Posted on 06/14/2015 6:23:10 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
from R.C. Sproul Jr. Jun 06, 2015 Category: Articles
Some of our deepest challenges as believers involve dealing with the sins of others, particularly those whom we love. Whether it is a relative struggling with addiction, a best friend unfaithful to his spouse, or a loved one embracing sexual perversion, we often feel caught between our genuine love for the sinner and our genuine revulsion at the sin. The bromide “Hate the sin, love the sinner,” while at least infused with a touch of wisdom, doesn’t typically answer all the hard questions.
When confronted with tough moral calls it’s often wise to slow down and define our terms. First, let’s consider what it means to attend a wedding. Attending a wedding is not at all like attending a concert, or going to a movie. First, when we attend a wedding we are endorsing it. There is a reason for the “publishing of the bans”—that part of marriage ceremony wherein the officiant asks for reasons the two should not be married. If we “hold our peace” we are in fact affirming the legitimacy of the wedding. Secondly, when we attend a wedding we are there to serve as witnesses of the vows. We are a legal party to the proceedings, with a call to see that the vows are kept. Is that something Christians should be doing?
It is true enough that there are plenty of reasons why Christians are called to object to some heterosexual marriages. Those unbiblically divorced are not in fact free to marry, and Christians should not attend such weddings either, for the same reasons. The argument isn’t that both parties are sinners, and therefore we shouldn’t go. All those who marry are sinners. The question is, is the wedding itself biblical?
Which brings us to our second term, “wedding.” One could argue that my original question is moot for the simple reason that there is no such thing as homosexual weddings. You can no more witness a homosexual wedding than you could draw a square circle. Weddings are between men and women. That said, those participating in these events believe they are participating in a wedding. Our attendance, no matter how well intentioned, encourages them in their delusion. Which is one key reason why they so object to our not attending their weddings, or our not beautifying them with cakes and flowers. If we won’t admit that the naked emperor is dressed to the nines, the state will be called and we will be ruined.
Homosexuality is at one and the same time like other sins and unlike other sins. It is like other sins in that it is forgivable, and a sin for which Jesus died. After all, such once were we (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). While the behavior is rightly revolting, those caught up in it bear God’s image and are not beyond the reach of grace. It is unlike some sins, however, for two reasons. First, it is gross and heinous sin. The folly that all sins are equal has done great damage in the church and in the world. All sins are cosmic rebellion and are due the eternal wrath of God. But that doesn’t mean they are equal. Second, unlike most other sins, this is a sin that its practitioners insist is no sin at all. Greed is wicked, but we don’t have parades celebrating it. This is a sin that in our day glories in its shame. Do we really want to join in that glory by attending their “weddings?”
I know it is difficult. I know it is painful and can divide families. I know it makes us look to the world like bigots and haters. But that, friends, is a shame we truly can glory in, for He promises us blessing (Matthew 5:10-12). This doesn’t, of course, mean we abandon homosexuals, or have nothing to do with them. Jesus often met sinners where they were. But He always called them to come to Him. He calls us to do the same.
R.C. Sproul Jr. is rector and chair of philosophy and theology at Reformation Bible College. Originally published at RCSproulJr.com.
There's also family invitations, which don't require friendship to turn up in your mailbox. Please see post #22.
No. I found out a young man my wife and I knew decided he was actually a woman and began dressing like one.
She asked me if I wanted to see ‘him’ in the store where ‘he’ was working as a clerk.
I said “No.” I was afraid I wouldn’t be able to stop laughing.
Same same.
Yes, by protesting out front.
Well, what if a packer married a muncher?
BTT!
Why not?... not all christians are christians..
as all jews are not jews.. or Mormons mormons..
some men act like women and actually think they are..
when their men acting like women..
I have declined several wedding invitations. The author is correct that attendance is implicit endorsement of the event being celebrated, and that endorsement is a central aspect of your presence. When a colleague divorced his wife to marry his secretary, I declined the subsequent wedding invitation. When he divorced the new wife to marry the new secretary, I also declined. The second time, he took offense, and I was not invited to the next wedding (to his next secretary).
As for gay “marriage”, I will never attend such a farce, nor will I pretend that it has any connection to holy matrimony. If it is a family member, my response will be as polite as possible, but I will not attend. If someone tries to pressure me or corner me into saying where I stand on that farce, then he had better be ready for an honest answer. I would never give my reasons for declining any business proposition, but I’ll respond clearly if it’s a social invitation and someone will not accept a vague answer.
There is the legal contract that the state recognizes. I don’t care about that. States can do what they want.
My wife and I made a contract before God, with the gathered folks and a Priest as witnesses. She and I could enter into THAT contract. Homosexuals cannot.
My argument has always been that the State has no business in marriage.
I certainly wouldn't and I wouldn't give a hoot about who was hurt, offended or otherwise put off.
Just because it is a relative doesn’t mean I’m going to attend or acknowledge. I have a couple of gay cousins. Didn’t care to associate with them when I was a kid and didn’t know what was up and I don’t today. In the past 25 years, I saw them from afar once at their pos father’s funeral and didn’t speak to them. In fact, didn’t want to attend the funeral so stayed at the car and was only there to chauffer an elderly relative. The female one is a HS girls coach - imagine that. The male one wears tassels on his shoes and posts pictures of him posing pretty with his dogs.
“Well, what if a packer married a muncher?”
lololol......It seems highly unlikely.....I mean “Why would they?”
I am not one to peek into someone’s bedroom, and I resent someone inviting me into theirs as a spectator like the LGBT community does.........
While you weren’t married by the state, you still made a contract and the state lays out the rules by how it is entered into and, more importantly, how it can be dissolved......
Should you and your wife divorce, God forbid, the state will try and see that the rights to assets are protected for both parties......unfortunately the church, nor you and your wife will perform that function.....
Attendance is endorsement.
1Corinthians 5:
[9] I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
[10] Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
[11] But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat [12] For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
[13] But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
No
Well, if the normal American public hadn't let the queers destroy the institution of traditional marriage, it would have been perfect.
Every packer in the US could partner up with a muncher that he could tolerate, and get married...then live separate lives. They'd have health insurance, favorable tax treatment....everything. They wouldn't even have to see each other.
If they had any respect for normals...that's probably what would have happened.
But, of course...THEY DON'T!
Yeah I think you’re right about that!
“Lester Kinsolving used to make the same argument.”
Never heard of him. It sounds like I’m better off for it.
“(Rush hired a lip-reader to find out what they were saying. It included lots of f-bombs.)”
I’m not sure how much stock I put in that...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTRmyXX6ipU
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.