I've had a convergence of thought and experience lately that came to a little bit of a head this morning as I was reading The Gospel of John. I realize that I'm blasting you all with a long post here, but once I got to writing, I just couldn't stop. I hope that you bear with me and that it's as coherent and meaningful to you as much as it has been for me.

Basically, I'd like to urge extreme caution and introspection as well as make a suggestion on how we respond both inwardly to ourselves as well as outwardly to others in the face of a particularly heated debate raging in our society today. 

Like it or not, this current 2012 election cycle (remember, I asked you to bear with me here) has brought the issue of gay marriage in particular, and the uninhibited acceptance of homosexuality in general, to the forefront of our social discussion. I'll admit that the "conversation" has been around for some time and that it's sure to continue to be around for the foreseeable future, but right at this time, it's an especially large source of tension between Christians and non-Christians. 

All this to say that I believe this issue has become a litmus test from a sinful world that sincerely believes they're "good" and Christians trying to explain the Gospel to them are hypocrites worthy only of derision. 

The argument goes something like this:

Christian: "The Bible says that homosexuality is sin and that marriage is the God-sanctioned and blessed union between one man and one women." 

Non-Christian: "Well the Bible also says that we should stone homosexuals and disobedient children, that victims of rape should marry their rapist, etc. Should we do that too?" 

At this point, the conversation breaks down and the gap between those talking widens even further, each walking away shaking their head with the idea that "they just don't get it." I'd also argue that BOTH parties in the conversation have moved further from experiencing the Gospel and are all the worse for it.

In general, I think that the more mature Christians either intentionally avoid finding themselves involved in these kinds of "traps" or quickly move the conversation elsewhere, in neither case ever actually addressing the honest and reasonable objection of someone that hasn't experienced the Gospel. 

The less mature Christian typically boils down to separating the Old Testament from the New Testament with a "that was then this is now" kind of argument. (A classic example of this that I most recently saw was from a well-meaning but poorly thought-out Facebook post that read "I love how people look only to the Old Testament and say that it describes how the Christian God is today without even looking at the New Testament. Here's a hint: Christianity doesn't even appear until the New Testament.")

At a national level, the argument is basically that we're a Christian nation blessed by God and that by turning from our Christian foundation we're losing God's "special blessing" on our nation. 

On a personal level, I've also found myself guilty of the above responses in either thought or action at some point.

To summarize, none of the common visceral approaches show an understanding of the Gospel. Even worse, I believe that they actively drive a wedge between us and Christ our King.

That's a long preamble, I know, but hopefully it sets the stage well enough for you that the power and understanding of John 1:27-36 hits you as powerfully as it did me when I read it this morning.

John 1:1 through to 3:27 narrates the story of an eternal God that created and controls the universe who became flesh, that His arrival was announced by His chosen prophet, the gathering of His disciples, His giving signs testifying to His authority (which also displayed the nature of His ministry), His exercising His authority in His house, and lastly His explanation to a Pharisee leader "how it works" when the Pharisee, like us when using the arguments above, should have already known.

From here, people begin flocking to Jesus and John the Baptist's disciples, while debating with a Jew, express concern about, of all things, purity (sound kinda like the marriage debate maybe...?) 

Their argument, so far as I understand what I'm reading is that purity comes from following the law (remember, they lived a pretty simple and spartan existence in the wilderness and were very well known for their observance of the Laws around eating and drinking, among other things.)

Up until today, if I'm being honest, I've really always looked at John's response as a series of unconnected "truth-isms." I don't believe that I've ever been able to make sense of them as a whole unit of thought. 

What struck me in particular this time, and I really couldn't explain to you why it did, is a sharp contrast between the reaction of the nationally recognized spiritual prophets of Israel, the pharisees, and the God-appointed prophet John. John reacted EXACTLY as the pharisees *should* have. The pharisees reaction was to feel threatened and begin using the law as a cudgel to beat down both honest and dishonest understandings of an unchanging eternal loving and just God. 

In his response, John shows that he clearly understood that the law was given to the flesh, the natural born Israel, which must be continually cleansed from the constantly appearing stain of sin, which makes us entirely unacceptable in the presence of a Holy God. (Hebrews, anyone?) He understood completely that Israel, if it must always remain in the flesh, is in a completely hopeless state. He obviously wanted no part of that and so willingly and gratefully stepped aside so that his Master's eternally revealed will could be accomplished.

If our approach to homosexuals, adulterers, slanderers, fornicators, liars, thieves, et al is to throw the law at them and demand that they comply or lose blessing then we're guilty of the same thing that the pharisees were, a sincere lack of understanding of the Gospel.

If we intentionally choose to avoid the issue wherever we can, then we're not preaching the Gospel and are again ignorant of the Gospel, which demands our response.

If we try to separate the God of the Old Testament from the New, then immature or not, we're guilty of the worst kind of ignorance, as it actively works against the Gospel. 

If you're familiar with Arturo Azurdia then you are likely very well familiar with his excellent sermon on Jesus being revealed in the Old and New Testaments. In that sermon he relates a personal story that always stuck with me. Art had been a preacher for some time when he was talking with an older and wiser pastor. In that conversation, Art made a statement that basically challenged anyone to tell him where you can find Christ in the Old Testament. Up to that point he humbly admits that he really focused his preaching on New Testament books because he was about preaching Christ and that's where you find Him. The older pastor's short but spot-on response knocked Art on his back-side and ultimately sent him on a course that changed nearly everything about his understanding of the Bible. The older pastor said "My friend, if you don't see Christ in the Old Testament then you just simply don't know your Bible."

Christ is in every page of the Old Testament as well as the New. What John responded to his disciples with included the same wisdom that Paul imparts to the saints in Romans 9:6-13, that God's people are and have always been a spiritual people. It's absolutely critical that we remember this, especially when responding to the world's objections to and misunderstanding of the Gospel. 

The flesh does not save or bless. It dies, ergo it kills. The law kills. That's clearly shown in Scripture and experience testifies to its truth. It's no a coincidence that John's reply to his disciples is provided *after* Jesus explains to Nicodemus that we must be born again, apart from the flesh, in order to receive the testimony of Christ and adoption as children. At this point in the book John is transitioning the reader from a flesh/law-based perspective of Grace to a more perfect and eternal spiritual perspective.

It's also no coincidence that John the Baptist dies in the Gospel story.

Supporters of gay marriage and the idea that homosexuality is a harmless lifestyle choice/disposition equal to a straight heterosexual life-style want the argument to be about the flesh. It's the logical and natural argument for them. They can never know the spiritual truth unless it's revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, such was the case for us all at one point in time. We must *always* be sensitive of this truth. 

It's also a place non-Christians want to argue from because, from that perspective, they're absolutely correct. They'll win that argument every single time. When you boil it all down, the core of the argument is that we should ignore the Word of God because we're all doomed to die miserably under more judgement than we can bear or avoid, so why bother listening at all. I mean hey, "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die!"

Like John, we must strive to transition those we're talking to from a flesh-based perspective to a spiritual one. From law to Grace. That's the argument that we win every time because it's the truth, and after all, the truth is the point, not winning or losing an argument. 

Law and Grace go hand in hand because it's the eternally planned transition from death to life and together lead to a complete and unified understanding as to why gay marriage, homosexuality, sexual impurity, lying, disobedience, et al (aka death) are wrong and should not be entertained or tolerated in our lives.

Law and Grace are not contrasting opposites. They testify to one another and could not exist alone. Christ, our king and creator, is both. 

As the author of Hebrews points out, what Chris is currently ministering us through at Cornerstone, is that we must strive to be mature and honest witnesses for Christ and to not forget or gloss over the very foundations of our faith.

Amen!! (?)