Former vice president Dick Cheney surprised the press and shocked his Republican party recently by saying the following about the marriage of gay couples:
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish.
Sounds like the former veep supports same-sex marriage, doesn’t it? The issue of homosexual marriage runs hot among Republicans who, as a party, are vehemently against the concept.
No doubt, the fact that Cheney has a gay daughter conditions his perspective on the issue.
So, the questions are: Does knowing a person change doctrine or party policy? Does being intimately familiar with a person affect how you view their behavior? Evidently, to some, it does.
But here’s the thing about homosexuality (or greed, adultery, murder or anything else) that you might consider “sin.” It’s not the BIG issue! That’s the beauty of the Kingdom. What the person standing in front of you is dealing with is never the issue in the long run. How do I know?
Take Jesus’ run-in with the woman at the well. Her “problems” were 1) she was female; 2) she was probably a loose woman; 3) she had five husbands; 4) she was living with a man not her husband and 5) God knows what else. But to Jesus, none of those problems were the issue. Her biggest problem was not knowing the one who could supply her with living water. Or Zaccheaus…his biggest problem was not that he was a cheat. His problem was he had not yet met Jesus. Would either of these people have been drawn to Jesus if he had focused on their sin?
What if Jesus had focused on the individual sins of the men he would call to be his disciples? Would Peter have been inclined to follow if Jesus had gone off on him right from the start about his arrogance and impulsiveness? Or if he had confronted Judas about his conniving, traitorous ways? Or is he called Thomas out about his lack of faith? To Jesus, the obvious failings were not the problems. Same with us…our failings are not our main problems.
Our particular “sin” or failure is not the issue. Since every person ever born is a sinner, this issue is never sin…it’s restoration. Whether you’re a liar, gossiper, murderer, glutton, alcoholic, in debt over your head or whatever, you need restoration. Whether you’re a Sunday school teacher, preacher, doctor or Mother Teresa, you need restoration. You need relationship with Jesus, the one who can cover the truth about you. What’s the point of even knowing what sins besiege a person? That person and every other person is in need of relationship, in need of restoration, in need of encouragement, in need of a hand-up, in need of a Savior.
And so, focusing on homosexuality or abortion or looks or income level or religion or anything else about another person is simply wrong. None of those things are ever the issue. The issue is something separate an apart from behavior, attitude, status, power. The issue is whether a person knows Jesus. And Christians will never be in a position to help another person know Jesus if we focus on anything else about that person. The key is to keep lines of communication open. And the quickest way to close the door to relationship is to focus on another person’s faults.
Dick Cheney knows this. He loves his daughter, no matter what. And the only way to maintain that relationship is to accept her as she is.
Jesus loves us as we are and wants to keep the lines between us open. That’s our only hope.
I just finished reading Love is an Orientation by Andrew Marin. Based on this post, I think you would appreciate what he has to say about elevating the conversation with the gay community.
By: George Ezell on June 5, 2009
at 8:05 pm
Thanks for the lead, George. I’ll look into it.
By: Steve Holt Sr. on June 5, 2009
at 9:11 pm
Great article, Dad.
I’m going to take it a step further and pose the idea of not even lumping homosexuality in with murder and adultery.
And, just to clarify, this isn’t a post about the moral rightness or wrongness of certain things people consider sins. Just a statement about how we, as Christians, treat certain issues.
I just feel like even the Christians who accept homosexuals tack an “even though” on the end of their acceptance, especially when explaining themselves to other.
“Tom is a great, genuine guy…even though he practices homosexuality.”
I am waiting for the day when no explanation is needed. The day when a person’s homosexuality isn’t the elephant in the room. And the day when we don’t look at someone’s life, dissect it, and try to convince them their lifestyle is wrong, more or less. Your unconditional, even-though-free, genuine friendship is more important than you could realize.
The exception in my book is when something is harmful to someone’s health or people around them (i.e. drug use, murder, promiscuous and unprotected sex). But even in those cases, I’m not going to use religious reasoning to try to get them to stop. I’m going to use logical, rational reasoning.
I’m not against talking about my faith/religion. But it will come up when it comes up. In the past I have been against talking about it, but lately I’m realize there is a lot of value and personal growth in talking about faith issues. And it definitely comes up more than I really want it to.
On the other hand, if I visibly carried a gun in a holster around on my belt, people would treat me differently or tiptoe around me and watch what they say. I often feel like religion is like a gun in a holster. Don’t carry it around on your belt.
Again, thanks for the post, Dad. I owe much of who I am today to you. Thanks!
By: Mitch on June 8, 2009
at 11:19 am
I probably didn’t say what I meant exactly right, Mitch. However, I must agree with God that homosexuality ranks along side all the other “failings” that beset us all. The main point I was attempting is that “there are none righteous, no not one.” Every human being stands guilty of something. And for any human being to castigate another is rather idiotic and won’t stand in the halls of God’s justice.
There is a difference in “religious reasoning” and the absolutes that God established before time. Perhaps that’s the “logical, rational reasoning” you are referring to. In a world that won’t listen to religious reasoning, you are correct. I think the universal language is still such things as love, honor, respect, service…certainly not judgement, castigation, blame, etc.
As always, thanks for your thoughts…
By: Steve Holt Sr. on June 12, 2009
at 10:17 am
Hey Steve,
Great article. Keep writing because it is one of your gifts. Besides I agree with you. I don’t need to write it because you did. Love and peace to you. See you soon.
By: Terry Sanford Smith on June 12, 2009
at 9:59 pm