Skip to main content

Sorry, I'm not Circling the Wagons on Homosexual Marriage

Since this morning, when I first heard of the Supremes’ decision to give carte blanche to gay weddings, I've been reading a litany of Facebook posts and Internet articles about how churches can weather the storm that’s apparently coming our way. 

One article advises that the churches draft a clear statement of faith that includes “a statement on marriage, gender, and sexuality." It goes on to say “Be sure that your statement on gender identity establishes a normative connection between gender and biological sex.” Say. Didn’t we already do that? I think it’s found in Genesis 1:26-28 and elsewhere.

Now what if a same-sex couple comes and wants you to perform their marriage? Another article recommends that you just tell the couple you only marry members of your church. That way you don't have to marry them plus you avoid any legal push back. Well, I have a better idea. Just say, "I don't marry homosexual or lesbian people because homosexuality is a sin against a Holy God. What’s more, marriage is between a man and a woman. Now I would be happy to tell you how all your sins can be forgiven and you can receive the gift of eternal life.”

Another writer offers a way to handle that testy problem of saying "No" if a gay group wants to rent your facility. Just put a clause in your insurance that states in no uncertain terms that renting parties need a pricey insurance rider. That ought to dissuade them. 

Then there’s the ever-present problem of not hiring that openly gay church organist. It’s easy. Just hold an audition. Then say, “Sorry but I really didn’t like the pianissimo before the Coda. Mendelsohn wouldn’t approve.”

Finally, what do pastors do if a gay, married [titular] couple shows up to services? One author says,

This certainly means thinking afresh about what we will and will not do when, for example, a gay married couple, seeking to draw closer to God, shows up in church and wants to get involved. It nearly goes without saying that we will welcome them unconditionally as we would anyone who walks in the door. But what does love look like in this particular instance? How much participation do we encourage before we ask them to adopt the Christian sexual ethic?

Wait. A gay couple comes to my church seeking to get closer to God? Does that mean they are rethinking their homosexuality? And then he asks "How much participation do we encourage before we ask them to adopt the Christian sexual ethic?" I think we may have that backward. How about we present everything in such a way that adoption of the Christian sexual ethic [is there another one that works?] is of immediate import? Or is there something special about these sinners that requires extemporaneity? 

I guess what’s troubling me is this. Most, not all, but most of the council I’ve read aimed at assisting evangelical churches, now that the Court has approved the marriage revolution, makes it sound like the churches are nineteenth-century wagon trail settlers under assault by Cherokees. And so here’s the modern-day equivalent of “Best Steps on How to Circle the Wagons.”

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. For one, I don’t plan to change a thing. If I have to start thinking of inventive ways not to be shut down and sent to a reprogramming center, then you’ve won already. Second, God is with us. That means that he is my strength and my shield (Ps. 28:7). Third, if you want our building you can have it. We have a better one in the heavens. And I’m afraid you can’t get your hands on that one. Finally, why all the hand-wringing over possible persecution? It says, “For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Phil 1:29).

So thanks for the advice on how to navigate the recent Court ruling. I know your heart is in the right place. But the fact remains, they can never take the True Church. Jesus said, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). They can’t take our salvation. That is “hid with Christ” (Col. 3:3). And if they really want to eliminate us, it wouldn’t be the first time Christians were called upon for such a high honor. 


Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.

Pat Robertson is Warned!

Pat Robertson is taking it on the chin again. Seems each time he opines on why bad things happen to us, there is someone to call him on it.
Most recently, Dr. Richard Mouw has taken up the challenge in response to Robertson's recent statement on the Las Vegas shooting, in which at least 59 people were killed and more than 500 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
In a piece, titled, "You've Been Warned, PatRobertson!" Mouw, for whom I have deep respect, pens,

"It didn’t take long for some preachers to start telling us why God caused the horrible mass murder in Las Vegas to happen. Pat Robertson led the way, declaring that it was divine retribution for the widespread 'disrespect' for Donald Trump in America."
If Robertson had limited his rationale for the Vegas shooting to God punishing us for people dissing the President, I'd be smacking him on the chin myself. But he didn't.
Robertson's brief remarks f…

Is Our Knowledge of God Analogical of Univocal?

As a matter of first principles in apologetics, we can ask, “What does the unbeliever know about God?” However, the biblical apologetic is shaped not only by what Scripture says the unbeliever knows, but also by what it reveals he can know; is capable of knowing, as a believer. So we might also ask, “Is it our hope that the unbeliever can know God as God knows himself or that he can know God reflectively, in a creaturely way?” This is the univocal/analogical problem in Christian epistemology. 

The question arises in the context of the structure of human thought. It bears its own unique dilemma. If we stress too excessively that knowledge of God is univocal we run the risk of lowering the incomprehensible God to the level of the finite and make God as one of us. But if we stress too emphatically knowledge of God per analogiam we may very well deprive God of all likeness to the humanity he has created with the result that all we are left with is a barren, abstraction.

To a considerable…