Posted on 07/25/2004 1:39:37 PM PDT by familyop
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--My mailbox is deluged weekly with fundraising letters from pro-family organizations that invoke the threat of same-sex “marriage” being legalized by liberal judges in various states.
As important as it is to stand for the truth, these groups are tilting at windmills as long as American Christians continue to have a less-than-biblical respect for opposite-sex marriage.
That point was brought home to me recently with astounding clarity. A young lady who my wife grew up with decided to divorce her husband of two years, with a young daughter relegated to being tossed back and forth in a joint custody arrangement. There was no abuse or adultery, but since marriage is hard when two people are young and broke, she decided they made, in her words, “better friends than marriage partners.”
As far as I know, the young lady has never made a profession of faith, does not attend church and does not claim to know Jesus Christ, so to no one’s surprise she sees no problem with a quickie divorce when things have not worked out the way she wanted.
It’s time we quit being “huffy” when a pagan acts like a pagan -- what else do you expect?
What disgusted me was the response of the young lady’s mother and grandmother, which is symptomatic of how lightly modern American Christians esteem marriage. Both the mother and the grandmother claim to be Christians and attend church regularly. The mother said very little except to offer her daughter a place to stay. The grandmother, however, was bolder. “I don’t believe in divorce,” she said, “but sometimes it can’t be avoided.”
Well, in this case we’ll never know if it could have been avoided. No one tried to counsel the young lady or her husband or share with them what God has to say about marriage.
As a quick review for the sake of convenience, God said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, NASB). Expounding on the theme, Jesus added, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6, NASB). Jesus went on to add that Moses gave the exception allowing divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Therefore, the exception is not absolute and does not have to be followed.
God’s opinion on divorce of any kind is quite clear: Malachi 2:16 says that God hates divorce.
As God’s children, should we not also hate divorce? Of course we should, and we should seek to avoid it wherever and whenever possible. But the simple fact of the matter is that corporately we do not hate divorce, nor do American Christians avoid it any better than our non-believing fellow Americans. A 2001 survey by George Barna showed that the divorce rate among evangelical Christians is “statistically identical” as the divorce rate among the general population.
When marriage means that little to the people of God, why should the broader culture care what we think about the subject?
The pro-homosexual “marriage” crowd is the one making all the noise and actually having the courage to stick up for what they believe, as perverted as it is. They understand that the first rule of getting what you want from the government in a democracy is to make more noise than the other guy.
There is really only one way for Christians to respond to this nightmare and silence the critics of traditional marriage and proponents of homosexual “marriage.” It’s not easy. It’s not always fun. It takes everything a person can give all the time.
It’s called staying married, even when times are tough and you want out more than you want another breath. Beyond that, Christians should seek to glorify not themselves but God with their marriages.
If the broader culture should see the divorce rate among Christians go through the floor, they would know that there really was something different about us. Who knows what kind of opportunities this radical strategy would bring about for evangelism and national revival?
Right now, roughly a third of Americans say they support homosexual “marriage.” But in another few years, homosexual “marriage” will be the law of the land if Christians – too many of whom see no problem with easy, no-fault heterosexual divorce -- have not recovered a respect for marriage beyond sending the occasional check to a pro-family organization.
--30--
Samuel Smith is a student and a news writer at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
Truth is truth regardless of how perfect the messenger is. We have to fight this battle on all fronts. That means we must clean our own houses even as we fight to maintain community standards. Make no mistake, the church is lax because it has been TOO TOLERANT in the past. We have allowed the left to convince everyone that Christian values are anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth. But past apathy has done a great deal of damage. We have given up our freedoms without a fight. Along the way, we have also given up our values. We have grown ashamed of them. We've become convinced that they belong hidden in the closet, private thoughts that cannot be aired in public without great shame and offense. At the same time, in our absence, those who behave in shocking ways and advocate perversions which used to be considered shameful have taken our place at the community table. And we have followed them in their ways, ceasing to be any kind of moral voice in the culture. Yes, we need to clean our own house. But that does not change the reality of right and wrong in the public square.
Well said. And thanks, familyop for the ping. I'll get to doing the pingthing in a while.
I agree 100%. At least.
Right on! When enough church sermons go back to being tough and unapologetic for the truth of the Good Book, maybe the message will get through and the lite-weight Christians who get offended by non-PC morals can go sing hymns at the Unitarian Universalist (Our Lady of Anything Goes) Church.
Okay, so you save a homosexual from getting married, but now he hates you and everything you stand for. How do you plan to lead him to Christ now that you are his enemy? Where is the "Love your neighbor" in this? Look, I know it's hard- it's even in direct opposite from our own human natures- but we have to love those who hate us. We have to bless those who curse us. It makes no sense and yet we must do this for God, for the church of Christ is not a warrior cult, we do not do God's dirty work, we are not the judges or juries of creation. We are sinners. They are, too. But it is a SIN to allow our salvation to make us feel superior than another. It is a festering evil in the soul. It is called PRIDE and it happens whenever one person is given reason to feel superior to another. Stay in your homes. Go ahead and raise your children in a saccharine world where evil does not exist. Surround them with those who sing only of the praises of God. Then watch them live isolated lives, never even attempting to witness to others. Because here's the rub- if you don't know a person, you can't witness to him. You can't be apart from the world AND affect it in any way.
Homosexuality is wrong, but homosexuals are humans, and are covered by Christ's blood just the same as you, or I, or anyone else is. Ask yourself this: Is your religion that of the Pharisee or that of Jesus? The Pharisees were certainly opposed to sin, that much we know. But they were also consumed with their own piety, emboldened by their religious fervor to point out flaws in others' characters. I thought Jesus came to deliver us from that part of us.
The state has no business "licensing" an institution ordained by God...licenses came about during the days of slavery to keep the races from intermingling.
Consider who prepared the way for Jesus. What was his message? Do you remember? Why did God give mankind a law at all, if He had no hope for obedience? See, too many Christians try to define God in mushy emotional terms. That is not the God of the Bible. His love is tough love. He forgives only after atonement. He offers atonement to those who repent. Define sin down and delete the power of the cross. How can one repent from that which is not wrong?
Granted our government is not about saving people from eternal damnation. It is about functioning together as a culture, all equally participating in this consent of the governed form of government. How do we answer God when He looks on our Nation and finds us too apathetic or ashamed of His standards to even speak up, vote, or participate in any way? We are the government. There is no Caesar in America whom we are obligated to render unto. WE are the Caesar of America. On what basis do we think our laws should be founded? We have a right to be heard and to vote. We have no right, in this gov't, to take from others their right to vote and be heard. But if we win it is because the people have spoken. We have a right to win. We are no more imposing than the other side. May it be a fair, Republican form of gov't fight, and may the best ideas win.
The winners in this debate will shape the minds of future generations. They will set the standards for all that is considered fair, right and good in our culture. Do not be deceived. If our gov't bestows on gays a protected status equal to being black or hispanic, then it will become illegal to discriminate or speak out against their behavior. We will lose our freedoms. This is not about tolerance and privacy. It is about the hearts and minds of future generations of Americans. Shame on us if we talk ourselves into withdrawing from the fight.
I always find it amusing when "conservatives" who believe in smaller government, less intrusion of government, free-market capitalism and all of that, suddenly call for an intrusion of government to stop behavior that not only doesn't affect them personally, but is only abhorrent to their own culture. Especially as a member of the Religious Right (tm), I feel somewhat conflicted when this happens. I'm gonna stick to my guns on this one, though, since it is consistent with my principles. Homosexual behaviour is wrong, but it is not the role of government to decide this. The government is there to enforce laws. Those laws are put in place in order to protect the rights of the people. You can't steal because it denies property rights to others. You can't murder because it denies the right to exist to another person. You can't recklessly endanger others. However, you can have friendships, associations and sex with whoever you choose. But don't destroy the rights of other people. I can't see why this is hard to understand.
If you use this issue to assert your majority will, in direct conflict with the Constitution article 9, don't whine when the left forms its majority over something near and dear to your heart and yanks your righteous indignation right out through your ear, okay?
Here's a list of potential issues you might just have to deal with if you set a legal precedent of government intervention:
Parental rights will disappear and be replaced by the discretion of the State.
Derogatory speech which APPEARS to be directed at racial, socioeconomic groups, or other protected groups will be criminal.
Your right to worship as you choose will disappear, and the Bible will be replaced with a more tolerant and even-handed version.
All behavior deemed offensive to any group will be outlawed. These behaviors include spanking, prayer, wearing of religious ornaments, use of opinionated or poignant bumper stickers, uppity black people supporting conservative causes, gun ownership, action movies, nudity (of womyn), heterosexual intercourse (see rape), marriage, motherhood (see white slavery), public opposition of marxism/leninism, consumption of fatty foods, smoking, Atkins, cheesecake, candies, Valentine's day, Father's Day, Christmas, Yom Kippur, Hannukkah, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, Capitalism, Entrepreneurship (see Capitalism), loud music, Sport-Utility-Vehicles, gasoline, CO2 production, breathing, passing wind, lumberjacking, camping, hunting, fishing, zoos, meat, animal husbandry, eggs, fish, poulty, fur, Roy Rogers, Huckleberry Finn, abstinence education, pastries, clothes with mixed fibers, plastic, glass, and the miniskirt.
I don't want to live in that world. If you do, kindly move to Antarctica and create it there.
This fight is a spiritual one. It does not belong to the Government. I never said that sin was OK. I said that it's not the government's job to decide, nor is it appropriate for us to use our majority status to deny legal rights to others. I am not talking about the religious institution of marriage, but rather the legal benefit bestowed upon married couples by the State. In accordance with OUR OWN PRINCIPLES these must be applied equally. There isn't any wiggle room in the Constitution about that, which is why it would take an AMENDMENT to change that. I disagree somewhat with your assertion that the Pharisees were merely hypocritical. I believe that Jesus objected to their obsession with sin at the expense of a true realization of the nature of God. The Pharisee had a deep appreciation for regulation and order, but no knowledge whatsoever about the nature of the creator. Do you really think that a God who can create a whole universe from a single thought cares deeply about what you stick in your bunghole? His laws are guidance to help us down the road to success and happiness. Pork wasn't outlawed because pigs are infected with evil, but because its meat is unsafe if not carefully cooked. Adultery is forbidden because it harms the emotional health of others. God's laws are rational things. He's not just obsessed with sex, he acknowledges sex's power over the happiness of man. Read the Bible again- pay attention to the Law. Think of why each is important. For most, it's not evil the law fights, but the road to unhappiness and poverty. The laws regarding usury (interest charges) are interesting. The Ten Commandments are given as our guidance from God. there is a common theme to all of them if you have the wisdom to spot it.
Why would you find it "amusing" that conservatives wish to conserve the definition of marriage that has been with this country since its birth?
And why, if you are hell bent on redefining marriage, would you limit it to two members of the same sex who engage in homosexual acts?
This is childish, every law has a moral component, every single one.
And as for And why, if you are hell bent on redefining marriage, would you limit it to two members of the same sex who engage in homosexual acts? I have never known heterosexuals to engage in homosexual acts, so I don't know what you're getting at.
What I am getting at is quite simple, if you want to extend marital privileges to two homosexuals then you have to extend them to any two or more people who wish to enter in a union be it sexual, celibate or platonic. Otherwise, you are simply drawing the "Correct Behavior" line a bit further down the road than us evil social conservatives.
Yea, mom and grandma sound like real monsters.
(rolls eyes)
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Good argument going on. Take apart the opposition.
The main point is that sexual immorality is a continuum that goes from bad to worse. "Gay" marriage is worse. Although it can get to extreme worst, which it will unless the whole tsunami is checked and stopped.
let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
I do not think that the Bible should be totally legislated down to the letter. But neither should its concepts be banned from consideration in our lawmaking. It was the inspiration for laws against theft and murder. It was even the inspiration for all men being created equal. The fact is that a majority of Americans find gay marriage offensive and contrary to their moral standards. They do not want it to be the social norm, equal to heterosexual marriage. It is not equal in nature and need not be equal in law. We the people have a right to define the foundational structure of our own culture. We should not be ashamed to hold on to the standard that has worked for the generations that went before us. We should not be so arrogant as to flippantly disregard this inherited wisdom, this standard that is so conguent with the very nature of human existence.
I still don't know what you're saying in regards to the supposed slackening of standards of marriage. I am simply saying that the federal law does not need fooling with.
I think the real issue is that we have several million federal, state, county and municipal laws, regulations and statutes, and career legislators are under political pressure to create ever more laws. I am against that whole structure on principle. Marriage (legal term) is the State viewing two individuals as one entity for legal purposes. It is the interpersonal analogue of incorporation. The religious definition is a spiritual oneness of a man and a woman which is recognized by God as sacred.
The problem is that it isn't recognized by man as sacred. We fail to uphold its standards in our behaviour, in our treatment of our wives, in our selfishness and tendency to be self-indulgent. That can be fixed only by voluntary participation in a partnership of love with one's spouse. No manner of regulation, state intervention, or threat of imprisonment can possibly repair the damage that mankind has inflicted upon the sacrament of marriage. To attempt this is futile at best, and at worst, sets a dangerous precedent IMHO. That's all I am saying. We need to look to ourselves to fix the corruption in our society, not our government. Instead of bemoaning the lack of morality and going back to surfing for the Hawaiian Tropic chicks, we need to actually change US. Unless we can do that, no constitutional amendment will accomplish anything other than moving the cultural perception of Christians farther down the road toward obscurity. I am sorry that you feel you can accomplish something with this legislation. I disagree with that.
I disagree with your stance that Law has a moral component. I will agree that at most places morality and legal protection intersect, but I don't believe that relationship is causative as you do. I merely believe that both morality and Law have similar objectives, and thus will seek to enforce the exact same patterns of behavior. However, Law does not seek to control nonharmful behavior if it is executed properly. I will cite some examples of this intersection:
1. Prostitution is both illegal and immoral for separate reasons. The legal reason against prostitution is that it spreads disease and contributes to drug use and crime. It is generally associated with violence. The moral reason is that it objectifies sex without association with love. It also destroys the moral restrictions of sexual taboos.
2. Drug use is illegal because it is simultaneously addictive and mind-altering. Society restricts drug use because of its association with crazy acts, unstable people, and crime. A parent who is stoned is incapable of proper parenting, furthering the destruction to society. The moral reason is that in addiction, the drug becomes more important than God, and it is an attempt to gain bliss outside of God.
3. Speeding in your car is illegal for purely practical reasons. Reckless driving is a separate charge. Speeding laws enforce conformity, and provide other drivers the opportunity to safely predict your arrival at a particular location such as an intersection. No moral component.
4. Tax laws are imposed for purely practical reasons. It's to provide revenue for the government. No moral component.
5. Theft, child abuse, and assault are illegal because the law is charged with the duty of protecting certain rights among a nation's inhabitants, and each one of these causes harm to another. The moral component exists for identical reasons.
Now find me a law that exists not for practical reasons, but PURELY moral ones, and I will cease and desist. Find ONE law which is designed not to protect the rights of others, but to enforce standards which can only be attributed to moralism.
The question is not whether we will flippantly disregard this wisdom, but whether we will enforce its adherence.
All good things of God are voluntary. There exists no coersion within the Gospel.
Public nudity laws. Who does public nudity hurt? What if a guy wants to masturbate in his own car? What if he wants to flash people? Who does he hurt? No one. Oh, unless you count his offense to their moral sense.
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.