In light of recent events in the news, I have felt compelled to figure out where I personally stand as a Christian on the issue of gay marriage. Why does a stay-home mom living in her little homeschool bubble care what the courts decide? Primarily, because young people care, and they are the future of the church.
I had a conversation with a high school student recently on the topic. She is torn up by the way the church is viewed as hateful and intolerant of homosexuals. She has friends who are gay and yet she wants to live authentically for Christ. I heard the cry of her heart, but I didn't have a thorough, thoughtful response prepared. Time to pop my comfy bubble and figure this out.
So I've been reading and reflecting. I came across this article that gives a balanced, relevant, compassionate, and biblical framework for the cultural dilemma. I've copied the conclusion of Mr. Sider's lengthy article here, but if you are intrigued, you can read the whole of it here. The paragraph I highlighted touched me deeply.
"The evidence, as we have seen, is clear: The legal redefinition of marriage would have far-reaching negative consequences. Abandoning what every civilization for millennia has understood marriage to be would harm children and undermine religious freedom. What can we evangelicals, who have lost almost all our credibility to speak on this topic, do to promote the historic understanding of marriage?
First, we must truly repent of the deep, widespread antigay prejudice in evangelical circles. We must ask forgiveness for our failures of love and concern and stop elevating the sin of homosexual practice above other sins.
In the life of the local church, we must distinguish homosexual orientation and practice. Someone who is publicly known to have a gay orientation but lives a celibate life should be just as eligible for church leadership as a heterosexual person who has been promiscuous but now lives in a faithful heterosexual marriage or remains celibate. We should develop church settings where celibate persons with a gay orientation can experience strong, supportive Christian community.
Second, we must set our own house in order by dramatically reducing in our families the devastation and havoc caused by heterosexual disobedience. Our argument that the tiny gay community undermines marriage is hypocritical unless we admit that by far the greatest threat to marriage and family is the sinful failure of husbands and wives to keep their marriage vows. If we cannot resist adultery and divorce and model wholesome, joyful family life, we should admit that we have nothing credible to say in the public discussion of marriage.
Almost everyone longs for something better. Jesus’ followers know the answer to that longing. Evangelical husbands and wives who keep their marriage vows for a lifetime and raise their biological (and adopted) children in joyful, wholesome families would be one of our most powerful evangelistic tools. They would also give us credibility when we promote the historic understanding of marriage.
To do this we will need to teach biblical truths on sexuality, marriage, and divorce at every level, from preteens through retirees. We will need extensive Christian marriage counseling and programs such as Marriage Savers. We will need to resist the culture’s narcissistic individualism, already too visible in our churches, and develop congregations that are communities of mutual accountability and even church discipline—in the wonderful words of John Wesley, “Watching over one another in love.”
Third, we should seek to change the divorce laws, especially no-fault divorce. When children are involved, the law should deny no-fault divorce and in other ways make divorce more difficult. This, not gay marriage, is the area of marriage law that affects the vast majority of our children. We should be spending the overwhelming majority of the time we devote to marriage law to changing the law that permits cheap divorce for heterosexuals.
Finally, we must treat gay people fairly. Gay couples want to have, and deserve to have, such basic rights as that of the family member or spouse to visit a loved one in the hospital. One significant way to give them these rights would be to support the legal recognition of civil unions. (These unions also should be available to such others as a single person looking after an aging parent or a bachelor brother and spinster sister running a business together.)
Other legal procedures might meet gay people’s concerns. But I see no problem with a carefully written law that defines a number of rights as part of a legally recognized civil union. That does not mean that those rights should include everything but the name of marriage. Given the purpose of marriage law, some rights and benefits—specifically those designed to strengthen the likelihood that children grow up with both biological parents—belong only to those who are married and not to those in civil unions. That would be fair, and also a test. If the gay community’s real agenda is to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle, the community will reject civil unions. If the agenda is, as many now claim, to gain appropriate benefits and rights, the gay community will accept civil unions and not press for gay marriage."
--Ron Sider is president of Evangelicals for Social Action and professor of theology, holistic ministry, and public policy at Palmer Seminary at Eastern University
