Several days ago I met a tiger. Now that surprised me because the tiger was described as a new symbol for peace with apologies to those who would prefer the dove. But now I think I understand more clearly the place of symbols in our evolving culture. Nothing is stable except the Rock of Israel. Nothing is absolute except the word of God. Nothing is graceful except the grace of Christ given to the Church because of his life, death and resurrection.
Seemingly all are aligned against the redemptive work of Christ. Rather then coming to Jesus Christ to be transformed by his grace many want to glorify their sin.
More Light Presbyterians are advertising two events in California in the push by some to keep Proposition eight from passing. Proposition 8 is the measure that would restore traditional and biblical marriage back to California. More Light Presbyterians have teamed up with California Faith for Equality as well as the Covenant Network of Presbyterians.
As I have recently posted, California Council of Churches is one of the founders of California Faith for Equality. This means that two of the groups pushing for gay ordination which have connections with the PCUSA are also helping an organization in California which claims to represent 51 denominations and religious groups.
As I was researching the two organizations, California Council of Churches and California Church Impact, I found that they are both helped by Board Directors from both the Northern California Interreligious Conference and the Southern California Ecumenical Council. The California Council of Churches in Sacramento is simply an office with a Director for NCIC and SCEC. The latter group is connected to the World Council of Churches and the former has evolved into an organization simply lifting up all faiths.
The leader of NCIC, Rev. Phil Lawson, stated in 1998, when receiving an award from the NCC, "Religions are only about 10,000 years old, but spirituality, religious feelings, go back three or four hundred thousand years. ... We need to include a role for the spiritual movement that is not religiously confined—that goes beyond Baptists and Buddhists."
So what does one do with this maze of organizations, many with Church in their name, all bent on destroying the biblical view of marriage, most with a poor understanding of true Christianity. The Director of SCEC, Rev. Albert Cohen, has suggested that the tiger is a more forceful symbol for what he wants to accomplish through his organization.
There is another symbol, a symbol that is a reality with deep roots in Judaism and Christianity. And that is the sacrificial lamb who is the Lion of Judah. The One who died on the cross for our sins is also the One who is Lord. And in the midst of uncertainty and fear he is also the Rock of Israel. Whatever, happens after November the 4th, Jesus Christ is still Lord, and his Church will still understand marriage as God first designed it, between a man and a woman.
This is God's call for faithfulness.
50 comments:
Why does such a thing not surprise me! I pray California is with it enough to pass Prop 8. It would be a great victory for those who believe in marriage rather than sexual anarchy.
Alan
Anonymous said...
"all bent on destroying the biblical view of marriage"
THE biblical view? I didn't think the Bible expressed a single view on marriage. Do all descriptions of marriage in the bible truly share one consolidated view? How does one arrive at THE biblical view of marriage and how does one come to the conclusion that God designed it?
Carl
PS How can institutionalizing same gender marriage be described as "sexual anarchy"? It's a social contract sanctioned by the state, so it can't be anarchy, and since when is marriage about sex?
Alan,
It would be a victory. But I just came away from a PFR small meeting at our church tonight with a few people from other churches who are Evangelical and I feel very uplifted from the singing, teaching, discussion and fellowship. Perhaps that is the real victory.
Carl,
"And he [Jesus] answered them and said, 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. And the two shall becomr one flesh'? (Matthew 19:4-6)
So was Abraham living in sin for having multiple wives and concubines? Or is that also not a biblical view of marriage?
Did the many wives of King David not satisfy a biblical view of marriage?
Was Lot ever condemned for offering his daughters up for gang rape, or his daughters for laying with him to keep his blood line alive?
Aren't these views of sex and marriage also not Biblical? Why limit yourself only to the comments Jesus made when answering the question about divorce?
(I take also that the biblical view of marriage you speak of makes divorce impossible, yes?)
Carl,
I am surprised that you don't know that the Bible presents humanity as we are, sinful. The authors don't gloss over our awful history of sin, as God does not either. I gave you the answer to the questions you asked with that verse.
Just because people live a certain way in the Bible doesn't mean it has God's approval.
If you read further you will find that Jesus lays out the provision for divorce.
"If you read further you will find that Jesus lays out the provision for divorce."
Which no one follows either.
Perhaps we should have a ballot initiative to determine who can and who cannot get divorced.
I'm sure, in the name of consistency, Viola, you'll be proposing one soon, as I'm also sure you wouldn't only want to single out one group of people for their "sin". ;)
Or not.
As far as the Biblical view of marriage, Prop 8 is a civil matter. It does not require churches to perform same-sex marriages. It simply treats all people equal under the law.
Or is the Biblical view of equality that some people are more equal than others?
Carl generally people who divorce feel bad about it, and may repent if they are the cause. The gay community, on the other hand, does not acknowledge homosexual sex as sin and are asking Christians to accept their lifestyle as okay.
That is a vast difference.
Sorry, that wasn't carl, that was me. My apologies, usually Blogger fills in my name, etc.
"Carl generally people who divorce feel bad about it, and may repent if they are the cause. "
Repent? You mean they get remarried to their spouse?
Because that's the only repentance that Jesus talks about. Otherwise they're just committing adultery if they get remarried. That's the "Biblical view" (as you would say) about divorce.
In any event, you aren't actually saying that divorce isn't wrong, correct? So if it is a sin, why not prevent it with a constitutional amendment? You haven't really made your case there.
"nd are asking Christians to accept their lifestyle as okay. "
Nope. Again, nothing about this law requires religious communities to recognize gay marriage in any way, and in fact, such a requirement would itself violate the California Constitution.
If by lifestyle you mean hospital visitation rights, inheritance and estate rights, etc., then folks in CA are simply asking for equality, not approval.
Alan,
"and I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matt 19:9)
There is a provision for the divorced. But I do think people in Western society divorce far too easily, and Christians in particular.
Gay marriage does affect Christianity because it hurts society and Christians live in society. I believe we are in an immoral downward spiral as a society and gay marriage is just a part of it.
Personally I think the case for calling sexual relations between loving consenting married adults a sin is based on unsubstantiated assumptions and weak.
And the case for limiting marriage to members of opposite genders is also weak and based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
It is more likely, and easier to substantiate with verifiable evidence, that it is based on prejudice and even bigotry.
At best it is based on arbitrary social norms, and these are known to change from time to time.
Perhaps now is one of those times.
Carl
Carl,
Do you believe the Holy Scriptures? Or is the culture of the day more important?
Arthur,
I asked Carl that question because he said, "Personally I think the case for calling sexual relations between loving consenting married adults a sin is based on unsubstantiated assumptions and weak."
It is the Scripture that calls it sin and not assumptions. He can say he disagrees with the Bible, he can say he agrees, but it still is not unsubstantiated assumptions but the word of God.
Viola,
My point stands. Plenty of divorces happen for things other than immorality. And yet they're allowed. You don't see fit, apparently, to try to pass a constitutional amendment regarding those divorces.
Why is that? Simple enough question, I think.
"Gay marriage does affect Christianity because it hurts society and Christians live in society. "
Show me one straight married couple who has gotten a divorce because of the legalization of gay marriage.
Divorce certainly affects Christianity because it hurts society and Christians live in society. But you don't have a problem with legalization of divorce for *any* reason. Again, why is that?
It's ok to be honest and simply say you hold straight people to a different standard than gay people. At least that would be honest.
Otherwise, I'm sure you can explain why you don't think divorce for reasons other than immorality should be prohibited by law.
Alan,
I am not sure why you wrote this,
"Show me one straight married couple who has gotten a divorce because of the legalization of gay marriage."
I was not at all suggesting that traditional marriages would experience divorce because of legalizing gay marriage.
What I was suggesting was that as immorality becomes more and more acceptable it would affect all of society including the Church.
We disagree over the sinfulness of gay sex so let me put it in other terms so you can understand where I am coming from. Suppose we legalized some forms of stealing (some of course would say we already have) but suppose we legalized stealing from cars when the owner left their car unlocked. Of course we would have many more people looking for unlocked cars because it would be lawful to own the stuff found.
Society would suffer as people learned that sometimes its okay to take other peoples stuff.
Or suppose that eventually it became okay to kill a child when they were one month old because they were not desirable. (One famous ethics Professor has suggested this, Peter Singer) Soon life wouldn't seem as important as it now does. Society would be affected. People's morality would change.
The same is true with sexual morality. After each hurdle is passed another one will pop up, it will never end because humans are sinful. And society is always affected.
I do think we should go back to a time when we did not have no-fault divorce. I think women were better protected by the laws on divorce then. I just think that women should be allowed to obtain a divorce from an abusive husband.
Arthur,
Do you understand how analogy works?
Viola,
You asked if I believe in the Holy Scriptures. The answer is that it doesn't matter if I do or don't.
First there is the obvious problem of Biblical interpretation, and the fact that biblical scholars disagree on what the Bible actually says, and means.
Then you said:
"It is the Scripture that calls it sin and not assumptions. He [meaning me] can say he disagrees with the Bible, he can say he agrees, but it still is not unsubstantiated assumptions but the word of God."
If the Bible calls the "it" a sin, the claim that the Bible is the word of God, however you want to spin it, is itself the unsubstantiated assumption I speak of.
And to base entire discriminatory legal systems on unsubstantiated assumptions is weak, and perhaps even wrong.
But you are suggesting basing legal systems on unsubstantiated circular interpretations of unsubstantiated circular assumptions.
Even if we were a theocracy that would be a bad idea.
When the president of Iran does it we call him a lunatic.
I feel you are so far out on thin ice that you are going to break through and drown in a sea of bigotry, never realizing that is what it was you did.
Legal systems should be based on tangible measurable agreed upon principles and values. That is what Alan and Arthur are asking for, and me as well.
Without relying on unverifiable assumptions, on what solid basis should we discriminate against other human beings who are born with mutual same gender romantic attraction? On the basis that it hurts other people? That it hurts society? How so, exactly?
Carl
Arthur,
you wrote:
"Or just for the amusement value, tell us how stealing from cars is analogous to gay marriage."
First there is no amusement value in writing about what I am writing about.
Stealing from others is a sin. And that is quite clear in Scriptures. Homosexual sex is a sin and that is also quite clear in Scripture.
A community given over to stealing, and legally so is a very broken community. A community given over to homosexual sex or any other kind of sexual immorality and legally so is a broken community.
There is healing however in Jesus Christ. He died for all of our sins.
Paul writes of the past sins of the Corinthians, "Do not be decieved neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9b-11)
Carl,
When you write something like this, "But you are suggesting basing legal systems on unsubstantiated circular interpretations of unsubstantiated circular assumptions," without any explanation of why you consider the Bibles teaching "unsubstantiated circular assumptions," it just leaves me cold. It shows a complete lack of regard for what you are actually using for your argument.
Are you referring to biblical criticism? Form criticism? Are you totally discarding the words of the Bible? And if so why? Perhaps you are referring to material used by the Jesus Seminar--which some do. But they are not considered good scholars by most scholars. I just don't know where to go with your remarks because you haven't given any foundational reasons for calling the word's of the Bible "unsubstantiated circular assumptions."
Secondly as far as being called a bigot by you or anybody else, I don't like it of course, especially since I have spent a good deal of my adult life writing about racism, but I will be faithful to Jesus Christ and his Church no matter what. And really I have been called a lot worse things than that for the sake of Christ, so that bit won't win your argument.
Arthur,
The victims of the two sins I am referring to is the Community. Please quite twisting my words.
I met Rob Gagnon, a nice guy, he would not stomp on my analogy. And if you want to argue with someone I would suggest you read his material.
I use mainly the New American Standard translation, the Interlinear Greek English New Testament suggests "voluptuous persons" for effeminate, and sodomites for homosexual.
(I have to admit I have forgotten my Greek--sorry to my teacher) but I do believe I can trust translators.
The New Revised Standard Version reads, "male prostitutes" and "sodomites."
Just putting legal marriage as a gloss on this does not change it. It is still the same. Also Homosexual perversions, in my mind does not change the text it simply reminds the reader that homosexuality is a perversion.
You can twist the meaning of these verses around all you want but you can't make them say what you want them to; that homosexual sex is okay under certain circumstances. It isn't and the Bible does not say that it is.
Carl,
I do believe you are saying that you do not believe the Bible is the word of God. In fact I feel we would not be having this discussion if you truly thought so.
I have recently read on someone's blog that we Christians need to start referring to Christian Marriage in all that we do so it can be distinguished from all the marriage perversions that are becoming law. I wonder what you would say to that? See http://web.mac.com/noela/My_Site/AnderspeaK/Entries/2008/9/15_CHURCH_RESPONSE_TO_GAY_MARRIAGE.html
Arthur,
I think we have come to the end of this discussion, mainly because I have other things to do.
I believe that when the Bible speaks of homosexuality it includes what today you call "private sex between two mutually consenting same-sex partners in a monogamous loving relationship." after all the Greeks had such relationships. They were not unheard of in the ancient world.
Homosexual perversion is still the same whether it is a mutual consenting relationship or not.
You write, “You say you can trust translators. That sounds to me a lot like you're putting your trust in the Bishops. That doesn't sound very reformed to me. How would that sound to you if you heard that answer during a candidate examination in your presbytery?”
Let me put it to you this way--If it was a New World Translation, the Jehovah Witness bible, no of course not--it was not translated by Greek scholars. But and if a candidate for ministry stood up in our Presbytery and said he was using the NIV or the NRSV or the NAS (the best one by the way: ) I wouldn’t question them. Would you? But I would question them about whether they believed in the authority of Scriptures or not.
As far as Ursinus, and Olivianus I goes will simply give you Robert Gagnon’s paper address on the subject. You have asked an important question and his longer answer is the best, if you really are interested, http://robgagnon.net/HeidelbergCatechismRetranslation.htm
Please do not comment again on this posting as I selfishly like to have the last word.
Arthur,
I note that you never give a reason why you disagree. I don't find Gagnon's argument weak at all. And since the Church for almost two-thousand years has followed his understanding about homosex I feel that he has both Scripture and the world-wide Church on his side.
"I was not at all suggesting that traditional marriages would experience divorce because of legalizing gay marriage. What I was suggesting was that as immorality becomes more and more acceptable it would affect all of society including the Church."
I'm simply suggesting that then there should be, you know, actual evidence of the harm you're suggesting would happen. But that's a secondary point.
"I do think we should go back to a time when we did not have no-fault divorce. I think women were better protected by the laws on divorce then. I just think that women should be allowed to obtain a divorce from an abusive husband."
Well, we agree divorce is bad.
So again I ask you, when will you be supporting a constitutional amendment to outlaw it (except in cases of immorality)? You continue to refuse to answer this question. I wonder why that is...
The issue of gay marriage has been around in the political arena for only a few years. Yet, divorce for reasons other than immorality has been around far longer. So you can perhaps understand why I find it odd that people who want to protect society from accepting immorality wouldn't have, years ago in fact, passed a constitutional amendment against divorce. It isn't as if you haven't had the time to get around to it, eh?
So I'm just wondering when you'll start the drive for such a constitutional amendment and will it be a state by state drive, or a federal one, or both?
Arthur,
I have deleted you and I will delete you again if you post on this subject again. For two reasons:
First:
When you wrote this, "As a counter point, I notice that you avoid answering specific, direct questions (typical of the “Consistory”), “ you are insulting some other brothers in the Lord when they have not even posted here.
Second: I told you I wanted the last word, it is my blog after all.
Alan you write,
"The issue of gay marriage has been around in the political arena for only a few years. Yet, divorce for reasons other than immorality has been around far longer. So you can perhaps understand why I find it odd that people who want to protect society from accepting immorality wouldn't have, years ago in fact, passed a constitutional amendment against divorce."
This thought is based on your understanding that gay marriage and marriage between a man and A woman are the same. But it isn't true and therefore the question you are asking about divorce doesn't hold.
Insisting that society pass a constitutional amendment against divorce is just another attempt to make the two things the same. One can work at eliminating divorce with all kinds of helps including education, religion and counseling-- but once gay marriage is legal there is no recourse, gay marriage will still be legal.
And this is the last word for this thread.
Viola,
I hope you don't mind, but I didn't get a chance to reply to your question:
"I have recently read on someone's blog that we Christians need to start referring to Christian Marriage in all that we do so it can be distinguished from all the marriage perversions that are becoming law. I wonder what you would say to that?"
I read Noel Anderson's blog and I guess I would say that his fundamental premise, that marriage is a religious term, seems incorrect almost my inspection.
He says "In every culture, in all of recorded history, marriage is a religiously-defined entity"
That's kind of an absolutist claim that nobody can really make.
In fact, even in the bible, a quick search of the OT will show you that in nearly every case, marriage is a business transaction. Women are basically sold into marriage by their fathers in exchange for property or services rendered.
Even at the famous wedding in Canan where Jesus did his first miracle, there is no mention of a religious ceremony at that wedding.
Now I think it is true that in the Helenistic world the gods were called upon to sanction marriages, and I would guess that what we would call "Christian marriage" is an adaptation of that practice. But other than that, I think Noel's entire premise is wrong.
And he uses it to turn the role of separation of Church and State on its head!
Do you happen to know where he got that? I suppose it would be an interesting study in Anthropology to look across time and cultures and see which cultures see marriage as a religious act and the history of their practices versus those cultures that see it as a political or business transaction instead.
Now that you got my curiosity I shall do some research to see if anybody has actually done some work in this field. I'd be curious if you have come across any.
In the mean time, I would say that trying to establish any notion of Christian marriage on the American legal system is a violation of the separation of Church and State. If proposition 8 were to pass in California I imagine the Supreme court would still throw it out as being unconstitutional.
Carl
Carl,
While, I don't know about the historical accuracy of Noel's first point the rest of it is right on, and you have failed to understand what he is suggesting.
Noel is not suggesting that the Church ask the state to make “Christian marriage” legal. He is stating that this is the Church’s business not the State’s. And that would mean that in the Church only marriages between a man and woman could be celebrated. It would also mean that a pastor could only perform a heterosexual marriage. He would not be required to perform any other. That is as far as the Church is concerned.
If the state insisted that would be the state interfering with the Church and that would be persecution.
As the Declaration of Barmen states, “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.
Viola,
In a logical argument, when the premise fails to be true, the conclusion does not follow.
I am not sure that in Reformed theology there is the distinction you and him are trying to make.
Of course any church is free to decide whether or not and how it wishes to perform religious ceremonies. Some people like to say what they do, and only what they do, is Christian. Certain Baptists for example say that only adult baptism by immersion counts as Baptism. We Presbyterians say that sprinkling water on the head of an infant counts just the same.
At the end of the day, whose to say? I believe it is the Holy Spirit who decides and we merely invoke His action, as in a prayer.
I see no reason we cannot do the same with marriage. I am a witness to the love and commitment that a same gender couple can have for each other. I am also a witness to the shunning and cruelty that homosexuals have been subjected to for being born different than the remaining 85% of the population. I cannot tell the difference between that form of cruelty and the cruelty that comes from sexual, racial, ethnic, and religious persecution. It's an evil humans do.
So putting these two facts together, I think calling on the Holy Spirit to bless and protect same gender marriages in the same way that we call on the Spirit to bless any other marriage relationship is an honorable request.
I believe the Holy Spirit would honor such an intercession, but that belief is not a prerequisite to making it. We pray for lots of things for which we aren't sure how God will answer.
So I am of the opinion that if the State allows it, Presbyterians pastors should be free to conduct same gender marriage ceremonies and pray for God's blessings on same gender unions just as they are free to do so for heterosexual couples. If the couple worships the risen Christ and places their trust in him in life and in death, then they are Christian. If they swear before God and before the Church to remain faithful to one another in sickness and in health, in plenty and in want, forsaking all others till death do they part, then what they have is a Christian marriage.
Calling such people apostate and such ceremonies anathema at the risk of preserving and institutionalizing homophobic cruelty serves, in my opinion, no useful purpose.
I guess that's my final answer.
Carl
"This thought is based on your understanding that gay marriage and marriage between a man and A woman are the same. But it isn't true and therefore the question you are asking about divorce doesn't hold."
Divorce has nothing to do with gay marriage. Divorce is currently legal in all 50 states, and is recognized by the federal government.
I'm sure you will agree that gay marriage and heterosexual divorce are two completely separate and unrelated issues. And you've already stated clearly that you believe divorce except in certain cases is wrong.
So no, I'm not trying to make an equivalence. I'm simply suggesting that if you are arguing that a Constitutional Amendment is required to protect society from the immorality of gay marriage, then any number of other Constitutional Amendments should be required to protect society from other forms of immorality: abortion, for example, or divorce.
I'm just assuming here, but I would find it surprising if you weren't also in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
So then, I simply find it odd that you refuse to answer the question about why marriage advocates such as yourself refuse to pass constitutional amendments to ban divorce except in cases of immorality or abuse. Again, that has nothing to do with gay marriage, but has everything to do with a clear reading of Jesus' instruction on divorce.
Seems inconsistent to me. Unless perhaps your argument isn't really based on the Bible, but on some other, more subjective, beliefs? Or perhaps you only are in favor of Constitutional Amendments that wouldn't affect you in anyway? That's purely speculation, of course, because you refuse to answer the question.
But that in itself is telling.
If you want to protect marriage, Viola, as we all do, I would suggest you focus on the 95% of the population that currently is allowed to get legally married, and yet has a divorce rate close to 50%.
Heterosexual divorce is the real and very present threat to heterosexual marriage, and yet you and your heterosexual allies refuse to work for a constitutional amendment banning heterosexual divorce.
My two cents:
Why a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage and not one banning no-fault divorce? It's a good question. I think one answer is that there is a concern that courts will legalize gay marriage with no regard to any democratic process. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't no fault divorce laws decided by legislatures? And can't they be undone by legislative action as well? Indeed, Louisiana has gone partly in that direction by allowing for Covenant Marriages, which are both harder to enter into and harder to get out of.
But if a court, be it state or federal, declare that something is a "constitutional" right, there is no way to overturn that except by Constitutional Amendment (unless the court changes its mind, which may or may not happen).
Personally, I support any legislative measures to restrict divorce. It's a scandal that a supposedly Judeo-Christian nation has such a high divorce rate. And it's terribly harmful to children and communities.
Having said that, even if such measures to restrict divorce are not available to support (because of the moral or political cowardice of officeholders), I am still going to support any measures, including a Constitutional Amendment, to ban gay marriage. Allowing one type of evil does not justify allowing another type.
John Erthein
Erie, PA
Carl,
Of course there will be denominations which marry same sex couples, and praise God there will be denominations and churches and individual pastors who will not.
And the visible Church will be torn apart by it. But there will be the faithful that is what my posting is about.
John, thank you for answering my question.
But, even if we assume, as you do that it's a judicial vs. legislative process that is the reason for the drive for the anti-gay marriage amendments (and I, obviously, would say it's neither one, though I understand what you're saying) you're simply moving the goal post. So then the question becomes why hasn't there been a strong (or any) legislative push for making divorce illegal? In fact by making that point, you strengthen my argument, because I would assume that getting legislation passed against divorce would be far easier than getting a Constitutional Amendment passed, which is evidenced by some of the things going on in Louisiana.
If they can do such things, why isn't anyone else bothering? And again, it isn't like there hasn't been plenty of time. The divorce rate had been skyrocketing for years before anyone had even heard the term "gay marriage".
You wrote, "Allowing one type of evil does not justify allowing another type. "
I agree. True enough, but it doesn't justify completely ignoring the first type of evil for decades and decades. What I mean is that, if tightening divorce laws was even on the agenda in the last say, 100 years, and someone -- anyone! -- had bothered to spend a penny trying to do something about it, but had met with stiff resistance, then you'd be justified in saying "Allowing one type of evil does not justify allowing another type." But the amount of work done to decrease divorce as compared to the work being done to ban gay marriage effectively rounds to zero.
In addition, I assume people could work on more than one thing at once. I'm sure plenty of the same people who are working to ban gay marriage, for example, are also working to ban abortion. They seem to be able to multitask just fine. Yet, I find it odd that they leave open so many other opportunities for immorality, especially the single greatest threat to marriage: divorce. So, while allowing one type of evil does not justify allowing another type, folks might, someday want to actually think about possibly perhaps one day consider doing something about divorce.
(And yes, legislation might be one way, but most churches, from the far right to the far left are nothing but slightly less tacky versions of Las Vegas wedding chapels. So while some might make this a purely a secular issue, I don't think most churches, including those on the right, are doing anything real to defend marriage.)
From a practical, rather than ideological standpoint, if I were to look at marriage in this country objectively and ask, "What is the single greatest threat to marriage?" I would find it hard to argue that spending millions and millions of dollars to ban something that's already illegal in nearly every corner of the country, that impacts maybe 1% of the population, would be the first thing I'd work on, while we have a nearly 50% divorce rate. So, while allowing one type of evil does not justify allowing another type, it also doesn't make any sense to spend millions and millions of dollars going after an "evil" that affects ~1% of people, vs. and evil that effects millions, particularly when the evil of divorce represents, as I think you might agree, a fundamental harm to one of the foundational institutions of our culture and society.
If a tire has a leak, you don't start looking for pin holes while ignoring the giant slash down the side, and yet claim that you're working hard to keep the tire inflated. If you're going to argue, as Viola did above, that "we are in an immoral downward spiral", perhaps actually addressing the real issues might be one way to stop up the drain.
Unless that isn't actually the motivation behind all anti-gay marriage stuff in the first place.
Alan,
There SHOULD be a lot more attention given to combatting divorce legally. I agree with you about this.
I do think the more conservative churches are more consistent about this in their internal standards (I know that isn't the same as public policy advocacy but it should be mentioned.). In the PCA and Independent Baptist churches, a man who has been divorced cannot be a pastor. My brother in law is Indie Baptist. He is divorced (not at his choice I might add). He can never be a pastor in his tradition.
And plenty of public policy journals are opposed to no fault divorce, including ones I read like First Things.
Now, as to why there is not the same level of public or legislative action against divorce as there is against gay marriage, well, sadly, it's likely because divorce is a heterosexual sin and it's harder in general to oppose a sin that so many people practice. Outside of the most sectarian conservative corners of America (like traditionalist Catholics, fundamentalist Protestants and the LDS Church), different sins are treated differently. They SHOULD NOT be. But certainly I have sadly found that to be the case in the PCUSA renewal movement.
Obviously, if anyone else has a better explanation I'd be happy to hear it.
John Erthein
Erie, PA
For my own part, I try to support or vote for those candidates and issues I agree with, even if I think better candidates or issues should be on the ballot. I expect you do this yourself.
Viola,
You said “there will be denominations which marry same sex couples, and praise God there will be denominations and churches and individual pastors who will not…the faithful…”
I respect you as a person, but this comment seems borderline taking God’s name in vain. It also reminds me of a very similar prayer in Luke 18:
“God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector”
I’ll tell you what I praise God for:
Fifty years ago this Fall my father began his first pastorate in a little Southern Presbyterian church in a small town in Alabama. That church placed two deacons at the front door whose job it was among others to make sure no black people accidentally tried to step foot in their all white church. May father hoped to see the day when segregation and racial bigotry were eradicated from the Church and society. He dared hope to see the day when blacks were given full participation in society and the Church as equal children of God in every way. He had the audacity to preach his views in a large Presbyterian church in Birmingham. Needless to say he was never asked back, and shortly thereafter his own congregation decided they had no stomach for the views of this audacious young preacher.
Today that church is the home of a tax collector, an IRS agent who remodeled it and placed a toilet where the pulpit used to be.
Several successful pastorates later, my honorably retired father may yet live to see the day when a black man becomes the President of the United States, although I don’t think Alabama will be voting that way just yet.
I praise God that people like my father stood against the prevailing views of the Church and society in his day and for all those that have followed in their footsteps even today to end prejudice and fear and embrace all God’s children in the Church.
Carl
Carl,
I am glad that your father took that stand. It was and is an important stand.
However, sexual orientation is not the same thing as race. And there are many African American Christians who would agree with what I have just written.
In fact, as you probably know, it is Christians from the Southern cone (Africa and South America) which have stepped into the fray in the United States to help their orthodox brothers and sisters.
God calls us to love and care for all people, but to also call them away from thir sin. In fact, we, me, are to continually repent; that is what confession is about.
Jude, writes:
But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.
God calls us to mercy but he does not call us to an unrepentant Christian walk.
The Churches and people you are writing about did not even want to deal with brothers and sisters, but the Church is called to minister to all. Christians are called to love those who are broken by homosexuality or any-other sin problem, and encourage each other to be healed of their sin. This is what Christianity is about calling the sinful home.
"Outside of the most sectarian conservative corners of America (like traditionalist Catholics, fundamentalist Protestants and the LDS Church), different sins are treated differently. They SHOULD NOT be. But certainly I have sadly found that to be the case in the PCUSA renewal movement."
Well, we certainly agree about that, John. I think that there are a number of reasons for that, some of which you outlined. Unfortunately, what many people don't realize is exactly how hypocritical these stands appear to others.
Viola,
I think we have hit the rock bottom of our disagreement here:
"However, sexual orientation is not the same thing as race."
Based on a preponderance of mounting scientific evidence, I think that it is.
The Church has made many mistakes over the centuries based on its lack of understanding of nature, and this is just one more of those many sad and tragic cases.
Carl
Post a Comment