Earlier this week, I'm sure everyone noticed the trend on Facebook to change your profile picture to an equal sign to take a stand and say you support marriage equality. This is because DOMA and Proposition 8 made it to the Supreme Court this week.
Big deal, folks. Big deal.
I was overwhelmed by the amount of people that chose to do this too. Really. I've been for marriage equality for a while now, longer than most of my friends on Facebook, but to see that trend? I was moved.
And then a new, not as big of a trend, started. A red sign with the men and women from the bathroom symbols holding hands.
Not gonna lie. The first one I saw made me a little miffed. I'm not so naive as to think everyone supports marriage equality. But to outwardly publicize that you are against it? It just seemed hateful.
And this may seem hypocritical because I outwardly publicized that I was for it. But here is my problem with it:
As Christians, we are called to love everyone. Show the love of Christ every day.
And I have talked to several Christians who believe they can actively protest marriage equality (they call it "gay marriage") and still love others as Christ called them too.
No you can't. I'm sorry. But it isn't possible.
Love the sinner, hate the sin? Yeah that's offensive.
This "sin" is a part of who they are. This is a part of THEM. This is a person. And hating a "sin" that is a part of them... that's offensive.
And by simply posting the red and white hetero couple holding hands as a symbol just put up this HUGE roadblock between you and anyone you would have hoped to reach. You can love them all you want, they see hate. Every time.
In their eyes, no matter what, you hate them. You may not hate all of them, but you hate some of them. And Christians aren't supposed to hate. This is why being a Christian in America is frowned upon by those who are still unbelieving.
My question is, "Why change your picture at all?" If you don't support marriage equality, then just don't change your picture. No one is offended if you don't change your picture.
But the moment you change your picture to actively show your distaste, that you oppose people marrying the person they love... You've lost the battle. You've lost the potential connection. And while you may honest to goodness love everyone, those who need it the most will never feel it from you.
Now to confront the other profile pic to contrast the marriage equality picture.
The cross. (Remember how I said I was going to ruffle some feathers)
I'll say this, posting this picture is of good intentions. I clearly have no problems with the cross.
And the premise behind posting this is that this is the week of Easter and our focus should be on the sacrifice that was made on the cross and not other "distractions".
People have even gone so far as to commend the devil for his job well done on distracting so many from the importance of this week and onto these symbols and other issues.
Here's my problem with this:
Jesus died on the cross. How He died was horrendous. To be betrayed by those who claimed to love Him the most... To be denied by those who claimed to love Him the most... To be ridiculed and crucified... That is the ultimate sacrifice. And it makes me emotional to think about.
But He paid the ultimate sacrifice for EVERYONE.
"For God so loved the WORLD..."
The world.
When I changed my profile picture to the equal sign, I wanted those who are oppressed in our nation to know they had at least one more person in their corner. Someone loves them for them.
And many others made the same choice. And person after person posted how they were moved by this and were overwhelmed by the love.
How is that a distraction from the devil?
Christians reaching out and loving everyone... what more appropriate week to do this than Easter week?
The fact of the matter is, this isn't distracting from Easter.
What? Are we distracted from all the chocolate and colorful eggs?
A giant colorful bunny who sneaks into your home to lay eggs in a basket (last I checked bunnies aren't the egg laying type) along with other expensive gifts?
Last I checked, you couldn't walk into a store without being overwhelmed with pastels, eggs, chocolates, and pictures of bunnies in a abundance. Isn't that a bit distracting?
The truth of the matter is I haven't been this connected to Easter in a long time. Sure, every year I spend time thinking about what it must have been like and it moves me.
But this year? This year I can outstretch Jesus's love to a population in the world that gets the message every day that they don't deserve it.
Fact of the matter is, none of us deserve it. But Jesus took the cross for us anyway. All of us.
I read it. I was cautious but I read it. :)
ReplyDeleteIt's written well and while our beliefs may differ I can respect yours. My only problem with it is that I actually do believe you can hate a sin and love a sinner. Homosexuality is not the only sin. I know people who have committed adultery. It's a part of them but it's not all that they stand for, and I can love them and still hate the sin. I can love liars. I can love judgers (totally made up that word), I can love people who drink and do drugs....etc. I can love myself--a person who sins all day everyday and I can still hate the sins that I commit. I obviously stayed out of the facebook mess and I feel like it could've been a distraction to some but once again, this was written very well and I didn't find it offensive, regardless of my beliefs. :)
That is all I have to say about that.
I appreciate this comment. And as one of the people who just didn't change their profile picture, I appreciate it anymore. My thoughts on the "hate the sin, love the sinner" were more at the people who are out there, actively protesting, actively putting those barriers up. They may personally love everyone, but it isn't felt by those who need it the most.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this entire debate is that both sides are talking past each other because the word "marriage" is being used in two different ways. There's no point in even engaging in conversation about this unless everyone gets their terms straight and is clear exactly what they're talking about.
ReplyDeleteThe first way that we use the word marriage is to refer to a cultural and, primarily, religious institution that manifests in very different ways across different cultures and religions. In the US, the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage is the one most widely referred to when we use the term marriage in this way, simply because of demographics. The Christian definition of marriage as found in the Bible precludes people of the same sex from marrying. It just does. There are far too many biblical references that describe relationships between people of the same sex as sinful, abominations, etc. for one to make the case that those relationships can be enshrined in marriage by God. Social conservatives will never stop arguing that gay marriage goes against the Christian religion because they are probably right. The debate doesn't end there, though.
The second way we use marriage is to refer to a certain legal relationship between two people that is sanctioned by the government, which comes with various benefits and obligations.
The problem with this debate is calling this legal relationship "marriage." It is not. We've called it this for a long time because of convenience and due to the fact that when you have a marriage it usually coincides with entering into this sort of legal relationship. You can have one without the other. Being in the legal relationship does not make you married in any given religious sense. Likewise, you can be married within the confines of the Christian tradition without having a legal relationship sanctioned by a government body. Marriage as a religious institution has been around long before governments existed and will most likely outlive every government humans will ever form.
The problem is that both sides have failed to separate out legal marriage from religious marriage. Social conservatives argue against gay marriage (in the legal sense) chiefly by appealing to the bible, when the bible has nothing to do with it. Instead of pointing this out and correcting them on their misuse of the term marriage, proponents of marriage equality have acquiesced and argue (not all the time but much of the time) on the basis of cultural and religious appeals. Your blog post is guilty of this to a certain extent.
The solution to this is a healthy dose of clarity. An ideal solution would be for governments to stop calling the legal relationship they sanction "marriage" and refer to it instead as a civil union, which is closer to the truth. This probably won't happen, though. The next best thing is simply for both sides to be clear about what exactly they want. The main objective for gay couples in this fight is to get legal recognition of their relationships and the benefits that come with that, e.g. tax benefits, hospital visitation, child custody issues, etc. If they want something more than that, such as churches to accept their relationships and marry them according to church doctrine, they can make that argument separately in a different conversation. Social conservatives need to acknowledge the difference between marriage and legal civil unions and rest assured that they can agree to allow gays to have the latter without granting them a marriage that goes against their own religious beliefs. If they have other arguments against legally recognizing the relationships of gay couples, they can make them, although most of those arguments have generally been rejected by public opinion, since support for gay marriage is upwards of 55-58% of the population now.
Cont'd in next comment
Cont'd from previous comment
ReplyDeleteGay couples can already get married by any church that will marry them. They've been free to do so for a while. What they can't get is a government-sanctioned civil union. The arguments that address this should be legal ones, not religious and cultural ones. Proponents of marriage equality will never win if they continue to argue by appealing to Christianity. If we had avoided this confusion, we would have had marriage equality a long time ago, because if we confine the debate to the issue of equality and fairness before the law, marriage equality will come out on top.
As someone who is more on the other side of the fence than you on this one, you make some excellent points about not actively protesting it. I have people whom I care much about and feel as though I would do more harm than good in furthering God's Kingdom if I protested. However, I also have this view because we are to love God with all that we are. Part of this love is obedience. My reason for my belief is simply because I love God more. It has nothing to do with the sin itself or the person. We are all sinners, I am just as much as the next guy. I make mistakes and don't pretend that I haven't. I try my best to live by Him and His word, but I do fail. Just thought I would give my 2 cents as well. But I must say, I have been somewhat disappointed with how some Christians have responded. I don't feel that Christians should be made to keep their mouth shut, but it should be handled with more sensitivity if Christians truly want to glorify God, which is our purpose.
ReplyDeleteThank you
As someone who is a Christian, but also happens to be gay, I want to thank you for your approach to this! The comments on this post have been kind and I'm reminded that even though we don't all agree we can still remain civil. Thanks again for your wonderful post... we do a better job of helping others find Christ when we remember to first share His love.
ReplyDeleteI also want to thank all of the comments thus far for being very civil. Topics such as this can turn ugly in a hurry. I've never been under the impression we would all agree. But we can all just be loving, even as we disagree. You are all awesome.
ReplyDelete