RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
Same-sex marriage, cancer, and fig leaves
Joy, joy, joy! Just before midnight last night the New York Senate passed and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. At 5:30 this morning the Associated Press reported, “Champagne corks popped, rainbow flags flapped and crowds embraced and danced in the streets of Manhattan’s Greenwich Village.”
The article quoted nine people, all ecstatic about the new gay right. Queens teacher Eugene Lovendusky was typical: “I am spellbound. I’m so exhausted and so proud that the New York State Senate finally stood on the right side of history.” Reporter Karen Zraick even quoted one official saying the new law is “good news” for city tourism.
But what about the AP’s “Statement of Ethical Principles”? The first sentence under the heading “Integrity” states, “The newspaper should strive for impartial treatment of issues and dispassionate handling of controversial subjects.” Impartiality and dispassionate handling were nowhere in evidence yesterday and today, but that’s not surprising on this or other controversial issues where all reasonable people know what the right side of history is—right?
This coverage showed once again that worldviews typically direct the reporting of controversial issues. Most liberals see same-sex marriage as a human right and opposition to such as ethical cancer. We cheer medical advances that fight particular kinds of cancer, and no one sees the need to balance out anti-cancer viewpoints with pro-cancer ones.
Was AP coverage improved by its follow-up report at 9:03 a.m., which stuck on—like a fig leaf—brief sentences by opponents of same-sex marriage? (Maybe someone remembered AP’s ethics code.) Not really, because the story did not even mention the past few days of State Senate negotiations concerning what will become the new battle in New York: What happens to the religious freedom of those who want to uphold biblical standards concerning marriage?
back to top272 Comments to “Same-sex marriage, cancer, and fig leaves”
Looks like dark spots on The Big Apple.
Report comment to moderator
This is only the beginning. Equal rights means more than just two people behind closed doors. It means sweeping changes across the public sector to accommodate this new minority status.
Education will need to change to put a positive spin on this state sanctioned sexual deviance. Famous homosexuals throughout history will need equal representation. Along with Black History Month, we will need a Gay History Month to celebrate anal sex. Hiring practices will need to change to promote gays ahead of non-gays and give them special education and housing benefits. Hate speech laws will prevent people from saying anything negative under penalty of prosecution. And so on …
Report comment to moderator
“What happens to the religious freedom of those who want to uphold biblical standards concerning marriage?”
That is sort of an odd question. I don’t see how legalizing same-sex marriage would impinge on anyone’s religious freedom.
I have been married for 28 years, that’s how I uphold the biblical standards concerning marriage. I’m not saying I’m happy about what happened in NY, but Christians cannot expect non-Christians to uphold biblical standards. To force that has been a scourge in our history. The faith of the NT is a choice to be lived out, never a ruler to slap others.
Report comment to moderator
So, the cure for cancer is more cancer?
Report comment to moderator
Marriage between MEN and WOMEN existed before Christianity. It’s not just about biblical standards.
Report comment to moderator
The AP ethics code, and even its style book, has been a joke for years. Remember, if it weren’t for double standards it would have no standards at all.
But, Mr. Olasky, I’m not sure I understand the reason for your question. Nothing has happened to our religious freedom as we support the biblical view of marriage. Religious institutions are exempt from having to “participate in a gay-marriage event” and they are specifically exempted from discrimination lawsuits.
Now the State is aiding and abetting the pretense of marriage instead of the corruption it actually is. Three GOP senators from NYC voted No, one of whom is a Pentecostal minister.
Report comment to moderator
The joyful celebration is over the prospect of having more children at their access to pervert, deceive and recruit into homosexuality. They have wanted (nay, demanded) the Boy Scouts for decades and have been certifiably vicious when not given their perceived goods. That is undeniable! The homosexuals and the homosexualists want our children and will stop at nothing to get them. You parents in New York, just lie down and let them have your children. It is bigoted and hateful for you to do otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
nothing happens to anyones religious freedom, if someone doesnt support lgbtq marriage it’s easy enough for them not to enter one.
Report comment to moderator
Gay marriage is very close to reaching critical mass, and will soon be legal in all 50 states.
Report comment to moderator
recruited into homosexuality? That is silly, you can’t make someone gay, either they are or they arent.
Report comment to moderator
3. Ask E-harmony, Catholic charities, and several photographers, fertility doctors and a Methodist church that did not want to rent their property for a gay wedding. They don’t want tolerance, they want affirmation.
Report comment to moderator
ATHEIST-JEW, the Critical Mass being reached is a growing backlash against a tiny percentage of sexual deviants who cry and whine about wanting to have what everybody else has while insisting they’re not like everybody else.
Report comment to moderator
It doesn’t exist in a vacuum, Frankensteingirls.
We know one thing as Christians – that we should trim our lamps.
Report comment to moderator
The “religious freedom” of New Yorkers to make sure their children are given over to homosexualist indoctrination (at state and federal expense) and access stands. The “religious freedom” of New Yorkers to submit to the homosexualist agenda throughout society (often at state expense) also stands.
The “religious freedom” of Christian New Yorkers to run adoption agencies on Christian terms and according to their sincere convictions about marriage and family is, however, gone. The “religious freedom” of Christian New Yorkers to live in a culture that is safe for their children, to refuse to pay for the homosexualist education of their children, to use their own ethical criteria for hiring and renting has all been compromised and/or abrogated. And the freedom to even speak out in public against this distorted redefinition of marriage will be increasingly stigmatized and eventually abolished, unless a turn toward decency is made.
Report comment to moderator
I find it hard to believe that anyone still thinks that these rulings will not affect those who believe homosexuality is wrong and don’t want to support it. The truth has already been demonstrated in countries that support it and, as Kbells points out, in this country. Some people need to pull there heads out of the sand.
Report comment to moderator
The “religious” freedom of consenting adult homosexual triples and quadruples and quintets remains blocked by this discriminatory bill. And polyamorous consenting adults still apparently do not have their “religious” freedom to marry.
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuals want the young and naive to believe that giving in to their basest animal instincts and feelings is an even higher calling than glorifying in every way God’s plan for us. Recruitment under any other name is still the same. Anything goes.
Th “B” is always included in LGBTQ, etc., but how many Bisexuals are interviewed on mainstream news shows? Why do you suppose that is?
Report comment to moderator
3.8. Also when marriage starts to mean anything, it will soon mean nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Frankensteingirls, Jesus said the little ones are bound to sin, but woe to those who lead them into it. Yes, they are led into homosexuality, just as they are lead into other sexual sin. It is all evil and wrong.
Today we mainly applaud and laugh as we see others leading our children into blatant immorality. Movies and sitcoms and all other media are doing it daily. We don’t want to be thought of as prudish, after all.
Report comment to moderator
Hey!!
To the homosexual practitioner…
…there’s always hope in Jesus Christ.
Don’t miss it..’the gay blade’…
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp
Report comment to moderator
FRANKENSTEINGIRLS, your head and heart are both in the sand. Life is too short for pretense. This recruiting behavior is all around us. Homosexuals and homosexualists know that it all begins with recruitment, which is why they demand the rights and the federal funding to do their recruiting and indoctrination of our children. But they still live in the dishonest pretense that the way humans love and value each other is NOTHING but biological promgramming. They think homosexuals are NOTHING but animals who could not change their attitudes if they wanted to. This view dehumanizes homosexuals. Christians oppose this sort of rank dehumanization.
Report comment to moderator
This is an ANTI-repentance movement. No wonder it is so wildly popular.
Report comment to moderator
This seems a bit ironic coming from the editor of a print/online magazine whose writers rarely attempt to represent fairly the views of those who disagree with them. Nowhere is this more clear than in Olasky’s implicit assumption that worldviewism defines how Christians should think about such events. Tony provided a similar example earlier this week when he wrote a post that suggested that “secularism” is a threat to Christianity because Christians don’t sufficiently admix Christ into all of their cultural undertakings. Thus, in view of World Magazine’s decision to feed folks with a steady diet of worldviewism, several points are worth noting.
Worldviewism is basically a Christianized version of post-Kantian idealism. It’s not in Scripture, and has no progeny within the Reformed tradition before Kuyper. Its merits have been the subject of lively debate within the Reformed tradition for more than a century. BB Warfield and other Old Princeton theologians criticized worldviewism sharply. Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff offer more recent criticisms of worldviewism from a conservative Reformed perspective. But rarely do Olasky and his colleagues provide us with any window into this debate (or even an ackowledgement of its existence). Instead, in World Magazine, worldviewism is presented as though its only critics are Marxists or liberal secularists, which implicitly suggests that any good Christian ought to be an advocate of worldviewism. It seems a bit unethical to me that Olasky and hid colleagues see fit to ignore the substantial criticism of worldviewism by conservative Christian apologists.
I offer this criticism because I tend to believe that worldviewism is a dangerous philosophy that leads Christians to conflate general revelation and special revelation, and thereby to confuse social conservatism with the gospel. Thus, I’d disagree with Tony’s prescription of a few days ago. The church isn’t rotting from within because Christians aren’t sufficiently Christianizing their cultural endeavors (e.g., coming up with Christian ways of lawyering, Christian ways of accounting, etc.). No. The church in America is rotting from within because we have replaced the message of the Cross with a banal, moralistic message of family values.
Report comment to moderator
On the religious freedom concern, KBells touched on the issues there — it’s a ripple effect that will extend into various areas, allowing for the culture at large (and its legal and political arms) to discount and further marginalize those who believe differently, from how school curriculums are written to how nonprofit groups with church affiliations might be impacted with regard to funding, hiring, etc.
As for the the news coverage, I think many journalists (at least those with whom I work on a daily newspaper) view this issue in a similar light to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. In this case, there really is no legitimate “other” view that deserves real serious consideration. The issue is clear and boils down to one of equal rights vs. discrimination, right vs. wrong (in their minds).
I agree that gay marriage will likely be the law of the land in fairly short order.
Report comment to moderator
KI (#15),
Good post!
I agree completely.
Watch and see the domino theory at work; we’ve been seeing it for years. If anyone doubts that, research the “Overton Window”.
Report comment to moderator
23. World does not pretend to be neutral. They present themselves as representing an evangelical world view. These other journalist are presenting themselves as objective.
Report comment to moderator
Also, I don’t see that this legislation has any impact on anyone’s free exercise of religion. There is no constitutional right not to be exposed to things that offend one’s religious sensibilities.
My religious sensibilities may be offended by drunkenness. But I don’t have a constitutional right not to encounter drunk people. Moreover, the government does not need to pass laws against drunkenness to ensure that my constitutional rights are protected.
This is no different. I may have a religious objection to same-sex marriage. But I don’t have a constitutional right to live in a society where same-sex couples can’t legally marry.
Report comment to moderator
27. Do you think as a photographer you should have the right not to photograph a wedding where the bride and groom are falling down drunk.
Report comment to moderator
I think the argument is that it will simply create (perhaps as yet unforeseen) conflicts.
But Christians are accustomed to being in conflict with their surrounding culture (though I think some of us in America have fallen out of practice in that field). Perhaps the challenge and flexing of those muscles will do us some good.
Report comment to moderator
Look at it this way: God could have prevented this eventuality. He didn’t. This vote can be used to encourage Christians to open their eyes to the seriousness of wringing our hands and letting the enemy have his way.
God is well aware of what’s taking place. Maybe He is waiting for His children to avail themselves of the power of the Holy Spirit He has endowed us with. I would prefer that we rebuke Satan than wait for God to take deliberate action. Are we praying for the homosexual community or bewailing their accomplishments? An aphorism attributed to Lord Acton about evil triumphing while good men sit on their duffs — or something like that.
Ken Bland
Report comment to moderator
The entire argument that held up this law was the issue of religious freedom. How then can so many of you say it had nothing to do with religious freedom?
Here are the specific exemptions added for religious organizations, which simply states that clergy cannot be prosecuted for refusing to marry anyone. That has always been true and is an entirely unnecessary and meaningless exemption.
The exemption goes on to say that religious institutions which own property will continue to be allowed to give preferential treatment in terms of sales, rentals, admission to people according to the principles of that religion. Well, lah-dee-dah! This particular exemption becomes meaningless whenever taxpayer money comes in contact with any institution whether religious or not.
In other words, the religious exemptions are just a smoke screen and really mean nothing. Hate speech laws will eventually take precedence over any criticism of the gay agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Donna (24)
I agree with you. But none of us has a constitutional right not to have our views discounted and marginalized within the broader culture. Evangelicals don’t have a constitutional right to cultural hegemony.
Report comment to moderator
ADIOS wrote
I have been married for 28 years, that’s how I uphold the biblical standards concerning marriage. I’m not saying I’m happy about what happened in NY, but Christians cannot expect non-Christians to uphold biblical standards. To force that has been a scourge in our history. The faith of the NT is a choice to be lived out, never a ruler to slap others.
The problem is that growing numbers of “Christians” have come out in support of the sin of homosexuality. This causes unbelievers to either force the Gospel to adapt to their tastes or reject it altogether.
This is the sad lesson to take from last night’s vote in New York.
Report comment to moderator
I agree Evan, and I’m bothered by our culture’s embrace of “no one can be offended” mentality.
But this legal change will, in effect, become institutionalized as it were, affecting many other spheres within society and undoubtedly setting up future conflicts of religious freedom here and there.
But so be it. As I said, it may be good for the church to exercise some of those spiritual muscles and to be challenged a bit more in how we are to minister to — and pray for — the culture around us (without falling into the trap of becoming yet another “victim” in our society — ugh!).
Report comment to moderator
KBells:
Please cite the section of the law that you allege relates to wedding photographers. I can’t respond unless I know what you’re talking about.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (31):
Olasky is referring to the religious freedom of individuals. The debate in New York dealt with the effect on certain religiously-oriented not-for-profit business entities.
Report comment to moderator
I know where my head and heart is.
if you would like to believe that gays are after your children you can, but out of all the members ofthe lgbtq community that i know none of them, myself included have tried to recruit anyone.
Report comment to moderator
#36 Evan, religious institutions are made up of individuals.
#37 FSG, So then public education which actively promotes same-sex marriage coerces no one into that lifestyle?
Report comment to moderator
FRANKENSTEIN, you are very young and naive with a small circle of friends who dabble in all kinds of unnatural sex and pretend they don’t care about finding new partners. You don’t seem to understand the meaning of “recruit.” How young were you when you knew you were bisexual? All because it’s presented as ok and blackmail those with higher standards by crying “victim.”.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know what all the fuss over “religious exemptions” was for. Muslim and Jewish and Atheist couples are allowed to legally marry, and to the best of my knowledge none of them have ever FORCED churches to provide them wedding and other services. This isn’t going to change when Gay couples are allowed to legally marry as well. And as long as religious organization aren’t benefitting from MY tax dollars, I don’t really care who they discriminate against. All it illustrates is their own prejudices and discomfort. And it bears repeating (for the umpteenth time) that NONE of the legal benefits of marriage come from the church, they come from GOVERNMENT.
Anyway, there are plenty of other venues which are more than willing to do business with Gay couples. In Charleston, West Virginia (where I live), there are several churches that are accepting and supportive of their Gay congregants, and I would much rather have my wedding there rather than some place where my spouse and I are viewed with disdain.
Report comment to moderator
#40 ” In Charleston, West Virginia (where I live), there are several churches that are accepting and supportive of their Gay congregants, and I would much rather have my wedding there rather than some place where my spouse and I are viewed with disdain.”
No church should view sinners with disdain, nor be accepting and supportive of sin.
Is a church which fundamentally rejects the Bible really a church?
Report comment to moderator
recruited into homosexuality? That is silly, you can’t make someone gay, either they are or they arent.
******That is patently untrue. There is ZERO evidence of being born gay. Yes, they’ve looked and looked and looked, but there is still zero evidence.
Gays can be made, however, and there is lots of evidence of this. Not everyone, of course, but those who are susceptible.
Do real research! You can’t just make a blanket statement based on the PC fad of the day that says that gays are born that way.
It often FEELS as if they are, because the process begins very young. But, they are NOT born that way.
Report comment to moderator
In addition, most human beings could, technically, be bi or “pan” sexual. In other words, given cultural permission, those who would otherwise stick with the opposite sex, will experiment, because there is no reason not to.
So, in this sense, giving legal and cultural permission most certainly DOES recruit people. It may not recruit them into pure homosexuality, but it most definitely gives them permission to live out any dreams or sexual fantasies that they may have, because there is no sense of shame or wrong to stop them.
You don’t really think that the HUGE increase of people calling themselves “bi” or “pan” sexual is just coincidence, do you??
Report comment to moderator
39. Please dont act like you know me or my friends because you clearly do not.
I have answered those questions already, and i am using my cell phone to type this as i dont have wi fi right now. if anyone would like to email questions it would probably be easier public.cupcakedoom@gmail.com
Report comment to moderator
Adios: I think what Olasky is getting at about “religious freedom” is the right for pastors to decline officiating a same-sex marriage ceremony. If I’m not mistaken (and I could be), I think he’s referring to the possibility that such biblically grounded pastors could be charged with a “hate crime.”
Just for the record, too (as someone who used to struggle with homosexuality) this kind of law makes the struggle FAR WORSE. It angers me deeply, since the normalizing of homosexuality makes those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction much, much more tormenting. I feel for those precious kids out there right now who struggle with homosexuality, not wanting it. Our laws are supposed to uphold and honor the right.
Report comment to moderator
I’m going to agree with Louise in #39.
Frankensteingirl, you are part of the generation that was “recruited.” You call yourself “pan-sexual” and feel that it is not only okay to sleep with someone before marriage, but that it is okay to sleep with anyone, regardless of biology, when you like their personality.
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Most humans (with some exceptions, of course) can fall into all sorts of sexual sin with just a little prompting. People aren’t born getting turned on by shoes, or sheep, or dogs, or nylons, or whatever other fetish comes along. But, they either fight those leanings, or feel okay with them. Our culture is now telling them it is okay…so long as no one gets hurt, why not?
There is a certain “purity” in thinking that the soul inside the container is what matters when sleeping with someone. But, it is a lie.
You are an example of what we’re concerned about: a nice, young, Christian person, who no longer accepts the Word of God, and has chosen to act out her sexual fantasies. Why? Because you have been led to believe that there is no shame in it, that it is perfectly okay, and that you were “born” that way.
Had you not been led to believe these things, you likely would have still fallen for your man, but without the experimenting beforehand.
You are a wonderful example of the “recruitment” we are concerned about.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, your critique of worldviewism–or, your alternative to it–actually *renders* worldviewism legitimate; at least, *as* legitimate as any philosophy that frames your politics. Your politics, like any of ours, has some ultimate foundation. Olasky advocates a law based on X, and you base it on Y. On what basis do you allege Y is superior, and why should we accept that basis as authoritative, and reject Olasky’s (or any other’s)?
Report comment to moderator
Evan, I am not talking about churches or religious organizations. I am talking about Christian business owners who have been sued for not wanting to get involved in gay marriage. Among them are dating services, fertility doctors and photographers.
Report comment to moderator
Worldreader,
Thank you for your post.
I have someone I love very much in my family who is presently struggling with SSA. He loves God very much, and it does hurt him tremendously when the culture tells him “go ahead, give in!”
Not only that, but the culture would like to take away the ex-gay ministry that he is involved in. Why? He is not “allowed” to choose, but is supposed to just “accept.”
God forbid that someone might CHOOSE to go to any sort of therapy to help with the struggle. All supports must be knocked away, and he must simply BE something he doesn’t want to be, but which the culture tells him he MUST be.
So much for tolerance and choice.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga,
I am almost always impressed with your ability to make a logical argument or counter-argument.
#47 — Exactly.
Report comment to moderator
#44 – What I know is that 19-year-olds who favor undermining the family and marriage through top-down government edict haven’t had much experience with unintended consequences – for themselves or society.
Report comment to moderator
Regulating photographers, etc., won’t be in this particular law. This will come about by lawsuits filed by those who want to force people to support this perversion. Just wait. It’s coming. And that’s when the backlash will begin.
Report comment to moderator
#52
That is the bottom line. We have plenty of examples (see Canada and a number of European nations.)
What starts out as granting a “right” becomes demanding full and complete acceptance.
Already, I feel unable to comment negatively on homosexual “marriage” in most venues.
Hate speech, hate crimes, enforcement on the order of racial equality…its coming.
And, honestly, while I am TOTALLY against racism, and would have ZERO problem with my children marrying someone outside our race, I do not believe that government should be supporting laws against it to the extent that they do.
Yes, those laws were necessary for government things, but should never, ever have been applied to private persons.
It’s funny how those on the other side will claim that you “can’t legislate morality” and then do so ALL THE TIME.
What they really mean is that you can’t legislate Conservative or Christian morality, but you most certainly can (and should, in their opinion) legislate Liberal, Leftist morality.
Report comment to moderator
What’s interesting is that the culture totally supports people changing into all sorts of things they are not.
You want sexual reassignment surgery? Sure, and the government will even pay for it!
You want to change your name to female, and dress and act like a girl even though you’re biologically a man? Go ahead! You have the right.
You want to alter your physical looks either through plastic surgery or through “alternative” things like tatoos, piercings, horn implantation? Yay for you!
But, you want to change your sexual attraction? No, NO, NO!!! You MUST accept it. You cannot change. You were “born” that way! You must hate yourself! What’s wrong with you??? You do not have the right to choose in this area!!
No, you can’t even go to a therapist or join a group of others like you! NO!
Why is that, I wonder?
But, of course, there is no “agenda.” /sarcasm
Report comment to moderator
Sad that the new law really still restricts marriage to only two people.
What about the polyamorists? The bisexuals who need and want the state to legitimize their right to switch back and forth from Eve to Steve??
If you come to rent a house or apt from me and you tell me you and your same sex roommate are married I hafta come up with some other reason to decline you as tenants. Which means the Housing Authority will require me to give official reason why I reject you
If you have a new “right” some bureaucrat will make it his mission to enforce it. So yes, this affects a lot of folks. If it didnt why enact this law??
As if NY taxes werent driving enough folks out of there anyway.
Report comment to moderator
I have never heard of “worldviewism.” What does that mean? I guess from what Evan wrote that it means the belief that everyone has a worldview. Well, everyone does. Evan does, I do. Everyone has some set of basic ideas or principles that they use to understand everything around them.
Report comment to moderator
the assumptions in this thread are hurtful. i’m done for now, long winded bits are hard on this device. Still invited to email me.
Report comment to moderator
#44 FRANKENSTEIN, sorry I can’t email now.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe anyone preached the gospel quite as much as the Apostle Paul and he had no problem talking about the changes that should result when a person is placed into Christ and has the Holy Spirit enter into him. Sexual morality is spoken of often by Paul. We don’t stop with the gospel, but continue on bearing fruit and becoming more and more like Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Frankensteingirls, I do not know you or your friends. However, the reverse is also true, you do not know all of us and the experiences we have or know that others have had. I can assure you I do know some who have been lead into the homosexual life. I am sorry if what I say is hurtful. What matters to me, ultimately, is what God’s word says. My experiences and yours all need to be corrected by His word.
Report comment to moderator
Mac,
Worldviewism, as I’m sure you’re aware, is more than merely having a view of the world around us (or having a theory of knowledge). The root of my criticism of worldviewism lies with its denial of man’s ability to assess the truth apart from divine command. I believe that this aspect of worldviewism is theologically flawed because it supposes that the Fall left us in a condition of utter depravity and not merely in a condition of total depravity. Because worldviewism supposes that we are utterly depraved, it must therefore deny that we can ever know any aspect of reality in an objective way. According to the advocates of worldviewism, everything is subjective: Our “knowledge” doesn’t come from observations of objective reality, but from the rules supplied to us by our worldview. For the advocate of Christian worldviewism, general revelation is almost useless. Instead, he would argue that the Christian needs to consult special revelation (i.e., the rules that make up the Christian worldview) to be able to access the truth of anything, including how to cook a steak, fix a car, or ride a bike. In this sense, worldviewism is really a kind of Christian post-modernism.
In general, advocates of worldviewism aren’t too consistent, as is often the case with those who hold to any kind of antirealist epistemology. Moreover, worldviewism’s recent popularity probably has little to do with its philosophical merits. I believe that it’s popular because it absolves Christians of the need to engage reasonably with those with whom they disagree. After all, according to the advocates of worldviewism, the Christian and the non-Christian cannot have a meaningful discussion about anything because their allegiance is to two separate worldviews with two separate sets of rules. Worldviewism also justifies the Culture War. According to worldviewism, there can be no political consensus except for a consensus about which worldview’s rules will be enforced by the power of the state. Under this rubric, two people cannot truly agree on anything unless they are in agreement as to the operative rules for interpreting reality. Thus, politics becomes nothing more than a perpetual struggle to make sure that your worldview’s rules get enacted at the expense of those of other worldviews.
In contrast, I do not believe that we are utterly depraved. I believe that we are totally depraved in the sense that everything is affected by the Fall in some way. But I believe that Scripture teaches that we are left with significant capabilities to observe the world around us and to draw reasonable inferences from those observations. I believe that we can often say that a proposition is true (or at least more true than others) because it accounts for the data of life better than the alternatives. And I believe that we can do this without making any reference at all to the internal rules that may govern someone’s “worldview”. For this reason, I believe that we can achieve some kind of political consensus on most matters because people will generally come to similar shared convictions about what works best.
Until very recently, it was our culture’s general consensus that gay people should simply bury their urges and either marry someone of the opposite sex or stay single. But in the past few years, more and more gay people have been living as couples (although without enjoying the legal benefits of civil marriage). In our 10-20 years of experience with same-sex coupling, the sky does not appeared to have fallen. So, the culture has slowly shifted toward a nominal acceptance of the practice. This acceptance has occurred more quickly in urban areas and among white-collar professionals, as such folks probably interact with openly gay people more frequently. In contrast, our culture has come to the conclusion that other practices–including practices once deemed to be safe and acceptable–are undesirable and/or harmful, such as smoking in enclosed spaces.
So, I guess I just don’t buy into Olasky’s attempt to paint this as a clash or worldviews. People who favor civil same-sex marriage aren’t just responding mindlessly to the rules of some Marxist worldview. No. They are responding to their observation-based assessment that same-sex coupling is not too harmful to society and that there is no longer any legitimate reason for the state to withhold the legal benefits of civil marriage from gay couples. Moreover, those who oppose same-sex marriage are probably of the belief that societal harm may yet result from recognizing such unions, and that we need more time to observe the possible harmful effects. So, I don’t believe that opposition to same-sex civil marriage is necessarily grounded in blind adherence to the rules of some Christian worldview.
I think that we’d do far better to assume that people arrive at their political opinions because of their use of reason and observation. If we are merely totally depraved (and not utterly depraved), then this seems like the best approach. I admit that I’ve not always done that in every instance, and I believe it to be sin when I’ve unfairly criticized others as “bigots”. So, I’m not about to dress up my own sinful disregard for others into a fancy philosophical system and christen it as a “worldview”.
Report comment to moderator
Evan,
I don’t use “worldview” in any way similar to how you’re defining it, nor do I think most people use it that way.
A Christian worldview is based on the Bible and not on observing “same-sex coupling.” God said, “NO.”
Report comment to moderator
For a society and culture that is okay with killing its children in massive numbers in state-sanctioned ‘clinics’, perverting and destroying the institution of marriage is an even smaller step, actually.
Note that (statistically) the supporters and enthusiasts behind homosexualism and the forcing of perversion on others almost universally tend also to be supporters and enthusiasts of the butchering of children.
No real surprise there, I think.
When you give your soul to the Eater of Souls, and let a culture of banal evil consume your brains, so that the thoughts you have are no longer yours, but instead simply reflect the diseased exhalations of a culture of death and depravity, you pretty much yield everything, in all areas of your life.
You enter a void, both spiritually and intellectually; and become a sort of controlled and predictable puppet, spasmodically jerking at the end of your strings.
At that point, you really don’t have anything of any value, or worth, left; you are plucked bare, and twist in the wind.
Praying for a miracle for the nation as a whole, and for individuals here as well.
One thing is certain: A generation that will methodically and clinically butcher its children, and rejoice at the mandated State-sanctioned perversion of the institution of marriage, is entering uncharted territory.
Or, perhaps, not entirely uncharted.
Moab – and Sodom and Gomorrah – come to mind.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
Worldviewism generally refers to the Christian philosophical/apologetic system that is associated with thinkers such as Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd, Cornelius Van Til, Charles Colson, Marvin Olasky, and Ronald Nash.
This probably explains why Colson so strenuously objects to the philosophy of Rand. Rand believes that humans can observe objective reality and use reason to draw inferences about how to live. Advocates of worldviewism would object. They believe that the human faculties are too marred by the Fall, and that one cannot get anything out of observing objective reality. Instead, one knows truth by adhering to the rules of the Christian worldview, a la divine command ethics.
Report comment to moderator
#3 – ADIOS wrote; “I have been married for 28 years, that’s how I uphold the biblical standards concerning marriage.”
This is an incredibly isolationist and self-centered perspective. Your two capital “I”s, ADIOS, are not the point. What you do in your marriage is not under criticism here (did you think it was?) The definition of marriage in all of our society itself is at stake. What I get from your statement is that you do not really care about others.
John the Baptist sure did expect a non-Christian (Herod Antipus) to hold to lawful and decent values regarding marriage and he paid for his unselfish convictions with his head.
Report comment to moderator
Courtney,
We’ve all treated you with kindness. I think most of us like you (what we know of you). But, sometimes, the truth hurts.
Its supposed to. We need to be confronted with our sinful attitudes, beliefs and practices and repent of them (turn completely away from them.) That is not easy.
Who likes change? Who enjoys finding out that they need to adjust the way they think?
No one I know.
But, if we were to lie to you to make you feel better, that wouldn’t be kind or loving either.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, that seems like a whole lot of verbiage to merely say consensus makes right. It appears you want to give a lot of weight to the idea expressed in this sentence of yours:
How do we measure what’s best? Why is perceived lack of harm an arbiter in anything? You appeal to consensus and Olasky appeals to Scripture (and not enough, in my view). Despite the picture you paint, the Reformers were sure a lot closer to Olasky than you in that regard! I hardly know why he deserves your criticism.
Report comment to moderator
And if you’re going to make the serious charge that people are conflating the gospel with politics, you have to bring some quotes. Claiming that we should honor God in government is not the same thing as saying govt or politics saves.
Report comment to moderator
Totally depraved. But not utterly depraved.
Adam and Eve totally fell, but did not utterly fall.
God is totally Holy. But not utterly Holy.
Sin is totally wrong. But not utterly wrong.
And the serpent said unto the woman, “Sure, He totally said that. But surely ye shall not utterly die . . .”
Apparently Satan is not very creative.
He keeps using the same old arguments.
Guess he figures they work . . .
Report comment to moderator
tammy, i am not hurt by you disagreeing with my sexuality. it’s you assuming my feelings and sexual habits. which you have been wrong about .
also i like you all as well.
Report comment to moderator
I have read some 7 or 8 articles on this on line and not one of them has reported the actual wording of the bill. Not one. Every one simply says that same-sex marriage will now be legal in NY and they celebrate “marriage equality.” They all have the same talking points. They must be copying each other.
So I don’t know if this legalizes same-sex marriage at all for loving same-sex triples, or quadruples or quintuples–all consenting tax-paying adults. Do they have marriage equality? How about marriage rights for people who are already married and want with all their heart to marry more? How about respect for the marriage equality of those who are lovingly bi-sexual? How about polyamorous marriage advocates? Are they chopped liver? How about same-sex sibling couples and triples and quads?
I fear that this bill leaves a whole lot of loving, hard-working, tax-paying consenting adults out in the cold when it comes to “marriage equality.” An awful lot of more work needs to be done to break down the bigotry barriers suffered by polygamists, polyamorists, bi-sexuals, transsexuals, and more.
Maybe some of you can provide some of the details.
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone read
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone read THE MARKETING OF EVIL: HOW RADICALS, ELITISTS, AND PSEUDO-EXPERTS SELL US CORRUPTION DISGUISED AS FREEDOM.
Sounds like what drill referred to as the effective lies of Satan. It was mentioned by a friend and I haven’t read it. Probably won’t considering the mood I’m in now.
Report comment to moderator
This is an ANTI-repentance dehumanizing movement that targets our children ultimately.
Report comment to moderator
When we undermine marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and replace it with homosexualist, polyamorist and polygamist alternatives (civil unions and such), we ALSO at the same time altar the nature of human relationships across the board, including dating, and of education, and of family law and of language itself. We radically undermine the most basic institution of society.
Report comment to moderator
We have empowered the heartless belief that fathers (or mothers) in particular are functionally unnecessary and can be easily replaced or displaced without harm to children or offspring.
Report comment to moderator
We have incurred gov’t costs to change (cleanse) all gov’t, public and passport paperwork that uses bigoted exclusivist words like “mother” and “father” to replace them with “parent A”, “parent B” and parent C,D,E,F” etc. And discriminatory divisive words like “husband” and “wife” must also be replaced with the impersonal “partner A”, “partner B”, “partner C”, “partner D,E,F”, and so on.
Watch the media report on how costly this will be, but don’t hold your breath.
Report comment to moderator
New York has subject their elementary school children to radical homosexualist (gov’t-funded) indoctrination with no recourse to decent parents, if they know what is good for them.
Report comment to moderator
ATHEIST-JEW, the Critical Mass being reached is a growing backlash against a tiny percentage of sexual deviants who cry and whine about wanting to have what everybody else has while insisting they’re not like everybody else.
I think that’s highly unlikely. People under 30 are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, so even if you’re correct, it’s a moot point, as the passage of time would inevitably lead to gay marriage. But I just don’t see this huge “backlash” brewing that you seem to see. It’s true that when people are allowed to vote on gay marriage, so far it’s been voted down every time. But the margins are getting smaller and smaller. What Californian in 1970 would have believed that if gay marriage were on the ballot in CA 2008that 48% of voters would vote to legalize it? Not a single one. Plus, there’s the fact I just mentioned about the younger generation. So, while it may be a fact that the electorate (which skews heavily older than the average American) has voted down gay marriage every time so far, it hardly means there’s a major “backlash” brewing. We saw a minor backlash in Iowa when the judges who legalized it were thrown out in the 2010 elections, but not much else. For the most people, whenever a judge or legislature legalizes gay marriage, people opposed to gay marriage roll their eyes at “those crazy liberals”, and then go back to watching American Idol or Glee. Even most evangelicals aren’t so upset that they’re willing to take to the streets and raise cain until gay marriage is stopped. Sure, if all that’s required of them is to mark an X on a ballot, then sure, they’ll “work to defeat gay marriage.” But if it requires much more than that, or leaving blog comments, then they’re simply too busy, or it simply doesn’t mean that much to them. Half a million illegal aliens turned out in LA a couple years ago to demand amnesty, but I haven’t seen a march of even five thousand evangelicals opposing gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Well, ATHEIST JEW, don’t you just have the future all sweetly figured out! Even extrapolating your imaginary “critical mass” as 6 states out of 50. Kewl. Hang in there.
Report comment to moderator
I never said six states equals critical mass. You should read more carefully. Also, a careful marshaling of facts is often a more effective rebuttal than a snide remark.
Report comment to moderator
ATHEIST-JEW #9 ATHEIST JEW – critical mass for homosexuals pretending they can have marriages in all 50 states will be soon. Best not to confuse your facts with your wishful conclusions.
Report comment to moderator
The thing is…the pro-choice crowd, at one time, had most of the young convinced too, and that is turning around pretty dramatically.
Give it time. We’ll most likely end up making gay marriage available in all 50 states. Then, give it some more time, and people will start to see the consequences.
And, once again, we may have a younger generation less in favor.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, the fact that our country now decides its ethics and morals (and politics!) based on majority rule (i.e. there is no absolute, only what the “most” people think) is just beyond sad.
Report comment to moderator
#84 I’m tired and didn’t express myself well.
It is unfortunate that we no longer have absolutes in our ethics and morals, but rather they are decided by whatever “popular opinion” is that day.
And, unfortunately, it carries over into politics, where politicians make most of their decisions based on the “poll of the day” rather than on what their constituents voted them in to decide or based on what is right.
Report comment to moderator
Marriage between MEN and WOMEN existed before Christianity. It’s not just about biblical standards.
Exactly. And I can’t support imposing biblical standards via the state for no other reason than that they’re biblical standards.
the Critical Mass being reached is a growing backlash against a tiny percentage of sexual deviants who cry and whine…
Polls say the opposite.
In other words, the religious exemptions are just a smoke screen and really mean nothing.
Can’t really agree. They seem pretty well written. Specifically they say the state can’t discriminate against churches or non-profits based on their unwillingness to conduct or approve same-sex marriages. The same protection is extended to all employees or those working in conjunction with such churches or non-profits. The law was also written such that it can’t be struck down piecemeal; if you drop any part you drop the whole thing.
An awful lot of more work needs to be done to break down the bigotry barriers suffered by polygamists, polyamorists, bi-sexuals, transsexuals, and more.
I agree. Though, as they’re less common the issue is somewhat less pressing. If there is some reasonable way in which the law can address polygamy I wouldn’t oppose its legalization.
Maybe some of you can provide some of the details.
Here’s the text of the bill.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass,
Again, look at the loss of religious freedom in all the other countries that have made this legal. It is the beginning, not the end.
You either don’t want to know, or you’re part of the problem.
Report comment to moderator
#86 Buddyglass,
What about the right of non-religious entities and citizens to disagree with homosexual conduct and marriage? What about the right of photographers to not work at homosexual marriages, the right of fertility doctors to not work with lesbian couples, the right of the Boy Scouts to keep their essential codes of conduct, etc.? Those have all been attacked in other states that have accepted gay marriage and represent grave threats to our religious freedoms.
We as individuals should have religious freedoms, not only freedoms for our churches and religious institutions.
Report comment to moderator
#86
The law exempts members of the clergy from performing same-sex marriages if they choose not to, which is good. However, I echo Beth in asking what private firms and organizations have for protection if they would rather not participate in such a “wedding”?
Report comment to moderator
Most of us Christians are sputtering mad about these “laws.”
For my part, I am going to think long and hard about how to explain my thoughts. I need to listen, read and consider how to respond to these onslaughts on God and God’s teachings on Homosexuality.
I know homosexuality is wrong but how to explain it other than saying “The Bibles says homosexuality is wrong.” Since it is wrong, there have to be reasons that will show the fallacy of the claims of those who defend it.
Report comment to moderator
Again, look at the loss of religious freedom in all the other countries that have made this legal. It is the beginning, not the end.
Name some countries for me. Most with same-sex unions never had a U.S.-style devotion to civil liberties to begin with.
What about the right of non-religious entities and citizens to disagree with homosexual conduct and marriage?
They retain it.
What about the right of photographers to not work at homosexual marriages
Since homosexuals aren’t a protected class under federal law, I would assume there’s nothing at the federal level preventing them from declining whichever customers they choose. If New York treats homosexuals as a protected class then that was already the case prior to this same-sex marriage bill, i.e. the bill has no effect whatsoever on a photographer’s right to choose his customers.
For my part, I am going to think long and hard about how to explain my thoughts.
Long, hard thought is rarely a bad thing. I’d encourage you also to consider the intersection of “the law” and sin. Of the pantheon of things that are sinful, why should some be illegal and others not? When (if ever) should a Christian endeavor to enforce (or prevent) certain behavior by way of the state? Is defending the legality of a thing necessarily the same as defending that thing?
Report comment to moderator
Of the pantheon of things that are sinful, why should some be illegal and others not? When (if ever) should a Christian endeavor to enforce (or prevent) certain behavior by way of the state?
Why would thought on these questions yield legal *accommodation* of homosexuality? I would think the point you’re trying to make asking that question mitigates your view, not the anti-gay rights view. In the only civil law ever given directly by God to men, sodomy was a capital crime. I could see how that fact would weigh in one’s thoughts on the matter, but not toward the libertine view. What other facts should inform one’s view? *Why* should those facts, and not others, be considered? When it gets down to it, how do we avoid merely doing what is right in our own eyes regarding this issue?
Report comment to moderator
#91
Canada
Report comment to moderator
I don’t need to enforce Christian standards, just decent standards – I won’t embrace perversion. And that’s what homosexuality is. It is not normal behavior.
Report comment to moderator
#61, Evan,
I found your comments about “worldviewism” interesting. You hypothesize:
“worldviewism’s recent popularity probably has little to do with its philosophical merits. I believe that it’s popular because it absolves Christians of the need to engage reasonably with those with whom they disagree.”
I’m not sure that what you label worldviewism is widely popular, but upon reflection it seems possible to me that the ordinary human reticence to invest in really understanding an opposing viewpoint might see some of the language of worldviewism as providing cover for what is ultimately a sinful impulse. We ought to examine ourselves.
However, I think your next statement: “After all, according to the advocates of worldviewism, the Christian and the non-Christian cannot have a meaningful discussion about anything because their allegiance is to two separate worldviews with two separate sets of rules.” is either a misunderstanding or a strawman.
Marvin Olasky (and the other proponents of this viewpoint which you’ve cited) are all about having meaningful discussions with people who hold to different worldviews. If you read John Frame on this topic, he doesn’t see Van Til as “anti-realist” and would disagree that “all knowledge is subjective” or that it comes from rules supplied by our worldview rather than from observation. Rather he would suggest that it is the nature of humans to arrive at knowledge empirically, existentially, and idealistically simultaneously. And this is able to work harmoniously because we are creatures created with logical minds and reliable senses (though fallen) inhabiting an orderly world created by the same God who created us to live within it. Thus we are able to invent purely idealistic constructs like calculus, and use those constructs to make accurate predictions about orbital motion or the like. Worldviewists are not subjectivists; it is simply a strawman (or else a misunderstanding) to suggest that they have no place or only a tiny place for general revelation.
What worldviewists *do* believe is that in some instances when people strongly disagree, the disagreement cannot really be resolved by mere “facts” which both parties may see, empircally, in more or less the same way. Rather the real disagreement is about assumptions held by each side which are being used to interpret the facts. Understanding and making explicit those assumptions (which may seem so natural to either side that they are unconsciously held) may actually be a bridge to meaningful communication rather than an insurmountable barrier. And, in any case, it is possible to both cooperate and compromise with people who hold a different worldview.
The case of gay marriage is a good example for demonstrating both of these points – that examining assumptions on both sides can help move the debate, and that political cooperation is possible with those who hold a different worldview.
One of the fundamental, but not often examined, points of disagreement between advocates and opponents of gay marriage is about the purpose of marriage. If the institution of marriage is fundamentally about the state providing special protections, legal status and obligations in support of two (or more) individuals publically declaring romantic love for each other, then there can be no objection to gay (or polygamous) marriage because surely a man can love a man with the same intensity and devotion that a man loves a woman. But if the fundamental purpose of marriage is to ensure the well-being of infants and children who are brought into the world as a natural consequence of heterosexual activity, then there can be no purpose for the state providing for gay marriage; a homosexual couple doesn’t have to use any family planning in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, resulting in children that would need the protection afforded by public policy. It’s helpful to examine the underlying assumptions – why should government be involved in marriage – rather than jumping past that to talk about either “equality” or “tradition”.
On the other hand, a Christian who opposes gay marriage does so on the grounds that the institution of marriage was instituted by God, for the purpose of procreation, and characterized and governed by special revelation. This viewpoint has little in common with a secularist who simply wants public policy that reduces crime and poverty out of normal (though fallen) human sympathy. Yet the Christian and the secularist may make common cause against gay marriage based on facts demonstrating that children raised in a gay household are more likely to be convicted of serious crimes and experience poverty than children raised by their biological parents.
I would agree, to an extent with your statement that: “People who favor civil same-sex marriage … are responding to their observation-based assessment that same-sex coupling is not too harmful to society and that there is no longer any legitimate reason for the state to withhold the legal benefits of civil marriage from gay couples.” That is part of it. Humans are naturally empiricists. But that’s not all of it. We are very much influenced by our assumptions. In ancient Greece there were periods of time where same-sex male couplings were culturally acceptible and apparently not observed to be harmful to society. Yet Greece never institutionalized same-sex “marriage”. Why not? I would contend it’s because the Greeks had a different worldview than present-day gay-marriage advocates. Empiricism is not the complete answer.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, I do not think that there is such a thing as worldviewism. It is not a recognized branch or school of theology. A worldview is simply the overall perspective one has on the world.
When I Googled the term ‘worlviewism’ I found very few references to it, and they were all on websites sponsored by a certain small group of Reformed people who are against the people that you mentioned–people who utilize and understanding that people have worldviews as a basis for apologetics and evangelism.
The irony in what you have written is that you expressed your worldview in what you wrote. Everybody has one.
I don’t believe that any of the people you listed espouses the view that you described–that utter (or total, what’s the difference?) depravity means that a person cannot discover objective truth or objective reality if that person is unregenerate. I’m pretty sure that they all believe in general revelation and the functionality of human reason even in an unregenerate person. I am willing to be corrected on that.
I’m also pretty sure that Colson’s objection to Ayn Rand is not her epistemology but her ethics.
Report comment to moderator
In my second sentence, I meant to say that worldviewism is not a recognized branch or school of philosophy. But theology works, too. It is neither.
Report comment to moderator
#26: “World does not pretend to be neutral. They present themselves as representing an evangelical world view.”
I agree that World is evangelical, but with a Reformed bent.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, I am in the process of reading that book right now. (73) It is not a pleasant read, but very informative.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass says,
Is this a rhetorical question meant to suggest that the sinfulness of an act should have no bearing on its legality or is it being posed as food for thought? I’m hoping it’s the latter and not the former.
When (if ever) should anyone endeavor to enforce (or prevent) certain behavior by way of the state? Are you suggesting that God’s standards should be regarded as irrelevant while the standards invented by godless men should be made binding?
Of course not, but this isn’t the point of contention.
Report comment to moderator
BobBuckles, there is a lot of good information online about the same sex marriage debate. The book mentioned in 73 also gives some good information. Everyone does need to be informed and not rely just on the magazines etc. that are pushing for SSM. Of course, God’s word is the first place to begin for a christian.
Report comment to moderator
I am really impressed with some of the answers on here. I hope that you are sharing these great ideas and thoughts with others outside of WMB. (Ree, great comments! TimTaylorDad, nice to hear from you. I hope you have more to say.) It gives me hope to hear that there are some really good thinkers out there on Christianity’s side.
Report comment to moderator
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110626/ap_on_re_eu/eu_fea_sweden_gender_neutral_tots
Heavy sigh.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, for those that like to have what the link is about:
It is a preschool in Sweden which is trying to rear the preschoolers up to be gender neutral. All the books they have are either pro-gay, single parent, or some other non-standard family arrangement.
Report comment to moderator
“The kind of things that boys like to do — run around and turn sticks into swords — will soon be disapproved of,” he said. “So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness.”
And, this one of the problems with “gender neutrality.” It generally frowns on the kinds of behavior that many boys (not all) like, and so it doesn’t really create “gender neutrality” but rather it emasculates boys and teaches them to be more like little girls.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
You may get more hits if you search under “Neo-Calvinism”. You can also search under “theonomy,” which is a more militant variation of Neo-Calvinism. You can also search “divine command theory”, as that would explain the ethical system of neo-Calvinism. I prefer not to use the term “Neo-Calvinism” because there’s nothing Calvinist about it. In fact, it represents a radical epistemological break from the realist epistemology of the Reformers, adopting in its place an antirealist epistemology that denies that man in general has the ability to glean truth from God’s general revelation.
I use the term “worldviewism” to describe this philosophy because of its belief that people acquire knowledge by committing themselves to a particular worldview and adhering to its internal rules (and not by making a rational observation of the world around them). So, when a neo-Calvinist, like Olasky, uses the term “worldview”, he is probably not referring to the broader meaning of the term. Rather, he is probably referring to the meaning of the term within neo-Calvinist philosophy. I believe that the term “worldviewism” was coined by DG Hart, a noted scholar of American Presbyterianism and critic of neo-Calvinism.
As you may note, Mac is probably also a neo-Calvinist. In one of his comments above, he states “In the only civil law ever given directly by God to men….” By this statement, Mac assumes that fallen humans cannot directly glean any principles of civil government from God’s general revelation. We are just left with the Sinai Covenant…and that’s it.
As you can probably discern, I’m no fan of neo-Calvinism. Nevertheless, its existence is not my chief concern here. Rather, my concern is that World Magazine seems to soft-peddle neo-Calvinism without providing uninformed readers with sufficient context to decide whether neo-Calvinism makes sense or not.
This bee got into my bonnet this week because of the discussion over Rand’s objectivism. While the article noted that Colson objected to objectivism, it never stated why. If Colson is a sincere neo-Calvinist (and I have no reason to believe that he’s not), his reason for his objection to Rand is clear: The neo-Calvinist believes that fallen humans lack the faculties to glean any useful knowledge from observing God’s general revelation. In turn, humans must therefore rely on the internal rules of the Christian worldview (i.e., the “divine command”) to make any kind of ethical judgments. So, the neo-Calvinist doesn’t just believe that we rely on a worldview in assessing truth. He would go a step further and insist that the internal rules of the Christian worldview provide the EXCLUSIVE means of assessing truth.
The theological implications (and problems) of this philosophy are apparent. At its core, it denies that there is any value to God’s general revelation. The brilliant career of Cornelius Van Til could probably be summed up as an attempt to reformulate neo-Calvinist philosophy so that it was more consistent with Protestant theology and with traditional Calvinist epistemology (along the lines of BB Warfield and J Gresham Machen). In fact, someone once summarized Van Til’s work as an ongoing effort to create a dialogue between Machen and Kuyper. I would deem Van Til’s project to have been a failure because I don’t see any way to connect the antirealist epistemology of neo-Calvinism with the realist epistemology of traditional Calvinism.
Notably, two of the most eminent epistemologists today, Alvin Plantinga and Nick Wolterstorff, started out as neo-Calvinists. They have both since rejected neo-Calvinism in favor of a system that is somewhat more akin to that of traditional Calvinism. Wolterstorff’s book, entitled Justice, provides an excellent critique of divine command ethics from a conservative Christian point of view.
Anyway, I just want you to be aware of what you’re getting here. In my view, World Magazine is to neo-Calvinists as The Watchtower is to the JWs. I fear that World Magazine implicitly depicts neo-Calvinism as “the Christian way” to respond to politics or world events. I’d suggest that traditional Calvinist ethics provides a more theologically sound approach to responding to world events.
Report comment to moderator
#106 Evan You are making a very long chain of assumptions there, which collapses entirely if even a single link is defective.
Here are some of your assumptions, which seem pretty flimsy, since you preface much of what you say with the word ‘probably’.
1. Olasky is a Neo-Calvinist. What do you base this on?
2. Colson is a Neo-Calvinist. What do you base this on?
3. You say, worldviewism is a “belief that people acquire knowledge by committing themselves to a particular worldview and adhering to its internal rules (and not by making a rational observation of the world around them).” No one thinks this way. Who would adopt a worldview which had no connection to the real world?
4.When “Olasky, uses the term “worldview”, he is probably not referring to the broader meaning of the term.” Probably?
5. That Neo-Calvinists are incapable of non-neo-Calvinist thought.
6. That World Magazine is the propaganda wing of a neo-Calvinist conspiracy.
I have observed a kind of “worldviewism” as you put it among modern progressives. The progressive world view is less about the way things are and more about the way they should be as they see it.
For example, today CNN played an interview with Nancy Pelosi regarding Afghanistan, where she stated clearly that US policy on Afghanistan was wrong during the Bush years and right during the Obama years. When the interviewer pointed out that there are more troops in Afghanistan under Obama you could see Pelosi reeling a bit and then mumbling something about Obama having a good plan and Bush never having any plan.
According to the liberal world view, reality is secondary to the narrative which they must repeat endlessly even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you want to use the term worldviewism, this would seem to be a more appropriate use of the word.
As Tim Taylor so eloquently pointed out, World Magazine is about the marketplace of ideas, not some plot by a neo-Calvinist conspiracy.
Report comment to moderator
Some very thought provoking analysis in the comments here.
Re: Legislating morality
If there are no laws outlawing adultery, then there can be none outlawing homosexual acts between consenting adults. However, marriage always has, and always will be between a man and a woman.
Understandably, a homosexual may want their partner to have certain securities and economic benefits, but, in Canada at least, these could have been provided for under the laws of common-law relationships.
Even in Rome and Greece, where politics and state religion were often impacted by the homosexual relationships of the powerful (Hadrian’s cult, Spartan generals in the Peloponessian Wars), and marriage was more of an economic arrangement, marriage was never redefined.
Two factors make redefining marriage different in our day, Romantic love and Christianity. The first is an ideal that isused to support the idea that homosexuals can marry. After all, in all romances, a period of struggle of the two lovers apart is resolved in marriage; if homosexuals experience such love, it is cruel to deny them such resolution.
The second factor, some would say, produced the first. Christ restated God’s original plan for marriage as between one man and one woman. The apostles’s writings refined the role of the man and the woman in a marriage, speaking of the man’s sacrificial love and the woman’s submissiion. This was a revolutionary concept in the cultures in which they worked, it is considered archaic now.
Marriage is being redefined in an idealistic attempt to support a lifestyle. It reminds me of the French Revolutionaries attempt to redefine the week as a way to stamp out all traces of the old order. As with the reworking of the week, the redefining of marriage will evetually be reversed, not due to the work of a religious group, but because the relationship between the sexes is written into our genetic code.
Report comment to moderator
Van Til wrote extensively about the common ground that exists between believers and unbelievers via general revelation. I’m sensing Evan is among those who overstate this or that or various aspects of those “worldviewists” he’s talking about.
Report comment to moderator
Mac, I agree that Evan seems to be overstating things.
I think a more common name for “worldviewism” is presuppositionalism. I’ve been thinking of reading the book Five Views of Apologetics; the presuppositionalist view in the book is represented by John Frame. I think Evan must be of the “Reformed epistemology” camp, represented in the book by Kelly James Clark. I am more from the classical/evidentialist camp of William L. Craig or Gary Habermas; popular authors Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell might be a more recognizable name belonging to the same camp. I’ve read books by both of them. Still, both presuppositionalism and Reformed epistemology sounds useful; I think categorically rejecting any one of these approaches is wrong. We can learn and use insights from all of them.
Report comment to moderator
Why Christian’s cannot support same sex marriage?
Here are a few passages.
Genesis 2:23-24
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Versus 24 is clear to what a marriage for a Christian is to look like. Nowhere in the passage does it show that a man is to leave his father and father to united with his husband nor does it show a woman shall leave her mother and mother to united with her wife. That passage is clear for a Christian a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife.
Report comment to moderator
Exodus 20:12
New International Version (NIV)
12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you
–
Again a very clear passage of what marriage is to look like. Kids are told to honor their father and mother. Nowhere in that passage does it say to honor your father and father or mother and mother. The reason marriage for God is between one man and woman.
Let’s look at a few passage from the New Testament.
Report comment to moderator
Ephesians 5:21-32
Instructions for Christian Households
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Report comment to moderator
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church
Report comment to moderator
Now Ephesians 5:21-32 Paul is dealing with the relationship of a Christian Household. These passages are clear about wives and husbands. I want to point out this passage ” 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” It does not say Husbands love your Husbands just as Christ loved the church nor does it say wives love your wives. Again a clear passage of scripture showing that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.
Report comment to moderator
Ephesians 6:1-3
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”
—
again another clear passage for children it does not say Honor your father and father —which is the first commandment with a promise nor does it say Honor your mother and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise. This passage is clear to what marriage is to look like.
Report comment to moderator
Marvin Olasky pointed out a great observation, one we have all noticed in the media in recent times. I would have like it betterr had he offered solutions.
Aren’t we becoming similar to lop-sided nations, where one side dominates the power structures, and the other side becomes known as dissidents? By exclusion, those who strongly hold to Biblical values are becoming “guerillas” and entering into a period of guerilla warfare. We need to have our own media strengthened and developed, if only for internal communication. On the other hand, it seems we are entering a period of sifting and pruning in the church, right?
Report comment to moderator
For those who declare the gay marriage does not affect other people marriage. News flash it does affect other peoples marriages. here is an example who gay marriage effect people marriage in DC. In DC many Christian Adoption Groups are closing their doors. The reason DC Same Sex Marriage requirement any Adoption Group to provide Adoptions to Same Sex Couples. There are no rules in DC Same Sex Marriage requirements to exempt the Christian Adoption Groups. Those Groups are told, they must provide it. So with the departure of these Christian Adoption Groups, it will affect the waiting list for Marry Couples to Adoption. So yes people marriages are being affected.
Report comment to moderator
ROY, thank you for adding that dimension to this awful debate. There seems to be more than enough sin, heartbreak and selfishness to go around.
I’ll be re-reading these comments for the next several days. But another shame of this controversy is that 18 months ago a similar bill to this went down in flames under Democrats. Critical mass works like a pendulum, so we have to remember that God has told us that we’ll have to trust Him on this. Amen.
Report comment to moderator
Mac,
As I noted, CVT is not a thorough-going neo-Calvinist in the sense that Olasky is. CVT was trying to create some dialogue between Machen/Warfield and Kuyper/Dooyeweerd. It seems that Machen vacillated between phases when he favored traditional Calvinist epistemology and phases when favored the antirealist epistemology of neo-Calvinism.
I quote Vern Poythress, who is probably the foremost interpreter of Van Til. (Poythress, in contrast to Frame, was actually able to complete a PhD program.)
Poythress: “For Van Til what we need to make sense of all of our experiences is a transcendent ground. That transcendent is God, and even more specifically the revelation of Scripture. We must ground the cause-and-effect in the character of God or else we have no assurance of its ongoing reliability. We take things like cause-and-effect or ‘truth’ for granted – we are presupposing their reliability. For Van Til, only the Christian worldview has the presuppositions that can bring rationality or make any sense of any aspect of human experience.”
Note the last sentence of Poythress’s assessment of Van Til’s thought. By implication, those who are not of the Christian worldview cannot “make any sense of any aspect of human experience.” So, while Van Til may allow for some common ground between the Christian and the non0Christian, he would nevertheless deny that the non-Christian could “make any sense of any aspect of human experience.”
Report comment to moderator
In 25 years, nearly all evangelicals will heartily endorse gay marriage. Those few who don’t will be regarded by mainstream evangelicals with the same contempt that today’s evangelicals have for Aryan Nations and KKK type Christians.
Report comment to moderator
I have decided to terminate my polemic against neo-Calvinism and its wayward adherents.
After all, I don’t believe that most on the Religious Right (which includes most commenters on this blog) gravitate to neo-Calvinism because of the soundness of the philosophy. Rather, they go to it because they are lazy. They are too lazy to reason from nature and construct cogent arguments relevant to social and political issues. They simply reason: “The Bible says X is wrong; therefore, the government should punish people who do X.” But in making this assessment, they seem to overlook the myriad of sins that the civil government permits. Divorce is a good example. In fact, evangelicals divorce each other at rates that are as high, if not higher, than that of the non-evangelical population. If they were true neo-Calvinists, the Religious Right would be calling for the government to pass criminal laws punishing divorce.
For further reading, please consult an article written by T. David Gordon, Lee Wishing’s colleague at Grove City College, entitled “The Insufficiency of Scripture”. In my view, this article does an excellent job of laying out the classical Reformed view of ethics, as opposed to the neo-Calvinist ethics of Olasky and Colson.
Report comment to moderator
atheist-jew – An that would fall in line with God’s Word. That there will be a great fallen away. An those who would endorse gay marriage, will be those who have fallen away.
Report comment to moderator
ATHEIST-JEW #121-ATHEIST JEW – Nonsense – in your damp dreams.
Report comment to moderator
It has nothing to do with “God’s Word”, as neither the Old nor New Testament has anything to do with “God”. It’s simply human nature. One of the strongest human drives is to fit in, and not be an outcast. As sentiment about gay marriage changes, those who regard it as a wicked sin will be relegated to the margins of society, just as people who regard interracial marriage as a wicked sin are marginalized today. Few people can deal successfuly with being outcasts and pariahs for long, so most opponents of gay marriage will eventually come around.
Plus, the government will start stripping the business and professional licenses of doctors, wedding planners, B&B owners, therapists, florists, wedding photographers, insurance agents, and others who refuse to work with engaged/married gay couples. Anyone who doubts this is dreaming. No, they won’t force ministers to marry two men, but they will force people in these other occupations to choose between their beliefs and their livelihood. Just as no marriage counselor today who refused to treat an interracial couple would be allowed to keep practicing, neither will one who refuses to treat a same sex couple. Plus, at some point further down the road, the government will start stripping Bible colleges, camps, retreats of their tax exemption if they ban same sex dating.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, I have a clearer picture of what you are talking about now. I hope that you are not frustrated or disapointed in this discussion. I will look into what you wrote.
Since I am not a Calvinist, I do not care too much about the difference between neo-Calvinists and (I suppose they would be called) paleo-Calvinists. However, I do care about any Christians who discount general revelation and the ability to know things by observation and reason.
Report comment to moderator
Now we know that ATHEIST JEW has its head up its alternate universe. Not to worry.
Report comment to moderator
ATHEIST JEW needs to commit to following the future on WMB.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A,
I wouldn’t take Evan’s word as the last one in re. Van Til (or others) on general revelation. He misrepresents him (Van Til) in 120. Yeah, he also misrepresents at least some of those “wayward adherents” of neo-Calvinists (so-called) when he says they simply argue, “The Bible says X is wrong; therefore, the government should punish people who do X.” That’s a lazy man’s assessment.
For what it’s worth, Poythress was happy to study under Frame; they’ve worked together closely; they currently collaborate on a website appropriately located at frame-poythress.org. I doubt Vern Poythress is as snide addressing Frame as Evan apparently would be.
Report comment to moderator
#121 Atheist-Jew
“In 25 years, nearly all evangelicals will heartily endorse gay marriage.”
I am 64 so I will probably be dead by then.
On the other hand, please give an example of something that used to be considered a sin that most evangelicals now endorse.
Report comment to moderator
Interracial marriage. Up until quite recently, most Christians regarded it as disgusting moral perversion.
Report comment to moderator
These days, it’s the rare evangelical who would go on record as regarding interracial marriage as a sin, and from what I understand, in some of the trendier evangelical churches, interracial marriages are encourage, and considered to be better and more spiritual than marriages between two people of the same race.
Report comment to moderator
atheist-jew what you are promoting is called Christian Persuction.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I’m not promoting it. I’m simply telling you what’s coming.
Report comment to moderator
Atheist-Jew, the fact of the matter is that it was Christians that fought for equality in the races, on all levels. So, the thought that interracial marriage was considered a sin by evangelicals, or Christians, was far from the norm.
Your argument is a canard.
Regardless of what scociety believes, the Word of the Lord never changes. The Lord changes not.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, Atheist Jew just shows the hand of the homosexualists. At least he’s honest. No tolerance for those that oppose the so-called “tolerant”.
Report comment to moderator
According to this recent poll, among the main religious groups in America, white evangelicals are still the most likely to regard interracial marriage as bad.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/06/opposition_to_i.html
Report comment to moderator
Michelle Bachcman is vertially tied with Romney right now. She supports a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman.
Is there any doubt that if this were brought up for a vote, which way the votes would be cast?
Report comment to moderator
We’re not talking polls, A-J. We’re talking HISTORY. It’s not on your side.
Report comment to moderator
A-J, you misrepresented that poll.
The majority believes that interracial marriage is neither good nor bad. We believe it doesn’t make a difference.
Marriage is good regardless of race. That’s the majority oppinion.
Report comment to moderator
Dan, in 1959, 96% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage, and that included just about every evangelical in the country. In 1967, when the Supreme Court invalidated laws against interracial marriage, 75% of American still disapproved of it. In fact, it wasn’t until 1997 that a majority of Americans said they approve of interracial marriage. And as the poll above shows, even though most evangelicals now approve of it, among the major religious groups in America, it’s still white evangelicals who most strongly oppose interracial marriage.
To claim that in the past, most Christians in America didn’t opposed interracial marriage is beyond silly. It’s asinine.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, it’s a decidedly SMALL percentage that believe’s it’s bad.
You shouldn’t bear false witness, A-J.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, 96 percent. Where did you get that figure? Wouldn’t that include everybody, of all races, religions and non-believers?
I’d say that I really doubt that figure.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t misrpresent the poll at all.
I never claimed it was a large percentage of evangelicals today who oppose interracial marriage, as anyone can see from my posts above.
And, yes, 96% is pretty much unanimous. Opposition to interracial marriage was pretty close to being universal among Americans, no matter their religious views, until quite recently.
But it turns out I was slightly off. It wasn’t 96% of white people who opposed interracial marriage in 1959. It was 94%, and the year was 1958.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx
Report comment to moderator
As I said, to claim that most most American evangelicals in the past approved of interracial marriage is beyond silly. It’s absolutely asinine.
Report comment to moderator
First of all, interracial marriage is a straw man. When you can’t argue the argument being presented, you resort to something else that you can win.
Secondly, while many evangelicals didn’t care for interracial marriage, that was cultural and NOT Biblical. And, they didn’t think it was a sin. “Opposition” does not equal “sin.”
As for those that did think it was sin, where is it in the Bible?
I can point to verse after verse against homosexuality, but I can’t find even one against interracial marriage. The only thing I can find is against the marriage of an unbeliever vs. a believer.
So, while Christians in the past MAY have been culturally misled, the Bible has not changed.
My own mother tried to tell me when I was a girl that interracial marriage was prohibited by the Bible. But, since I had my own Bible, I read it from cover to cover, and I could not not a single verse. The one my mother vaguely referenced was obviously talking about human/animal interaction. I pointed this out to her…at about 12 years old.
So, regardless of what people THOUGHT the Bible said, what matters is what it ACTUALLY says. And, one must go through considerable contortions to argue that it is against interracial marriage.
On the other hand, it is clear enough for a child to understand that homosexuality is not acceptable.
Report comment to moderator
And, it is quite true that God always corrects His people. The vast majority of those who fought for racial equality were Christians. This is on record.
They were the ones who fought for black voting rights. They were the ones who fought for desegregation. Christians were on the forefront of correcting the injustice, because God always calls on His own people to correct their errors.
Funny, His people are not at the forefront of this, but rather those who oppose Him are largely at the vanguard. Why is that?
Because God’s Word does not change, and He does not condone homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Atheist Jew,
You may be right that most people will fall away. We’ve been told it will happen in the end times, and we expect it.
But, since God is in control, there will always remain a faithful remnant. I pray that my family will always be part of that remnant.
Report comment to moderator
Funny, Evan, but I have yet to see anyone on here call for the “punishment” of gays. We simply don’t want them to win full acceptance and steal the right of marriage.
They probably will, mind you, but we don’t condone it.
Report comment to moderator
The vast majority of those who fought for racial equality were Christians. This is on record. They were the ones who fought for black voting rights.
That’s nonsense. Evangelicals were outspoken in their opposition to the Civil Rights Movement, which many of them called a “communist plot.” Billy Graham was denounced by many of his supporters when he invited MLK to pray at one of his revivals in the 1950s.
Evangelical Christians were absennt from the marches and rallies of the 50s and 60s. It was “liberal” ministers who marched with MLK, along with Jews, Quakers, hippies, communists, socialists and those Hollywood “elites.” The idea that evangelicals were a significant factor in the Civil Rights movement is complete nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
@Macrutabaga: Why would thought on these questions yield legal *accommodation* of homosexuality?
It wouldn’t and it shouldn’t. Though, I don’t consider allowing same-sex marriage to be accommodation of homosexuality.
@Macrutabaga: In the only civil law ever given directly by God to men, sodomy was a capital crime. I could see how that fact would weigh in one’s thoughts on the matter, but not toward the libertine view.
I agree that observation is a good one, but I disagree that it works against the libertine view. What it does is work against the status quo. If your support for keeping same-sex marriage off the table is that homosexual acts were a capital crime per Mosaic law, then why wouldn’t you support homosexual acts again being punished that way today? I’m not understanding the rationale for this sort of “middle path” where homosexual acts are fully legal (along with a variety of other capital offenses, e.g. blasphemy) but allowing same-sex couples to make use of the civil marriage contract is anathema.
What other facts should inform one’s view?
How about, “Does the thing in question impinge upon the rights or property of another person?”
Or, perhaps, “How is the golden rule relevant (if at all) to the question of which laws I should endeavor to see imposed on others?”
@Tammy: Canada
I agree that Canada has gone overboard with its restriction of speech. That said, did it ever have the sort of speech protection the U.S. did/does? I’m not so sure. You also seem to imply that allowing same-sex marriage would cause these sorts of speech restrictions. I don’t see any support for that. I’m far more likely to think they’re both caused by a certain mode of thinking, rather than the one causing the other. If that’s the case then allowing the former does nothing to hasten the latter. If we ever get to the point in the U.S. where legislators are contemplating putting Canada-style anti-hate-speech laws on the books I’ll be the first to oppose them.
@Ree: Is this a rhetorical question meant to suggest that the sinfulness of an act should have no bearing on its legality or is it being posed as food for thought?
Both. For instance, I think murder should be illegal, but not because it’s sinful. (Even though it most certainly is.)
@Ree: Are you suggesting that God’s standards should be regarded as irrelevant while the standards invented by godless men should be made binding?
Actually God’s standards are a big reason why I don’t support criminalizing certain activities solely because they’re sinful. So no, I don’t consider God’s standards to be irrelevant. At least not in the general sense.
Of course not, but this isn’t the point of contention.
Folks on this thread have made the argument that since the Bible condemns homosexuality the believer must oppose civil recognition of same-sex marriage, because to do otherwise would be to “support” something God calls sin. So I think it’s a point of contention for some folks. (Though maybe you’re not one of them.)
@Phos: However, marriage always has, and always will be between a man and a woman.
In the scope of history it’s quite often been a man and multiple women. It’s also worth noting that when you appeal to “historical normalcy” that there are some other “historically normal” practices we now generally abhor. Slavery comes to mind.
@Evan: For further reading, please consult an article written by T. David Gordon…
That was a good read. Though, his claims about the divorce rate of evangelicals have been brought into question. Bradley Wright has a good set of blog posts (and a book) on the subject.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, can you source your Poythress quote in 120? It looks to me that it isn’t Vern Poythress at all, but just some guy’s personal blog. That may explain why the excerpt is a poor summary of CVT.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, I asked, “What other facts should inform one’s view [of good law]?”
You replied,
The question is, Why those things? First, of all the things you could offer, why those? But also, since God did, in fact, establish laws against sodomy, why those things? Should God have had those thoughts in mind when he outlawed sodomy? Was he waiving the 8th Commandment? Was God violating the Golden Rule when he authorized sodomy laws?
I’m willing to let scripture speak authoritatively to those subjects where it speaks. I don’t understand the urge to compromise with the culture.
Report comment to moderator
Any society that embraces perversion does not survive. Any society that embraces the devaluation of its own money does not survive. So went the Roman Empire, so, too, will the US go.
The Founders wanted to see what we would do with it. They wondered if we could hold on to it — history repeats.
Report comment to moderator
As the state takes over more and more of our lives, gender reeducation will become the norm. In one school in Sweden, they don’t use personal pronouns and every book is about gay and transgender topics.
One person observed, “The kind of things that boys like to do — run around and turn sticks into swords — will soon be disapproved of,” he said. “So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness.” I would say that emasculating maleness is the whole point.
Anyone who thinks that the insanity will ever plateau is mistaken. As government gains power, so will the madness.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer and Xion (possibly others),
I agree homosexuality is a disgusting perversion, but I understand why some are asking why outlaw some immoral acts and not others? I believe those here who are asking that question are on no firmer ground than those who would keep gay marriage illegal–why is their (the former group’s) interpretation of “general revelation” more valid than anyone else’s?– but would you agree that the immorality of a thing isn’t *necessarily* a reason for making laws against it?
Report comment to moderator
MAC, my point here is not to outlaw immorality, but to oppose the dumbing down of our cultural standards and redefining the basic building block of, in this case, American society. Marriage between anyone but heterosexuals was already not legally recognized. This is the slippery slope that liberals use to further corrupt standards.
Why aren’t the voices of bisexuals being heard on this?
Report comment to moderator
Here is another reason why Christian can not support same sex marriage, for those who claim to be a Christian and are promoting same sex marriage beware, you are in conflict with God’s Word.
Ephesians 5:3-7 3. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
Report comment to moderator
Considering the sort of ramapnt and raw recuiting that goes on by homosexualists to children and young people (mostly though state-funding means in the name of education and through entertainment media) and by practicing homosexuals to young boys by outright sedcuction, exploiting their natural confusion, as well as other means or recruiting and abuse, the cancerous harm that homosexuality itself does to our society goes far far beyond that of the worst illegal drugs. It harms many children for life and leads to much higher suicide rates. Legalization leads to a litigation nightmare unseen in our time and unforeseen by the emotional mobs. But who cares?
Report comment to moderator
Louise, Pastor Roy, Joel Mark,
I agree with you about the depravity and harm of homosexuality, but are you saying that its immorality *itself* is enough to warrant laws against it? Should any of the other items in the Ephesians 5 list be outlawed–foolish talk, course joking, greed?
Report comment to moderator
Sin and immorality have always been around. Laws are only one way to maintain some resistence and some level of cppostition against it. But legislation, documents, declarations and papers people sign are inadequate. What I oppose most here is the blatant action of our President who is using his governmental office of power to pervert our hearts and promote a NON-repentance (pride) of sin movement. June is officially national GLBT PRIDE month by his edict and decree. The President is actively imposing his gleeful advocacy for transgenderism and other clear pervertions on our culture. He and his minions are actively using high offices and tons of tax-payer money to influence and pervert our children and expolit them and undermine genuine motherhood, fatherhood and the family in any meaningful sense of the terms.
But who cares? Let’s let any and all perverts have what they want at other people’s expense and only focus on our “rights” and forget our responsibilties to our pesky children and to our future.
Report comment to moderator
And then there’s this: OF TELEVISION AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE. GAY TEENS ON TV. How a bold new class of young gay characters on shows like GLEE is changing hearts, minds & Hollywood.
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/24/of-television-and-same-sex-marriage/?
From the article:
The left is fond of asking whether you can be anti-same sex marriage if you have a gay relative or friend. The argument seems to be that if you are personally close to someone who has sex with a member of the same gender, you cannot oppose their behavior or, more appropriately, the enshrinement of their behavior in law!
Instead of playing on your current friends and family, television creates a group of friends for you. The whole goal of television writers is to create a set of characters who are likable, witty, funny, enjoyable to hang around with.
Report comment to moderator
MAC, please read my 157 again. I already answered your question there.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL 161, the irony (to put it nicely) is that 0bama is not in favor of gay marriage, as opposed to what Dick Cheney feels. And suddenly it’s alright for “states’ rights” to legalize homosexual marriages. Even MSNBS called that the “states’ rights cop-out.” Heh-heh.
Report comment to moderator
#16 – “…are you saying that its immorality *itself* is enough to warrant laws against it?”
It is one of the biggest reasons any laws are passed anywhere at any time. Laws against stealing, murder, slander, purgury, speeding, embezzling, rape, kidnapping are all warranted by the obvious immorality of those things. Immorality may be a huge reason for laws but laws are only a small and limited means to resist the reality of human immorality. Immorality can get around laws like water through a net. At some point, the number of “nets” you bring to stop the “water” becomes ridiculous. Don’t trust in legislation to resist immorality. Context is key.
So, laws are profoundly inadequate to make a people moral. One can believe strongly in the need for the rule of law (as did our Founders) and at the same time believe in limited government because using legislation alone to fight immorality is like bringing a squirt gun to a machine gun fight. There is simply no sense in bringing a huge truckload of squirt guns to that fight. So much can be said for lightening the legislation load so we can fight more effectively. Too much legislation is like wearing so much protective armor that you cannot even move to engage the real enemy. But agian, context and free debate are essential in a context where the consent of the governed is included.
During WW2, “foolish talk” was resisted not just with US laws but with a lot of propoganda. Context was a huge factor. There are still some regulations for course joking when small children are involved (prime-time, education, etc). Teachers and preacher who do too much of it should be let go, cosidering the context.
Laws cannot stop homosexuality, but if certain reasonable laws and definitions can reasonably give an assist to those in the good fight for a better, safer and freer civilization throgh stronger families, then they should be put on the table for consideration by the people and their representatives. It will always be a judgment call betten the harm we can do by insufficient law or excessive. But we CAN do great harm either way.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, is there a difference between “dumbing down of our cultural standards” and a slide into further immorality? It would seem that opposition to one is the same as opposition to the other–or, opposition to the same thing, i.e., immorality.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: The question is, Why those things? First, of all the things you could offer, why those? But also, since God did, in fact, establish laws against sodomy, why those things? Should God have had those thoughts in mind when he outlawed sodomy? Was he waiving the 8th Commandment? Was God violating the Golden Rule when he authorized sodomy laws?
I’m willing to let scripture speak authoritatively to those subjects where it speaks. I don’t understand the urge to compromise with the culture.
God also outlawed eating shellfish, mixing fibers in clothing, having sexual relations during menstruation and forbade men who have had their testicles damaged from entering the temple.
Want to make all of those subject to civil laws too?
God forbade lending at interest. Want to outlaw that?
Why single out homosexuality as suitable for legal sanction and ignore so many other of God’s laws?
Report comment to moderator
No MAC, I don’t think there is, but I thought you were asking about outlawing a specific behavior while the issue here is corrupting the law by changing the meaning of a social standard. But I don’t want to go around in circles with you about this and distract from the main point.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, those weren’t part of the civil law, but the ceremonial. Certainly you learned this in the extensive studies you claim to have made of Christian doctrine. For further info, consult the book of Hebrews.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN, you know that argument doesn’t hold water anywhere outside of high school. Homosexuality is not being outlawed or legalized. Pretending that marriage among homosexuals, etc., is equivalent to traditional marriage between a man and a woman doesn’t make it true.
Our government does not make laws based on Biblical prohibitions that God made to a religious people.
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga
The real question is does God hold us accountable for voting for such behavior?
Report comment to moderator
Mac: It’s hard to tell. They’re all among the 600+ laws communicated in the Pentateuch and nowhere in there does God say “these are moral laws that will never change, and these are ceremonial laws that you won’t need forever.” Those division were added by later Christians trying to explain why they still obeyed some laws and not others.
Good article on the topic: http://www.the-highway.com/law1_Alderson.html
So let’s accept that there are three kinds of law in the Old Testament: Civic and Ceremonial, which were binding for a time, and Moral, which is binding still.
How do you know which category the ban on same-sex relations falls into? How do you know some of the ones I mentioned aren’t in the same category?
Report comment to moderator
Conan: I appreciate that you could bring yourself to just ask a question.
I mean it when I recommend the book of Hebrews. It *does* speak to the passing away of ceremonial laws. Broadly, in that epistle and elsewhere, ceremonial laws are regarded as those which foreshadow Christ’s work in justification. No serious exegete reads Paul as failing to distinguish purposes of the law—some as binding, others not. No critic should approach the Bible with doctrinal questions always expecting simplistic answers such as, “nowhere in there does God say ‘these are moral laws that will never change, and these are ceremonial laws that you won’t need forever.’” Not saying I always get it right, but sometimes it takes some legwork to discern biblical doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
Christian can not support same sex marriage it goes against the Christian Faith.
Report comment to moderator
But Pastor Roy, is that really enough reason to legislate? Should drunkenness be illegal?
Report comment to moderator
Drunkenness is illegal, when driving. See the point about context and judgment? Laws are in flux. Christians should ALSO have a clear public voice in the process. And so should non-CHristians. What is wrong is for Christians to back off in public discourse and be silent or passive in the legislation process. Win or lose, we speak and act becasue we actively care. Win or lose, our primary citizenship remains in heaven.
Report comment to moderator
Remember that this is first and foremost a virulent anti-repentance movement at its core. After that, it is anti-family.
Report comment to moderator
Conan says,
When you say they were “added by later Christians,” you’re referring, I assume, to the apostles, correct? Like when Peter had the vision telling him to kill and eat animals that were previously considered unclean?
But you’re making one of your usual question begging assertions when you say that it was Christians, and not God, who changed the rules.
A serious study of the Bible is enlightening in regard to the significance of the various rules and regulations. But even a superficial reading of the Bible reveals the still binding prohibitions against all forms of non-marital sex. And same-sex relations are consistently spoken of in decidedly negative ways throughout the New Testament.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, should something be illegal *because* it goes against the Christian Faith? Private drunkenness goes against the Christian Faith. Should it be illegal on that basis? I’m referring to the apparent context and judgment provided by Pastor Roy in 174.
Report comment to moderator
I heard a report that gobs of Libertarian money (including from a billionaire Libertarian with a homosexual son) was injected into this homosexual campaign to actively use BIG goverement power and legislation for redefine marriage. This Libertarian campaign mostly targeted wavering Republicans. Looks like hypocrisy may also be rampant among (allegedly limited gov’t) Libertarians too! The Democrat Party already sold its soul and the Republicans are following suit. But the Libertarians may be the most indecent government activists of all.
Report comment to moderator
Correct. It should be added that OT Israel would have understood distinctions in the law. Hosea 6:6 depends on such a recognition:
Report comment to moderator
As I stated, it should be illegal if a legitimate Constitutional process is followed and the people (BOTH Christian and non-Christia alike) freely make it so. Again, what is most wrong is for Christians to back off in public discourse and be silent or passive in the legislation process. Christians are not called to turn their backs on matters of legitimate public concern.
I don’t think I read #174 the way you did. Either way, I am speaking for myself.
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass says,
Whatever reason you might give for justifying laws against murder (and for defining what constitutes murder) must necessarily reference some standard. To whose standards would you appeal?
So you do support an appeal to God’s standard then. Good. We’re in agreement on this.
Granted, some people have framed their argument in an overly simplistic way by not addressing how one should determine God’s standard for distinguishing crime from sin. But the issue of whose standards we appeal to precedes that one. And although you’re here saying that it’s God’s standards to which we should appeal, you previously said,
You don’t seem to have clarified in your own mind whether we should heed or disregard God’s standards as the basis for our laws.
Report comment to moderator
That’s cool, Joel Mark. Thanks…
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuality is mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments so it crosses dispensations. Nevertheless, it does seem that this particular sin and that of abortion are the Top Two to Christians.
Report comment to moderator
The world has its own standard, as Christians, our standards is found in God’s Word. An the Word of God is clear about it.
Christian need to be very careful on what they are supporting.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, the Word is clear on a great many things that we, as believers, do not get worked up about. Why is that?
Report comment to moderator
@Macrutabaga: I’m willing to let scripture speak authoritatively to those subjects where it speaks. I don’t understand the urge to compromise with the culture.
I’m also willing to let scripture speak authoritatively on the sinfulness of homosexuality. Where we differ, apparently, is on the significance of it being labled a crime (by God via Moses) in ancient Israel. Israel was a deocracy (as opposed to a theocracy) in that its laws were handed down by God himself. If your belief is that those laws were intended to serve as a blueprint for all future legal systems then you should support the death penalty for homosexual acts. If you don’t think those laws should serve as a blueprint then using them as a basis for opposition to same-sex marriage (but not the legality of homosexuality in general) seems fairly arbitrary.
@JoelMark: Laws against stealing, murder, slander, purgury, speeding, embezzling, rape, kidnapping are all warranted by the obvious immorality of those things.
This is where we differ. I say laws against those things are warranted because they represent an abridgment (or in the case of speeding a reckless endangerment) of one’s person or or property.
This is why other immoral activities such as blasphemy, drunkenness, fornication, homosexuality, etc. are not (and should not be) illegal.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Frank Turek seems to have lost his job over the issue after he wrote a book about how SSM hurts everyone. Ironic, no doubt.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass,
Other nations were judged by God for their violations even of Mosaic case laws. Their rulers were called to honor God and his law. What seems arbitrary–by definition–is how you answer (or not) the questions I (and subsequently Ree) asked you regarding those things you suggest be kept in mind when considering legislation. Can you answer the questions I asked in 153 without arbitrariness?
Report comment to moderator
These are a couple of watershed issues of our times, Hopesprings. I mean, you wouldn’t expect us to be getting all up in arms about the selling of indulgences, would you? But for Martin Luther to do so was good and right.
Report comment to moderator
hopesprings – the sad part those issue are not seen as a threat to the Church. An the lack of teaching and preaching on issues
Report comment to moderator
The matters that civil gov’t should be involved in to protect for the well being of society are few and limited. But marriage, above all, should be one of the few.
Report comment to moderator
The danger for a Christian who is playing this game of I am aginst same sex relationship but I am ok wiht society promoting it. Is becoming dead to the convicton of the Holy Spirit. This people has open the door too the enemy of God. He or she will alway look the other way when society starts to promote more sinful actions.
Report comment to moderator
Ree, I’m not sure selling indulgences is the same type of thing.
Roy, I think that faithful teaching and preaching should be on the heart. These issues are outcomes of the heart. They are symptoms. Yes, the stand on such issues should be clear, but, surely there are other serious sins in the church/world.
Report comment to moderator
True, Ree. As far as SSM, I haven’t heard how the definition of marriage will not change in the future and on what basis we will determine what it will be.
As far as inter-racial marriage, it was just changing when I was a teen. “Guess Who is Coming to Dinner” was one of the shocking films of the time, introducing a black man and white woman dating. However, many of those who were against interacial marriage were against it, because of the sheer suffering of those involved in it and because of the difficulty of two distinct cultural views within a marriage that was often a result.
I do not say there was not bigotry. It was there in both the white and black communities and was one thing that made a mixed marriage so difficult. The couple was often not accepted by either family or in society in general. Most couples had a difficult time enduring that and their children suffered right along with them. It was not right, but it was reality.
My point is that for most people I knew, the issue had nothing to do with sin, but with the reality of the time.
Report comment to moderator
hopesprings
We have to Minister in Colorado Springs that have been in major trouble. One has leaded quilty of stealing money and the other is Ted Haggard.
I have found out that if you call for these Minister to down do to their sinful actions. You are attack by their supports. I belive this is the problem an that is the Church dealing with sin found in side the Church.
Report comment to moderator
Because the Church does not deal with those issues it becomes harder for the Church to deal with this issue.
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings, if the issue of SSM is framed as a right for gays in the same way that we have the rights of minorities, it will take away your right to inform your children to regard it as wrong. People have already lost their jobs over this issue. Some have lost custody of children to a gay person over it. It is not an issue of someone sinning. The writing is on the wall, because it has happened in Canada and Finland among other places. Pastors have been forbidden to speak about it. How soon it will happen here is not known, but it will happen.
Report comment to moderator
And YOU are making sense, KI.
Report comment to moderator
#150
I’m sorry. You’re full of nonsense. Even my daughter’s secular history text gives credit to CHRISTIANS for abolition and for desegregation.
Learn your history. You obviously don’t know it.
Report comment to moderator
#199
Here are my bottomline problems with SSM:
1) It makes the term “marriage” meaningless, or, will do so in the long run. ALL the arguments used about SSM can and will apply to polyamorous marriages, polygamous marriages, sibling marriages, adult/teen marriages, and (probably, although most will still react violently, but it has already started) adult/child marriages.
When ANYONE and EVERYONE can be “married” then “marriage” doesn’t mean anything…especially in a culture where divorce is so easy and so accepted.
Marriage was promoted by the State to help families, to keep men with their families, to protect women and children, and to promote stability. Now, it is just “romance” and–when that wears off as it always does–there is no meaning to it.
SSM is just one more nail in the marriage coffin (joining other nails such as no-fault divorce, the acceptance of living together and pre-marital sex, etc.)
2) SSM itself, as a civil action, does not bother me excessively, because I don’t expect non-Christians to behave like Christians.
However, everything that such recognition brings with it DOES bother me. Private businesses will be required to accept homosexuality. It will continue to be a huge presence in TV, and will likely work its way into cartoons, children’s programming, and commercials.
Once it is legally the norm, it will become part of the cultural norms and its acceptance will be demanded of everyone (religious beliefs be d–ned) and it will be taught in the schools, and promoted in the textbooks.
Already, those who wish to change their orientation are virtually denied this right (although they are more than welcome to change their physical bodies.) Counselors, sex therapists, psychologists…they can all lose their jobs for helping someone overcome a same sex attraction.
In other words, this isn’t about a civil right (since less than 20% of homosexuals have been shown to be even interested in marriage.) It is about ACCEPTANCE and changing cultural norms.
Hate speech, law suits, and squelching of religious freedoms will soon follow.
Report comment to moderator
I’m also wondering about the economics of it all. Let’s be honest. It is going to cost the government and businesses a lot of money to give “marital benefits” to same sex couples.
And, then when everyone else starts getting on the same bandwagon: the polyamorous, the polygamous, the siblings, and so on…it is going to get very expensive. Very.
So, I’m wondering how all that will pan out? Perhaps we just dump the marital benefits altogether???
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, well said.
Report comment to moderator
Good piece over at getreligion.org regarding news coverage about some of the issues Olasky seemed to be referring to in this post.
http://www.getreligion.org/2011/06/gay-rights-religious-liberty-and-silence/
From the getreligion post:
“Will same-sex marriage laws impact the rights of religious organizations to place children for adoption as they see fit? What about Lutheran parochial schools that have faced civil rights lawsuits over their honor code? Will Muslim doctors have the right to refuse to do in vitro fertilization treatment on a woman in a lesbian marriage? Will an evangelical referring a patient to someone without religious qualms over same-sex marriage lose her job or license? What about the civil servants who have religious objections to same-sex marriage? Apart from wedding vendors, there are all sorts of other lines of work where individual religious liberty and religiously-motivated objections to same-sex marriage where the questions persist. What about adoption services, for instance? How might public school curriculum change? Will that pose a challenge for any public school teachers who are Muslim, Jewish or Christian? ….
“Perhaps at some point in the midst of the jubilant coverage, we’ll see a curious reporter ask and find answers to some of these questions.”
Report comment to moderator
@Macrutabaga: Can you answer the questions I asked in 153 without arbitrariness?
I can give it a try:
The question is, Why those things?
Here “those things” refers to my having said:
I chose those things because I think they get at the proper way for a believer to treat non-believers. The main question is whether the law should protect us from each other (rape, murder, theft, kidnapping, etc.) or protect us from ourselves (blasphemy, fornication, homosexuality, drunkenness, etc.)
God allows us to sin. He allows us to reject him. Such is not his ultimate desire, and he may engineer situations that cause us to repent, but he doesn’t force us to stop. And he could. Why then should I make it my business as a believer to invoke the state in order to deter sin (presumably by punishing it)? God isn’t interested in “sin deterrence”; he’s interested in people following him in spirit and truth. I would rejoice at the United States becoming a modern-day Sodom if it meant more people coming to a saving faith in Christ.
The reason I support the criminality of offenses like murder is that they directly harm another person. “Do unto others” and “love your neighbor as yourself” compel me to support criminal punishments for murder (as a deterrent) since to do otherwise would be to abandon my neighbor.
Should God have had those thoughts in mind when he outlawed sodomy? Was he waiving the 8th Commandment? Was God violating the Golden Rule when he authorized sodomy laws?
When I read the Old Testament it seems that God’s purpose in dictating the specific laws to Israel that he did was to create a people who were “set apart” and who would serve as a beacon to the nations that surrounded them. To the extent the NT church is analogous to Israel and is “God’s people” I think these laws are instructive. The church should be “set apart”. Homosexuality is wrong; a believer who is in a state of unrepentant sexual sin should be “cut off from his people” just as was commanded in the Old Testament. Obviously in the NT context this means excommunication and not execution.
However, I don’t buy the idea that Mosaic Law was intended to be universal blueprint for civic government. For that reason I don’t consider the Mosaic punishment for homosexuality to be particularly relevant to how we should punish homosexuality or to the general legal treatment it should receive.
Report comment to moderator
#156 Mac “NJLawyer and Xion (possibly others), would you agree that the immorality of a thing isn’t *necessarily* a reason for making laws against it?”
Certainly. Contrary to what some are saying, laws aren’t about codifying religious morality, they are about values. If society deems property valuable, then there is a penalty for taking it. The higher the value, the higher the cost.
I also disagree with those who decompose the Mosaic law into an elaborate taxonomy of civil and ceremonial and so on. The Mosaic law was to teach Jews about Christ, not as a template for pagan governments.
Same sex marriage is about more than sex or marriage. It is part of a much more elaborate agenda by a special interest group to gain legitimacy, acceptance and political power.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Buddyglass,
How is your association of the Golden Rule with the *basis* of good law not arbitrary? How do you even know you’re making a sound application of the Golden Rule by legalizing sodomite marriages? And why is God not liable to breaking the Golden Rule, even with your reading of the law’s OT purpose?
For what reason do you believe God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Paul, in endorsing the continuing application of the law, wrote,
This is a list of civil offenses. On what basis do you extract prohibition of homosexuality from a civil ordinance to merely one meant to set Christians apart?
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
You wrote,
I also disagree with those who decompose the Mosaic law into an elaborate taxonomy of civil and ceremonial and so on. The Mosaic law was to teach Jews about Christ, not as a template for pagan governments.
I’ve already spoken to parts of this on a few earlier posts. If you want, you can question me about something I wrote there, but it will be too difficult for me to carry on a separate conversation on the same topic but starting from ground zero.
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga – that is why Christian should not be supporting same sex marriage.
Report comment to moderator
The analogy of same sex “marriage” and iterracial marriage is a flawed one that actually works against the same sex “marriage” proponents. Loving v. VA, the Supreme Court case that ruled anti -miscegnation laws unconstitutional is wrongly understood. The law in that case did not outlaw all interracial marriages. There was no penalty for Asians, American Indians or blacks who maried each other. The law only prohibited white people from marrying blacks, and its odious intent was to prevent racially mixed offspring, precisely because marriage was understood to be a heterosexual union centered around the birth and nurture of children.
Buddy Glass, all Law is intrinsically moral. Even procedural laws exist to provide consistent, fair and peaceful methods because these things have a moral value. The choice about which moral compass to follow is entirely the province of the body politic. The hoary old chestnut that asserts “You can’t legislate morality!” is self evidently absurd. The choice isn’t between morality and neutrality, it is between legislating morality and immorality.
Conan, the Civil and Ceremonial Laws of the Penteteuch are expressly addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel, not to the world at large. Jesus expliciltly abrogated dietary laws in the NT, and was vilified and finally crucified for assuming the priestly and temple prerogatives of forgivenss and atonement in His own person and ministry.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry. You’re full of nonsense. Even my daughter’s secular history text gives credit to CHRISTIANS for abolition and for desegregation.
Tammy,
What is the name of the textbook?
Report comment to moderator
How is your association of the Golden Rule with the *basis* of good law not arbitrary?
This is like asking, “How is your association of the Golden Rule with the question of whether you should kill someone not arbitrary?”
It applies because policies have consequences. When I support a policy I’m supporting those consequences. I refuse to invoke the state to disallow same-sex marriage because, if the situation were reversed, with same-sex couples making up an overwhelming majority and viewing heterosexual marriage to be immoral, I wouldn’t want them prohibiting heterosexual marriage. Treat others how you would have them treat you.
How do you even know you’re making a sound application of the Golden Rule by legalizing sodomite marriages?
How does one ever know whether a spiritual principle is being soundly applied? Discernment and the guiding of the holy spirit.
And why is God not liable to breaking the Golden Rule, even with your reading of the law’s OT purpose?
The golden rule was a command given by God to man. God is God. Man is man. You might as well ask, “Is God not guilty of murder for ending the lives of Ananias and Sapphira?”
For what reason do you believe God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
“The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.”
“The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”
Paul, in endorsing the continuing application of the law, wrote…
If you conclude that because “the law is good” the Mosaic code, complete with punishments, should be integrated into modern civic government then how can you not interpret it to imply that homosexuality should be a capital crime?
On what basis do you extract prohibition of homosexuality from a civil ordinance to merely one meant to set Christians apart?
The golden rule principle, for one. But let me pause for a moment. Are you now, in fact, arguing that homosexuality should be prohibited altogether? If not then you should probably answer the question as well.
Report comment to moderator
“In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” Jude 7
Report comment to moderator
If we all really want to be honest here, the fact is that marriage should have little to do with the state. We have discussed that before. Ideally marriages should be performed and registered in churches or other religious bodies. Everything else is really a “civil union.”
However, there are some sound secular reasons to register a marriage with the state. One is to determine inheritance rights, especially in the absence of a will. Another is to determine parental identity and responsibility. If a kid gets in trouble or has a need, it is the responsibility of the parents to take care of it, and under the law we assume that the married man and woman are the parents, unless somebody else has custody somehow. Children, despite what anyone might say, do better in a home where a father and a mother have a committed relationship with each other. (In my 25+ years of teaching I have never met a kid who does not wish to have their own mother and their own father married to each other–even in abusive situations. I have never met a kid who wishes to at least know who his “real” mother and father are and, if possible, to know them. Single-parent homes and “blended families” really bother children and can harm them.) It’s a bit old fashioned, but a legal marriage protects a woman if the husband chooses to abandon her or cheat on her. She can demand that he still live up to his obligations to her and to any children that they have.
For all of those reasons, the state has an interest in promoting marriage and registering marriages between men and women. None of those reasons pertain to a couple who are of the same sex. They cannot actually have children in the natural way. There is no gender-inequality that would cause them to need financial protection. People can claim that homosexual people want the “same” rights as heterosexual people, but a same-sex union is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. What they want is the right to do something completely different but call it the same. I think we must all be very careful to remember that this is primarily about definitions, and the desire to change the definition is a desire to say that something different is actually the same. Further, it is an attempt to make abnormal behavior appear normal.
Now, you could argue that none of that is the state’s business, which would mean abolishing marriage altogether. You could argue that it is right and proper for the state to take such a role in family life. What you cannot logically argue is that the same things apply to two men or two women as to a man and a woman. I also think that you cannot logically aruge that marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples simply because the Bible declares homosexual behavior a sin.
Having said that, I do believe that Christians have the right to support and vote for any law that they like or to oppose and vote against any law that they do not like–for any reason. Every citizen has that right. Even a non-Christian might oppose same-sex marriage, just because he finds the idea disgusting. That is a weak rationale, but it is that person’s right. (Just as it was people’s right to vote for Barack Obama simply because he is black, or to vote against him for that reason.)
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass,
I asked,
How is your association of the Golden Rule with the *basis* of good law not arbitrary?
You answered, “This is like asking, ‘How is your association of the Golden Rule with the question of whether you should kill someone not arbitrary?’”
No it isn’t. Where is it written that we should start with the Golden Rule as the (or a) basis of good law?
“It applies because policies have consequences.”
Others here have pointed out negative consequences. Aren’t those concerns valid? How do you arbitrate between all these consequences and peoples’ perceptions of them? What a fiasco it would be if laws were determined this way.
“I wouldn’t want them prohibiting heterosexual marriage. Treat others how you would have them treat you.”
You write that as though the Golden Rule means “accommodate sin if the sinner wants it.”
“The golden rule was a command given by God to man. God is God. Man is man. You might as well ask, ‘Is God not guilty of murder for ending the lives of Ananias and Sapphira?’”
Not the same thing. We’re talking about the *character* of good law. By your reasoning, God called for, and Israel enacted over time, a law whose character was contary to (your understanding of) the Golden Rule. Can you think of any other Mosaic laws that likewise did that?
For what reason do you believe God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
“The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.”
“The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”
Exactly. They broke God’s law. It wasn’t only Israel who was subject to it.
Paul, in endorsing the continuing application of the law, wrote…
“If you conclude that because ‘the law is good’ the Mosaic code, complete with punishments, should be integrated into modern civic government then how can you not interpret it to imply that homosexuality should be a capital crime?”
This isn’t an answer.
On what basis do you extract prohibition of homosexuality from a civil ordinance to merely one meant to set Christians apart?
“The golden rule principle, for one.”
Nor is this. How does scripture spell out the notion of civil laws being abrogated by the Golden Rule?
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass writes,
When and whether or not to criminalize homosexual acts is a separate issue that we’re not discussing here. But if you’re acknowledging God as the standard by which society defines good and evil, and you’re acknowledging that God defines homosexual acts as a violation of his standard, then it’s schizophrenic to say that homosexual acts should be not only tolerated, but explicitly sanctioned by society.
Sure, but by whose standard is abridging or recklessly endangering one’s person or property not acceptable? Certainly they’re legal in some situations in some societies?
It seems like what you’re getting at might be the difference between public and and private sins. But the debate between those who sanction same-sex marriage (so-called), and those who don’t, is over whether or not it has public consequences. If your argument is that the redefinition of marriage doesn’t fundamentally change (and degrade) society–that’s it’s a private matter only, then argue on those grounds. (Needless to say, I consider this assertion, as well, ridiculous on its face. The whole point of creating “same-sex marriage” is to fundamentally change society.) But you can’t coherently argue that God standard sanctions same-sex marriage, or that “the Golden Rule” requires relinquishing society over to the one’s who’ve declared open warfare on the created order.
Report comment to moderator
#206 BuddyGlass The reason I support the criminality of offenses like murder is that they directly harm another person. “Do unto others” and “love your neighbor as yourself” compel me to support criminal punishments for murder (as a deterrent) since to do otherwise would be to abandon my neighbor.”</i.
We all agree. You are taking the Libertarian position of "Do no harm". However, the Golden Rule does not compel the American government to accept anything based on how a ruler prefers to be treated. The Golden Rule and all pronouncements of Christ are to his followers as individuals, not to the state.
Report comment to moderator
hopesprings writes,
It’s not the same type of thing in one sense, but it was in another. It was a watershed issue of his day.
Report comment to moderator
XION wrote; “Contrary to what some are saying, laws aren’t about codifying religious morality, they are about values.”
I do not know what this means. “Values” is a vague and relative terms that some may think is synomymous with “religious morality” and others think is distinct from it. But without any religious morality, where would you get your values?
The reason there is a penalty for taking property runs deeper than mere “values.” One man’s values can be another man’s spittune. Why should I respect “your” values when I have my own? No, we MUST have morality as well.
Report comment to moderator
KEN wrote; “…all Law is intrinsically moral.”
True. Except in this case in New York, it is immoral
KEN wrote; “The hoary old chestnut that asserts “You can’t legislate morality!” is self evidently absurd. The choice isn’t between morality and neutrality, it is between legislating morality and immorality.”
Here, here, KEN. Bravo! Way to state the obvious clearly.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A wrote; “If we all really want to be honest here, the fact is that marriage should have little to do with the state.”
Sorry but, nonsense. Marriage lies at the heart core of the state and the civilization. It also lies at the core of culture. If the state and the people do not protect and honor marriage, it is committing suicide slowly.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A,
I really liked most of the rest of your post, mainly because it did not seem to me to back up your original claim.
Report comment to moderator
TAMMY Thanks for the welcome.
KYLE A,, #215, I think your comments are exactly to the point in this conversation. Paul, in Rom 13, tells us that governing authorities are servants of God, for our good, who bear the sword in order to punish wrongdoers. I think the Bible consistently portrays human government in basically that way. Mosaic law providing a government system for the Israelites that incorporated that principle, but beyond that, both OT and NT passages positively of rulers or judges who protect the innocent from the wicked by punishing the wicked, and speak prophetically against rulers or governments who fail to protect the innocent by punishing the wicked. The general revelation of human history would suggest that this is the role that God intended for government as well.
I believe that in the history of English law (the basis of common law which the US legal system is based on), laws governing marriage mainly seek to fulfil this God-given role (protect the good by punishing the wicked) in exactly the way you’ve pointed out. They are designed, foremost, to protect innocent children (the natural result of heterosexual activity) by ensuring that their biological parents have a legal responsibility to care for them and, secondly, to provide legal protection for the woman whose husband might cheat on her and abandon her. When the government establishes laws governing heterosexual marriage, it is within the realm of doing what God ordained it to do; protecting the innocent from harm by setting penalties for those who would do wrong by seeking to evade their responsibilities.
However, as Kyle says, there is no purpose for laws providing for gay “marriage”. Before the law, two men who have a sexual relationship, who may be partners, who may feel romantic love towards each other, ought to have the same standing as any two men who are friends but who do not have a sexual relationship. They aren’t going to accidentally have kids who need to be cared for, nor is there any ecomic inequality in their gender roles. A libertarian ought to see that legislating same-sex marriage needlessly increases the size and power of government by causing it to create regulations where none are necessary.
Of course, in using the power of government to do things that it has no business doing, other problems are created. Same-sex marriage laws will have an effect on the culture of further contributing to the confusion that already exists about the purpose of marriage. That inevitably leads to a greater incidence of single-parent families, blended families, or children raised by foster care or by same-sex couples, all of which lead to more crime and poverty.
And the redefinition of marriage will also lead to some loss of religious liberty. Homosexual behavior will be presented, in the official government schools, as the moral and biological equivalent of reproductive sex, and anyone who dissents from that belief will at least suffer the embarassment of bad grades. If they go to government schools. And pastors who preach that homosexual behavior is sinful may go to jail.
But I think the main issue for Christians as we seek to critique government (in the same way that God’s people have always spoken prophetically to government throughout biblical and church history) is whether government is doing what God says good government is supposed to do (and what general revelation would show that effective government has done and that oppressive, bad government has not done.)
Report comment to moderator
EVAN #120, Not to beat a dead horse, but your post there fundamentally misunderstands both Van Til and what Poythress had to say about Van Til. When Van Til suggests (as he really does) that a non-Christian cannot “make any sense of any aspect of human experience” without assuming at least some of the transcendent ground of a Christian worldview (that the world and we humans are created by an intelligent, personal God, and that we are made in his image) he is not suggesting that we can’t have a conversation with non-believers. Rather he believes that non-believers really do share certain assumptions with believers. Van Til supposes that non-believers, like believers assume cause-and-effect relationships between events, assume that there is such a thing as “truth”, assume the law of non-contradiction, etc. Van Til is just pointing out that it is only the Christian worldview that provides a transcendent basis for those assumptions. A naturlist may assume all those things (indeed must assume them, in order to argue at all, even if he argues against the Christian worldview), but a naturalistic worldview is incapable of providing a rational basis for those assumptions. Thus Van Til’s point is not that we can’t have meaningful conversations with unbelievers, but rather that the very things that non-believers implicitly assume may be a bridge that we can use to communicate the gospel to them.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse. But I don’t want you to dismiss Van Til simply because you misunderstand him.
Your comment about “neo-Calvinists” (like Olasky and Coulson, you say) reducing analysis and critique of legislation to “The Bible says X is a sin, therefore X should be illegal” is similarly a mischaracterization, but how that differs from their actual viewpoint would be a much longer post.
Report comment to moderator
#220 Joel “I do not know what this means. “Values” is a vague and relative terms that some may think is synomymous with “religious morality” and others think is distinct from it. But without any religious morality, where would you get your values?”
Values determine what is important to a person. “Your heart is where your treasure is.” They may be moral or not. They may be religious or not. Society sets the value of property or life by exacting a cost for taking it away. Family values used to be important to society, but are losing importance.
The homosexual agenda is a philosophical or psychological game called ‘deviancy’. Why does someone dye their hair blue? Why does an old man wear women’s clothes on an airplane? It is to challenge the mores of society.
Progressivism has two parts, the trashing of traditional values and the establishment of new values. The next generation of progressives promptly trashes those values and moves on. Eventually they come full circle. Homosexuality is a perfect fit for that agenda. It has the double benefit of trashing tradition and poking nature and nature’s God in the eye.
In Christian circles one can say homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. That means nothing in a secular society.
My opposition to the homosexual agenda in the political realm is that it establishes a precedent of granting people special rights and power because of where they like to put their genitals. What kind of nation would grant minority status and special benefits to people who like anal sex? It is extremely bizarre. America is becoming a nation which embraces and celebrates insanity. A nation like this will not stand.
Report comment to moderator
Let me ask you Joel, do you really want the state enforcing religious morality? Wouldn’t that be a theocracy? Could you imagine such a place? It’s been tried before.
The state should be given as little authority as possible. In this case, as in all cases, it is about increasing state power. Now they will be able to enforce more laws and dole out more benefits based on the strangeness of sexual appetites.
Report comment to moderator
I appreciate your thoughtful posts, Timtaylordad.
Report comment to moderator
Timtaylordad, good posts, thanks.
Report comment to moderator
XION, The state cannot survive without religion and morality in the people who make up the state, are active in gov’t and live in the state, according to our Founders. The efforts to marginalize faith and morality from all things “political” are usually the same people who force immorality down our throats in the name of politics and secularism. They (the secular left) pull in purely moral issues like abortion, marriage, homosexuality, etc into the political realm so they can keep Christians marginalized until they instituttionalize immnorality. I think that some good Christian people wiith views like yours sometimes tend to play into their hands–WITHOUT meaning or wanting to.
Report comment to moderator
XION asked, “Wouldn’t that be a theocracy?”
Have you not read a word I have written on this topic, XION? Have you not read the Founders on this matter? Do you understand that freedom of political involvement and participation in the state can go to Christians to and they can bring their Christian principles and passions to the task–constitutionally?
If you want the state to stay small, we sure as shootin’ need to get more Christians involved who know there is a BIG “G” (God) who trumps the little “g” as our Savior and Sustainer.
Report comment to moderator
XION wrote; “Values determine what is important to a person.”
One could just as easily say that people (and what is important to them) determine what they value. It’s a bit of a tautology. The more we take relibion and morality out of our laws and our thinking and our living, the more laws we will need, AND the more indeciferable the many laws we do have will become.
Society and law do not see the value of property clearly at all. When the housing bubble broke, valuable properties and investments suddenly became nooses around many people’s necks. There is nothing reliable and stable about the world’s values. It can turn inside out on a dime. All that really matters is God and His will (religion and morality) and our Founders knew that well and said so often.
Report comment to moderator
XION wrote; “In Christian circles one can say homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. That means nothing in a secular society.”
So? A lot of things mean nothing to secularists and that does NOT mean they are meaningless things. Homosexuality is still wrong. While one can affirm it is wrong with the Bible, we can ALSO affirm it’s wrongness on many other levels, both secular and religious.
XION asked; “What kind of nation would grant minority status and special benefits to people who like anal sex?”
Answer: The US military has done this and many states have as well and the entire nation is about to, mostly because Christians have been too intimidated to get involved to oppose it or they do not believe they have any right to promote their values and principles beyond their church.
I am always interested in your responses, XION. That’s why I state my views frankly.
Report comment to moderator
#212
Scott Foresman *Social Studies: The United States.*
Not to mention, it is on record in just about every other book, web site, and history text.
The fact that you would like to separate out the “Evangelicals” as somehow different, and without any basis in fact but your own opinion, says more about your prejudices than it does about Evangelicals.
My parents, btw, are very conservative and yet are classified as “Charismatics.”
The bottom line? Bible-believing Christians (however you want to classify them) were behind de-segregation and abolition. They read their Bibles and studied them and knew that God had not made anyone “lesser” than another. ALL have sinned. ALL fall short. But Jesus came for ALL.
So, God uses the Bible-believing remnant (always) to correct His Church.
No matter how hard you try, though, you will not find any “misinterpretation” of the commands against homosexuality. I’ve heard some of the arguments, but no Bible scholar will agree with them. They require a great amount of “twisting” to make them work, and even then, they don’t really.
So, again, while Black civil rights MAY seem similar at first glance, anyone who knows history, AND who has read the Bible, will realize immediately that they are NOT similar.
Blacks were unfairly and unbiblically mistreated. Certainly, people *tried* to use the Bible to justify it (as they have tried to use the Bible to justify just about everything at one point or another), but a straight reading of the Bible is clear (even to a twelve year old) that such attempts are wrong and misguided.
However, a straight reading of the Bible (by any twelve year old) will make it *very* clear that God does not permit homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, FYI my second question in #233 was rhetorical.
Don’t have time to answer all your statements at the moment, but let me try to summarize where we’re at if I can.
Some groups of people want to use the power of government to make the world a better place. Liberals fit into this category as well as Christian moralists. You would like to codify biblical principles into US law, thereby making our nation a better place.
The problem with this is that government is a blunt instrument. It uses police and military and prisons to enforce its will on the people. Once government acquires power it never gives it back. Tyranny always grows and liberty always shrinks.
Whether Christians run the show or Progressives run the show, the result is the same: tyranny. Socialists eventually create a society where people are shot in the back trying to escape. Christians eventually create a society where people are burned at the stake for nonconformity.
It does not matter if these omnipotent moral busybodies are Christian or Progressives, they will both become tyrants. It is human nature.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270592/we-need-marriage-mona-charen
Just some interesting comments related to the subject.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
*Someone’s* values have to be codified, since there is no such thing as moral neutrality.
If gay marriage is allowed, then that value is promoted.
If it isn’t allowed, than MY values are promoted.
There isn’t any neutral ground on this that I can see.
I don’t think it necessarily leads to tyranny to try to keep one’s values in place in the political sphere.
Report comment to moderator
XION, nothing you wrote in #235 argues against the points I have made. Gov’t by definition ultimately involves the use of force. That is why it is good for it to be limited. But the fact that it is a blunt instrument applies to any stance (yours included) you can take on it and it is not an argument agaist my point of view. In fact, it strongly argues for it in that my view mitigates against simply letting only non-Christians have primary use of that instrument.
As a blunt instrument, gov’t CANNOT be neutral. There are ONLY two motivational options: to use gov’t (be it very limited or maximum use) to make the nation and the world a better place, or to use it (be it limited or maximum use) to make them a worse place. Yes, I am in the former category, advocating its limited use to make the world a better place.
How many times to I have to repeat to you that I want Christians to engage in the political arena and in public discourse and vote, advocate and serve ON EQUAL terms according to the US Constitution with others? Seventy times sevem?
When Progressives run the show and Christians withdraw from political concern and action, the world is a much worse place.
Your “burned at the stake” and “of all tyrannies” and “robber barons” comments show a refusal on your part to consider my point of view on its own merits. You rush to wild anecdotal extremes in order to aviod my argument.
Report comment to moderator
#237 Tammy “*Someone’s* values have to be codified, since there is no such thing as moral neutrality.”
Well, if the government must codify something, then of course let it be laws which are good and make sense. If the choice is marriage as defined since the beginning of time and something else, then sure let’s go with tradition.
I am speaking more about Christian political motive. Since government is a necessary evil let’s have as little as possible. This is different than Christians who feel compelled to codify theocratic law. What we will end up with is the same tyranny as social moralists and probably worse.
Report comment to moderator
#238 Joel “How many times to I have to repeat to you that I want Christians to engage in the political arena and in public discourse and vote, advocate and serve ON EQUAL terms according to the US Constitution with others? Seventy times seven?”
Say it thousands of times and I will always agree with you. I want that too, but you always argue that I don’t. Christians should fight for less government, since government is evil, though necessary.
Who wants progressives to run the show? They’re misguided and wrong and everything they touch fails. We should confront them on those terms.
Where we differ is that I see politics and religion as two realms. You prefer to mix the two realms. I believe this is our only real point of contention.
I say confront political issues on political terms. Confront progressives on the failure of their political ideas. Confront religious issues on religious terms.
For example, Christians should help drunks and would be adulterers and every kind of sinner to overcome and get back on track. But God forbid that we ask the police and military to crack down on religious backsliders. It would be like living in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Europe during the Inquisition.
See the distinction?
Report comment to moderator
Here is a thought experiment: Summarize the mission of the church and list the top items it should be concerned with.
Now, go down that list and identify how many of those things you would have police and military and courts implement and execute.
When I do this experiment there is nothing that the church is responsible for that I would use Federal agents to solve. Does God need Federal agents?
Report comment to moderator
#212
Scott Foresman *Social Studies: The United States.*
Not to mention, it is on record in just about every other book, web site, and history text.
Just as I thought. This book says nothing about evangelicals playing a significant role in the Civil Rights Movement. It talks about liberal Christians who played a role. Just as liberal Christians are playing a significant role in pushing for gay marriage. And just as the liberal Christians are being denounced by evangelicals as traitors to their faith, apostates, unbelievers, etc., so too were the liberal clergy who took part in the Civil Rights Movement were denounced by evangelicals as traitors to the faith and their nation, Communists, apostates, unbelievers, etc.
This is nothing but intellectual dishonesty. People who lie about the past shouldn’t be surprised when nobody pays attention to them in the present.
If evangelicals were really part of the Civil Rights Movement, then how come so many evangelical leaders are unaware of it? Not only unaware of it, but convinced that evangelicals were on the wrong side during the Civil Rights Movement? Why have expressed regret and heartache and shame at the lack of evangelical support for the Civil Rights movement?
http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/01/18/why-kings-dream-overcame-christian-white-supremacy/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/9/29/175856/325
Without much white evangelical support, the civil rights movement nonetheless moved ahead with passage of a federal civil rights bill in 1957. Then came the landmark legislation of the mid-1960s: civil rights (1964), voting rights (1965), and open housing (1968). By this time white evangelicals, even in the South, were beginning to accept the inevitability of civil rights for blacks, and a few intrepid evangelicals, such as Frank Gaebelein of Stony Brook School (and a CT co-editor), actively joined in the struggle (though, it must be acknowledged, with significant internal opposition at CT). It was, however, President Lyndon Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and a host of African American leaders and followers who pushed the revolution through.
http://bostonreview.net/BR26.2/sider.html
With a few minor exceptions, white evangelicals were at best silent and more often critical when Martin Luther King Jr. and his allies battled for civil rights. There were at least two reasons. The first was simply white racism. A white evangelical community that a century earlier had championed the abolitionist movement largely ignored or firmly opposed King’s civil rights crusade1, surely one of white evangelicalism’s greatest—and most racist—failures.
Why are all these evangelicals lying through their teeth?
Or are they all on drugs, or what?
When you claim that evangelicals played a significant role in the Civil Rights Movement, you make yourself look ridiculous, either someone who is completely ignorant of well known, well documented recent history, or someone who has no compunctions about telling bald faced lies.
Report comment to moderator
XION, I am a Christian moralist. You’ve made it clear you don’t appreciate this category of people (#235). It’s me. Proud of it without reservation. Nothing wrong with it. Pretty much any reasonable interpretation of that phrase fits me. It is my passion.
I am a Christian by virtue of my ongoing repentance and reliance on nothing but God’s grace for my eternal hope. I do not require moral perfection of my heroes or friends or ANYONE and I know I do not bring it myself. But that is certainly no excuse for failing to be a legitimate, sincere and courageous Christian moralist.
I am a moralist by virtue of the fact I know that that morality and righteousness are closer to the heart of God than just about anything else. God is love and truth, but in Scripture He is called holy more than all other descriptions by far. Have you ever done a theme or word study of the word “righteous” or “righteousness” in the Bible? Do one. Consider the deep and vital moral dimensions of the gospel, for goodness sake.
I am also a social moralist, something you also do not seem ot approve of (see #239). Jesus, Paul and others were DEFINITELY social moralists in my reading. Read the Sermon on the Mount. Read the second half of Ephesians. Read the pastorals. Read 1 Peter. Read it all. And none of this is works salvation. Neither is it easy-believism or cheap grace.
XION, of me, you wrote: “You would like to codify biblical principles into US law, thereby making our nation a better place.”
Of course I would, as a believer in Constitutional limited gov’t. Guilty. And I would want it done with discretion, reason, fairness and under Constitutional guidelines, and under the principle of the consent of the governed. I would like to see life honored and murder made illegal. I would like to see marriage honored and laws that reflect that honor. I would like to see children protected. Raw secularists are not and will NOT do these things in the end. They will continue to dishonor life, dismantle marriage, pervert children and promote nothing but what makes them more money and makes them look good to fellow secularists, in my observation and opinion. Thank God for a few Christians who are willing to “codify” Christian principles under a Constitutional process that ought to respect Christian principle every bit as much as secularist ones (whatever they are). “Codify” is not a bad word. The Constitution is a codifying document. I do NOT want to codify every Christian principle–NO. Many Christian principles defy codification. Many don’t! And codes do not save us either. But they have a fitting place in human society. I don’t want anyone ever to accept Christianity except by their own volition. But Christian principles are excellent for all and there is nothing wrong with lifting them up in all realms, including politics. And in the USA, we can do this in the full context of respecting the consent of the governed and applying our Constitutional process. If we ban Christian principles from the “codification” process, we eventually commit suicide as a nation. But the church will survive even that.
I know this sort of clarity about what I am and what God has called me to be invites cat calls from the leftists on this blog and misunderstanding by others. But why mince words? The prophets were definite moralists–social, political, spiritual and they also were not popular. John the Baptist was a moralist. Paul was a huge moralist. Just read his letters. The list goes on and on. More moralists like them would definitely make the word a better place. But the world keeps smearing, shunning, demeaning and killing genuine principled moralists.
Report comment to moderator
A moralist is someone who believes in and holds high moral standards and promotes them (gasp). He does NOT promote them through immoral or disrespectful or abusive means. Shame on those who do use abusive or tyranical means, but just because such people exist on the planet is no argument against legitimate moralism. It is an argument against abusive means. Being a moralist should not be stigmatized simply because moralism can be abused. ANYTHING decent and good can be abused. So should we dispense with all that is decent and good? Most people do not like legitimate social or Christian moralism and so they desperately say anything and everything possible to stigmatize the word “moralist” and cite the most immoral people in history who abused it for personal power. Humans have always abused and killed their best and most sincere prophets. They must be silences and rendered passive for all practical intents and purposes.
Report comment to moderator
#242 Joel ” I am a Christian moralist. You’ve made it clear you don’t appreciate this category of people (#235).”
Sure I do. It is OK for friends to disagree and have a friendly discussion isn’t it? That does not mean I don’t appreciate my friend. As iron sharpens iron we sharpen our wits and walk deeper into truth together.
God loves righteousness, but what is his answer for sin? Is it better morals? Do better morals bring anyone to heaven? Do they bring anyone closer to God? Grace is love toward those who don’t deserve it. Only Christ is the answer for sin.
Does the mission of the church require courts or police or Federal agents with semi-automatic weapons or the military or prisons to bring people closer to God? Does the church need Federal taxation to help the poor? Does it need the IRS to provide health care?
God has authorized government to keep the peace in a fallen world. But none of the minions in the echelon of Federal bureaucracy will carry out a single act to bring a soul closer to God or attend to their eternal destiny. The mission of the church could not be more different than that of the principalities and powers of this world.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, why do you keep referring to the “mission of the church” as if there’s nothing beyond “the mission of the church” about which the Christian should be concerned?
Report comment to moderator
I would guess Joel Mark is frustrated with the implication he wants government to “bring people closer to God.” I’ve seen him state plainly that’s not his objective.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe in doing anything in politics unless by politics you are referring to asystem that is rooted in the consent of the governed (as is supposed to be the case in America). Under that prinpiple, I think Christians can get engaged at the political leverl, gracefully–never forgetting that Christ comes first and that politics are temporal. But Jesus cared about temoporal things too, without compromising his eternal mission. The likelihood that we will lose politically is no reason not to try, gracefully, if that is your calling. If it is not your calling from God, focus elsewhere and don’t let anyone discourage you.
Report comment to moderator
XION asked, “It is OK for friends to disagree and have a friendly discussion isn’t it?”
Yes. You are good at this. Passionate is not unfriendly, I hope. And you are still one of my all time favorite posters here–no joke. You are one of the few whose comments I never overlook.
“God loves righteousness, but what is his answer for sin? Is it better morals?”
Yes. Definitely! And better moral rooted in a better relationship with God and the indwelling of His Holy Spirit.
“Do better morals bring anyone to heaven?”
No, God had to send Jesus to die in our place for that.
“Do they bring anyone closer to God?”
Sure, absolutely, by God’s grace, because we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:10) and when we get closer to what we were created for, we get closer to God.
“Grace is love toward those who don’t deserve it. Only Christ is the answer for sin.”
Agreed fully. Nothing there that would undermine good works or humble Christlike moralism.
“Does the mission of the church require courts or police or Federal agents with semi-automatic weapons or the military or prisons to bring people closer to God?”
“Requires?” A rather silly question, don’t you think, XION? Of course not. I’m smiling.
“Does the church need Federal taxation to help the poor?”
I have no idea how this relates to anything I have written or the issue at hand.
“But none of the minions in the echelon of Federal bureaucracy will carry out a single act to bring a soul closer to God or attend to their eternal destiny.”
I don’t know about that, XION. I happen to think God can use anyone He chooses to do this on His terms, even “minions”.
“The mission of the church could not be more different than that of the principalities and powers of this world.”
If you look at the passages in the NT that use phrases like “principalities and the powers of the world,” I am quite confident, in context, it is not talking aout governing authorities.
There is a member of the early church (named in the NT–Erastus, sp?) who was a public servant holding some sort of public office with some worldly power. I have no problem with that as long as he follows Chrsist first.
Report comment to moderator
Well said in both posts, MAC. It is not the gov’t role to bring people closer to God but I would not put it past God to use even the strangest of vehicles to do that if He wanted. But you are right, I am not saying that is its role, even though I respect those who bring their Christian convictions with them when they participate in the political process. But though I have been a minister for 30 years, I am no expert on what brings people closer to God or not. God always keeps me totally surprised when this happens, and if often happens in spite of me and my efforts. Though a mystery, I still nonetheless seek to use whatever means possible to facilitate this (as Paul said in 1 Cor 9:22 or so).
Blessings. Sorry for any past debates, MAC, where I got heavy-handed. I do love and respect all here who care enough to challenge my ideas. And by care, what I respect is that you care for the ideas!
Report comment to moderator
When I wrote that marriage should be in the purview of the church and not the state, I meant it. I also said that I can see how the state would take an interest in marriage, and I meant that.
I see no contradiction between those things. The state can license and register marriages, if it so chooses. It can write laws governing marriage, if it so chooses. But I see nothing in Scripture that requires a covenant marriage under God to be regulated, licensed, or registered with the state.
All of this seems to have started when the church and state were one. Marriage records were kept in churches in Europe and in colonial America.
As I said, I can see why the state would have reasons to regulate marriage, but it wouldn’t have to.
Report comment to moderator
We Christians think it is normal and natural for the state to regulate, license, and register marriages because we grew up with it that way. We cannot conceive of getting married in a church and having it be a “real” marriage unless the state also sanctions it and keeps a record of it in the county or two offices. We would probably think that a couple was living in fornication if they had a church wedding without a stamped certificate from their local government.
Mind you, my wife and I did it that way, and it would have seemed strange to me to do it any other way. That was “just how it’s done.” However, I can now conceive of marriage being something people do in a church or other religious body and not have to have the state recognize it or sanction it or reward it financially or anything else.
Report comment to moderator
#246 Mac “Xion, why do you keep referring to the “mission of the church” as if there’s nothing beyond “the mission of the church” about which the Christian should be concerned?”
I keep saying “mission of the church” to separate between Christianity and what Christians otherwise do, like get involved in politics or registering their cars.
The term church can be considered ‘the people of the church’ and whatever they do they church does. I am using the word church to mean ‘the purpose of the church’. Christians can go to baseball games, but it isn’t what church is about. See the distinction?
There is nothing that the church does which requires enforcement by Federal agents. Now, Christians receive protection from law enforcement, but the church mission doesn’t require anything from the state. See what I am getting at?
Report comment to moderator
#249 Joel Agreed on the friendship and passionate debate. So then …
I see two parts in there where we disagree:
1. On the public realm, you keep insisting that I am saying Christians shouldn’t be involved in the world. I am not saying that. I am saying it is not what Christianity is about. Christians can do all sorts of things that don’t come under the purview of their purpose as a church.
2. In the spiritual realm, you are preaching a sanctification by works when you say,
“Sure, absolutely, by God’s grace, because we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:10) and when we get closer to what we were created for, we get closer to God.”
It is a subtle distinction I am making, but I believe Galatians 3 explains this very clearly (esp. verse 3). Christians are to do good works, but Christians are not made holy by them. Otherwise we would be trying to earn God’s favor. We are both saved AND SANCTIFIED by grace apart from works.
Good works are the result of our sanctification, not the cause. Good fruit doesn’t make a good tree. It is a good tree which produces good fruit.
This is a very subtle point, perhaps too subtle to argue about, but I think it is very important. It has to do with someone’s entire orientation. Are we works-oriented or grace-oriented? Are we self-righteous or do we take on Christ’s righteousness.
Do we spend our lives trying to make pagans slightly more moral or do we we offer them a righteousness apart from works which only Christ can give? The former is the political realm, the latter is the mission of the church. Once again, Christians can participate in both, but only the latter has any lasting purpose.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I really don’t see what you’re getting at. I’m not sure how you’re distinguishing what ‘the people of the church’ are “about.” God instructs men in various things beyond the church’s “mission,” unless you want to consider, as you reasonably could, that the church’s “mission” is to glorify God in every endeavor of life, including enjoyment of baseball games.
Report comment to moderator
XION wrote; “On the public realm, you keep insisting that I am saying Christians shouldn’t be involved in the world. I am not saying that.”
Well, it often sounds like you are saying or implying that, XION (especially in matters of the state), and sometimes it doesn’t. I admit that cannot figure it out. That’s why I keep trying to clarify.
XION wrote; “In the spiritual realm, you are preaching a sanctification by works when you say…”
Then you quote me quoting Scripture where my point is clear and well rooted in Scripture. On this, you are dead wrong, XION. It’s like you went completely blind when you came to the words I used “His workmanship.” Totally blind! I think you are wound way too tight on “reformed” versions of the gospel. Just read it naturally for what it is and lose your excessive paranoia over “works salvation.” It’s like a boogie man you see when it simply is not there. Where “works-salvation” is actually preached, I would join you in opposition. That apparently paranoia is one of the things, I think, that makes you misunderstand me.
Report comment to moderator
Interracial marriage has NEVER been a *Biblical* sin. Marriage between believers and unbelievers was prohibited, but NEVER on the basis of race. Moses, the one who delivered the Biblical law, was married to a black woman! She was a believer in the true God, and when Moses’ sister complained about her black sister-in-law, God struck her with leprosy (which makes the skin snow white) as punishment. (Even in judgment, God has a sense of ironic humor.) When she publicly repented, she was healed and welcomed back into the camp.
Rules against interracial marriage are really more eugenic than religious, and are NOT Scriptural. People twisted some verses out of context to justify racism for the same reason they twist Scripture now to try to justify sodomy: to quiet their own consciences, and to try to get the Church to shut up…
Report comment to moderator
This is how a Nation dies Spiritual.
Report comment to moderator
1. On the public realm, you keep insisting that I am saying Christians shouldn’t be involved in the world. I am not saying that. I am saying it is not what Christianity is about. Christians can do all sorts of things that don’t come under the purview of their purpose as a church.
—-
The problem is no matter where we go in God’s Eyes, we are to do His purpose, which should be the purpose of the Church.
Report comment to moderator
The extremes of the two views of Christians can do all sorts of things that don’t come under the purview of their purpose as a church.
One side is that the Church has the right to address every part of your life which could lead to leaglism
The other side that Church does not have any authorized of us out side of the church, can lead to people acting like they are Christian in the Church but living as sinners out side the Church.
Report comment to moderator
#255 Mac “I really don’t see what you’re getting at. I’m not sure how you’re distinguishing what ‘the people of the church’ are “about.”
Do you acknowledge that the church requires nothing from the state to accomplish its mission? Do you acknowledge that the church can exist in any country regardless of what kind of government they have? If so, then you must acknowledge that the church is transcendent, not dependent on government.
God instructs men in various things beyond the church’s “mission,” unless you want to consider, as you reasonably could, that the church’s “mission” is to glorify God in every endeavor of life, including enjoyment of baseball games.”
God instructs people to go to baseball games? God allows liberty, but he does not instruct us to do these things. He does not instruct his people to do anything related to government other than to pay your taxes and obey the laws. There is nothing wrong with it being involved in temporal affairs, but it is not specifically required of Christians. When I speak of the mission of the church I am speaking of specific requirements which comprise the activities and purpose of the church.
Report comment to moderator
#256 Joel “Well, it often sounds like you are saying or implying that, XION (especially in matters of the state), and sometimes it doesn’t. I admit that cannot figure it out. That’s why I keep trying to clarify.”
Christians are allowed to be involved in the mundane temporal affairs of this world, but are not required to do so. Pastors which mire their churches in a political campaign has abdicated his responsibility by involving his congregation in fleeting temporal issues which won’t carry on into eternity or possibly even into the next year. It is a distraction. You seem to consider it your mission.
“Then you quote me quoting Scripture where my point is clear and well rooted in Scripture. On this, you are dead wrong, XION. It’s like you went completely blind when you came to the words I used “His workmanship.” Totally blind!
Paul speaks of Salvation by Grace (Eph 2:8-10) and Sanctification by Grace (Gal 3:3), really in the whole book of Galatians and the first half of Romans.
You and I and really every Christian agree on Salvation by Grace. However, you and many other Christians believe in Sanctification by Works.
We are Christ’s workmanship created for good works. I am speaking about the motive of those works. In my view (and I believe Paul’s too), good fruit is found on a good tree. Nothing about us is good. Goodness only comes from God. It is God who sanctifies us. It is a transformation from within. We do good works out of thankfulness for God’s kindness to the undeserving, not to earn anything. That is the definition of grace. It results in a wellspring of love.
In your view, we do good works to earn God’s favor. This is the leaven Paul spoke of in Galatians. It cause Christians to devour one another and to go on sin patrol against the fallen world, accusing them and trying to impose God’s righteousness on them.
You wouldn’t put it this way, but in essence what you are advocating is the Christians are to become a sin police in effect, but washing our hands of the dirty work by having the state perform this on our behalf.
I think you are wound way too tight on “reformed” versions of the gospel.
I don’t know what you mean. I am a Ryrie style dispensationalist.
Just read it naturally for what it is and lose your excessive paranoia over “works salvation.” It’s like a boogie man you see when it simply is not there. Where “works-salvation” is actually preached, I would join you in opposition. That apparently paranoia is one of the things, I think, that makes you misunderstand me.”
If it isn’t important, then why did Paul scream “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. … Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”, i.e. by the outward works of the law?
Laws (religious and civil) only address the outward. You can put a guy in jail, but it doesn’t change his heart. God is concerned about the heart. The church’s mission is about the heart and faith, not automobile registration and tax forms.
Report comment to moderator
If so, then you must acknowledge that the church is transcendent, not dependent on government.
I still don’t know what point this is meant to dispute.
God instructs people to go to baseball games?
I didn’t say that, but Peter and Paul spoke to the principle (1 Cor 10:31; 1 Pet 1:15), and David had a lot to say about enjoying extra-ecclesial (?) things to God’s glory (Psalms).
And I still don’t know what point you’re disputing. Who is arguing that God has commanded Christians to be politically involved?
Report comment to moderator
#263 Mac “And I still don’t know what point you’re disputing. Who is arguing that God has commanded Christians to be politically involved?”
I believe that is Joel’s point, that Christians should try to make America godly by striving to impose laws which codify God’s righteousness.
My argument is that sin and unbelief are heart issues which the government is ill-equipped to deal with. Countries which have attempted to cure the heart end up torturing people to death. Government is not the right tool for implementing Christian ideals.
God has appointed government to keep the peace. It is a necessary evil in a fallen world. Murderers are put in jail not to make them righteous, but to prevent then from harming others. The church has an entirely different mission. The church is not about enforcement, but enlightenment.
Report comment to moderator
My argument is that sin and unbelief are heart issues which the government is ill-equipped to deal with.
I haven’t read all entries, but I’ve seen a few of Joel’s that would indicate he doesn’t see the law as a means of “dealing” with sin insofar as it concerns our standing before God, but as means of fostering peace in society (as Paul would agree). It looks like the rest of your post is a further argument with propositions that haven’t been forwarded in this thread.
Report comment to moderator
I give up hope that XION will treat my comments fairly as I have made them. He will continue to read his preconceptions into my comments to distort them regardless of what I write. Have a good day.
Report comment to moderator
Wait. That last comment of mine was in frustration. It’s a good faith discussion.
XION wrote: “In your view, we do good works to earn God’s favor.”
The use of the word “earn” here is nothing but XION’s preconceived notion IMPOSED on me without warrant. ZI never used that word or any than is synonymous. But aside from the word “earn,” what is wrong with wanting please God? NOTHING!!! Some Calvinists and Reformed thinkers have turned this virtue into a vice purely out of paranoia. We know we cannot earn salvation, but God’s favor is a precious thing which we seek in earnest. NOTHING is wrong with that.
XION wrote; “You wouldn’t put it this way, but…”
This is blatant! If I would not put it that way, XION, then why would you put those words into my mouth that YOU already KNOW I would not???
XION wrote; “If it isn’t important, then why did Paul scream “O foolish Galatians!”
When and where did I say is was not important??? What you are doing, XION, is accusing me of a “works salvation” or a “works sanctification” FALSELY, not that these are not important.
XION, your comments are insufferable.
Report comment to moderator
XION, do not read #182, #232, #238, or #248. If you do, you might actually have to stop willfully abusing the word “impose” when distorting my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
XION, <i."I am speaking about the motive of those works."
Me too. And there is nothing wrong with WANTING to please God and gain His favor with our actions as well as our words. Nothing wrong at all.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I believe I understand what you’re saying, at least.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Cheryl. That means a lot. Sometimes I wonder if anyone understands grace any more. It used to be common knowledge in the church. When I read Galatians I feel that Paul is jumping up and down shouting it from the roof tops, yet it seems to go mostly unnoticed now. Martin Luther called Galatians his Katherina, his love. Mine too! It is the joy of my life.
Report comment to moderator
Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that if you are teaching grace and people do not misunderstand or get angry with you then you aren’t really teaching it. Important words from a wise man.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!