Level 4
STATEMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
Christ-Like Compassion Is Needed, Not Endless Debates
Statement
This statement is a result of feedback that has been received from a number of people.
Christ very clearly calls us to have compassion for people. Yet, the church continually gets into controversial debate after debate after debate. In the 1920’s it was common grace, in the 1940’s divorce and remarriage, in the 1950’s the love of God, in the 1970’s and 1980’s the ordination of women and now same-sex marriage. What fruit have any of these theological wranglings ever produced? The results have been schism after schism. Many peoples’ lives have been adversely affected by these controversies, but they still keep coming.
One person recounts how his parents got caught up in the great moral debate of “divorce” and remarriage in the 1940’s. The church did not help them but labelled and excluded them. It took this person’s parents 15 years to find their way back into a church. At first, they sat in the back seats of the balcony so no one would put them down. The father became a Sunday School teacher and then a Christian schoolteacher at 40 years of age. The father was known for saying the church could disappoint you, but Jesus never would. This person became a pastor with the understanding of the gospel and the love of Jesus he saw demonstrated by his parents. Through his ministry he helps many strugglers find their way through tough times, not with labels and debates, but with many tears and faith in the grace of God.
.
Response
Contrasting Christ-like compassion with theological debates is not an appropriate comparison to make. First, many Christians on different sides of these issues have a great deal of compassion. Compassion and seeking the truth are not mutually exclusive.
Second, attempting to contrast compassion with theology seems to have a very strong parallel to a movement that took place in the 1960’s and 1970’s. There was a strong desire to get away from seemingly interminable back and forth creedal contests. “No creed but Christ” became the movement’s watchword. As Dr. Neal Plantinga from Calvin Seminary so aptly commented, “Which Christ?” Creeds are necessary to explain who Christ is and what He did.
Yes, it is certainly possible for some of us in the church to get nit-picky while delving into a subject. That certainly must be guarded against. However, it is also essential to know, with confidence, what the Scriptures teach concerning what is moral and what is immoral. True compassion is a natural outgrowth of loving your neighbor as yourself. Although it is difficult to have someone tell us we are on the wrong path, we are usually thankful for it in the end. If we assume for the moment that the church has historically been correct and that same-sex marriages are not pleasing to God, then wouldn’t allowing those marriages be comparable to bringing a nice bottle of wine as a housewarming gift to someone who struggles with alcoholism? Does compassion mean allowing someone to go down the wrong path in life because we feel sorry for them?
Third, in advocating same-sex marriage, the Statement here does not even deal with biblical teaching. If we do in fact hold to the Bible being our only standard for faith and practice, this Statement is, frankly, irrelevant. However, it is beneficial to consider it since this kind of position is seen quite frequently among people advocating same-sex marriage.
9 replies on “Compassion, Not Debates”
Compassion is essential for Christians to relate to others. However, to have compassion does not mean that we sentimentally excuse violations of God’s clear teaching in his Word. True compassion is to point out, clearly but gently, when we see someone caught in sin. Same-sex relationships and unions are clearly condemned, in both the Old and New Testaments, no matter how “acceptable” they have become in society.
Churches on the North-American continent are not prepared to deal responsibly with matters pertaining to homosexual lifestyles including issues that are not directly mentioned in the Bible. We will look at some of those issues God’s Word is silent about. Western-Europe experience tells us that the issue of the homosexual lifestyle will rather quickly lead to related issues. We may think hereby, for example, of baptism of adopted infants presented by homosexual couples, as well as celebrating the Lord’s Supper with the participation of one or more homosexuals. Such additional issues should be included into any discussion on the present discussions on the homosexual lifestyle. Church leaders need to think of the following examples related to the homosexual lifestyle though not raised and dealt with in any of our three Ecumenical Creeds. Church leaders need to be prepared to deal with the following related issues from a biblical understanding before entertaining discussions on the homosexual lifestyle:
1. Adopted children by homosexual couples have raised their voice that they have a right to have a father and a mother. Such realistic and emotion-laden opinions come up when those adopted children are confronted with other children at school who have a father and a mother. Such unexpected realities may well create unexpected tension within unnatural relationships.
2. Parents of homosexual couples are not necessarily blood-related grandparents to those adopted children. Such artificial relationships may create their own difficulties and tension. No human-made law can change such realities.
3. Teaching materials used by the church are inadequate when it comes to teaching un-biblical relationships, as God’s Word does not address those situations.
One needs to take note of the following insights of Roger L. Simon In his book “I Know Best.” In that book he writes how Moral Narcissism is destroying our Republic, thereby referring to the US. He explains that there is a tendency to think about morality in terms of how your actions make you feel about yourself rather in terms of their consequences for others. In clarifying what he just had said, Simon further explains that the focus on one’s own identity seems more important than on the fate of the other person(s). In other words, “ethics of conviction” is more important than an “ethics of responsibility,” or being “conscience-centered” rather than “consequence-centered.”
No matter what subject, derived from God’s Word, is discussed between those who stands on God’s Word and those opposing God’s Word as written may very well lead to a further split in the Church. That’s exactly what Satan is focused on. He lost the spiritual battle when he confronted Jesus Christ right after Jesus came form his forty-day stay in the desert (Matthew 4). He also lost this same battle when Jesus was dying on the cross and three days later arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Since then, Satan has only one overriding purpose namely the destruction of the Church. He has been very successful in Europe where thousands of church doors have closed and continue to be closed. He is now on his way to get similar results in North America. The Church in North America needs to stand up against him, while enduring growing persecution. We need each other as never before thereby receiving the courage, strength, endurance from the Holy Spirit on the basis of our love for and acceptance of the Word of God as is written.
“We will look at some of those issues God’s Word is silent about”
Brother Hendriks forgets that the Devil is a little more subtle than his analysis of church conflict suggests. One of the Devil’s tactics is draw God’s children into misrepresenting God’s silence and second-guessing the Holy One’s motives, as we read in Genesis 3:2. Hendriks forgets that when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, the Devil was quoting the Bible like a wild-eyed stump preacher (Matthew 4:6), promising heavenly comforts literally and “clearly” revealed God’s Word, even as our Lord was preparing himself for utter silence on Calvary.
The church has already listened to both Scripture and Christian parents in matters of baptizing adopted children. Every little one newly embraced in the community of faith ought to be given the sign and seal of covenant — not because they are related by blood to the child’s parents, but because they belong to the same community washed by the blood of the Lamb, the only blood that counts in our redemption. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with baptism. I suspect Hendriks has been deceived about what baptism represents.
Furthermore, Roger L. Simon has nothing to teach the church in these matters. His rightwing points of view only confuses the analysis Hendriks gives here. Doesn’t Simon support same sex marriage? I believe he does. So is it his narcissistic opinion or his genuine biblical conviction that is being recommended here?
Church is replete with examples of conflicts where one side or the other is utterly convinced they had an absolute grasp of God’s will. Hence, Jews and Muslims were slaughtered. Eastern Orthodox churches were rampaged. Reformers were burned at the stake. Witches and heretics were tortured. Anabaptists were dispossessed. Pilgrims had to flee persecution. Monarchists pillorized democrats. Slaveowners went to war against emancipationists. AND, reformed churches split their congregations over matters such as supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, lodge membership, which language must conduct worship services, articles of church order, and women in office, etc. In each case, people believed they a firm grip on God’s truth only to find themselves either on the wrong side of history or relegated to margins where fringe interpretations rule the day.
Zeal and pride the Devil’s playgrounds.
Apathy today often is disguised as love. On the one hand love never compromises God’s direction, God’s plan or God’s commandments. But on the other hand apathy willingly compromises allowing for all kinds of acceptance regardless of Truth for the false conception they are loving others.
But is that love? I would argue, no.
Love cares enough to tell the Truth. Take a friend overwhelmed by news denying the fact that they have cancer. Do you simply support them in their conclusion, or do you exhort them to take medical steps to try to eradicate the cancer in them? If we truly love them, we pray for them and immediately seek ways to awaken them to the truth so that they get help.
Apathy lets it happen.
Before the fall into sin at the beginning of time God created two sexes: Male and Female, each to be a blessing to the other in a godly union. God did not want man to be alone but provided a helper suitable for him, a wife.
But in the 21st Century it seems culture is motivated more by emotions than Truth. While the article “Compassion, Not Debates” written above may appear true on the surface it is truly apathetic to the ungodly crisis of same sex marriage.
Should we debate over it? Certainly. It is biblical:
“As iron sharpens iron, So one person sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27:17, NASB)
Debate is healthy as long as it is not for personal gain, but for the glory of God:
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” (1 Peter 3:15, NKJV)
Just look at the Church’s Creeds. They were born out of heresies that arose in their day. Their debates resulted in writing down the necessary response for confirming the Truth of God’s Word.
But lest we forget, except by the grace of God their go I. Hold to the Truth but always handle it in gracious love. We must constantly remind ourselves of the fact that we are saved by the grace of God not of anything we have done (see Ephesians 2:8-9).
I don’t see any “reason for hope” in you, Tiny. I see self-congratulation and apathy concerning the plight of people who are our brothers and sisters in Christ but doomed to a life of singleness and abstinence, in this life and the next. Unfortunately the owner of this site equates homosexual activity as being in the same category as sex outside of marriage. But what, out of compassion and justice, we encourage homosexuals to be married and enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual do? In Biblical times this wasn’t an option, unless it was for the rich and powerful as was in Imperial court. But the laws of our land now reflect a new option for the very same reasons, so compassion and fairness is the way to go.
I believe the church should get out of the wedding/marriage business and concern itself with the human sanctification business, with the risen Christ as our eschatological goal. Marriage is a common grace given to all human beings, regardless of their religious convictions. It is a profane gift. Unfortunately, we have staked our witness to it as consummate goal of human fulfilment and identity, even though the greatest teachers of our faith (Jesus and Paul, at least) were single and called us to leave these definitions of regenerate humanity behind. So why not use their wisdom for any person who can’t seem to control their sexual passions — better to marry than burn with lust?
It also seems to me, Tiny Tim, that people concerned about the eternal state of homosexuals have taken a position that they are either about to fall into the pit of hell or embark on a path filled with loneliness and temptation, while heterosexuals can smugly claim “there but for the grace of God go I”. That is not an entirely gracious point of view, is it? Actually, I see very little love demonstrated specifically towards our ssex-attracted family of God members. All we have for them is judgement and restriction, things no heterosexual person would long tolerate.
I am confident that Compassion Incarnate, and not The Accuser, is who I will confront on the Last Day. There is no law against compassion, as His parables amply illustrate.
Norman, you speak a lot about compassion, but by your comments (limited yes) you seem to reserve it for those who agree with you. How about a little mutual compassion as we attempt to understand one another allowing iron to sharpen iron. Could you do that with me? Argue against me. Show me the Bible’s support for your conviction. Lead me to the truth. Or will you simply wash your hands of me and say, you see no “reason for hope”?
I am most certainly a sinner, desperately and continually needing to examine myself and change to be more and more like Christ. However, your comments show you distance yourself from me while aligning yourself with those you deem victims of abuse. I believe you argue at the expense of the Truth. As I understand the Scripture, you unintentionally support sin in opposition to what God clearly states. As a result, what you deem as compassion and justice, is apathy and license. I know, I have justified my own behavior way too many times. Then in the first paragraph you support your claim arguing that present law’s support of same sex marriage is justified because you deem it compassionate and fair. You don’t support your conclusion from the Bible but from the world.
I recently read in a devotional about the woman caught in adultery. Certainly, you see this as a sin, don’t you? And I noted that she was not brought before Jesus because the spiritual rulers of the day were wanting justice for her sin, but to betray Jesus. Their motive was wrong and thus sin itself. I thought, am I acting this way toward same sex marriages? I repented where I have been harsh, where I have so easily elevated myself. Look at Jesus words to the woman at the end:
“Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, ‘Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?’
“‘No, Lord,’ she said.
“And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I. Go and sin no more.’”
(John 8:10-11, NLT)
There are 3 things that stand out to me:
1) The accuser’s lives couldn’t justify their call to action
2) Jesus would not accuse her because He will save her
3) But she should never sin again
Jesus’ last comment is potent. His call is clear: if we are forgiven of our sin by Jesus’ shedding his blood in place of our own, we then live as Jesus lived in growing sanctification, determined never to sin again and ready to forgive rather than hastily accuse.
Do we still sin? Yes but for the believer it is no longer a lifestyle or should be considered an option. If we confess our sin, Jesus is faithful and just to forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. We go on with a renewed commitment not to do so again.
But Jesus didn’t just say to her, “Neither do I” condemn you but also, “Go and sin no more.” He doesn’t ever cater to our weaknesses. He knows we must find strength in Him to stand against sin. The Bible clearly speaks against adultery, as well as various other sexual sins, including same sex relationships.
We know Jesus was compassionate here. But He is never apathetic. Such should be the case with all of us.
You spoke of the law of the land supporting same sex marriage. What does the law of the land say for fornication, for adultery? Nowhere I know. Yet what legislator today would be so bold to claim it is unlawful. So why should I simply embrace same sex marriage because the law of the land says it is alright or any other God forbids?
I cannot in good conscience do this, despite the possibility that I may be called to suffer persecution for swimming against the flow.
You state that the Church should get out of the wedding/marriage business. I disagree as argued above. The Church should influence the world for the way God has decided we should live, behaving in accordance with the mandate of God. Marriage was established by God. And it IS sanctification business. I agree marriage is not reserved for Christians, but the parameters given by God are not reserved only for Christians either. And some are called to singleness and celibacy, but others are not. Paul explains quite clearly why he thinks it is the better life, but not that it is the correct one for everyone. And why should I use the reason to marry so you don’t burn as a reason to justify another sin? Paul doesn’t. He clearly states man with man and woman with woman is wrong (see Romans 1). You argue from situation ethics. I should take Paul’s comment for marriage as I link it with the rest of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.
And thanks for the warning, it led to my thoughts reflecting on the passage about the woman caught in adultery. It reminded me to show grace to the homosexual, much like a pastor and his wife did with Rosaria Butterfield. It reminds me that I too have sin. It reminds me that I am to be like Jesus, not condemning but also gently, lovingly leading a person to stand for righteousness and be with them through their struggles and never leave them alone.
There is no law against true compassion, but falsely given is apathy in disguise.
“I don’t see any ‘reason for hope’ in you, Tiny.”
Norm, I am quite sure you have never met Tim. And I doubt you have ever talked to him. You read one article he has written and you are very confident in concluding there is no hope for him? Is that sufficient background to enable one to draw that final conclusion?
This response to him comes across as being more of a personal attack than it is a constructive statement. Is that compassionate? If not directly discussing or debating what is biblical, can it be shown how compassion is the higher priority over discussion? In our Reformed faith we hold to the Bible being our final authority. How can the Bible be our final authority if we do not discuss the biblical pros and cons?
I am simply responding to his call that we “to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” (1 Peter 3:15, NKJV)
Tiny Tim, whoever he is, demonstrates the unreasonableness of the anti marriage position for same sex attracted. No compassion. No demonstration of hope for Christian people condemned to live a life of celibacy or dishonesty if marriage is no option for them.
Not hard to figure what I was saying if you had read carefully what Tiny Tim was saying and how I responded to it.
Norm, up to this point I believe I have approved every comment that has come in. However, I think going forward ad hominem comments will have to be subject to not being approved. Whether a person named Tim is beyond hope is not the focus of this website. Concerning your last comment above, if the anti marriage position for those who are same-sex attracted is unreasonable, let’s not just state it to be the case, let’s strive to show considering that to be unreasonable is a biblical position. Thank you.