How Should We Then Respond?

[Hupomone10]

Considering the recent Supreme Court decision, how should Christians respond on this issue and the broader issue of homosexual behavior in general, when asked questions?

I am asking this primarily of those who accept the Scripture's view that this behavior is sin. I am not looking for comments on the rightness or wrongness of the decision or of this behavior in general, but from those who consider this behavior sin, how do we survive the work-place keeping our jobs and yet being true to our convictions. Innocent as doves, but wise as serpents might apply.

My first thought is "I don't talk about sex at work", but I can see holes in this from their response.

Thoughts...

 

[stevenfrancis]

Considering the recent Supreme Court decision, how should Christians respond on this issue and the broader issue of homosexual behavior in general, when asked questions?

I am asking this primarily of those who accept the Scripture's view that this behavior is sin. I am not looking for comments on the rightness or wrongness of the decision or of this behavior in general, but from those who consider this behavior sin, how do we survive the work-place keeping our jobs and yet being true to our convictions. Innocent as doves, but wise as serpents might apply.


My first thought is "I don't talk about sex at work", but I can see holes in this from their response.

Thoughts...

Just as before the decision, when asked, I intend to speak the truth, with love.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

My sister is gay. I love her tremendously and I love her partner. They are wonderful women. I enjoy being around them. God is the judge of all, not me.

I do not believe in celebrating sin however. So I do not attend weddings that would do so. I doubt I'd attend a wedding of non-believers or gay folks. Love them, sure. Celebrate their sin with them, no.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I Corinthians 5:9-11 tells us not to associate with the sexually immoral who call themselves "brothers," though it does not say the same for those who do not claim to be brothers (and sisters, I presume) in Christ.

Leviticus 18:29 tells the people of Israel, regarding all sexual sins, to ostracize and cut all ties with any such people, whether they be native Israelites or visiting foreigners.

Leviticus 20:13 tells the Israelites to execute homosexuals.

These are three very different approaches to the same problem, and I think that the differences have everything to do with context. The difference between Leviticus 18 and 20 seem to be that one is a command to the citizens on their own proper response, and the other is a penal code for the governing authorities. Neither one likely applies to our situation, exactly, though I highly doubt that God's sentiments on the matter have changed any. There was a certain advantage to having a religious uniformity to the culture, which made Lev. 18 possible, and having a government-established religion made Lev 20 possible. The passage from I Corinthians adds the explanation for why we don't refuse to associate with such people who don't claim to be believers, "since then you would need to go out of the world." Simply stated, it isn't practical. Besides that, the kingdom of Heaven is something of a parallel to the kingdom of ancient Israel: both are a theocracy, and the laws apply to its members and those within its territory. Because our government is only God, himself, we leave the penalty of the sin to him, but we do our duty to not associate with sexually immoral people who would come within our territory, so to speak, and claim to be one of us.

I take the Joshua 24:15 approach. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. I will not call two men "married," and I will not call them "husbands." When my wife's cousin "marries" another man, that does not make the other man a member of my family. He is not a relative. He does not get invited to family events. He does not get Christmas cards. I don't hate him. I don't even dislike him. I just refuse to do the slightest thing to acknowledge any validity to the relationship. At work, I get along with such people as I would any other coworker. If I'm not pressed on my views, then I keep the conversation politely work-related. If pressed on my views, then I give the honest answer that they deserve, even though it will probably get me into trouble some day. I believe that they're all going to Hell unless they repent and turn from their sin. That's all there is to it.

 

[BrokenWarrior]

With Truth of course. I would tell them that I know it's wrong and I will not support it. But I would not hate them and I would pray for them.

The fate that awaits them is one I would wish upon no man,though it is good and just. I pray that they might seek and find Christ before it is too late.

Be blessed,
-Your Brother In Christ

 

[now faith]

This issue is not one of hate or mean spirited commentary.

Almost all of us know or have a family member who is gay or knows a gay etc.

The issue is the law of the land turning it's back on God's Law.

The issue is a small minority of people have redefined what marriage is.

The issue is that the Supreme court has forgone the principles of democracy in America.

What happened to WE THE PEOPLE?

You would think a ruling with such profound implications,would be left to the American people to decide by popular vote.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Interesting. I just posted that earlier today about my sister and she called me this afternoon. When I told her I was going to pursue my MDiv she said, "Oh, you can marry us!" And I was like, "Uhh..." and she was like, "Oh, are you one of those people that don't believe gay people should get married?" And I thought of how weird it was that I just posted about this today.

And I don't remember exactly what I said next but it was something honest but evasive like, "Well the Bible does not say much about women but it does say pretty clearly men being with men is a sin, although Paul does speak about women with women being wrong. And anyway, I'm not going to be a priest!" And she said, "Will you still love me?" And I said, "OF COURSE I LOVE YOU!"

And then I followed up with how I don't think it's the government's role anyway to monitor who marries who. And that it only seems fair that if the government allows marriage between a man and woman it should allow marriage between anyone. Because marriage in the government context is not really about a spiritual union anyway, but a politico-legal-economical one.

 

[BookishGirl]

I have a feeling Christians will be "called out" more often now than before the SC's decision. If I am questioned I plan on responding in a kind and direct manner. That is all I can do.

 

[JM]

In the word of God we have the revealed will of Him who judges all things and He has judged certain behaviours as sinful. We can judge sin as sin because God has judged already. We must try to speak "truth with love" (Eph 4.15) and seek peace with all men (1Pet 3.11) knowing that the cross of Christ is foolishness to them that are perishing (1 Cor 1.18).

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[DawnStar]

Because marriage in the government context is not really about a spiritual union anyway, but a politico-legal-economical one.

Yes this is exactly true.

 

[Goodbook]

I dont know what questions people would ask.
I dont live in america and not currently working.

So I dont know. I guess it would depend on your company policy at work perhaps?
When I was working, i job shared with someone who was gay. i didnt know, I dont discriminate. I wasnt a christian then so I didnt say anything.

Later I did have some gay co-workers. But they usually dont come right out and say they are.
I think I would be concerned if they started coming on to people, just as I would for any one who was single, unmarried and someone was hitting on them at work. That would be sexual harassment, which is not on.

I do know of co-workers who report they get hassled for no reason only that somone else is sexually interested in them. And do not welcome it.

 

[mikedsjr]

I respond as I do as a foreigner in another land. U.S. Is not the second coming of Israel. We are not a theocracy.

I would rather churches condemn unscriptural Christian re-marriages. I would rather churches teach that is their sacrifice to God to remain unmarried.

Unnecessary cries of fear and imposing morality is a staple of the modern western church, while properly expressed fear could bring one to repentance of sin and restored faith in Christ.

Considering the recent Supreme Court decision, how should Christians respond on this issue and the broader issue of homosexual behavior in general, when asked questions?

I am asking this primarily of those who accept the Scripture's view that this behavior is sin. I am not looking for comments on the rightness or wrongness of the decision or of this behavior in general, but from those who consider this behavior sin, how do we survive the work-place keeping our jobs and yet being true to our convictions. Innocent as doves, but wise as serpents might apply.

My first thought is "I don't talk about sex at work", but I can see holes in this from their response.

Thoughts...

 

[BookishGirl]

Unnecessary cries of fear and imposing morality is a staple of the modern western church, while properly expressed fear could bring one to repentance of sin and restored faith in Christ.

What do you mean by "properly expressed fear"?

 

[mikedsjr]

Bookish, We are Christians because we came to realize we are sinners. It is that fear of acknowledgement of who God is, can do, and will do to those who reject him because of sin, that we feared him. But the good news that came at the time of our fear brought about relief.

Telling GLBT non-christians they don't have the right to a civil marriage is an attempt at the wrong type of fear. That doesn't make a place to discuss salvation, including the sin of homosexuality.

When you go to another land to live, you do not impose your Christianity on them and their laws. Your seeking to share your faith, if you happen to do so, either according to their laws or share at a risk due to the laws against. The US is not the second coming of Israel. It appears it was a place God used to preserve his people for a time until when technology would allow mass of missionaries to go across the globe, and yet there is still the window in Asia where it is still dark to Christianity. But Christianity is thriving in other countries where Christian theocracy is not the Civil rule.

We need to get back to Christianity as a unique value. And where America is heading isn't a bad thing. I haven't lost my faith and i know many others here and in many churches haven't. We are just getting to a point the US church is uncomfortable with and it shouldn't be that way. God is not surprised by what happened. He is in charge. We need to respect the rulers. Be people of love, not a way of life imposed on others.

 

[BookishGirl]

Bookish, We are Christians because we came to realize we are sinners. It is that fear of acknowledgement of who God is, can do, and will do to those who reject him because of sin, that we feared him. But the good news that came at the time of our fear brought about relief.

Telling GLBT non-christians they don't have the right to a civil marriage is an attempt at the wrong type of fear. That doesn't make a place to discuss salvation, including the sin of homosexuality.

When you go to another land to live, you do not impose your Christianity on them and their laws. Your seeking to share your faith, if you happen to do so, either according to their laws or share at a risk due to the laws against. The US is not the second coming of Israel. It appears it was a place God used to preserve his people for a time until when technology would allow mass of missionaries to go across the globe, and yet there is still the window in Asia where it is still dark to Christianity. But Christianity is thriving in other countries where Christian theocracy is not the Civil rule.

We need to get back to Christianity as a unique value. And where America is heading isn't a bad thing. I haven't lost my faith and i know many others here and in many churches haven't. We are just getting to a point the US church is uncomfortable with and it shouldn't be that way. God is not surprised by what happened. He is in charge. We need to respect the rulers. Be people of love, not a way of life imposed on others.

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by that statement. I appreciate you taking the time to get your point across.

 

[crixus]

No matter how dire things may seem, always remember that God is control. So when the World goes crazy (Gay marriage, etc.), take a deep breath and do not worry. That's what faith is all about. The Bible is without error, and God will take care of those who mock and disobey Him. So until that happens I say Hate the sin, but not the sinner. Pray for the sinners!

 

[JCFantasy23]

And then I followed up with how I don't think it's the government's role anyway to monitor who marries who. And that it only seems fair that if the government allows marriage between a man and woman it should allow marriage between anyone. Because marriage in the government context is not really about a spiritual union anyway, but a politico-legal-economical one.

This is also how I see it.

 

[classicalhero]

If I have to go to jail over this issue I will. Nothing will ever stop me from proclaiming that homosexuality is sin.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

And then I followed up with how I don't think it's the government's role anyway to monitor who marries who. And that it only seems fair that if the government allows marriage between a man and woman it should allow marriage between anyone. Because marriage in the government context is not really about a spiritual union anyway, but a politico-legal-economical one.

The issue has absolutely nothing to do with any government monitoring who marries who—the issue is the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the United States Constitution guarantees an equal right to marry whether the couple is comprised of a man and a woman, two men, or two women. The Court has not yet ruled that couples comprised of a man or a woman and a dog have the equal right; or that couples comprised of a man or a woman and a minor child have the equal right.

Homosexuals have now tricked the courts and many churches by deceitfully referring to themselves as “gays” rather than as “homosexuals” and campaigning for “gay rights” rather than “homosexual rights.” Most unfortunately, very many Evangelical Christians have greatly helped them in their cause by also using the term “gay rights” rather than “homosexual rights.” Indeed, by arguing that “gay people” do not have the right to marry, Evangelical Christians have made themselves to appear in the eyes of the courts as mean-spirited bigots. If instead, the Evangelical Christians had argued that “homosexuals” do not have the right to marry, the attitude of the courts would have been very different simply because the word ‘homosexual’ carries with it a pejorative connotation that the word ‘gay’ does not.