Dear Fellow Workers:

The definition of marriage, especially in relation to the potential of legalized same-sex marriage, has again, in the past few weeks, inserted itself into Canadian public discourse. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has told churches that they should respect separation of church and state and not give their opinion on matters of public policy. As well, some pastors have written me questioning why we should, as a family of churches, be as public as we are on this issue, and why should we form denominational policies. These questions from our pastors revolve around the need to show love to people of homosexual orientation and the fear that our statements will build walls rather than bridges to people who need Christ’s love.

These are fair questions. I would like to frame these questions into a wider question: what is the role of the church in shaping morality in society or, if you will, in bending a culture toward righteousness? In a previous Pastoral Letter I spoke of the need for a prophetic ministry that would teach righteousness and explain repentance. Here I would wish to address in a small way my concern that we also be involved in public debate. I believe we should intentionally and pro-actively seek to influence society as a whole towards righteousness. And I believe we should even exercise this influence on the formation of laws.

Let me begin by telling you my story. On some very old home movies that my father took, there is a short sequence in a public place in the American south. It is a picture of a water fountain, and on the fountain is a sign that reads: Colored Only. That meant that this water fountain was for “colored” or black, people. Whites had all the rest of the fountains.

During the American civil rights movement evangelicals, on the whole, could not see the problem. They thought that if enough people were evangelized then hearts would open and people would get along. Or they thought that in time it would all calm down, that “colored” people would figure out that it was good and right that they drink at designated water fountains.

My major point here is the abiding sadness that I have for the U. S. evangelical church which sat the movement out (rather than sitting in!). I believe this is why the problem of de facto segregated churches, and indeed racial reconciliation, still hinders revival among evangelicals. [Bill McCartney in his book Sold Out agrees].

Even more important, it took over a decade for the evangelical movement to be stirred to concern for the poor and oppressed, and not until the nineties did American evangelicals begin to learn effectiveness in speaking for the unborn, an issue which by and large Canadian evangelicals seem to have abandoned. Evangelicals should have come out strongly for the oppressed much earlier. I believe this is part of the church’s mission.

The astute among you may feel that there is a disjunction between my story and the current clash over same–sex marriage. The felt disjunction might be this: Afro-Americans were oppressed, and it is, I hope, credible that the church should have spoken up for them. But now, is it not the case that homosexuals are oppressed, and the church is taking action that makes us part of that oppression? To put it bluntly, are not gay people victims, and are not those who seek to block them from something such as marriage the oppressors? This is indeed the stance that is, on the whole, taken in Canada’s media, and which will inevitably be taken in law. Please allow me to address this point.

It is clear that the Bible forbids homosexual conduct and that such conduct is explicitly cited as a sin. Continued practice of this sin, like any other sin, places the person in a bondage which is not easily broken. This bondage harms the practitioners and those in close relation to them.

Anonymous writes in the December 2004 issue of Christianity Today:

My exposure to homosexuality convinces me of a far more basic rational for the biblical prohibition: Homosexuality is bad for me.

First, there is the all-too-common problem of sexually transmitted diseases….

But the area where the affirming church cheats people the most is not health. It is relationships. You don’t hear the affirming church discuss the lasting damage this sin inflicts on homosexuals and their loved ones.

Homosexually active people are oppressed, and only those who are willing to identify the oppression have any possibility of speaking liberation to them. I would suggest that this speaking needs to be three-fold.

First, there must be a clearly spoken message that Jesus Christ is the liberator. Again, hear the words of Anonymous:

Believers can act like the false physician, telling people tempted by homosexuality that same-sex orientation is part of their identity and that they should accept it. Or, we can act as judge, jury and executioner, driving them away from the Savior who loves them. Either way, we risk the same result: spiritual death.

Or we can respond like Jesus would, with grace and truth: “Come unto me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” Those words called to me, weary and heavy-laden with sin, several years ago. Shouldn’t all Christians bear that message of freedom and hope? (Ibid.)

Second, our speaking must be accompanied with concrete actions of love. WheatonCollege has a hands dirty student ministry called Emmaus. It is to male prostitutes in Chicago. Every weekend dedicated students go and stand outside of gay bars and minister in concrete ways to people whom you will probably agree are among society’s most despised. In the end, brothers and sisters, it will not be enough for us to simply have it in our Assembly adopted document that we will not tolerate “hate” talk. We will have to pour out love.

Third, and here is where it gets counter-intuitive, but this is what I have been arguing for in this letter: part of showing love is to seek to maintain righteousness in public law. I would contend that an affirming society is like an affirming church, flashing green lights on the road to bondage. Those who truly love and are liberators know that God gave us society to help regulate daily behaviour. It mattered that there were laws telling “colored” people what water fountain to drink from. Those laws in and of themselves sent a message that legitimized oppression to both the oppressed and to the oppressors. As Martin Luther King understood with perfect clarity, the laws had to be changed for liberty to have a chance.

Likewise, changing the laws about the very constitution of marriage will, I contend, contribute to the oppression of thousands, and hinder their liberation. Why? Because, in the very warp and woof of Canadian law, the bondage will be affirmed and liberation will be depicted as an aberration.

Thus, even as John the Baptist saw that the Roman soldiers were in bondage to bribery and sought to cut the knot by telling them to be content with their wages, so also we need to bravely stand for the liberation of those in bondage to any harmful life activity. And this requires us to speak in the public forum, to call for laws that liberate rather than bind.

Here I have spoken specifically about the current public debate on legalizing same-sex marriages. However, I could re-frame this letter to discuss polygamy, which is clearly shown in the Bible to be a marriage format that oppresses women. My point is that we need to think hard about the issues which confront us and join in the public discussion/action, for this also is part of building the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

Your very real friend,