Thursday
Dec092004
A social issues wish list
Thursday, December 9, 2004 at 4:22PM
Now that the Supreme Court of Canada has handed down a decision on gay marriage, I have a wish list for how the church in Canada deals with this and other issues. 1. Do the homework - I am fairly conservative on the issue. Nevertheless, I am frustrated by some who are conservative on the issue who refuse to do their homework. What does the Bible say about this issue? Unless you can look at the cold, hard evidence, you have nothing to say. Actually, I don't think you have anything to fear if you look at Scripture, but you have nothing to say until you do. 2. Show compassion - This all changes when you get to know gays and lesbians. I believe that there is nothing wrong with experiencing homosexual temptations (experiencing temptation is not sinful). Imagine facing same-sex attraction and experiencing nothing but condemnation. Many say that these temptations never stop, no matter how much a person would like them to. The more conservative you are on this issue, the more compassion you ought to feel. 3. Develop a theology of social action. I find that many are still stuck in Constantine's model of Christendom ("The empire must become Christian!"). We do not live in a Christian society. We are supposed to be counter-cultural. We should not be surprised when those who don't follow Christ have different convictions than we do. We need to develop an understanding of what salt and light means. I don't think it means legislating our convictions. 4. Live differently - The church could have more credibility in this area if we lived differently. The reality is that we are no better at the marriage than society at large. The best defense of marriage is not legislation; it's having strong marriages ourselves. I see a note of hope in this decision. Many of us have thought of Canada as if it used to be a Christian nation. As this becomes less of a reality, we have a much better understanding of how Christendom never worked, and we have a better understanding of what it means to be salt and light in a world that doesn't follow Jesus.
Reader Comments (12)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this issue. I have had the opportunity to share some of my vacation time as well as had the opportunity to work with gay people. (Always been a pleasant relationship) I share your conservative opinions and agree much reading and prayer is required. As always, I enjoy hearing (reading) you speak.
i SO agree. you can't reach people for God if you're busy slamming them...
I do not think, as Christians, we have yet dealt with this issue, (and many, many others) as Christ asks us too, though I expect the time will soon be coming. It strikes me as irrational to suggest as the courts have, if I understand their decision correctly, that it is constitutionally unexceptable to deny gay marriage rights, while at the same time churches within the country will have the right to so do if they choose. A theocratic notwithstanding clause, so to speak. Interesting, very interesting. Will churches and their members then have the right to opt out of other constitutionally gauranteed obligations and programs if they feel it comes into conflict with moral fiat. Forgive my radical Christian heart, but let's hope so. And what of the the gay community itself, how long before someone sues a church that refuses to perform a wedding ceremony for two homosexuals. Get ready to be forced off the fences all ye lukewarm Canadian liberal hearts, the times they are a changing.
"And what of the the gay community itself, how long before someone sues a church that refuses to perform a wedding ceremony for two homosexuals." Don't worry! You've made our churches so unwelcoming that all gays and lesbians are leaving in droves! (not entirely kidding...) Why do we continue with our "siege" mentality? So so sad...
Not sure I understand your point James. You can e-mail me, if you'd care to elaborate further. Peace
Paul: The court ruled that parliament is responsible for the definition of marriage - as it has been since the BNA act. So, the court is saying Parliament must uphold it's civil responsibility, not that it is constitutionally acceptable to deny gay marriage. That is all the court can do -issue it's ruling. Parliament must now vote. Because it is understood this is a fundamental social structure and emotional issue, a conscience vote is being permitted. In what the court ruled it upheld individual rights. In upholding religious rights, the court is again legally acknowledging both as important. It is entirely possible court challenges will start. However provinces ie: NB will introduce legislation after the vote protecting religious individuals or groups that chose not to perform marriages. A suit could/will probably be filed for 'refusal' to perform a marriage. The provinces now have the guideline from the SC for such a challenge. On a different level it is also possible we will see the resurfacing of other sexual identity issues such as pologamy law etc. We've already seen challenges to pedophilic porn. The times aren't changing...the genie was out of the bottle mid- 20th century. I hope that Canadians take a cold hard look at the history of marriage, Stats Can reports and the Vanier Institute findings so they can make clear and productive decisions. Especially Christians, they are woefully ignorant about societal make up, history, how to deal with courts and legislatures appropriately and the community around them. A solid look at the media coverage the other day is a baby step. Conservatives cannot cry foul here. http://www.maisonneuve.org/blog/index.php?itemid=707" rel="nofollow">http://www.maisonneuve.org/blog/index.php?itemid=707
Bene Actually, what I said was that I understood the court to rule that it was constitutionally unacceptable for gays to be denied the right to marry. I'm open to being wrong on that interpretation. If you intended to offend by stating, "...Christians are woefully ignorant of societal make up, history, how to deal with the courts and legislatures appropriately and the community around them.", none taken. Though I suggest you consider your comments with more care if you don't wish to embarress yourself. As for the free vote, my understanding is that it doesn't apply to any member of the cabinet or those M.P.'s involved with a parlimentary secretariat. I would also assume that any breathing Liberal backbencher understands the implications in regard to any aspirations he or she might have for the future, if they should choice to vote differently then their party superiors. Finally, my reference to changing times isn't in regard to the more narrow issue of marriage definitions, rather it is in reference to my belief that Christians will soon have to choose between their faith and their politics. As the persecution of faith takes on a more honest and open character, moral relativism, apathy and the, in my opinion, disingenious "it isn't happening to me, so why not" liberalism of our day, will no longer cut it.
' makes a lot of sense, Dave. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
i AM woefully ignorant about politics, but wouldn't it make more sense to get out and form some friendships with people who are mislead, than debate about it here on a blog?
Paul: You are correct. Liberal Cabinet ministers have to vote party. If they chose not to, they can cross the floor. This is a minority government, and any vote by conscience can sink a career, let alone one in a party at war with itself and in a precarious position. I agree that there will always be tension between faith and politics. Please don't take my generalization personally. I'd just finished a real life discussion with someone who prefers to follow what Focus on the Family says rather than do their own learning and discerning. Maybe I should send them over, eh? Blog on!
Who's Dave?? ;)
An excellent question, Niki. Colour me somewhat brain dead - at least for that moment although the application is probably much broader. That aside it's rather amazing how much this faith thread (?) is discussing politics. Long live Constantine I suppose. :-0 Anyhow, thanks for the opportunity to say again that *Darryl* made some great points. Steve (I think.)