Transcription
Right, so two very big gay marriage rights issues decisions today. I want to get these two responses to this. Meet Robert Jeffers, senior pastor, Dallas First Baptist Church, and Joe Hudson, former Pastor, Cathedral of Hope, who now teaches at TCU's Brite Divinity School. Arizona is really interesting. I think it brings in some different issues. I do want to talk to you both about that, but let's talk about the Texas decision. I think it trumps everything, and let's right off the top get your reactions.
Dr. Hudson, well, certainly I'm excited about today's decision. I'm, I'm grateful for the plaintiffs in the case that brought the case to the, um, federal courts in Texas, and, uh, really pleased with the decision of the judge. I think some of us were a little worried, uh, being in Texas, maybe perhaps it wouldn't happen this way, but, um, we're excited about the decision. And I think it's a good day, uh, when, uh, decisions are made to support the full and equal rights of citizens of the State of Texas. And LGBT people are citizens of the United States, and they are citizens of the State of Texas and should have all the rights and responsibilities and, um, protections that other citizens have.
Dr. Jeffers, yeah, well, really, I don't care what any federal judge says. The judge of all the universe already ruled on this thousands of years ago, and God who created marriage said marriage should be between a man and a woman in a lifetime relationship. And any deviation from that, adultery, unbiblical divorce, or homosexuality is wrong. But, you know, on a real practical level, the issue is, where do you stop here? If you expand the definition of marriage to include, uh, uh, homosexuals, why not expand it to include polygamists? I mean, they're a minority, yes, but they have as many rights as homosexuals or heterosexuals do as well. The real problem with this is, Steve, whenever you counterfeit something like marriage, you cheapen the value of the real thing. And we've seen in Scandinavian countries that have embraced same-sex marriage, the heterosexual rate of marriage decreased precipitously. Last year, the same thing happened in the United States. We had the lowest marriage rate ever. I think for society, the best thing we can do is to maintain the standard of marriage that our judiciary has understood for more than 200 years, and that is marriage should be between a man and a woman.
A lot there, Dr. Hudson. You want to respond to that?
Well, I will. And I would say that biblically speaking, um, from the very beginnings of scripture, for the Hebrew faith and the Christian faith, um, the scriptures tell us that, uh, all people are created in the image of God. And so we too, as gay and lesbian people, are created in the image of God. And just because the church has not recognized gay and lesbian marriage doesn't mean that gay and lesbian people have not been being married and have not been making covenant since the beginning of time. Gay and lesbian people have made covenant with each other. They've lived in family together. They've had children. They've raised children. They've been recognized in lots of cultures. And so, um, Dr. Jeffers is certainly entitled to his opinion on that. But the truth is, is that, um, gay and lesbian people are children of God, the same as, um, heterosexual people. And our Constitution has said that all people are created equal.
Go ahead.
Well, from a biblical standpoint, it's not just me talking or the church talking. Jesus in Matthew 19 said, God created them male and female. A man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. The Bible is very clear about this. God created marriage between a man and a woman, and that has been the historic teaching, not just of Christianity, but of Judaism and Islam as well.
And you both have been on here discussing this type of, uh, doctrine and different takes on it. So let me, let me move on a little bit. I'm curious, uh, the law, the constitutional amendment was almost 10 years ago, 2005. Do you think things, times have changed? Would that vote be the same? 76% of Texans voted to have marriage be only between a man and a woman in 2005. Do you think that would be the same just today?
The Public Religion Research Institute, which is a nonprofit, uh, nonpartisan organization, has come out with their study and their polling showing that more than half of the American public are now supportive of gay and lesbian people and their right to marry.
Are things changing?
Uh, yes. And I think this is one thing Dr. Hudson and I, I may agree on, and that is the momentum is going in her direction. There's no doubt about it. But, you know, we never decide what is right and wrong. Truth is never decided by a poll. Cultures change, uh, courts change, but God's word never changes.
You both have congregations, although Dr. Hudson, you don't, you don't have a congregation right now. You have students, you teach. So I'm curious what you will go back and tell the people you teach. Pastor Jeffers, what do you, what do you tell them this Sunday about this ruling and how it affects their lives?
Well, actually, I won't be preaching about it this Sunday, but I preached about it last Sunday because I'm going through the book of Romans. And, you know, in Romans chapter 1, uh, the Apostle Paul, under inspiration of scripture, said that homosexuality is unnatural, that it goes against nature, men with men and women with women, that it's degrading and it's a depraved act. And I don't believe there's any sin that is beyond the forgiveness of God. I don't think one sin is worse than another. We're all sinners. We all need God's forgiveness, and that's why Christ came to die for us. But the only way we can receive forgiveness is by agreeing with what the Bible calls sin. And homosexuality is a sin, just like adultery, just like premarital sex, just like.
Completely disagree with Dr. Jeffers. And actually, I'm a part of a cultural tradition in the church that studies scripture and has a great respect for scripture. And we don't agree at all with his interpretation of Romans. And in fact, consider it a pretty narrow interpretation. And he is looking at the surface language of that text, and he is not looking below it to the cultural and, uh, the arguments that Paul is making for the Roman people understanding.
No, no, Dr. Jeffers, it hasn't. No, yes, it has. The church has consistently interpreted. Yes, it has. I am a part of a tradition that traces its roots back to Europe. Yeah, it's a very small tradition, and it's certainly not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, of which I'm not a part, has more than a billion followers and has always speak.
Sure. Okay. Well, it'd be nice if I were allowed to finish my conversation with you. But the truth is, the size of the tradition that I come from doesn't mean that it's wrong. And just because you are interpreting one, one way doesn't mean that you're right. You know, the truth of scripture is that it's not dead. It is living, and it lives when people interpret it. And scripture, and if he's going to be a fundamentalist and he's going to interpret scripture fundamentally, then he's got to do it for all of scripture, and he doesn't do that. He only takes selective things and chooses what, what he's going to condemn based on his interpretation.
By living, she means changing. And the word of God does not change. You cannot read Romans 1, you can't read 1 Corinthians 6 and other passages that say that homosexuality is degrading, it's a degenerative practice, and it goes against nature. You can. And we do. It doesn't surprise me you guys disagree on that. Let's move to Arizona. And, and I do think this is a different thing. Very conservative governor decided to spike this legislation. Pastor Jeffers, I know you teach "love the sinner, hate the sin." This law was in a gray area, wasn't it? I'm not sure it was "love the sinner" the way it played out. You told me, let me tell you what's going. Your interpretation that on there, nobody believes that people ought to be discriminated against and shouldn't receive healthcare services and so forth. We've got a baker in Colorado, a Christian, who is being fined by a federal judge because he will not bake a cake for a gay wedding. That is wrong. He ought to have the religious freedom by conscience to say, I'm not going to celebrate what I believe God has condemned. He has the religious right to do that. Marriage is a sacrament. Many Christians believe that gay marriage is a distortion of that sacrament. You know, if a nudist wanted to come to my church and take the Lord's Supper, I would not allow that because it would be a desecration of a holy ordinance. I believe people ought to, on the basis of religious freedom, not have to celebrate a gay marriage. There are plenty of bakers in town that would have made that cake. This is an effort by the homosexual lobby to force the homosexual agenda down our throats, and people are reacting with bills like this all around the country now.
What do you think?
I have heard some of that. So, so it's not forcing. Okay. The, there's, there's not a homosexual agenda. There are, there are people who are citizens, who are citizens of the United States and who are citizens of each state of this nation, who are seeking their full and equal rights under the Constitution. And they're, they are not. And, you know, long ago, long ago, this country already settled the discussion on who gets to sit at the lunch counter and has already settled the discussion on discrimination. And he has a right to his religious perspective and opinion, and the right to practice.
Should that baker be forced to bake that cake? You know, do you think he should? Just answer. Do you think he should?
I don't, I don't have an answer for you. You know, I have African, I have African American friends who say they're insulted about trying to equate, uh, the homosexual agenda with race. They say, and I have African American friends who celebrate the fact that we do, don't equate sin with the.
Of actually share the same civil rights journey. I, I do think it's, I am going to follow up on that. Not, not that I'm taking a side, but that has been the crux of sort of this, this discussion in Arizona. Is his analogy, the baker and the wedding? And this is a real case. This is not just an analogy. There is a florist in Seattle that's doing the same thing. I know. And I, I think some people even on the, some of the conservatives I've talked to said, yes, that, but this law went beyond that. That it wasn't defined enough and it went way beyond that. So tell me about, let's talk about the baker. What, what do you think about that?
So I believe that the baker has certain rights. And in most, uh, uh, private businesses, that people are going to be able to say who they're going to serve. And, and yet, we've already been down this road in terms of who gets served and who doesn't get served. So it's not a thing, "no shoes, no shirt, no service." That you, that's much different than that. In this sexuality, sexual.
I think it's telling. She's not giving a clear answer. Should she be? Should this man be fined by the federal judge for not making a cake for a gay wedding? Should he be forced to or not?
I'm saying the truth is, right now, our court system is dealing with these laws. And so everything is going to be asked about, and things are going to be questioned. And just as he is irate about this particular baker, we are going to be irate about some of the things that have been discriminatory toward gay and lesbian people. So, no, it's not all settled, and it's going to continue to be debated.
And we'll end it there because it's absolutely not settled, and this is going to evolve. And the Texas case may lead the way. Utah, I think, is ahead in the queue for the Supreme Court, but Texas might be in, in that Supreme Court review. It's all going to end up there. Yeah, it will. All right, thank you both for your time and your passion.