Interesting discussion: Separate the Christian wedding ceremony from the civil rite?
1. “Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism.” So, being a non-Jew is the equivalent of being homosexual, Dershowitz? Hmmm … what REALLY is in that Talmud of yours? But that was an aside.
2. Jesus Christ told us to be in the world but not of it. Being of the world would mean performing homosexual marriages and/or consenting to the practice. That we cannot do. But we are, in fact, in the world. We are not monastics. We are not Amish. We are called to be in the world and be fully engaged with its problems. We are to separate ecclesiastically from unbelievers, heretics and apostates, and also to not partake of the world’s sins. But apart from that, meat offered to idols is just meat. The fact that the same civil magistrate who signs your marriage certificate does the same for some homosexual couple does not alter the standing of the Christian couple before God. And if it is not about our standing before God, our own personal and corporate faithfulness to the commandments of Jesus Christ, then what is it all about?
Second, our going this route is exactly what the homosexual advocates want. It is a complete, total unconditional surrender that gives the other side everything that it wants and leaves the other side defeated and marginalized. Basically, it takes the position that the government and society can and does recognize the marriage of a homosexual as a government matter, but the union between two Bible-believers is “a private, religious matter with no meaning apart from the church.” Now I am not a religious right/culture war type, but I am convinced that making that sort of concession where the government and society recognizes all marriages except those between Bible-believers is nonsensical. Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen when he was beaten and imprisoned uncondemned, and when he appealed to Caesar. We should not throw away our constitutional rights as American citizens either. The first amendment clearly implies that the government should recognize the marriages of Bible-believing Christians. Or at least if it is going to recognize the marriages of homosexual wiccans and heterosexual atheists, it has to do the same for all faiths. I don’t see what surrendering our constitutional rights accomplishes, especially since what homosexuals do really doesn’t affect the church. Lest we forget, homosexuality was widely practiced in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ and the early church. The world is going to sin because it is the world, and if it isn’t homosexuality it will be something else. The issue is keeping homosexuality and other sins out of the church. That is what the epistles were about.
Finally, there is a bit of disingenuousness. I am going to go ahead and employ my liberal-PC talk now. Why NOW do we decide that we don’t want the government endorsing marriage because of our government’s immorality? Where was this when our government was killing Indians and taking their land? Or during slavery? Or during Jim Crow? Or after Roe v. Wade? Our government is immoral now, sure, but it was immoral then too, and no Christian argument for separating from our government can be made in 2010 that couldn’t have been made in 1810. The only difference is that where in 1810 the world supported killing Indians and manstealing (1 Timothy 1:10 was definitely practiced in the slave trade), now the world supports homosexuality.
Our government has always been fallen just like its leaders and most of its citizens, and in that respect it is like every other earthly nation that has been and will be, and that includes Old Testament Israel. People who feel otherwise have just been deceived. Or maybe they are simply upset and outraged at the idea that homosexuals are going to be equal to them under the law. As horrible as homosexual marriage will indeed be for our nation and its culture, I still don’t believe that it is a Christian way of looking at the issue. I could be wrong, as I have been on a lot of my comments at Sharper Iron. But my position is that just because a homosexual couple is equal to a Christian heterosexual couple in the eyes of the state doesn’t mean that they are equal in the eyes of God, and it is God’s position that we should be concerned with, not our own. God knows that the world is sinful. That is why He sent His Son. But thanks to His Son, though the world is sinful the church is justified.
As with other matters, Christians should assert their constitutional and other legal rights with regards to our marriages, and leave the world to the wicked devices that Jesus Christ will judge when He returns.
2. Jesus Christ told us to be in the world but not of it. Being of the world would mean performing homosexual marriages and/or consenting to the practice. That we cannot do. But we are, in fact, in the world. We are not monastics. We are not Amish. We are called to be in the world and be fully engaged with its problems. We are to separate ecclesiastically from unbelievers, heretics and apostates, and also to not partake of the world’s sins. But apart from that, meat offered to idols is just meat. The fact that the same civil magistrate who signs your marriage certificate does the same for some homosexual couple does not alter the standing of the Christian couple before God. And if it is not about our standing before God, our own personal and corporate faithfulness to the commandments of Jesus Christ, then what is it all about?
Second, our going this route is exactly what the homosexual advocates want. It is a complete, total unconditional surrender that gives the other side everything that it wants and leaves the other side defeated and marginalized. Basically, it takes the position that the government and society can and does recognize the marriage of a homosexual as a government matter, but the union between two Bible-believers is “a private, religious matter with no meaning apart from the church.” Now I am not a religious right/culture war type, but I am convinced that making that sort of concession where the government and society recognizes all marriages except those between Bible-believers is nonsensical. Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen when he was beaten and imprisoned uncondemned, and when he appealed to Caesar. We should not throw away our constitutional rights as American citizens either. The first amendment clearly implies that the government should recognize the marriages of Bible-believing Christians. Or at least if it is going to recognize the marriages of homosexual wiccans and heterosexual atheists, it has to do the same for all faiths. I don’t see what surrendering our constitutional rights accomplishes, especially since what homosexuals do really doesn’t affect the church. Lest we forget, homosexuality was widely practiced in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ and the early church. The world is going to sin because it is the world, and if it isn’t homosexuality it will be something else. The issue is keeping homosexuality and other sins out of the church. That is what the epistles were about.
Finally, there is a bit of disingenuousness. I am going to go ahead and employ my liberal-PC talk now. Why NOW do we decide that we don’t want the government endorsing marriage because of our government’s immorality? Where was this when our government was killing Indians and taking their land? Or during slavery? Or during Jim Crow? Or after Roe v. Wade? Our government is immoral now, sure, but it was immoral then too, and no Christian argument for separating from our government can be made in 2010 that couldn’t have been made in 1810. The only difference is that where in 1810 the world supported killing Indians and manstealing (1 Timothy 1:10 was definitely practiced in the slave trade), now the world supports homosexuality.
Our government has always been fallen just like its leaders and most of its citizens, and in that respect it is like every other earthly nation that has been and will be, and that includes Old Testament Israel. People who feel otherwise have just been deceived. Or maybe they are simply upset and outraged at the idea that homosexuals are going to be equal to them under the law. As horrible as homosexual marriage will indeed be for our nation and its culture, I still don’t believe that it is a Christian way of looking at the issue. I could be wrong, as I have been on a lot of my comments at Sharper Iron. But my position is that just because a homosexual couple is equal to a Christian heterosexual couple in the eyes of the state doesn’t mean that they are equal in the eyes of God, and it is God’s position that we should be concerned with, not our own. God knows that the world is sinful. That is why He sent His Son. But thanks to His Son, though the world is sinful the church is justified.
As with other matters, Christians should assert their constitutional and other legal rights with regards to our marriages, and leave the world to the wicked devices that Jesus Christ will judge when He returns.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
to remember that separating the civil side of marriage from the religious is nothing new. It happened in the Former Soviet Union (and may still continue today in Russia). It still happens today in France. In 17th century Protestant Germany, marriage was considered a contract between two individuals which the religious authority witnessed and recorded. Even in England, common law marriage wasn’t abolished until the mid-18th century with the centralizing of power in London. I don’t even want to get into the Enclosure Acts.
Yes, I supported Prop. 8. And I will continue to do so. However, many of the anti’s are folks who migrated here from where y’all live. Thanks.
Yes, I supported Prop. 8. And I will continue to do so. However, many of the anti’s are folks who migrated here from where y’all live. Thanks.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Discussion