In November 2016, Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan began deliberating on same-sex marriage legislation. My Facebook feed turned into a battlefield overnight.

On one side: rainbow flags, equality slogans, declarations of “Love is love.” On the other: church mobilizations, prayer chains, campaigns to “protect families.” Both sides were loud. Both sides were certain they were right. And I sat in the middle, deeply uncomfortable.

The discomfort wasn’t because I lacked a position. It was because I saw too many people rushing to pick sides without having done their homework.

Instant Noodle Faith

I observed a troubling pattern in church circles.

A pastor declares a position from the pulpit, and the congregation swallows it whole. An elder shares an article, and the small group chat follows suit. No one asks: What does the original biblical text actually say? How has the church’s understanding of this issue changed over history? What are the best arguments from today’s most rigorous theologians—whether they support or oppose?

These questions are too hard, too time-consuming. So most people skip them and grab a “correct answer” instead.

I call this “instant noodle faith”—ready-made belief you can consume in three minutes. No chewing needed, no digestion required, no uncomfortable admission that “maybe I don’t fully understand.”

But same-sex marriage isn’t instant noodles. It’s a dish that needs slow simmering and patient tasting. Skip the cooking process and all you get is nutrient-less starch.

Scripture Doesn’t Speak for Itself

Many Christians quote Leviticus 18:22 (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman”) as biblical evidence against same-sex marriage. But if you study biblical hermeneutics seriously, you’ll know it’s not that simple.

The same chapter of Leviticus also prohibits wearing clothes of mixed fibers (19:19), prohibits trimming sidelocks (19:27), and prohibits eating bloody meat (19:26). Why does the church selectively emphasize certain prohibitions while ignoring others? What hermeneutical principle underlies this choice?

This isn’t a defense of same-sex marriage. It’s pointing out a fact: biblical texts don’t speak for themselves. They need to be interpreted. And interpretation itself is filled with human presuppositions, cultural contexts, and historical circumstances.

The most profound lesson I learned in seminary was this: Scripture isn’t unclear. Rather, the ways we think we understand Scripture are usually more limited than we admit.

Two Arguments, One Bible

If you really take time to read contemporary theologians, you’ll discover a humbling fact: both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage have serious biblical scholars, and they’re all quoting from the same Bible.

The opposition’s core argument typically rests on “creation order”—God created male and female, marriage is the union of one man and one woman, this is the norm established in Genesis 2. From the perspective of natural law ethics, heterosexual marriage is fundamental to human existence.

Supporters point out that Jesus’s core teaching is love and acceptance. He continuously challenged exclusive religious norms in his society and ate with those marginalized by mainstream culture. If we extend Jesus’s logic of action to our contemporary context, the church should be the community best positioned to understand the pain of the excluded.

Neither argument is nonsense. Both find support in biblical texts. This is what makes the issue truly difficult—it’s not a simple right versus wrong binary. It’s tension between two interpretive traditions that both have merit.

What I Observe in Church

Let me share some personal observations.

I’ve participated in church life for years and know many devout Christians. Regarding same-sex marriage, I observe three typical responses.

The first is the “Certainty Camp.” They’re absolutely certain same-sex marriage is wrong, quoting scripture confidently. But when you ask if they’ve read the strongest arguments from supporters, most fall silent. Their certainty rests on hearing only one side.

The second is the “Avoidance Camp.” They think this issue is too sensitive, too prone to conflict, so they choose not to discuss it. “Let’s just focus on evangelism.” But avoidance itself is a position—it tacitly endorses the status quo and forfeits the church’s opportunity to voice something of quality in public discourse.

The third is the “Struggle Camp.” They’ve read both sides and carry internal tension—they can’t find an answer that lets them rest completely. They dare not express this struggle in church for fear of being labeled “weak in faith.”

I lean toward the third. And I believe the third is the most honest response.

Tension Is Not the Problem; Avoiding Tension Is

Seminary training taught me this: faith is not meant to eliminate tension.

In the Old Testament, Job suffered inexplicable suffering and questioned God. God’s response wasn’t an explanation but a glimpse of Job’s limited understanding. Job’s story tells us: some questions don’t have answers within human reach. And acknowledging this is itself a form of spiritual depth.

Same-sex marriage is similar. The tension between love and law is not a problem we “must solve.” It is a burden we “must learn to bear.”

This doesn’t mean we don’t need to take positions. But it means our positions should be humble, open to dialogue, willing to acknowledge our blind spots. Not that arrogant kind of “I already know what God thinks.”

What the Church Can Be

I’ve always believed that the church’s greatest value in public discourse isn’t to loudly announce “the right answer.” It’s to model a different way of having conversations.

In an age when everyone is shouting slogans, the church can be a place willing to slow down, listen carefully, and understand different perspectives with love. Not because “anything goes,” but because we believe truth is strong enough that it doesn’t need volume to sustain it.

If the church on same-sex marriage demonstrates that “we did deeper homework than anyone, we listened to both sides’ best arguments, we prayed and reflected, and we share our understanding with humility”—even if people disagree with our conclusions, they’ll respect our process.

But if the church only shows “the Bible says so, if you don’t like it, you lack faith”—we lose not just our voice on this issue, but a whole generation’s trust in the church.

Before rushing to take a stand, maybe we should first quiet down and do the homework we skipped.

The depth of faith is not shown in how quickly we give answers. It’s shown in how we face questions that have no simple answers.