Marriage and the Seinfeld Effect by Matt Kaufman on 08/31/2010 at 9:51 AM

"Public opinion," someone once said, "is what everyone thinks everyone else thinks."

Nice line, I've always thought. And a nice lead-in to this important article from the Witherspoon Institute. Its compelling argument: "Americans appear to accept same-sex marriage more than they really do, perhaps because they believe it to be more widely accepted than it really is."

A few weeks ago, a CNN/Gallup poll said 52 percent of respondents supported and only 46 percent opposed same-sex marriage, and was widely hailed as a breakthrough: the first time that position ever commanded a majority. But just days later, note authors Matthew J. Franck and Gwen Brown, a poll by Public Policy Polling (whose head supports same-sex marriage) found just 33 percent support it and 57 percent oppose it.

Why the difference? Public Policy Polling uses an automated calling system. Respondents have anonymity: They can choose answers from a list without thinking there's someone on the other line. In other words, they can say what they really think without worrying that they'll offend anyone.

Franck and Brown attribute this to what they call the Seinfeld Effect. That's a reference to a famous Seinfeld episode where Jerry and George respond to a (false) rumor that they're gay with vehement denials, but invariably tack on the disclaimer "not that there's anything wrong with that." They're not really sincere about it. They're just saying what they think they're supposed to say. Saying what they think everyone else thinks.

What we're seeing, the authors say, is what social scientists call the "spiral of silence." One side's reluctant to speak up, the other gets increasingly aggressive, and wins by default. The hard core will defend marriage, but they're increasingly isolated.

Which is why it's so important that we keep talking about what marriage really is, and what it isn't.

“My view is different from everyone else’s around me” is the opinion-killer for many people, even when the perception is a false one. Defenders of the institution of marriage need to know that they stand, not merely with more like-minded contemporaries than they suspect, but with countless generations of thoughtful people — husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, philosophers and lawgivers, prophets and priests — who believed as they believe.

That's every Christian's job. As Martin Luther said:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved. And to be steady on all the battlefields beside is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

CORRECTION: The attribution of the above quote to Martin Luther is incorrect. See response #22 for details.

Marriage and the Seinfeld Effect by Matt Kaufman on 08/31/2010 at 9:51 AM

"Public opinion," someone once said, "is what everyone thinks everyone else thinks."

Nice line, I've always thought. And a nice lead-in to this important article from the Witherspoon Institute. Its compelling argument: "Americans appear to accept same-sex marriage more than they really do, perhaps because they believe it to be more widely accepted than it really is."

A few weeks ago, a CNN/Gallup poll said 52 percent of respondents supported and only 46 percent opposed same-sex marriage, and was widely hailed as a breakthrough: the first time that position ever commanded a majority. But just days later, note authors Matthew J. Franck and Gwen Brown, a poll by Public Policy Polling (whose head supports same-sex marriage) found just 33 percent support it and 57 percent oppose it.

Why the difference? Public Policy Polling uses an automated calling system. Respondents have anonymity: They can choose answers from a list without thinking there's someone on the other line. In other words, they can say what they really think without worrying that they'll offend anyone.

Franck and Brown attribute this to what they call the Seinfeld Effect. That's a reference to a famous Seinfeld episode where Jerry and George respond to a (false) rumor that they're gay with vehement denials, but invariably tack on the disclaimer "not that there's anything wrong with that." They're not really sincere about it. They're just saying what they think they're supposed to say. Saying what they think everyone else thinks.

What we're seeing, the authors say, is what social scientists call the "spiral of silence." One side's reluctant to speak up, the other gets increasingly aggressive, and wins by default. The hard core will defend marriage, but they're increasingly isolated.

Which is why it's so important that we keep talking about what marriage really is, and what it isn't.

“My view is different from everyone else’s around me” is the opinion-killer for many people, even when the perception is a false one. Defenders of the institution of marriage need to know that they stand, not merely with more like-minded contemporaries than they suspect, but with countless generations of thoughtful people — husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, philosophers and lawgivers, prophets and priests — who believed as they believe.

That's every Christian's job. As Martin Luther said:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved. And to be steady on all the battlefields beside is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

CORRECTION: The attribution of the above quote to Martin Luther is incorrect. See response #22 for details.

Comments

[1. Amy said the following at 12:37 PM on Aug 31:]

1

Incredible Luther quote! Thanks for sharing.

[2. Jo said the following at 1:32 PM on Aug 31:]

2

I misread that final quote at first and thought it was saying that if we *only* speak up to defend that portion of the truth that is being attacked, we are not confessing Christ. Which I think is equally true. That's not as relevant to the OP (which I thought was very good), but I thought it was worth mentioning, especially as this is a topic where I think we can err on either side.

Sorry for the tangent Matt, I like the points you made and think they're applicable to lots of other current issues too. :)

[3. A.M.C. said the following at 1:58 PM on Aug 31:]

3

Interesting result... especially considering that Public Policy Polling is sometimes considered to have a liberal/Democratic Party bias. Then again, it's just one poll, so I wouldn't jump to conclusions unless there are many other polls with the same methodology that generate similar results.

[4. Emily said the following at 2:02 PM on Aug 31:]

4

As a Grad student in Psych Research, I concur that people are greatly affected in their behavior by how they think other's will percieve their views or actions.

Thanks for posting this, Matt!

[5. dan said the following at 2:59 PM on Aug 31:]

5

Ummm, that was not the point of the Seinfeld episode. The point was the although neither George nor Jerry thought there was anything wrong with being gay they themselves are not gay. I'm not gay, but I see nothing wrong with it. I'm also not black, not a janitor, not a midget, not a body builder... There is nothing wrong with these things, and everyone has every right to them. I'm just not one of them. Jerry and George's disclaimed was meant to say "I don't want my denial to mean there is something wrong with what I'm denying" rather than "What I'm denying is wrong, but I don't want others to think I believe that".

[6. Eve said the following at 4:10 PM on Aug 31:]

6

I do not think it is only because Christians are too afraid to take a stand. I think the hard core group that is defending marriage has gotten smaller because there are people in the Church who see this as a government issue, about taxes and benefits. These benefits are being called "marriage," but are merely a legal technicality. After all, there are heterosexual couples who get "married" and are not following God's definition for marriage.

However, even if there were no benefits for being "married," Christians would have religious services to join a couple. Why? Because the man and woman are making a covenant between themselves and God.

Honestly, "marriage" as it looks in today's society is nothing like what God intended...look at all of the divorce and infidelity. It is merely an institution of the government.

Some Christians seem to think that we are in an epic battle against the immoral homosexuals. How can we expect non-Christians to act like Christians?!? They don't have the Holy Spirit. Christians are called to spread the Kingdom of God, but focusing on legalizing morality is not the way to bring people to Christ.

If you tell a someone, over and over, that she is sinning and wrong and you don't support her lifestyle, you are doing nothing to help her find Christ. You are condemning her. If she was a Christian, you may have some responsibility to confront her with her sin. As a non-Christian, why should/would she listen to you?

The governments of this world will never be holy. We have to wait for the world to come.

Since we live in a democracy, we have a responsibility to lobby for what seems important to us, for society. If allowing homosexuals to get benefits and officially accepting or legalizing their lifestyle seems wrong, use your voice and vote. Just remember, homosexuality is generally tolerated in America. Refusing to legalize gay marriage won't change anyone's opinions about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

[7. James79 said the following at 4:34 PM on Aug 31:]

7

Hmm, not sure what to think of this one. I'm always wary of there being a catch somewhere in these blogs I'm not seeing...

I could tentatively agree with the premise... seems like a natural human tendency, we want everyone to like us. But, let's not confuse being strong or courageous on an issue with using derogatory language or being rude towards others. I hope that'd go without saying, but on several occasions I've been around other Christians (who should know better) using some of those demeaning terms and phrases. It's just disappointing to see others not giving any thought to their words.

[8. Nathan said the following at 4:47 PM on Aug 31:]

8

Dan,
I'm very nearly certain you're mistaken about the Seinfeld episode, but either way, it isn't important to the point of the article (and it came from Franck and Brown, not from Boundless). I'm much more concerned with you not seeing a difference between practicing homosexuality and being black, a janitor, a midget, or a bodybuilder.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10

[9. dan said the following at 6:02 PM on Aug 31:]

9

Well, Nathan, off the top of my head I can think of at least 1 other episode which deals with homosexuality and none of the principals express any reservations about it. In fact Elaine actually dates a gay man, and Jerry expresses his belief that it's impossible to convert a gay man to "the other team". In light of that I would say that at the very least Jerry has absolutely no problem with homosexuality, he merely has a problem if the rest of the world perceives him as gay.

As for your other concern, let me put your mind at ease. I'm an atheist, so quoting scripture at me will have very little impact.

[10. Jo said the following at 12:18 AM on Sep 1:]

10

dan and Nathan...

I think you're both right. I haven't seen the Seinfeld episode but I've seen lots of similar scenes, like the 'If You Were Gay' song in Avenue Q where one character tries to convince another to 'come out':
If you were gay
That'd be okay
I mean 'cause hey
I'd like you anyway
Because you see
If it were me
I would feel free
To say that I was gay
(But I'm not gay)

Clearly none of these comedies are trying to give the message that there is something morally wrong with homosexuality, or that their characters believe there is. The point of those scenes and the reason that they're funny is that they expose and poke fun at a discomfort that people experience but don't like to acknowledge.

Fact is, if I visited America as an English person and was mistaken for an Australian (I hear this happens a lot), I would not feel the need to say "No, I'm not Australian - not that there's anything wrong with being Australian, I think Australians are really great, but I'm not Australian myself." But people do this all the time when they're talking about being gay. There's a discomfort and an awkwardness and an unspoken tension there where many people's actual feelings haven't caught up with their intellectual position: "I have decided that it's fine to be gay but I don't want anyone to think I'm gay."

Now you can infer all kinds of different reasons for that, but I think Matt's point that one view is projected as the correct one, and everyone wants to be seen to be on the right side, is very perceptive. That in itself says nothing about the *actual* rightness or wrongness of the view, of course, just that in that situation superficial intellectual acceptance comes quicker than true ingrained acceptance, and there are I think a lot of people who have got in line a bit earlier than they would have if alternative views were also seen as valid.

[11. Jo said the following at 12:41 AM on Sep 1:]

11

I guess the point I'm making is that I think it's very possible for one's intellectual opinions and to conflict with one's deeper attitudes, because those attitudes are very ingrained and very strong. We might come to believe they are incorrect, but it's very hard to escape their hold on us. Look at issues of distorted body image, and look at areas of prejudice where we fall every day by judging people according to stereotypes and so on. We can overcome these things intellectually but it takes much longer for our attitudes to really adjust.

So I guess what I'm saying is there's nothing hugely unusual about this whole thing, and sometimes our attitudes ARE wrong and DO need to change. But we need to be careful that the intellectual opinions we adopt are good ones and also I think we should acknowledge where tension exists. I think that's the danger, and it's the crucial thing that political correctness has forbidden us.

So the problem is not just that no one is allowed to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but ALSO that we're not supposed to say, "You know, I believe intellectually that it's okay to be gay, but I still have a lot of little prejudices I need to work on." I mean clearly prejudices and massive stereotypes do exist - you only need to look at the portrayals of gay people on TV. But we don't talk about it.

And crucially, we aren't allowed to say, "I'm just not really resolved within myself yet on whether it's okay to be gay." (which I think probably would be many people's view if they didn't feel they had to pick a side.)

[12. JamesUK said the following at 5:31 AM on Sep 1:]

12

I think Eve has really hit the nail on the head. There is, to my mind, a difference between what we might call secular law and church law, mainly in how it relates to God's people. The Law of Moses was given to Israel in part so that they would act as a witness to the nations around them, and in so doing point those peoples to God. But you wouldn’t expect those without the law to uphold it without the empowering Spirit of God.

Very recently in the UK we had a series of murders in the northern part of the country when a lone gunman went on the rampage across several counties. Standing at the dispatch box in parliament a day later, our Prime Minister acknowledged that there would be calls for tighter controls on firearms from some quarters, but pointed out that you cannot pass a law to stop something from snapping in someone’s head. Legislation does not prevent sin – it can only make a provision to punish the guilty party. You cannot force people to act in a way that you believe is morally appropriate without being the one who passes sentence, and none of us are in that position. That is precisely what Jesus is saying to the Pharisees at the side of the woman who is about to be stoned.

To come back to my previous point, there are many things that Christians believe to be sinful which are not illegal. But the only reason we can call them sinful is because God has been gracious enough to show us that they are – the world does not see this. Our job is not to stand on street corners shouting about marriage, but about the Gospel. To use Luther’s quote to suggest that we should be devoting our attentions to the former is a misrepresentation of what he was trying to say, because he was talking about defending the truths of God.

Finally, it is the common grace of God alone that keeps us from tearing each other to pieces – not law. As unpalatable as it will be for some to accept, I have no doubt that full marriage will be granted to homosexual couples in short order. This is not something we should be concerned with. If people want to take a stand for marriage, they should simply get married and demonstrate the love of Christ to their spouse as in a world of hook-ups and shortermism, people will notice. Granted to some this will be a red rag to a bull, but before the usual deluge of scriptural passages (which mean nothing to a secularist) consider the following quote from Augustine:

"It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics… [Such] reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books."

He was actually talking about the interpretation of Genesis, but I think you get the point.

[13. MRMARK said the following at 7:40 AM on Sep 1:]

13

Every time the network evening news cover the gay marriage issue they show clips of gay couples in marriage ceremonies over and over and over. Can't recall any of them showing heterosexual couples getting married in the same story.

To me, it gives the appearance of "if we keep showing gay marriages, viewers will become comfortable with it and the road to acceptance is not that much farther away."

[14. Joey said the following at 8:21 AM on Sep 1:]

14

Dan,

The humor of the episode was based on the contrast between their clear horror and being mistaken as gay, followed by their disclaimer that they don't think there is anything wrong with it. I would agree though, that the show overall approached homosexuality the way it did every other issue. With complete moral indifference.

[15. Heather said the following at 10:00 AM on Sep 1:]

15

Great post Eve (#6)!

Nathan (#8), according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, it sounds as though very, very few people (even those who follow Christ) will inherit the kingdom of God. Who can honestly say that they've never made an idol of something or have never been greedy at one time or another? This is why one must be careful when using scripture to make a point...........

[16. Michael said the following at 11:11 AM on Sep 1:]

16

Heather, keep reading and you'll discover that a true believer is no longer the person Paul mentions in 6:9-10.

Verse 11 states. "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Rest assured Heather, those who truly follow Christ will inherit the kingdom, as the whole Bible attests to.

[17. Nathan said the following at 12:03 PM on Sep 1:]

17

Dan, I'm very, very sorry to hear that.

Heather, I would agree that very few of those who claim to follow Christ will inherit the kingdom of God.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Matthew 7:21

I'm not saying that homosexuality is an unforgivable sin. My point is that no one who continues to live a lifestyle characterized by any of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 while claiming to be a Christian is actually a Christian.

"No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him."
1 John 3:6

[18. Ashley said the following at 12:15 PM on Sep 1:]

18

I feel like we just blogged about this.

Summary:

1) The bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. The bible also clearly states that lying and disobeying your parents are sinful. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No one can uphold the enforcement of the moral Law as it is presented in the bible.

2) The bible clearly states that Jesus died for all of our sins if we repent of them and choose to honor his sacrifice by making him Lord of our life.

3) Anyone, regardless of past sin, who repents, chooses Christ and accepts salvation begins a sanctification process to begin to live in a new life modeled after the life of Christ.

4) All of this happens in the human heart, independently of the government.

5) The purpose of government is to protect the civil rights of the people according to the basis of our constitution. In a representative democracy this is accomplished by gathering the majority votes and electing someone to office to act in your priciple interest. The idea is that the people govern themselves by proxy.

6) It is the government's place to enforce civil law, established by the constitution, common law court cases and the electoral vote, not moral law as determined by the Bible. The government, in the United States, is not a moral governing body. The fact that the government sanctions something does not determine or prove its morality.

7) The Government has taken a concept of the moral law, Marriage, and assigned civil law consequences to it. The results have been disastrous for marriage and disastrous for civil law and the court system. Government should get out of the marriage business for all couples.

8) If the Government allows civil unions establishing a set of civil rights for any two persons willing to sign a contract stating that they agree to the terms of the contract, it is within the power of the government to do so, regardless of the sexual or other relationship between parties.

9) Civil rights being awarded outside the marriage covenant will allow covenant marriage to continue and be exercised in a more truthful context than the current "Marriage" situation with a higher than 50% divorce rate in and outside the church. It will allow for the term "Marriage" to be reapplied only to those who desire one relationship with one person of the opposite gender for a lifetime as described in the Bible.

[19. Ashley said the following at 12:40 PM on Sep 1:]

19

I'm not saying that homosexuality is an unforgivable sin. My point is that no one who continues to live a lifestyle characterized by any of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 while claiming to be a Christian is actually a Christian.

Sanctification is an ongoing process.

See Romans Chapter 7 for details.

[20. Gloria said the following at 1:58 PM on Sep 1:]

20

Dan -

I guess you aren't a Christian either then, huh? If the standard by which you are judging another's salvation is if they continue to sin after their "conversion," then we are all doomed. God doesn't withdraw that saving grace from us the next time we sin. Grace is all encompassing and everlasting. God is bigger than our failure to be perfect, God is bigger than our understanding, and God is even bigger than what we read about God in (gasp!) the Bible.

Neither of those passages (1 Corinthians 6 and 1 John) are the final words.

I find it fairly offensive when I see or hear someone else say that someone else isn't really a Christian. How do you know?

We all continue to live sinful lives. Every single one of us. Even the really, really good Christans, and even the ones like me who vote democrat. This is why we are in need of God's grace daily. Life is messy. We trust in God's love and saving grace to fill us and strengthen us with the ability to love God and others, as we were told to do by Jesus himself.

Honestly, I don't understand why this issue keeps coming up here. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. But don't take away another person's rights to civil liberties awarded by the legal institution of marriage.

[21. dan said the following at 2:19 PM on Sep 1:]

21

Gloria -- did you just seriously ask someone who stated, plainly, that he's an atheist "I guess you aren't a Christian either then, huh?"? Or are you directing your question at someone else?

[22. Matt Kaufman said the following at 2:44 PM on Sep 1:]

22

CORRECTION: The quote which I attributed to Luther isn't Luther's after all. It comes from a 19th Century novel by an Anglican writer named Elizabeth Rundle Charles, The Chronicles of the Schoenberg Cotta Family.

As the article above notes, the Luther attribution has found its way into serious works, including one by Francis Schaeffer. And it does represent the thrust of Luther's thoughts expressed in the source most people give (the same source I had listed in my files). But it's not his wording: He didn't speak there of battles or soldiers. Mea culpa.

[23. Heather said the following at 4:06 PM on Sep 1:]

23

Thank you, Michael (#16) and Ashley (#19).
Nathan (#17), I have a real problem with people who use scripture out of context. Every single one of us continues to sin even after conversion. According to your selection of verses, none of us will inherit the Kingdom.

[24. Matt Kaufman said the following at 4:20 PM on Sep 1:]

24

Eve (#6) and JamesUK (#12), I think you're missing the mark and straying into a kind of Christian cultural isolationism.

Eve, you write: "Refusing to legalize gay marriage won't change anyone's opinions about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality."

To start with, you've got the formulation backward. It's not about "refusing to legalize gay marriage." It's about affirming what marriage is, which necessarily requires saying what it is not.

That's why, JamesUK, you're mistaken to say "If people want to take a stand for marriage, they should simply get married and demonstrate the love of Christ to their spouse" in hopes people will notice. That simply makes marriage (in the eyes of the world) one of many alternatives recognized as legitimate. We must be clear on both what is right and what is wrong.

Legally affirming something called same-sex marriage can't help but send a message about what's right. That's the whole point to its supporters: They want official affirmation -- to define what's always been understood as wrong to be right. And there's no doubt it will affect what many people think about that, both now and (even more important) in the future. That's the whole point of Franck and Brown's piece.

It simply won't suffice for Christians to say "That's the world's business; let the government recognize what it will, we just need to do our thing ourselves." Of course Christ is what matters. But we can never lead people to Christ while blithely acquiescing to the world turning his created order on its head. We must -- once again -- say what we're against as well as what we're for. You can't have one without the other.

And it especially won't suffice for us to stand by while something as fundamental as marriage -- the central social institution -- is turned on its head. When a man or a woman -- a father or a mother -- is treated as an optional accessory, that's just what's happening.

[25. James79 said the following at 5:16 PM on Sep 1:]

25

Gloria, focus on the family is an activist group for conservative social issues, so that's why you'll see the same topics come up in the blog.

An employee is welcome to correct that if I've misstated it. There doesn't seem to be much participation in the comment sections though...

[26. Chris said the following at 7:23 PM on Sep 1:]

26

MRMARK writes (#13):

Every time the network evening news cover the gay marriage issue they show clips of gay couples in marriage ceremonies over and over and over. Can't recall any of them showing heterosexual couples getting married in the same story.

You do realize, of course, this would be like having a news story about the Eagles playing the Redskins and showing footage of the Patriots or having a news story about flooding in LA and showing floodwaters in, oh, say, Montana, right?

To me, it gives the appearance of "if we keep showing gay marriages, viewers will become comfortable with it and the road to acceptance is not that much farther away."

Interesting interpretation but probably wrong. I imagine they show the images because that's what the story is about. Using the same interpretation, one could claim images of something like fire for an arson story would make viewers more comfortable with arson.

(What you're probably keying in on is the standard method of using stock footage or splicing multiple shots from the same event in order to pad out the 30-90 second story. This is just lazy reporting, not some part of an ulterior motive.)

[27. Michael said the following at 8:30 PM on Sep 1:]

27

Gloria said, "I find it fairly offensive when I see or hear someone else say that someone else isn't really a Christian. How do you know? "

Do you find Jesus and John offensive when they said?

Mat 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits."

1Jo 3:9 "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

Gloria also said, "Neither of those passages (1 Corinthians 6 and 1 John) are the final words. "

Excuse me, but did you just say God's word isn't the final authority? Pray tell what or who is then?

[28. Ted Slater said the following at 9:27 PM on Sep 1:]

28

James79 (#24) -- I have to correct you. Focus on the Family is not "an activist group for conservative social issues." Focus on the Family is a ministry that loves the gospel of Christ, that wants to see families thrive. We provide stuff that helps families enjoy the fullness of life. We don't just operate as a "social issue" level, but one-on-one with folks with simple questions and folks who are really hurting.

Focus on the Family has birthed a public policy organization, CitizenLink, that works in a more political realm to defend and protect families. And that is so important, so needed. But that is not the biggest part of who we are.

To call us an "activist group" really isn't accurate, though we are "active" in our engagement with those we're called to serve. :-)

[29. Benjamin said the following at 10:34 PM on Sep 1:]

29

Matt Kaufman (#24):

Of course Christ is what matters. But we can never lead people to Christ while blithely acquiescing to the world turning his created order on its head.

I think I would have to disagree with that. An obvious counter-example is the early church -- the Roman empire had "turned the created order on its head" in far more ways than the modern United States, yet thousands of people were led to Christ in single days. And indeed there is no indication that the early church had any political interest or involvement whatsoever.

The idea that believers should be deeply politically involved is one without Scriptural support. Jesus, Paul, all the apostles, and the early church all lived in a more corrupt and oppressive political climate than we, yet all of them seemed, if anything, actively disinterested in politics. Perhaps we should conform less to the world and emulate Christ more in this arena also.

[30. Johnathan said the following at 11:42 PM on Sep 1:]

30

Re: #6 Eve

You make a lot of good points. You do mention that this issue is "legalizing morality." While I see where you are coming from, I hesitate to say that protecting marriage is simply legalizing morality. Marriage is a sacred institution from God. Yes, I agree the world has twisted it, but do you really think that we as the church should have no part in trying to protect it from being perverted? At what point do Christians step in and take a stand against a government that sets increasingly sinful laws? I am not advocating the government become our primary concern, but I do think it is one of them and that we can't simply dismiss it.

Re: #19 Ashley, #23 Heather.

The issue is not sinning after conversion. It is whether the person views it as sinning or not. Christians will still sin. But when they sin, they will view it as sin, recognize it as a shortcoming and a violation of God's standards, and repent and do their best to change. That is the process of sanctification. A homosexual does not fall under this category. A homosexual is one who is openly practicing a lifestyle characterized by sin and does not acknowledge it. That is NOT simply the process of sanctification.

PS - In this post I am referring to those who practice homosexuality w/o believing it is sin. I am not referring to those who struggle w/homosexuality but recognize it and are working through it.

[31. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:40 AM on Sep 2:]

31

JamesUK (12): I agree with an awful lot of what you say, but there is one extra piece with regard to marriage that you'd didn't reach.

Because humans are designed by God, sin has consequences even if you don't recognise God's authority or even know about Him at all. Looking around at people in Britain, the effects of sin in marriage-related areas are hugely visible, and it's quite clear once you know what to look for.

If Christians say nothing about what we know, then we are allowing the unbelievers to head off in directions that we know will lead to great pain for them and others later; can we really stand by and say nothing?

By all means be an example, but don't keep quiet if there's an opportunity to say something that could help others (and quite possibly point them towards God Himself in the process).

[32. Ashley said the following at 9:45 AM on Sep 2:]

32

Jonathan said

A homosexual does not fall under this category. A homosexual is one who is openly practicing a lifestyle characterized by sin and does not acknowledge it. That is NOT simply the process of sanctification.

PS - In this post I am referring to those who practice homosexuality w/o believing it is sin. I am not referring to those who struggle w/homosexuality but recognize it and are working through it.

I agree with you-- with this addition of your post script. The problem is that it is often communicated as an afterthought. Homosexuality is handled by the church completely differently than other sins. There are counseling, support groups and asisstance for alcoholics, porn addicts, substance abusers, people wrestling with broken marriages, abuse victims, people wrestling with broken parent/child relationships.

But when it comes to homosexuality there are far too many people in the (corporate) church that say, "Uh, uh, Not touching that. They chose to sin."

What? Did you choose to sin when you were born? The beauty of the gospel is that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. How can we, then, not go to those who are in sin with the beautiful message of gospel redemption?

When an alcoholic accepts Christ, does he lose the craving for alcohol? Does someone who is participating in heterosexual premarital sex always immediately stop upon conversion? And futher, have you ever come to a place as a believer where you are so soaked and steeped with sin you could barely move, and you didn't even know it until someone else gently pointed it out to you? I have.

To be sure, there are miraculous cold-turkey conversion stories, but those stories are not everyone's. To assume someone's faith and conversion are not genuine because their great sin happens to be very public, seems a stretch too far for me.

Don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing sin or saying that we should not call it what it is, but I have a huge problem with the way the church (corporately) has handled the Gay community. Who are we to withhold the free gift of God's grace and love from those who need it as badly as you or I?

I agree that there is a conviction of the holy spirit that comes with any lifestyle sin whether it is homosexuality, gossip, sloth or addiction, and ultimately someone who truely desires the Christlife will be called to repent or recant. My hope is that they would repent, and not quench the power of the holy spirit because he conflicts with their desires, but how can then when no one will take them the news of Christ's freedom because they have been pre-judged as someone who will never ever repent?

[33. Heather said the following at 10:16 AM on Sep 2:]

33

Thank you for the clarification, Jonathan (#30).

[34. Gloria said the following at 10:39 AM on Sep 2:]

34

Whoops! My apologies. I did not mean to address my statement to Dan, but to Nathan. It probably would make more sense that way...

@ Michael -

There's a problem with the passage from 1 John. It says no one can sin if they are born of God. Well, yes and no. The thing is, we all sin. No matter how close our hearts are to God's we will alway sin. Always. We will always fall short. The point of living a life of faith isn't to be perfect, it's to be authentically loving and serving God and others. Why the focus on sin? Why can't we focus on love?

Regarding Matthew 7:20, I think we might be looking for different fruits.

[35. Matt Kaufman said the following at 11:11 AM on Sep 2:]

35

Benjamin (#29) wrote: "The Roman empire had 'turned the created order on its head' in far more ways than the modern United States, yet thousands of people were led to Christ in single days. And indeed there is no indication that the early church had any political interest or involvement whatsoever."

What the early church did was to speak truth, very publicly, very often. They talked about sin -- naming specific sins -- and they talked about salvation. In fact, the day they added not a thousand but 3,000 to their number, Peter was confronting them with their sin very vigorously: That's what "cut them to the heart."

And while political involvement in the modern sense wasn't an option -- it's not like they got to vote on anything -- it's worth noting that church leaders made no exemption for powerful political figures. John the Baptist denounced Herod for having his brother's wife, and died for it. (Today John would be denounced for concerning himself with Herod's "personal life" and be told it was "no one's business so long as he does a good job as emperor.")

Speaking up about moral and cultural issues today may or may not entail political involvement in a given case. If it does, that shouldn't deter us. But any political involvement is part of a much bigger calling: speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[36. James79 said the following at 2:18 PM on Sep 2:]

36

Matt (35)
"Speaking up about moral and cultural issues today may or may not entail political involvement in a given case. If it does, that shouldn't deter us."

But see there's another layer to it when it becomes political. No problem with calling certain actions morally wrong, but when it becomes about what should be allowed or controlled by government, etc... that's when the problems come into play. That part needs to be done with greater tact and consideration by believers imo.

[37. Johnathan said the following at 6:58 PM on Sep 2:]

37

Re: #32 Ashley

Absolutely. My comments were directed at the common argument that the church and Christians have no right to condemn homosexuality because even Christians sin, so what's the difference?

I admittedly don't know how churches tend to handle homosexuality, but my church right now has an individual struggling w/homosexuality. Our entire church staff, his family, and an outside Christian counseling organization are all meeting with him regularly and doing what we can to help him through this struggle.

As a side note, I've been wondering lately about the concept of quitting a sin cold turkey vs. the gradual approach. The gradual approach sounds good, but I'm not too sure it's Biblical. I have a hard time Biblically supporting a gradual approach to quitting sin, i.e. porn, anger, lust, addictions, etc. I'm not dismissing the (sinful) "cravings" you mentioned, for I recognize they can be powerful. But isn't that the miracle of Christ's transforming power? Just a thought, I haven't come to any hard conclusions about this yet, but thought I'd throw it out there. =) Also, I'm not implying you said any of this, it was just sort of a thought I had that seemed somewhat related.

Re: #33 Heather - no problem!

Re: #34 Gloria

In 1 John 3:9, the Greek helps clarify the meaning of this verse. In the first clause, the verb "sin" is literally "doing sin" - the verb "doing" is a present tense verb which indicates a continuous ongoing action. And "sin" is the object of the verb (what's being done), so NASB, for example, translates that verb as "practicing sin" to convey the idea of an ongoing act. In the closing clause of the verse, the verb is "sin" - which is also present tense. So both verbs translated as "sin" are referring not to a single act of sin (which seems like what you are referring to) but rather an intentional, ongoing lifestyle of sin.

[38. Trevor Dolby said the following at 6:30 AM on Sep 3:]

38

Matt Kaufman (35): Good point about John the Baptist :)

There were issues about which the Church seemed to say nothing political at that time (or nowadays, mostly): divorce and contraception are obvious examples. There's no evidence in the Bible that the Church sought to change the Roman laws in either of those cases, despite being strongly against both.

Discernment is (and was) clearly needed, as these are emotionally-charged areas for believers and non-believers alike.

[1. Amy said the following at 12:37 PM on Aug 31:]

1

Incredible Luther quote! Thanks for sharing.

[2. Jo said the following at 1:32 PM on Aug 31:]

2

I misread that final quote at first and thought it was saying that if we *only* speak up to defend that portion of the truth that is being attacked, we are not confessing Christ. Which I think is equally true. That's not as relevant to the OP (which I thought was very good), but I thought it was worth mentioning, especially as this is a topic where I think we can err on either side.

Sorry for the tangent Matt, I like the points you made and think they're applicable to lots of other current issues too. :)

[3. A.M.C. said the following at 1:58 PM on Aug 31:]

3

Interesting result... especially considering that Public Policy Polling is sometimes considered to have a liberal/Democratic Party bias. Then again, it's just one poll, so I wouldn't jump to conclusions unless there are many other polls with the same methodology that generate similar results.

[4. Emily said the following at 2:02 PM on Aug 31:]

4

As a Grad student in Psych Research, I concur that people are greatly affected in their behavior by how they think other's will percieve their views or actions.

Thanks for posting this, Matt!

[5. dan said the following at 2:59 PM on Aug 31:]

5

Ummm, that was not the point of the Seinfeld episode. The point was the although neither George nor Jerry thought there was anything wrong with being gay they themselves are not gay. I'm not gay, but I see nothing wrong with it. I'm also not black, not a janitor, not a midget, not a body builder... There is nothing wrong with these things, and everyone has every right to them. I'm just not one of them. Jerry and George's disclaimed was meant to say "I don't want my denial to mean there is something wrong with what I'm denying" rather than "What I'm denying is wrong, but I don't want others to think I believe that".

[6. Eve said the following at 4:10 PM on Aug 31:]

6

I do not think it is only because Christians are too afraid to take a stand. I think the hard core group that is defending marriage has gotten smaller because there are people in the Church who see this as a government issue, about taxes and benefits. These benefits are being called "marriage," but are merely a legal technicality. After all, there are heterosexual couples who get "married" and are not following God's definition for marriage.

However, even if there were no benefits for being "married," Christians would have religious services to join a couple. Why? Because the man and woman are making a covenant between themselves and God.

Honestly, "marriage" as it looks in today's society is nothing like what God intended...look at all of the divorce and infidelity. It is merely an institution of the government.

Some Christians seem to think that we are in an epic battle against the immoral homosexuals. How can we expect non-Christians to act like Christians?!? They don't have the Holy Spirit. Christians are called to spread the Kingdom of God, but focusing on legalizing morality is not the way to bring people to Christ.

If you tell a someone, over and over, that she is sinning and wrong and you don't support her lifestyle, you are doing nothing to help her find Christ. You are condemning her. If she was a Christian, you may have some responsibility to confront her with her sin. As a non-Christian, why should/would she listen to you?

The governments of this world will never be holy. We have to wait for the world to come.

Since we live in a democracy, we have a responsibility to lobby for what seems important to us, for society. If allowing homosexuals to get benefits and officially accepting or legalizing their lifestyle seems wrong, use your voice and vote. Just remember, homosexuality is generally tolerated in America. Refusing to legalize gay marriage won't change anyone's opinions about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

[7. James79 said the following at 4:34 PM on Aug 31:]

7

Hmm, not sure what to think of this one. I'm always wary of there being a catch somewhere in these blogs I'm not seeing...

I could tentatively agree with the premise... seems like a natural human tendency, we want everyone to like us. But, let's not confuse being strong or courageous on an issue with using derogatory language or being rude towards others. I hope that'd go without saying, but on several occasions I've been around other Christians (who should know better) using some of those demeaning terms and phrases. It's just disappointing to see others not giving any thought to their words.

[8. Nathan said the following at 4:47 PM on Aug 31:]

8

Dan,
I'm very nearly certain you're mistaken about the Seinfeld episode, but either way, it isn't important to the point of the article (and it came from Franck and Brown, not from Boundless). I'm much more concerned with you not seeing a difference between practicing homosexuality and being black, a janitor, a midget, or a bodybuilder.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10

[9. dan said the following at 6:02 PM on Aug 31:]

9

Well, Nathan, off the top of my head I can think of at least 1 other episode which deals with homosexuality and none of the principals express any reservations about it. In fact Elaine actually dates a gay man, and Jerry expresses his belief that it's impossible to convert a gay man to "the other team". In light of that I would say that at the very least Jerry has absolutely no problem with homosexuality, he merely has a problem if the rest of the world perceives him as gay.

As for your other concern, let me put your mind at ease. I'm an atheist, so quoting scripture at me will have very little impact.

[10. Jo said the following at 12:18 AM on Sep 1:]

10

dan and Nathan...

I think you're both right. I haven't seen the Seinfeld episode but I've seen lots of similar scenes, like the 'If You Were Gay' song in Avenue Q where one character tries to convince another to 'come out':
If you were gay
That'd be okay
I mean 'cause hey
I'd like you anyway
Because you see
If it were me
I would feel free
To say that I was gay
(But I'm not gay)

Clearly none of these comedies are trying to give the message that there is something morally wrong with homosexuality, or that their characters believe there is. The point of those scenes and the reason that they're funny is that they expose and poke fun at a discomfort that people experience but don't like to acknowledge.

Fact is, if I visited America as an English person and was mistaken for an Australian (I hear this happens a lot), I would not feel the need to say "No, I'm not Australian - not that there's anything wrong with being Australian, I think Australians are really great, but I'm not Australian myself." But people do this all the time when they're talking about being gay. There's a discomfort and an awkwardness and an unspoken tension there where many people's actual feelings haven't caught up with their intellectual position: "I have decided that it's fine to be gay but I don't want anyone to think I'm gay."

Now you can infer all kinds of different reasons for that, but I think Matt's point that one view is projected as the correct one, and everyone wants to be seen to be on the right side, is very perceptive. That in itself says nothing about the *actual* rightness or wrongness of the view, of course, just that in that situation superficial intellectual acceptance comes quicker than true ingrained acceptance, and there are I think a lot of people who have got in line a bit earlier than they would have if alternative views were also seen as valid.

[11. Jo said the following at 12:41 AM on Sep 1:]

11

I guess the point I'm making is that I think it's very possible for one's intellectual opinions and to conflict with one's deeper attitudes, because those attitudes are very ingrained and very strong. We might come to believe they are incorrect, but it's very hard to escape their hold on us. Look at issues of distorted body image, and look at areas of prejudice where we fall every day by judging people according to stereotypes and so on. We can overcome these things intellectually but it takes much longer for our attitudes to really adjust.

So I guess what I'm saying is there's nothing hugely unusual about this whole thing, and sometimes our attitudes ARE wrong and DO need to change. But we need to be careful that the intellectual opinions we adopt are good ones and also I think we should acknowledge where tension exists. I think that's the danger, and it's the crucial thing that political correctness has forbidden us.

So the problem is not just that no one is allowed to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but ALSO that we're not supposed to say, "You know, I believe intellectually that it's okay to be gay, but I still have a lot of little prejudices I need to work on." I mean clearly prejudices and massive stereotypes do exist - you only need to look at the portrayals of gay people on TV. But we don't talk about it.

And crucially, we aren't allowed to say, "I'm just not really resolved within myself yet on whether it's okay to be gay." (which I think probably would be many people's view if they didn't feel they had to pick a side.)

[12. JamesUK said the following at 5:31 AM on Sep 1:]

12

I think Eve has really hit the nail on the head. There is, to my mind, a difference between what we might call secular law and church law, mainly in how it relates to God's people. The Law of Moses was given to Israel in part so that they would act as a witness to the nations around them, and in so doing point those peoples to God. But you wouldn’t expect those without the law to uphold it without the empowering Spirit of God.

Very recently in the UK we had a series of murders in the northern part of the country when a lone gunman went on the rampage across several counties. Standing at the dispatch box in parliament a day later, our Prime Minister acknowledged that there would be calls for tighter controls on firearms from some quarters, but pointed out that you cannot pass a law to stop something from snapping in someone’s head. Legislation does not prevent sin – it can only make a provision to punish the guilty party. You cannot force people to act in a way that you believe is morally appropriate without being the one who passes sentence, and none of us are in that position. That is precisely what Jesus is saying to the Pharisees at the side of the woman who is about to be stoned.

To come back to my previous point, there are many things that Christians believe to be sinful which are not illegal. But the only reason we can call them sinful is because God has been gracious enough to show us that they are – the world does not see this. Our job is not to stand on street corners shouting about marriage, but about the Gospel. To use Luther’s quote to suggest that we should be devoting our attentions to the former is a misrepresentation of what he was trying to say, because he was talking about defending the truths of God.

Finally, it is the common grace of God alone that keeps us from tearing each other to pieces – not law. As unpalatable as it will be for some to accept, I have no doubt that full marriage will be granted to homosexual couples in short order. This is not something we should be concerned with. If people want to take a stand for marriage, they should simply get married and demonstrate the love of Christ to their spouse as in a world of hook-ups and shortermism, people will notice. Granted to some this will be a red rag to a bull, but before the usual deluge of scriptural passages (which mean nothing to a secularist) consider the following quote from Augustine:

"It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics… [Such] reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books."

He was actually talking about the interpretation of Genesis, but I think you get the point.

[13. MRMARK said the following at 7:40 AM on Sep 1:]

13

Every time the network evening news cover the gay marriage issue they show clips of gay couples in marriage ceremonies over and over and over. Can't recall any of them showing heterosexual couples getting married in the same story.

To me, it gives the appearance of "if we keep showing gay marriages, viewers will become comfortable with it and the road to acceptance is not that much farther away."

[14. Joey said the following at 8:21 AM on Sep 1:]

14

Dan,

The humor of the episode was based on the contrast between their clear horror and being mistaken as gay, followed by their disclaimer that they don't think there is anything wrong with it. I would agree though, that the show overall approached homosexuality the way it did every other issue. With complete moral indifference.

[15. Heather said the following at 10:00 AM on Sep 1:]

15

Great post Eve (#6)!

Nathan (#8), according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, it sounds as though very, very few people (even those who follow Christ) will inherit the kingdom of God. Who can honestly say that they've never made an idol of something or have never been greedy at one time or another? This is why one must be careful when using scripture to make a point...........

[16. Michael said the following at 11:11 AM on Sep 1:]

16

Heather, keep reading and you'll discover that a true believer is no longer the person Paul mentions in 6:9-10.

Verse 11 states. "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Rest assured Heather, those who truly follow Christ will inherit the kingdom, as the whole Bible attests to.

[17. Nathan said the following at 12:03 PM on Sep 1:]

17

Dan, I'm very, very sorry to hear that.

Heather, I would agree that very few of those who claim to follow Christ will inherit the kingdom of God.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Matthew 7:21

I'm not saying that homosexuality is an unforgivable sin. My point is that no one who continues to live a lifestyle characterized by any of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 while claiming to be a Christian is actually a Christian.

"No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him."
1 John 3:6

[18. Ashley said the following at 12:15 PM on Sep 1:]

18

I feel like we just blogged about this.

Summary:

1) The bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. The bible also clearly states that lying and disobeying your parents are sinful. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No one can uphold the enforcement of the moral Law as it is presented in the bible.

2) The bible clearly states that Jesus died for all of our sins if we repent of them and choose to honor his sacrifice by making him Lord of our life.

3) Anyone, regardless of past sin, who repents, chooses Christ and accepts salvation begins a sanctification process to begin to live in a new life modeled after the life of Christ.

4) All of this happens in the human heart, independently of the government.

5) The purpose of government is to protect the civil rights of the people according to the basis of our constitution. In a representative democracy this is accomplished by gathering the majority votes and electing someone to office to act in your priciple interest. The idea is that the people govern themselves by proxy.

6) It is the government's place to enforce civil law, established by the constitution, common law court cases and the electoral vote, not moral law as determined by the Bible. The government, in the United States, is not a moral governing body. The fact that the government sanctions something does not determine or prove its morality.

7) The Government has taken a concept of the moral law, Marriage, and assigned civil law consequences to it. The results have been disastrous for marriage and disastrous for civil law and the court system. Government should get out of the marriage business for all couples.

8) If the Government allows civil unions establishing a set of civil rights for any two persons willing to sign a contract stating that they agree to the terms of the contract, it is within the power of the government to do so, regardless of the sexual or other relationship between parties.

9) Civil rights being awarded outside the marriage covenant will allow covenant marriage to continue and be exercised in a more truthful context than the current "Marriage" situation with a higher than 50% divorce rate in and outside the church. It will allow for the term "Marriage" to be reapplied only to those who desire one relationship with one person of the opposite gender for a lifetime as described in the Bible.

[19. Ashley said the following at 12:40 PM on Sep 1:]

19

I'm not saying that homosexuality is an unforgivable sin. My point is that no one who continues to live a lifestyle characterized by any of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 while claiming to be a Christian is actually a Christian.

Sanctification is an ongoing process.

See Romans Chapter 7 for details.

[20. Gloria said the following at 1:58 PM on Sep 1:]

20

Dan -

I guess you aren't a Christian either then, huh? If the standard by which you are judging another's salvation is if they continue to sin after their "conversion," then we are all doomed. God doesn't withdraw that saving grace from us the next time we sin. Grace is all encompassing and everlasting. God is bigger than our failure to be perfect, God is bigger than our understanding, and God is even bigger than what we read about God in (gasp!) the Bible.

Neither of those passages (1 Corinthians 6 and 1 John) are the final words.

I find it fairly offensive when I see or hear someone else say that someone else isn't really a Christian. How do you know?

We all continue to live sinful lives. Every single one of us. Even the really, really good Christans, and even the ones like me who vote democrat. This is why we are in need of God's grace daily. Life is messy. We trust in God's love and saving grace to fill us and strengthen us with the ability to love God and others, as we were told to do by Jesus himself.

Honestly, I don't understand why this issue keeps coming up here. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. But don't take away another person's rights to civil liberties awarded by the legal institution of marriage.

[21. dan said the following at 2:19 PM on Sep 1:]

21

Gloria -- did you just seriously ask someone who stated, plainly, that he's an atheist "I guess you aren't a Christian either then, huh?"? Or are you directing your question at someone else?

[22. Matt Kaufman said the following at 2:44 PM on Sep 1:]

22

CORRECTION: The quote which I attributed to Luther isn't Luther's after all. It comes from a 19th Century novel by an Anglican writer named Elizabeth Rundle Charles, The Chronicles of the Schoenberg Cotta Family.

As the article above notes, the Luther attribution has found its way into serious works, including one by Francis Schaeffer. And it does represent the thrust of Luther's thoughts expressed in the source most people give (the same source I had listed in my files). But it's not his wording: He didn't speak there of battles or soldiers. Mea culpa.

[23. Heather said the following at 4:06 PM on Sep 1:]

23

Thank you, Michael (#16) and Ashley (#19).
Nathan (#17), I have a real problem with people who use scripture out of context. Every single one of us continues to sin even after conversion. According to your selection of verses, none of us will inherit the Kingdom.

[24. Matt Kaufman said the following at 4:20 PM on Sep 1:]

24

Eve (#6) and JamesUK (#12), I think you're missing the mark and straying into a kind of Christian cultural isolationism.

Eve, you write: "Refusing to legalize gay marriage won't change anyone's opinions about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality."

To start with, you've got the formulation backward. It's not about "refusing to legalize gay marriage." It's about affirming what marriage is, which necessarily requires saying what it is not.

That's why, JamesUK, you're mistaken to say "If people want to take a stand for marriage, they should simply get married and demonstrate the love of Christ to their spouse" in hopes people will notice. That simply makes marriage (in the eyes of the world) one of many alternatives recognized as legitimate. We must be clear on both what is right and what is wrong.

Legally affirming something called same-sex marriage can't help but send a message about what's right. That's the whole point to its supporters: They want official affirmation -- to define what's always been understood as wrong to be right. And there's no doubt it will affect what many people think about that, both now and (even more important) in the future. That's the whole point of Franck and Brown's piece.

It simply won't suffice for Christians to say "That's the world's business; let the government recognize what it will, we just need to do our thing ourselves." Of course Christ is what matters. But we can never lead people to Christ while blithely acquiescing to the world turning his created order on its head. We must -- once again -- say what we're against as well as what we're for. You can't have one without the other.

And it especially won't suffice for us to stand by while something as fundamental as marriage -- the central social institution -- is turned on its head. When a man or a woman -- a father or a mother -- is treated as an optional accessory, that's just what's happening.

[25. James79 said the following at 5:16 PM on Sep 1:]

25

Gloria, focus on the family is an activist group for conservative social issues, so that's why you'll see the same topics come up in the blog.

An employee is welcome to correct that if I've misstated it. There doesn't seem to be much participation in the comment sections though...

[26. Chris said the following at 7:23 PM on Sep 1:]

26

MRMARK writes (#13):

Every time the network evening news cover the gay marriage issue they show clips of gay couples in marriage ceremonies over and over and over. Can't recall any of them showing heterosexual couples getting married in the same story.

You do realize, of course, this would be like having a news story about the Eagles playing the Redskins and showing footage of the Patriots or having a news story about flooding in LA and showing floodwaters in, oh, say, Montana, right?

To me, it gives the appearance of "if we keep showing gay marriages, viewers will become comfortable with it and the road to acceptance is not that much farther away."

Interesting interpretation but probably wrong. I imagine they show the images because that's what the story is about. Using the same interpretation, one could claim images of something like fire for an arson story would make viewers more comfortable with arson.

(What you're probably keying in on is the standard method of using stock footage or splicing multiple shots from the same event in order to pad out the 30-90 second story. This is just lazy reporting, not some part of an ulterior motive.)

[27. Michael said the following at 8:30 PM on Sep 1:]

27

Gloria said, "I find it fairly offensive when I see or hear someone else say that someone else isn't really a Christian. How do you know? "

Do you find Jesus and John offensive when they said?

Mat 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits."

1Jo 3:9 "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

Gloria also said, "Neither of those passages (1 Corinthians 6 and 1 John) are the final words. "

Excuse me, but did you just say God's word isn't the final authority? Pray tell what or who is then?

[28. Ted Slater said the following at 9:27 PM on Sep 1:]

28

James79 (#24) -- I have to correct you. Focus on the Family is not "an activist group for conservative social issues." Focus on the Family is a ministry that loves the gospel of Christ, that wants to see families thrive. We provide stuff that helps families enjoy the fullness of life. We don't just operate as a "social issue" level, but one-on-one with folks with simple questions and folks who are really hurting.

Focus on the Family has birthed a public policy organization, CitizenLink, that works in a more political realm to defend and protect families. And that is so important, so needed. But that is not the biggest part of who we are.

To call us an "activist group" really isn't accurate, though we are "active" in our engagement with those we're called to serve. :-)

[29. Benjamin said the following at 10:34 PM on Sep 1:]

29

Matt Kaufman (#24):

Of course Christ is what matters. But we can never lead people to Christ while blithely acquiescing to the world turning his created order on its head.

I think I would have to disagree with that. An obvious counter-example is the early church -- the Roman empire had "turned the created order on its head" in far more ways than the modern United States, yet thousands of people were led to Christ in single days. And indeed there is no indication that the early church had any political interest or involvement whatsoever.

The idea that believers should be deeply politically involved is one without Scriptural support. Jesus, Paul, all the apostles, and the early church all lived in a more corrupt and oppressive political climate than we, yet all of them seemed, if anything, actively disinterested in politics. Perhaps we should conform less to the world and emulate Christ more in this arena also.

[30. Johnathan said the following at 11:42 PM on Sep 1:]

30

Re: #6 Eve

You make a lot of good points. You do mention that this issue is "legalizing morality." While I see where you are coming from, I hesitate to say that protecting marriage is simply legalizing morality. Marriage is a sacred institution from God. Yes, I agree the world has twisted it, but do you really think that we as the church should have no part in trying to protect it from being perverted? At what point do Christians step in and take a stand against a government that sets increasingly sinful laws? I am not advocating the government become our primary concern, but I do think it is one of them and that we can't simply dismiss it.

Re: #19 Ashley, #23 Heather.

The issue is not sinning after conversion. It is whether the person views it as sinning or not. Christians will still sin. But when they sin, they will view it as sin, recognize it as a shortcoming and a violation of God's standards, and repent and do their best to change. That is the process of sanctification. A homosexual does not fall under this category. A homosexual is one who is openly practicing a lifestyle characterized by sin and does not acknowledge it. That is NOT simply the process of sanctification.

PS - In this post I am referring to those who practice homosexuality w/o believing it is sin. I am not referring to those who struggle w/homosexuality but recognize it and are working through it.

[31. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:40 AM on Sep 2:]

31

JamesUK (12): I agree with an awful lot of what you say, but there is one extra piece with regard to marriage that you'd didn't reach.

Because humans are designed by God, sin has consequences even if you don't recognise God's authority or even know about Him at all. Looking around at people in Britain, the effects of sin in marriage-related areas are hugely visible, and it's quite clear once you know what to look for.

If Christians say nothing about what we know, then we are allowing the unbelievers to head off in directions that we know will lead to great pain for them and others later; can we really stand by and say nothing?

By all means be an example, but don't keep quiet if there's an opportunity to say something that could help others (and quite possibly point them towards God Himself in the process).

[32. Ashley said the following at 9:45 AM on Sep 2:]

32

Jonathan said

A homosexual does not fall under this category. A homosexual is one who is openly practicing a lifestyle characterized by sin and does not acknowledge it. That is NOT simply the process of sanctification.

PS - In this post I am referring to those who practice homosexuality w/o believing it is sin. I am not referring to those who struggle w/homosexuality but recognize it and are working through it.

I agree with you-- with this addition of your post script. The problem is that it is often communicated as an afterthought. Homosexuality is handled by the church completely differently than other sins. There are counseling, support groups and asisstance for alcoholics, porn addicts, substance abusers, people wrestling with broken marriages, abuse victims, people wrestling with broken parent/child relationships.

But when it comes to homosexuality there are far too many people in the (corporate) church that say, "Uh, uh, Not touching that. They chose to sin."

What? Did you choose to sin when you were born? The beauty of the gospel is that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. How can we, then, not go to those who are in sin with the beautiful message of gospel redemption?

When an alcoholic accepts Christ, does he lose the craving for alcohol? Does someone who is participating in heterosexual premarital sex always immediately stop upon conversion? And futher, have you ever come to a place as a believer where you are so soaked and steeped with sin you could barely move, and you didn't even know it until someone else gently pointed it out to you? I have.

To be sure, there are miraculous cold-turkey conversion stories, but those stories are not everyone's. To assume someone's faith and conversion are not genuine because their great sin happens to be very public, seems a stretch too far for me.

Don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing sin or saying that we should not call it what it is, but I have a huge problem with the way the church (corporately) has handled the Gay community. Who are we to withhold the free gift of God's grace and love from those who need it as badly as you or I?

I agree that there is a conviction of the holy spirit that comes with any lifestyle sin whether it is homosexuality, gossip, sloth or addiction, and ultimately someone who truely desires the Christlife will be called to repent or recant. My hope is that they would repent, and not quench the power of the holy spirit because he conflicts with their desires, but how can then when no one will take them the news of Christ's freedom because they have been pre-judged as someone who will never ever repent?

[33. Heather said the following at 10:16 AM on Sep 2:]

33

Thank you for the clarification, Jonathan (#30).

[34. Gloria said the following at 10:39 AM on Sep 2:]

34

Whoops! My apologies. I did not mean to address my statement to Dan, but to Nathan. It probably would make more sense that way...

@ Michael -

There's a problem with the passage from 1 John. It says no one can sin if they are born of God. Well, yes and no. The thing is, we all sin. No matter how close our hearts are to God's we will alway sin. Always. We will always fall short. The point of living a life of faith isn't to be perfect, it's to be authentically loving and serving God and others. Why the focus on sin? Why can't we focus on love?

Regarding Matthew 7:20, I think we might be looking for different fruits.

[35. Matt Kaufman said the following at 11:11 AM on Sep 2:]

35

Benjamin (#29) wrote: "The Roman empire had 'turned the created order on its head' in far more ways than the modern United States, yet thousands of people were led to Christ in single days. And indeed there is no indication that the early church had any political interest or involvement whatsoever."

What the early church did was to speak truth, very publicly, very often. They talked about sin -- naming specific sins -- and they talked about salvation. In fact, the day they added not a thousand but 3,000 to their number, Peter was confronting them with their sin very vigorously: That's what "cut them to the heart."

And while political involvement in the modern sense wasn't an option -- it's not like they got to vote on anything -- it's worth noting that church leaders made no exemption for powerful political figures. John the Baptist denounced Herod for having his brother's wife, and died for it. (Today John would be denounced for concerning himself with Herod's "personal life" and be told it was "no one's business so long as he does a good job as emperor.")

Speaking up about moral and cultural issues today may or may not entail political involvement in a given case. If it does, that shouldn't deter us. But any political involvement is part of a much bigger calling: speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[36. James79 said the following at 2:18 PM on Sep 2:]

36

Matt (35)
"Speaking up about moral and cultural issues today may or may not entail political involvement in a given case. If it does, that shouldn't deter us."

But see there's another layer to it when it becomes political. No problem with calling certain actions morally wrong, but when it becomes about what should be allowed or controlled by government, etc... that's when the problems come into play. That part needs to be done with greater tact and consideration by believers imo.

[37. Johnathan said the following at 6:58 PM on Sep 2:]

37

Re: #32 Ashley

Absolutely. My comments were directed at the common argument that the church and Christians have no right to condemn homosexuality because even Christians sin, so what's the difference?

I admittedly don't know how churches tend to handle homosexuality, but my church right now has an individual struggling w/homosexuality. Our entire church staff, his family, and an outside Christian counseling organization are all meeting with him regularly and doing what we can to help him through this struggle.

As a side note, I've been wondering lately about the concept of quitting a sin cold turkey vs. the gradual approach. The gradual approach sounds good, but I'm not too sure it's Biblical. I have a hard time Biblically supporting a gradual approach to quitting sin, i.e. porn, anger, lust, addictions, etc. I'm not dismissing the (sinful) "cravings" you mentioned, for I recognize they can be powerful. But isn't that the miracle of Christ's transforming power? Just a thought, I haven't come to any hard conclusions about this yet, but thought I'd throw it out there. =) Also, I'm not implying you said any of this, it was just sort of a thought I had that seemed somewhat related.

Re: #33 Heather - no problem!

Re: #34 Gloria

In 1 John 3:9, the Greek helps clarify the meaning of this verse. In the first clause, the verb "sin" is literally "doing sin" - the verb "doing" is a present tense verb which indicates a continuous ongoing action. And "sin" is the object of the verb (what's being done), so NASB, for example, translates that verb as "practicing sin" to convey the idea of an ongoing act. In the closing clause of the verse, the verb is "sin" - which is also present tense. So both verbs translated as "sin" are referring not to a single act of sin (which seems like what you are referring to) but rather an intentional, ongoing lifestyle of sin.

[38. Trevor Dolby said the following at 6:30 AM on Sep 3:]

38

Matt Kaufman (35): Good point about John the Baptist :)

There were issues about which the Church seemed to say nothing political at that time (or nowadays, mostly): divorce and contraception are obvious examples. There's no evidence in the Bible that the Church sought to change the Roman laws in either of those cases, despite being strongly against both.

Discernment is (and was) clearly needed, as these are emotionally-charged areas for believers and non-believers alike.