Thursday, May 10, 2012

Gay "marriage", North Carolina and knee-jerk progressivism

The latest cause célèbre among the "progressive" wing of the church is apparently normalization of homosexuality. After the free and open election in North Carolina amending the state constitution to reject homosexual "marriage"  the Pavlovian response from the usual crew, Rachel Held Evans and others, is as predictable as it is silly. Appealing to the need to reach the lost we are told that we must not only reach out but affirm the lifestyle of those engaged in what the Bible describes as a destructive sin. Somehow we are supposed to believe that embracing this lifestyle is a winning evangelistic strategy. "Go and sin no more" has been replaced with "Go and sin some more".

No one is more vocal about keeping the church out of politics than I am. I don't necessarily support from a "Christian" standpoint trying to legislate morality although I do agree that there is a compelling state interest in not subsidizing homosexual unions because of the slippery slope it puts us on. However,  I don't really think this has much to do with avoiding political entanglements as much as it does with trying to appeal to and appease the world in order to fit in and be accepted. We want the "get out of hell" card (for those few who still believe in a literal hell) but we also want the friendship of the world. Railing against North Carolina (a state in the south no less!),  "progressives" can moan and rend their garments online and then pat one another on the back for being so loving and sophisticated unlike those gap toothed, bib overall wearing fundamentalists.

The North Carolina law, duly and legally passed by the citizens of that state, doesn't tell people how to live or who they can or cannot engage in sexual activity with or who they live with or go to brunch with. It merely says that North Carolina, like 29 other states and counting, does not afford legal recognition to those relationships just as it doesn't recognize polygamous relationships or casual dating relationships or heterosexual roommates or any of the countless permutations of human relationships other than marriage. If your employer wants to offer health insurance to your homosexual "partner", as my employer does, that is their prerogative. If you want to name your homosexual boyfriend or girlfriend as the beneficiary for your life insurance or 401k or name them in your will, you certainly can. You just don't get the right to demand that tax payers subsidize your relationship.

Of course banning "gay marriage" doesn't save a single sinner but then again telling someone that their sin is swell with God and that He doesn't care if they flaunt their sin isn't going to save anyone either. We need to show love to the lost and that includes telling them what the Bible has to say about sin, that it is abhorrent to God and leads to destruction and that the only way that changes is to repent, i.e. turn from sin, and follow Christ.

As the church we should not be consumed with legal action as a substitute for the hard work of evangelism and justice. Nor should we reinterpret Biblical love to include embracing sin. The Bible gives us clear direction and copious examples of how we balance this but there are too many religious people on the Right and the Left who obviously don't really believe what the Bible has to say except when it can be twisted to support their agenda. The "leaders" in the church who are engaged in this sort of behavior need to be publicly rebuked.


Anonymous said...

amen and amen. well said Arthur!


Anonymous said...


Unknown said...

What do you mean "for those who still believe in a literal hell"?

Arthur Sido said...

Mark, rejecting a literal hell is one of the unfortunate hallmarks of many in the progressive wing of the church.