Archive for May, 2009

Gay Marriage Part 2

Gay Marriage | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
May 27 2009

22964703Since I posted my first article on the gay marriage issue, I have had several great responses and conversations via my Blog, Facebook and Twitter with Christians and atheists, gays and straights, liberals and  conservatives on the topic and have been encouraged by how the conversation has been progressing. Well, the topic is front and center once again as the California Supreme Court has upheld a voter approved ban on gay marriage in that state and ,of course, there are jubilant celebrations as well angry demonstrations everywhere regarding the ruling. And…here we go again, people. How is it that we cannot have a civilized discussion about this issue with both sides coming to the table rather than taking to the streets in happy support or angry protest?

I, for one, am disappointed and exhausted over the tireless staging on both sides and the vitriolic exchange that resurfaces every time a court ruling is handed down. May I suggest that we all just GROW UP and do what adults ought to do and begin to talk winsomely and constructively rather than angrily and vindictively? I think we all learned as children that talking louder does not make listening easier and that outbursts and tantrums do not win anyone over. So, I suggest we all take a breath or two, count to ten or ten thousand depending on how uptight we are, and try this again.

The first step toward constructive dialogue on this is that we all understand the primary concern for each side. For gay marriage opponents, the primary issue for us is that same gender sexual intimacy is expressly forbidden by God and is morally wrong because it undermines His design and expectation for the family that has been in place from the beginning. Though gay marriage proponents like to paint us opponents as religious kooks or wackos for claiming moral/ethical priority, the truth is that we do in fact have that priority as human history validates our claim that marriage has been defined as between man and woman in every culture and nation since the the garden.

For gay marriage proponents, their primary issue, as I understand it, is that they want to receive the same legal recognition and benefits that heterosexual couples have and see this issue as a matter of civil rights and equal opportunity. They feel slighted by a society that denies them the rights provided for other citizens solely because of their sexual orientation, and see the conservative and religious segment of society as the primary oppressors of their fundamental rights as citizens. Although gay marriage opponents tend to paint them as heathenish haters or rebels for wanting legal recognition, the truth is that they do in fact have the right to seek and push for that recognition from the government in a free but separated state and church society.

Now, that being said. Gay marriage opponents dislike and dismiss the idea that we live in a post-Christian America and that that the state and the church have been separated for the protection from one another. Though, we believe that the law of separation was written and implemented to primarily protect the church from the state, the law does also in turn provide a level of protection for the state as well. Whether we like it or not, there is a separation between church and state in this country that has been confirmed and enforced over and over again arguably beyond the way that it should be. But, the reality is that it is the way that it is. What we opponents dislike about this idea is that it seems that we have lost a voice in our culture that we once had, or more specifically, that we have lost the influence that we once enjoyed.  Truly, there was a time when Christians filled posts in all legal branches of government at the federal and state levels and those influenced the legal bearing of our nation for its first centuries but we have watched those posts continually abandoned and filled with non Christian leaders who have moved the state even further away from the church.

Given the fact that we now live in a secular society, we have to live with the implications. That means we have to learn to accept that the state will not favor or even befriend our perspectives and desires and we must not expect it to do so. The state is not a friend to the church but merely a legal guardian, and this means that we should not expect her to like or even hear us. Now, does that mean that we should not speak up and out for our interests and desires? Absolutely not. We are actually mandated by Scripture to work and care for God’s interests in the world, but we must be realistic in that endeavor and not be consumed with the things that are beyond our control. The issue of same gender sexual recognition is one of those issues for us. Though we must know and express winsomely God’s expectations for relationships in a fallen world, we must not expect an unbelieving world to understand or respect those expectations. Simply put, we should not expect a worldly government state to look out for our interests but be content with it merely permitting us to have them.

With that in mind, the wise and prudent thing for opponents to do in times like these is to permit the state to do as it will without interference or protest and instead focus our attention and energy on protecting the rights that the state does provide to the church.  One of those rights is the freedom to practice our religious tradition unabated. The institution of marriage is not a secular tradition but a sacred one, and it belongs to the church as it has from the beginning. The problem we find ourselves in today is that the state has legally recognized and protected our sacred institution, and we have permitted her to do so. And, in doing that, we should have foreseen and expected that the state would one day no longer feel the way that we do about marriage. Marriage is sacred, but the state has not and still does not see it that way. For the state, marriage has simply been the legal title placed on the family unit for legally recognized rights and privileges. But, for us, we do not need those rights and privileges attached for us to have a marriage covenant.

Therefore, in light of this, it seems wise for us to accept that the state will have the right to define and practice its own secular version of “marriage” and that the church will have its sacred version. In other words, the state will be the issuer of  legal contracts and the church will be the issuer of divine covenants. Though, we prefer very much that the state not use the term “marriage” to prevent confusion and to respect the church’s use of the term for millennia, the state should have the right to and will likely decide to create a secular “civil union” of sorts in order to accommodate the interests of a secularized and pluralized culture. This should not be unexpected or surprising for gay marriage opponents and is a thoughtful solution to a problem that is quickly spinning out of control.

Though many gay marriage opponents will likely see this as a “compromise” or defeat for their ideals, I see this is an appropriate and winsome resolution to a polarizing debate over gay marriage in our country and as reasonable topic for dialogue between both sides at the table. If we continue to simply try to plow through this deep impasse in our culture, we will likely end up with a divided nation consisting of “gay states” and “non gay states” and a huge mess on our hands deciding whether to secede from or build walls between each other, and I don’t think that either side wants to live in a country like that.

Tags: , ,
4 Comments »

Conflict In The Church

Church | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
May 20 2009

22205999In the book of Acts we read that Paul and Barnabas once had a “sharp disagreement” and decided to go their separate ways. Apparently, the point of their strong disagreement was over the worthiness of a co-laborer in the gospel to help them with and accompany them on their mission. This Scripture has always bothered me because I have struggled with how two of the most heroic missionaries and encouragers of the Church could not find common ground enough to continue to even serve together. I mean, how is it that two committed, godly men could not or would not put their differences aside and choose to work together toward the common goal of spreading the gospel? After all, Paul did pen the words: “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” and “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.”

Some people look at this juxtaposition of seemingly contradictory behavior from Paul and refer to this as a “black eye” on the history of the Church and a terrible example of disunity in the body, but others see this as a representative reality of the complicated messiness of body life in the Church. I used to favor the prior view as I was once deeply disappointed in Paul for dumping his good friend in anger simply because He wasn’t willing to follow his own advice and make peace with Barnabas. However, in recent years I have come to favor the latter view because, as a pastor, I have had a front row seat for all the messy and painful drama that occurs within the church and believe that enduring peace and unity within the body is simply not possible within a fallen world and any expectation of it is quite frankly, naive. Though I admittedly long for lasting peace and unity within the body of believers, I now know and have come to accept that forgiven but fallen people will always find reasons to not like each other and divide.

I have served in three very vibrant churches in my ministry tenure and none of them have been spared the pain and heartache of divisions. And, the more I talk with others, my hunch is confirmed that there is no other church that hasn’t. In my experience, conflict and division in the church is inevitable and is not a matter of if but of when they will occur. Though we work hard to establish peace and stymie incipient divisions in the body of believers, we cannot prevent or stop all disagreements and conflicts from occurring. And, in fact, I believe that we must not at times prevent all conflicts from erupting because sometimes conflicts can actually produce and accomplish something that is ultimately better, stronger and healthier.

I believe that disagreement and conflict can actually be the instructional tool that God uses to develop the body. The truth is that if there is no conflict and all disagreements are instead headed off in the name of peace and unity, then people never actually learn to deal with or confront controversy. If they do not know how to manage conflict, then they are deprived of learning a very important life lesson on both the value and the importance of achieving resolution through conflict. After all, if you don’t know of or aren’t willing to work through a conflict then how can there ever be any understanding or appreciation for peace? In other words, the only way we can truly appreciate peace is by knowing conflict. If we know no conflict, then peace has no meaning. Because of this, I believe that conflict is a tool that God uses to teach us to appreciate both the value and the importance of peace.

I also believe that disagreement and conflict can be the purging fire that God uses to grow the body. The reality is that if we head off all conflict then we can’t learn from it and we won’t grow because of it. Sometimes we must permit conflicts to play out and even for division to occur so that the body can grow together toward like-mindedness. One of the critical conflicts that always wrecks one-heartedness in a body of believers is division over certain kinds of change. Often the change pertains to non-essential issues such as style, philosophy or tradition, and often there are some who are reluctant or indignant toward any kind of change and consider all or most change to be a threat. So, when some are open to change and others are not, then sometimes conflict and division is critical for the necessary change to occur. When a division occurs and opponents to change move on, then the body is free to move forward together toward a common goal with newly homogenized hearts.

Furthermore, I believe that disagreement and conflict can also be the surgical instrument that God uses to heal the body. Sometimes, I believe that God will even utilize conflict as the painful means to remove contentious issues and relationships from within a body to still unrest and insecurity. Often ongoing drama within a body of believers creates tension and fosters stress within the body that elevates the general discomfort of the body, and a “sharp disagreement” can be the very necessary instrument used to break the bone of contention and expedite the mending process. Although the fracture always hurts and sometimes even bleeds, the mending of the fracture does result in a stronger and a healthier body.

When it comes to the separation between Paul and Barnabas over whether to take John Mark on the mission, we see that their conflict and division did in fact ultimately produce something better, stronger and healthier. Although, we are not privy to what transpired between the three men in the interim between their separation and reunification, we do know that all three of them went on to impact the world in profound ways and finished their ministries well. We also know that Paul, just before he died in his last letter, spoke of his fond affection and admiration for the very man who years before had so deeply disappointed him. In 2 Timothy 4:11 Paul wrote to his protege Timothy: “Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry,” which shows that the men did reconcile and appreciate one another despite the difficult separation that occurred years before.

Their story gives me hope and confidence that conflict, even division, in the body of Christ though it is immediately painful can and will ultimately be beneficial for the Church and for those who serve her. Though we may struggle now to see the good that will come, we must trust that one day it will. I was once told never to doubt in the darkness what God has revealed in the light, so the light that must sustain us in the darkness of division is the promise of peace and the hope of ultimate reconciliation.

Tags: , ,
6 Comments »

The Way To The City

Faith | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
May 06 2009

25215469Pastor and Author Eugene Peterson once said: “The way of faith does not serve our fantasies, our illusions, or our ambitions. Faith is not the way to God on our terms, it is the way of God to us on his terms.” I’ve been thinking a lot about this as I have reflected on many recent interactions with various people who believe that faith is really ours to personalize and define, in the same way that our wardrobe or our exercise routine is. For many, faith that leads to salvation is a personal path cleared with our own perceived tastes, styles and preferences rather than a road that is already paved and striped for traffic.

For many, saving faith really is an unpredictable personal odyssey through any kind of terrain which they alone can travel, and they really expect that all their unique paths will all ultimately arrive at the same destination. However, this personalized trajectory view of faith is sadly naive because even simple reasoning will tell us that carving a path through a jungle, a desert or a forest will not necessarily lead us to the same place, unless of course that destination is a vast, amorphous ocean.

If one’s destination is simply an ocean, then it is conceivably true that if you walk long enough you will end up on a beach. And, many people think of salvation in this way. It’s not uncommon for many to think of heaven or paradise as an ocean of nothingness that we all disappear into like a drop of water that dissolves into a vast ocean. What was once a solitary drop of water in life would in the end cease to be distinct and instead be absorbed by the ocean of eternity in death.

However, the destination, is not really an ocean that we all disappear into,  a collective body of nothingness for the duration of time. Rather, the destination is paradise lost, a heavenly city with actual walls and boundaries. It’s boundaries are set and its location static somewhere in the universe. Though we cannot perceive it’s presence with fallen eyes, we know with conviction that she is there. She is the City of God, and she is beautiful.

So, here’s the thing. If the destination is a glorious city and not a vast ocean, then all the walking in the world will not land us there unless we walk in the right direction. No, if we walk aimlessly, then we will eventually find the beach and drown in the ocean or we will simply get exhausted and quit along the way. And, here’s the sad truth. Too many travelers have found the ocean and drowned and too  many others have collapsed and given up along the way. In creating their own path, they have wandered into dense jungles where they are consumed, or they have gone into dry deserts where they have perished or they have ventured into thick forests where they have lost their way, and the relative few who have found the beach are devastated when they get there and find out that they cannot even drink the water. They can only drown in it. No, those few who have wandered long enough to get where they are going unfortunately only find that there’s really nothing there.

This is the tragic story of humanity today. There is a glorious city where the gates are open and the joys are endless, but the masses aren’t looking for it. Even when they are given the map and pointed in the right direction, they insist on taking their own path and choosing their journey for themselves, despite the fact that word has come back to us that the ocean of nothingness awaiting them is not worth finding.

That word of warning was given to us by Jesus himself who cautiously warned all the world about what actually lies beyond the vines of the jungle, the sands of the deserts and the trees of the forest. Jesus told us that there is only death and destruction in every other direction. And yet, so many don’t hear it or simply don’t want to. They just cannot stand the fact that the road to the City could really be that obvious or that all the other paths could really be that devastating. Jesus told us about the path, about the way to the City and He pointed all people in the right direction.

Jesus said, “I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.” Jesus told us that He is the door, the gate, the way and the path to the great City and that all who enter the City of God though him will enjoy her comforts and pleasures for all of eternity. Jesus, is the cleared path. He is the unlocked door. Jesus is the way to the City and all we need to do is believe that his instructions are true, that his promises are real, that his directions are right.

I, for one, choose to believe him and am on my way to the City. And, I can’t, for the life of me, understand why so many others go the other way, why people purposely choose the path of exhaustion, emptiness and death. The only solace I can take in knowing this sad reality is that Jesus himself knew it would happen. He knew and told us that most people would not listen, that most would not believe and that most would choose to go in the wrong direction. He told us, “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” I truly hope that you will listen, believe and be among the few who take the way to the City.

Tags: , , , ,
2 Comments »