There is a group of people who think that marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman for as long as they both shall live. This commitment results in stable families, stable communities, and provides the nuclear understanding of the fundamental unit of a cooperative society. Divorce violates this commitment and is accorded the status of a moral wrong. Homosexual partnerships violate the reasonable requirement that the marriage partners be of opposite sex. This is not discrimination against homosexuals – the definition was not crafted to exclude them. This group of people will never accept "gay marriage".
There is another group of people who think that marriage is about emotional feelings and the assertion of the fundamental human freedom to determine a life path. They view the marriage commitment as an expression of the autonomous self. Since homosexual selves have no different inherent worth from heterosexual selves, they claim the civil right of marriage in order to assert their equality in humanity with fellow Americans. To be prohibited from this granted right is to become second-class citizens and to be treated in a way that is sub-American.
Given their presuppositions, either of these groups could be legitimate in their understanding. What we have here is a genuine disagreement. That is why, in America, we have political debate and a separate legislative branch. The people have a right to decide which of these two philosophies most accurately reflect the basis for our laws on this subject. This debate may occur during the legislative or constitutional amendment processes.
It does not occur when activist judges assert their own personal dogma on the rest of society. It does not occur when renegade mayors violate the laws of their land and command underlings to participate in illegal activities. It does not occur in violent conflict.
I wish gay and pro-homosexual Americans would not violate the principles of American democracy in their attempt to claim a right that the democracy provides.
Christian Scripture, and Scripture alone, provides the basis for our rational belief in Jesus Christ. It is this revealed standard for understanding the work of Christ that offers us the hope of salvation. Yes, it is Christ – Christ alone – who saves. But by what authority do we understand this salvation?
If the authority is vested in ourselves, we are damned. I may as well say that I am a blue banana as say that I am saved. I have no ability or authority to claim either. To do so would be lunacy.
If the authority is vested in others, we are deluded. Every Christian faith tradition derives its systematic theologies, practices, traditions, and descriptive language from Scripture. How can one deduct a thing that denies the source of the deduction? The animal that uses his hind legs to rip off his own head is dead. Likewise the mountain climber who trusts in the rope at his hip and cuts off the line from the caribiner. Likewise the man who follows those who claim a knowledge of salvation but deny the origin of our understanding of that salvation.
If we claim to follow Christ, how do some of you deny the Scripture that describes Him? If Scripture is not trustworthy, then there is no basis to know what we claim to understand about Christ; and if there is no basis for our knowledge about Christ, then our belief is in vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testify ascribing to Him that which we cannot know - in fact, we do not know. For if the Scriptures are not true, then there was no Christ, but a mere man of myth. His gospel is no good news for it cannot save. It is worthless and you are still in your sins. If this is the case, then we who have been deluded are most to be pitied. Yet, if we profess Christ, we acknowledge the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture. The study of Scripture reveals Christ. The revealed Christ gives us hope.
"Christian", if you deny the Scripture, you have no claim to call yourself by that name. Your life is wasted, spending your time and energy pursuing unattainable goals precipitated by a lie, denying the very God who gave you life and hope. You are most to be pitied. Repent. Submit to the written revelation and read the authoritative breath of God. Learn to celebrate the unsurpassed gift of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Something is messed up with my Movable Type. Sorry about the blogging delays. I am working on the problem with my host.
There are a good deal of stupid people behind the wheels of America’s automobiles today. But there are always stupid people in any population and stupid as a condition is not really a sin. However, many of the people you might call stupid by the way they behave in their cars are not really stupid. The truth is that they are sinful.
If you go 20 mph over the speed limit and weave in and out of traffic at rush hour, causing other cars to slam on their brakes and slow traffic down more, then you are committing several sins. You are breaking speed limit statutes, violating reckless driving laws, putting other’s lives and autos at risk, being selfish, projecting arrogance, increasing anger, raising tension levels, inflating insurance rates, imposing your inappropriate behavior on others, and disrupting the good order of society in a negative manner.
A speeding jerk who has the audacity to claim that "I basically live a good life, I should get to go to Heaven" is kidding himself. Against the peace, patience, and purity of Jesus Christ, such a one is deserving of Hell.
The Lord is serious about sin. In Jeremiah 2:35 the Lord responds to those who say, "I am innocent; surely his anger has turned from me." He replies, "Now I am bringing you to judgment for saying, 'I have not sinned.' " All sinners have a need to be redeemed by Jesus Christ. May the Lord of life and peace speed your path to righteousness.
The Pewlady gets real with a unique look at "gay activists" in Massachusetts.
(via the Summa Mommas)
Part III : Application of Belief System
The way in which we apply what religious teachings we accept is also determined by our personal experiences. Think about children's sports leagues. There are "Christian" sports leagues that basically eliminate competition. They don't keep score, play shorter periods, and cheer for both teams. There may be some wisdom in this based on revealed truth, but most often the rules seem to flow from the parents own goals and how they react to the way they were treated as children. Other "Christian"-influenced leagues leave in the competition, but take out the cussin'. Some YMCA leagues still start games with prayer - usually in places where competition is valued and moral character is highly valued. Other "Christian" parents "want the best for their kids" and enroll them in competitive leagues that organize games and tournaments on every Sunday in the year.
My point here is not to criticize any of these methods of involving children in sports. I merely suggest that the bottom level rationale for the choices of the parents is not based on the Christian principles they claim, but on how they wish they could have been treated as children.
When we cloak our personal preferences in the language of religious dogma we violate the integrity of the religion we profess. If we are serious about our religion, we will be honest about the extent to which our decisions are informed by our dogma and visa-versa.
A legal victory for the Schindler family who are fighting for Terri Schiavo.
Florida's 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that Pinellas Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird did not follow judicial rules when he denied Terri Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, the ability to intervene in the constitutional challenge to a law aimed at keeping their 40-year-old woman alive.
via Open Book.
always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. --Ephesians 5:20
My pastor called late this afternoon and told me he was sick. He asked if I had anything I could preach tonight. I did not, but I told him I would get something ready. You don't have to ask a ministry student if he would like to preach - You just tell him he can do it and then stand out of the way.
Anyway, I had an hour to put a sermon together and the above verse was part of the passage I preached. I am so thankful to God for allowing his Word to be preached that I wanted to publicly give thanks in accordance with my own message.
Give thanks to God the Father
When? Always, at all times - good, bad, ugly, successful, frightening, always - anytime you have a notion that you should appreciate the gift of salvation.
For what? For everything...not just self-centered stuff - thanks for the car, job, money, girl, etc - but for the blessings of being part of His people, part of His plan, part of His church.
How? In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. In a spirit of unity with the author and perfecter of our faith, searching for His light, His truth, His way - walking in the way of wisdom with Him.
God bless you as you bless Him. Amen.
Today on the Louisville public radio station, a regular local commentator really got going with a passionate, emotional diatribe against those who would "keep gays from the loving freedoms we all enjoy." She was speaking, of course, about homosexual marriage. She called responsible marriage advocates ugly, repressive, and implied that they do not know God. She framed her speech not in terms of people defending marriage, but as mean-spirited hypocrites denying gays basic freedoms. She asks repeatedly, "Where is the love in that?"
I have three quick responses.
1) It is not loving to enable people to hurt themselves. The radio personality asked me to prove to her that gays should not marry. I would ask her to prove that homosexual behavior is not a psychological condition in need of counseling. This issue is so contentious and emotional that the very question is disgusting to many people. And yet, it is one issue at the heart of the controversy. Homosexual behavior is not normal. That is to say that it is not normative as a standard for profitable behavior and well-being in life. Psychologists classify something as a "condition" if it interferes with normal living - the carrying out of normative (socially productive) life plans. Normative behavior for humans is to find a life partner of the opposite sex and procreate. Gays are unable to procreate within their proposed unions. Yet they choose to follow a lifestyle that is counterproductive to normative living. This is a disorder for which we can strive to develop mechanisms for positive lifestyle change. Especially as the drive to accept, support, and treat mental illness increases in America, we should understand that to enable and encourage people to make inappropriate life decisions is wrong and harmful to society. Where is the love in that?
2) Homosexual marriage hurts children. Study after study shows that children have greater potential, healthier bodies, and more successful lives when in Father-Mother-Present homes than children from any other family situation. Homosexual marriage advocates would have us intentionally place children in situations that are not optimal (or are even harmful) to their mental and physical development. Where is the love in that?
3) The sorry state of marriage among more normative people is not an argument in favor of homosexual marriage. Our commentator admitted that she lived with a man out of wedlock for six years and then trashed it all in a "lay divorce." She asks, "Why can't homosexuals have that opportunity?" The ridiculousness of this line of reasoning is that all parties agree that irresponsible heterosexual actions are "wrong." The argument with different words is...(a) people who identify themselves as heterosexuals do things that are bad and wrong, (b) therefore people who identify themselves as homosexual should also get to do something that is morally wrong and marry. Heterosexuals who "do bad" are still "bad." Just because people do a thing does not make it normative behavior. Justifying the decisions of gays by equating them with the worst of heterosexual behavior is destructive logic at best and trivializes homosexuals at worst. Where is the love in that?
The Bible has things to say about homosexuality. But one is not constrained by Scripture to make persuasive arguments against redefining a foundational institution of society to please a few people. Sometimes the needs of the majority trump the desires of the minority. Unrestrained sexual license is not the standard of "loving someone." Maybe I am having problems with my wife. Maybe I get off by looking at pictures of small children. What is the most "loving" thing society can do for me? Following the pro-gay arguments I should be allowed to go into my local elementary school and watch the lunchroom security cameras while I masturbate. Why not? Nobody gets hurt and my personal sexual needs are met. Yea! Yet, society recognizes that its greater good is best served by restraining my "natural" impulses and helping me to normalize relations with my wife. Ultimately, helping people realize how to make the best decisions for their lives and safeguarding a society in which those decisions will be productive is the most loving thing we can do.
Part II: Emotional Baggage
People also determine what they will and won't believe based on their emotional experiences.
"My sweet old Grandmother just taught me to love people and not to worry about a lot of religious rules. I can't stand the thought that she might be in Hell, so I will only believe in a 'All dogs go to Heaven' style of Christianity."Again, we see the need for a standard by which to judge competing religious claims - in our case, claims about Christianity. The knowledge of the presence of sin in our lives should give us enough pause to consider where we may be making spiritual determinations about reality based on our emotional past. If we cannot fully trust ourselves to accurately formulate these determinations then we must look for a standard by which to judge our conceptions."My eighth grade science teacher belittled me and my youth group in class and embarrassed us in front of everybody. All science is junk done by Satanists trying to deny Christianity."
"When my Dad worked for NASA, my old country preacher publicly condemned him for contributing to the view that God was not in the 'heavens.' I can't be a part of backwards people like him, so all naturalistic philosophical conclusions are true and the Bible must be wrong."
"My church-going parents were very strict disciplinarians. Christianity is about dominance and control. People should have the ability to do want they want."
"My parents were liberal Christians who denied the basics of the faith. I almost was not saved as a result. That's why we need a return to a strict literal interpretation of the Bible."
"I think it is o.k. for two people to have sex if they want - like me and my boyfriend do - so I think that any religion that keeps people from doing what they want is just backward."
"My best friend in high school was gay. I can't be part of a religion that would exclude him."
Some would argue that this standard is the consensus of community opinion. "Surely God would not allow all of his people to go that far astray, so if a lot of Christians believe a certain thing, then that thing must be the thing to believe." The problem with this view is that it simply pools the emotionally derived opinions of a lot of sinful people. You might get a thread of common grace that you can follow to a godly conclusion, but more likely you will attain the accumulated wisdom of sin. Which is to say, no wisdom at all.
The Bible is the only option the Christian community has for a standard. Though denominations differ as to the roles of Scripture, tradition, and philosophy - we must acknowledge that our traditions are grounded (in some form) in the Scriptures, and the earliest Christian applications of philosophical thought were measured by what the Scriptures support. Ultimately, it is the Holy Bible upon which all authentic forms of Christianity rest. It is the collection of writings that grant us the knowledge and vocabulary for the formulation of our systematic theologies, our traditions, our philosophical conclusions. By definition, the wisdom conveyed by the Book is the basis for the understanding for our faith. When Christians reject the Christian Scriptures as the authoritative standard by which to measure their faith (knowledge / traditions / beliefs / practices) they divorce themselves from the Way and float in the oft-charted outer realms of selfish, man-centered religion.
Part I : Intellectual Preconceptions
We all approach religion with the assumption that we already have a good frame of reference from which to evaluate different belief systems. The problem is that we are all mistaken. One might argue from a certain Christian perspective that we are so tainted by sin that we would have no ability for appropriate evaluation. Whether or not that is the case, I think the argument can be made that the absence of coherent philosophical education in the American public education system has left our citizens with a lack of critical thinking skills. I use here, of course, this definition of philosophy : "Philosophy is the logical clarification of thought." I'm not arguing that Americans are illogical or unintelligent, only that many have been trained to hear conclusions rather than analyze arguments.
The fact is that most Americans do not have a rigorous standard for critical thought that allows them to "own" the intellectual arguments they make for or against a particular belief system. They merely borrow phrases that they have heard others say. "All scholars know that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions." "Honest scientists know that there is no real proof of evolution." One need not be an expert in a discipline to understand arguments in that field. A rigorous (even vibrant) application of critical thinking will allow a respectable degree of confidence in the process of learning and formulating points of view.
Even so, most people approach religion with set boundaries of what they will personally tolerate. "I won't allow myself to be a part of any church that handles snakes, or really believes the bible, or discourages bicycle pathways." "I will not join a congregation that emphasizes social action, or whose pastor does not vote Republican." After a thorough and critical look at our belief systems, such boundaries may well serve as good guidelines for proper decision making. But to the extent that our ideas about what a church or religion should be is determined by thoughts and actions that were formed outside of its own sphere of thought, we run the risk of violating the very system we claim to profess and personalizing the system until we have something new, unique, and foreign to the original system.
As Christians, we have the challenge to conform ourselves to a standard. We are cautioned against thinking that "the system" is appropriately represented by our childhood church or the obnoxious group of believers on the outskirts of town. We are also cautioned against rejoicing when the church downtown tells us that the Truth is what we would have liked to believe all along. The universal church is filled with sinful and fallen people who, both intentionally and unconsciously, have perverted Christianity in their own ways. This is why the Christian Bible is so important.
The scriptures provide the standard by which we can know the system. The snake-handler who does not evaluate the critical arguments against the "long ending" of the Gospel According to Mark is intellectually sinning against God. The progressive who divorces himself from a reliance on the "God-breathed" nature of scripture cuts himself off from divine power and authority. Both are limited by their intellectual preconceptions derived from sources outside the inspired cannon. But Christianity instructs us to not be conformed to worldly standards, but to be transformed by the renewal of our minds (our centers of thought) - through Scripture, through meditation, through worship, through obedience - that by testing (discernment, critical thinking) we may discern what is the will of God, which is good and acceptable and perfect. To the extent that we rebel against this teaching, we construct a personal man-centered code of religious behavior that runs contrary to Christianity.
Making all kinds of national conservative waves recently is a fellow church member, Jewel Graham. Brought to prominence in this article by a famous evangelical leader, her name is now popping up here and there in the blogosphere. What did she do? She wrote an opinion piece for her college paper (on-line version Dawgnet)that was not pro-gay and was vilified for it. To show my solidarity, I am posting a bit of an article I wrote back in my college days. Keep at it, Jewel. We need some straight thinkers out there....
Recently passed by both Houses of Congress and sitting on the President's desk is a bill that will restrict the assumed "rights" of homosexuals. It is called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Basically this bill defines marriage as "the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife", establishing a standard of recognition by which to grant federal tax benefits and such to married citizens. It is important to understand that the bill does not prevent homosexuals from getting married. Let me explain.
No one person in America has the "right" to just go and do absolutely anything they want to do. We all have freedoms, but those freedoms fall within boundaries our society deems necessary or appropriate. For example, we, as a nation, have determined that it is wrong take another person's property, even if you think you have a "right" to it. We have determined that physical abuse, drug use, tax evasion, extortion, and murder are all wrong. One could suggest that in these instances, one group is imposing its ideals on another group and that this should not be. A common question is: "Who are you to decide what is right or wrong for me?" The simple answer is: "Part of the American public with all of the rights and privileges to be involved in the decisions of government as anybody else." That is the way it was meant to be. People governing themselves. Polls show that most Americans are against so-called "homosexual marriages". We have decided, as a nation, that a legal and social recognition of this type of sexual union as normal is wrong. Therefore, everyone, without regard to sexual behavior, may enter into a normal marriage but is prohibited from "marrying" a person of the same gender.
But, you may ask, why do people think "homosexual marriage" is wrong? The answer to this one is not so easy, as many people have many different reasons for what they believe. One reason involves the implications of redefining marriage to mean something it has never meant before. If two men or two women can be married solely on the basis of their supposed love, then certainly we could say that three men could be together. After all, if they love each other why should numbers matter? Indeed, if a declaration of love is the only requisite for marriage, then we could marry a man and a harem, three men and two women, a fishing boat crew, or man and his daughter. Sound impossible? Lesbian activist Roberta Achtenberg, the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, chaired a Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy. Their final report described a family as a "unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related together over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage, birth, and adoption." This definition not only would include all of the above examples, but would give people who are not even married a claim to the rights of a married couple.
Another reason involves the religions of the people. In a nation predominately Christian, Jewish, and Islamic -- all of which teach that homosexuality is immoral -- it is not surprising that our culture would adopt a "same-sex is wrong" attitude. We should never say, as a nation, that our religious heritage should be abandoned and forget all it has taught us. Certainly, not all men claiming to be pious have acted for the people, but the majority of social laws in this country's history were based on the teachings of religious men and women working for the common good. This nation passed the laws because the ideas were good and made sense. Only in the last forty years has a liberal trend started to tear down what our predecessors had established. Our nation should not cast off its cultural philosophy simply because it has its roots in religion. The truth is that natural marriage helps society. Research by Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin revealed that almost all political revolutions leading to societal collapse were preceded by sexual revolutions in which marriage and family were no longer given premiere status. As the views of normal marriage and traditional families were swept away, so were the social restraints learned in those families. In healthy families, children learn about acceptable behavior by example. But children are shown incorrect modes of sexual behavior in a "homosexual family". Former homosexual William Aaron explains that a "part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to 'absorb' masculinity from [many] sexual partners" so that "the most successful homophile 'marriages' are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement." Children of homosexuals learn, by example, to act in a way that is unsafe with promiscuity and deviant sexual behavior as the norm. Studies conducted by gay and lesbian groups show that children in homosexual households are four times more likely to get involved in homosexual behavior than children raised in even single parent households. Other studies show that children develop better emotionally, psychologically, and physically under the care of two opposite sex parents. The best thing for a healthy society is the raising of healthy children. This is best accomplished in traditional homes and not by so-called "gay marriages".
Well, here I am at my new home. Been meaning to do this for awhile, but a broken hand and a new baby and starting a new semester have kept me from working on the transition. The site does not look like I want it to look yet, but I missed the blog scene and my small circle of friends, so I just decided to go for it. Please forgive the mess as I relearn how to type and learn how to operate Moveable Type. Cheers!