Gay Marriage
When I was a pastor in Santa Cruz, CA a few years ago, the mayor of San Francisco started handing out marriage licenses illegally and our church was pulled headfirst into that debate when a lesbian couple who had recently received a license stood up and asked to be recognized during one of our worship services. When we declined to do so, the couple went to the media and a firestorm erupted of vehement slandering against not only the church but against me personally.
During that period I was slandered on the news and radio, mocked by the local newspapers and received hate mail and even death threats from people in the community. More painfully, I was castigated and shunned by other pastors and churches in our city for speaking up at all. This time in my life was probably the most tormented and lonely season that I have ever experienced, and I do not share this to illicit sympathy or to air out my complaints but only to make the point that I have a personal vested interest in this issue as I have bled and wept over it many times. Therefore, my take on the ever controversial issue of gay marriage is anything but ignorant or detached, so please don’t take it that way. It is only after several years of reflecting on the series of events that occurred that I am now ready to express what I have to say about it.
As a pastor who has been personally affected by this incendiary issue, what bothers me the most about the gay marriage debate is that it has become an issue of “personal rights”. What gay marriage proponents continue to do is liken their struggle for acceptance and legality to the civil rights struggle for equality. Though I have heard this argument ad nauseum, I still cannot see how this is a civil rights issue on par with the African Americans struggle for equality. First of all, are gay people prohibited from using the same restrooms as straight people? Are gay students segregated out from the straight at our schools? Are they denied the right to vote, to earn an equal wage at their job or even to fight and die for their country? The “right” that advocates are fighting for is the supposed “right” to get married. I don’t recall African Americans even in the height of the civil rights movement ever being denied the right to marry each other. Though the gay marriage lobby wants us to liken these movements to each other, they are starkly different. And, I have often wondered why African Americans aren’t deeply offended by these attempts to liken their struggle with the movement for gay marriage today.
Though we often hear the contrary, the truth is that there is no convincing evidence that homosexuality is genetically inherited and all the evidence suggests that nurture is much more profoundly influential on shaping who we become than nature. African Americans do not choose to be black but human beings do choose their orientation, and that’s the simple, undressed truth.
Now, that being said, here’s the rub. There is an ever increasing pressure on and relentless intimidation toward the church to “get with the times” and start accepting homosexuality as a viable orientation for living and gay marriage as an acceptable relationship. Though the heat keeps turning up on pastors and churches to capitulate to this pressure and vitriolic anger, the simple fact is that it won’t work. You see, the Church is not our own and pastors are not without authority. What gay marriage advocates must realize is that the Church and its pastors are under the authority of Jesus Christ. And, we are bound to His commands for the Church. So, even if a rogue church or pastor does cave in to the pressure, the fact is that the true Church won’t, ever. The Church has a long, long legacy of martyrdom and that is because we would always rather lay our lives down in death than turn our backs on the One we serve.
As a pastor, I have made the choice that I will not fear mankind but only God. And, I know that I am not alone in this. The Scriptures that we are obligated to uphold clearly dictate that the practice of homosexuality is a sin, and there is no way to get around that simple obvi0us truth. Those who say the Bible does not prohibit or condemn homosexuality do not know the Bible or the One who gave it. Therefore, as one of the underpastors to Jesus who has authority over His Church, let it be known clearly that we will NEVER compromise or capitulate on this issue! This onslaught against the Church by outspoken gay marriage advocates simply will not prevail. No matter how much harm we suffer for this, we will not roll over. It’s just as simple as that, and it’s time to make that clear.
Now, since we have established that there is clearly an insurmountable impasse between gay marriage advocates and opponents on this issue, it’s time we really consider how to best live at peace with each other. The fact is that the pressure for gay marriage is not going to go away and that the backlash against it isn’t either, so what can we do? The solution, I believe, is rather simple. The fact of that matter is that gay marriage advocates are pushing for the “right” to marry primarily for the legal recognition with its inherent legal advantages that include tax, health and estate planning benefits.
Today we live in a separated state and church country, where the secular is separated from the sacred. The central problem with the gay marriage issue is that it is trying to “marry” the secular with the sacred. Marriage is not a secular insitution and really never has been. Though our government recognizes it as a legal relationship, the truth is that marriage is a sacred institution. God created marriage and it belongs to Him, not to the state. Therefore, if the state wants to create a similar secular institution and call it something else, then that perhaps would be an acceptable alternative. Though Christians may not be comfortable with a secular version of marriage, at least we can be satisfied that we have protected the sacred version of it.
Given this, in my estimation, the best solution to this impasse is for the state to leave marriage as sacred and belonging to the Church and instead establish a comparative secular institution or “civil union” for two people so that they can enjoy legal benefits similar to marriage but leave the sacred institution for and the biblical definition of marriage to the Church.
On a final note, let me just say this. If gay marriage advocates are singularly interested in marriage and continue to press for the “right” to marry and are not satisfied with civil recognition, then we are left with the impression that their real intention is to somehow undermine the institution of marriage, both sacred and secular versions, for everyone. This would be like the child throwing a tantrum and declaring that if he can’t have something, then no one will. This could very well be the case and we will see in days to come if it is indeed true. The litmus test will be if the gay marriage advocates are satisfied with civil recognition.
Furthermore, if they continue to press for marriage status, then that could also suggest that what they are really seeking is not the equality of marriage but actually the symbolic blessing upon their union. In a way then, they would effectively be trying to get not only the country’s approval but the Church’s as well. As we have already established, they may get the former but will not get the latter.
Whatever the outcome of this angry debate, my hope and prayer is that the vitriolic exchanges would be put aside and that both sides would come to the table to discuss viable solutions to this impasse. And, even if we can’t have agreement, then at least we can have peace.
Kent
Good information. Here in san diego we are faced with the same issues you are talking about. Miles mcPherson at The Rock church has been under fire for months. When we go to church my wife has to have her purse searched due to threats on the Pastors life. On a personal note Kristi’s gay cousin scheduled a coffee with her just to find out how we voted on prop 8. He basically said that he is “writting off” anyone who voted yes. Including family!! So, kristi did her best to explain God’s purpose for marriage and expressed her love for him but I think he is done with us due to our vote! The only thing I would add to your blog is Love. Its important to mention that being Gay is no worse a sin than my envy or lust. Sin is sin and God loves us all! As Christians I believe we stand firm in our conviction but love at all times even when its hard to do so. That’s how they will know we are christians!! Stay strong I know personally how tough it can be. Your friend and best leader ever! Shawn
Kent,
I love your new blog’s look and feel! Very cool…but that’s the reaction of the web designer in me.
I love the things that you write. You write like you speak and I can hear you say the things as I read. I agree with the bulk of what you’re saying, but I still have a very difficult time accepting that we as a society (apart from the church) could allow civil unions or the like. It feels like a compromise. Do you feel that it’s a “render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and unto God what is God’s” issue? The political junkie in me can’t help feeling that we, who govern ourselves in America, should work to reform the society as well…which includes setting the moral tone for the country. I feel like allowing civil unions is a surrender in that battle.
What are your thoughts? I’m very interested.
We are behind you 100%, Kent! Thank you for being our pastor.
Michael, yes I do look at it as a “render unto Caesar issue”. Though it may seem like we’re giving in, I do think it’s the reality of living in a secular culture/state. I think the wisdom is to put up with a “lesser evil” to protect a “greater good”.
Kent, well said, as usual. Thanks for writing this out in a clear, linear and logical fashion. Kudos!
Well-written and profound post. Thanks so much, Kent!
Kent, well put. I liked your comparison of “their” claims to the black folks of the US of A. How about the KKK killing spree of the black Americans? Did that happen to the homosexuals? Cross burning on their front yard?
One more note, I never EVER met an EX-BLACK person, however I did met ex-homosexual person.
A civil-union compromise gives me hibie gibies. Would we do also allow a compromise like that for polygamists? pedofiles? Thieves? Murderers? Adulterers? and a sin-brand-of-your-choice just to satisfy the societal debate?
I do have a problem with it big times.
My philosophy is to love the sinner, hate the sin. Preach love and a way out of it rather than provide a way to live with it…
I am probably not saying it 100% right what I mean, but at least it gives a flavor of what I mean.
Do you know what I mean?
I love your new blog and your thoughts. Well done!
You said: “Though we often hear the contrary, the truth is that there is no convincing evidence that homosexuality is genetically inherited and all the evidence suggests that nurture is much more profoundly influential on shaping who we become than nature. African Americans do not choose to be black but human beings do choose their orientation, and that’s the simple, undressed truth.”
Kent: You do realize I hope that the vast majority of relevant scientists disagree. There is AMPLE sound research based evidence that contradicts your “simple undressed truth”. But if you take that stance there is little to discuss. People who also believe in alien abductors, creation literally happening in seven 24 hour days, and a flat planet will listen to reason and science about as much as you do.
Check out this link if you have any ability to ever change your mind about anything.
http://www.godmademegay.com/Letter.htm
Hello there Steevo. Thanks for the response to my post on gay marriage. I am glad you took the time to read it and reply even if you disagree with my assessment. I do stand by my position that there is no scientifically proven “gay gene”. What some call genetic predisposition is actually predisposition toward indulging sinful desires. We all have sinful desires within us but choose to either indulge or resist them.
Even though we disagree on this issue, I do appreciate interacting with you on this and hope that we can have thoughtful and respectful dialogue on this matter in the future. Consider this an open invitation to talk about my proposed solution to this impasse.
Hello Kent,
that would also have been my question:
If – hypothetically – finding out that homosexuality was not something you choose and can reverse would change your stance.
I am pretty convinced that – whatever causes homosexuality – it is only in rare and miraculous cases that a homosexual can change his orientation once it is there. If – as you assert – the gene has not yet been found yet, this does not disprove that. There are many things that are not genetic but not a choice nevertheless: Take all kinds of disabilities that can result from shortage of oxygen to the brain etc.
I have been struggling with this question very much as my heart breaks thinking that there are people who are only attracted to their own sex, willing to have a committed relationship that includes intimacy – and the answer we can give them essentially is that all their life they will not be allowed to have such a relationship (if they are not willing to have it with someone they are not attracted to, i.e. someone of the opposite sex.).
Thanks, Kate, for the thoughtful and sincere comment. I can understand your struggle as it does seem sort of vindictive to deny someone their desires. I would say that even if there was proven to be a “gay gene” that hardwires someone to be attracted to the same gender, it really would not change the simple truth that God still prohibits same sex intimacy. Now, from what I know and believe about who God is, I do not believe that he would create us with genetics to do something that he expressly forbids. Why would he do that?
That being said, the Scriptures tell us to “resist the flesh” by practicing self-discipline so denying ourselves is not foreign or wrong for us. Someone may be sexually attracted to underage children, but denying that person the right to engage in intimacy with children is the right thing to do no matter how they feel or how bad others feel for him. That person MUST be denied that urge for their entire lives because of the moral/ethical implications, so does that make it wrong?
I believe that every one of us has inclinations and urges that we must resist, so I don’t think it is wrong or uncompassionate to deny same sex intimacy if that denial is the best and highest ethic for people and for society.