How should Christians process the findings of the Supreme Court today regarding same-sex marriages? Should Christians get with the 21st century and let all people be happy? Should Christians stand by traditional understandings of marriage? How much should Christians seek to have their beliefs affect the culture?
Every person certainly has their reasons why they are excited or disappointed with what happened in our nation’s capitol. The ruling confirms something to me that will probably not surprise you but has become clear to me today. The United States is officially a Secular Society.
I’ll unpack this but let me first take a step back. I want you to know, if you are reading this and thinking a caveman is about to grunt out some ridiculous tirade of old-fashioned nonsense, that I think same-sex marriage is reasonable. Not only reasonable but my experience also tells me that homosexuals should be happy. Many homosexuals are probably even better parents than many heterosexual couples. Yes, I just made that statement. Please don’t stop reading now if your blood is boiling. Please hear me out.
Let’s now move toward examining why I said our country is secular and how that should influence a Christian’s response to the Supreme Court. Today’s ruling did not surprise me one bit. After I heard the arguments put forth to the Supreme Court earlier this year I was pretty sure the court would rule in favor of same-sex marriage. I was truly embarrassed as I heard the lame arguments being made against same-sex marriage.
On National Public Radio (NPR) I listened to audio coming out of the Supreme Court. A man made the case marriage should only be between heterosexuals because marriage is intended for human beings to procreate. I cringed as I waited to hear this guy’s weak argument get destroyed. I didn’t have to wait long. If marriage is intended for procreation only, one Justice asked, should we have fertility checks before issuing marriage licenses? Shouldn’t infertile couples also be banned from marriage? How about older couples who have passed the child bearing years…should they also be banned from marriage? I felt so bad for the guy with the weak argument as he stuttered through some lame response.
I believe the man who was arguing against same-sex marriage had a bullet proof argument. He could have utilized the trump card of sola Scriptura. Christians, you see, believe the Bible is not the only authority for human beings. There are many authorities in our life directing our thoughts and actions. Our parents are authorities. Our reason is an authority. Tradition is an authority. Experience is an authority. Christians do not believe the Bible is the only authority in our life. Christians do believe Scripture is the ultimate authority.
Let me give you a quick example. If your parents gave birth to you out of wedlock you are traditionally given the unfortunate label of: bastard child. You grow up with the experience from your grandmother that you are indeed a bastard child. You look around at your seemingly pathetic life and reason that they must be right you are the scum of the earth. Then you turn to scripture and learn God loves you, sent His Son for you, and wants you with Him forever. What authority wins? The concept of sola Scriptura is that God’s thoughts, through His Word, trump all other human authorities.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage would have said:
Honorable Justices. I believe God has spoken in Scripture. I believe He is good and desires good things for His universe and all of humankind. It is our sole argument before this court that the One who holds this world in His hands has communicated marriage to be a heterosexual union. We have utilized time-tested textual critical and hermeneutical principles to arrive at this position.
Jay Leno, David Letterman, Bill Maher, Steven Colbert, Jon Stewart and many others would have kept people laughing for weeks at such a ridiculous statement. The Justices would not have been able to take such a statement seriously. Sola Scriptura is not admissible in court.
There is a strong possibility I would support same-sex marriage if God did not exist. I would allow the lesser authorities of my reason and experience to dictate my decision. Yes, I have heard legitimate evidence in the realms of experience and reason against same-sex marriage but I think most Christians should cede those realms over to those in favor of same-sex marriage.
I think it is helpful to communicate these distinctions in authority when we discuss this issue over the next several days with family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. Younger people, especially, are very high in their reason and experience supporting same-sex marriage.
I invite you to comment below. First, I offer a chain of thoughts to use as a springboard into dialogue.
If there is a God…If He has communicated to humanity…If the Bible is His Word…If God is good…If He has spoken on this issue…If He is in charge…Should we listen?
94 replies to "The Supreme Court vs. Sola Scriptura"
“Voting to not change a definition” (Re: Traditional marriage)
This may shed some light on why the majority of voters voted the way they did.
Equality measures from sameness, in other words the term connotes a comparison. When comparing anything, one has to understand the rules for comparison. That is, when comparing anything one ought to understand that he/she is comparing equals to equals because otherwise the “comparison” is not logical. So one cannot compare equals to un-equals.
For example, there is an earthquake and your apartment is falling down, you have just enough time to save one of two beings, your child or the dog Fido. Anyone would understand the automatic choice here. But what is the reasoning for saving the child instead of the dog? That the value of beings has to do with their equality in essence; the child’s essence is that of a human whereas the dog is canine. The discrimination (the action to choose) is thus appropriate when the mother grabs the child instead of the dog.
So it seems that discrimination here is not a bad thing and is because even though one is choosing a “separate” thing, it is because they are unequal in value. The now famous phrase by the mayor of San Francisco that “separate is not equal” is thus a very inaccurate rhetoric aim at the ignorance of the populace, it is also insulting to our intelligence.
By now you have probably get my meaning here, that we see this issue as un-equals thus they cannot be the same, nor can be defined as the same. Marriage has by all historical experience been defined as the essence of a union between opposite sexes, not same sexes. So the essence of marriage lies in this union and any other union would necessarily disqualify the definition. This comes from nature and is evident in evolution and the survival of the fittest. In this context gayness would not last too long in the survival of any species let along humans.
To illustrate further, one can only compare equals…
To illustrate further, one can only compare equals and this means that the objection to an interracial marriage is wrong discrimination in that the comparison of race fails to address equality of being, humans. Thus they in the 1800’s wrongly attached less essential value to blacks than whites. Blackness or whiteness is a racial description, no a function of essence. Here we can see the opposite of the current issue, society attempted to compare equals to equals (right comparison) by defining one as an un-equal (the black person). This type of discrimination is wrong because it fails to see the essence of the compared beings.
Lastly, marriage can only be defined naturally, normally, evolutionally, by the union of two opposite sexes. The one sex union goes against, norm, nature and evolution. You see there is a logical thread going on here throughout all the societies of the human race and further all societies of all species.
That same-sex unions should have rights is a moral issue and it should be pursued, but to call it “marriage” insults the most basic understanding of the issue at hand.
Thanks,
Well of course the Bible may be the ultimate authority for a person, as he makes his own decisions, but are you seriously saying the Bible should be the ultimate authority for a nation? Making the Supreme Court justices a panel of interpreters? I think that would be a demonstration of how illogical sola Scriptura is.
–It says this.
••No, it says that.
–Of course not. Everybody has always interpreted it to mean this.
••I plainly see that.
–You’re wrong.
••5-4. We win. It says THIS.
I must be misunderstanding you.
I think it’s Judeo-Christian morality, and a particular view of humanity (the relationship between God, people, and government), that makes our nation godly, not the adherence to a holy book.
A friend posted this link to a series of blog posts wherein the author explains step-by-step how he wrestled with the Scriptures to arrive at his current stance on the church and GLBT folks:
http://pilgrimpathways.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/glbt-persons-in-the-church-index/
Worth reading even if you disagree with the author. He presents a bibliography of writings on all sides of the issue(s) so you can know what to read for the best arguments for the various positions.
A secular society does not have government corruption involved in spreading the faith. Church corruption is bad enough. My God does not need government support, just government tolerance. My law is love, which does not insist on its own way, so any contract between adults to be a marriage is fine with me, just complicates tax law over 2!
Now, can Christians help with systematic disenfranchisement of minorities and opposition parties by the current majority? Are we going to be deaf to our brothers and sisters cries for equal rights? If so, our children will hear, and leave the church to do good, or make a new church without the dead weight of the old.
Love and Peace,
David
This does take us into a discussion about how much God’s instructions for humanity should reflect in the government of people.
The post is less about how the Supreme Court should have voted and more to show how God is not admissible.
It is also a way to help people think through the issue when someone asks, “Do you think homosexuals should be married?” I think individuals should care more about God’s decision than the decision of the Supreme Court. That is why I would lovingly navigate through this issue carefully but with sola Scriptura as my overarching authority for life and happiness.
It is more than enough if Christians take God with them into the government, it is God’s plan. We will conquer with God’s love, not with government aid. What our lips might say will not be believed, not be heard, not make a difference. Out lives, our acts of love will speak for us, write the name of Jesus on the minds of men.
American values of human rights and equality seem to me to reflect Christian values, because of the above, without writing God or Jesus into the governmental law.
The Taliban and many Muslim dominated countries did a great job of writing their religion into law. Is that the America you want, just drawing law from a slightly different book?
This may rank among the goofiest posts I’ve seen at this site. Not sure if this is a stunt, or if you’ve gone completely off the rails.
I want to piggy back on what David Pickett just said. I think it is better for government to protect religion, to allow the Christian to live out Christianity, than to make law subjecting everyone to a particular religion. Just give us space and freedom. The Christian citizenry will provide the religion in our own lives.
One thing that worries me in regard to topic: I imagine that, eventually, it will be illegal to not recognize (or even perform??) same sex marriages in a church context.
The reason I inserted the secularism language is George Holyoake first used the term in 1851 to promote a social order separate from religion.
He said, “Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.”
Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg Addres, “This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
What my post tried to show is the United States has firmly moved into a European style of secular government where it is not a government under God of the people, by the people, for the people. The beliefs of the people are no longer meant to influence policy.
Sola Scriptura, even if it is factual for individuals, is not seen today to be even a part of the conversation to influence what is best for society.
Jesus said “I come . . . with a sword.” Change is difficult, but without it, there is no growth, no progress. He ripped open the curtain on the Holy of Holies with his sacrifice. Some of us want to go back to the Herod-supported temple and BBQ on the roof. I think Constantine distracted Christianity for a few centuries by making it the Imperial religion.
Pandora’s box is open. Polygamy is the next logical step, to be ultimately followed by bestiality and what-ever-people-can-imagine. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”. The tragedy is that when the bad fruit of this decision finally rears its’ ugly head in our culture well down the road, it will be too late
I agree Bob. I don’t care what the government says, or the supreme court says. What God says will stand. They are perverting marriage like they have perverted everything. But God will have the last word, eventually. May it come sooner rather than later.
A statement by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn about whether God should be considered in the creation and sustenance of a society, “Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”
As Irene said,
“One thing that worries me in regard to topic: I imagine that, eventually, it will be illegal to not recognize (or even perform??) same sex marriages in a church context.”
Absolutely. Look at the lawsuits already springing up because Christians (florists, wedding planners, etc.) refuse to participate in homosexual marriage. Only a fool would believe the President’s assertion today that he would not force churches to perform gay marriage ….. that same President who opposed gay marriage in 2008.
Without national repentance, judgement is coming and real persecution for the church in America will rear its’ ugly head.
Greg,
I knew that statement would infuriate some people.
A quick example…I have a good friend who’s mom taught him how to do heroin. She literally wanted him to do heroin with her and so she showed him how exactly to do everything in order to “enjoy” it with her. He then moved onto meth and eventually in his 20’s was sent to prison. He is now a very godly man with a great family. Can I honestly say he had better heterosexual parents than someone else with fairly moral homosexual parents? I know you will probably argue that homosexual parents cannot be moral in any way.
My point in that statement was to show people that even if they have had good experiences and good reasons for homosexuals to be married with children…God’s Word should have the final word on the issue.
Greg,
It is my position that society should not discriminate against a gay man if he wants to marry. He should be free to marry any WOMAN he chooses.
No amount of legislation, judicating, or executive orders will change what a marriage “is”. I just think we need to be very careful about the basis for making that claim in society. And I don’t think “because the Bible says so” is a good one.
Which is what the series of blog posts I gave the link to can help you do – or at least help you better understand the way others interpret the same Scriptures, and why.
Winnowing fork?!
Not yet, Jesus!
More souls, more souls!
Tim,
Many heterosexual parents are not good parents. No argument there.
But did not God design the family as father, mother, and child? What kind of message are our kids getting if there are two mommies or two daddies in the family?
Are there not reasons that both a man and a woman were designed by God to be parents? Does a child get fully what they need from just one sex and the other absent? Is it right to go deliberately into a relationship of this type and not think that it is going to have an effect on those children that are involved? Is not a society that makes this legal and normal handing down a very negative sentence on the children of future generations?
To everyone else:
Can we as Christians really afford to just sit back and let society go it’s own way without speaking up about what is right and what is wrong? No, a society is not ultimately going to change without individual people being reborn by the Spirit. But do we just keep our mouths shut and not even utter a word when the society is going down a dangerous path whether it is this one or any other one? If no one speaks up and says something is wrong by God’s standards is any one even going to know that is the case? If they believe us or not is another issue. But I don’t think we are just supposed to be quiet.
The prophets of old often cried out God’s warning when the people turned from God’s ways. Are His people today supposed to do differently? He is still a God that judges wickedness after all.
It is evident that cultures move with tides of belief. Or non-belief. You cannot force a person to believe something. A law cannot change the heart. As Believers in Christ, we can only reach and live in a manner of grace to all people. If a culture is going to fall, face God’s judgement, it is going to fall. That is not our ultimate responsibility while here. It is to live a life in a born again relationship with God in Christ by the Holy Spirit. This, with Scripture as our final authority and guide. The founding Fathers of America who were Christian, they would never have voted for this. It would have most likely maent death at that time.
This culture is eons away from that time. I ponder if we have not always been secular, but dominated by Christian men and women who led by God’s leading in most cases. That pre-dominant thinking and life style is no longer a majority here.
No Christ centered church would ever marry two gay or lesbian people. That would clearly contradict God’s Scripture. It would be hypocrisy of a balanced Christian life, according to God’s Word. But I welcome any gay or homosexual at my church to attend and fellowship. As we all should. Gnostic Christianity does not mean accept Gnosticism as final. But the influences of Gnosticism is felt today and any church stating marriage in God’s economy may also be between a man and a man or two women. This is what God says. If it falls on unopen hearts, that is not ours. All we can and should do is live and witness in a balanced fashion.
Today is not a good day for America. But God uses countries for His purposes. Not for theirs or ours.
Our nation’s courts were not created to force us against our values.
However, the court system is the only way to cram through dictates against our values when the majority of us would never agree to that by voting.
When the supreme court of the land makes a decision against the people’s beliefs and then it is celebrated by the ringing of the bells in the nation’s church, where do we go from there?
Today was a sign to me, like a stake in the ground, that we are past the point of no return. We will descend from here on. The only question remains, will I keep on doing what God would have me do whatever the cost?
Tim, I am amazed at what appears to be a string of comments from people that did not carefully read your blog. I am guessing that they could not see past their rage at the decision. A safe way to look at the argument is to remove the act of sex out of the picture. What the justices were doing was upholding the Constitution on equal rights. As a Christian, I believe that homosexual conduct is wrong in both thought and deed, but under a free society it would be impossible to defend a law against it. The alternative? Perhaps if everyone became a born again Christian and interpreted the Bible like I do-that is that it is sinful, and against Scripture. Or we could form a union of states that absolutely forbid gay-ism and same sex marriage or otherwise. Who would enforce that? A police force of Taliban Christians? Thank God it is still up to the states to decide whether to issue same sex marriage license, or to honor those that do. I’m a Texan, so we are pretty safe thus far; however, for how long I do not know. What we Texans will not be able to avoid is the flood of homosexuals kissing on television in the new bunch of shows that are certainly going to start because of this new legitimization. 🙁
@29. James-the-lesser:
As a Texan, I have to admit that I’m more grossed out at seeing the flood of morbidly-obese Texans chowing down at buffets or various fast food places than at seeing gay couples kiss or hold hands or otherwise engage in PDAs comparable to what heteros do. And I’ve seen plenty of both.
No. 28 ErickW:
Different strokes for different folks. But you do have pretty hair.
Greg,
Are you honestly saying that heterosexual parents who actively espouse Atheism, denigrate the Christian faith at every chance they get, teach their kids to do drugs and commit crimes, perhaps even pimp out their daughters, would still be preferable to a homosexual couple who generally love their kids, provide for them and perhaps are ambivalent towards religion, etc.??? I mean don’t get me wrong these are both terrible options, but if you have to choose between one or the other which would you choose??
Irene @ 9: “One thing that worries me in regard to topic: I imagine that, eventually, it will be illegal to not recognize (or even perform??) same sex marriages in a church context.”
Bob Pratico @ 16: “Absolutely. Look at the lawsuits already springing up because Christians (florists, wedding planners, etc.) refuse to participate in homosexual marriage.”
Irene, you need not worry. Just as churches today are allowed to discriminate (i.e., be selective) based on religion or sex in their sectarian (vis a vis secular) functions, they will still be able to discriminate (i.e., be selective) in their sectarian rituals.
Bob P: See above regarding sectarian vs secular functions. Last I heard, wedding planning for hire and floral shops aren’t sectarian rituals. Do such things *only* in your church and *only* for your specific congregation and *only* in accordance with your sectarian doctrines, and you might have a case. I wouldn’t look for Jesus to nod approvingly, though (cf Matt 21:12).
-Rusty
I guess I have always found the solution to this quite simple.
Government should have no say in the realm of marriage.
Homosexual, or heterosexual. If the Government had not endorsed one religion over others in the first place, I don’t see how any of this would be such a battle. I mean two men can live together and legally profess love for each other. So if there is a religion that recognizes two men marrying, well ok. But why should that have anything to do with government function? Same with a Christian marriage. A Christian couple gets married in a church, government says,”well great but why you telling us?”
Why should a government have any kind of moral legislation into two consenting adults lives? (a different question from is it morally ok from a Christian Paradigm).
I know my opinion is kind of a pipe dream, but come on does this ruling really surprise anyone?
Tim, I think Scripture itself is replete with arguments from natural law, perhaps especially where sexuality is concerned. This is because marriage as an institution *predates* all other forms of the People of God (Israel and the Church) and is *more basic* than even the content of special revelation. That is why Paul, in Romans 1, uses the debasement of human nature, made most fully visible in the extreme perversion of the marital bond, as *evidence* of human aversion to God with or without the Mosaic Law.
No one need worry about a thing.
This world, and our own lives are not progressing…but are being brought to an end.
Lots to think about. Lots to do. Nothing to worry about.
Greg,
1. I’m sorry I simply can’t agree with you here. The damage that is done to a child by abuse is not such that the child “knows” they were abused. In fact often children blame themselves for the abuse. They think it is something that they deserve. And almost like clockwork when they become parents they become abusers as well.
2. IF the self attesting Christian scriptures are truly our governing authority and not emotional expediency.
Glad that you, Greg, are the final authority on what the Scriptures teach (your only reference to Scripture anyhow is a vague reference to marriage being the “most basic and ancient social unit” as if that is either relevant to or conclusive of the discussion over which is the worse environment to raise a child in), and which sins are worse than others, and which is the worst environment to raise a child in. If us Protestant’s ever decide to get our own Pope I’ll be sure to nominate you (yes I realize this is somewhat oxymoronic). Seriously though I don’t see this as a Scriptural issue even. Both are horrible, damnable sins. It’s kinda like debating whether you’d rather be hung or shot by a firing squad (shot by a firing squad please). I’m looking at it from a perspective of which of these children I think is going to be more receptive to the Gospel, and this is something over which (I think) people are entitled to disagree. I think the horribly abused child is likely to have no moral framework whatsoever, no sense of right or wrong. I think the child from the homosexual parents is going to have a very twisted sense of right and wrong, but at least they will have one.
3. While I have you here I want to apologize for ruining your conversation with James Cape insofar as it was my fault. You were doin a fine job with him,”
Thanks…in by best Yoda impression “Much anger in you I sense”
The majority bemoans a tiny loss of ability to repress a minority and says it is the end of times, the end of marriage, the end of the church.
The minority enjoys a modest victory, knowing there will be backlash and many more fights.
Jesus reached out to the minority and the outcasts, the Samarians, lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes, adulterers. Jesus showed the power of love to change the world.
Where is your faith in Jesus, in God, in Love, that you do not trust it to help you sort this out? Perhaps you only believe in ritual? You seem to think you have a monopoly on virtue! How is that humility before God?
Let other people have the marriage they want. Love and embrace all people, no matter what sort of marriage they are in. Love works by closeness, and love saves. That is our charge, our duty and when we save them by love, we are saved.
Outstanding Editorial – “How Should Same-Sex Marriage Change the Church’s Witness?”
http://www.christianpost.com/news/how-should-same-sex-marriage-change-the-churchs-witness-98895/
“How should Christians process (respond to) the findings”
seek the Lord by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes. Dan 9: 3 and more Dan 9…
pray to the LORD our ,confessing, saying, “Alas, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments, we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted wickedly and rebelled, even turning aside from Your commandments and ordinances. Moreover, we have not listened to Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings, our princes, our fathers and all the people of the land.Righteousness belongs to You, O Lord, but to us open shame because of our unfaithful deeds which they have committed against You. Open shame belongs to us, O Lord, to our kings, our princes and our fathers, because we have sinned against You. To the Lord our God belong compassion and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against Him; nor have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in His teachings which He set before us through His servants the prophets. Listen to the prayer of Your servants and to our supplications, and for Your sake, O Lord, let Your face shine on us, incline Your ear and hear for we are not presenting our supplications before You on account of any merits of our own, but on account of Your great compassion. O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and take action! For Your own sake do not delay.
Then (perhaps) the people believed in God and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. When the word reached the king, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes. He issued a proclamation and it said, “ Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish. Jonah 3: 5 +
This blog post illustrates a weakness many of us Protestants have compared Catholics. I disagree with the general premise here, that Sola Scriptura is the only basis for knowing homosexual marriage shouldn’t be.
I couldn’t disagree more that the man’s argument was weak. In simple terms, marriage is an agreement to raise your children together, that’s not all it is but that’s a big part of it. The HUGE difference between infertile couples or the elderly and homosexual marriage is that they are not by definition subverting the role of marriage. The parts necessary may not be working, but they are the “right parts”. The parts may be missing, but as male and female they aren’t subverting natural law by getting married. Homosexual marriage is.
So yes, the Scriptures are God’s Word, but God’s Word often happens to make sense. I think it still does come down to America being a “secular nation”, but more so because of the rejection of the inherent telos in nature.
I agree with Tim that you can’t legislate morality.
God wants us to live by His law because we love him +desire to please Him. Not because it is coerced upon us by a Puritanical group hat force others to live as they think life should be lived.
As far as laws of the land are concerned, I think as long as 2 people are not hurting anybody else, then the government should permit them to do whatever they want to do. How homosexuals live is not my business. It is not my right or obligation to control their behavior.
However, this court decision is not about the legality and permissiveness of gay lifestyle. It is about money. The decision is about whether or not the govt should give financial perks to gay couples in the same fashion as they currently give to traditional married couples.
Income tax joint filing status is cheaper. Insurance rates for married couples is cheaper. There are dozens of perks, some minor some big that the govt gives to married people. So this decision is not about morality, it is about $.
The govt gives tax breaks and perks for all sorts of things that have utilitarian value to benefit society. There are numerous studies that married people are wealthier, live longer, more apt to obey laws, more apt to buy real estate and pay taxes, and are by every measure better citizens then unmarried people. Marriage is good for society. We have about 3000yrs of history backing up that statement.
So I think this gay marriage thing is a statistical question. Unfortunately gay marriage is brand new. It first became legal in the Netherlands in 2001. It takes decades, possibly centuries to accumulate enough statistical data to make a comparison of how gay couples compare to traditional couples as far as benefits to the society. Personally, my Christian bias is that it will fail miserably on every level. But statistically gay marg has not yet proved itself. Let them come back in 20years and apply for tax+insur discounts, when they have data…
Fasting, ashes and sackcloth, really? Sacks from cloth are really upscale these days, and my house has no fireplace. Do your strain to be an Orthodox Jew? We wonder where the church in Jerusalem went.
Perhaps more reliance on love, on the Holy Spirit would make this understandable and an opportunity not a defeat. It can be a WWJD moment. Read I Corinthians 13, not Lamentations. Meditate on the Jesus that embraced the outcasts, rejected ritual purity without purity in the heart. Do you follow Jesus? Are you baptized in water, or the Holy Spirit?
Goodness Gracious,
I know the poster won’t give me comment a passing glance, but I think this poor attempt at logic and reasoning is so endemic in our generation. (Note: I assume based on the profile picture Mr. Kimberley is a millennial like myself.) Also, that one can have a darn MASTER’S DEGREE and still lack basic logical reasoning.
Forget politics or anything to do with the USA. Let me ask everyone here a question:
How does God define marriage? Any straightforward reading of scripture is between one man and one woman. Christ’s recalling of his own words from Genesis 2 in Matthew 19 makes this clear (I.e. “for this reason…”). Christians can see this and so can even atheists. Only liberal/Red Letter/Progressive (i.e. Heretical) “Christians” are Orwellian in their understanding of this basic definition.
Next logical question: In God’s created order, does something that we would call “same-sex marriage” exist? Of course not – no more than a square triangle does.
Another way of asking the same question: Does God bless “same-sex marriage?” No!
So why do you – Mr. Kimberley – support defining marriage as something that God himself does not mean for it to be? And, please, spare me the civil vs. scriptura non-distinction distinction. Currently, civil law does not define a fetus as a person – but I bet you vehemently oppose abortion, don’t you?
Here’s the problem you make, Mr. Kimberley – even with your master’s degree in (I believe) Theology – you are using your feelings to make a decision, instead of reasoned and logical principles.
Goodness gracious, you have a whole line in your post about homosexuals should be happy. Being a self-proclaimed man of God, how the H-E-double hockey stick do you get anywhere in scripture that man should be happy? But you didn’t use scripture, you used your emotions. Goodness, the American church is such a joke. And the for record, I’m 30 years old and was saved at 25. Supported gay…
That is…supported and gay “marriage” and abortion until I was about 22 until I realized how illogical and poor policy was the former and how evil was the latter.
To all those saying that we cannot use the Bible as the basis for law in this country:
All laws have the potential to “violate” a person’s religious freedom. Even laws against murder could potentially go against someone’s beliefs. So if we truly want religious freedom in America, we can’t have any laws. Any law will inevitably step on someones toes.
Also, if we take away the Bible, what is the basis for right and wrong? We have none! Morality is gone, therefore we have no basis for saying “this is wrong, so it should be illegal.” This includes issues which even atheists believe to be wrong, like murder. Without a Biblical (moral) standard, we can make whatever laws we want. Who says equality is good? Society? What makes them more right than the racist? Without the Bible, we cannot make moral claims.
Therefore, the Bible must be the standard for the laws in this nation. Without it, we are logically resigned to anarchy.
I have never read the KJV in my life, believe it or not. When I study scripture it’s the ESV and when I read for memorization it’s the NIV ’84. I’m also starting to dig the NET.
On a re-read, I can’t tell if your post is sarcastic or not. My comment below assumes it is NOT a sarcastic reply. If I’m wrong, then I’m sorry.
————————-
I’m not Baptist, and would not like going to a Baptist church. I’m not even Southern Baptist.
But the arrogance of your post is that because I did a tremendous amount of research on this issue and what scripture has to say about it (plenty of very close gay family, so I was curious) and came to a different conclusion than you, that I was somehow duped.
Karl Marx called it the False Consciousness.
I have plenty, PLENTY of maturing to do in my walk. And I also know that I have matured very, very quickly. Mostly because instead of reading books about Christianity, I actually bothered to read the entirety of scripture right when I was saved (and I’m currently in the process of reading a whole study bible front-to-back). The last two years I can think of twice where I sat down to talk with a pastor about a personal issue or two and both times – different pastor, each – left being convinced I had a far better grasp of scripture than they did.
And that feeling left me very, very depressed…’cause I needed help in those times and couldn’t get it from a source that was supposed to speak with greater authority than I.
Understood. And my apologies, again.
I admit I get sometimes a little too frustrated on the issue of homosexuality and so-called Christians view of the issue. Especially when – as a layperson – I see Christians (who volunteered) to be in positions of authority not have extremely clear, biblical conviction on the issue.
A guy just wants his leadership to be brave in the face of (the oncoming) wave of Christian trashing because we can’t possibly ever say homosexuality is ok or that God approves of “loving, monogamous, committed same sex couples.”
In the Byzantine era, the Emperor Basil married a man named John and the church blessed the union. I guess power makes it popular.
Jesus was surrounded with Scripture scholars, Scribes and Pharisees, but Jesus told us to spread the word of love. We had not idea how many forms that love would take. Love your enemy. Love as I have loved you. Jesus embraced all the outcasts, brought them back in from the cold, showed us the power of love. Jesus never said anything like “Go and breed up lots of Christians.” Jesus on family values: “You mother, brothers are here” “Who are my mother, brothers?” Faith comes before family, for Jesus sends us back to our family better, stronger and we teach them that God has priority. God takes his small % off the top! Nothing in our actual Great Commission depends on government or even religious support of traditional marriage. In fact, no man can serve two masters, and sooner or later love and tradition collide. I go with love.
We have one Gay celibate pastor (Teaching Elder) in my PCUSA presbytery, I am told. Arguing the welcoming and affirmation of LGBTQI people with my pastor, I noted that Protestants are not into imposed celibacy. If this pastor had access to marriage to a male partner, he could be released from his celibacy into a sanctified and community accepted relationship, but then, we have to deal also with their wooing, in public and in private, just as we accept hetero wooing. That may take some a lot of getting used to. We have so much hateful sex education or the lack to get over. A lot of this does not have to do with scripture, which can prove almost anything, but we were taught to find this sickening, and we go with the pain in our gut, not our love. We just “don’t wanna.”
I am sure many Christians “did not wanna” go to the lepers with Jesus. Following our Lord takes a lot of learning, accepting, loving what we never expected to love, finding the love and holding onto it until the bad feelings wear off. But follow we must. For regardless of whether we hold it to be sinful or not, since even hetero sex can be sinful in the wrong context, we must love them to save them from all their sins, for we all have them, and to save ourselves, too. For I believe that our salvation is very dependent on following our Lord in seeking their salvation no matter what. Jesus is out there waiting for us to follow. Will He say, when we call “Lord, Lord”, “I never knew you?”
@David G. Pickett
We have so much hateful sex education or the lack to get over. A lot of this does not have to do with scripture, which can prove almost anything,
Please read Matthew 19 and tell me what Jesus had to say about marriage. It is rather EXPLICIT and very much germane to the given subject.
David
Yes, Jesus went to the lepers and tax collectors and prostitutes, but he told them to repent! sin no more! He didn’t leave them in their filth. He healed them.
You are confusing love with acceptance. Just accepting people’s sinful behavior is not love. Love is doing what is best for a person, saving them from hell, and helping them become all God created them for.
Jesus describing a good hetero marriage does not exclude other marriages, for the small minority that needs them. Jesus also describes a celibate life for those it suits. And it might be that with the right attitudes about sex and gender, there might be fewer screwed up heads. Not that we need more breeders, the world groans under our weight from unfettered breeding, in this age. I read of a Muslim woman so inculcated with modesty that she could not disrobe for a female doctor helping her to give birth. Imagine having your head so twisted that it takes anesthesia to get your clothes off for a doctor. My uncle, a pediatric surgeon, told us of a boy so poorly toilet trained that he could only go under anesthesia (so no surgery was needed). We wonder how much is nature and nurture, but that should not fetter our love. We should love them and love each other better, and the truth will make itself known in time.
Having read and studied Scripture sufficiently, especially the Gospels, I have found I can rely on love for guidance. Too often I find people diving into Scripture for logic to justify not-loving. Satan laughs! Jesus said that all Scripture of his day, the law and the prophets, hang on the Great Commandments, to love God and each other. If you know the love of God, you know the second Great Commandment should not have been necessary. God loved us all, all Creation, before Creation, and is not surprised by our sin, it being part of the design with free will to love God or not. If you love God, and God loves us all unconditionally, then you must also love yourself and all others unconditionally. So I say to you, follow the love.
Jesus gave them a chance to change, just at Jesus taught us that God forgives, and our sin is never an excuse for distance from God. They were given a community with the Christians that would love them regardless, supporting that change. But while “Repent and sin no more!” is a great direction, path, orientation, we are all sinners, and we never do achieve ‘sin no more’ in this life. When we pass, God can give us sin free bodies and by Grace and the sacrifice of Jesus forgive all the past sins, and then we will sin no more.
I define sin as distance from God, not distance from Leviticus, else my bacon, shellfish, crustaceans and meat with milk would condemn me, and all the women I touch when not visiting my Orthodox Jewish relatives. Leviticus deals with lepers as spiritually unclean, but now we have a pill. Paul may have reached back into Leviticus to re-condemn homosexuals, and while I can envision some of the working of the law in his formerly Orthodox Jewish mind, I have very little idea what specific situations he was dealing with, considering all the kinky stories about pagan religions. Even today, we have people who think a little homosexuality on the side is OK for a married or straight man. The young people have pegged so much of our society as being “sooo gay”; have we listened?
If you accept that sin is distance from God, when you believe that God is so loving we say God is love, then sin is failure to love, always, just with lots of sets and costumes. It is hard to get past our selfish, fearful self-preservation instincts and stretch our social animal instincts to encompass loving all of Creation. Humans are so weak, limited in resources, knowledge and computing capacity that in reality we cannot carry much of the world on our backs. Jesus calls us to try to carry it all, as He did. We will fail a lot. But we will fail, loving. We will learn the power of love to succeed in ways we never imagined, and then we recall, love is…
My analysis is that morality is an evolved artifact of society, varying a bit between cultures and supported by their religions and Scriptures. God did not drop the Bible first before Adam! If a behavior threatened the society, tribe, clan, family then it was immoral. Back when, anything that threatened the supply of warriors was immoral. If it upset the individuals so they began to feud among themselves, society stepped up and said it was immoral: murder, theft, adultery and eventually prostitution, lying, coveting. Mel Brooks and the 30 commandments flashes by my eyes.
Hetero marriage was stable and productive, so it was so moral it was essentially mandatory. In India, it soars past 99% so far we make jokes, “We thought you said you were just visiting, and would come back single!”. I am not sure this strengthened marriage, for many marriages are taken for granted and the two genders often socialize separately, although many couples are also great loving and equal partnerships from the start. Well, they have been at it for 6000 years so it must be right?
Now, Jesus expanded the clan to the entire Creation, well, He pointed that out to us as important and proper in light of a single God Creator. Ecological before His time? Christian morality should reflect God’s unconditional love of all Creation. Sometimes we fall short, but we can improve.
I am amused and saddened that people extrapolate recklessly from gay marriage to poly-marriage (why not?), bestiality (how can an animal be a competent adult?), incest (where did that come from?). I think the media look on fundamentalists as the whipping cream of the population. Don’t make it true!