I just got back from spending the past week in Anaheim, California, at a conference on a ministry I'm part of at my church here in Seattle. The conference was fantastic — and I'll detail it further in a future post — but one of its most interesting moments was a conversation I had with some fellow participants over drinks at the hotel bar on Friday night.
This conversation wasn't at all related to the conference itself, but it did touch on some hot topics in the modern-day Christian faith — namely, the role of gay and lesbian people in the church, cohabitation, and premarital sex.
One pastor from Orange County (no, it wasn't Rick Warren) repeated the same talking point I so often hear these days: that he certainly doesn't have anything against gays, and he welcomes them at his church, because we're all broken and we're all sinners. He simply expects them to "repent" and to "not act on their sexual urges." As I interpreted it, he'd only have a problem if they didn't remain celibate for life and didn't ask forgiveness for being who they are.
I quickly challenged him on why divorce and remarriage are different from same-sex attraction. After all, one can repent from being party to a failed marriage, but Jesus himself specifically admonishes his followers that marrying again after divorcing is adultery — and thus the opposite of repentance for the initial sin. Meanwhile, Christ makes no explicit reference to homosexuality in any of the four gospels.
The straight, married pastor didn't have a ready answer for this one.
Now, let me be clear: I truly wasn't trying to play a game of "gotcha." That being said, I also didn't expect him to be able to respond to my question, because there is no good answer, except to admit hypocrisy. Many married Americans, including Christians, will divorce at some point, and a similarly significant number will marry again. In short, the majority tends to trivialize its own sins while zeroing in on the alleged transgressions of the minority. (I see no sin in being gay, by the way. A far greater misdeed, in my estimation, is pretending to be who you're not.)
Sadly, this is a pattern repeated across mainstream Christianity: We love to point fingers at others, calling them to task for breaking rules we can smugly say we've never broken. And we usually do so without having any understanding of the circumstances surrounding the individual whose identity, actions, or personal choices we're judging.
Take, for instance, cohabitation. In particular, I'm always turned off by married people who chastise unmarried couples for living together or having sex before they exchange vows. My response to such a rebuke is typically a snarky one along these lines: So it's different for you simply because you have a marriage certificate? Because you acquired a piece of paper from the state that proves you're mature enough or committed enough for pillow talk?
At the risk of being indelicate: Any two idiots can get hitched. I'm not married, but I could go get a marriage license tomorrow — even if I'm not ready for it, and even if I'm not marrying the right person — just so that I can have sex without feeling guilty, or pat myself on the back for not "living in sin," or generally paint the facade of being a good Christian, even if I'm a badly broken person underneath (which indeed I am).
If you are a Christian, be honest with yourself: Does this paradigm not cheapen the sacrament of marriage that we're supposedly so concerned about protecting through rules like these? Does it not create a dangerous precedent where young people in particular are encouraged to tie the knot before they're ready, just so they can say they're following those rules? (Don't pretend this isn't real — it is.) And does it not send a false impression that Christians think marriage means little more than whether or not two people are having sex?
I know what you might be thinking: I'm missing the point of commitment that's embodied by marriage, or I'm ignoring the biblical principle that sexual relations should be reserved for marriage. No, I'm not. Commitment and sexual fidelity are both crucial, but neither is guaranteed by marriage or by a one-size-fits-all rule. I've known unmarried, cohabiting couples whose relationships are remarkably stable, and I've known married couples whose relationships are outwardly dysfunctional.
This is why proscriptive, legalistic theology does not work. It backfires. It has unintended and sometimes destructive consequences. And it's dishonest, because it's fabricated by a class of fallen human beings whose sins and occasional failure to repent is no different from those toward whom their legalism is targeted.
Case in point: I'm a social drinker, and I respect those who abstain. In fact, I think it's honorable. But I'd resent being told that I'm a sinner simply because I don't make the same personal choice as those who opt not to imbibe.
Similarly, I wouldn't choose to live with my girlfriend. But I'd never judge someone who does — especially if I have little or no knowledge of his personal circumstances, spiritual condition, or relationship with his significant other.
We've managed to reduce Christianity to a set of superficial rules that seem more concerned about external appearances than true spiritual health, and which, curiously enough, rarely seem to be targeted toward those who advocate most vociferously for their enforcement. Gay people, for instance, don't clamor for their own relegation in the church.
Legalism is a toxic element in the Christian faith, I think. At its core, it undermines our mandate to extend grace and understanding to each other, as our creator has done for us, and it stifles the exploration of a mysterious God whose essence is so much more profound than questions of who is living or sleeping with whom. It distracts those who are already believers, and it repels those who aren't. That's sad.
I know that some who read this will disagree, and my goal is to create a constructive dialogue here. So if you take exception with what I've said, leave a comment and I'll try to respond.
I'm so glad you posted this. I had a VERY similar conversation with a friend over drinks on Saturday. To me, being a Christian isn't about knowing the "right" stance on every single social issue in existence. At the end of my life, I don't believe I will have to pass a quiz about gay marriage, premarital sex, or any other controversial topic in order to get into heaven. We are saved by grace, and the fact that Jesus died on the cross for our sins...not by our stance on these ultimately insignificant issues.
ReplyDeleteLast time I checked, a sin is a sin is a sin is A SIN. Like you, I don't believe that homosexuality actually IS a sin. But...if someone DOES believe that, how is it any different than any of the various sins they commit? If people believe that in order to be a Christian homosexual you must suppress who you are and never enter a relationship, than couldn't we argue that all of us have to be free of "sin" in all aspects of life? It's the same as saying you can only come to church if you promise never to tell a lie for the rest of your life or vow to never experience greed, lust, jealousy, or selfishness. The argument just doesn't work!
Furthermore, the Bible says that we are not to judge. So...by labeling people and their lifestyles as "bad", aren't we ourselves committing a sin?
Thanks, Katrina! Great points. Fully agree. Love your point about not being confronted with a "quiz" at the end of our lives on the aforementioned issues. Do we really believe that God is that small, or grace that inadequate? If so, will we not also be quizzed on what percentage of our income we tithed each year, or whether we turned the other cheek every single time someone offended us throughout our lives? Few or none of us would pass, including on the test of repentance.
DeleteSo why do Christian institutions fixate on these fabricated rules as though they're of paramount importance in the context of grace or a personal relationship with Christ? I'd argue that we shouldn't. Thanks for your comment.
I'm fascinated by your observation that the predominant evangelical paradigm inadvertently cheapens the sacrament of marriage. I think you're onto something here. It's safe to say there are loads of horny evangelical teenagers out there who see marriage primarily as a license to get busy. (With such an immature concept of marriage, it's no wonder Christians have roughly the same divorce rate as everyone else.)
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, all the emphasis on chastity, "true love waits," etc. isn't working. Evangelicals are just as promiscuous before marriage as non-evangelicals. And they're MORE likely to get pregnant (perhaps b/c they have so many hangups about birth control).
As a Christian, I don't want to give up on the idea of marriage as a sacrament/covenant, i.e. more than just a piece of paper. But at some point we have to accept that the Bible's depiction of sexuality and marriage is not as black-and-white as we've made it out to be. Some of the Bible's most venerated characters had sex lives that would have gotten them booted out of most evangelical churches today.
It's not that some choices aren't better than others...but maybe, just maybe, God isn't as fixated on this issue as his followers are.
Thanks, Ben. Right there with you. I certainly don't want to give up on marriage as a sacred institution, either, or portray it to be nothing more than a piece of paper from the state. But I'd argue that legalistic theology as outlined in this post sort of reduces it to that. Basically, it's okay to live together or have sex just as long as you've acquired the requisite legal document.
DeleteHere's the problem with that: One married couple may be emotionally or physically abusive or distant toward one another (and, indeed, many such couples are). Meanwhile, another unmarried (by choice) cohabiting couple may have a very healthy and fulfilling relationship. Regardless, the former is viewed as acceptable in the eyes of mainstream Christianity, and the latter is not, all because of a title or a piece of paper. My assertion is that we shouldn't apply such an inflexible, oversimplified, and sometimes ridiculous standard to a God-ordained institution that is meant to be so much deeper.
To your point... if you want to get "biblical" about our definition of marriage, it's worth noting that for much of the ancient world, marriage was formalized by consummation, not by some legal document or ceremony. So it may well be that in the eyes of God, the cohabiting couple in your example is more legitimately "married" than the legally-married-but-emotionally-distant (or abusive) couple.
DeleteIt's also a good reminder that the definition of marriage has ALWAYS been flexible, which may just have some bearing on another hot-button issue...
Excellent point. I hadn't considered the fact that marriage was once defined by consummation. And to the extent that the cultural and legal definition of marriage has indeed evolved throughout history, this is probably another compelling reason why it's not advisable to apply such a black-and-white, proscriptive interpretation of it now. Thanks for your comments.
DeleteI think one scripture that is key is the following. Christians are supposed to be different from the world. Now I agree with a lot of what you say on homosexuality and so forth. Love should be the answer to almost all of these questions. Love God, love each other. Period. I do think that a Christian marriage should be different from a worldy marriage. In what ways, that is debatable. But we should hold our marriages up higher. They should be examples of God's love to others.
ReplyDeleteRomans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Good points. Fully agree with you. As Christians, we are indeed called to live differently, and I think Scripture sets an ideal for which we can strive. Recognizing that this is an imperfect world, however, and that we're all imperfect, broken people, I'd echo that love and grace should prevail, as opposed to judgment cast as a function of some inflexible (and, in my opinion, unrealistic) rule.
DeleteThe story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, in the Gospel of St. John, sends the most powerful message on this subject. "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her," says Jesus to the righteous crowd eager to punish the woman. (John 8: 7) Despite what Jesus teaches here, the Christian Church has been quick to cast stones at people it has identified as sinners, despite the fact that the Church as an institution, and the Church as individual members, has been sinful. I view the moral code espoused by the Bible as a set of ideals that prepares us for the coming of the Kingdom of God. However, the Kingdom of God hasn't come yet in full. So, until it does, Christians ought to follow the example of Jesus and be forgiving of all those, including themselves, who fall short of the ideal.
ReplyDeleteFully agree. Scripture sets an ideal for which we can strive, but none of us — married or not — are there yet, and all of us still have areas where we need to repent, so I think we'd do well as Christians to emulate Christ's example of grace, forgiveness, and non-judgment.
Delete