I remember having a conversation with a leader in my former church that advocated pretty strongly for our church to be a welcoming and affirming church. Welcoming and affirming in Baptist cirlces means that you both welcome homosexuals into you chruch fellowship, and affirm that their lifestyle choice to be engaged in homosexual behavior can be both moral and healthy. I often disagreed with this person, I think it is clear that homosexuality is incompatable with Biblical teaching and Christian witness. However, we both agreed that we should extend the same welcome to gays as we do to anyone else. We both also strongly agreed that gays should be treated equally under the law.
As we discussed the issue, we got to a point where we discussed gay marriage. He shared with me a proposal that I thought was intelligent and reasonable, and I think in the end is the direction that both conservatives and liberals should aim for. He stated that legally marriage and civil unions should be separate institutions for both homosexual and straight couples. Civil Unions should be a legal partnership and open to people of all sexual orientations. Marriages should not be civil unions at all, but should be strictly religious institutions. In many cases, through common law marriage legistlation, this civil union/marriage separation is already a reality. I know several couples who would be recognized as common law in court, or who even have common law papers before they get married.
Why is this a good idea? It allows gays the rights that any couple in their position should have. The ability to visit loved ones in the hospital. The possibility of having equal parental rights in adoption situations. To have shared life and property together. There are a lot of heterosexual marriages that are less than ideal morally, but they still have these rights as well.
On the other hand, it allows religious groups the right to understand marriage as their theology allows. It allows these churches to perform marriages for who they feel comfortable marrying, without the drawbacks of government oversight. It lets the church better understand its theology of marriage and divorce without having to deal with the legal ramifications that homosexuality brings up. For instance, when someone chooses to follow Christ, and as a result wants to leave the homosexual lifestyle, what does the church do if the homosexual person wants a divorce? Divorce and homosexuality are both morally problematic for many believers. This would create quite a moral dilema. If it were simply a relgious ceremony, maybe it would be easier for the church not to recognize.
Anyway...these are just a few thoughts as I think through some of the challenging issues of our times. What are your thoughts?
HE WHO LOVES NOT WOMEN, WINE, AND SONG.... REMAINS A FOOL HIS WHOLE LIFE LONG---- MARTIN LUTHER
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Book Review of the Second Testament by Scot McKnight
The Second Testament: A New Translation By Scot McKnight IVP Press ISBN 978-0-8308-4699-3 Scot McKnight has produced a personal translation ...
-
Ok, so I am remiss on doing any real original posts leading up to this holiday season. With a job change and a new baby on the way, as well ...
-
Book Discussion: The Shack Overview Questions If you were to rank the book: THE SHACK on a scale of 1-5, what would you rate it and why woul...
2 comments:
It is a good thought. I think my thinking has evolved and is evolving still on all of this. I have some very dear friends that are gay. They are supportive and caring of each other, have lived together to 8 years, yet recieve none of the benefits married heterosexual people will get that have not been together as long as these... I still think the bible is literal, but am not as confident in that as I used to be.
I am like reliv4life... I have several friends, and one family member, who are gay, and watching their struggles has given me a new appreciation for what it means to be Jesus to them. I also don't read the Bible literally, because I don't think it was intended to be used like that, but that's a different discussion.
It really interested me that you point out (because I hadn't heard this put in this way before) that there are a good portion of heterosexual (and I would add "Christian" here, as well) marriages that aren't moral, either. I would add that using "morality" as a basis for the legality of a relationship is severely blurring the lines of church and state, and making it easy for those of us who are heterosexual and married and Christian to have a convenient target for our morality speeches, and pull a "log in my own eye" situation. Personally, I don't think that the government should try to legislate morality, because you can't pass a law that will change someone's heart, and that's where our morality comes from. What we need is a strong church who looks and acts more like Jesus Christ than Jerry Fallwell or Rick Warren or Joel Osteen. Even who looks more like Jesus Christ than Bono or Brad Pitt or the Pope.
But that's just my opinion...
Post a Comment