Some responses to the article I posted, "The writing on the wall: How would Jesus vote?"

Jimmie:
Do you agree with the way things are handled right now? Being that no homosexual marriages are allowed?

This amendment is not about change. It doesn't effect the way we treat homosexuals and it won't change the way that they are treated by the state of Virginia. The amendment just puts that standard into law so that it can't be changed by any one judge, which is the current situation.

*To respond to this Jimmie, since I didn't before: I'm not sure how I feel about the way things are handled right now, but at the same time I feel as though it's the best possible situation. I think the reason that I feel this way is because it could go either way: currently, homosexual marriages are not allowed, but they could be in the future. And even if they are in the future, there is a chance that they could once again be prohibited. I think that leaving it to a majority vote in the senate is the best we can do, rather than permanently going with either yes or no.

No, this amendment doesn't change the way we treat homosexuals, but we can change the way we treat homosexuals.

Lauren:

I'm with this guy, and with Jimmie. Everything he said in his article is well-formulated and completely on-track, except for one thing. If he was suggesting that the "Christian" thing to do is to vote against the amendment, in favor of leaving the law open to the consideration of homosexual marriage, then I have to dissent from him there. I think it's dangerous to say that voting one way or another is going to be the way we represent God to society. Of course, everything leading up to the vote--debates in which homosexuals are targetted, rallies, etc.--can be seen by the public, and so those need to be the forum for witnessing. It's hard to remember that the actual voting--your standing there in front of your ballot--is completely private and anonymous, so that if Christians rally and do the "right" thing of rejecting this amendment, the only effect I could forsee (apart from the issue of homosexual union affected directly by the vote) would be for non-Christians to rejoice for having "beaten" us.

Or maybe I'm just cynical when it comes to politics and other mass forms of witnessing. Obviously presenting the Gospel to people en masse has to be somewhat important, because that's where people get most of their negative views of God. So obviously status quo isn't working. Anyway, I'm most on board with Brian Goodman when he reminds us that we're not to expect heaven on earth, but that instead there will one day be a new heaven and new earth. I don't know how to balance that knowledge with the obvious need for increased social justince now and with a view to the Old Testament, where God very clearly set up a kingdom on earth--or was it a kingdom on earth? Did Israel just have no idea that they were serving as much of a narrative/metaphorical function as a physical/earthly one?

Whoa, what was a originally saying again? Sorry for the tangent.

Susannah:
Actually friends, I didn't post this article because of what it said about the amendment... I posted it because of what it said about Christians. I almost jumped up and started dancing when I read this in the Breeze on Monday because I feel like, for once, somebody has gotten it right... somebody has publicly taken action to do two things: to attempt to correct the picture of Christians that non-Christians have, but more importantly, to attempt to correct the Christians by reminding us of what our calling actually is. "Correct" may seem like it's not the best word, but we do need correction, and I believe that God works through others to correct us, as He is doing here. The quote in there that said "of 100 men, 1 will read the Bible; 99 will read the Christian" is so remarkably true. I think you should read the article again not with the mindset of reading an article about voting for this amendment, but with the mindset of, "This guy has something to say about the nature of Christians right now."

Ignore what this guy says about how we should vote and look at what he says about how we should live.


Harrison:
I agree. Good point suse on asking us to read it as a method of living instead of voting: This article, in my opinion, served that purpose well. It seems he was making the point that fighting the culture wars should not be our chief end, but that loving homosexuals and telling them the good news of forgiveness/grace/mercy should be. This is strong widsom, and a message that quite often goes unsaid. And for a while, I figured that he would tell us that it didn't necessarily matter how the votes turned out, who beat who, if the christians defended their sanctity or not, but simply that we begin a new culture where homosexuals cannot tell those stories of unfortunate run-ins with christians anymore.

So, considering this while I read, I felt that his last sentence almost 100% undermined the whole article. He talks about bringing homosexuals a message of love, doing what the bible says, and avoiding those short lived earthly victories. Lauren said this too: how is the vote, in any fashion, going to accomplish these goals. If you are looking for a victory for the yes's or the no's, you are still looking for a victory and still participating in culture war. I wish he had left his last sentence off, and just let his article stand alone as a call for christians to mobilize and preach the good news.

If he talks about doing what the bible says, he better understand what the word "love" really means. If we are to preach a message of love to homosexuals, shouldn't it be one that takes in the eternal consequences of living in sin? What kind of friends are we if we let someone continue in their sin just so they feel "comfortable" and "accepted" in the meanwhile. Wouldn't real love challenge their sin and call them to leave it? I think so.

Civil Unions: I have changed my mind. It might be love, true, but it is not complete love. The idea of civil unions is not clairvoyant love, it is temporal love. It is a love that protects our butts so we aren't called "those intolerant christians" in today's 2006 culture war. I am not so much concerned with my present persecution, and all of the name calling, but with homosexuals' well-being in the long term.

Regardless, I feel called to act. Not to simply think I am changing things by punching a hole in a scantron card. I think fighting real injustice has much more to do with getting out into the world and saying something than it does with being an active civic participant. Still, voting is better than being apathetic, but it won't change much at all.


Susannah:
Good points Harrison - I agree with you. Still, I tried to take the voting process out of my mind when I read this article despite the last sentence, because I think you're right, it does undermine the rest of the article. What hit me about this article was that we are fighting a culture war just with our attitudes if not with our voting, and that needs to change. Take the situation with the ammendment out and we still are fighting a culture war in the attitudes we have toward homosexuals and everybody else who lives a life we may not agree with. There's power in the phrase, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Most of the time, we don't love the sinners. Yes, if we want to truly love them we will make them aware of the eternal consequences of living in sin, but there are ways to do that in love and there are ways not to do it in love.