The inevitablity of 'gay marriage'

I have always believed that homosexual conduct is morally wrong. I also believe that two people of the same gender being "married," from a purely secular sociological view, is an oxymoron.

That said, in light of U.S. attorney general Eric Holder's recently-expressed interest in overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act, I'm forced to concede that same-gender matrimony will likely soon become legal in this country (though I won't put a timetable on it). And there's nothing we'll be able to do about it.

However, I don't believe that you can simply blame that just on society's general "moral breakdown," liberal, activist judges or gay advocacy groups. Rather, I suggest that our Western romance-based marriage culture is the primary culprit, because often we base our choices for a partner largely on physical attraction, often (at least from a "Christian" viewpoint) devolving into "spiritualized lust." What if you're truly attracted to someone of the same gender, a topic which actually isn't addressed in Scripture? Remember that marriages in that day and culture were arranged.

Those who say that the Scripture prohibits homosexual conduct may get the response that opposing "gay marriage" on that basis is "outdated." And they have a fair point.

The immediate context of such is that it's part of the "world system" -- something that God's people were to avoid because of its prevalence in surrounding cultures. I would say that He wrote it into Leviticus to distinguish ancient Israel from neighboring nations who, although the text doesn't say this, were probably engaged in that as well as other detestable practices. As far as the New Testament, the former singles pastor of my church has suggested that about 70 percent of ancient Rome, probably due to the accepted practice of infanticide of female babies, was homosexual, which is why the Apostle Paul had to address it. (Jesus never did because ancient Israel, generally His audience, wasn't involved.)

Basically, that means that, when it came to fighting "gay rights," we went beyond Scriptural mandates, focusing upon their particular evil and in the process misusing God's Word -- and, not coincidentally, since Anita Bryant's 1977 crusade in Miami, using gays as political piñatas to raise money and outrage. We accused them of preying on children when 90 percent of acts of child sexual abuse are committed by heterosexuals. We accused them of "recruiting" (i.e. placing literature in racks on college campuses to publicize their activities, like anyone else). We accused them of trying to gain undefined "special rights."

As a result, and also because people began to develop sympathy for beleaguered gays, we began to lose that public relations battle. According to former right-wing journalist David Brock, who himself is gay, the gay-rights movement actually got a boost from the Republican Party's national convention in 1992, with white-hot speeches about a "culture war" turning off so much of the electorate that even many Republicans voted for Bill Clinton for president.

Many of us say, and I used to believe, that gays actually chose their orientation, but after reading a chapter in Philip Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace" about writer Mel White, a personal friend who had worked for and with such luminaries as Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and the late Francis Schaeffer, I now question that. Yancey mentioned that, before he "came out," White had actually undergone such things as shock therapy, aversion therapy and even exorcisms to kill his attraction to other men. Eventually he gave up.

The last stand turned out the be the legalization of same-gender matrimony -- I don't care to use the term "gay marriage" because it gives the mistaken impression that marriage is all about sex -- by a Massachusetts judge in 2004, which spooked a number of folks into voting for George W. Bush for reelection that year. However, with the war in Iraq dragging on, the economy failing and incidents of corruption by a number of Republican politicians being exposed, "moral issues" were placed on the back burner and what we know as the religious right, which had always led the charge, became increasingly irrelevant.

We also recently realized, or should have, that many, if not most, secular conservatives had no interest in fighting such things as gay rights and abortion, which led to a number of "culture warriors" skipping the recent Conservative Political Action Conference because of the presence of at least one prominent gay Republican group. (As though there's no such thing as gay conservatives -- be real.)

Anyway, because it's becoming more accepted and will likely achieve legal sanction, let's consider some of the implications down the road for those Christians opposed to "gay marriage": Are we willing to become social pariahs for the sake of the Kingdom of God? Are we willing to sacrifice social, let alone financial, support for various ministries that we operate publicly? (This should put the lie to the idea that the church of Jesus Christ is primarily, or even secondarily, a social-service agency.)

I don't see the Catholic or Mormon churches, both of which maintain a similar stance, as being similarly affected socially because they don't have the same kind of cultural position we evangelicals had or sought. Much of the African-American church, which also understands being marginalized, will also "keep on keeping on" -- polls have indicated that black Christians, the vast majority of which voted for President Obama in 2008, also were major supporters of Proposition 8, the successful ballot measure in California banning same-gender matrimony now under attack.

Bottom line, it might be time for a slice of humble pie because the tide has been turning for a while. And, strangely enough, in losing this part of the "culture war" we may actually gain down the road by focusing on God and His Kingdom and not changing the outside world so that we can live in it and avoid true spiritual warfare.

Some thoughts on childhood, romance and Valentine's Day

You make me smile again like a child of three ...

-- "Smile Again," performed by Manhattan Transfer

Valentine's Day is coming up on Sunday, as if you needed any reminder -- especially with all the adult-focused marketing for flowers, dinners and "intimate apparel" that happens this time of year. But, now that I think about it, I sometimes think that we miss the true significance of the feast day which, legend holds, marks the date of death of a real St. Valentine for whom the holiday is named.

If the reports I've read are to believed, that St. Valentine used to send notes of encouragement to children. That's it. How it got mixed up with romance and sex is a subject for another blog entry, as I think we've missed the point -- it's about feeling "special." Which everyone needs from time to time.

In the book "What's So Amazing About Grace?", Philip Yancey mentions that romance is the closest thing that many of us experience of grace, defined as "unmerited favor." If that sounds crazy, what's the first thing you think of when someone says that he/she has fallen in love with you? Embarrassment, perhaps, but also charmed because you know you had nothing to do with it -- you are being offered a gift.

Though I haven't dated a whole lot, for much of my life many younger women and girls have taken a shine to me. The first time it happened I was in the fifth grade, my first year attending a Christian academy; on the bus home a first-grade girl instantly became attached to me. I admittedly didn't handle it well at the time -- what 10-year-old would? -- but, for what it was worth and looking back, her affection was genuine. Yes, she may have had "daddy issues," but she was probably doing what she knew. And because I wasn't receiving that kind of warmth from anyone in my family, part of me secretly enjoyed the attention because it was something I really wasn't "supposed" to get. (Why that was and how that has affected me as a nearly-50-something adult is a subject for yet another entry.)

That gave me a clue as to what we should be celebrating -- it seems to me that there should be a certain amount of childlike innocence involved in this particular season. I mentioned in an earlier entry about the cynicism I detected in the book "Loves Me, Loves Me Not," whose subject is unrequited love; the author said upfront that she was choosing to remain single for fear of heartbreak. The thing is, offering love and wanting to connect is risky business, and dismissing it out-of-hand in an unkind manner is devastating even if you know the feelings will never be mutual.

And when you open yourself to such gifts, special things happen.

Twenty-five years ago at the end of a church retreat, one of the women in this particular fellowship with whom I had a troubled relationship pulled me aside and played "Three Blind Mice" for me on the piano. Now, on the surface that may sound silly; however, she wasn't a musician but knew I was.

I knew what she was doing -- offering me the best she had at the time, and given the situation it had the desired effect. Indeed, it was one of the few things I remember about that retreat, and I still get misty-eyed thinking about it.

Perhaps that's the real significance of Valentine's Day -- honoring those who are willing to give their hearts. And if you get one of those unsolicited gifts, accept it graciously -- it may be something you actually need.

A romance with -- God?

In the summer of 1988, when I was 27, I met a woman named Nancy, a divorcée 14 years my senior, through a 12-Step recovery program. After one meeting the group went out for more fellowship and the two of us ended up walking back to my apartment, about a half-hour trip from the restaurant (neither of us had a car at the time). After talking for a few more minutes, we exchanged phone numbers and embraced warmly.

Since I'm fairly affectionate, I bent down to give her a chaste good-night kiss -- and, at that, she attacked me. (Well, not really -- she started planting kisses all over me.) Realizing that this evening wasn't about to end, we went into my place and later to hers, another very long walk. To make a long story short, I didn't get home until 3 a.m. the next day.

Without realizing it, in Nancy I had found a woman who not only was completely smitten with me but, in the process, allowed me to experience the "feminine essence" in a way I never had before -- almost all of my previous relationships with women, even those I had "dated," had been platonic. She in fact was willing to sleep with me, but I told her from the outset that wasn't going to happen (and she respects me to this day for that stance). Anyway, over the next three or four months I grew to want to see her as much as she wanted to be with me and it mattered not at all that neither of us had any money, only that we were together.

So what's the point? Well, lately I've been mulling over the idea that I should have a similar relationship with God.

And that in one sense that offends my sensibilities. I grew up in a very strong church which gave me excellent theology. I can quote Scripture as well as anyone. I can tell you the moment, almost to the hour, when I said my version of the "Sinner's Prayer" just before graduating from high school. I have never been involved in immoral behavior, including drugs and sex. Not only wouldn't I dream of missing church, I have always been very active in whatever assembly I've belonged to. I've been known to play the role of "prophet," speaking truth even when unpopular. I even lead a prayer meeting at work.

And yet, if I'm honest, I know that, despite all that religious activity, at times something's missing. Recently, a friend who located me on Facebook last year sent me an e-mail saying, in essence, "Do you realize how much God loves you?"

Perhaps not. Because due to my history and despite my background and lifestyle, relational intimacy isn't something I've experienced much. In the book "What's So Amazing About Grace?", Philip Yancey mentioned that romantic love is the closest thing to grace that most people experience on a human level. And perhaps that's where the "romance," the mystery combined with the intoxication, applies.

Maybe that's the real reason God brought Nancy into my life for that short amount of time -- to experience that kind of desire combined with warmth. So how will it apply to my life in Christ? Check back with me later.

The revolution will not be televised

We worship an awesome God in the blue states ...
-- President Barack Obama

Lately I've been rereading the book "The Jesus I Never Knew" by Philip Yancey and noticed something I hadn't before. It's almost a truism that Scripture suggest that God is closest to the poor, but he noted that the poor had an easier time with the Christian faith than the wealthy.

Reason? The poor, in his view, already lead a life of dependency on others -- which would translate into a relationship with God -- more so than wealthier folks.

And that is why, I believe, that any sort of spiritual revival in America will take place not in the halls of Congress or in well-scrubbed churches that focus on "doctrine" or "cultural issues." It likely will happen in ideologically "left-wing" urban centers, among the forgotten, the ignored, the scapegoats -- in short, the kind of people to whom Jesus ministered in His earthly life. And most of those people will not understand the concepts of predestination or be concerned with the fight against gay marriage -- they have more immediate issues. Like survival.

And it is that single-minded focus on God that will give the poor spiritual strength once He gets a hold of them. Not only that, but eventually prophets will emerge from that community that will challenge the status quo -- including the Christian "establishment."

There's precedent for that. Many of the biblical prophets were just that -- ordinary men who nevertheless heard the voice of God and delivered His message of inconvenience to people who didn't want to hear it. (After all, no one wants to hear from "those people" because they remind folks that they share some responsibility for their state of deprivation.)

More recently, the civil-rights movement was sparked by prayer and revival meetings in conservative black churches in the South; God gave its adherents the strength to withstand beatings by police, bombings of churches and incarceration of pastors for a much greater redemptive purpose. However, it's important to note that the movement took place almost exclusively in cities, where the distinction between the "ins" and "out" were, and still are, most pronounced.

Today, even many of us Christians look down on the urban poor and blame them for their state, not realizing that much of that had to do with political decisions out of their control. I wonder just how many of us might change their minds if we spent time with them, especially with fellow believers. You know, we might learn not only compassion but also to become their advocates -- which would please God.

But that kind of life-transforming ministry usually doesn't make headlines. It doesn't raise a lot of money. It rarely gets attention from media or politicians. It only forms bonds among people and reaffirms the line from the classic chorus "They'll Know We are Christians by Our Love." Not by our doctrine or our stances on morality.