Last Chance For a Win-Win on Same-Sex Marriage?

May 15, 2012 By Bob Hyatt 8 Comments

This last week, two important things happened. First, the voters of North Carolina passed a State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. And then shortly after, President Obama reversed his long-held position against same-sex marriage and said, “It ought to be legal.” In addition, the polls now show that the country is almost precisely divided in half for and against changing our laws on this issue.

All of which lead me to believe that we will soon reach or have already reached the last chance for both sides of this issue to lay down the all-or-nothing mentality they possess, and find a win-win scenario where each side gets the essentials of what they want.

Is it possible to have a win-win on same-sex marriage (SSM)? I think it’s not only possible- it’s imperative.

Because, at least at this point, neither side seems willing to try and see the issue from the perspective of the other and look for something other than a binary, up or down, yes or no kind of solution. And where will that lead us? Certainly no place good. Look for more protests of churches, more of those who speak out in favor of the biblical understanding of marriage to be labeled as “haters”… and fewer and fewer gay men and women even giving the Gospel a hearing because in their mind, the Church simply doesn’t care about them as people.

In order to avoid an exacerbation of this cultural war, some common sense compromise is going to be necessary- each side is going to have to give up something for the sake of the other.

On one side, the Church is going to have to realize that gay men and women, in wanting what everyone else has, are asking for something reasonable. Rights of inheritance and property, custody and visitation- all of the rights granted currently by the state in marriage are good things, things we can affirm, even in relationships that we wouldn’t necessarily endorse. After all, even if we hold a more conservative view on divorce, I don’t see many churches advocating for divorced couples to lose the right to have custody over their step-children should something happen to their spouse. We may not endorse the relationship, but we can certainly try to understand the desire of those in it to have the same legal rights as other couples. And more than understand it- I think we can advocate for it, and practically demonstrate that we do in fact “love everyone.”

At a bare minimum, those who claim the stance “Welcoming but not affirming” must come to grips with the very practical question of what that looks like not just on Sunday morning, but it the public/civic arena too.

On the other side, those pushing for SSM need to understand the depth of feeling involved in and around the word marriage- what is for many Christians a sacrament and for all Christians sacred. To have the State legislate an understanding of what is essentially a religious term, and to legislate it in a way contrary to the faith and practice of so many is profoundly offensive. This goes beyond legalization into the realm of endorsement and definition, and as such, is qualitatively different than many other culture war issues.

As long as we’re talking about “marriage” we’re going to continue to see a stalemate on this issue as those who believe in a traditional, biblical view of sexuality and those who want the basic rights afforded to others all around them each refuse to give an inch.

So what’s the solution?

The State needs to get out of the “marriage” business. It should recognize that as long as it uses that term, and continues to privilege certain types of relationships over others this issue is going to divide us as a nation, and is only going to become more and more contentious. We need to move towards the system used in many European countries where the State issues nothing but civil unions to anyone who wants them, and then those who desire it may seek a marriage from the Church. When I pastored in the Netherlands, this was the system- you got a civil union certificate at the courthouse and then a Marriage ceremony at the church. This division largely negated the culture war aspect, and allowed those churches who objected to same sex marriage on biblical grounds to not only opt out, but to be able to continue to teach their biblical view of marriage, uncontradicted by the State.

But more even than changing our system, we need to change our hearts. I don’t know how many proponents of gay marriage will be reading this, so I won’t make much of a plea to them beyond this: please stop labeling the other side of the argument as “hate speech” and bigotry. It’s not. It is a working out of deep convictions and a particular understanding of sexuality as a good gift from a good Creator, to be used within certain boundaries. Personal animosity doesn’t enter into the argument- and when it does, it deserves just as much sanction and rebuke from the Church as anything else.

And that means that in addition to rethinking how we talk about LGBTQ issues in the church, and what it looks like to actively welcome them in the name of Jesus, the Church needs to rethink its political strategies. We ought to stop worrying about ballot measures and propositions which declare same sex marriage illegal, and ought to start focusing on the new realities of this Post-Christendom world in which we find ourselves. Our efforts would better be spent on trying to get the government OUT of marrying anyone. Will this mean giving up one more piece of privilege and power in the public sphere? Sure- the Pastor’s signing of the “Marriage License,” a document issued by the State is exactly that. But if it gets us towards a place of peacemaking with a community we are not doing very well at sharing the Gospel with, isn’t laying that down worth it?

Ultimately, we in the Church need to change our hearts as well. It is our primary goal that the Gospel of Jesus be heard and understood and that the person of Jesus be esteemed. As we often say in marriage counseling, “perception is reality,” and the sad truth is that right now, the gay community in America doesn’t think much of us or our Jesus, not based on the offensiveness of our Gospel, but on the offensiveness of our fighting what they see as fundamental human rights. My fear is that we may (for a while longer at least) continue to win battles like The recent one in North Carolina… but ultimately lose the war in the hearts of a portion of our population who become convinced that the Gospel couldn’t possibly be Good News to them, based on what they do (or don’t) see in us.

 

Bob and his beard.

bob hyatt

blog • twitter • fb • web

 

Filed Under: Bible, church, Culture 8 Comments

Strange Christianity Made in America: Part III by Randy Woodley

April 11, 2012 By randywoodley 27 Comments

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ! -Gandhi

Christians in America are infamous for being so unlike Jesus. I like the bumper sticker that says, “When Jesus said love your enemies I think he probably meant don’t kill them.” Ever wonder how Christians went from loving their enemies to killing them? We love to blame it all on Constantine, and true enough, he contributed to the problem, but I think the problem goes deeper and farther back—all the way to the Apostle Paul, or at least to the way we view him and his role in the Scriptures—our hermeneutic of Paul.

Don’t get me wrong, Paul was probably a solid guy, but (and he’d be the first to admit) he doesn’t even hold a candle to Jesus. Over the centuries Paul’s words have been used to sanction everything from American slavery to the oppression of women to 5 Point Calvinism. So, why do we give the words of Paul and the words of Jesus equal weight? I think mostly our hermeneutic fails to deal with our worldview and our own “non-objective” perceptions of reality.

I don’t consider myself a biblical expert, but neither am I an armchair scholar. I have all the right creds; the required biblical and theological training, all the right degrees, and I have put in the time it takes to understand how complex this question really is, and most importantly, I could be wrong. I’m not offering a simple solution, just making the observation that some things are very wrong with our traditional hermeneutic of Paul’s writings and that we pay too little attention to Jesus.

The Apostle Paul was correct when he said we all “see through a glass darkly.” What he didn’t say is that in the right light, glass reflects like a mirror. When looking through our own glass lens we bring more of our own worldview and preconceived notions to the Scriptures than we would care to admit. Having bias is unavoidable and it is natural, so why can’t we admit to the deeper levels of our own bias? I think there are several reasons. Identifying and admitting them is the first step in a long process of developing a fresh hermeneutic. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Bible, church, Culture, emerging church, Evangelism, Kingdom, Theology Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , 27 Comments

why feminine castration is like church on sunday

March 27, 2012 By George Elerick 5 Comments

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath – Jesus, Rabbi from Nazareth

YouTube Preview Image

Is not defending Sunday as a day to meet with God simply re-instituting the temple in that it promises some sort of mystical experience in a specific time and place? The geographical implications also claim that God could then only be experienced in ‘this’ specific context. What we cannot do is assume that our geographic place has no bearing on who we are, what we believe and even why we believe it. Take for instance, that I am a white western male living in a western [privileged] country and these circumstances [no matter how altruistic my theories] will continously be translated through this lens. The best I can do is to be aware of them and fight against them when appropriate.

In the case of church on Sunday, I think this is an important fight, not because the day matters, but because the point behind the words of Jesus. Over time, if adhered to, [especially in a communal setting] can too easily become institutional. Think about this, do you ever feel guilty [or have you ever felt this way] about missing church? This guilt is a western luxury.

We feel guilty not because we are afraid that we might somehow miss out on meeting with the divine, we feel guilty because we have subordinated ourselves to a social rule that has taken the place of God. What has happened is called a fact-value distinction, in the social sciences this is the claim that the objects we place value in can over time become facts even if they are not true. What we have to realise is that what is represented is not what is. Let’s dissect most church settings [I understand for some communities this is in or has already been revised; but let's be self-critical about our contexts, lest we think we are above all of this].

the ontology of a church scene

When one walks into a church [like the video above] the traditional setup is that the congregation is huddled somewhere around a stage awaiting some transcendent voice to speak the words of the divine [tongue in cheek]. if we unpack the semiotics here, i think what we find might force us to reevaluate the sabbath, and whether it should be holy or not.

[keep in mind that the word holy in the hebrew means: unique/different; if all of our services look the same each week, or even the fact we do them weekly is a habit, like any bad habit, we might need to break it].

the congregation sitting in their chairs/pews is a form of collective intentionality, meaning that everyone is agreeing to this posture. and this posture is one of sitting ‘below’ the speaker.an image of submission or subordination, giving the speaker the power over you, and authority too. [some might claim that submission has to be a heartfelt decision, while i agree in principal, semiotically, this is not the case].

the person speaking center stage is in a position of authority, power and ‘wisdom’ [i understand this depends on historical/geographical context; i am specifically speaking about the western setup]. the collective intentionality also implies that everyone agrees with the setup [even if you dont 'inside'; the fact that you are present says otherwise].

what we cannot get away from is that these ‘gestures’ and the defense of them is rebuilding the ancient idea of a tribal god rather than a universal one, because if we believe going to church is about meeting god ‘in the service’ or to ‘get more of god’ out of service or fill in the blank – then what we ultimately do is resurrect Jonah and assume god cannot find us in the sea or outside of the city. not to mention we subordinate ourselves to the metaphysics of a day, which is also time and geography, we ultimately claim that we cannot think for ourselves, that we would rather have Sunday think for us. some might claim that they either change the day or the setup is much more postmodern, this does not change the ‘habituality’  that can occur in any setting. if we believe in an end to metaphysics [i.e, categories, classification, transcendence] then this means we must put an end to sunday.

the end of metaphysics or the end of Sunday

because the assumptions that have been solidified are nothing short of  feminine castration. i do not speak of the act of feminine castration, but rather a freudian analysis of it. from a purely freudian perspective what this means is that the feminine who has no penis is attempting to get rid of the penis that is not present. the assumption is that the female should have a penis, that it is somehow lacking something without it. this is the true evil of something like feminine castration; it plays into the social construct of gender control. the hegemony arises out of the assumption that something is there in the first place and/or that it must be removed to bring a necessary distinction. is this not the same perversion behind church on sunday?

that we assume that because a group of people agree to meet in a room and pay a speaker to give a message and have a small concert that god will somehow materialize. aren’t we assuming too much here? aren’t we assuming that god has to arrive [i.e, that god has a penis that is not present] and yet, god doesn’t have to at all. and so when god doesn’t ‘show up’ [as some state] there is a sense of either inadequacy or a claim to the myth of sin in one’s lives. there is a laundry list of reasons that one attempts to make sense of why god doesnt make them have some mystical experience.  in the end this notion ends up being a form of reflexive castration, in that, we end up feeling powerless because we have created a god who is powerless. and the cycle continues. these reasons are another example of what happens when we succumb to a metaphysical trap of relating to god through institutional expression.

a simple offering in removing sunday from our calendars is a retrovisitation to the ancient semitic desert dwellers and the ancient world they inhabited. it was a common belief that god was in the world, all over it. in genesis 18 abraham meets god by a tree, this tree was known in the ancient world as a place where you came to met your god [any god] – trees were a divine space. mountains were the same [is this not where moses meets god and talks about making a promise]. whenever it rained, it was a reminder that heaven and earth were one. and the most radical act was when god became flesh, god with skin; meaning that simply being human is a divine experience/act.

[p.s. maybe for lent, you can give up sundays]

 

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: Bible, Cartoons, church, Culture, emerging church, Theology 5 Comments

Was the Gospel Preached in “All the World”?

March 23, 2012 By rileyobrienpowell Leave a Comment

Was the Gospel been preached to all the world? A Fulfilled Perspective

When you’re speaking with someone who is new to the topic of Fulfilled Eschatology, (or preterist theology, the understanding that all Bible prophecy, including Jesus’ coming, was fulfilled by 70AD) there are many questions that come up. One frequent flyer is, “Doesn’t the Bible say that  the Gospel must be preached to the whole world before the End and Jesus can come?”

And if I sense they’re actually interested in learning something new to them, I gladly engage, “Yes! The Bible says that. But I no longer think it means what you’re probably thinking…” It’s true, the Bible does say that. In fact, it says it several times, in several ways.

But the Bible also says something else that most Christians miss – even most pastors and theologians today. And it’s something worth knowing. Would you believe that the Bible says the Gospel WAS PREACHED to the 1) WHOLE WORLD, to 2) ALL NATIONS, to 3) ALL THE WORLD, to 4) EVERY CREATURE UNDER HEAVEN and even to the 5) ENDS OF THE EARTH — all BEFORE 70AD?

Read it for yourself.

Surprised?

This shows that, yes, Jesus’ prophecy about the Gospel being preached to ‘all the world’ – as HIS AUDIENCE understood it – was fulfilled. But, like many misunderstood fulfilled prophecies, it was fulfilled according to the way THEY understood their terms, in 1st c Palestine, not the way WE define those same words today, in 21st c America. This is why it’s important to remember original audience relevance. We must continue to try and put ourselves in their sandals and progress in our understanding of what THEY thought Jesus taught. We must continually ask, “What did THEY think this meant? In what sense do THEY interpret this passage?”

Indeed, the Gospel had been preached to what THEY considered to be the whole world. And “the end” that THEY were anticipating – that is, the end of the Old Covenant world – came to pass, in 70AD, when the very center and symbol of that world, Temple and Jerusalem, were destroyed. This is why all the New Testament writers said the Last Days were back THEN. They were not talking about the New Covenant age beginning with a pronouncement of last days of history or the world. What sense would that make? They were talking about the Last Days of the Old Covenant AGE, which ended in 70AD.

The “end” that Jesus said would come after the Gospel reached “all the land” was a COVENANTAL END. It was the end of our redemption from the curse of Adam and the consummation of our New Relationship of life in God in the way of Jesus. This is why Jesus called it the “End of the Age”. He meant the ‘End of the Old Covenant Age’ that THEY were in, which was the age of keeping the Mosaic law, sacrifices, circumcision, kosher and incomplete atonement. That burdensome life was not the way it was meant to be. They dreamt of freedom, of complete atonement and peace with God. The hope of Israel was Exodus and everything it stood for; to be resurrected from that age of bondage with, in and through their atoning Messiah. 

There is no reason, from the text to believe that Jesus was ever talking about the ‘end of the world’, neither in that passage, nor any other passage. Despite poor Bible translations which misinterpret ‘end of the age’ for ‘end of the world’, a look at the Greek reveals that Jesus was always talking about the end of the Old Covenant AGE – NOT the material world. Jesus was anticipating a new world order, a new spiritual reality, a Kingdom of God’s children finally at peace with God, FREE from Mosaic law and sacrifice. We are citizens of that Kingdom now. That Old Covenant age passed away with a roar and flames of fire at the destruction of the Temple. And this happened just as and when Jesus said it would in his Olivet Discourse — TO that first generation of saints to whom the New Testament teaching was delivered (Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21). Once again, original Hebrew audience relevance and context are key to understanding what kind of “end” and what scope of “world” THEY were talking about.

Does a fulfilled view of this prophecy negate one’s desire to share the Gospel in the wider world today? Of course not, as evidenced by the powerful and prolific ministries of people with a fulfilled view. But it effects our motivation and our message. We don’t need to act as if we’re sharing God with people to hasten a mysteriously “delayed” coming of Jesus. (As if good news is telling people that they get to wait indefinitely with us for something good or awful that may or may not ever occur in their lifetime. How is that good news?). Instead, we can joyfully and confidently go forth sharing a returned, present and reliable Jesus; One who is HERE WITH US right now. One who has glorified us as Sons and Daughters. One in whose resurrection life we live and move. One who is working in and through us amidst the ups and downs of life on earth NOW. We can be confident in this because He did what He said He would do… and when.

- Riley O’Brien Powell

For more from a Fulfilled perspective, see LivingtheQuestion.org

Filed Under: Bible, Eschatology, Evangelism, Theology Tagged With: , , , , , , Leave a Comment
« Older Posts