A Principled Response

A blog post by a gentleman named Matthew Paul Turner that made the rounds Thursday asserts “5 Reasons Why the Church Failed Yesterday” in supporting Chick-fil-A’s Appreciation day.  On the face of it, the article seems to make a lot of sense: Christians didn’t show love, but on the contrary demonstrated hate.  We (the Church) put an issue above people, and built walls of separation between us and “them.”  Finally, we didn’t prove that we didn’t hate gay people.  It is entirely true that many of us in the Church do not demonstrate love toward others, including those in the “GLBTQ” community. 

My first response is just a quick observation: Mr. Turner deals so heavily in abstract concepts throughout his piece that it’s hard to get a handle on what he thinks we, as Christians, should do.  We didn’t show Love, we demonstrated Hate, we were focused on an Issue, we built a Wall by not showing Peace, Grace, Hope and Love.  The problem with dealing strictly in abstract concepts like Love, Hate, Peace, and so forth is that they are hard to nail down.  They mean different things to different people and so it’s an easy way to critique something without having to get specific.  My question to Mr. Turner: What does it look like to show love to the GLBTQ community?  You seem to imply that I have to agree with their point of view for this to be possible.  What concrete suggestions do you have?

Second, this CFA appreciation day cannot be ripped from its context.  We all know that there is tremendous debate about whether the government should promote same-sex marriage.  Mr. Turner clearly thinks that “loving the sinner” and taking a stand against same-sex marriage and “gay people adopting children” is mutually exclusive.  I disagree.  Many people, not just Christians, have taken a principled opposition to this issue, having considered the wider cultural ramifications of changing the definition of marriage.  By going to CFA on Wednesday, many were using this meal choice not just as a support for a Christian-run company, but also as a vote proxy.  They were voting their conscience by buying chicken from a company they esteem.  Mr. Turner considers this to be placing an Issue above people, but the knife cuts both ways: the sometimes un-Christlike attitude of Christian supporters of same-sex marriage can be accused of the very same thing: placing their Issue above loving their brothers and sisters in Christ.  The point is both sides have taken a principled stance, and we do both sides an injustice by just brushing aside their objections with slogans.

In consideration of those wider cultural ramifications, Dinesh D’Souza makes a convincing point about how our Western culture has historically included four elements to the definition of marriage.  First, he says marriage involves only two people, not groups of people.  Second, marriage is reserved for adults.  Adults marrying children is anathema to our way of thinking. Third, those adults must be unrelated.  We have a big no-no about marrying our siblings.  Fourth, marriage has historically been between a man and a woman.  I would add a fifth element: in Western culture, marriage has become a consensual arrangement.  We don’t value arranged marriages the way other cultures still do.  D’Souza then offers a poignant argument: the advocates of same-sex marriage want to strike out principle number four, but retain the others.  What principled reason is there to retain the other elements of marriage if we choose to uproot one of them?  This seems arbitrary.  We ought to have an overwhelming reason for changing this one aspect and not the others.  And if we change one, some group in our country will begin to advocate for changing another of these traditional elements of marriage.  It’s only a matter of time. 

Those of us who stand against the cultural tide of same-sex marriage advocacy worry what this will do to our culture.  It has become a cliché to offer this rejoinder to our concerns, “But how will allowing two people who love each other to get married affect your life?”  My response is: it may do absolutely nothing to my family.  But that misses the point.  Cultural movements require analyses on a larger scale.  It is not fair to advocate for a fundamental change in civilization and then focus only on small, discreet, personalized effects.  Analyzing the large-scale, culture-wide outcomes on families, especially on children, must be undertaken.  Discussing those possible effects is beyond the scope of my intentions here, but suffice it to say that cultural changes will necessarily carry cultural consequences.

Finally, the Christian Scriptures do not condemn homosexual attractions, only homosexual behavior.  Men and women who have a same-sex orientation can serve God in the exact same capacities as those with a heterosexual orientation.  Everyone, however, is held to the same biblical standard: holiness and purity in our sexual relations.  I like what Ben Witherington had to say about the relationship between the Church and the gay community.  He says that all are welcome to come to Christ and the Church as they are.  No requirements, just come.  But he then adds that although everyone is welcome to come as they are, they are not welcome to stay as they are.  Becoming a follower of Christ means just that: we follow Christ.  We orient our lives toward him and obey him in the power of the Holy Spirit. 

So, in the end I agree with the force of what Mr. Turner was trying to communicate.  We ought to love and not hate those in the GLBTQ community.  But simply disagreeing with their position does not make one hateful.  That is an unfair criticism.  I don’t have any pat answers or cute responses about how we should demonstrate Christ’s love in a concrete way except perhaps to pray as I often try to do: Lord, open my eyes to opportunities around me to serve others for your Kingdom.  Amen.