In a decision that is really not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to the debate the governor of New Jersey signed a civil union bill today that institutes homosexual unions as legal in his state. This bill will grant such couples privileges such as adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision-making and alimony rights. It passed the New Jersey legislature on December 14. The legislative action came about as a response to a state Supreme Court ruling in October. This makes New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont all states that now legally allow civil unions. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry and California has a domestic partnership arrangement that brings with it full marriage rights.

In spite of various state actions, via ballot initiatives, this trend will likely continue, at least in the more blue states. When some homosexual activists responded negatively to today’s action, saying that they still want marriage for all, the governor of New Jersey made it clear that he believes this will come only when society changes so as to allow acceptance more broadly. I have been saying for some time that there is very little indication that things will not keep moving in this direction over the long term. If 90% of people in America have sex before marriage, as reported two days ago, then why would you expect most of these same people to hold to a high view of chastity in other areas as the social forces continue to have their full impact upon our culture?

My question for Christians and churches, in the light of these social trends, is quite simple: "How will we respond when ‘no’ is no longer the legal response of our society?" Put another way, "Is the missional mandate of Jesus so connected to this issue that we will have no message to speak publicly, except harsh condemnation, when this issue becomes mainstreamed?" We seem unable to separate moral clarity on this issue from love for people; liberal, conservative heterosexual or homosexual.

It seems to me that the church is caught in a huge tension with regard to this issue. Many run to one side or the other in order to escape the tension. We must promote chastity and biblical marriage on the one side. We also need to promote kindness, tenderheartedness and love for all, regardless of their "sexual identity." Our doctrine of God is involved in this struggle and most of us tend to project our emotions into that doctrine. As a result we express our doctrine of God in either moral fuzziness ("Why can’t we all just get along?") or emotional anger ("God hates fags!"). Again, we need the wisdom of the ancient church and the perspective of the emerging generation to help us think though this with much more care.

Related Posts

Comments

  1. Helen December 22, 2006 at 6:51 am

    John, thank you for encouraging more care as we think through this and and interact with people who disagree with us on this issue.
    It seems to me that salvation through Christ as taught by Bible-believing Christians requires the general assent “I am a sinner”, not the particular assent “homosexual behavior is sinful”. If so then, while it may be seriously wrong to be gay-affirming, it is incorrect to say that everyone gay-affirming is necessarily ‘leading people to hell’ simply because they are gay-affirming. This is just one aspect of the discussion/debate in which I would like to see more care taken over what other people are being accused of.
    I just posted something similar to this on Dr Ray Pritchard’s blog, Keep Believing Ministries, where Jay Bakker’s gay-affirming stance is being discussed:
    http://blogs.keepbelieving.com/2006/12/jay_bakkers_strange_religion.html

  2. Steve Scott December 22, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    John, I see this “tension” as actually a contradiction. Conservative Christians have long accepted state licensure of marriage (the book of Jude condemns licensiousness) and as a necessary result have also accepted the state as the One who defines marriage. Just because the state started with a more biblical definition doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the state that defined it. Why are we so shocked to see the state change its mind? I’m frankly shocked that it took this long for the problems we see. The solution isn’t in getting the state to adopt a biblical view of marriage. It’s in realizing Who the definer of marriage is: God. Nowhere does the bible require us to get the state to okay our marriages. Only when Christians accept separation of marriage and state will we be in a non-hypocritical position to both keep our own marriages strong and to speak to others with moral clarity. How many of those Christians who have had unbiblical divorces done so by filing for divorce with the state that allows it?

Comments are closed.

My Latest Book!

order here

Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!

Recent Articles

Search

Archive