Removing 'Christ' from Christmas

I read recently that the White House toyed with the notion of removing “Christ” from “Christmas” this year. That is to say, the idea was passed around that the Christmas nativity scene, traditionally displayed in the East Room of the White House, would not be brought out this year. In the words of the President’s secretary, Desiree Rogers, the Obamas would be celebrating a “nonreligious Christmas.” As faithful Christians across the country raised eyebrows over this breach of tradition and former Presidential secretaries literally “gasped” at the thought, those responsible for White House decorating and event planning have since changed their minds. The crèche will now be displayed as it is every year.

[For more on this story click here.]

Some might ask: Why should it matter whether the First Family celebrates a religious or a secular Christmas? Is it any business of ours to pry into the religious devotion (or lack of devotion) of the First Family?

Certainly a person’s religious beliefs are a private affair. It is a matter of one’s own conscience to decide what one believes about the Deity, if one believes at all. In a free, pluralistic society no one is required to believe anything against their will, nor are we required to share our personal beliefs in the public square if we choose not to do so. But Barack Obama has in the past put his faith front and center, especially when courting Christian voters during his Presidential campaign. In July of 2008, he addressed a gathering of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in these words: “In my own life, it's been a journey that began decades ago on the South Side of Chicago, when, working as a community organizer, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, that he could set me on the path to eternal life when I submitted myself to his will and I dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works.”

On many occasions Obama has referred to his religious faith as a Christian, and many people, rightly or wrongly, voted for him on the assumption that his faith shaped his understanding of human frailty and suffering. He framed in religious terms his work among the poor and disenfranchised, and made it clear that Jesus’ call to help those in need was a defining element of his own call to public service. In other words, Obama made his faith a matter of public debate. He took a private matter and brought it into the public square. He chose to do this himself – no one dragged the issue out of the closet against his will. It was his decision to make his faith public. Many, if not most, politicians have done likewise in the past, and when that is the case it is perfectly legitimate for their constituents to question a sudden change in that elected official’s stance toward their faith.

Obviously the Obamas have every right to celebrate a secular Christmas - or Winter Solstice - if the wish. No one is suggesting that we should pass a law requiring the President to celebrate a Christian holy day against his will. Indeed if Obama had always publically professed to be an atheist or an agnostic, then it would make perfect sense that he would reject the religious side of Christmas. If he were a Muslim or a Jew or any other non-Christian then of course we would expect him to celebrate Christmas in a secular way or even not at all.

But the fact is that Barack Obama has on numerous occasions referred to his Christian faith and to his Christian pastor as great influences in his life. He has attended church and been a member of Christian congregations in the past, and professed publically a belief in Jesus. He was married in a church, was baptized as a Christian, and had his children baptized. As President he publically celebrated Easter this year at an Episcopal church.

If this new “secular Christmas” is some kind of politically correct ploy designed to appeal to the atheistic Left, then I must question his sincerity as a Christian. I wonder whether he is using the Christian faith as a political tool. If that is the case then I am offended as a Christian. (Though, I am not surprised.)

If, on the other hand, he truly believes that Jesus’ birth - God becoming incarnate to live among us - is not an important event in his Christian faith, then his religious statements up to this point are either disingenuous (he has been lying about his Christian convictions) or he has reached some new understanding about God that constitutes a sharp break from what he has professed before…in other words he has suddenly rejected Christianity in the form he has embraced it before, for what alternative belief system, I do not know.

Now obviously, there are some Christian sects and denominations that do not observe holidays and feast days. These Christians reject setting aside days for special religious celebrations. Some Christian fundamentalists do not celebrate Christmas or Easter or other Christian holidays. But I doubt that this is the case for the Obamas. In the past, Obama has always attended these services (Easter this year, for instance). He has never shown any sign of gravitating to this brand of Christianity. But if this is the case, if he has chosen a new faith tradition, then this would mark some new spiritual understanding that Obama has acquired. And such a religious shift should be noted publicly since he has made his faith so public in the past. How does this new spiritual awakening affect Obama’s outlook on policy? If his Christian faith has shaped his motivations in the past, then what are his new motivations?

There are those who say that religion should not affect a person’s politics in this way. To those people I say, you are flat out wrong. A person’s faith affects their understanding of human worth and dignity, the value of life, the purpose of our created world, the meaning of history, the origins of our rights, and so much more. If a person holding public office cannot be honest and forthright about his or her convictions on these issues then I must hold them suspect. If they falter or even lie about their deepest beliefs, then how can I trust their judgment on other issues? It becomes a question of personal character and integrity.

If the nation had elected an atheist, then so be it. Christmas at the White House would be secular, and that would be that. If we elected a Jew, then I would expect a menorah. But we elected a man who spoke highly of his Christian convictions, a man who claims to have been greatly influenced by a faith which drove a personal quest for truth. If his convictions are wavering on this most important of issues, or his quest for truth has been a farce, then I have great reason to distrust him as my President.

Mary's Immaculate Conception

Today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, when we honor Mary, conceived without original sin. As a young Catholic, I had always simply accepted this status for Mary without much thought to the theological reasoning behind it. When I began studying the Catholic faith in earnest (around the time of my wife’s conversion), I reflected more deeply on why Mary was granted such a privilege to be without sin since the moment of her conception.

Original sin is passed from parent to child – it is inherited. Because of humanity’s fall, we are all conceived in this state, which damages our relationship with God. Because of original sin, we are all in need of salvation. There is nothing in our power that we can do to overcome this fall from grace. Only an act of God can save us. We are cut off from God and in need of His saving grace.

Mary was saved by just such an act of God. She was preserved from original sin so that she would be spotless, the perfect vessel for carrying God’s Son. The reason this was theologically necessary is quite simple. If Mary had possessed original sin, she would have passed it on to Jesus, her child. Jesus would then inherit a fallen human nature.

To prevent this, God could have “stepped in” at the moment of Jesus’ conception to "save” Him from original sin. But can you imagine a Savior in need of salvation?…the Son of God in need of grace? This is obviously not a workable solution. If Jesus had been in need of salvation at the time of His conception, He would not be God.

In order for Jesus' divinity to not be in jeopardy, it must be that He inherited a perfect humanity from His mother Mary. And so Mary was spared through God's grace so that Jesus would be born naturally without the stain of original sin. It was not an act of Mary that caused this…she still owes her salvation to God, as we all do...but without this singular act of God’s grace bestowed on Mary the birth of the God-made-man would have been a theological impossibility. Mary was spared from original sin so that Jesus (who is God) could be born without the need of salvation, and He could then offer himself unblemished as a sacrifice for us all.

Book Review: Sharing Christ’s Priesthood - A Bible Study for Catholics

Reading God's Word as a Priestly People

As a biblical study, Sharing Christ’s Priesthood is suited to both individual as well as group or class use. Author Mike Aquilina writes in a straightforward style that is easily accessible to the average layperson, making individual home study ideal for any Catholic. Even for those unfamiliar with the subject or unable to find a Bible study group in which to participate, this book would be well received. Anyone seeking an introduction to the Catholic teaching on priesthood, as rooted in Scripture, will find this volume an excellent gateway to a broader study of the subject. At ninety-four pages, it is concise and yet contains the essential information necessary to gain deeper insight into the concept of priesthood from Genesis to the Book of Revelation and into our present time.

As with any effective biblical study, the goal is not to merely present information, but to encourage the reader to think, act, and pray about the subject at hand. Some issues, such as the tradition of celibacy among the ordained priesthood or the exclusion of women from Holy Orders, if treated in full, could easily fill many books (and of course, such books are available at any good Catholic bookstore for further reading). But Aquilina’s task here is not to address and analyze fully the historical, spiritual, and theological reasons behind such practices or to offer a compete analysis of the priesthood in general. With a mind toward thinking, acting, and praying on the Word of God, the author gives a brief outline of the biblical history of God’s holy priesthood and prompts the reader to reflect more deeply in one’s own heart and mind.

So for example, celibacy in the priesthood receives a brief explanation, but the reader is encouraged to ponder further the implications and spiritual significance of this discipline, and to discuss the issue with friends and fellow Catholics. In a group setting this might prompt a fruitful discussion in which greater insight can be shared among the participants. An individual outside of group study could seek out books or other sources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that would shed more light in areas that deserve a broader treatment.

Anyone who has read more technical or theologically rigorous works on priesthood and those who are well versed in Catholic Scriptural exegesis will find nothing new in Sharing Christ’s Priesthood. But for those who are unaccustomed to Bible studies or find theology intimidating, this book presents a wonderful synthesis of many biblical texts organized on the theme of priesthood. Even those who are unfamiliar with Catholicism (for instance, persons enrolled in RCIA programs) who wish to be introduced to the Catholic understanding of priesthood would do well to read - and pray about - the information Aquilina presents.

The organization of the text, which is divided into six “Sessions” (or Chapters) creates a logical flow that helps connect the dots between biblical ideals and our present reality. Each Session can be used as a format for group study so that the entire book can be covered in six group meetings. However, I could see how the Sessions could be further divided for a more thorough examination of the material.

The first three “Sessions” cover the biblical concept of priesthood as it developed in three distinct periods of salvation history. Beginning “in the beginning” Aquilina traces the priesthood from the time of Adam and the Fall of Man and the promise made to Abraham; then secondly, through the coming of the Old Law with Moses and the Levitcal priesthood and the Jewish Temple; and finally the third Session presents Christ and the Christian concept of priest. The last three Sessions cover the common priesthood of all believers, the priesthood of the Apostles, and the priesthood today, respectively. Throughout each Session, Bible versus are frequently cited and assembled quite effectively to create a seamless narrative. Most of these biblical verses are printed in their entirety, except at the beginning of each of the six Sessions where the participants are asked to read an extended passage (usually an entire chapter or more of the Bible) to prepare for the material covered in that Session.

This book does at least two things very well. First, Mike Aquilina does a fine job of presenting a complicated subject in a format and in language that is digestible for the average lay Catholic. In covering the entire length of the Bible, as well as centuries of history and complex theological issues to explain the essence of priesthood in less than a hundred pages, Aquilina has provided a handy resource for educating the faithful in a way that is unintimidating and frankly an enjoyable and easy read.

Second, the author presents a priesthood that is personal and accessible to every believing Christian. Priesthood does not belong exclusively to those who receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Rather everyone who has faith in Jesus Christ shares in His priestly nature, and is called to offer sacrifice to God in union with the One Sacrifice of Jesus (the true High Priest). Those who are ordained into the ministerial priesthood certainly carry an awesome responsibility in offering the Sacrifice of the Mass and administering the Sacraments, but the Christian concept of priest includes all those who are baptized. We are al called to the priestly vocation in our daily lives.

This book, published by Our Sunday Visitor, was timed for release during the “Year for Priests” as declared by Pope Benedict XVI, from June 2009 to June 2010, and is highly suited to the purpose of engaging the average Catholic in celebrating the priesthood during this occasion. But the importance of the subject matter and the universal need for greater biblical understanding among Catholics on this and many other teachings of the faith will ensure that Sharing Christ’s Priesthood will provide spiritual sustenance for years to come.

To purchase your own copy of Sharing Christ's Priesthood - A Bible Study for Catholics by Mike Aquilina, visit the catholiccompany.com website.

What brings us joy this Advent

Thanksgiving is a time of festivity and food and visiting with family and friends, arrived at with hours of preparation, and followed by dirty dishes and much cleaning up. Some travel many miles to eat the traditional meal, and by the end of the day most of us are exhausted (though well fed) and ready for an afternoon nap and a long night’s sleep - looking forward to (or maybe not looking forward to) leftover turkey for lunches and dinners in the days ahead. As evening approaches and the guests take their leave, we rest from the days events.

But some do not rest...

The Friday after Thanksgiving – Black Friday – with its deep-discounted, bargain sales and slick marketing campaigns, has become the shopper’s holiday. People awake in the wee hours of the morning, or do not sleep at all, to stand in line or camp out in parking lots, waiting for the doors to open at their favorite retailers and shopping malls. It is a vigil of sorts, as they gather in shuffling crowds before the sun rises, bundled up against the cold, anticipating the joy of sharing in this “sacred” rite.

Some friends I know awoke at three or four o’clock in the morning to join the teaming masses. A coworker’s wife drove more than thirty miles from their rural home into the city where she hoped to find the best deals – she had already visited three stores before her husband had gotten out of bed. I even heard about a couple who exchanged wedding vows in front of an electronics store and received a new flat-screen TV as a wedding gift from the retail chain that hosted their nuptials.

Now, call me old-fashioned, but a cold dimly-lit parking lot, surrounded by strangers clutching their purses and shopping lists, hardly seems like holy ground on which to wed. Do we now enter into the bonds of holy matrimony in the shadow of the dollar sign, where once the Cross stood? Have we erected a new god? What is the cultural significance of this “Black Friday” phenomenon?

The name itself strikes me as rather odd - Black Friday. Friday, the day that Christ gave up His life on the cross. How fitting that this day be called “black,” since Christians have traditionally marked Friday with solemnity - especially Catholics who have in the past given up meat on this day of the week, and still do throughout the season of Lent. Of course it is called “Black Friday” for quite another reason. It is the day that businesses hope to be “in the black” with large profits, drawing in customers with unbeatable deals and clever marketing. It is the day that starts the “official” Christmas shopping season.

Does this commercialized “Black Friday” compete with our Christian faith?

Don’t get me wrong. I am not opposed to the free market, and I love finding a good bargain. But a friend of mine made a remark this past Friday that put it all in perspective. He said, “You know, my wife went to these sales today, and it only took her half an hour to get ready. She was up before the sun and out the door in no time flat. Funny thing is for any other event she takes more than an hour to get ready, dragging her feet the whole time and showing nowhere near the enthusiasm. I’ve never seen her get up this early. When we leave for church on Sunday morning she always waits until the last minute and we barely make it there on time.”

His mention of “church” I found particularly relevant. This Sunday was the start of Advent, the time of preparation before Christmas, when Christians reflect on the coming of the Christ. During these weeks leading up to the celebration of Jesus’ birth, we set our priorities for the beginning of the liturgical year. As with Lent leading up to Easter, during Advent we pray and quietly prepare our souls for the coming of the Savior. It is a long vigil encompassing four Sundays…

But for this vigil we do not stand huddled in a parking lot counting our money and listening for the sound of doors being unlocked as crowds of eager shoppers press in around us. Christians during Advent retreat into the quiet of their own hearts and listen for the sound of angels singing, announcing Joy to the World. This vigil is a time to devote ourselves to the Almighty God, not the almighty dollar.

Certainly during Advent we shop and buy gifts as we prepare for the coming holiday. There is nothing sacrilegious or sinful about purchasing such tokens of love for family and friends as we plan for Christmas. But if we arise before dawn with glee and excitement, rushing to the mall for hours of money-spending madness, can we not bring the same enthusiasm to each Mass, or to the vigil of Christ’s birth? Do we instead drag our feet and complain that we need more sleep, and that we wish Mass was scheduled not quite so early? Do we give to Jesus the same joy that we give to our material goods (bought at discount prices, of course)? Are we denying Christ what is rightfully His – our love and devotion?

When Christ died on Good Friday He had told Peter just hours earlier, “Before the cock crows you will deny me three times.” At sunrise each morning the “cock crows.” When that time comes, have we already been to three stores before others are even out of bed? How many hours of silent devotion and prayer could we spend in that same time? Do we deny Christ our joy and enthusiasm on Sunday mornings when we give it so freely to bargain sales and cheap discounts? This Advent we should not care so much about the gifts we purchased at the lowest sale prices, guaranteed, but focus instead on the Gift that was freely given – the birth of God’s Son.

Book Reviews

I have recently been given the opportunity to write reviews of books for an online Catholic retailer. The books are available for purchase at catholiccompany.com (along with many other fine Catholic products). Here is a link to the site…


For the record, I am under no obligation to write favorable reviews. The Catholic Company values the integrity of their reviewers, and requests honest evaluations of their merchandise (including any criticism). I, for my part, will oblige by offering my true opinion whenever submitting a review. To aide me in this endeavor my own penchant for reading Catholic theological, historical, and apologetic works over the past several years will give me some basis on which to judge the merits of any text I might analyze for The Catholic Company.

The book I am currently reading (and nearly finished) for my first review is “Sharing Christ’s Priesthood: A Biblical Study for Catholics,” by Mike Aquilina. I have previously read two other books by the same author, which has given me a good base-line from which to evaluate this current volume of his. Also, over the past few months (and quite coincidentally) I have read two other theological and more technical works on the priesthood and diaconate, which should prove useful in placing Aquilina’s Biblical study in broader context for comparison. Every book I review will receive the same treatment and be subject to a solid critique, applying authentic Catholic doctrine to the best of my ability.

When I have finished writing and submitting a review to catholiccompany.com’s website, I will also post it here at this blog, along with a link to the site, so that anyone who wishes may purchase the featured book or any other product offered by the fine folks at The Catholic Company. Please visit their site as often as you like, and enjoy the excellent faith-based and family-friendly merchandise sold there.

Latin Revival

I am a life-long Catholic. But I was born after the Second Vatican Council. The parish I attended was a small country church built in 1968 in a simple modern style, (not as ugly and uninviting as some) but the Masses held there were just as understated as the architecture. That is to say, they were bare-bones and contained only that which was necessary to make them "valid" but lacking any adornment or style. But occasionally a "style" (of sorts) was supplied by visitors to our parish, who brought with them some recent liturgical "invention" which we had to endure with groans and embarrassment, often averting our eyes from the carnage.

Our resident nun at the time (who, I am certain, looked forward to the day of Catholic priestesses and charismatic Masses filled with liturgical dance and new-age symbolism) led the way in this liturgical demolition derby, crashing her way into every component of the Mass and leaving the congregation wondering what was left that was sacred and untouchable. The people patiently endured these periodic displays of irreverence, but it was obvious that the simple farming community in which I lived was not going to respond to or embrace something so grotesque, masquerading as legitimate Catholic liturgy. As time went on the experimentation slowly stopped and something of a "normal" Mass settled in (which admittedly still lacked a distinctive "style," but at least the intrusions of "style" we had endured were worthy of elimination). Bland was better than heretical.

Needless to say, I was born into a time in Church history marked by liturgical abuses that confused the laity and robbed the faithful of many traditional Catholic devotions and prayers and spiritual beauty. The Mass itself was so badly misused that few of us in the pews knew for certain what the Divine Liturgy was even supposed to look like anymore. For decades that has been the state of affairs in many parishes across the country and around the world.

Recently though, there has been the beginnings of a revival within Catholicism, especially among the youth who (like me) never experienced the Mass in Latin or knew the Church before the confusion that followed Vatican II, that promises to bring a more traditional form back to the liturgy. There is a movement to re-establish traditional prayers and devotions like Eucharistic adoration and the Rosary, and to breathe new life into the Mass by restoring some of the old.

Now I am not suggesting that Vatican II was a mistake. As a valid Ecumenical Council approved by the pope and convened under the proper conditions for such a Council, Vatican II was guided by the Spirit and teaches with authority. But the implementation of the Council was often sloppy and unregulated. While the Council Fathers certainly taught correct doctrine, the changes that came about within the Church afterward did not always follow the letter of the law. My childhood experience of bizarre experimentations and invented rites bears witness to the fact that Vatican II was not implemented in a uniform way that preserved the integrity of what had come before. And my experience was not unique. Others endured the same sort of liturgical inventions, and far worse.

Now, as I am older, I realize that all of the liturgical "styles" that had been forced on us in my youth were all lacking in one thing – SUBSTANCE. Substance is the meat of the matter and should drive our determination of the value of liturgical style. To have substance means that a thing has "practical value" or "purpose" (as a dictionary will tell you). The liturgical "styles" that were in vogue in my childhood were literally invented out of thin air or borrowed from some new age spiritual movement that happened to be popular at the time. They were not natural outgrowths of Christian spirituality or handed down from saints and martyrs who could attest to their religious worth. Rather, these liturgical inventions were pieced together by self-appointed liturgical gurus who wanted nothing more than to shape the liturgy to their own desires. The "spirit" of Vatican II gave them the perfect cover for their radical experimentation. They cared nothing for the "substance" of true Catholic Tradition, they only sought to concoct the most unique, the most avante-garde of ceremonies.

But what escaped these liturgical abusers is that real substance, real worth in religious liturgy is found not in the cutting edge newness of experimental forms, but in the depth of spiritual Truth contained in the rites and prayers that have an historical connection to the movement of the Spirit that came before. Christianity is handed-on, not reinvented. Our liturgy (while it may change) must always have a connection to its past in order to remain valid and True. Discarding the old and replacing it with something radically different can never be a valid expression of true Catholic liturgy. Otherwise it becomes all "style" with no "substance."

My experience of the Mass from childhood was not all bad. The substance of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist remained through it all. And that gives us hope for the future of the liturgy. The new awakening of Tradition in the hearts and minds of the next generation of Catholics means that we have not lost the faith that was handed on to us.

In keeping with that spirit of awakening old traditions, I decided recently to learn some Latin prayers for personal use in my own prayer life. In 2005 Pope Benedict urged the lay faithful to memorize some of the basic Catholic prayers in the Church’s ecclesial language, so that common prayer could be had during international gatherings such as World Youth Day, and to keep us in touch with our historic liturgical roots. Along this same line, the recent Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum (issued in July 2007) allowed for the expanded use of the old Roman Rite Latin Mass throughout the world. Also the Church’s outreach to the Society of Saint Pius X (known for its hard-line traditionalist views that caused schism within the Church) shows a new openness and appreciation for Latin in the Church’s prayer life and a ought to encourage all Catholics to explore how Latin can be incorporated into their own experience of the faith.

With that in mind, I have posted below the Latin text for the Sign of the Cross and the Our Father. Together these formed the starting point in my exploration of Latin in my spiritual life. I hope other Catholics are encouraged to do likewise as the Church enters a new age of spiritual renewal...

SIGNUM CRUCIS (The Sign of the Cross)

In nomine Patris, et Filii,

In noh-mi-neh Pah-tris, et Fee-li-ee

et Spiritus Sanncti. Amen.
et Spee-ri-toos Sanc-tee Ah-men

PATER NOSTER (Our Father)

Pater noster, qui es in caelis,
Pah-tair noh-stair kwee es in chay-lees;sanctificetur Nomen tuum.

song-tee-fee-chay-tour No-men too-um:

Adveniat regnum tuum
ahd-vay-nee-aht ren-yoom too-um

Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra.
Fee-aht voh-loon-tahs too-ah seek-oot in chay-lo et in ter-rah

Panem nostrum quotidianum

Pah-nem noh-stroom kwo-ti-dee-ahn-oom

da nobis hodie,dah noh-bees oh-dee-ayet dimitte nobis debita nostra

et dee-mee-tay noh-bees day-bee-tah noh-strah,
sicut et nos dimittimus

sic-oot et nohs di-meet-tee-moos

debitoribus nostris.

de-bee-toh-ree-boos noh-strees
Et ne nos inducas in tentationem,et neh nohs in-doo-cahs in ten-tah-tsee-oh-nem
sed libera nos a malo
sed lee-bay-rah nohs ah mah-loh

Amen

The humble embrace of traditional marriage

The recent election has again brought to the fore the issue of same-sex “marriage.” In Maine voters struck down the state’s gay marriage law which had been recently enacted by their elected representatives. In a referendum vote, 53% of Mainers decided to repeal the law and leave traditional marriage intact…for now. Obviously this is good news in a state as left-leaning as Maine tends to be. But of course the fight is not over. As the push for “gay rights” continues on many fronts, we must remain vigilant knowing that the culture is saturated with the homosexual agenda and a disdain for traditional values and institutions.

After the election I discussed the Maine vote with a few liberals who live in that state. They expressed dismay that the people of Maine voted down what they saw as a step toward equal rights and freedom for all. Among the many arguments these liberals presented in favor of gay marriage two ideas stuck out in my mind as most deserving of closer examination here on this blog. I address those two ideas below…

1) A person’s sexuality is not that big a deal. Why should it matter that a person is homosexual?
 

I cannot adequately express in words my baffled amazement at this comment. If sexuality is not a “big deal” then why are homosexuals so adamant about claiming the status of marriage? After all, marriage is society’s way of holding up human sexuality as a BIG DEAL! If being gay (or being straight) is no big deal, then why should we have an institution such as marriage that recognizes sexual relationships…gay or straight? Why not do away with marriage all together?
 

Any way you look at it, our sexuality IS a big deal! It shapes our interpersonal relationships; it affects our emotional and psychological dispositions; it influences how we act in society and how others treat us. Sexuality (our sexual identity) touches so many facets of our lives that it is probably one of THE BIGGEST DEALS in shaping our outlook on life and our overall personality. Just tell a gay person (who undergoes a sometimes agonizing process of self-identification) that their sexuality is “no big deal.” Tell a person who is experiencing confusion in their sexual identification that it’s “no big deal” and they should just get over it.
I don’t think this is a valid argument to be used by the pro-gay-rights movement. Not only is it flat out wrong, it also hurts their cause by belittling the role of sexuality in our lives and thus undermining the importance they place on the cause itself. In other words they are shooting themselves in the foot.

2) The people who oppose gay marriage think they are better than everyone else. They push their ideas on the rest of society and don’t leave room for other opinions.
Now these are really two separate issues, but the way it was presented to me in conversation the two ideas are linked in the mind of the liberal gay-rights activist.
Let’s look at each claim separately and then see why it is wrong to equate the two...

The first claim is that the advocates of traditional marriage think that they are “better” than everyone else. This implies that we traditionalists are “self righteous” or “holier than thou” (to use some of the exact terms that were thrown at me). This brings up the question of “goodness” in the sense of personal sinfulness. So the liberals I spoke with believe that traditionalists support male-female marriage because we are the sinless God-fearers and we reject same-sex marriage because those on the other side are the evil enemies of God.
 

But the fact is I am a sinner and so are all the other supporters of traditional marriage. We know that we are sinners and that is precisely why we hold up traditional values and traditional institutions because they help us to be better people. We certainly do not live up to the ideals of our Christian faith, but then Christ came to save sinners and anyone who claims Christ as their Savior must first admit that he is a sinner and in need of salvation. I do not see myself as “better” than a gay person…I see us both as sinner who need God’s help in overcoming our sinfulness.
 

The second point used in this example is that traditionalists push their ideas on society without leaving room for other opinions. The fact is that marriage is not MY idea. Marriage is (and has been for millennia) a universally recognized institution that fosters male-female sexual expression directed toward procreation and the building of families. Marriage has always been society’s way of recognizing a particular sexual relationship as important for transmitting values and bringing up the next generation of citizens. In short, marriage is the fundamental building-block of society.
 

How can we say that traditionalists push their idea on the rest of society, when in fact marriage has been received by all of us from society since time immemorial? Traditional marriage was not invented one day by a group of religious fundamentalists in order to oppress gays or force a certain theology on the community at large. Marriage predates Christianity. Marriage between man and woman is older than Biblical texts, older than religion, and extends back into pre-history.
 

Traditionalists are not sinless, perfect, holier-than-thou religious freaks who want to force a rigid definition onto society. To be honest, traditionalists see marriage as something bigger than anything we in our imperfect state can tamper with. We know that we are imperfect sinful creatures, and that marriage has been handed to us from the history of humanity and we have no authority to change it or alter it in any way. It is those who do advocate a redefinition of marriage who must bear the burden of proof. What makes them so self-righteous and arrogant to believe that they have a “better” way of defining marriage?
 

So we can conclude with the following: Human sexuality is indeed an important facet of our being. It is a VERY “big deal.” It is such a big deal that cultures around the world, across the religious spectrum and all throughout human history have recognized the sexual relationship between man and woman as deserving of its own institution which we call marriage. Those who support traditional marriage between a man and a woman do so, not because we are arrogant or self-righteous, and certainly not because we think we are “better” than anyone else. We do so because we humbly accept what has been handed down to us from God or the “wisdom of the ages” or whatever you prefer to call the source of this venerable institution.
 

Those who support re-defining marriage must learn to accept the importance of human sexuality, not as some personal choice, but as a part of our human nature that touches the lives of others and affects the whole community. To try to change marriage into something that fits our personal desires and that flies in the face of every civilization, religion, and culture we have ever known is the very definition of self-righteous arrogance.