How not to vote (3): Three more reasons not to just vote to secure a plebiscite, and one secular reason to vote for same sex marriage

howtovote

I’ve posted a guide to voting as a Christian in this election, and some initial summary reasons that a plebiscite might be a bad idea, and specifically why voting for a plebiscite as a means to securing freedom of religion or speech is a bad idea. Here are three more reasons not to vote just for a plebiscite. Again, and particularly for this post; the standard disclaimer applies. I’m speaking as an individual, a Christian, looking to figure out how we live well in our society through to this election, a potential plebiscite, and beyond. I’m not speaking for my church, denomination, Christians everywhere, or whatever… And I’m quite open to being persuaded that I’m wrong or have missed something.

1. Don’t vote for a plebiscite because you fear a changing world

There’s plenty of fear operating in the conservative community, both inside and outside the church, because the world is changing very, very, quickly. Or rather, it has changed pretty slowly but like the frog in a boiled-from-cold pot of water, we’ve only just realised the temperature has hit boiling point.

These changes have been coming for a long time — changes in how we understand democracy, how we disagree, the role the media plays in fuelling disagreement, changes in the place of religion, and Christianity, in the public square, a change in the ultimate common objects of love in our community so that sexual freedom is the ultimate good, and it trumps all other considerations; all of these changes are significant in and of themselves, and all of them are frightening for a bunch of Christian voices. Some of these voices are now seeing marriage, and its definition, as the final frontier (others are seeing it as some sort of last bastion to fight for before they come for what we really treasure: free speech).

Christians aren’t meant to fear the world. We have no good reason to fear the world, and good reasons not to, and we also have good reasons to believe that the world will cause us temporary pain. We are citizens of God’s kingdom before we’re citizens of earth, and that controls our destiny. We’re followers of Jesus — who the world hated and crucified, and yet he was raised from the dead and said, in talking about how we’d be treated by the world:

“What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” — Matthew 10:27-28

2. Don’t vote for a plebiscite because you think it is ‘democratic’

A plebiscite is not the answer. It might feel democratic — and its a form of democracy — but its not a good form of democracy. It’s the form that isn’t about a government protecting the freedoms and difference of the communities and individuals it governs for; it’s the form of government that isn’t about leaders who embody certain virtues making decisions with wisdom; it’s the form of democracy where majority rules and where persuasion and manipulation win out.

And so, these voices that tell us how to vote at this election because it is different are telling us not to rely on the principles of our liberal democracy but populism — we realise that the principles of liberal democracy almost necessarily lead to a community-within-our-community — the gay and lesbian community — having their voice heard on the definition of marriage so that it would include their relationships, so we want to turn to a different form of democracy. One where the majority might rule in our favour if we’re able to say just the right things. Populism. Majority rules.

This is a dangerous version of democracy. It isn’t about giving everybody equal standing under the law, and an equal share of the public life. It’s about giving the most popular position a disproportionate amount of power over public life — total control. And this will be dangerous for Christians for the other 2.5 years of a 3 year term, or for the future. Direct democracy, which is becoming popular because the internet allows it, is a stupid, stupid, idea.

If we want majority to rule, and so argue for a plebiscite as a good way to do serious and important political decision-making, then we need to carefully figure out why this issue is worth it and other issues are not. Adopting a blanket rule that populism is how we want government to happen (and its bad enough when its the opinion polls shaping our policy platforms), we also risk doing significant damage to our increasingly marginal position in the community if we want to make populism the way democracy happens because it might suit us now. It’s a live by the sword, die by the sword deal.

Do you really want the tides of populism turning on the church? Especially if in the plebiscite we manage to offend everyone by assuming they’ll listen to arguments from the 1960s, and we fail to understand what people are actually asking for? Especially if we’re seen as wanting God’s law to rule a secular nation (a legitimate criticism, though it’s because we believe it is good for society) or not loving gay people.

3. Don’t vote for a plebiscite because you think defending marriage is the way to love your neighbours

In After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre talks about what happens to ‘morality’ when we shift looking at other people as ‘ends’ in themselves, and start treating them as a ‘means to an ends’ — he suggests there’s no morality outside of seeing other people as their own ends. In a plebiscite, where we Christians are told to seek a particular result and to try to persuade people to vote the same way, there’s almost no chance we’ll be using our speech to do anything but treat other people as a means to this greater end — securing the result we want.

And in the process, we risk turning our neighbours into objects to argue with and persuade (rather than people to understand and love), and further run the risk of marginalising already marginalised people in our community — gay and lesbian people — both in the wider community, and in those in our Christian community-within-the-community who are seeking to live faithfully for Jesus. We straight married people have the tendency to see the world, sexuality, and marriage, through the grid of our own normal experience and so take certain ‘realities’ for granted. We don’t know when we’re going to say things that our same sex attracted brothers and sisters find soul crushing and debilitating, unless we let them take the lead a little on this.

This is a pastoral minefield that we’re encouraging people to shut their eyes and run around in hoping to secure a particular result in the political minefield a plebiscite presents.

I’m particularly worried about the way we speak about marriage being idolatrous and being pastorally damaging. As Christians we don’t believe marriage is the best unit for a flourishing society; or for our children: a village of people following Jesus is.

Marriage is a good thing, and especially good within that community where people are loving each other as a reflection of Jesus’ love for his church. Marriage can’t bear the weight we put on it, socially or individually.

We’re also going to open up the idea, intentionally or otherwise, that we so loathe the gay community that we don’t believe they have the same rights to be heard and accommodated in our secular liberal democratic state.

If we engage in the plebiscite because we think its essential to protect our religious freedom we’re missing the point that for a society that worships at the altar of personal sexual liberation, we’re trying to curtail the religious freedom of others.

The chief good for our neighbours is not found in a broken worldly institution of heterosexual marriage — as much as it is a testimony to the goodness of God’s created design for people — it’s found in the one who will restore and renovate creation, and who invites us to be part of his kingdom.

We can’t confuse the act of arguing for lesser goods with securing this chief good; we might in the logic of 1 Peter 2, by robustly living out the goodness of the lesser goods, secure a hearing from people about the goodness of the Gospel, the chief good. But the chief good is the chief good because it re-orders how we approach and understand all other goods. It, as Augustine says, rightly orders our loves for the things in this world. People who don’t primarily love Jesus and serve him as Lord can’t and won’t approach other goods the way Jesus calls them to.

We should probably put lots of energy into making marriages within the church remarkably different and better than marriages outside the church, and keep teaching people about the goodness of marriage as God designed it (by marrying them and so teaching them about God’s goodness and chief goodness in the process).

Why there might be good secular reasons for Christians to support same sex marriage

There are good reasons to not change our definition of marriage within the church; Biblical reasons and an understanding of God’s design for humanity and sex. These reasons make no sense to an idolatrous world that hasn’t just rejected God, but has had God change the way they see the world (Romans 1:18-28). These reasons are bad reasons for a world where people now worship sexual freedom, such that when we speak against same sex marriage we are speaking against a particular form of religious freedom.

There are good reasons in terms of understanding how our post-modern public square works, and to keep having a voice of integrity within it, to vote against our own interests and beliefs to allow others to practice their interests and beliefs freely, because a liberal secular democracy falls apart if it becomes a case of majority rules.

Others believe integrity requires not compromising how we see the world because others see it differently; I think real integrity requires being clear about what we think and believe, speaking for that, but then compromising because we know that is how the world works, and we expect others to compromise for us. If we want religious freedom, freedom to be Christian as a community-within-a-community, freedom to disagree with the majority, then we need to give this freedom to others.

The argument about protecting children at this point would’ve been a plausible argument had we not already socially de-coupled children from marriage ages ago, and if there weren’t already things in place to allow gay couples to give birth to, and raise, children. I personally don’t even think the argument that marriage is for children bears much weight; I think marriage — as the one flesh union between a man and a woman — is an end in itself, not a means to an end.

There’s also the question of not just how we are seen to love the gay community, but how we actually love them — especially if they are as Romans 1 suggests “their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” because “God gave them over in the sinful desires” — how is it loving to tell people not to live the way God is making them live? Sure, the reason God gives people over to sinful desires is because we worship created things in his place… but the kicker in Romans when you’re getting all judgy about these awful idolaters who sin lots is in chapter 2:

“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” — Romans 2:1

We don’t love the gay community by trying to make them live a way that God is preventing; we don’t love them (or others in our community) by insisting people see marriage the way we do, as a created thing that reveals the divine nature and character of God (Romans 1:20).

If our vision for their flourishing is that they come to know Jesus and perhaps rethink where their sexuality fits into their identity as a result (which it is, not that they become heterosexual).

We love the gay community, absolutely, by presenting them with the chance to know Jesus — that’s consistent with our ultimate vision of human flourishing — their chief good — their ultimate telos. If they don’t, and can’t, see or pursue that telos on their own steam, if they need the Spirit (Romans 8), via the Gospel (Romans 1:16); is it actually loving to limit how a liberal, secular, democracy defines marriage for its citizens because we can possibly get the votes to enshrine our view as the majority view?

Is it truly democratic?

Is it loving to prevent their freedom to define their relationships the way they see fit because we see things differently by the grace of God? If sexual freedom is, itself, an idol — a created thing — that people worship in the place of God, whether they know it or now then is this not a question of religious freedom too?

Gay marriages won’t be good for people in the sense of their created telos — what is good for people is being transformed into the image of Christ…

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. — Romans 8:28-30

This is what ultimate good looks like, but there will be smaller, secular, goods for our gay neighbours consistent with the desires and other temporal benefits that come from long term committed relationships. If our neighbours — gay or straight — aren’t going to change the pursuit of their gods, or of sex and love and happiness without Jesus — then perhaps the most loving thing we can do, while proclaiming Jesus to them, is maximise the good and virtuous things these relationships produce; rather than seeking to limit vice. I guess other people will see this differently; I get that. And they’ll see the fabric of our society being torn apart and changing and damaging all sorts of people; I get that too. I just don’t see it that way. Because the fabric of our society has fundamentally been torn apart already. Years ago. We’re grasping after a shadow.

I’m not sure at that point that we can consistently oppose same sex marriage in a secular frame, to do it requires people seeing the world through the lens provided by the Spirit, which is why we need to get better at getting our own house in order within the church; so that our good marriages are part of our testimony to the ultimate good.

 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” — Ephesians 5:31-32

14 Comments How not to vote (3): Three more reasons not to just vote to secure a plebiscite, and one secular reason to vote for same sex marriage

  1. Alistair

    G’day Nathan,

    You said:

    I think real integrity requires being clear about what we think and believe, speaking for that, but then compromising because we know that is how the world works, and we expect others to compromise for us.

    I agree with the first half of that sentence, but the second half gives me pause. Maybe I haven’t read what you’ve said carefully enough (only got so much time in the day!), but what you are saying reads to me like this:

    “I think real integrity requires saying we believe one thing, then doing another.”

    Or…

    “I think real integrity requires being clear about what we think and believe, speaking for that, but then compromising because the compromise necessary for our society to work is more important than what we think and believe.”

    You have said elsewhere that we should not make religious freedom an idol, and yet we should provide religious freedom for others by compromising?

    Nathan, there is a huge difference between being gracious in the face of societal demands for ungodliness and voting for ungodliness so that they will perhaps let us live righteously. Or, more to your point, so they will listen to us when we speak about the gospel.

    I agree with you that a Christian guy who unlovingly bangs on about the plebiscite and desperately tries to stop the legal creation of same-sex marriage will push people away from Christ rather than reach them for Christ. However…

    I disagree with you that a Christian guy who compromises in order to partake in the way our society runs will draw people to Christ. It may draw people to him for a time, but that’s because they get the message that the freedom for people to be who they are and do what they want is more important to Christians than Christian beliefs.

    How about a third alternative?

    A Christian guy lovingly speaks of what he believes, with understanding and maybe even tears, for the sake of the other without compromising. He loves through action and words, accepts any rejection and suffering, turns the other cheek, returns good for evil, and so demonstrates that the gospel of the kingdom of God and his righteousness is not just belief that can be divided up into bartering chips, but truth worth suffering for.

    Some non-believers may be angry or turned off, but if they see Christians speaking the truth with tears, the message will not be that of a Pharisee or a compromiser – it will be a message of love.

    Our problem is that we don’t see these issues or the people we disagree with as worth weeping over.

    Reply
    1. Nathan Campbell

      Hey Alistair,

      Thanks for the probing questions.

      Some quick responses:

      1. A summary of the integrity thing is that integrity is about our beliefs and practices lining up — for ourselves, but real integrity allows other people, as much as possible in a common public space to do the same. We obviously, in our shared life, legislate on the basis of minimising harm; but we should desire maximum integrity too.

      2. “You have said elsewhere that we should not make religious freedom an idol, and yet we should provide religious freedom for others by compromising?”

      3. I see myself in the third category. It’s why I won’t, as a religious celebrant, conduct gay marriages.

      All idols are good things made ultimate things. I’m not saying religious freedom is not good, it’s just not good to make it an ends we pursue rather than a means we use as we freely practice our religion. And if we want it, as a good, we should extend it to others.

      3.

      Reply
      1. Alistair

        Hi Nathan,

        I understand you only have time for quick responses. Let me try to be quick as well. (Didn’t work).

        1. You have an overarching belief that other people should be allowed to live out their beliefs. That’s fine. But can you see that overarching belief impinges on your other beliefs? You compromise your other beliefs in order to live out the overarching one.

        Since that is your belief, it is a matter of integrity for you to work that out.

        Problem is, I don’t believe it is a biblical view. Allowing others to live out their unbiblical beliefs is part of God’s grace, but against his law. Therefore, it is not a matter of integrity for me to do as you suggest. It is a matter of integrity for me to vote in line with God’s revealed will, and treat all people with love, respect and grace, especially where they do not live or believe according to God’s will.

        That leads on to your number 2.

        2. Some idols are also bad things made ultimate things.

        From a biblical point of view, religious freedom is the result of grace (which is a good thing), not a law. It is the withholding of judgment on idolatry, a grace that we are to live out as much as receive.

        But are we as Christians to say, “If you let us live righteously, we’ll let you live sinfully”? Being gracious regarding sin is not the same as giving approval to sin.

        So yes, extend grace, but not through the compromise of the gospel of the kingdom and his righteousness.

        3. I am happy to believe in many areas that you are in the third category, but if I am to take your words above (in the quote I first referenced), you are literally and overtly promoting compromise, so it would seem that there’s a bit of category 2 in there as well.

        Happy to leave it there. Thanks for the response.

        Reply
        1. Alistair

          I just did a quick re-read and realised it sounded like I was trying to have the last word. Sorry. I’m just aware that I’m on holiday and you (I’m guessing) are not. I didn’t want you to feel as though I expected you to take up time giving another response.

          I do appreciate your thoughts, so I’d be more than happy to read anything you want to add.

          Reply
        2. Nathan

          Hi Alistair,

          Thanks again.

          “You have an overarching belief that other people should be allowed to live out their beliefs. That’s fine. But can you see that overarching belief impinges on your other beliefs? You compromise your other beliefs in order to live out the overarching one.”

          Not so at all. Unless somehow I become complicit in conducting gay marriages I don’t think I’m personally compromising my beliefs. To me there’s a slight analogy here to taxes in Jesus’ day — the money Jesus says to give to Caesar went into the same treasury that paid the governor and soldiers who executed him. Is Jesus wrong to tell people to support a sinful regime?

          Further, I think we disagree about how God’s law works; in that I think it is designed to mark out his image bearing people — it’s ultimately for us to obey. And I mean this generally, not the OT specifically which I believe is fulfilled in Christ who shows us that real obedience to the law is actually about imitating God. I think 1 Corinthians 5 is an important one for you to grapple with.

          Reply
          1. Alistair

            Hi again Nathan,

            I appreciate your comment. It clarifies a bit better for me where you stand. Despite my fear that continued engagement will be unwelcome, let me respond.

            1 Corinthians 5 involves how the church relates to the world, yes, but it does not address how we as citizens contribute to government – in this case through voting. For that we need to look elsewhere, for example, Romans 13:3-4, which explains that government is God’s servant to police good and bad. And note, good and bad according to God’s definition. All governments and all individuals will be judged according to that standard.

            Paying taxes is obeying the law. Voting influences making the law. That is quite a different scenario to 1 Corinthians 5.

            You suggest that supporting or even voting for gay marriage will not compromise your beliefs, as long as you personally do not “become complicit in conducting gay marriages”.

            If we apply the same approach you are using with gay marriage to other issues, the need for re-thinking becomes clear.

            Is it okay to support the abolition of the drinking age as long as we don’t personally sell alcohol to 5 year olds?

            Is it okay to vote for the continued detention of refugees as long as we don’t personally put them in detention?

            Is it okay to support the repeal of domestic violence laws in order to allow some immigrants to continue their tradition of spousal physical discipline as long as we don’t personally encourage or indulge in it?

            I’m guessing you’d say no to each of those, so why is gay marriage different?

            I’m going to speculate here and I welcome correction, but I suspect that many Christians don’t know why homosexuality is wrong other than it says so in the Bible.

            Today, Jesus comes in grace to all those who sin. He comes in love to all those who reject him. He is the only answer to all of life. But he never says, “Well, I’ve prevented you from seeing the truth, so let’s make you more comfortable in your sin in the meantime.”

            Your secular suggestions here about maximising the good and virtuous things gay relationships produce is comparable in the Christian worldview with giving relationship counselling to an adulterer having problems with their lover because they are not going to give their lover up.

            I’m afraid that is not a loving approach.

          2. Nathan Campbell

            Hi Alistair,

            Thanks again. Happy to keep responding as I can…

            “1 Corinthians 5 involves how the church relates to the world, yes, but it does not address how we as citizens contribute to government – in this case through voting. For that we need to look elsewhere, for example, Romans 13:3-4,”

            I think this is an odd distinction to make. To be a Christian is to be a member of the Kingdom of God and a citizen of heaven. To be part of the church is to operate as citizens of heaven in exile in our earthly home. There’s no distinction between ‘relating to the world’ and ‘relating to government’… Sure. Romans 13 is important; but it isn’t talking about how we’re to think of good governments — but bad ones as well. Like the Roman Empire, which conspired to execute our king. So I think your reading of Romans 13 and applying it to how we’re to participate as voters in a democracy is interesting, but a little anachronistic. Romans 13 certainly helps us understand the function of our governors, and their God-ordained role, but I’m not sure it tells us that we should be trying to shape them so that they legislate for Christian values if we get the chance, the best Paul says in 1 Timothy 2 is that we should pray for our governments so we might live peaceful lives, and so that people might be saved:

            I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

            He certainly doesn’t talk about lobbying or how we should take part in politics (though the example of Erastus mentioned in Romans 16, and Paul’s apparent desire to get the Gospel to Caesar and the officials he meets on the way (like Festus and Felix), seems to suggest speaking the Gospel to these rulers to they might also be saved, and govern as Christians, is desirable. But I’m not sure that governing as a Christian means making laws so that non-Christians live like Christians, rather than rules that allow freedom for others.

            “Today, Jesus comes in grace to all those who sin. He comes in love to all those who reject him. He is the only answer to all of life. But he never says, “Well, I’ve prevented you from seeing the truth, so let’s make you more comfortable in your sin in the meantime.”

            Well. When Paul says in 1 Cor 15 “if the dead are not raised, eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die” I think that lends some credence to the view that that’s an entirely plausible way of life for people who don’t believe Jesus has been raised from the dead. And I’m not sure your blanket assertion here gels with Romans 1, or Romans 1-8. I’m not just arguing that we should make people more comfortable but there is no point, theologically, doing anything else — because the only ways to make people do things differently are to wrongly employ state power to force them to, or to have Jesus do the number on their hearts and desires via the proclamation of the Gospel.

            I’m interested in a response to our political reality that is theologically consistent, and that proclaims the Gospel. I think you’re missing the bigger point of what I’m suggesting. I want us to publicly say that the modern pursuit of identity through sexuality is religious, not secular. It’s idolatry. Idolatry is a really big deal; and is deadly. That’s a bigger deal than whether a secular law allows it or not; the job of our government isn’t to keep us from sin. It can’t do that, and thinking that it can borders on an idolatry of government/law (which, ironically, was the Pharisees’ problem, their religion was every bit as man made as the non-Jewish idolaters. Only God, by the Spirit, and as we’re transformed into the image of Jesus by worshipping him (in the Romans 12 sense) can do anything about sin in our lives, or the lives of others.

  2. Craig

    Nathan,

    Thanks for making us think seriously about these serious issues. Thanks for the reminder that as Christians we have nothing to fear no matter where our society heads in the near future. However, on this one I think I’d disagree with a number of your points…
    I just want to say 2 things:
    1) The idea that the Plebiscite will see Christians descending into arguments from the 1960’s is a little condescending. Given that all of scripture (on which our biblical views are based) was written long before the 1960’s and our arguments actually stem from the very heart of what God created mankind to be.
    2) While I kind of get what you’re saying about ‘majority rule’ not being democratic it could be argued (on the other hand) that democracy is all about the majority getting what they want (with everyone getting an equal voice and say). Quite frankly your idea that majorities should defend the desires of minorities is flawed. My guess is that the number of Muslims in Australia who would love to see Sharia law introduced is probably greater than the percentage of the population who are Gay/Lesbian and wanting to get married. Democracy is not about ensuring that minority groups all get their every wish, it’s a system that allows everyone to have a voice and a say (even their own party if they wish) but in the end it will typically be the opinion that is held by the majority that will be legislated.

    Reply
    1. Nathan Campbell

      Hi Craig,

      Thanks. Yeah. I can see how someone might read this the way you suggest in 1), but I think the idea that non-Christians should live according to Christian morality was last widely held in Australia in the 1960s.

      Re 2) it’s probably worth reading a thing I posted last week on how competing voices in a democracy need to be held in tension, not just all be given full sway. But in order to be consistent there are things we allow Muslims to do short of Sharia Law both in their communities or the community at large to allow free practice of religion, and minimise harm for those who don’t share their beliefs. I’m not convinced there’s a straight line to be drawn between Sharia Law and Same Sex Marriage. You might disagree. That’s fine. Vote the way you believe is right. But I think we’ve got to keep asking how we want to be treated when we are strongly in the minority, and treat others the same way.

      Reply
  3. Claire

    I just wanted to say how helpful I found this article and your respectful dialogue above. I find respectful, honest dialogue on this is very hard to find in the Christian community. As a Christian who desperately wants to honour God and also love my homosexual friends (and those I have never met) I really appreciate the input of both of you. Thanks.

    Reply
    1. Nathan

      I can’t tell if you think I’m a revisionist or Paul is in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 and in Athens where he doesn’t take a sledgehammer to the idols but politely and pointedly speaks against them while calling people to follow Jesus instead and have that change their idolatry.

      Reply
      1. Andrew Clarke

        Well, I found DeYoung’s blogpost helpful for my own benefit. I am sure I need it far more than I know.
        As for anyone else, they can judge for themselves.
        However, I honestly thought that St Eutychus and GiST were self-consciously and deliberately revisionist, moving away from the confessional and orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures (to what in your/their minds is a well-intentioned better understanding of the Scriptures).
        You and GiST don’t claim to represent the historic Reformed position do you?
        I think DeYoung’s point is that departing from this needs to be handled with great caution.

        Reply
        1. Nathan

          Yes we do. I mean, we all sign up for the WCF. I think what we’re trying to do is point out that the effects of the Fall extend to the whole man such that we are broken (ie not the image bearers we were made to be, so that sin is our natural state/inclination). We’re using ‘broken’ as synonymous with ‘fallen’ because we’re trying to speak both pastorally and to the world. This brokenness is what I think Paul speaks of in Romans 7-8. The frustration of knowing things are not right with us. We’re not denying our sinfulness, but pointing out that heterosexuality is actually no more fallen in the hands of totally depraved people.

          Probably the other thing we’re doing that some in our tradition don’t do (depending perhaps on how we see covenant theology playing out) is approaching the Old Testament as though interpreting it should be done through the lens of Jesus, not independently (which is what he says we should do in Luke 24).

          I assume the stuff on ‘brokenness’ what you’re referring to because it’s the point a few people have raised.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *