A call to Christian counterculture
The legal establishment of same-sex marriage in New York state—not by a rogue court, mind you, but by legislative act—raises pressing questions for the Church. Will we stand for Christian principles in the face of this blindly egalitarian normalization of homosexuality, and the polygamy and incest that will logically follow? Will we stand firm when people call us bigots and compare us with unreconstructed racists? Will we continue to follow uncritically the principles of the world around us? Evangelicals have a history of cultural accommodation, after all. Will we join with our clearly anti-Christian society in this moral collapse, or will we present an alternative by clearly identifying, thoroughly rejecting, and firmly replacing those socially self-destructive principles?
Facing the same-sex marriage development, I suddenly feel like a mainline Presbyterian who now thinks his denomination has crossed the line because it has voted to ordain homosexuals. But that is like finally leaving a burning house because the roof fell in. Prior to that, it was an inferno. Prior to that, it was on fire. Prior to that, you watched passively while your children were playing with matches in the basement.
At some point, the Presbyterian Church (USA) unwittingly imported principles that were fundamentally hostile to the Christian faith. That bit of leaven has leavened the whole lump. The ordination of women in the mainline churches could pass only because they had already replaced their biblical foundations with individualistic ones drawn from modern cosmology. Was it the denomination’s adoption of The Book of Confessions in 1967? No, the problem far predated that. J. Gresham Machen left Princeton and the Northern Presbyterian Church in 1930s after his clash with them over modernism. The Southern church took longer to decline, so it was not until 1973 that the conservatives there finally made their break.
If same-sex marriage in the nation parallels the ordination of homosexuals in the PC(USA), where was America’s point of departure from Christian principles? (My concern here is chiefly for the integrity of Christians in America, not for America herself.) Was it a Supreme Court decision? Was it the Progressive Era? Was it the arrival of the German academic tradition in the late 19th century, or the Second Great Awakening earlier in that century? Was it the triumph of the Federalists over the Anti-Federalists at the time of the Founding, or was it even in what both schools of thought shared in their embrace of Enlightenment individualism? The further back we find the ultimate cause, the more radical our disagreement will turn out to be with our non-Christian fellow citizens.
If the Church continues to address individual issues as isolated challenges—abortion, divorce, teen rebellion, same-sex marriage—she will continue to plug holes in the dike while the rising waters come up through the ground to her knees, to her elbows, and then to her neck. The problem is not this-and-that hole where the water is leaking in, but where you are standing relative to the sea. Christians need a more thorough understanding of the culture and seek the high ground in the mind of Christ.
In the age of same-sex marriage, how radical a Reformation do we need if the Church is to remain distinct from the world? Remaining distinct is not about hemlines, how much you drink, nose studs, what entertains you, etc., though being distinct has consequences for these things. It means being transformed by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12:2). It means understanding the world in distinctly Christian categories of thought.
In Lectures on Calvinism (1898), Abraham Kuyper distinguishes Christianity and modernism as two fundamentally different life-systems. Remaining distinct from the world is especially difficult in modern times. First, the modern world has many widely available and very attractive pleasures to seduce us. Some of those are inherently wrong. Some are merely imprudent. Some are perfectly wholesome but not if enjoyed in the wrong way or to the wrong degree, as the modern world tempts us to do.
Second, the modern world holds principles that look like Christian principles and perhaps have some reference back to Christian principles but are distinctly different and lead to cultural death. Both Christianity and modernism teach liberty, equality, and compassion, but the modern world does so in a way that is independent of God and places each person at the center of his or her own universe of concern.
If we do not understand this, then when our world calls us to conform to its Christianity-aping principles, we will blink and follow, submitting to what we think is our Christian conscience. Theologically, philosophically, and culturally, we need to be battle-ready.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top173 Comments to “A call to Christian counterculture”
Thanks for the nourishing food for thought Mr. Innes. For now, one point I’d embellish is that our modern world puts itself as the source of liberty, equality, and compassion not only as independent of God, but higher than God. The culture wars are the world views of religions.
Report comment to moderator
To generalize: All this started with intellectually lazy intimidated pastors living in an unChristian comfortable moral coma while playing church. They focused on entertainment and the strategies for pursuing numerical growth. They call for an acceptance of Jesus Christ as a personal savior but not for repentance or ongoing surrender to Christ as Lord.
Again, I am generalizing.
Report comment to moderator
You know what’s coming. All will be fulfilled.
Report comment to moderator
An excellent article.
Report comment to moderator
I agree, Excellent Article!
The only thing I can really do to positively impact this culture is: “as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” Some will label it “isolationist”, misunderstanding the necessity of individual transformation that precedes genuine community impact. My tendency is to want to (and attempt to) preach something to others before it has transformed my own life.
Report comment to moderator
Will we stand for Christian principles in the face of this blindly egalitarian normalization of homosexuality…
Alternately: “Will we stand for Christian principles in the face of this blindly paternalistic attempt to wield the state as a bludgeon and take liberties with the freedom of non-believers?”
Report comment to moderator
Wait. Who is wielding the state as a bludgeon and taking away liberties?
Report comment to moderator
“Will we stand for Christian principles in the face of this blindly egalitarian normalization of homosexuality, and the polygamy and incest that will logically follow?”
I don’t think you have to worry about legal rights for polygamous and incestuous relationships. They have no more to do with Gay married couples than Straight married couples. The only difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender of the two people who have made the commitment.
If at any point in the future there is some nationwide movement to legally sanction polygamy and/or incest, let me know. I doubt it will happen, but such issues will have to be considered on their own merits (or lack thereof).
Report comment to moderator
D.C. – No, the problem far predated that.
It did indeed, it started with the words, “Hath God Said?” (Gen. 3:1). In its various forms, the issue throughout history is always whether the Word of God is authoritative, or alternatively, do we truly believe God knows better than we do what is best for us.
Note that part of the ensuing curse is, And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and hers[.]
I’d like to encourage you and all believers about this. The enmity is good. How do we know? First, because God created it and put it there. Second, without the enmity, we and our Enemy would naturally be at common purpose in opposing God. It is when we become identified with Christ, whom Satan hates, that enmity is put between us and the one whose side we joined in the Fall. So while the enmity may seem unpleasant at the time, we can rejoice that it’s there because, even in pronouncing the curse, God knew it would be best for us.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think we have to worry about legal rights for polygamous or polyamorous consenting adults who are “in love” and want marriage equality or incestuous relationships between consenting adults who are “in love” and want marriage equality until these groups are perceived by the Democrat Party as a useable or malleable voting block. Then, Katie bar the door.
Again, instead of changing the definition of the sacred institution of marriage, let’s just change the definition(s) of the sex organs to be whatever we want the definitions to be (after all, they are just words). That should save the institution of “marriage.”
Report comment to moderator
PolishBear,
I think you are absolutely wrong. When the definition of marriage has changed this much in 30 years, just wait for the next 30.
Virtually EVERY single argument used for SSM can be used for polygamist marriages, polyamorous marriages, teen/adult marriages, and (while it will take longer) will also be used for child/adult marriages. (The pedophiles already claim that children CAN consent and that the relationship is “good” for the child. SIGH)
Report comment to moderator
Moralizing will never exterminate natural desire. Romantic hearts will always skip a beat at the consummation of elective affinity. Fair-minded people will not admit impediments to the marriage of true minds. People with same-sex attraction have the same rights to satisfaction as heterosexuals.
Marriage as a union between two persons doesn’t imply a right to polygamy, because sets of two members are distinct mathematically from sets of more than two members. Marriages of two and of more than two have different properties.
Report comment to moderator
#12 is a joke, right? If not, “professing to be wise, they became fools.”
Report comment to moderator
SM – What is magic about the number 2? All you have said is that 2 does not equal 3. While that is mathematically true, you haven’t explained its significance.
On what basis are you conflating the distinct concepts of marriage and satisfaction?
I’m sure you’re aware that your appeal to “fair minded people” is a form of poisoning the well.
Report comment to moderator
As long as you don’t gaze at the flesh between the legs of the marriage partners, what difference could it make to you?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy – A set of two members has the property of symmetry which sets of more than two members do not have. A set of more than two members acquires properties of distribution which the other lacks. A partnership of A-B-C has magnitudes of complexity beyond A-B. For example, if C divorces B, is A still married? Thus, prohibitions against polygamy remain practical and reasonable.
Report comment to moderator
#14
I think in time the hetero/homo alliance to confine marriage to only 2 people will be seen as every bit as silly as making distinctions about folks based on nose shape or hair texture etc.
I’m afraid there’s nothing special about 2 people. A coupling is no better no worse than a tripling or quadrupling.
Some folks have an unhealthy obsession with the number TWO and they need to get over it.
(sarcasm now off)
Report comment to moderator
BUZZY – I really don’t think that Evangelicals are ready to argue that there are no functional and qualitative differences between marriage between two persons and polygamy. Y’all are making a patently rhetorical argument. You believe the difference is more than arbitrary. Therefore, all the natural reasons you have against polygamy still apply, regardless of gender.
Report comment to moderator
SM – You’re proffering several characteristics that do not seem to have a logical relation to marriage, as being necessary to the estate. In what way is marriage logically connected to the concepts of symmetry or lack of complexity? (The divorce problem is easy to solve, simply by saying a divorce of one partner is a divorce of all.)
Can a person be blamed for thinking that a more logical characteristic to be associated with the marital estate is that the form be one that is naturally capable of producing offspring? Although the rule is somewhat overinclusive, as infertile couples and couples past childbearing age can still marry, such overinclusiveness does not defeat the logical connection involved.
Report comment to moderator
Symmetry means that a couple shares the same destiny, relationship one to the other, and responsibility. This is not the case with polygamy, so far as I see it. [(a + b) + c ( d +e)]. I am hereafter no longer responsible for the debts of d and e but acknowledge those of a and b, so long as both sign. Etc. The complexity of polygamy place this practice outside the competence of Family Courts.
Unless you believe the distinction between polygamy and a marriage between two is completely arbitary, I think you are arguing against your own beliefs, and you aren’t so serious about marriage after all.
Report comment to moderator
Symmetry means that a couple shares the same destiny, relationship one to the other, and responsibility. This is not the case with polygamy, so far as I see it. [(a + b) + c ( d +e)]. I am hereafter no longer responsible for the debts of d and e but acknowledge those of a and b, so long as both sign. Etc. The complexity of polygamy place this practice outside the competence of Family Courts.
Unless you believe the distinction between polygamy and a marriage between two is completely arbitary, I think you are arguing against your own beliefs, and you aren’t so serious about marriage after all.
Report comment to moderator
SM – I am not arguing against my beliefs, but questioning the assertion that polygamy will not be the next thing to be legalized.
Report comment to moderator
#18 – I think we are ready to argue that there are no significant differences between altering “marriage” to apply to two same-sex individual and altering it to apply to any number of assorted number of individuals. Some merely claim it to be different in order to appear to have a moral conviction.
Report comment to moderator
GOd’s Word is clear man will reject God and take out that rejection on God’s people. It is only a mader of time before we see it here in America.
Report comment to moderator
Those who argue against nature, against normality, are the ones without conviction. They just want to embrace their abnormality.
Report comment to moderator
Evangelicals are not the only sane people opposed to homosexual pretend marriages. Just wait and see opposition grow in even greater proportion to the number of deviants who want to legalize any kind of science fiction marriage for more than two.
Report comment to moderator
SM #20 – The complexity of polygamy place this practice outside the competence of Family Courts.
Arguments to the effect that judges are just too dumb to understand that level of complexity are rarely successful.
Report comment to moderator
After reading Scroop Moth’s posts, I now understand why homosexualists are so very rarely found in the professions of either plumbing or mathematics.
Never – never – ask a leftist to fix your pipes – or to balance your checkbook.
Which rather neatly explains why this country is neck-deep in moral sewage and is going bankrupt, all in one generation.
Report comment to moderator
#7
Try and be a Christian business in NY now! Say I don’t do gay weddings and see the state come in and shut you down. Look at E-Harmony, sued by gay agenda to change their business plan. They changed because they didn’t want the expense of fighting and loosing.
I believe it was a story on here, a bakery didn’t want to make rainbow cupcakes for a gay pride event, and the city revolted their lease!
Loose your liberties? Your livelyhood?
Report comment to moderator
HBO’s Big Love was the first salvo followed by TLC’s Sister Wives; it’s coming!
Report comment to moderator
Interestingly, SM, homosexual marriages have NEVER been allowed in history before, yet polygamous marriages were the norm in some cultures.
Your arguments hold no water. It is simply YOUR personal preferences that make the number “two” into some sort of beautiful, symmetrical relationship.
When you trash absolutes, it becomes everyone for him or herself. And, your beliefs will be squashed right along with ours…just give it a few years.
Report comment to moderator
@Lloyd: Try and be a Christian business in NY now!
Walter Olsen addresses this argument in a recent WSJ column. In essence, restrictions on businesses such as wedding photographers are the result of plain old discrimination law. Olsen writes:
Report comment to moderator
Forget homosexual ‘marriage’. Pastors have diminished marriage for years. How? Marrying unbelievers. Marrying couples living together. Why? “We need to minister to them” is the common reply. The holiness of matrimony has been eviscerated for many years by cowardly men who fear man more than God.
Report comment to moderator
But they do infringe on your right of conscience and freedom of religion!
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – I don’t think it’s an either-or, but a both-and situation. Yes, anti-discriniation laws have been used to restrict religious adherents’ ability to act in accordance with their conscience in the markeptlace. But it’s hard to imagine that such restrictions will not become even more widespread now. Therefore, Olsen’s argument is persuasive to a certain degree, but it doesn’t detract from Lloyd’s point.
Report comment to moderator
Like the artical suggest, “Baby Steps”!
Report comment to moderator
jsingletary – why is it an either-or situation? Why do we have to “forget” a re-definition of marriage because of prior behavior by certain pastors? That seems like a non-sequitur, to me at least.
Report comment to moderator
When the PC(USA) ordianed women, they never imaged that homosexuals would be next!
Report comment to moderator
Just to give one example of the effect of legalization of a certain activity has in the market place: In 1994 in Vermont, there was a case called Paquette v. Regal Arts Press, in which a mom-and-pop printing press, owned by devout Catholics, refused to take a job printing pamphlets advocating abortion (because to do so would violate their religious beliefs). They were sued, with the plaintiffs arguing that to allow the press to not print the pamphlets would interfere with the constitutionally-protected right to abortion. The Vermont Supreme Court ultimately sided with the plaintiffs. If abortion had been illegal, it’s hard to see that the plaintiffs would have won that case. This example is not meant to say anything about abortion as such, but only about the effect of legalization on individual businesses.
Report comment to moderator
It’s all of one piece. The re-defining of marriage has, in some measure (I would say significantly), the component of pastors not holding marriage as holy. We’ve led the way and are now shocked it where it has brought the culture.
I think it was in a recent WOTW article where it said (my paraphrase), that this battle for holding back homosexual ‘marriage’ is lost. The Church needs to focus on burnishing Holy Matrimony making biblical marriage the attractive alternative God designed it to be.
Report comment to moderator
jsingletary – OK, now I understand your point better. Thank you for elaborating.
Report comment to moderator
#12 – “Moralizing will never exterminate natural desire.”
“Exterminate?” Strange word choice. Nevertheless, healthy moral convictions affirmed and well nourished do play an active and effective part in shaping what we desire, in many various ways, as well as what we do. Understanding the grace of God is a prerequisite to understanding this point. Listen to the apostle Paul:
* “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age.” (Titus 2:11-12)
Report comment to moderator
#39
There will always be a printer, bakery or apartment just down the street, but that is not what is important to them, they want for force their agenda on everyone.
Report comment to moderator
having read WORLD columns longer than I care to admit, I’ve often come across well written and logically argued columns and this is one of them. Yet in almost all cases, the author takes away from his argument by throwing in phrases or claims that have nothing to do with the theme or argument of the column. And this column is no exception.
Innes is discussing cultural accommodation and incrementalism but distracts his readers with the phrase “polygamy and incest which will logically . That phrase does not strengthen his argument but certainly detracts from it so why include it?? Instead of focusing on the differences and disputes between modernity and evangelicalism, the readers have instead focused on one particular aspect of the conflict. Thus, ignoring the last few paragraphs which are far more important to the mesage I think Innes is trying to sent.
This habit of making larger than necessary claims is not a problem owed solely by Innes. Tokarev frequently makes the same error as do others here. Why the need to expand their claims larger than necessary? Why the overkill? What does this say about evangelical American intellect/personalities?
Report comment to moderator
It says they haven’t been to law school.
Report comment to moderator
But I totally agree with you HRW. The best arguments are tightly reasoned and stick to the essentials.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see what “The legal establishment of same-sex marriage in New York state” has to do with the church. The church can continue to prosper following God’s Word as the world goes down the sewer. What is it D.C., which ties the church to las cloacas en Roma (i.e. the sewers of Rome – remembered that from my Latin class, not bad eh?)?
My reformed brethren have a very hard time compartmentalizing, which comes naturally to dispensationalists. When the world fails Covenant Theologians take it personally. If the church on her own could stay married, that alone would be a beacon of hope to a morally confused world. Instead the church prefers to point the bony finger of condemnation at others. Well three fingers of the pointed hand are pointing back at ourselves. There is where the real work needs to take place.
“… where was America’s point of departure from Christian principles? (My concern here is chiefly for the integrity of Christians in America, not for America herself.)”
Wow! Whatever do you mean? America was a nation full of Christians. But when was America ever established as a Christian nation? Many Christian principles were in play, but never codified into law. America is not a Christian nation and the sooner Christians realize this the better off they will be.
Report comment to moderator
“When the world fails Covenant Theologians take it personally.” ???
On what theological basis? That’s a new one to me.
JSingletary, why should pastors refuse to marry two unbelievers? Is marriage only for believers? No. Pastors should refuse to marry a believer to an unbeliever, and a pastor can justly set standards for marriage (my pastor says most of the people who come to him to have him marry them end up backing out, because he insists if they’re sleeping together they need to stop–we have a small church and have had few marriages in it, so he isn’t talking about people in our church), but there is no reason pastors should limit marriage to Christians, since God doesn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Good point CHERYL, and since not all marriages are performed by ministers of any Christian denomination we have to remember that even Luther, Calvin and other reformers favored government approval for the sake of protecting the family unit. God seems to have always wanted to protect the family structure for the sake of children.
Report comment to moderator
#48 Cheryl ““When the world fails Covenant Theologians take it personally.” ??? On what theological basis? That’s a new one to me.
This is based on a Reformed amillenialist mindset which believes that the tribulation has passed and that the world is now supposed to get better and better. My Reformed brethren regard themselves as guardians of the fallen world and view the Christian mission as being babysitters or servants of the world system in order to help make the world a better place.
If the world takes a step backwards then they fret about having let God down in their duty to make the world better. This is very close to the Jewish mindset. It derives from an Old Testament mentality. Covenant theologians tend to have a very difficult time differentiating between the Old and New Testament missions.
Dispensationalists have their own issues, but they don’t tend to fret as much about the world sinking ever deeper into Sodom, since that is precisely what the NT says will happen. It is sad, but not unexpected. I think for my Reformed brethren a world that is getting worse is unexpected and they fret about it.
Report comment to moderator
It’s never been clear to me why it’s important for evangelicals to see their values reflected in the culture around them. The Bible says that we are strangers and aliens. The recent events in New York state are unsettling to evangelicals primarily because they drive home the fact that evangelicals have been thoroughly removed from their erstwhile seat of cultural dominance. But if the gate that leads to life is narrow, then I don’t see why that’s a bad thing. A whole lot of evangelical belly-aching seems to derive from the mistaken sense that our so-called “Christian nation” ought to privilege our practices at the expense of others’ practices.
If evangelicals would get over their entitlement complex, and live quietly as salt and light, then I doubt that the culture would disturb us one bit.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t entirely disagree with that Evan. As a matter of fact, I think I mostly agree.
Report comment to moderator
Well, EVAN, can you explain to Evangelicals why it is increasingly important for homosexuals have their values reflected in the culture around them. Please. Think about what you’re saying. Judging Evangelicals to have an entitlement complex puts you and all the LGBTQ activists at a serious intellectual disadvantage.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I am also a Reformed amillenialist. Your description of amillenialism sounds a lot more like postmillenialism to me. Amillenialists, after all, draw a fairly clear distinction between law and gospel, and would admit to a fair degree of disunity between the two Testaments (although not to the degree that Dispensalionalists would).
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I’d guess that our theology is none too different.
Report comment to moderator
Then I will repeat an unanswered Innes question:
Where the cultural consensus is so shattered and the government is so morally adrift that it cannot discern between the union of a man and a woman, homosexual cohabitation, a motorcycle gang, and who knows what else when recognizing marriage, has the time come to remove the question entirely from the purview of government responsibility?
And, I add, simply license people like dogs to their home address?
Report comment to moderator
To the extent Evangelicals have an entitlement complex, they should certainly get over it as Evan suggests. However, I don’t think participating in democracy is necessarily having an entitlement complex. We do live in a participatory democracy, and Evangelicals are no less entitled to participate than anyone else, notwithstanding any desire to “live quietly as salt and light.” Each Christian, evangelical or otherwise, should follow God’s calling on at what level to participate, even if it’s simply to vote. Others may legitimately criticize, others may legitimately seek public office, provided as always that they are trying to hear where God is calling them in life. Just as all other groups of people with similar interests push for their views to be established in the land, there is nothing improper about Evangelical Christians doing likewise.
Report comment to moderator
Evan #51: This is perhaps the best summary I’ve ever seen of my own thoughts. Certainly better than what I could have written.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I suppose it must depend on the denomination. Some liberal ones (like PCUSA) have pretty much lost the idea of sin altogether and don’t seem too horrified by a cultural decline. My own church (PCA) sees a strong distinction between preaching the gospel and politics and other cultural issues. While we are actively involved in ministries such as prison ministry and overseas missions, we don’t expect the world to act like the church, nor do we expect the world to get better and better. (I don’t think you’ll find many Presbyterians who do.) Eschatology isn’t as serious a focus to Reformed people as it is to dispensationalists. We certainly aren’t shaken by the world being sinful; we expect it. We expect it of ourselves, too, though of course in a different way.
I actually find less of this in the Reformed camp than in my old Baptist one, which seemed hardly able to deal with the presence of sin, and needed to stay as far away as possible for risk of corruption.
Report comment to moderator
And seriously, even postmillenialists understand that there are ups and downs within the process of history.
Some premillenialists, on the other hand, simply throw their hands in the air. “Oh well. It’s all going to hell in a hand basket anyway. Why stand in the way?”
Report comment to moderator
I would think one’s position on the end of times is not the deciding factor when trying to figure one’s position in or of the world. I would think the Reformed view would be cultural transformation as opposed to cultural isolation. Cheryl’s comparison between Presbyterian and Baptist is a good illustration. Thus the former would be more inclined to model “good” cultural behavior to the “heathen” which the latter may see as accommodation. the question for the Innes et al is do evangelicals have the ability to model proper behaviour without a) resorting to baseless accusations and exaggerations or conversely b) giving tacit approval to what has been historical deemed sinful? Innis’ column and some of the responses here suggest that the former is an ever present danger whereas I see no danger in the latter occuring.
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t trying to be critical, nor was I talking about eschatology as such. I am talking about the Reformed world view. I am not saying it is right or wrong, merely highlighting the distinctives. BTW Donna is right that dispensationalists can become fatalistic.
Here is an explanation of the Calvinistic worldview published in The Standard Bearer (A Reformed Simi-monthly magazine):
A distinction I see is that the Reformed way of thought is to work with the ungodly to positively influence culture. The Baptists I know view the culture as totally depraved and that people are to be saved out of it. To be honest, I like the Reformed way of thinking better. It is more positive. I just have a hard time to find scripture to support it and so I am left wondering.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, is there somewhere in that excerpt that explains how Covenant believers take it personally when the world fails?
Report comment to moderator
#28 what’s rare? “Homosexualists” aren’t more than a few percentages of people. That may count as rare. Moths aren’t more than a few percentages of all insects. Yet, moths are not rare. Not even the beautiful luna is rare.
DRILL evidently hasn’t decoded Alan Turing and doesn’t have the poop on Mario and Luigi, who are definitely out of the water closet.
DRILL is confused enough to balance his checkbook. Duh, adding and subtracting are a waste of time. All you have to do is verify that your deposits are posted. You may also look for a debit that’s too big. You don’t have to worry if checks are not posted — that’s the bank’s problem. This was explained to me by a gay bookkeeper.
Report comment to moderator
BUZZY I am . . questioning the assertion that polygamy will not be the next thing to be legalized.
On what basis, other than your fear that the prohibition against polygamy is arbitrary and unreasonable?
Report comment to moderator
If the author is worried about incest being legalized they should know first cousin marriage is legal in many states, its not as in your face as LGBTQ marriage but it is there.
Report comment to moderator
#63 Mac “Xion, is there somewhere in that excerpt that explains how Covenant believers take it personally when the world fails?”
Not explicitly. But if you are called to join hearts and hands with the ungodly in the positive development of culture and that culture falls into ruin would you feel indifferent about it?
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Whatever your “hearts and hands” phrasing means, no, of course I wouldn’t feel indifferently. But “personally”? Where do you get that?
Report comment to moderator
If we can completely change the defintion of marriage on demand for homosexuals, then it is rank bigotry to deny a further change to give marriage equality polygamists, polyamorists, incest marriage advocates and more. After all, law and morality have no basis in absolute truth or common decency but are only whatever the people want to make them, right?
Maybe some homosexuals are not really for “marriage equality” at all. Maybe that phrase is just used to fool stupid people.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH, there are a whole lot more “homosexualists” than there are homosexuals. For instance, Obama (along with most Democrats) is a homosexualist but probably not a homosexual. As a homosexualist, Obama is also a transparent hypocrite but his fellow homosexualists don’t mind. They know the difference between his fake public rhetoric and his radical leftist convictions and policy goals.
Report comment to moderator
Courtney,
First cousin marriage is common in many cultures and it was common in the West at one time. I don’t think it’s ever been considered incest. The relationship isn’t near enough.
Report comment to moderator
First-cousin marriage isn’t usually what first comes to mind as incest and there is a movement to make them illegal.
Report comment to moderator
If the author is worried about incest being legalized they should know first cousin marriage is legal in many states, its not as in your face as LGBTQ marriage but it is there.
The greater scandal is that these relationships are illegal anywhere.
Report comment to moderator
Ditto #51. And yeah, couldn’t have said it better.
Evan, please don’t stop talking here at Worldmag. We need your voice–we really do, see this: http://online.worldmag.com/2011/07/05/the-new-calamity/comment-page-4/#comment-651629
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass, I am curious, what behaviors do you believe should be prohibited by law, and on what grounds?
Report comment to moderator
what behaviors do you believe should be prohibited by law, and on what grounds?
I can’t give you a comprehensive “list of things I think should be illegal” but the general principle is that the state should intervene to protect each citizens’ person and property. So it should be illegal for you to murder me not because it’s “wrong” per se but because it represents you causing direct harm to my person. Something like blasphemy, however, despite being “wrong”, should continue to be legal because it doesn’t directly harm the person or property of anyone else.
Unlike most libertarians I don’t extend this same level of protection to corporate entities. So I don’t view regulation of markets or businesses as an abridgment of liberty in the same way I view prohibitions on individuals (e.g. not letting first cousins marry).
I also tend not to view the simple act of taxation as a violation of personal liberty.
Report comment to moderator
I like the title Christian Counterculture. It is a good phrase to chew on and think about what it might look like.
Some Christians might propose a Stepford Wives kind of culture, with long dress wearing bread-making folks with permanent smiles.
I would prefer to see a CS Lewis style counterculture, where wisdom and balance rule, one that actually is superior to the world systems. Christian education is a good example of a superior system, but this only holds true in the elementary grades. Public schools surpass Christian schools in high school math and science, even though they both rate low compared to the rest of the world.
It would be nice to see Christians have good marriages, and good intelligent children and to be more productive and happier and deeper and so on. This is true to some extent already, but I think we get too caught up with the cares and affairs of this world. We can do better.
World Magazine is a good example of a countercultural news source. Unfortunately every other topic seems to be on homosexuality. Nevertheless, World has the right idea, namely to take a stand for Christianity in the midst of a corrupt and perverse nation.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure what’s so great about 51. Aside from the call to be more salt and light, it seems that the criticisms made in that post could equally apply to the gay rights movement.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks BuddyGlass, I am sincerely not trying to be antagonistic, but am genuinely curious.
On what basis is doing direct harm to another person or their property objectionable? Especially if the reason is not “wrongness”?
This does relate to the idea of Christianity possibly developing as a counterculture; and the rules/laws that would govern it.
Report comment to moderator
On what basis is doing direct harm to another person or their property objectionable? Especially if the reason is not “wrongness”?
The reason I support such measures is that I care about other human beings and don’t want to see them murdered, beaten, raped, kidnapped, stolen from, etc. Those are things done to them and not something they’ve chosen to do to themselves. That’s an important distinction. And I think it’s one most people intuitively make. We know cigarettes are bad for us, but we don’t ban them. Why? Because we respect a person’s right to make choices about his own body, even if he chooses to do something unhealthy.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark is correct – by ‘homosexualist’, I mean the combination of the following three categories:
1) true homosexuals, whether practicing or not,
2) heterosexuals who practice homosexuality because of a craving for perversion (’cultural homosexuals’) and an inability to buck a decaying culture
3) those fellow travelers who do not practice homosexuality, but who nevertheless seek to force that aberration upon others, and to pervert marriage.
There are far more homosexualists than true homosexuals, of course; in fact, I suspect the number of true homosexuals is minuscule – it is probably an exceedingly rare condition based on history.
Most people who call themselves homosexual and practice homosexuality actually fit into the second category (heterosexuals who practice homosexuality simply because of a craving for perversion).
True homosexuals are much more due empathy than are non-homosexual homosexualists; true homosexuals are often historically important and sometimes brilliant people; often afflicted with complementary harassing demons of one sort or the other.
Exceedingly rare, however, of course.
And while there may be a homosexual plumber (in a large universe many improbable things become quite probable – statistically speaking), it is best, should such exist, to keep him, or her, or it, well away from your plumbing.
Report comment to moderator
I agree there seems to be a fundamental caring for other persons built into us. But why does your caring not extend to blasphemy and other things which individuals would not do to themselves?
Report comment to moderator
NEIL 82, but I think it does. Why don’t you? Aren’t you underestimating other Christians with comments like that?
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass,
I don’t think you’ve made a significant distinction in answering Neil Evans’s question. You’ve only removed the introduction of “wrongness” one degree. When you say,
you’re just saying that while the inherent wrongness of murder and rape and the like isn’t enough to make the thing illegal, the wrongness of their effect is. The question still remains: why should *that* standard hold sway?
Report comment to moderator
Louise, I should have addressed 82 to BuddyGlass. I was asking him the question in reference to him saying that he supports laws against murder but not against blasphemy.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
Although I mostly agree with your definition of homosexualists, I’d make one qualification. Not all those who are homosexually inclined are homosexualists. In fact, I suspect that not even all those who are practicing homosexuals are homosexualists, although there may be fewer and fewer of those in the latter category.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s never been clear to me why it’s important for evangelicals to see their values reflected in the culture around them. The Bible says that we are strangers and aliens.”
It seems that would be the case, and its often how we act.
But knowing your on your way to heaven, should actually encourage you to not take this world for granted. God gives us direct order to stewardship and to making disciples.
Having that vertical relationship with God, should begin to flow outward horizontally to others.
Lewis talks about it I believe in Mere Christianity, that putting on Christ, should actually not only cause us to think more about heaven, but it should drive us to live in this world as we are called to as he did.
I can see how you and Xion would think that Reformed peeps like myself would fret over the world going bad. But to me its really just an excuse to be more involved. Let God decide if we are to be the tool for a stumbling block or to bring redemption. I know I was bugging Debra on one of the other threads about how legislation isn’t where we need to start, and on that note I fully agree with you guys that we need to take care of our own selves first. We can’t exchange the world’s ideals for our own.
Everybody is a sinner though, we can’t let our sin keep us isolated from a world that needs Jesus.
We make it easy on Satan when we let our sin isolate us. I’d much rather have fun making it hard on him
Report comment to moderator
I agree with you on this THORN because when we let Satan isolate us and our sin we become his helpers against the rest of the world that Christ died for.
Report comment to moderator
I agree there seems to be a fundamental caring for other persons built into us. But why does your caring not extend to blasphemy and other things which individuals would not do to themselves?
With respect to blasphemy in particular, the principle is that blasphemy doesn’t actually harm anyone. It’s offensive to God and may be offensive to believers, but I tend to elevate freedom of speech and thought above “freedom to not be offended”.
you’re just saying that while the inherent wrongness of murder and rape and the like isn’t enough to make the thing illegal, the wrongness of their effect is. The question still remains: why should *that* standard hold sway?
It’s not a matter of “this is how government should be” as it is “this is how Christians should treat other people” extended into the realm of representative government. I don’t think the Bible gives a blue print for how government “should be”. I do think it speaks to how we should treat other people, and by extension whether we should support certain movements to curtail individual freedom.
When I support a policy that would criminalize some behavior I’m seeking to affect (via the state) the lives of whose who practice that behavior. In the case of something like murder, I’m perfectly comfortable looking a murderer in the eye and saying, “You know, I’m okay with throwing you in prison for your crime, because the alternative is to allow you and others like you to inflict incredible suffering on innocents. If my choice is between you suffering the restriction of not being free to murder and your prospective victims suffering the pain and trauma of being murdered or having their loved ones be murdered then my duty is to protect them and not your freedom to act.”
In the case of homosexual acts I would not want to look a practicing homosexual in the eye and say, “Yeah, I’m cool with you being thrown in prison because you like to have a type of sex that God really doesn’t like. I know you don’t agree, or even believe in God, but I’m the one with the voting majority…so too bad for you.”
Not to belabor the point, but the base question for me is not “what should government be like” but “what policies should I support as a believer”. Obviously the former sort of flows out of the latter, but the latter is where the rubber meets the road so to speak. My policy preferences are where I either choose to bully (or refrain from bullying) others into behaving in accordance with my Christian beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
#87
Nah, Thorn, you’re not bugging—just prodding. :–)
Report comment to moderator
Xion (62):
I would probably say that the notion of “common grace” is a peculiarity of a certain strand of Dutch and Dutch-American Calvinism. The concept has no progeny whatsoever in Anglo-American Presbyterianism, except for the recent influence of certain Dutch-American thinkers (e.g., Van Til) at historically Presbyterian seminaries. The concept seems to have originated with Kuyper, and was later promoted by Befkhof and Van Til. It appears in none of the standard Reformed confessions, and, as far as I know, was not a view held by any Reformer.
In my experience, most Reformed Presbyterians in the US would regard the notion of “common grace” with suspicion, an awkward attempt by neo-Calvinists to recover from their overly dim view of general revelation. See, e.g., Charles Terpstra’s 1998 article on common grace, published in Volume 75, Issue 2 of the Standard Bearer.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn (87):
Where in Scripture do you find a direct order for stewardship? Or what do you mean by this stewardship? It sounds like you’re starting to go all Jim Wallis on us.
Further, the command to make disciples (in Matthew 28) was given to the apostles, i.e., the church. It is not directed to unordained persons. And how, might you ask, does the church accomplish this mission? By properly administering the means of grace Lord’s Day by Lord’s Day until Christ returns.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN, you come across as straining at gnats and wanting others to do the same while trying to make them think that’s important. Frankly, I think you’re playing academic games with God’s word to distract and pull others into your self-justification of what you want to believe and persuade others for approval. Just do your thing and forget the rest. It can be both interesting and tedious. For some of us, life is too short. But likening someone to Jim Wallis is a major insult, which also makes it so difficult, at least for me, to abide your snarkasm.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, you are right that Common Grace has been controversial in the past in Reformed circles, but I believe it is generally accepted these days.
Most Christians would agree with the general concepts. For example, the Bible says God makes it to rain on the just and unjust. No Christian would disagree. The problem is that theologians are forever labeling things and once labeled they take on a life of their own.
Grace means kindness to the undeserving. My question is whether all of these things qualify.
It sounds to me like all of the concepts of Common Grace merely point to God’s creation, both its inherent design which God proclaimed to be good and his sustaining of it. Why does that need a special label with special categories and a whole set of related doctrines which cause contentions and church splits and so on? And what does any of that have to do with pagan culture aside from the fact that God delays in destroying it.
Report comment to moderator
“Where in Scripture do you find a direct order for stewardship? Or what do you mean by this stewardship?”
Genesis 1:28 my friend. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Even before the fall, we were charged with stewardship and multiplying. This command is regiven after the Flood.
The #1 means of discipleship is having kids. God is a God of his people and their children.
It’s not the only way. Why are the apostles charged with making disciples of all men? Because those disciples will make more disciples. The apostles won’t live forever here. So I don’t see how even that command is limited to them.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for your reply, BuddyGlass (89). It raises the same concerns I had in the other thread (and about which Ree followed up with related questions), so I was hoping for a response there. But I understand not having the time or interest to reply to each and every post, and I wouldn’t consider it an inability on your part to provide a good answer if you were done with that part of the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
“Evan, you are right that Common Grace has been controversial in the past in Reformed circles, but I believe it is generally accepted these days.”
The whole point of being Reformed is to constantly reform anyway
I never thought there was an issue with common grace/saving grace growing up as they were both discussed quite regularly in my PCA churches.
Frankly I think it’s a reasonable concept to help distinguish.
“Man’s conscience –”
I think Lewis would argue in Mere Christianity that we don’t believe in man’s conscience, because for us we know that Christ is actively impressing upon us. It runs far greater and deeper so to speak than just our idea of conscience.
“Restraint of sin –”
I’m not sure why that would be simply a civil issue. Adam and Eve didn’t keel over or physically die immediately. God has restrained sin’s penalty in that regard. In the same way, his “common grace” would keep most of us from premeditating destructive sins like murder. That overflows into civil and cultural concepts though as well.
Report comment to moderator
2) heterosexuals who practice homosexuality because of a craving for perversion (’cultural homosexuals’) and an inability to buck a decaying culture
3) those fellow travelers who do not practice homosexuality, but who nevertheless seek to force that aberration upon others, and to pervert marriage.
Would Drill name a couple of examples of these mythical beings? I think this is Evangelical fever.
Report comment to moderator
If we can completely change the defintion of marriage on demand for homosexuals . .
A union between two persons doesn’t completely change, it enhances marriage, upon the demand of fair reason.
1. Union – the vows don’t change
2. Two – the unique symmetrical shared relation of one next to the other doesn’t change
3. Persons – defends and glamorizes marriage for all as a free bond of elective affinity, and reinforces the ethical bond between sex and responsibility (This is especially true for heterosexuals. Thanks to marriage as a union between two persons, heterosexuals have lost a major excuse for separating sex from existential and public responsibility for the life of a partner. Removing the gender exceptions to marriage as a union between two persons reinforces monogamy.)
. . then it is rank bigotry to deny a further change to give marriage equality polygamists, polyamorists, incest marriage advocates and more.
Considered and dismissed. This is a phony argument against belief and it is based on ignorance of law. Courts have explained why the prohibition against polygamy does not violate Equal Protection, as the prohibition of gay marriage does/did.
This is a peculiarly ridiculous argument for an Evangelical to make, for it actually undermines marriage by treating it as an arbitrary regime without a practical rationale, something Evangelicals claim they don’t do. Bad grapes. They’re not such great defenders of marriage, after all. And they divorce more than anybody.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth has a problem with scientific classification. It is probably not surprising that one moth firmly believes that no other types of moth actually exist.
Homosexualists are easily (scientifically) divided into the three categories mentioned. One can (of course) quibble about ratios and percentages between the three categories, but it is simply a dry, clinical, non-moral scientific classification scheme – like observing that there are three different and distinct types of tufted chickadees in North America.
One can, of course, then go further, and actually make moral statements regarding the character of the three categories of ‘homosexualists’, these moral statements are based solely on the scientific definitions, as given for each category, and hence not really subjective.
This is because ‘character’ is largely (not entirely) universal, i.e. one need not presuppose a ‘Christian’ construct in order to judge character based on a clinical description of a category – one can usually arrive at an assessment of ‘character’ using any well-established religious or moral or ethical system of thought.
So, for instance, take ‘cultural homosexuals’ (homosexualists who are heterosexual but who practice homosexuality because they are culturally controlled and have an innate itch to dabble in perversion): one can obviously and immediately judge their character to be, at best, weak. Which is sad, but given the fallen nature of humans, not surprising.
The third category has not ‘weak’ character, but essentially has ‘bad’ character – this observation again based solely on the scientific definition of the category itself.
These are people who seek to impose perversion on others, specifically here through the perversion of marriage throughout society.
They do this not out of their own itchings, not out of ignorance, not out of a lack of ability to resist the culture, but instead they do this in service to a far darker desire. This desire is to destroy every aspect of human dignity and beauty and the construct of truth itself.
Exactly what kind of Frankenstein they contemplate as rising out of the ashes of what they seek to destroy is a matter of conjecture; what is certain is that State/Culture/governing Elite replaces God and morality. Truth and beauty and dignity become whatever the State/Culture/governing Elite defines them to be, at the moment, and for its own purpose.
Not surprisingly, this third category is composed of the same people who most coldly and purposely support and enable and facilitate the massive killing of children by State sanction; children either unwanted, or to be used for medical research.
Scroop Moth asks (sarcastically) for an example of someone who fits into this ‘third’ category; sadly, based on his own posts and comment history and statements, I would have to place him exactly and precisely there.
Report comment to moderator
You don’t get it Scroop, marriage is far more than just some man and woman getting married. It is an entire reflection of Christ and his bride, the Church.
You will never gain that equality. SSM is not a reflection, and you’ll find that out soon enough, when they get what they want by law, and still feel inadequate.
You can demand that squares be circles, you can put it down as law, but you’ll never see square tires.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t fit Drill’s 3rd category and don’t know anyone who does. Drill hasn’t named an example of his 2nd category. He’s writing speculative fiction.
Marriage existed before Jesus founded his Church as well as in non-Christian societies before and since, so marriage is (at least) something besides what THORN claims it is for him.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: Marriage existed before Jesus founded his Church as well as in non-Christian societies before and since, so marriage is (at least) something besides what THORN claims it is for him.
Stop confusing Thorn with your pesky facts.
Report comment to moderator
Right. Thorn didn’t know marriage predates Christ’s advent.
Or, some people are ignorant of a basic Christian teaching.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. where to begin? The entirety of the PCUSA has not been ruined by the actions of some. Ordination of women? Doesn’t fit in an essay on gay marriage. Completely different issue, and very open to debate. And, while I’m firmly against gay marriage, I’m also against many other things prohibited by scripture (such as many of today’s divorces) that get little or no play in World or on its web site.
Report comment to moderator
DrDawg.625,
I agree the divorce issue isn’t discussed here often, particularly as a (possible) matter of sin. But there are occasional articles regarding family relationships. Likewise, there are scores of Christian books and organizations that offer advice and attempt to strengthen marriages. The point being that the problem *is* recognized. Lastly, gay marriage is simply a prominent news item right now.
Report comment to moderator
Also, within Christian teachings, marriage existed before the Fall as a celebration of companionship. The foundational principle of marriage therefore isn’t an image of redemption, but the personal, human reality that being alone is bad. Even in the edenic presence of God, being alone was bad. The flaw in paradise that God had to fix. Sex and companionship, period, full stop. Would there be homosexuals if Adam had not touched the forbidden fruit? Certainly, because homosexuality is not a factor in all are woe. Since homosexuals are created in the image of God, they can’t be alone either. Sex and companionship are the providential work of God’s own hand.
Even if man loves woman and vice versa because Christ loves Church (granting nonsense for the sake of argument) I can’t imagine why boy-boy and girl-girl as relationships of total loyalty, love, sacrifice, etc. couldn’t similarly “miror” Christ and Church.
Report comment to moderator
Well, for one thing, those aren’t marriages.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t imagine why boy-boy and girl-girl as relationships of total loyalty, love, sacrifice, etc. couldn’t similarly “miror” Christ and Church.
******Because God says they don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn is correct that marriage does reflect Christ with His church. Thorn didn’t say marriage was institututed at this time. God created marriage at the beginning. Marriage is a reflection of the Trinity as we are all created in the image of God.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP,
The flaw in paradise that God had to fix.
This was not a flaw that God had to fix. It was a pregnant pause for God’s special message to us about marriage and relationship between a man and a woman.
Sex and companionship, period, full stop
What’s this period, full stop business? The importance is man/woman companionship and marriage. Eve was the result of the pause, not Steve for Adam’s helpmate.
Would there be homosexuals if Adam had not touched the forbidden fruit? Certainly, because homosexuality is not a factor in all are woe.
But there were no homosexuals prior to the fall. The abomination came after the fall per scripture. What support do you have for this unbiblical conclusion of yours?
Since homosexuals are created in the image of God, they can’t be alone either. Sex and companionship are the providential work of God’s own hand.
You’re correct that all humans are created in the image of God, even monsters such as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Since the fall we are all born depraved. What you are ignoring are the ethics that God has also given, such as marriage between one man and one woman. Sex within marriage and not out of it. Don’t murder, don’t steal, honor father and mother, worship God your creator and don’t create for yourself any other god, etc.
Report comment to moderator
According to the story, marriage is a narrational afterthought to the creation of Adam, an empirical deduction from the state of nature. Marriage is a constitutional amendment to Adam’s estate, enacted after God observed him in creation. God made male and female of every species, but shortsightedly (narcissistically?) did not think — until afterwards — that Adam might be unhappy in asexual communion with God.
God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one — but they are not married. That would be incest. God is a spirit. Marriage is a union of spirit and flesh. There’s no marriage in heaven (which made it un-heavenly to Mark Twain).
Further, Jesus gave his body to the Church, not to God the Father. Again, that would be incest. God doesn’t absorb more than the smell of sacrifice. Jesus took it on the chin from God but he didn’t take it in . . . well, you know what I mean. Some boys give their bodies to other boys, ditto girls. Therefore, their unions can be an image (even if an arbitrarily forbidden image) of Jesus giving His body to the Church, to eat.
Sexists don’t own this imagery — the imagination owns it, and the imagination always says yes to gay marriage, from ancient to modern times, in great expressions of the human soul. Violins. Trumpets. Confetti. Champaign.
Report comment to moderator
“Marriage existed before Jesus founded his Church as well as in non-Christian societies before and since, so marriage is (at least) something besides what THORN claims it is for him.”
The pesky facts as Conan likes to put it, is that Adam was wedded to Eve.
The other pesky fact is that Jesus existed before Adam and Eve.
Report comment to moderator
“Also, within Christian teachings, marriage existed before the Fall as a celebration of companionship. The foundational principle of marriage therefore isn’t an image of redemption, but the personal, human reality that being alone is bad.”
Oh so I read a little farther and you attempt to preempt my reply. Well done.
Except your still wrong. Marriage existing before the fall ALL THE MORE entitles it to what it was MEANT to be. It’s not just female/male companionship and sex.
Your bias attempts to shrug it off as shallow, because THAT’S EVERY RELATIONSHIP YOU’VE EVER HAD.
Report comment to moderator
Champaign?
Report comment to moderator
“According to the story, marriage is a narrational afterthought to the creation of Adam, an empirical deduction from the state of nature.”
Can’t be. There would be no value of it to you. If it’s just an afterthought, then not even SSM should matter. It’s just a convention to make you culturally happy.
You can’t have both there Scroop. Either marriage is more than just sex and it reflects something higher. Or it’s just garbage we might as well not waste our time on, because there would be no difference.
You can’t add value to SSM in either case. Sorry. You is out of luck.
I’m quite impressed to see you attempting to tell us when God thinks what. I didn’t know you had the direct access line there or were around to give him the idea.
The bible challenges that anyway. It says God has foreordained this world. That’s foreknowledge, not afterthought.
Report comment to moderator
What support do you have for this unbiblical conclusion of yours?
The Bible is sexist, imperialistic, and homophobic, so it provides me no support. As a textual artifact, however, it deconstructs itself, no less than my posts and your posts deconstruct themselves.
I presented a thought experiment. The story is what it is, but what if Satan had not reached Paradise until after the multiplication of population? Could human genetics have produced boys and girls with same sex attractions?
Why not? Homosexuality isn’t a curse. Queers are a blessing. I can’t imagine being in the world without them. If homosexuality isn’t part of “all our Woe” then, logically, it’s not a consequence of the Fall.
Report comment to moderator
You could do what if’s for days Scroop…what if he built us where we lived inside the core of the Earth!! What if we were on Mars!!
It’s a pointless endeavor. What if he made us blue skinned with white hats and loved to sing songs that go LA La LALALALA
“Why not? Homosexuality isn’t a curse.”
Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Sin is the curse. Thus homosexuality is a curse.
You understand that when a=b and b=c then a must equal c too. It’s not difficult. Simple math.
Report comment to moderator
Could human genetics have produced boys and girls with same sex attractions?
******No, not in a world that was perfect and “good” as God created it, or He wouldn’t have said that it is a sin. *****
If homosexuality isn’t part of “all our Woe” then, logically, it’s not a consequence of the Fall.
******Except, God says it IS part of the Fall.******
Report comment to moderator
I’m quite impressed to see you attempting to tell us when God thinks what.
No middle flight for me, but things yet unattempted in the blogosphere: to justify the ways of God to right wing Evangelicals.
Either marriage is more than just sex and it reflects something higher.
That’s a false choice, or badly phrased. Look, I said both, because something “higher”, even the morning visit of God in the garden, was not enough. Adam had to have sex, bad.
Figuring out whether homosexuality is a depraved appetite is not a pointless endeavor. St. Paul himself speculates about the nature and cause of homosexual desire. You can’t offer an origin story and then stop it from being questioned or tested. If homosexuality is natural, then God is a cruel, arbitrary pervert to allow everyone but homosexuals a means for the satisfaction of sexual desire. The effort to protect the victims of sexism, homophobia, and imperialism from the Bible is not pointless.
THORN has succeeded in arguing that the prohibition against homosexuality is arbitrary. The Evangelical God is mean, nasty, and small.
Report comment to moderator
If homosexuality is natural,
******But, it isn’t. So, there goes your whole argument (which, as usual, is simply a bunch of speculation.)*****
Report comment to moderator
Wrong, TAMMY. Your correct answer is that God is good. What you said makes the goodness of God contingent upon the unnaturalness of homosexuality. You’re better off conceding the naturalness of homosexuality, which is after all an empirical question, not a theological one. Where’s the harm in that? So what if the Bible is homophobic, it’s still a Great Book, and God remains one of the best if not the best literary character of all time (especially in the first half).
Report comment to moderator
#122?
Really? How?
Your argument doesn’t make sense.
Report comment to moderator
When confronted with circumstances that challenge the goodness of God, the proper response is to re-assert the goodness of God, not deny the circumstances. Otherwise, Job would have cursed God and died, for his circumstances were undeniable and inexplicable.
If homosexuality is a natural desire — selected by genetics and nature rather than by depraved little boys and girls — then the prohibition does challenge the goodness of God. Denying the circumstance of biology would be both self-defeating and unkind. Smart theologians simply say, “Nevertheless, God is good.”
But, if you want to double down on your dependance upon empirical propositions as necessary pillars of faith, without which God collapses, you may want to look at the current Christianity Today. The cover story warns that you might have to stop counting Christ as the Second Adam, there having been no first, The magazine recommends a big pow-wow before things fall apart.
God is good presuppositionlly. Empirical assertions are true contingently. Therefore, better stick to assertions that are unverifiable.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy – I am . . questioning the assertion that polygamy will not be the next thing to be legalized.
SM – On what basis, other than your fear that the prohibition against polygamy is arbitrary and unreasonable?
Buzzy – First, I am not fearful. Second, on what basis should I not view the polygamy prohibition as arbitrary once the traditional definition is altered? You have proferred a two-versus-three rationale, but that seems arbitrary to me (see posts 14 and 19).
Report comment to moderator
Therefore, better stick to assertions that are unverifiable.
says the moral relativist. How anti-intellectual.
Report comment to moderator
#124
You still don’t make sense.
The Fall created all sorts of things that are “natural” now, but which are still sins or unpleasant or undesirable or all of the preceding.
This says nothing about the goodness of God, because we already know there was a Fall, and with it, sin, warped nature, and warped human beings were introduced to the world.
We also know that God has promised to put all such things right in the end.
Report comment to moderator
Did you see #99? Remember, you say judges are smart.
Sets of two members and sets for three or more members have properties (i.e. relations of symmetry and distribution) which the other does not share. Therefore, by definition, this distinction is not arbitrary. The sets differ in function, not just size. This is a very fundamental principle of algebra.
Seeing as how you deny that mathematical properties of symmetry have anything to do with the “estate” of marriage, I’m at a loss for words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Raffaello_-_Spozalizio_-_Web_Gallery_of_Art.jpg
It seems to me that anyone who has been a body in bed should understand the unique properties of being next to one beloved and the difference from being “next” to 3 or more. Of course, one can say one loves only one, the spouse one has one’s arms around, with a different spouse in turn, but that’s just a set of two members, though alternating Solomon-fashion at successive points in time.
Yes, judges are smart enough, theoretically, to unravel complicatred distributions of responsibility throughout large associations of individuals. But they don’t have to do it, if the trouble is unreasonable. You suggest that the severance of one member would dissolve the entire polygamous of marriage. In that case, the vows would have to be diffferent: “till death [one of] us do part.” The members are not symmetrical one to the other.
Anyway, polygamous marriages don’t take the form ( a + b + c + . . . n ). Rather, they look like multiple simultaneous monogamies ( a + b ), (a + c), (a + d), (a + n). Smart judges say that equal protection doesn’t necessitate polygamy.
I’m a good sport, and happy to be proved wrong but such an intelligent thinker as yourself. Please give me a good reason why eliminating gender restrictions makes the number restriction arbitrary, and why are smart judges wrong about that? Why does letting girls play tennis require us to let everyone in the bleachers down onto the court at once?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
You obviously need to stumble on some of the pornography sites (which I will NOT direct you to) to see that more than two is not only possible, but some people prefer it.
And, I doubt you could ever be at a loss for words. You seem to love to play with them and use them, even when they don’t make sense.
Report comment to moderator
Not to mention that the polyamorous and polygamous are ALREADY using the same arguments and ALREADY fighting for their rights to marry.
Report comment to moderator
“That’s a false choice, or badly phrased. Look, I said both, because something “higher”, even the morning visit of God in the garden, was not enough. Adam had to have sex, bad.”
You find it badly phrased because you left off the “or” that came after.
Kinda like how you twist Scripture. There was no indication that Adam needed sex, nor that sex satisfies lonliness, nor that he was even lonely.
God says it isn’t good for manto be alone, that he needs a helper.
Man didn’t need sex any more than man needed food. He wouldn’t have died, there’s no curse.
“You can’t offer an origin story and then stop it from being questioned or tested.”
Who’s ever stopped that Scroop? Perhaps if you’d quit twisting Scripture, you’d be able to come to a reasonable conclusion.
“If homosexuality is natural, then God is a cruel, arbitrary pervert to allow everyone but homosexuals a means for the satisfaction of sexual desire. The effort to protect the victims of sexism, homophobia, and imperialism from the Bible is not pointless.”
He doesn’t promise anyone sexual desire Scroop. Please show me where you found that false notion? Speaking of Paul he quite makes the argument that if you don’t need marriage, don’t get married.
God didn’t make you to be subject if your desires.
“THORN has succeeded in arguing that the prohibition against homosexuality is arbitrary. The Evangelical God is mean, nasty, and small.”
May be arbitrary to you, but it is not to God. God is not confined by your will there kiddo.
My point was that if marriage is just sex and companionship as you claim, then it’s a pointless endeavor. Arguing for homosexuality is just as fruitless.
Report comment to moderator
PS. In polygamy, the distribution within the set looks like this:
[ a - ( c + d + . . n) ] + b
etc., for each partner of a
so it is non-symmetrical.
Everyone’s responsibility is nobody’s responsibility. Without forsaking all others, society has to worry about the fates of b, c, d . . n.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP,
If homosexuality is a natural desire — selected by genetics and nature rather than by depraved little boys and girls…
Here’s one area your argument self destructs. There fails to appear any genetic aspect to homosexual desire, but there is plenty of evidence it is an environmental/social instilling that is correctible. There is no ‘gay’ gene.
According to the story, marriage is a narrational afterthought to the creation of Adam, an empirical deduction from the state of nature. Marriage is a constitutional amendment to Adam’s estate, enacted after God observed him in creation. God made male and female of every species, but shortsightedly (narcissistically?) did not think — until afterwards — that Adam might be unhappy in asexual communion with God.
Adam and Eve were created on day 6, in the image of God. It takes both natures of male and female to equal the image of God. Marriage was enacted that day, not as an oversight as God is perfect and his creation was very good (meaning nothing was missing by the end of day 6).
The issue you suffer is lacking the proper sense to understand and adhere to the context the author is portraying. You are obviously a postmodern child trying to recreate the world as you want it to be rather than as it truly is and interpreting writings in accordance with your desires.
It is commendable that you attempt to use the source of Truth, scripture, but you have to use it properly with the right hermenutics. Unfortunatley, you aren’t equipped to be able to understand it, yet.
1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB)
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
As much as you desire homosexuality to be normal, it is not. It is an abomination within God’s created order. It is a result of the fall and the resulting depravity we all have. Jesus Christ offers each of us opportunities to be redeemed.
The one prominent, faulty worldview that endorses homosexuality is Cultural Marxism via Critical Theory used to destroy the United States and transform it into a Marxist society….To achieve this, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is equally “normal.”
Wonder where you picked up the thought of imperialist, homophobic, sexist…you are a product of the Frankfurt Schools religious worldview.
Report comment to moderator
SM – You suggest that the severance of one member would dissolve the entire polygamous of marriage.
Perhaps I stated my point inartfully, but what I meant was that, if A, B, and C, are married, A’s divorcing B or C would be a divorce of both B and C, not that B and C would then be divorced from each other.
Also, to clarify what I meant by “arbitrary,” I meant immaterial to the marital estate. Again, I concede that “2 does not equal 3″ is a true statement, and that sets of 2 and sets of 3 have different mathematical properties.
Report comment to moderator
I would suggest that you avoid characterizing arguments as “ridiculous for an Evangelical to make.” That only fails to address the substance, and attacks the source (ad fontes fallacy).
Report comment to moderator
Finally, SM, you have not answered my question in #19. Instead, you ask, Why does letting girls play tennis require us to let everyone in the bleachers down onto the court at once?
Tennis is not a very good analogy to marriage, because it has nothing to do with the purpose for which marriage is established.
I’ll restate my question: Can a person be blamed for thinking that a more logical characteristic to be associated with the marital estate is that the form be one that is naturally capable of producing offspring?
Report comment to moderator
“If homosexuality is a natural desire — selected by genetics and nature rather than by depraved little boys and girls — then the prohibition does challenge the goodness of God.”
Your current genetics and nature were corrupted by sin. It obviously has a physical impact (death). There isn’t a distinguishment or excuse in calling one depraved whether it is by genetics or environment.
Your still a sinner. You still don’t have an excuse.
Oh, and a true God would never be subject to the arbitrary thoughts of his creation. Creation can never alter God’s attributes, simply because they don’t agree.
This is why Job doesn’t waiver, because Job, unlike his buddies and wife…was right.
Whether God gives or takes, he is still God and we are not.
God’s attributes are not defined by man or sin. They hold no sway.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, the pornography I’ve seen bares this out . . . two bodies in bed are not “next to” each other in the same symmetrical way as three or (especially) more bodies are “next to” each other.
Think of three logs: one on the left, another in the middle, and the third on the right. The logs on the left and right are not “next to” each other the way two logs are. If you stacked the three one atop the other, you still have one in the middle. Triangles achieve symmetry but the sides are rays that are only “next to” each other at one point, past which they go further apart, unlike parallel logs that are next to each other along their extension.
Report comment to moderator
SM – Please give me a good reason why eliminating gender restrictions makes the number restriction arbitrary, and why are smart judges wrong about that?
Preliinarily, any appeal to “smart judges” is a dead end, since smart judges disagree. The substance is what matters, not what a smart judge has said.
The question you pose is, “Why does eliminating gender restrictions make the number restriction arbitrary?” It’s a good question, and my answer is: the gender restriction is at least as material to the basis for the establishment of the marital estate as is the number restriction (ref. posts 19 and 36). It logically follows that an assertion that the gender restriction is arbitrary, requires a conclusion that so is the number restriction.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, please delete “symmetrical” in first paragraph of #138
Report comment to moderator
The presence of evil and perversion, and the various justifications made by the acolytes of the culture for evil and perversion, in no discernible way challenge the goodness of God.
They do, however, tend to highlight and demonstrate the absolute nature of, and clear distinctions between, good and evil.
The problem that Scroop Moth has (as all acolytes of the culture have) is that his Master is never really satisfied with his efforts, no retirement is allowed from the fray, no rest given to the weary, so to speak.
There will always be some further vista of perversion to justify, some new attack on dignity and beauty and truth to bowdlerize, some deeper degradation of the human spirit to defend.
Well, at least until the end, when the trap door springs open and the curtain descends and the thing at the bottom of the pit turns to receive its own, in a sort of toothy, digestive and never-ending embrace.
One can only suppose that it is the price one pays for serving the Eater of Souls, rather than the Healer of Souls.
Not irreversible, given the infinite reach of the Grace of God, but certainly (nevertheless) a difficult case.
In any event, child murder and the perversion of human sexuality are, lamentably, merely the opening acts planned by that impostor play writer Old Scratch, who is always looking to push the envelope just as far as he can.
Fortunately, the real Author of the play is raising the latch of the door, even now, one suspects.
Report comment to moderator
*136 (not 36).
Report comment to moderator
This thread is about the Christian counterculture right? Any thoughts on that?
Thorn #97 – Sure, I don’t disagree with the concepts of common grace, like conscience or the Holy Spirit’s restraint of sin. I just hesitate to give it the label of grace, since there are many reasons why God upholds his creation apart from kindness toward men. What does making sure some planet remains in orbit trillions of light years away have to do with us?
I bristle when theologians slap a label on some concepts and then start building a whole doctrine around them. That does not mean that each of the concepts on their own aren’t correct or biblical. The imposing edifice of the doctrine of ‘common grace’ is entirely man-made, though built on biblical truths, but is anthropocentric.
Report comment to moderator
You were the blogger who argued the reliability of judges, BUZZY.
Thanks for answering my question. I did answer yours at length, you just don’t like my answer.
Re-read your #139. I think you will concede that your syllogism is based on this false unstated premise:
The existence of qualities that are materially significant to our description of a thing are inter-dependent.
Horns and hooves are both materially significant to our description of quadrupeds, but that does not mean that all deer must have horns.
You have rejected my accounts for why the mathematical properties of sets justify the privileging of one set over another. I cant think of a reason for that other than sour grapes. Though concerned with quality, you seem to be dismissive of the quality of the vows simply because of the gender of the persons making the vows, which are pretty gender-neutral. And you haven’t responded to the helpful notion that “persons” is an improvement rather than a corruption.
Rhetorically, I could argue that you Evangelicals are the ones who are changing “the” definition of marriage by inserting the word “only” before “a man and a woman.” Has that word existed in any historical record before Evangelicals went on putsch? By saying “persons” instead of “a man and a woman,” society doesn’t extinguish or alter any marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage remains a union between a man and a woman both for all who choose it and for those who also honor unions between two persons. We are H. sapiens. Anthropologists don’t change the definition of human when they say a person is a Homo.
Report comment to moderator
Following up on blog post #2 by Joel Mark 07.06.11 AT 12:46 PM
Mark wrote of pastors… “They call for an acceptance of Jesus Christ as a personal savior…”
Would that it were true. Words like “sin,” “lost” and “saved” are fast disappearing from the evangelical lexicon. More often than not the ‘invitation’ today is a euphemistic urging for “a relationship with Jesus Christ.” That’s far from realizing that one has offended a holy God, is lost in trespasses and sin, and must cry out in confession for salvation through the Christ of Calvary.
Report comment to moderator
“This thread is about the Christian counterculture right? Any thoughts on that?”
Ah thank you Zion,at last some relief may be in view from endless rehashing of entrenched opinions. I think–and I am in good company–restraining grace is gone, God has given them over to their depravity, America has been abandoned in His wrath. (I didn’t say that–argue with John MacArthur’s sermon of this morning.) I could say more, but I am putting summer into mason jars–Blenheim Apricot Jam!
Now what shall the church do?
The most countercultural thing it can do. Repent. Wilson’s ‘wicked fathering’ would be just a good start. And perhaps the Lord will have mercy. But the good run we had is gone, guys.
Report comment to moderator
SM – My point about judges was that they can handle complex litigation. Yours was that, if a smart judge says marriage should be redefined, then it must be true cuz the judge is smart. Those two things aren’t even in the same ball park.
As for marriage itself, my point was that the opposite-gender restriction is material to its very definition. Once you dispense with that, it is arbitrary to insist on other restrictions.
I’m very sorry but I don’t understand the rest of your post #144.
Report comment to moderator
Gender is just one of three qualities that are material to your definition of marriage, BUZZY. Each is indispensable to your idea, as I understand it. For you, now at least, gender is first and foremost. Second, the nature of the vows must be fundamental. Marriage isn’t just an agreement by persons of the opposite sex to spend the weekend together. Third, Marriage is a union of a particular number of persons.
You assert that one property of marriage — the number of partners — depends somehow upon the property of gender. Why? You only suggest that gender is such a big deal to you that changing gender would somehow challenge everything. But that doesn’t explain how.
Your challenge could only be true if other material properties of marriage had no significance apart from gender.
Consider the vows. Marriage vows can be genderless. Man and woman may repeat the same words. Since persons of either sex are bound by the vow , certainly persons of the same sex can enter into a commitment that is structured by that vow of marriage, whether or not society recognizes it. Love, honor, cherishing, loyalty, faithfulness, and responsibility are dynamics that organize your life with your partner, regardless of whether you are male or female. After all, sex is not an eternal aspect of Christian identity as a child of God who will spend a sexless eternity.
We’ve sparred over gender and you still won’t say it explicitly, but you refer to polygamy as a calamity. You just for the purpose of argument don’t want to admit that marriage between two has a natural, non-arbitrary advantage over polygamy. So, I think, number is “material” to your definition of marriage. But guess what, the bible allowed polygamy.
I think I’ve shown that gender is independent of two other, crucial properties of your definition of marriage, not interdependent with them as you claim.
Did you understand my point that enlarging a category doesn’t change the members of that category? “Marriage is a sacramental union of a Christian man and woman” enlarges to “Marriage is a union between a man and a women” which enlarges to “Marriage is a union between two persons.” Enlarging the class to include queers doesn’t eliminate the members of the subclass, Christian men and women.
Report comment to moderator
PS – my point about judges was that they spelled out a rationale why the prohibition against polygamy is still reasonable. The question was whether the prohibition is arbitrary.
Report comment to moderator
Also, judges have never ruled that same sex marriage is the right thing to do, just that prohibiting ssm violates Equal Protection of laws and lacks a Constitutional basis. That’s an important thing to know about the Constitution. You might want to amend it.
Report comment to moderator
XION,
This thread is about the Christian counterculture right? Any thoughts on that?
Sure. Biblical illiteracy appears to be a major problem the American church suffers. A large percentage of pastors lack a Biblical worldview and mislead their flock. If they lack a Christian worldview then they have been heavily syncretized with another worldview and teach that as well. The most prevalent worldview in America is now Cultural Marxism, a special form of humansim.
Innes says: If we do not understand this, then when our world calls us to conform to its Christianity-aping principles, we will blink and follow, submitting to what we think is our Christian conscience. Theologically, philosophically, and culturally, we need to be battle-ready.
It would appear that most who attend church take it as a spectator event Vs a commitment to serve the church family. Conformance to Eph 4:11-16 is weak; the church is weak and most appear to be unwilling to transform their mind to the will of God but are comfortable conforming to the world.
I agree with John McArthur’s many sermons about God abandoning America; we are at that point in the cycle of nations where we are headed for destruction. I assess that only a miracle from God will get us onto the right path.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk:
So you know the mind of God, eh?
I do agree that “God will get us to the right path.” In fact, I’d suggest that God has already gotten us to the right path by providing His Son to redeem us from sin and death. Is that not enough for you? What were you looking for in addition to that?
Also, can you please stop peddling your “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theory stuff here. Are we really supposed to believe that the progressive movement in America resulted from some cabal that was cleverly orchestrated by Jews associated with the Frankfurt School? Hey, I hear that the John Birch Society is looking for new members.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, logically if marriage is a union of one man and one woman, you have a pair–one of each. Get rid of the “one of each” concept and the number two becomes irrelevant.
Karen, I don’t think God has any particular covenant with America, or any sort of restraint He used to show on this nation in particular that He is no longer showing. I think that as a nation we have largely thrown off restraint, even taken leave of basic sanity, and we’re reaping the consequences, and will probably reap them more and more seriously in the days ahead. Those who didn’t partake are in it with those who did.
Report comment to moderator
#152 Evan – I liked your second to last paragraph Evan. What God has done for America happened 2000 years ago on a hill in Jerusalem. Well said!
But your last paragraph looks like an explosion in the microwave and makes no sense. Jews? Marxism? John Birch? Wah?
Report comment to moderator
#151 RWHawk – America is certainly given over to humanism, but I’m not familiar with cultural Marxism. I’m guessing it is a materialistic culture steeped in class warfare which seeks to control the means of production and redistribute the wealth to the working class. There is some of that, but that is not the root issue.
I believe that progressives in America are following not Marxism, but the Third Way, between Marxism and capitalism, popularized by the Clinton’s and their mentor Saul Alinsky. Technically it is fascism which is a collusion between government and business via empowerment of unions (i.e. fascia in Italian) along with regulations and political favors to control the outcome.
But I don’t see any of this as having any bearing on the church. Christianity transcends culture and political systems. The church can operate fine despite the culture or politics. When Hudson Taylor or John Birch were missionaries in China they dressed like the Chinese and tried to adapt to their culture. Good missionaries in Africa or Ireland would adapt to the music of those cultures.
Is it the culture in America that Christians should oppose or the false world view? Our media spins a vast mythology which is carefully edited yet is completely false. Christians should stand for what is true.
Christians should promote a world view based on truth. We should proclaim the wisdom which is from above and oppose anything that is untrue. The world operates on lies, such as racism and materialism, and destructive behavior and false cosmology. The world is in bondage to a fear of death and engages in endless distractions in entertainment to help them forget the reality of eternity which awaits them.
Christians are not in the dark about reality. The world is in the dark and Christians need their lights to shine. By this I mean teaching about actual reality in a the midst of a crooked and perverse nation.
Report comment to moderator
I think we may be using the wrong terms here. It isn’t American culture that Christians should oppose, but a false, depraved, materialistic world view.
Report comment to moderator
XION,
Cultural Marxism is a progressive form of marxism Vs the failed revolutionary form. Another more common term for cultural marxism is political correctness; multicultural diversity, tolerance, pluralism, social justice, whacko environmentalism, homosexual normality movement, feminist movement, destruction of family via no fault divorce, abortion and euthanasia, deconstruction, etc. Goals are to destroy the patriach family structure, free enterprise and church. This is the adopted religion of our govt schools and much of MSM.
Another form of Marxism is found in liberation theology and black liberation theology.
Many, myself included, believe the Third Way is an intermediary step to full Marxism. That is the agenda within political correctness.
What this has to do with the church is that many congregations have syncretized to this marxism. The NCC, WCC, Jim Wallis types, etc have syncretized. Mainline denominations are falling prey to social justice, normalizing homosexuality, disbelieving scripture, etc.
True, God provided Christ as our path to redemption at a personal level. That is not what Innes is addressing. I read Innes as stating that the church (much of the American church) has lost its salt and is conforming to the world rather than the other way around. The church is failing with its Cultural Mandate. Somewhere around 75 – 80% of Americans consider themselves Christian but our culture now reflects something other than Christian; a materialistic worldview that many congregations have adopted. This revolves around sphere sovereignty and I believe scripture calls us and Christ’s church to be the salt and light for preserving God’s design of the social order and/or serving to help restore that order.
We both agree that developing a strong Christian worldview is necessary and the need for Christians to promote truth and expose the world’s lies.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN,
So you know the mind of God, eh?
John 17:3 (HCSB)
This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent—Jesus Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for this article…
Report comment to moderator
XION,
After reading one of your earlier posts I think I need to expand upon the Cultural Mandate and God’s design of social order.
The church allowed a secular/sacred split well over 100 years ago. Many Christians believe that their faith is a private matter and doesn’t belong in the secular world. Francis
Shaeffer talks to this. This is a phony split as God owns everything and He addresses His will for everything; family, church, state, individual, industry, community, etc.
Since we are His ambassadors and the salt and light to the world we do have a responsibility to not only disciple those in the church with a Christian worldview of His total inclusiveness of life and culture but as witnesses to a lost world. Will this create a heaven on earth? By no means. But the Christian influence in the world is necessary and a commandment. Are we to be winsome? By all means. Can we force govt? No, just try to influence hearts and minds of individuals with God’s Truth, including sphere sovereignty. But we should not keep our faith in the private sphere and not make a presence in the public sphere with our worldview just as the Marxists with their religion are doing. We just have to do it with truth and expose the lies of Marxism.
Report comment to moderator
#157 RWHawk, I agree that many of these things are happening in our culture, I am just not sure what some of these things like feminism or homosexuality have to do with Karl Marx.
Mainline denominations are certainly relinquishing the actual gospel for a social gospel. Social gospel folks do compromise with the world political systems. But I am wondering what the church’s cultural mandate is. Can you please explain? Scripture references would help.
#160 For some reason Joel and now you think that I am saying Christians should crawl into a hole and let the world crumble. I am not saying anything of the kind. We are to be salt and light in terms of proclaiming the truth of the gospel. But it is not the mission of the church to whitewash sepulchers by making pagans shape up a little bit. The gospel is about Christ. The gospel is not about making the world slightly better before it descends into hell.
Report comment to moderator
XION,
After the Maxist revolution in Russia failed to carry over to the other European nations as planned, the marxists reformed their plans via the Frankfurt School and came up with the agenda of cultural Marxism per Antonio Gramsci’s thoughts…a slow destruction of the Western culture to create the “new communist man” who will easily and willingly adopt Marxism. The goals were to destroy or nullify the traditional patriarchial family, the church and capitalism. Here is a site to reference on what it is and how it came to America: http://www.thedailybell.com/1240/Nelson-Hultberg-Cultural-Marxism-The-Corruption-of-America.html
Cultural Mandate: These quickly come to mind. Gen 1:26-28, Rom 13:1-7, Eph 5:22-28, Luke 10:29-39. First, we need to recognize that God has designed a social order with sphere sovereignty. Family, church, state, community, labor, etc. Each has given roles and responsibilities that are found throughout scripture. We are God’s ambassadors for truth and salt and light to the world, so we need to represent His design of this social order along with His truths. In being His ambassadors and stewards in subduing the world this includes attempting to restore social structures with all the sovereign spheres.
I found this helpful: Google “A Cultural Mandate by Iain D. Campbell 2002″
But it is not the mission of the church to whitewash sepulchers by making pagans shape up a little bit.
In Christ’s day, you are correct wrt to dealing with the Roman govt. In the USA we have elected reps we can call and write to requesting they vote a certain way or we have the ballot box and we can help with campaigns, etc. We can go before school boards for testimony, etc. I’ve done that and helped sway decisions. We have family to protect and children to teach truth to. We are in a labor or community environment where we can perform more like Christ by rethinking our roles.
The gospel is about Christ. The gospel is not about making the world slightly better before it descends into hell.
I don’t agree and I believe you don’t either when thinking this through. What did you think of Heritage Foundation’s Seeking Social Justice? As I recall, you did say you ordered it a couple months ago. What was the parable in Luke 10:29-39 about? This is our role within the social spheres of community per God’s design. What about Mat 25:33-46? Wasn’t Christ also about making the world a little better along with offering eternal life?
BTW. I remember a comment you made about disdaining politics and I can understand that with the common usage of politics today. But what if you looked at politics from God’s perspective?
POL’ITICS, n. The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. Politics, as a science or an art, is a subject of vast extent and importance. (Noah Webster, 1828 dictionary)
Report comment to moderator
#162 RWHawk “What did you think of Heritage Foundation’s Seeking Social Justice? As I recall, you did say you ordered it a couple months ago.”
Ah, so you were the one. I forgot who told me to watch it. Yes, I ordered it and my wife and I have been planning to watch it, but we haven’t gotten to it yet. I’ll make a point to do that soon.
What was the parable in Luke 10:29-39 about? This is our role within the social spheres of community per God’s design.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan has nothing to do with social spheres of community. It is about one individual helping another. Christians are God’s workmanship created unto good works. (Eph 2:8-10) Christians, out of thankfulness for God’s goodness and by the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, will bring forth good fruit.
God is concerned with the heart of individuals. But it is an entirely different thing to stretch this to say that God wants to create heaven on earth by causing the sinful world to be slightly less sinful through their own self-righteousness works. Without Christ all those works are putrid rags.
What about Mat 25:33-46? Wasn’t Christ also about making the world a little better along with offering eternal life?
Not in the least. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, which is why his servants refused to engage the Roman government. Good works by Christians would be useless without Christ. Caring for others is about Christ’s work in your heart, not about the world which is doomed.
I am all for Christians being active in politics and engaging politicians and trying to change things. But that is not their true mission. It is not the mission of the church. This life is a puff of smoke. Only eternal things will last. Everything else shall pass away.
People who won’t be accountable to God will live lives that don’t count. People who believe that life is without purpose, will live lives that have no purpose. Vanity of vanities is all there is under the sun. It is what lies above the sun, i.e. the spiritual dimension, that gives life meaning. The mission of the church has to do with these things.
Christians do good things out of the abundance of their hearts which are transformed by the goodness of God. This has nothing to do with taxes or the building of roads or government social programs which ban the mention of God’s name.
Report comment to moderator
XION,
I am not saying that this is creating a utopia on earth nor that the works of Christians are of themselves. However, it is demonstrating God’s kingdom here on earth. By establishing a loving relationship with our neighbors this Christ working through a Christian working from his sovereign sphere of ‘individual’ into the sovereign sphere of ‘community.’ This is reaching peoples hearts within God’s social order with truth and love as a witness for Christ.
Discipling members in a church to the Christian worldview (the total truth involving every aspect of life) is also part of God’s design for His social order. Teaching them that the state is God’s instrument for carrying out justice by discerning good from evil. This truth will lead to selection of more discerning politicos as more people will learn the truth from the world’s lies. This requires a Christian presence within that sphere as only God has given us what is good and what is evil.
The body of Christ is composed of many parts that perform different tasks in accordance with God’s will. As Eph 4:11 states, some will be gifted for evangelism, some pastors, some teachers, etc and preparing believers for ministry to the world and its various social spheres.
All believers should have this one thing in common, unity with the indwelling Holy Spirit. All believers will be diverse in their giftings for ministry within the world.
God has given us His creation to steward. God owns it all, including cultures and nation and states with all the social spheres. As ambassadors will God not plant some for ministry in every sphere of His creation? Some of Ceasars servants and military were believers spreading the influence of Christ. It took a few hundred years for Rome to turn towards accepting Christians. It took a number of hundreds of years later for Christians to develop the whole of Western Civilization; all built upon God’s truths in every sphere.
As I recall, you had a fondness for Heritage Foundation. That is a ministry for good working within the political system. Alan Sears of the ADF is called to work his ministry in the field of law which impacts state operations. Capital Ministris http://www.capmin.org/ is discipling members and their staff with God’s word. This is just within the sovereign sphere of ’state.’ Some Christians are called for ministry within this sphere. Ministering to individuals who work within the sovereign sphere of state.
As you will see in Seeking Social Justice, other Christians are called to work within the other sovereign spheres of God’s social order. All for spreading Christ’s love and God’s truths for saving lives and improving the operation of the world as a result. The various sovereign spheres that the 6 episodes of Seek Social Justice touch are: individual, family, church, community and state by reaching out and touching individuals with Christ’s love.
Here is a question to ponder: With Christians sharing Christ’s love within the various soverign spheres (family, church, state, labor, community, etc) would you not expect to see an improvement (good fruit) within the culture along with the saving of more souls as more people are brought to the truth? I agree, Christians on their own can’t do this, only with the Holy Spirit is it possible.
Wayne Grudem, Chapter 44 in his Systematic Theology has an excellent discussion on the role of the church. Basically, it is worship, nurture within the church and outreach to the world, including evangelism and servanthood/ministry.
I sense we are discussing the same truths, but not totally on track with definitions, particularly with sovereign sphere, each with it’s God given role and responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
XION & RWHAWK, thanks for your impromptu colloquy. Provocative thoughts on both sides, which might not be all that far apart. Anyhow, you got my attention. I believe God must be in charge of serendipity
Report comment to moderator
XION,
I have an idea so we have something concrete to discuss.
Spend 17 minutes reviewing lesson 3 of SEEK Social Justice.
This is a model of the ‘church’ sphere doing its outreach ministry to the sphere of ‘community’ and in one instance telling the ’state’ sphere this is the job of the church, not the state per God’s design.
Like you, I am an engineer and I am also a retired military officer. The biblical concept of sphere sovereignty fits my mode of thinking perfectly as it breaks down the social structure into individual components that are more easily recognizable for identification and problem solving and the roles and responsibilities as spelled out by scripture make this very crystal clear.
If this suits you, then we can review lesson 2 which is a little more complicated wrt sphere sovereignty.
LOUISE,
Thanks for your observation and comments.
Report comment to moderator
RWHAWK, as a retired 20th-century draftsman, I’m still a wannabe engineer and interested in a 3-D real world application of how we should live out and within those spheres of sovereignty as they should apply to Social Justice, for one thing, and Christian citizenship in this 21st century as well.
Report comment to moderator
LOUISE,
It is unfortunate that SEEK Social Justice is titled as it is as it has nothing to do about the common usage of Social Justice. A better title would be “Living Biblical Justice” and demonstrates how Christians performing from the spheres of ‘individual’ ‘family’ and ‘church’ live Christian lives of loving their neighbors with service and witnessing. These acts of love are carried out within the spheres of individuals, with families, in community settings and in conjunction with the state and helps restore dignity and purpose to lost souls.
Here is a link to get a free DVD program from Heritage Foundation. You can also view the lessons on this site. http://www.seeksocialjustice.com/index.php/breaking-ground-what-you-can-do-to-seek-social-justice/
The SEEK Social Justice program does not teach sphere sovereignty. The presence and roles of sphere sovereignty are so clear, however.
The best way to learn about sphere sovereignty is to attend The Truth Project. This has launched studies for me of the various spheres to better understand the workings of God’s social design and understand the pathologies of today. From this you may find what path of Christian citizenship you are to follow given the particular gifts you were endowed with.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you RW.
Report comment to moderator
#166 RWHawk. Good thoughts. I will watch that chapter as soon as I can. I’ll be traveling this week and then on vacation, but I will definitely watch it.
I think we are mostly in agreement. I guess it comes down to the meaning of social justice. I am saying that the church should influence the world by imparting spiritual truth. I believe you are saying that too, but going much further into the realm of trying to make the world a better place.
You say, “It took a few hundred years for Rome to turn towards accepting Christians. It took a number of hundreds of years later for Christians to develop the whole of Western Civilization; all built upon God’s truths in every sphere.”
I don’t view the merging together of the church and state in Rome as a good thing. It led the world into the Dark Ages and eventually to the Middle Ages with crusades and inquisitions. Western Civilization did benefit from a Christian world view, but that was merely a side affect. I disagree that this had anything to do with the purpose of the church. In many ways, the mixing of church and state has had disastrous results.
If a man is hungry and you give him something to eat, that is a good thing, but tomorrow he will be hungry again. The purpose of the church is to not become a restaurant, but to provide spiritual food for the soul so that he will never hunger again into eternity.
Report comment to moderator
While I am not an engineer I do have a mechanical mind and have a compulsion to know how things work. I too tend to want to see things in their proper and accurate roles. I have studied with the Truth Project. In fact I grew up with Del Tackett in Eastern Idaho, though lost track of his family until he joined FoTF.
I agree with the recognition that there are various spheres in our lives. But I don’t believe that they should be as compartmentalized as some tend to make them. One of the challenges we western thinkers have with accurately understanding the Bible is that much of it is written from an eastern (more poetical) perspective. Thus, we naturally think of mechanical relationships of the spheres… the cause and effect relationships between our Christian behaviors and the changes in the culture around us. Jesus said: “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” Americans tend to see it as understanding informational truths sets people free. If we can just get people to understand the truths Jesus and the Bible teach it will set them free. That certainly is included in what Jesus was saying, but I believe that He was thinking of relationally knowing the person of Jesus as our Savior-God that would set us free.
I hear XION saying that the primary role of the Church is know christ, serve Him by living with Him before a watching community and God will produce the results that He wills. Knowing and serving God is the first and last goal with a variety of activities in between.
I hear RWHAWK saying that Christians ought to be serving Christ by focusing on understanding and influencing the culture around us.
As I understand the NT, the primary role of the church is to make disciples (followers) of Jesus. That certainly involves being imitators of Jesus, but even more I think that it involves being people who spend our lives with Jesus that our lives attract others to Him too. Our job is not to reproduce conservative Americans but Jesus followers. If in the process of being followers of Jesus God uses us to help build a beattitude culture then we thank Him. If we in following Him only reveal the contrast of evil around us, we thank Him. It all is a tapestry that our compartmentalizing cannot comprehend, but it is okay to try.
Report comment to moderator
XION,
I am not saying the church and state are to be joined at the hip. I am saying as the Christian influence grew among the population during the Roman Empire time that eventually the Empire accepted Christianity rather than being a persecutor of Christianity. The church and state have their separate and identifiable roles per God’s design and are to remain separate, sovereign, self-governing spheres.
Once you go through lesson 3 you will see it does not make the church a restaurant type operation but a long term soul changing operation (per Mat 25: 31-46 and Luke 10:39-49) while doing good works.
I believe James puts it into proper perspective: James 2:14-19 (HCSB) What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you don’t give them what the body needs, what good is it? In the same way faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith from my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe—and they shudder.
In addition, in the book of Acts the church body does more than just save souls, it is doing good works helping those in need by sharing and giving and encouraging one another. The church has been given a number of different roles and responsibilities. The great commission, still remains great and that is to witness and disciple which are necessary for the influence of Christ to spread through the world.
Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason and Thomas Woods’ How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization puts a truthful light on the so called Dark Ages, a pejorative created by atheists and anti-Catholics for historic revisionism. Recent scholarship of the Middle Ages shows the tremendous benefit Christianity directly had on the creation of Western Civilization and this was not an age of superstition, ignorance and misery.
Enjoy your journeys.
Report comment to moderator
NEIL EVANS,
Thank you for joining in and sharing.
But I don’t believe that they should be as compartmentalized as some tend to make them.
What about as compartmnetalized as God has created them per His word? The extent of compartmentalizing should rest on what is prescribed in scripture and we should be on watch for one sphere crossing over into another sphere’s proper role and responsibility.
Jesus was saying, but I believe that He was thinking of relationally knowing the person of Jesus as our Savior-God that would set us free.
How very true since Jesus is Truth and I doubt if any of this deny this central truth.
Knowing and serving God is the first and last goal with a variety of activities in between.
The primary purpose for humans is to glorify God in everything we do. To love God is to know Him and to do His will as He has commanded.
What does it mean ‘doing His will’? I think this is the crux of our discussion. What are good works?
Ephesians 2:10 (HCSB)
For we are His creation—created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.
What are the various ‘work of ministry’ that we are all to achieve?
Ephesians 4:11-13 (HCSB)
And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the training of the saints in the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ,
until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, [growing] into a mature man with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness.
Christ gave us the example of being a servant leader. Besides saving souls what was He doing? What was he showing His followers to do? What role do we as individual believers and the church as a body have with a lost world in need? Just give that all over to the state? What does it truly mean to love our neighbor?
In Mat 25:31-46 why did Christ reward the sheep and condemn the goats to hell? Was it not for doing His will of helping and caring for those in need? Living out what Christ exemplified while on earth?
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!