The Christian call to compassion is more than a religious obligation for the Christian. It is a byproduct of the beating heart of Christ at work within the regenerated spirit of all Christians. The charity that emanates from the heart of Christ does not make room for His children to pick and choose those to whom they will extend compassion. We are not afforded the freedom of being moved by the suffering of one group, while overlooking and/or causing the suffering of another.

Indeed, the inconsistency of such religiosity was one of the chief criticisms our Lord had against the Pharisees of His day—that group of religious leaders who mastered the form of godliness, but who were quick to judge, condemn, and cruelly treat those they deemed unworthy of God's grace.

For far too long, members of the GLBTI community have been the recipients of the very oppression and suffering that the MDAs claim to fight through compassionate outreach. Our Lord would call such a claim hypocritical. As He did with the Pharisees of old, He would accuse these people face to face, and challenge the sincerity of their convictions. Unfortunately, many Christians are, today, so convinced that they alone uphold the blood-stained banner of Christian truth that they would reject any such challenge out of hand, being so blinded by religious ideology that the possibility of growth and change would be practically impossible—as Christ so often found it to be in the case of the Pharisees.

Still, as hopeless a cause as it must have seemed, Christ repeatedly challenged the Pharisees—not to attack those He disagreed with, but, no doubt, in the sincere hope that somewhere, somehow their eyes would be opened and they would be able to see past their religious rhetoric and tap into the heart of God. In a manner reflective of Christ's own approach to religious contradiction and hypocrisy, we intend to directly challenge the claims of the Manhattan Declaration in an effort to compel the adherents of that declaration to uphold the standards set forth by their own pens in extending to the GLBTI community the compassion they so proudly held up to the world as a sign of their convictions.

Let us not wave the banners of victory just yet. Until all of God's children are looked upon with eyes filtered through the lens of love, our Christian duty to fight the ongoing war against bigotry and oppression remains unfulfilled. The civil rights crusades continue.

No on chooses to be White or Black, male or female. Consequently, love and compassion compels an evolved society to view any and all of these groups equally, and even to celebrate what they uniquely offer society. Contrary to the opinion of many heteronormative individuals, GLBTI people did not choose their variant sexual/gender orientation or gender identity. Yet, when it comes to these groups, love and compassion suddenly seem impotent to bring about the same consequence of social equity.

But, it is not love and compassion that are at fault. The problem is our common humanity, which allows us to turn love and compassion on and off like a light switch, applying it to one group while failing to apply it to others. In the midst of such failures, we convince ourselves that love is compelling our opposition; however, love always produces the consequence of affirmation. Because of love, Christ Himself presents us faultless before His presence with exceeding joy (Jude 24), despite the preponderance of our shortcomings.

I long for the day that love and compassion will be allowed to add sexual/gender orientation and gender identity to those classes of people that the Christian community collectively recognizes as being made in the image of God and, therefore, deserving of civil rights.

I am glad to know that my Christian family realizes that promiscuity, infidelity, and divorce truly are the enemies of the institution of marriage; however, I am troubled at the insinuation that the so-called redefinition of marriage "to accommodate fashionable ideologies" jeopardizes marriage. Regardless of the sex-composition of a matrimonial union (be it heterosex or homosex), all Christians—and I hope all married people, regardless of religious belief—should strive to uphold the standard of lifelong fidelity.

Extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples only allows the benefits of matrimony upon our society and the family unit to be both broadened and strengthened. Whereas large numbers of people are unable to marry today, and hence, have no legal ability to create of their relationship so sacred a union, the right to marry would only produce more family units—more stable home environments. Surely, the love contained within such unions is more important than their sex-composition. So many are concerned with the external, while God has always focused on the internal—on the heart (1Samuel 16:7). Can people of the same sex love one another? This is the question that should preoccupy us in consideration of same-sex marriage, not "Do they both have penises?"

Furthermore, while the drafters of the Declaration provided no specific ways in which same-sex marriages would threaten this sacred institution, I cannot surmise any reasonable threat that any such marriages could possibly pose. To the contrary, same-sex marriage can only take the plenary benefits of Holy Matrimony and extend them to a large number of loving couples—people who only wish to have their existing unions acknowledged by their government, as their loving God does already.

By no means would same-sex marriages jeopardize existing marriages, or the institution of marriage itself. Surely, marriages that survive the plagues of infidelity and divorce are certainly not susceptible to whatever imagined threat a same-sex couple next door poses. In point of fact, the same-sex couple next door can only serve as a beacon of hope to the GLBTI children of those heterosex marriages—a hope that can help to quell the feelings of isolation and anguish these children so often grow up with, which will serve as a constant reminder that a future free of hatred and ostracism is possible. How great such a gift would be for our suffering GLBTI children, and especially for the GLBTI children whose parents are MDAs!

If the MDAs want to defend the sanctity of life, let them defend it both inside and outside of the womb. Let them love their GLBTI children enough to fight today for a future in which those children can escape the hurt and pain endured by so many in this generation by simply being able to marry someone of their choosing. Let them wash away the tears caused by our society's massive ignorance of the true nature of sexual/gender orientation and gender identity, not by empty words, but by fighting for the marriage rights of GLBTI people everywhere, and by supporting the protection of GLBTI people against crimes against their persons committed by those blinded by the hateful rhetoric they so often and regrettably receive from their families and churches. If the intent is to defend the sanctity of life, let it include the lives of GLBTI people, as well; or just shut up about it altogether, lest the accusation of hypocrisy gain even more merit than it already has.

Marriage is, indeed, an honorable and godly institution (Hebrews 13:4—"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled..."); however, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the union of husband and wife was the crowning achievement of God's creation. In Genesis verses 27 and 31, the creation of mankind is identified as its crowning achievement.

As a consequence of the biblical testimony, I assert that all human beings, regardless of marital status, are the crown of God's creation and the apple of His eye. I dare not, as the MDAs have done, diminish the place of so many people of God who maintained singlehood as a way of life and of godly service throughout countless generations. Great prophets like Elijah and Elisha, holy apostles like John and Paul, and even our Lord Jesus Christ never married. The Declaration paints these champions of God's divine purposes as falling short of His supposed highest honor of matrimony. I reject this consequent deprecation of those in my Christian family who remain unmarried.

In point of fact, the apostle Paul expressly stated that singlehood is preferable to marriage if the individual can maintain chastity—not because one state is intrinsically better than the other, but because the single person can, without distraction, offer his time and attention to serving the Lord. To conclude that marriage is the crowning achievement of creation is not only to inaccurately interpret the proof-text referenced by the Declaration (Genesis 2:23-24), but it is also to contradict the express biblical testimony regarding singlehood.

Allowing people a secure and loving family environment within which to be nurtured is a primary means of combating many of the social ills addressed by the Declaration. Unfortunately, such an environment is, by law, denied to the many children whose lives are being wasted away in overcrowded orphanages and children's homes—children who could be adopted by loving same-sex couples if they were allowed to both marry and adopt. We all share concern regarding "delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair." Let us move our fight against these social ills forward by extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, thereby providing more stable family environments into which troubled and high-risk children can be adopted.

The Declaration rightly condemns "widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation". However, it is both cruel and hypocritical to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, and then criticize them for being one in the number of people who participate in the non-marital sexual cohabitation to which the social inequity of heterosex-only marriage disposed them. It's as malicious as if they were to cut off people's legs and then criticize them for not walking. You cannot deny people the means to undefiled sexual expression within the marital bed, and then condemn them for sexual expression outside of the marital bed to which you denied them access.

The apostle Paul asserts in 1Corinthians 7:9 that it is better to marry than to burn in lust. The second half of Hebrews 13:4 shows us why this is the case—for God will judge whores and adulterers (the implication being that He will judge them harshly). How dare we take the remedy of marriage and restrict access to it, thereby consigning homosexuals to the very life of lust that He prescribed marriage in order to prevent!

God, through the apostle Paul, demonstrated His recognition of the potent sexual and romantic desires that are inherent within the human body and soul. He prescribed marriage as the remedy to satiate those desires, and commanded that those who are unable to maintain themselves in chastity get married in order to avoid fornication and lust. How does it demonstrate the love of God to deny homosexuals the right to marry and to, thereby, consign them to the very lusts that God created marriage to prevent all of His human children, heterosexual or homosexual, from succumbing to?

Those who drafted the Declaration would almost certainly argue that homosexuals can choose to enter into heterosex marital unions in order to satiate their natural sexual desires; however, such a suggestion indicates a gross misunderstanding of the nature of sexual orientation. Multiple facets of attraction facilitate the fulfillment that marriage is intended to provide—physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual—attractions that are largely denied to homosexuals who enter into heterosex marriages. For those who don't understand how this could be the case, I ask them to consider how fulfilled they would feel by entering into a lifelong marital union with someone of the same sex, and whether same-sex sexual activity would satiate their needs.

Considering the nature of sexual orientation, I ask the following simple, yet profound questions: Is it a demonstration of love to ask those not gifted with celibacy (1Co. 7:7) to remain celibate for the whole of their lives, especially upon consideration of the fact that God considered the depth of our sexual desires strong enough to warrant the remedy of marriage? Is it love to demand that people marry contrary to their natural orientation, even though such marriages would not serve one of their primary purposes, thereby condemning both spouses to a life of emotional pain and sexual unfulfillment? Finally, is it love to deny people the one dream that pervades the minds of so many young adults who, with great anticipation and hope, look forward to a future life with their own spouses and families? Would love replace that dream with the nightmare of lifelong self-denial or repeated repentance for the sexual sins of lust and fornication? And before an answer is offered claiming that a future filled with repentance for sexual sins would be the individual's own fault, let's remember that God wasn't as cold-hearted—being willing, rather, to offer marriage as the remedy... It is better to marry than to burn.

Continuing, I also emphatically deny the premise that marriage is intrinsically about "procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life." Firstly, the consequence of such thought is that heterosex marriages that do not produce children either by choice or by physical inability to procreate lack a substantial degree of value and meaning, seeing as procreation is supposedly "intrinsic" to marriage. Such a contention is highly offensive to modern sensibilities, and it certainly has no basis in Scripture. Many cultures existed during biblical times in which women who did not bear children to their husbands were seen as cursed by God; but the fact that such unevolved thinking would persist to the modern age in the form of ascribing value or meaning to marriages that produce children is a profound disappointment. Legitimacy and value in marriage is found in the love shared between the two individuals, not in whether or not children are produced.

Secondly, this contention assumes that same-sex marriages are incapable of "the generation, promotion and protection of life." While same-sex couples can obviously promote and protect life, they can, in fact, also generate life in precisely the same manner as their heterosex counterparts who are physically incapable of procreation—through means of artificial insemination or surrogacy. As heterosex couples are able to seek the donation of sperm and/or eggs to facilitate their natural inability to procreate through sexual intercourse, their same-sex counterparts have access to the same accommodations. Indeed, there is no argument that can be levied against same-sex couples that would not also apply to a number of their heterosex counterparts—people whom the MDAs inadvertently, but nonetheless condemn through their line of reasoning.

I am glad to know that the MDAs affirm their compassion for "those who are disposed towards homosexual... conduct and relationships." While I reject the notion that homosexual conduct is an inherent disposition (there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual activity), I appreciate and hope to see the fruit of this expression of compassion for those who have and/or express same-sex sexual attractions.

It is taken as a foregone conclusion by MDAs that same-sex sexual "conduct and relationships" inherently involve immorality of any kind. In fact, Scripture says no such thing. It is not a matter of what one reads on pages of the Bible, but is, rather, a matter of translating, interpreting, and applying the teachings of Scripture in a manner consistent with the original intent, with—as the apostle Paul calls it—the spirit of the law (Romans 7:6).

On the surface, such a claim certainly appears problematic. It's not a matter of what you read in the Bible??? But, in point of fact, the majority of the Christian Body applies this approach of biblical intent above biblical letter on multiple issues. Churches that allow women to hold any positions of authority in the local church, or to preach/teach the word of God in the local church are directly contradicting the letter of New Testament teachings. In addition, churches that do not enforce a strict dress code for women, as well as short hair lengths for men are, likewise, contradicting the letter of New Testament teachings.

When was the last time we heard one of the Christian leaders who signed the Declaration deliver a sermon calling men with long hair unnatural? Quite ironically, the very styles of clothing Paul condemned are all-too-common amongst Christian women today—gold or pearl jewelry, braided hair (particularly amongst young girls), and costly apparel. Yet, we don't see them being upbraided for disobeying Scripture (and in the sanctuary, no less).

As you can see, the Church is notorious for picking and choosing which passages to apply in the letter of the text, and which to apply in the spirit/intent of the text. The rule of consistency, however, requires us to apply the spirit-over-the-letter approach across the board, or not at all. I trust that few churches, indeed, would opt for the latter option.

Unfortunately, space does not permit me to present an adequate teaching of how proper principles of biblical interpretation and application apply to the issue of homosexuality. So, for a detailed exposition on what the Bible actually teaches on this serious issue, as well as how the effort to maintain the original intent of the texts requires us to apply those teachings within the modern context, I recommend the book, Homosexianity: Letting Truth Win The Devastating War Between Scripture, Faith & Sexual Orientation, available from Amazon.com or Homosexianity.com.

As acknowledged, I am one of those "sincere people who disagrees" with the Declaration's pronouncement of same-sex sexuality as immoral. However, I reject the notion that any such disagreement is with the Bible, and strongly assert that my disagreement is only with the MDAs interpretation of the Bible. Since this rebuttal is not the venue for engaging in a lengthy teaching on the proper exegesis of passages commonly viewed as condemning homosexuality and/or homosexuals, I encourage the MDAs to educate themselves on the theological basis of gay-affirming theology, so as not to continue presupposing that their conclusion is necessarily the final word on the matter.

Furthermore, I reject the notion that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, or that the ability to be a biologically reproductive unit serves as an indicator of God's universal intention for human sexuality. Both the male and female bodies contain sexual organs that especially facilitate same-sex sexual intercourse. If we are to consider the physical anatomy of the human sexes as an indication of God's intentions for human sexuality, it certainly indicates that He accommodated both heterosex and same-sex sexual intercourse, thereby intending for humanity to experience the range of sexual experiences (not individually, of course, but throughout the population).

With regard to arguments that may be levied in the way of emotional or otherwise non-physical complementarity, I assert than any such complementarity is, as with physical complementarity, equally available to same-sex couples. In order to conclude that same-sex relationships do not offer complementarity, one must begin the thought process with the preconception that same-sex couples are incompatible. A non-biased assessment of relational complementarity, however, cannot lead to the conclusion that same-sex couples fail this "supposed" test of relational legitimacy—supposed because Scripture doesn't actually teach complementarity. It is a theoretical imposition of the sexual worldview of some over the entire society, and is especially egregious because it claims to be derived from Scripture. In fact, it is not.

Additionally, I agree that marriage is largely about a "sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual"; however, I contend that same-sex marriage does not preclude any of these levels of sharing. Any belief to the contrary is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of same-sex relationships, which, indeed, mirror heterosex relationships in every way permitted by law, except the ability to naturally procreate (which, as has been stated before, is an ability also precluded to many heterosex couples). Indeed, the only components of heterosex relationships that are outside of the scope of same-sex relationships are those that are denied by our society—those primarily being the legal and social rights and protections associated with marriage.

I ardently reject the equation of sexual orientation to polyamory, polygamy, and incest. Such an argument demonstrates an utter failure to understand the nature of sexual orientation, and reinforces the need of those who believe it to be a lifestyle choice to better inform themselves before adhering to a pronouncement about that which they do not understand. Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples will not lead to a slippery slope toward other forms of marriage any more than America's having finally extended suffrage to its Black and female citizens will eventually lead to 5-year olds being allowed vote. It is a highly offensive, unfounded, despicable fear tactic, and I reject its usage in the debate over same-sex marriage.

While I do not agree that same-sex marriage is in any way immoral, I accept that some Christians sincerely believe that this is the case. I oppose but respect these beliefs, and do not desire for such people to be forced to violate their conscience in participating in any marriage of same-sex couples, whether ceremonially, legally, or otherwise, to the extent that the rights of same-sex couples are not impinged upon by any such conscientious objections, e.g. a judge has no right to deny inheritance rights to a same-sex widow(er) because of a conscientious objection to same-sex marriage.

I do not question the sincerity of all those who oppose same-sex marriage. However, I do emphatically oppose the notion that some Christians would impose their religious worldview upon others—a concept that is nowhere found in New Testament Scripture, where God's word and the Holy Spirit are considered the forces for change, not secular law. If certain Christian leaders believe same-sex marriage is sinful, it is their responsibility to preach that to their congregations. But, it is neither their civic nor Christian duty to impose that belief upon those who are not submitted to their particular leadership. If the MDAs indeed support religious freedom, they must understand that such impositions are contrary to the very heart of that freedom, and resound of hypocrisy in its most raw and hideous form.

Furthermore, nothing whatsoever is gained in the spiritual sense by imposing one's religious worldview on others. To the contrary, such impositions are an egregious sin against Christ, as they only frustrate the cause of the gospel in leading people to salvation. Thus, instead of using Christian theology to force others to yield to a particular marital worldview, I strongly advise a return to the local church to preach and teach these beliefs. By doing so, the focus can more rightly be on Christian instruction for the purpose of building the inner-person, rather than on using legislation to generate an external form of godliness (as some take it to be) based upon what people can and cannot do, rather than on what's in the heart.

The consequence of such impositions is that countless numbers have been and continue to be turned off from the Christian faith before ever being presented with the gospel. I have witnessed this effect amongst many unbelievers, and it breaks my heart. Shooting ourselves in the foot in this manner is one of the most antichrist activities the Church could be involved in, short of worshiping a false god or none at all—although we are consigning others to that horrible fate by these inappropriate impositions. Hypocritically doing it in the name of religious freedom only cements the deed as one of the great evils of our generation.

Even if homosexuality is, as the MDAs claim, inherently immoral—and it most certainly is not—imposing this view on the non-Christian public is nowhere and in no way ordained by Christ. May MDAs add this to their list of repentances, and may they seek God's forgiveness for the irreparable damage they have done to those who will never come to know Christ as Lord and Savior because of their tyrannical abuse of Scripture and of the Christian faith.

Humbly submitted,
Romell D. Weekly, Pastor
New Revelation Christian Church (Saint Louis, Missouri)
Founder, The Gay Christian Fellowship
http://www.GayChristianFellowship.com

Back To Top