We should not be surprised that a new poll indicates that almost half (44 percent) of young evangelical Christians between the ages of 18 to 29 favor same-sex marriage.
Some will argue that this is the result of the secular culture undermining the Bible. I would argue this is the result of a new generation of Bible-believing evangelicals reading their Bibles with fresh eyes and insight. For those who do their theological and ethical thinking, as Karl Barth reportedly advised us to do, with a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other, it is hard to maintain a biblically based opposition to marriage equality.
This change in the convictions of young evangelicals is not happening because they are not taking the Bible seriously but because it is hard to read the Bible consistently and holistically and still maintain a position that excludes gay and lesbian persons from the Kingdom of God, or the church, or equality, or the blessings of marriage and family life.
The Bible's focus is upon God's movement to liberate those who are enslaved and oppressed (Exodus), God's requirements that we live together in ways that are just and fair (the Prophets), the reconciliation of humanity with God and humanity with humanity by tearing down the walls of division among us (the Cross), and the movement of the Holy Spirit to create inclusive community not based on culture or class but grace (the Church).
Doing our theological and ethical thinking with a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other leaves us with decisions we need to make. Either gay and lesbian individuals are persons who have chosen to intentionally rebel against God by deciding to romantically love another of the same gender in defiance of God's will or else they are another group within the rich diversity of humanity that God intends to liberate, treat justly and fairly, reconcile, and include.
Either same-gender love is a distortion and perversion of what it means to be truly human ... or else it is a variation within the fullness of the human family.
Either gay and lesbian persons must be eliminated through some sort of "conversion" to heterosexual practices or involuntary celibacy or worse, or else they must be respected as they seek to apply biblical moral teachings to their own particular situation in life.
More than 40 years ago, the Anglican theologian Norman Pittenger addressed these questions in his book entitled "Time for Consent." He argued on the basis of the biblical revelation in Christ that sexual behavior must be judged by its character alone. Is it characterized by commitment and trust, tenderness, respect for the other and the desire for ongoing and responsible communion with the other? Or, conversely, is it characterized by selfish sexual expression, cruelty, impersonal sex, obsession with sex and an unwillingness to take responsibility for the consequences? He argued that both gay and straight people desire and need deep and lasting relationships and that appropriate sexual expression should not be denied to either group. He argued that there should not be a double standard of morality, introducing the concept of moral equality -- not judging two different groups by different standards of morality.
The Bible is deeply sensitive to double standards. Some of Jesus' harshest criticisms are reserved for those who lay heavy burdens on the backs of others that they themselves are unwilling to carry (Matt. 23:4). The attempts to use a few verses in the Bible to justify a double standard for straight and gay people will not withstand a careful and thoughtful reading of the Bible. I believe young, thoughtful evangelicals are discovering this not as a result of the culture blinding them but as a result of the Bible opening their eyes to the dishonesty and hypocrisy of straight Christians who claim for themselves the blessings and comforts of marriage while denying it to others.
The Bible has a way of not remaining hostage to a culture or ideology. Its revelatory focus on liberation, justice, reconciliation and inclusion has a way of liberating it from repressive cultural assumptions that some try to use it to reinforce. When young people ask me whether the Bible doesn't oppress women and gay people, I advise them to read it thoroughly, deeply and thoughtfully... and with a newspaper in their other hand. The Bible itself, studied with open minds and hearts, is more trustworthy than many of us who quote it.
Evangelicals Step Up for Marriage Equality
Gay Marriage Divides Evangelicals Along Generation Gap
Poll Shows Young Evangelicals Divided On Same-Sex Marriage
Box Turtle Bulletin » Yet Another Poll Shows Young Evangelicals ...
So what they'll do is throw the gays a bone by letting them get married 'on paper', and they'll stop bringing up the whole gay thing in public. That doesn't mean they'll start being okay with homosexuality. They'll just hide that little bit until you're safely converted, and then they'll tell you what to think about it. Oh, they'll sugarcoat it. Instead of "Sodomites shall burn in hell" they'll instead teach something like "all people are sinners, they're no better or worse than the guy stealing paperclips from work, everyone needs Jesus, including us, and Jesus can fix anybody and make them all better." Here's the bottom line: if a fundamentalist/evangelical church says that being gay is okay, and they really mean it without any caveats, then they're no longer a fundamentalist/evangelical church.
On earth Jesus had to obey civil laws (Render, therefore to Caesar, the things that are Caesar, and to God the things that are God's) to be the Perfect Sacrifice. If a civil circumstance is in place to deal with the immorality issue, believers, like Jesus, would have to honor that circumstance/law. so it seems that if one is gay and wants leave immorality and can't turn away from controversial behavior, a civil ceremony-as a believer- is the only way to appeal to the hearts of God and man. Now whether a person thinks this makes sense or not, the thing not to do because believers frustrate you, is never to forsake your faith in Jesus. Life is a test of faith. he is the final Judge but if your forsake Jesus because it’s some "Bronze Age" story, you are committing spiritual suicide.
The Bible is not a physics, biochemistry, history or mathematics Book; it purpose is to get you back Home safely. Is your only eternal life insurance policy that doesn’t cost you anything!
Peace
And I say to you that if you don't worship the undetectable dragon in my basement you will be punished forever when you die. Your claim and my claim have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them. I don't believe your claim about jesus for the exact same reason you don't believe my claim about my dragon, there is no compelling evidence that either claim is true.
"Is your only eternal life insurance policy that doesn’t cost you anything!"
Pacals Wager? Really? Weak.
The historical evidence is there. No one questions that it exists. You are welcome to question the veracity of the evidence. But questioning it's existence, quite frankly, will make it difficult for serious, thoughtful people to take you seriously!
By the way, your description of the "undetectable dragon" is a gross mischaracterization of what the Bible actually teaches about God, and only serves to suggest that you have never actually grappled with the teachings of the Bible on more than a superficial level. Hey, man, if you don't want to believe, that's fine with me. But if you're going to engage in a debate, you need to know that many brilliant minds have grappled with these issues for two thousand years. Don't think you can take on Roger Federer just because you saw your cousin play a tennis game in high school last week.
You know this test really has nothing to do with Pascal Wager. But closer to the truth, there is a wager in progress and it was initiated by Satan. He is predicating your doom. for example, the very demons that you are praising (Delicious Demon) are the ones that pulled a veil down over your eyes. Those demons, and their leader, are setting you up to fail. If you fail, you won't be one of them...you'll be tormented by them. Look up what the name "Satan" and "Devil" mean.
completion of part 1 and 2...
#1. Come out of immorality. A civil union that addresses the need for someone who says, "I just gotta be me", tells God that I want to what is right but can't do it with the opposite sex. the issue of immorality is addressed since the person is making a commitment to God and the State. It won't be considered marriage because that model is for a man and woman and that is the original model that God created. But to make a commitment to leave immorality and still be a believer is the real test of faith.
End of part 1...
Which version of god? I do not belive in the bible version of god. The bible is the #1 reason I am not Christian. The actions of many a Christian is #2.
As I said above I do not belive in the bible version of god. The bible is the #1 reason I am not Christian. The actions of many a Christian is #2.
We need to stop equating--on both sides!!--"what makes sense to me" with "what God believes" or "what the Bible teaches." If we REALLY want to read the Bible with fresh eyes and insight, we need to learn to put our assumptions and presuppositions on hold and read the Bible for what it REALLY says, not look for what we want it to say. We need to stop believing that "it is hard to read the Bible consistently and holistically and" come to a different conclusion than mine! WE ARE NOT INFALLIBLE!! I am saddened that too many on my side of the issue have forgotten this. But I'm afraid that the Rev. Snyder is just as guilty on his side.
You are illustrating one of the biggest problems in Christianity- the liberal interpretation of the Bible to conform to a person's desires. It is written what God has said about the issue YET that isn't clear enough for some people. Again, please read Matthew 10:34 to it's completion. If one honored Him "unconditionally" that person would do as HE said and not attempt to change what is written to please himself or others. Giving your opinion about the Bible pretty much makes it clear that you, in reality, want to bargain with God and are at odds with Him.
Hypocritical much? Everyone interprets the bible liberally otherwise we wouldn't just be barring homosexuals from getting married, we would be stoning them to death.
Further, you have no idea what jesus or god said about anything, what you have is a collection of writings from a disparate group of misogynistic, homophobic, animal sacrificing, witch killing, demon believing, warmongering primitives, feel free to base your moral code on theirs but some of us are a little more enlightened, perhaps you would like to join us in the 21st century?
"More than 40 years ago, the Anglican theologian Norman Pittenger, Who is he?" What did GOD say about homosexuality? This divisive subject puts many Christians with their backs against the wall. They have read
1. The accounts about the depravity of Sodom (Genesis 19).
2. God’s position about a male lying with a male like a woman (Leviticus 18:22).
3. Paul explaining that those who hate God have left the natural use of the woman to lie with men (Romans 1:27; 30)
4. Not to be deceived by opinions but homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9)
5. That a wrath is coming from God for those who do not put to death the cravings of the flesh (Colossians 3:5).
Then Jesus makes it very clear that He did not come to bring peace on earth but to divide those who love Him and those who love other things. He wants total commitment and asks those to "take up their cross. Matthew 10:34-38. While liberal pastors promote the loving of another man or woman, Jesus is saying that if your lust for strange flesh is stronger than your love for me (remember it is already an abomination to Him), then you have made your choice.
My point is that the wise man would listen to the recommendations of Jesus and not some theologian or liberal pastor that tells certain people what they want to hear.
Let me predicate the above by saying that neither is the rule. Of course you will find exceptions, just as you will with heterosexuals!
Why else do we hear so often about sex scandals? Why else do we have things like pornography? Prostitutes? Child abuse/molestation (usually a heterosexual endeavor)? Adultery (seems pretty common to me)? But there are those of us from both sides of the spectrum that do NOT engage in these activities...who love God, and respect what He has created.
Marriage is not just about uniting two people who lust for one another. Two gays may love one another, but that doesn't mean they can get married, simply because their attraction for one another is weighted by love. Marriage serves a higher purpose than validating someone's someone's lustful yearnings... It wasn't just invented so two people who share a mutual attraction for each other would be forced to stay together and not be led astray.... Marriage is an institution designed for the betterment of society that functions best when best the two complementary traits of a man and woman are brought together and utilized to raise children! Men have their ways and women have theirs. Men need a woman's perception, as a woman needs his. I think each gender has an innate yearning for one another.
Every state where people have been allowed to vote on the issue they have voted overwhelmingly No.
It appears the only way to legalize homosexual marriage is for state courts to misinterpret the Constitution (as in CA) or if legislators makes backroom deals (as in New York); any way but through the people, for they are united in not having this type of "morality" forced upon them.
And guess what? This isn't a democracy, so the people do not get to vote. Nobody is forcing an morality upon them, so just stop with that bs. Homosexuals want to live their lives without people like you butting in, so I just have one question: Why do you feel the need to control other people's lives?
Once you want the governmental stamp of approval for your nonsense, you force me to get involved, for I am the government and I vote.
What's interesting is that the only way to prevent people from gaining equal rights is to change a state constitution. This is why we have the court system as a branch of government, to preven mob rule against a minority. I'd be very worried if I were you, there's never been a valid legal case against marriage rights for LGBT people.
For Christians who believe that homosexuality (or its practice) is a sin, the real question is, "Do you have patience that God will bring about perfection in this person's life?" The corollary is, "Are you so far ahead of this person along the road to perfection that you can select which area of his/her life should be addressed next?"
I offered the room that I rent out to a woman from craigslist who was slipping toward homelessness after a job loss. The offer time limited because paying guests were arriving in 2 weeks. Shortly before she moved out, I asked two couples at my church to house her for a few days until the guests were gone. The respectable married couple (no kids at home) wouldn't do it, but the two gay guys with "those outrageous clothes/piercings/tattoos" said yes.
I actually am at a loss to know what "jargon" I'm accused of using--"committing a sin," "fornication" and "repent"? Newton's major fornicating came in the form of raping the slave women so they could be sold pregnant (a practice encouraged among sailors on slave ships). Is it really unreasonable to assert that he was right to cease that behavior and repent of it (not mere regret, but turned 180 degrees away from)?
As for using facts, it's only in using facts that any belief becomes a problem for its adherents or others. Suppose you believed that eating green apples would kill you. However erroneous that belief, you might well be trustworthy in distinguishing red, yellow and green apples.
Voting is a privilege that most Christians over the 2000 years haven't had, but we have all had the opportunity to live and love as Jesus. The issue is not that homosexuality isn't serious--either way, it is--the issue for Christians needs to be that we were invited to come "Just As I Am" even as sin remained in our lives--and still does--and we need to invite others in just that way. There is no eternal point in getting a person to give up any particular sin--eternity is gained by a relationship with Jesus, who will (notice the future tense) cleanse us of all unrighteousness.
All of that said, I am an ordained minister and a Taoist, and I would totally perform same-sex marriages as part of my duties to my fellow man.
Marriage is a state institution first, and a religious one second.
I wish more people viewed it the way you do though. If they did, same sex marriage would be a no-brainer. You and I are totally on the same side of this issue; I said I understand why religions ban it but definitely NOT that I agree.