Posted on 06/23/2004 6:23:17 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Things just don’t add up. The polls tell us that a significant majority of American voters oppose same-sex “marriage.” Yet congressmen and senators tell us that their phones aren’t exactly ringing off the hook over this issue. In fact, they’re hardly getting any calls on the subject at all—not even from Christians. What’s going on?
One explanation might be that, for many secularists who oppose same-sex “marriage,” it’s just not that big a deal. The general public often shies away from controversial social issues, especially during election years, and no one wants to seem judgmental, after all, in today’s “tolerant” environment.
But what about Christians? What’s our excuse for staying silent?
I think some don’t really believe this is such a critical battle. To them I can only say—wake up and pay attention. This issue has the potential to redefine and, ultimately, to destroy the institution of marriage in this country—and with marriage goes the family. You can’t ignore this.
But there are other Christians who recognize the importance of the battle over same-sex “marriage” but are still not speaking up. For many of them, I think the problem is a lack of faith.
Now, that may sound harsh, but I can’t think of a better way to put it. A lot of Christians—even some of our most prominent leaders—seem to have succumbed to a “What’s the use?” attitude. They believe that the cultural climate has turned so much against us that we’ll never be able to stop the advance of same-sex “marriage.” And they have heard that we don’t have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment in this session of Congress—so they don’t even want to urge the House and Senate to vote. Some Christian commentators have sounded a defeatist note.
I understand the need to be realistic about the odds we are facing—yes, it’s a tough fight. But it’s quite another thing to believe that because we don’t have the votes today, there’s no reason to fight.
I worked in the U.S. Senate between 1956 and 1960. We fought hard for civil rights bills—against entrenched segregation. Every year the bills were blocked by filibusters. But we kept fighting year after year. So did leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., and others. By 1964 the voting rights act was passed.
And what about Ronald Reagan, whom we honored just weeks ago—the man who led us to victory in the Cold War? He dared to demand that the Berlin Wall be torn down when almost no one else thought it possible. It took years, but it happened.
Remember, too, Wilberforce and his campaigns against slavery. He had only a handful of votes when he started, but he trusted in God. He battled year after year in the Parliament, and twenty years later, an overwhelming majority voted to end that horrible villainy.
The Senate has, I’m happy to say, scheduled debate to begin the week of July 12. Maybe there aren’t the votes there this year to pass a constitutional amendment, but that’s no excuse not to start the fight. We need a great national debate so we can make our case. And maybe we’ll lose this year—maybe next year we’ll lose again. But we’ll come back year after year—until we win. Like the cause of abolition, our cause is just. And if we trust in God, I believe that during the coming public debates, the public will see this as a great defining issue. And when they do, the pressure will be on recalcitrant congressmen to come our way.
I say let the debate begin. Let us engage the battle.
Reverend, your exegetical principles are loose. "Discipling" means whatever the men did who heard the word. We must presume that the ecclesiology and practice of the book of Acts is an accurate illustration of what Jesus said, and is the sum total of the "cultural mandate" the church has the right to shoulder.
Didja ever see the results of a domestic despute between to gay guys? It aint pretty.
Think hard and let go of your secularist mindset.
Christians in a representative democracy are duty-bound to promote civil rulers and civil legislation based on or conforming to God's Law-Word. Discipling and baptizing the nations is not conditional upon living under despotism or tyranny. Representative government with checks and balances was birthed by Reformational Christianity. Your objection is what is truly meaningless.
Abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. are examples of rejecting God's Laws. So is refusing to obey Christ's command to disciple the nations.
I take some comfort in the fact that we tend to see all of the bad and sometimes overlook the good. Believe it or not, there are many good people out there and they're not as visible as the bad.
Some "Christians" even think abortion is okay.
>>Without a proper definition of marriage, and a proper attitude toward sexuality, the entire nation will go the way of the family. If you want just one example of what way that is, look at the black community.<<<
...or Scandinavia.
We don't disagree that the carriage is going the wrong way, we're arguing about what is the cart and what is the horse.
Real marriage does not exist because law codified it, and the laws about marriage will reflect the culture, not drive it. Real marriage will-- is now -- become more and more rare because people don't value it. They don't value it because they have come to value other things: i.e. promiscuous sex.
You cannot make the law reflect marriage while the people value serial sex partners. It is an impossibility.
And the law DOES NOT TEACH MORAL VALUES. IT CODIFIES THEM.
Listen. Gay marriage will become legal. The people of America want it to be legal. They want it because their hearts are sick. You cannot change their hearts with the law.
This is pretty basic stuff.
Ronald Reagen did not change the values of American society.
This is precisely why Christianity historically has really only thrived under monarchies; because a monarchy can be a Christian nation even if 95% of the population would never have been Christian if left on their own in a "free" society.
Revelation 18:9-11
"When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her. Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:
" 'Woe! Woe, O great city,
O Babylon, city of power!
In one hour your doom has come!'
"The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more...
Here's a question for you: At what point are Christians in any kind of governing system duty-bound to overthrow their government to promote a civil order based on our conforming to God's Law-Word?
Where would the early church have been if they'd put their faith in Rome?
The Church in the Book of Acts was, as a New Covenant body, just coming into existence. It was in no position to take on necessary tasks that the Church in later ages addressed - such as the abolition of slavery.
The Church in Acts is not archetypal nor perfect. It is a window on the early Church and the Spirit's work in Her. Some things were left undone, as I noted. Other experiments were tried, failed and left behind - communal sharing of property for instance.
You cannot accuse me of playing loose with my exegesis if the word 'disciple' only meant what its original hearers intended. That is pure decontructionism. For then, disciple can mean for you or me whatever we wish.
The Biblical import of matheteuo, disciple/discipling, is to bring under the tutelage of a teacher, to follow, to obey precepts or instructions - Who is the teacher and what is being taught and obeyed? God and God's Law-Word. Is this obedience, learning and discipleship for individuals alone? No, it is for the nations.
The answer to your question may be found here in the Declaration of Independence:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
Is it time yet? Apparently Timothy McVeigh thought so a few years ago...
It seems so many have put being 'PC' at the top of their list of characteristics they wish to embody. They are absolutely devastated if someone calls them 'homophobic' or 'closed minded' or "bigoted". Nevermind that they aren't actually any of those things - they just don't want someone to call them that.
Well, I don't care who calls me what. I've contacted my Senators and House Rep multiple times already, and I plan to continue to do so. Lets get this constitutional amendment through.
Absolutely correct. But I am just amazed at the number of Christians who actually think it is a 'sin' to vote or be involved politically in any manner. What they do not seem to grasp is that, if Christians don't get involved and try to pull the reins on this downward moral spiral, we have committed a sin of omission. It's the same as walking by a starving man and doing nothing to help him.
The point is that men and women will be *less likely* to continue to enter into real marriages.
I don't think that's the point of Colson's claim that same-sex 'marriage' will "destroy the institution of marriage in this country." Decreasing frequency is not destruction.
The Christian in the coliseum, about to be eaten by a lion, would not argue evil "had no effect" on him, but he would argue that evil has had no effect on his morals.
St. Paul suffered HUGE effects from the evil around him; he lost his freedom and then his life. But he did not regard being in chains and beheaded as a significant moral choice on his part.
The distinction is at the core of the entire New Testament. It is the very definition of Christian freedom.
Of course your children being around lesbians at school will affect them. But whether it affects them morally or not is a separate question, and entirely unrelated.
And the law is changing because there are lesbians. The law is not creating lesbians.
This entire subject is enough to tempt anyone to a foul mood. That the subject comes up affects me; my mood is my choice and the only part of the complex God judges me on.
The difference between the two is the line we're trying to draw. I value our exchange and offer my warmest respect, whether we agree or not in the end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.