born in my own body. He reminds me that his grace, which has brought me thus far, is sufficient. So I humbly praise the Lord Jesus Christ, who atoned for my sin, and who, by the power of his resurrection, enables me to offer my life as a living sacrifice, made acceptable as an act of worship to him. Soli Deo Gloria.

The righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the recemtion that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. Romans 3:22-25a

I want to know Christ, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection of the dead. Philippians 3:10-11