Some responses to the Court rulings

Ron Belgau at First Things has an interesting discussion on the need for the church to articulate its doctrines in light of concerns of its day. He writes about the way Paul writes a great deal about circumcision but almost not at all about gay sex. It is also relevant for lectionary preachers who have been using Galatians the last few weeks.

Gil Caldwell calls for continued efforts to build on the victories won at the Supreme Court:

James Baldwin raised a question that is relevant as never before; “Who wants to be integrated into a burning house?”There is something “burning” in the “USA house.” May all of us who have been/are kept out of that house, not be satisfied because we are let in. Rather, let us claim and use our symbolic fire extinguishers, not to “save the USA house” as it is, but rather to put out its fires so that we might re-design, re-construct and re-build it for ourselves and those who will follow us.

Trevin Wax says the decisions are both good and bad for the church.

The arrival of same-sex marriage is just the next train stop on a journey that began with the proliferation of birth control in the 1950′s and 1960′s. When pleasure and reproduction were divorced from a holistic understanding of sex, the idea that sexual expression and childrearing should be reserved for the committed relationship of a husband and wife began to disappear. Add the abortion culture of the 1970′s, the establishment of no-fault divorce, an increase in single moms and deadbeat dads, and the rise of reproductive technologies, and it’s no wonder that people today don’t think of marriage as a central institution for bringing new life into the world but instead as an emotional and sexual union of two partners.

Eric Folkerth celebrates the rulings, saying they are signs of the long arc of history bending a little faster toward justice. And he reminds us of his impassioned pastoral letter to the UMC that he wrote when the cases first went to the Supreme Court.

Andy Crouch writes of two kinds Christian reaction to the changing legal and cultural environment:

What unites the LGBTQIA coalition is a conviction that human beings are not created male and female in any essential or important way. What matters is not one’s body but one’s heart—the seat of human will and desire, which only its owner can know.

Christians will have to choose between two consistent positions. One, which we believe Christians who affirm gay and lesbian unions will ultimately have to embrace, is to say that embodied sexual differentiation is irrelevant—completely, thoroughly, totally irrelevant—to covenant faithfulness.

You can find his explanation of the second option in his article.


3 thoughts on “Some responses to the Court rulings

  1. I’m surprised that I didn’t find mention of John Paul II’s philosophical/theological work on this topic (although I haven’t read the posts by the above two commentators). I suspect that is where Mr. Belgau is headed with future columns as it is a fully developed, theologically based, point of view that appears to provide much of the foundational material for views espoused in traditional Christian practice regarding sexual behavior regardless of denomination. When we ignore our theological foundations aren’t we just throwing opinions at each other? That’s how it looks to me.

Comments are closed.