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.
The sale value. What Christian spouse wants to sell his or her marriage?
You're making this up. It is simple eis-egesis. You have no authority to declare a task "..necessary for the church..." when the canon is closed.
Who is the teacher? Jesus! What is being taught?! NOT THE LAW OF GOD!!!!!!!! GOOD GRIEF! What did HE SAY?!
"Whatever I have commanded you..."
The mandate of the church is specifically drawn from the words of Jesus interpreted by the apostles and nothing else. These words fulfill the law and build a new society and all that is outside that new society is in the lap of the devil.
Sorry to yell. I got stunned.
If you see a starving man on the side of the road, you have a moral obligation to help him. If you are an auto mechanic and you see a man on the side of the road with a brain tumor, you have no obligation to cut his head open and remove it.
Clearly, participation in a democratic process falls somewhere between these two extremes. I would contend, however, that the obligation of a Christian in this regard really only includes the following:
1. Publicly denouncing immoral laws, initiatives, etc. This includes warning the public at large about the dire consequences (if known) of these things.
2. Privately casting votes based on a conscious effort to promote Christian values.
Anything beyond these two -- short of engaging in actions to topple an illegitimate government -- is probably a waste of time. We have reached a point in this country where people are so f#%&ing stupid that promoting Christian values through rational discourse is damn near as pointless as having the auto mechanic remove the guy's brain tumor on the side of the road.
And yet this very government Paul was talking about in Romans 13 rewarded evil and wickedness on a massive scale, had killed Jesus and would shortly kill Paul himself. This was the government he repeatedly told believers to "submit" themselves to. It is just amazing St. Paul missed the very "deduction" he himself supposedly induced.
The truth is, there is no support in the New Testament for an armed revolt against any government. None. Later generations of Christians made it up because, well, they wanted it. And have since been busy piecing it together with fanciful exegesis which makes absurdities out of actual New Testament history.
None.
At least 2 of those are attributes of the homosexual agenda.
Marriage has been under rather continual re-definition throughout history. This is true in both U.S. (see, e.g., Significant Changes in U.S. Civil Marriage) and Western history.
Did you happen to read this thread about gay marriage in Holland?:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157360/posts
Who said anything about selling? My post only makes reference to making something which is of high value into something cheap, worthless and devalued i.e. "Why Bother with normalcy when peversion is the norm."
The argument by homosexuals is that their "marriage" doesn't have any adverse effect on the heterosexual marriage of one man and one woman. Also notice how quickly this argument has become the rallying cry for homosexuals via their "Vast Pink Conspiracy."
But when perversion makes a mockery of something it does not make that perversion moral.
Homosexual marriage is not the issue. Total acceptance of homosexuality is the issue.
First, society and our morality are joined. Re-read Judges. Or review why Israel lost the first battle for Ai.
Second, I never said "moral impact," I said "impact".
As Christians we are called to impact the world for good. We are called to advance the Kingdom of Heaven and beat back the Kingdom of Hell until we are at its very gates - and those will not be able to stand against us.
We fight a battle on two fronts. We feed the hungry while we also attempt to teach them the Good News. But we don't preach the Gospel to the starving.
Shalom.
There is a HUGE difference between modification and redefinition.
Shalom.
Do I understand you to say then, that marriage has been (continually) re-defined since the 60's? If so, how has it been "re-defined as opposed to modified?
You may be interested, or not, in the link below which raises the issue of Christ and Culture; the Gospel and Law in relationship to civil society; etc.
http://www.forerunner.com/revolution/rush.html
You are fleeing to authority now.
All of these "works" you and I agree are to be judged in the light of the scriptural text. And there are just as many "writings and exegetical works" on the "relevant Scriptural pericopes" which draw the opposite conclusion.
Careful. You may be the one who is selectively educated.
Since we've come to the point where we are to throw magisteriums at each other, I think I'll just thank you for the exchange and we'll have to disagree for now. Regards. :-)
And whatever God did at Ai, I agree with.
We have no expectation or mandate that we will "impact the world for good". This is not a New Testament mentality. It is another mentality, grafted on top of the text. We will pull drowning souls into the ark of the church until the end.
The picture of the world in the book of Revelation gives no room for any optimism for general society. In fact, Paul explicitly says several times that general society will WORSEN until the end.
I don't know how to break this to you guys, but the world will end in fire and terrible wrath. Draw a line from that end back to where we are now. That line is the future.
But this is easy to settle. Let's talk in 20 years.
You did: "mobile homes [...] decrease the value of the neighbors' houses." That statement is true only for the *sale* value; the intrinsic value of a home to its current occupant is lowered not a whit by a neighboring mobile home. In the same way, the value of a Christian marriage is lowered not a whit by an un-Christian marriage.
Marriage was to have been one-man and one-woman for a lifetime except for extenuating circumstances. It was also to have been the reasonable and appropriate realm of sexual relations.
Since the '60s we have dumped marriage as the reasonable and appropriate realm of sexual relations. Sex is separated from marriage now.
Then we dumped the lifetime. Serial monogamy might be preferred by some, but lifetime monogamy came under attack. Marriage is for the moment now.
We are in the process of dumping the "man and woman" part.
Expect the exclusivity arrangement to fall next. Don't even get me started on interspecial marriage.
Shalom.
The U.S. rate is already that high, or close to it ... so if same-sex "marriage" destroyed marriage in Holland, marriage here has already been destroyed.
You should study the Old Testament as carefully as the new. It was the entire Scripture from which Jesus taught.
We have no expectation or mandate that we will "impact the world for good". This is not a New Testament mentality. It is another mentality, grafted on top of the text. We will pull drowning souls into the ark of the church until the end.
It is a common Christian fallacy to somehow distinguish Old Testament thinking from New Testament thinking. This is an impossible situation since Jesus taught completely from the "Old Testament" as did all the writers of the Epistles. That was the only Scripture they had. Jesus made it very clear that he came to clarify the Old Testament, not destroy it.
G-d's redemptive plan for creation has been clear since Genesis. John Rankin posits that the entire plan is laid out in principle in Genesis 1-3. The fact that Cain is, in fact, his brother's keeper is part and parcel of our requirement to work to make the world better. All of the rabbis taught this up until Jesus taught, and Jesus taught this as well. In fact, His golden rule was a departure from the teaching of Hillel only in that Jesus mandated doing good whereas Hillel only mandated not doing evil. (Do as you would have done to you rather than don't do what you would not have done to you.)
The picture of the world in the book of Revelation gives no room for any optimism for general society. In fact, Paul explicitly says several times that general society will WORSEN until the end.
True. Paul also told us to work up until the very end.
I don't know how to break this to you guys, but the world will end in fire and terrible wrath. Draw a line from that end back to where we are now. That line is the future.
And what will you do in the mean time? Ignore Jesus clear distinction between the sheep and the goats? Are you a goat or a sheep?
But this is easy to settle. Let's talk in 20 years.
Or 20,000. Whenever He returns.
Shalom.
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.