In the next few posts to this blog, I will be responding to a missive/blog posted a several months ago entitled "Why I am a Christian Who Supports Gay Marriage." Here is a copy of that blog:
Why I Am a Christian Who Supports Gay Marriage
*I am not a religious scholar, nor am I affiliated with a particular denomination. I'm just a regular person with a Bible, a love for God (and the people He created), and a thirst for truth and understanding. Many people have asked me how I could be a Christian and support gay marriage -- this is my response:
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
I’m a Christian, and I am for the legalization of gay marriage. I usually am very private about political and religious issues, but, this may sound strange – I do not believe gay marriage is either. I believe it is a human issue, and when it comes to human rights, I feel comfortable speaking out. I don’t understand how gay marriage has become THE biggest issue in our country right now -- how it elicits such outrage and fear, and so in an effort to foster understanding, I decided it was time to explain how I feel about it, hoping that it can begin a rational dialogue about this thing that seems to be tearing our country apart. I’m not going to go into the myriad secular reasons behind my decision – because from a civil rights standpoint it seems obvious, so instead, my focus in this little essay will merely be from a Christian point of view.
I used to believe gay marriage was wrong, not because I’d ever really studied it for myself, but because it was what I was told (growing up in the Bible Belt) and because it seemed weird and foreign to me since I only knew two gay people growing up, a great uncle (whom I loved) and his partner (whom I might have loved even more.) But they were not a part of my every day life, and for the most part, I actually forgot that they were “dreaded” homosexuals – they were just two nice men who were kind and funny and who had the coolest house I had ever seen. But as I grew older and moved around, I began to meet many different people of all races and religions – and, yes, sexual persuasions. As I got to know my gay friends, and grew to truly love them, I realized they weren’t some strange alien “sodomites” -- they were just like me. Complicated, hilarious, hopeful, fallible, with a deep ingrained need to love and be loved – in other words: human. (To the people who argue that gay marriage will somehow lead to people marring their dogs, I always ask them to just take a moment to ask themselves – do they really believe there is no difference between a human and a pet? While the government sometimes seems like a drooling child, even a toddler knows there is a difference between man and beast.)
The main story people used to point to as to why homosexuality was wrong was the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. They used to say that God destroyed the whole town because of homosexuals. It was a long time before I bothered to read the story (in Genesis 19) for myself…and when I did, I was shocked. God did not destroy the city because of gay marriage – he destroyed it because an entire city of young and old men gathered into an angry mob and tried to break down Lot’s door so they could gang bang two angels. So it seems to me that the fear of the downfall of civilization as shown in this story is misplaced, it will not come from gay marriage being legalized, but rather, if gang rape is ever legalized. There is a big difference. In fact most of the studying I have done about the (very few) scriptures in the Bible pertaining to homosexuality seem to come in the context of that kind of sexual perversity – not the homosexual act, but the act of forced sex (sex as power, not love), or an act of prostitution (sex for money, not love) or the act of having sex in temples (sex as idolatry, not love.) As The Message Bible translates Corinthians: those who “use and abuse sex.” That makes sense to me in the context of a loving God – that he does not want his children suffering for sex, being forced into sex, or making sex more important than him. Which is why the Bible speaks out against sex before marriage, aka “fornication.”
I understand that there are many different ways to translate the scriptures – but even if one holds onto the translation that homosexual practices are a sin, it is always mentioned in the same breath as fornication and sexual immorality. So could it be, that by not allowing gay marriage, we are actually causing our gay friends to sin? That in forcing them to have sex outside of marriage because we will not let them marry, we are causing them more harm by banning gay marriage than allowing it?
And if homosexuality were really the huge issue we are making it out to be, wouldn’t Jesus have made more of a big deal out of it? Wouldn’t he have made ANY deal out of it? That’s right, the One to whom we are to look to for all of our answers, to follow and be like and model ourselves after never condemns homosexuality – never even mentions it. He does mention divorce. Twice. In fact, he does not make a big deal out of marriage at all, only pointing out that it’s silly to make a big deal out of who has claim over a woman in heaven if, as a widow, she must marry her husband’s brothers -- because there is no marriage in heaven. And he mentions the scripture from Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife and they will be one flesh” not as a “definition” of marriage, but rather to illustrate why divorce is a bad thing – it rips apart two who have become as one flesh, a very vivid way of saying that it is very painful. In fact, from what I have read, divorce is mentioned at least 33 times in the Bible – way more than homosexuality. It seems from a biblical perspective that if there is anything threatening the institution of marriage, it is divorce. And yet divorce is legal. Because marriage is a legal contract as well as a spiritual one, and legally, America is more for giving freedoms than taking them away. Divorce may be forbidden in some fringe religions – but it is legal nonetheless. And those same religious institutions would be free to forbid gay marriage as well, even if it were legal.
And that brings me to the biggest issue of all – marriage as defined in the Bible has a long and complicated past. There is so much talk of “one man, one woman” in the reasoning behind the anti-gay marriage movement -- but is that what the Bible shows? What of David’s seven wives? What of Jacob’s having to marry Leah and Rachel at the same time? Not to mention the true issue waging war on marriages – adultery. Abraham trying to pass off Sarah as his sister so the men he was afraid of could have their way with her – and then sleeping with Hagar for a son. Lot impregnating both of his daughters, and David (for whom seven wives must not have been enough) sleeping with his best friend’s wife. And yet David was “a man after God’s own heart.” Then there was the wisest man in the Bible – Solomon – and his countless wives. There are many many other stories that prove that the definitions of marriage have changed over the years. Heck, God brought the flood because “the sons of God were marrying the daughters of men” – if that were still the definition of marriage, surely destruction would be more likely to come from the legalization of inter-religious marriages (for which the whole world was flooded) than for homosexual gang bangs (for which only one city went down.) Marriage was a contract between fathers for dowries for much of human history – and I, for one, am thankful that has changed!
On top of everything, there’s the small issue that for a large part of the New Testament, people are told they shouldn’t marry at all. Paul maintained in no less than eight scriptures that you should only marry if you cannot control your lust and are “burning with passion.” Should not the same be said for gay people – would it not be better for them to marry than to “burn with passion” as Paul was so worried about?
Speaking of Paul, Romans 1:18 is often quoted as proof that homosexuality is a sin. But if you read the entire chapter (which I always recommend) it is in the context that Paul is talking about people who would rather worship animals and put other things above God – including worshiping sex over God. As I mentioned earlier, many temples during the time the Bible was written were places where people “worshiped” through orgies and “sacred” prostitution (the act of having sex with a man or woman who is acting as a substitution of a god.) But even more powerful than understanding the meaning behind the term “unnatural relations” is what happens if you keep reading past Romans chapter 1, when you come immediately to Romans chapter 2 which reads: “Now if you feel inclined to set yourself up as a judge of those who sin, let me assure you, whoever you are, that you are in no position to do so. For at whatever point you condemn others you automatically condemn yourself, since you, the judge, commit the same sins. God’s judgment, we know, is utterly impartial in its action against such evil-doers. What makes you think that you who so readily judge the sins of others, can consider yourself beyond the judgment of God? Are you, perhaps, misinterpreting God’s generosity and patient mercy towards you as weakness on his part?” What a question – do we consider mercy weakness? This seems to say, we are all in the same boat, we are sinners in need of a loving God, period. People through the years have considered marriage between two separate races as a sin, as well as marriages between religions and even different denominations – but we have (thankfully) done away with those taboos.
I realize that God told Noah to be fruitful and multiply, and that is one of the reasons we have known of marriage as between a woman and a man – so they can make babies. But with the world population weighing in at over 7 billion people, is that really still as important as it was back when the inhabitants of the world fit inside an ark? I think gay marriage might be God’s way of saying, “Now, be fruitful and adopt.” How many of his beautiful children could be saved from starvation, death and the pain of abandonment because there were more loving, committed, married families to welcome them in? And just because people don’t have the proper “equipment” to make babies together, that is not proof that their love is unnatural or any less than a man and a woman who do – otherwise barren women or infertile men should not be able to marry either. It was a source of much shame to be barren when the Bible was written, but we have changed our attitudes in society on that…a precedent I think should be applied to gay couples as well. The inability to procreate has nothing to do with a person (or a couple’s) worth, it simply means they may have to get creative to overcome the biology they were born with.
I think that somehow people fear that their marriages will somehow be put in jeopardy if gay people are allowed to marry. That somehow their own marriages will mean less. Or that the institution of marriage will somehow become less sacred. But the only ones who can threaten a marriage are the ones who are in it. If people could spend more time making sure their own marriages are strong and loving and committed than they do making sure other people can’t have a marriage, then the world would be a much better place. Marriage is a contract for life – but love is eternal, so lets focus on that.
Which brings me to my biggest reason for supporting gay marriage – The Golden Rule. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus brilliantly declares: “Do for others what you want them to do for you: this is the meaning of the Law of Moses and of the teachings of the prophets.” In other words, the one law that incorporates all other laws of scripture (and by so doing, trumps any individual one) is, quite simply: love your neighbor as yourself. And I myself am thankful to have had the opportunity to marry the one I love – how could I deny that same blessing to anyone else? I cannot. And I will not. Which is why I, as a Christian, support gay marriage. (End of subject blog)
Before I begin my response, though, there are a couple of issues I wish to address in the interest of clarity and to avoid misrepresentation of my positions on sex and marriage:
- My position on the marriage issue is pretty well summed up in the following letter which I wrote to the elders of my church back in January of 2007 in response to an expensive marketing campaign they planned to finance to let our community know where we stood on the same-sex marriage issue, primarily by using billboard ads to declare what we believe to be the biblical definition of (as opposed to the legal definition of) the sacrament of Marriage. I wrote this letter AFTER asking the Father what He thought about the idea during my prayer time:
Greetings in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ.
Let me ask you a question: Does witnessing or evangelizing to people mean trying to make them do what you or God thinks they should do, or is it about convincing them to change their hearts so that they want to change their rebellious ways? Did Jesus Christ commission born again Christians to immerse ourselves in our society’s fruitless efforts to elect officials and pass laws in order to make lost people (some of whom appear to be masquerading as Christians) toe the line, or did He commission us to be dispensers of grace, mercy and love in quantities which will overwhelm the evil in men’s hearts, and cause them to search Him out?
Christ calls us to be His ambassadors to the world (1 Cor 5:20), yet we insist on being an army of occupation. We seem to be more concerned about exercising our citizenship in this country than we are in expressing our citizenship in the Kingdom of God. What good is it to spend a lot of money, talent and other resources on creating a huge campaign to market the concept of “Marriage – one man, one woman”, when statistics show that around one third of the marriages in the Christian community average 2 men and 2 women (just not at the same time)? Do you not see the hypocrisy of this endeavor?
I would surmise that some of the motivation behind this plan is your concern that our society is going, pardon the expression, to hell in a hand basket; or worse, God’s going to loosen His wrath on America and destroy our comfortable little haven of Christianity. In that case, let me ask you to recall Abraham’s hypothetical negotiation with God in Genesis, chapter 18, over His planned destruction of Sodom, a city which had been overcome by sexual perversion and immorality. Remember? Abraham asked God if He would spare the city’s destruction if there were fifty righteous people living in the city. God told Abraham that for fifty righteous people He would spare the city. Abraham continued negotiate: What about forty five; what about forty; what about thirty; what about twenty; and finally, what if there were only ten righteous people in the city? In every case, God said He would spare the city. (Please recall that although he destroyed the city and its occupants, He made provision for sparing the five righteous people who did live there.) My question is this: Shouldn’t we be about being one of the righteous persons that God would spare the city, or country – or world – for, rather than trying to be the conscious of a bunch of lost and rebellious people by passing a new law for them to struggle with?
You see, I believe that our focus is not to be on the family, or marriage, or the church, but rather, on Jesus. As Christians, if anyone comes up to us and asks us what we think about same sex marriage, shouldn’t we answer them by first asking them what they’ve done about Jesus? If they haven’t become born again and made Jesus Lord of their life, then our answer is only for the sake of argument, because they are lost and facing eternal damnation, regardless of our opinion, or their actions. On the other hand, if they have accepted Jesus, and believe in His Word, then they already know what God’s plan is concerning marriage, and again, our opinion concerning this subject doesn’t really matter.
Now, one final question: Do you really think that people in our community, whether they belong to the church or not, do not know where our church stands on the subject of same sex marriages, or abortion, or any other of a number of social ills? Brothers, if we have to have a marketing campaign to declare our position on these issues, then haven’t we already missed the boat on presenting who we are and what we are about? Which is more important: Evangelizing the lost, or being a conscious to the community?
I think Philip Yancy said it best in his book on Grace: He said, “If my activism, however well intentioned, drives out love, then I have misunderstood Jesus’ gospel. I am stuck with law, not the Gospel of grace.”
Thank you for your time and consideration.
A Concerned Church Member
Just to summarize, my first question to anyone who is reading this blog is this: What have you done with Jesus? He has unequivocally declared, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) (NIV) He also said that unless you become born again, you cannot enter or see the Kingdom of God, nor have eternal life. (John 3:3-19) So the fact is, until you have dealt with this issue by inviting Jesus into your heart and making Him Lord of your life, nothing else either He, His Father or the Bible has to say about the issues of this world or the Kingdom of God makes any difference because you and others like you are going to do and say what you want to do and say, regardless of what either they or I have to say. To those who are born again, it's important that we hash this thing out and try to establish what the truth of the matter is, because I assure you, I do not want to be living my life in error, and I sure don't want to be causing others to do the same thing.
- Eugene Peterson has made two very important stipulations about the popular book he wrote, entitled The Message, which is pretty much a paraphrase, readable translation of the Bible: First, it should never be used as a study bible, and second, he never meant for it to be adopted for use by congregations in their services. In a Christianity Today interview he said this: "When I'm in a congregation where somebody uses [The Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, "Hear the Word of God from The Message." But it surprises me how many do." Essentially, he was saying that he did not want his book to be used to determine or establish doctrine. He said His main purpose for writing The Message was to help new Christians become more interested in reading the Bible by easing the structure and format of the traditional Bible and using more modern terms to make it more fun to read; think of a preacher reading the Bible and telling you what it means in his own words. However, in doing this, verse numbers are dropped or combined, verses are grouped and combined, and many words and phrases are dropped and changed; this makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to compare with all the major Bible translations. Here is an example of what I mean: The following is a comparison of an excerpt from Scripture that is traditionally called the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9-13) using the top two most popular translations of the Bible and the The Message:
New International Version
9. This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10. your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
11. Give us today our daily bread.
12. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
King James Version
9. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11. Give us this day our daily bread.
12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
The Message
9-13 With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.
As you can see, the wording of this popular, well known Scripture has been so drastically changed by The Message rendition as to make the passage almost unrecognizable, although it may sound good. The point is, by the author's own admission, The Message is just not a good or reliable resource for determining what God is trying to tell us in the Bible Scriptures, especially in determining His position on specific issues. I think that the best way to describe the situation is this: The Bible is "black and white" on what God has to say and its teachings, whereas The Message is, well, sort of "gray."I will be using the NIV Bible, and crosschecking it with the King James Bible (Old and New translations), the American Standard Bible and the Amplified Bible to establish my points and argue my position. By the way, if you argue that all the other Bibles were written by men (humans), too, you would be right, but all of the other primary, popular translations of the Bible were written by committees of scholars and translators, thus greatly minimizing the possibility of translation and doctrinal error...whereas The Message was written by one man, who doesn't even claim that his version is the Bible.
- One thing the Father showed me early on about the Bible is this: Scripture must be interpreted according to the Gospel Message, and not the other way around! When you try to interpret the Message from Scripture, you invariably wind up with confusion, conflict, contradictions, distortions and lies, as we've seen ample examples of over the past 1800 years...And where there is confusion and fallacy, the devil and his demons rule, whether it be in our personal lives or the life of our communities. That's why so many people either dismiss or distrust the Bible, and accuse it of being loaded with error. However, when you interpret the Scriptures according to the Message of the Gospel, which is the Message of Reconciliation (that is, God has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ Jesus, not counting people's sins against them, so that in Him (Christ) we might become the righteousness of God), then confusion and conflict melt away, and the truth of God's awesome love for us emerges. And once we know(i.e., experience) that love, we won't be forever trying to figure out how to use His Word to circumvent His loving plan for mankind in order to satiate our various worldly desires.
- Finally, please do not take either what I say or what this blogger says and make it your position or doctrine; you need to take a good Bible and get alone with God in prayer and ask Him to show you what the truth is these issues. James 1:5 says "If any of you need wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you."
(NOTE: From here, please proceed to the bottom of the list of archived postings and begin with Response #1)
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
A Christian's Response#10 To A Christian's Blog Supporting Gay Marriage
This is blog #10 of a continuation of my response to a missive/blog posted several months ago entitled "Why I am a Christian Who Supports Gay Marriage." Please Google it and check it out before continuing.
Concerning God's Ordered Purpose for Humanity
Finally, if there's one phrase we could use to describe all of God's Creation I think it would be "ordered purpose." You see, God created and creates all things on, in and about this world for a purpose...Ultimately, of course, for HIS purpose! But not only that: When He created all things and placed them in His Creation, He didn't just do so "willy nilly" and expect them to accomplish their purpose by happenstance (as in the theory of evolution): He created everything, seen and unseen, with an intricate, detailed design that would allow it to achieve the purpose for which it was created. This is especially the case with living things...And most especially the case with human beings and their bodies.
Our bodies are sacred (the word "sacred" means "set apart for" or "to") overall because they were ultimately designed to be the temple of the Holy Spirit here on earth. But they were also designed with sacred, personalized attributes, features and abilities - both broad and specific - to help each one of us to accomplish the specific purpose for which He placed us in His Creation; just like snowflakes, there are no two of us humans that are exactly alike. The most obvious physical features which we were born with and over which we have no choice include our ethnicity (or culture), our race (specifically, our skin color), our hair and eye color, and our gender (male or female). (And yet, we are all made in the image and likeness of God!) But there's one thing you cannot tell about a person from analyzing a DNA sample or a gene chart: His or her sexual proclivity...or preference. Unlike the traits of our fleshly bodies, which are determined by our DNA and genetic makeup (over which we have no control), our sexual proclivities are part of our spiritual nature and are controlled by mental and spiritual decisions, which result in what we call behavior (which, of course, is controllable).
Our gender, specifically our sexual identity as male or female, was designed by God with one, and only one, specific purpose in mind: Procreation! (Please take note here that I am not saying that God mandates that married couples must have children, and no where in the New Testament does it say that.) In fact, the design of the male/female gender differences in all the living species of nature on Earth testify to this function and purpose. And I'm not just talking about the differences in genitals here; I'm talking about everything from muscle mass to cognitive reasoning to emotions - the whole package. It doesn't take a genius or a rocket scientist to comprehend that the whole gender package was designed with one purpose in mind: To conceive, birth and nurture children to adulthood, so that they might be moved to accomplish the purpose for which God specifically created them for in His Kingdom, which includes the procreation of humanity on Earth. Unfortunately, we have selfishly focused on making it all about a small, usually pleasurable part of the process, the act of copulating, rather than following through with God's original purpose. To put it bluntly, we have made it all about the orgasm instead of the organism! Isn't it amazing, how we ignore God's sacred design in order to fulfill our own selfish, flesh-driven purposes?
Concerning the So-Called "Golden Rule" and Real Love At the end of her missive, the blogger says that the biggest reason for her support of gay marriage is the Golden Rule (which, in actuality, is a title made up by man and is not used in the Bible)...And then promptly leaves out the most important half of the so-called Golden Rule! The so-called Golden Rule encompasses the TWO basic commandments that Jesus reduced the Laws of Moses and the Old Testament to in Matthew chapter 22:37-40 (note that Matthew 7 is only a partial summation of the Law and Commandments), Mark 12:30-31 and Luke 10:27-37. Take note that the FIRST commandment of the summary is this: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." In view of this first commandment, can anyone not see that if you are ignoring the sacredness of God's design and purpose for your body, you are not showing Him that you love Him with all that you have, and that you are, therefore, breaking the so-called Golden Rule.
As for the second commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself", does the author even know what the definition of "neighbor" is? Do you? Hint: It's not about loving anybody and everybody! In fact, Jesus took the time to answer that very question in Luke's account of this incident. As matter of fact, why don't you go back and read that account right now; it's Luke 10:29-37. Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, and then asked who was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of people who beat him up, robbed him and left him in a ditch to die. Turns out your neighbor is one who needs your mercy and help with their problems and weaknesses, not one who "loves them" by just leaving them alone to do whatever they want. You see, using half of a scripture reference to make a point is like telling a half truth, which of course, is the worst kind of lie. In fact, the suggestion that I am loving my neighbor by misusing the sacredness of his or her sexual organs or gender is just plain ludicrous. Can you just imagine standing before God sitting on His Judgement Throne at the end of our mortal life and trying to justify to Him how we "modified" our sexual practices/functions and His sacrament of marriage to accommodate our beliefs on how these things should have been set up in order to satisfy our individual needs? I just do not understand how someone who claims to be a Christian can consider these things and not see the absolute hypocrisy and error of their blind support for either homosexuality or gay marriage!
Conclusion: What Is Your Identity? As I close on this matter, let me once again reiterate that it is not what we do or what we say or what group we are a part of that will determine our eternal destiny...THAT is determined by who we are SPIRITUALLY in God's eyes as an individual: You are either alive to Him through the indwelling presence of His Son, Jesus Christ, in your life when you become born again, or you are dead to Him because of Christ's absence; the former spends eternity with God in Heaven, while the latter is eternally damned along with Satan. Put in the context of this discussion, the question is, what is your spiritual identity? That was what Paul was trying to point out in 1 Cor 6 about who will inherit the Kingdom of God: At the end of the day, whether you identify yourself as a homosexual or a heterosexual makes no difference in the eyes of God. Only when your identity becomes "born again child of God who has been justified and sanctified by the recreation of your spirit with the Spirit of Jesus Christ and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God" will you inherit the Kingdom of God and eternal salvation. Your identity, i.e., who you are, will always trump your actions, i.e., what you do. But please know that in the end, your actions tend to indicate who you really are! As the old saying goes, "Apples only come from the apple tree."
Finally, please know this: God's Word says this, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."(Gal 6:7-8) Friend, if you claim to be a Christian, you have to ask yourself this question: Does your support of gay marriage and homosexuality sow to the latter...Or to the former?
NOTE: Concerning Comments
I have disabled any comments to this blog. If you have a problem with anything I've written, please take it up with God and the Holy Spirit. It has taken me almost three years of praying, listening and studying as the Holy Spirit directed to bring this response to publication in this blog. If you think I made a mistake in any of my responses, please take it to God and ask Him to show me my error. If you have a problem with my interpretation of the Scripture or Bible references I used, please don't take my word for what God is saying...Go and ask Him to reveal to you the truth of His Word about all this, because, frankly, in the long run (or should I say, "in the eternal scheme of things"), what I have to say doesn't really matter!
Concerning God's Ordered Purpose for Humanity
Finally, if there's one phrase we could use to describe all of God's Creation I think it would be "ordered purpose." You see, God created and creates all things on, in and about this world for a purpose...Ultimately, of course, for HIS purpose! But not only that: When He created all things and placed them in His Creation, He didn't just do so "willy nilly" and expect them to accomplish their purpose by happenstance (as in the theory of evolution): He created everything, seen and unseen, with an intricate, detailed design that would allow it to achieve the purpose for which it was created. This is especially the case with living things...And most especially the case with human beings and their bodies.
Our bodies are sacred (the word "sacred" means "set apart for" or "to") overall because they were ultimately designed to be the temple of the Holy Spirit here on earth. But they were also designed with sacred, personalized attributes, features and abilities - both broad and specific - to help each one of us to accomplish the specific purpose for which He placed us in His Creation; just like snowflakes, there are no two of us humans that are exactly alike. The most obvious physical features which we were born with and over which we have no choice include our ethnicity (or culture), our race (specifically, our skin color), our hair and eye color, and our gender (male or female). (And yet, we are all made in the image and likeness of God!) But there's one thing you cannot tell about a person from analyzing a DNA sample or a gene chart: His or her sexual proclivity...or preference. Unlike the traits of our fleshly bodies, which are determined by our DNA and genetic makeup (over which we have no control), our sexual proclivities are part of our spiritual nature and are controlled by mental and spiritual decisions, which result in what we call behavior (which, of course, is controllable).
Our gender, specifically our sexual identity as male or female, was designed by God with one, and only one, specific purpose in mind: Procreation! (Please take note here that I am not saying that God mandates that married couples must have children, and no where in the New Testament does it say that.) In fact, the design of the male/female gender differences in all the living species of nature on Earth testify to this function and purpose. And I'm not just talking about the differences in genitals here; I'm talking about everything from muscle mass to cognitive reasoning to emotions - the whole package. It doesn't take a genius or a rocket scientist to comprehend that the whole gender package was designed with one purpose in mind: To conceive, birth and nurture children to adulthood, so that they might be moved to accomplish the purpose for which God specifically created them for in His Kingdom, which includes the procreation of humanity on Earth. Unfortunately, we have selfishly focused on making it all about a small, usually pleasurable part of the process, the act of copulating, rather than following through with God's original purpose. To put it bluntly, we have made it all about the orgasm instead of the organism! Isn't it amazing, how we ignore God's sacred design in order to fulfill our own selfish, flesh-driven purposes?
Concerning the So-Called "Golden Rule" and Real Love At the end of her missive, the blogger says that the biggest reason for her support of gay marriage is the Golden Rule (which, in actuality, is a title made up by man and is not used in the Bible)...And then promptly leaves out the most important half of the so-called Golden Rule! The so-called Golden Rule encompasses the TWO basic commandments that Jesus reduced the Laws of Moses and the Old Testament to in Matthew chapter 22:37-40 (note that Matthew 7 is only a partial summation of the Law and Commandments), Mark 12:30-31 and Luke 10:27-37. Take note that the FIRST commandment of the summary is this: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." In view of this first commandment, can anyone not see that if you are ignoring the sacredness of God's design and purpose for your body, you are not showing Him that you love Him with all that you have, and that you are, therefore, breaking the so-called Golden Rule.
As for the second commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself", does the author even know what the definition of "neighbor" is? Do you? Hint: It's not about loving anybody and everybody! In fact, Jesus took the time to answer that very question in Luke's account of this incident. As matter of fact, why don't you go back and read that account right now; it's Luke 10:29-37. Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, and then asked who was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of people who beat him up, robbed him and left him in a ditch to die. Turns out your neighbor is one who needs your mercy and help with their problems and weaknesses, not one who "loves them" by just leaving them alone to do whatever they want. You see, using half of a scripture reference to make a point is like telling a half truth, which of course, is the worst kind of lie. In fact, the suggestion that I am loving my neighbor by misusing the sacredness of his or her sexual organs or gender is just plain ludicrous. Can you just imagine standing before God sitting on His Judgement Throne at the end of our mortal life and trying to justify to Him how we "modified" our sexual practices/functions and His sacrament of marriage to accommodate our beliefs on how these things should have been set up in order to satisfy our individual needs? I just do not understand how someone who claims to be a Christian can consider these things and not see the absolute hypocrisy and error of their blind support for either homosexuality or gay marriage!
Conclusion: What Is Your Identity? As I close on this matter, let me once again reiterate that it is not what we do or what we say or what group we are a part of that will determine our eternal destiny...THAT is determined by who we are SPIRITUALLY in God's eyes as an individual: You are either alive to Him through the indwelling presence of His Son, Jesus Christ, in your life when you become born again, or you are dead to Him because of Christ's absence; the former spends eternity with God in Heaven, while the latter is eternally damned along with Satan. Put in the context of this discussion, the question is, what is your spiritual identity? That was what Paul was trying to point out in 1 Cor 6 about who will inherit the Kingdom of God: At the end of the day, whether you identify yourself as a homosexual or a heterosexual makes no difference in the eyes of God. Only when your identity becomes "born again child of God who has been justified and sanctified by the recreation of your spirit with the Spirit of Jesus Christ and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God" will you inherit the Kingdom of God and eternal salvation. Your identity, i.e., who you are, will always trump your actions, i.e., what you do. But please know that in the end, your actions tend to indicate who you really are! As the old saying goes, "Apples only come from the apple tree."
Finally, please know this: God's Word says this, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."(Gal 6:7-8) Friend, if you claim to be a Christian, you have to ask yourself this question: Does your support of gay marriage and homosexuality sow to the latter...Or to the former?
NOTE: Concerning Comments
I have disabled any comments to this blog. If you have a problem with anything I've written, please take it up with God and the Holy Spirit. It has taken me almost three years of praying, listening and studying as the Holy Spirit directed to bring this response to publication in this blog. If you think I made a mistake in any of my responses, please take it to God and ask Him to show me my error. If you have a problem with my interpretation of the Scripture or Bible references I used, please don't take my word for what God is saying...Go and ask Him to reveal to you the truth of His Word about all this, because, frankly, in the long run (or should I say, "in the eternal scheme of things"), what I have to say doesn't really matter!
Saturday, March 28, 2015
A Christian's Response #9 To A Christian's Blog Supporting Gay Marriage
This is blog #9 of a continuation of my response to a missive/blog posted several months ago entitled "Why I am a Christian Who Supports Gay Marriage." Please Google it and check it out before continuing.
Concerning the Notion that God Approves of Same Sex Marriages for Adopting and Raising Children
Now we come to one of the most insidious and problematic suggestions the author poses in her support piece for homosexual marriages: The concept that gay marriage would provide a great panacea for a supposed lack of families to adopt orphaned or displaced children that has God's recommendation and seal of approval. Here is what she suggests in her article:
"I think gay marriage might be God’s way of saying, “Now, be fruitful and adopt.” How many of his beautiful children could be saved from starvation, death and the pain of abandonment because there were more loving, committed, married families to welcome them in? And just because people don’t have the proper “equipment” to make babies together, that is not proof that their love is unnatural or any less than a man and a woman who do – otherwise barren women or infertile men should not be able to marry either."
If there is a concept we as Christians need to understand that is probably even more important than the sacrament of marriage for its spiritual significance in representing Christ's relationship to His Church, it is the concept of adoption, because of its use in the New Testament Scriptures (clearly outlined in Romans chapter 8) to define the spiritual definition of what happens when we become born again, in terms of our relationship to Father God and His Son, Jesus. And just as society's attempt to redefine the sacrament of marriage according to our definition distorts the use of the husband/wife relationship as an allegory to the Christ/Church relationship presented several times in the New Testament Scriptures (e.g., Ephesians chapter 6) through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so also does the concept of allowing same sex cohabiters to engage in the adoption of children violate the sacredness of the "Sonship" model presented in Romans chapter 8 and three other Scripture references in the New Testament. To adopt a child into a relationship between parents that will not, nay cannot, nourish his or her intrinsic need for both uniquely male and female contact, input and modeling because it would challenge that relationship's validity, is, I believe, a sacrilege. Even when adopted into a single parent family, a non-infant child at least recognizes that either a male or female gender parent is missing; and if that need is not addressed through an appropriate surrogate, that child will "act out" or compensate accordingly, in various ways, to secure input and approval from the missing gendered parent. In fact, studies have shown it is well known that this is one of the major reasons for early sexual activity and promiscuity among teens caught in this situation.*
A large part of the adoption dynamic is that the one being adopted becomes an integral part of the adopter family, even to becoming a student and participate in traditions, ceremonies, lifestyle activities and functions that insure its stability and permanence, which in turn strengthens and protects the society of which it is an integral part. The adoptee is not brought in just for the sake of some emotion; nor is he allowed to bring in his previous family dynamics to try and change the family he is joining; the adoptee is expected to become immersed in the family dynamic of the family he or she is joining...And therein lies the insidious danger of allowing other than traditional families to adopt children, especially preteen and infant children. Because equally important to parents providing love for their children is the duty to provide training for their children in all areas of life, just as our adoptive Father provides not only love, but also training, instruction and discipline in our spiritual lives, especially concerning His Family's ways.
You see, what this blogger and other proponents or apologists for same sex marriage don't seem to comprehend, perhaps because they have not been involved in the child rearing process, is that by the time children are 8 years of age (in virtually every culture in the world) they have been immersed in society, culture and nature long enough to have observed and are beginning to understand the natural and traditional order of things, including the male/female differences and roles. Actually, every valid study into this matter has shown that children's comprehension of these things comes overwhelmingly not from observation but from instinct (that is why social engineering groups like NOW can't manipulate boy/girl natural behavior like they would like to); and that it is through observation of and interaction with the adult role models and the members of their peer groups that tempers what they growingly comprehend. This, therefore, makes the observation process an extremely important factor in their growth and development, especially in those critical years between the ages of 8 to 16, when their bodies become inundated with sexual hormones, and their minds become flooded with sexual impulses and awareness.
Like every other part of their lives, children need to have established boundaries for their sexual impulses and behaviors, for the good of themselves and for the good of the society in which they live. But how do you establish boundaries for them when you yourself ignore God's stated boundaries concerning sex and marriage? How do you emphasize the proven, extreme importance of BOTH male and female parental influences on the psychological development of every child, whether male or female, when you double up one gender to the exclusion of the other gender in the basic family unit? How do you teach children that the primary purpose of marriage is to create the perfect incubating unit for producing and raising children through its combination of responsibilities, rules role playings, traditions and long term interactions, all bound together by commitment - A Sacred Commitment, ordained by God from the beginning, between the only combination of genders that can produce offspring ("...and the two shall become one."), one male and one female - when you proceed to live a life devoted to changing all the common-good rules and boundaries so that you may do whatever makes YOU feel good and fulfills YOUR desires. Do you really not understand the confusion and lack of confidence this creates in the adolescent mind and psyche?
Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that the confusion that results from exposing developing teen and preteen children to muddled sexual mores and familial and gender roles presented by having same sex parents leads to much higher incidents of depression and suicidal thoughts among them than is found among children of either traditional or one parent households. I would think that this stands to reason given that they themselves can discern that more than ninety five percent of their peers are heterosexual, and that almost one hundred percent of the families they interact with through their peers are traditional or single parent families. By the time a child is ten years old, he/she knows that a single parent family is not missing a second mom or a second dad, but rather, a parent of the opposite sex from their current parent. As proof of the psychological problems that are showing up in children of family units based on same sex parents, many of the middle school and high school state educational systems around the country have already started mandating special in-school counseling programs to identify and counsel these at-risk students, most recently in Maryland, Washington State, and Oregon. One particular area that is NOT being addressed due to the intensive lobbying of LGBTQ groups is the education of teen and preteen youth concerning the health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle, especially among young males, and especially concerning AIDS and HIV.
Concerning the adoption in general, please allow me to inject a little personal experience into the concept of adoption. I have been a member of the Foster Care Review Board for Oldham County and the State of Kentucky for over 25 years, most of that time served as Chairperson; as such, I have been involved in many adoption cases. I have seen many loving couples come into the adoption process thinking that adopting poor little abused, neglected and/or orphaned children is just like adopting a little puppy...All you have to do is provide them with food, shelter, clothing and lots and lots of love and everything will be rosy and wonderful. Unfortunately, that is just not the case, especially where the child has been removed from a home or family because of abuse or neglect. The older a child is when he/she goes through the adoption process, the more likely that child will engage in a behavior called "acting out", which can best be described as an intense effort by the child to test the loyalty of the adoptive family, express angry/hurt feelings for his situation in life and to obtain maximum self attention for himself (even if that attention is negative) through often bizarre, hostile and sometimes threatening antisocial actions. This type of behavior can be extremely challenging, especially during the early period of the adoption, for even the strongest of traditional families and parents; in a high percentage of these cases, the child is rejected and the adoption is dissolved (or worse, the child is secretly "gifted" to another, often abusive, family), with often devastating effects on the psyche and mental health of the child as he/she is returned to the foster care system with the stigma of being an "un-wantable" kid. Some of my most gut-whrenching moments on the board have come with having to deal with the consequences of children being victimized and rejected by irresponsible, naive and selfish adults who seem to have listened to that song, "All You Need Is Love", one too many times. In my opinion and experience, adding unconventional family dynamics to the adoption process for the child to justify and assimilate simply adds to the probability of failure, not success, of the adoption process.
Finally, a thought or two concerning statements equating people who don't have the right equipment to make babies with people who are baron or infertile: I don't mean to sound harsh or demeaning, but this comparison is simply absurd. Under the normal and traditional concept of marriage, a couple has no way of knowing whether they are baron or infertile until they consummate their marriage and attempt to have children; so how then can they be prevented from getting married on the basis information which doesn't manifest itself until they are married? This is a perfect example of a "Catch 22"! There's simply no way that this compares to the idea of two adults of the same sex getting married while knowing they can't produce children through sexual relations in that marriage.
If there is a concept we as Christians need to understand that is probably even more important than the sacrament of marriage for its spiritual significance in representing Christ's relationship to His Church, it is the concept of adoption, because of its use in the New Testament Scriptures (clearly outlined in Romans chapter 8) to define the spiritual definition of what happens when we become born again, in terms of our relationship to Father God and His Son, Jesus. And just as society's attempt to redefine the sacrament of marriage according to our definition distorts the use of the husband/wife relationship as an allegory to the Christ/Church relationship presented several times in the New Testament Scriptures (e.g., Ephesians chapter 6) through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so also does the concept of allowing same sex cohabiters to engage in the adoption of children violate the sacredness of the "Sonship" model presented in Romans chapter 8 and three other Scripture references in the New Testament. To adopt a child into a relationship between parents that will not, nay cannot, nourish his or her intrinsic need for both uniquely male and female contact, input and modeling because it would challenge that relationship's validity, is, I believe, a sacrilege. Even when adopted into a single parent family, a non-infant child at least recognizes that either a male or female gender parent is missing; and if that need is not addressed through an appropriate surrogate, that child will "act out" or compensate accordingly, in various ways, to secure input and approval from the missing gendered parent. In fact, studies have shown it is well known that this is one of the major reasons for early sexual activity and promiscuity among teens caught in this situation.*
A large part of the adoption dynamic is that the one being adopted becomes an integral part of the adopter family, even to becoming a student and participate in traditions, ceremonies, lifestyle activities and functions that insure its stability and permanence, which in turn strengthens and protects the society of which it is an integral part. The adoptee is not brought in just for the sake of some emotion; nor is he allowed to bring in his previous family dynamics to try and change the family he is joining; the adoptee is expected to become immersed in the family dynamic of the family he or she is joining...And therein lies the insidious danger of allowing other than traditional families to adopt children, especially preteen and infant children. Because equally important to parents providing love for their children is the duty to provide training for their children in all areas of life, just as our adoptive Father provides not only love, but also training, instruction and discipline in our spiritual lives, especially concerning His Family's ways.
You see, what this blogger and other proponents or apologists for same sex marriage don't seem to comprehend, perhaps because they have not been involved in the child rearing process, is that by the time children are 8 years of age (in virtually every culture in the world) they have been immersed in society, culture and nature long enough to have observed and are beginning to understand the natural and traditional order of things, including the male/female differences and roles. Actually, every valid study into this matter has shown that children's comprehension of these things comes overwhelmingly not from observation but from instinct (that is why social engineering groups like NOW can't manipulate boy/girl natural behavior like they would like to); and that it is through observation of and interaction with the adult role models and the members of their peer groups that tempers what they growingly comprehend. This, therefore, makes the observation process an extremely important factor in their growth and development, especially in those critical years between the ages of 8 to 16, when their bodies become inundated with sexual hormones, and their minds become flooded with sexual impulses and awareness.
Like every other part of their lives, children need to have established boundaries for their sexual impulses and behaviors, for the good of themselves and for the good of the society in which they live. But how do you establish boundaries for them when you yourself ignore God's stated boundaries concerning sex and marriage? How do you emphasize the proven, extreme importance of BOTH male and female parental influences on the psychological development of every child, whether male or female, when you double up one gender to the exclusion of the other gender in the basic family unit? How do you teach children that the primary purpose of marriage is to create the perfect incubating unit for producing and raising children through its combination of responsibilities, rules role playings, traditions and long term interactions, all bound together by commitment - A Sacred Commitment, ordained by God from the beginning, between the only combination of genders that can produce offspring ("...and the two shall become one."), one male and one female - when you proceed to live a life devoted to changing all the common-good rules and boundaries so that you may do whatever makes YOU feel good and fulfills YOUR desires. Do you really not understand the confusion and lack of confidence this creates in the adolescent mind and psyche?
Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that the confusion that results from exposing developing teen and preteen children to muddled sexual mores and familial and gender roles presented by having same sex parents leads to much higher incidents of depression and suicidal thoughts among them than is found among children of either traditional or one parent households. I would think that this stands to reason given that they themselves can discern that more than ninety five percent of their peers are heterosexual, and that almost one hundred percent of the families they interact with through their peers are traditional or single parent families. By the time a child is ten years old, he/she knows that a single parent family is not missing a second mom or a second dad, but rather, a parent of the opposite sex from their current parent. As proof of the psychological problems that are showing up in children of family units based on same sex parents, many of the middle school and high school state educational systems around the country have already started mandating special in-school counseling programs to identify and counsel these at-risk students, most recently in Maryland, Washington State, and Oregon. One particular area that is NOT being addressed due to the intensive lobbying of LGBTQ groups is the education of teen and preteen youth concerning the health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle, especially among young males, and especially concerning AIDS and HIV.
Concerning the adoption in general, please allow me to inject a little personal experience into the concept of adoption. I have been a member of the Foster Care Review Board for Oldham County and the State of Kentucky for over 25 years, most of that time served as Chairperson; as such, I have been involved in many adoption cases. I have seen many loving couples come into the adoption process thinking that adopting poor little abused, neglected and/or orphaned children is just like adopting a little puppy...All you have to do is provide them with food, shelter, clothing and lots and lots of love and everything will be rosy and wonderful. Unfortunately, that is just not the case, especially where the child has been removed from a home or family because of abuse or neglect. The older a child is when he/she goes through the adoption process, the more likely that child will engage in a behavior called "acting out", which can best be described as an intense effort by the child to test the loyalty of the adoptive family, express angry/hurt feelings for his situation in life and to obtain maximum self attention for himself (even if that attention is negative) through often bizarre, hostile and sometimes threatening antisocial actions. This type of behavior can be extremely challenging, especially during the early period of the adoption, for even the strongest of traditional families and parents; in a high percentage of these cases, the child is rejected and the adoption is dissolved (or worse, the child is secretly "gifted" to another, often abusive, family), with often devastating effects on the psyche and mental health of the child as he/she is returned to the foster care system with the stigma of being an "un-wantable" kid. Some of my most gut-whrenching moments on the board have come with having to deal with the consequences of children being victimized and rejected by irresponsible, naive and selfish adults who seem to have listened to that song, "All You Need Is Love", one too many times. In my opinion and experience, adding unconventional family dynamics to the adoption process for the child to justify and assimilate simply adds to the probability of failure, not success, of the adoption process.
Finally, a thought or two concerning statements equating people who don't have the right equipment to make babies with people who are baron or infertile: I don't mean to sound harsh or demeaning, but this comparison is simply absurd. Under the normal and traditional concept of marriage, a couple has no way of knowing whether they are baron or infertile until they consummate their marriage and attempt to have children; so how then can they be prevented from getting married on the basis information which doesn't manifest itself until they are married? This is a perfect example of a "Catch 22"! There's simply no way that this compares to the idea of two adults of the same sex getting married while knowing they can't produce children through sexual relations in that marriage.
I just can't help but believing that if God had wanted to authorize the indiscriminate use of sexual pleasure and marital unions He would have created two men and two women in the Beginning in order to allow for the variety of combinations we are told that He accepts and have His blessing. You know, I get it that there comes a point that we become adults who can engage in whatever activity or behavior that turns us on or makes us happy (even if, in many cases, it's not legal), but when we start involving children in sexual proclivities that are obviously outside of the obviously traditional and natural design for our bodies, it is an abomination to humanity and a sacrilegious affront to God's concept of adoption as outlined in Scriptures such as Romans chapter 8.
*A Footnote To This Discussion: I was an active participate of the Foster Child Care Citizen Review Board of Oldham County for approximately 25 years (1988-2012), and am still an inactive reserve member of the Board. For 23 of those years, I served as Chairperson. The Foster Child Care Citizen Review Board is a national organization tasked by each State's judicial/court system with the oversight and representation of the physical and mental needs and rights of each child involved or placed in each State's government child welfare and protection organization, such as Kentucky's Cabinet For Family and Children. As a result of my experience and extensive observations of children in crisis on the Board, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on issues of adoption, child welfare and disfunctional family units.
MAJOR UPDATE:
Since February 2015, 2 months prior to this writing, no less than 3 children of gay marriages (2 female and 1 male) and one very famous gay couple, designers Dolce & Gabbana, have come out against gay marriage, especially as an environment for having and raising children. One of those children is Heather Barwick, and she hits the nail on the head with her explanation of why. Here is a link to her essay to the Federalist where she explains the huge problem in her own words: http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/. Another is Katy Faust, daughter of a lesbian couple, who wrote a letter to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy about the plight of children of gay couples; it went viral, so you can look it up on your internet browser. There is also an interview with her at http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/27183
*A Footnote To This Discussion: I was an active participate of the Foster Child Care Citizen Review Board of Oldham County for approximately 25 years (1988-2012), and am still an inactive reserve member of the Board. For 23 of those years, I served as Chairperson. The Foster Child Care Citizen Review Board is a national organization tasked by each State's judicial/court system with the oversight and representation of the physical and mental needs and rights of each child involved or placed in each State's government child welfare and protection organization, such as Kentucky's Cabinet For Family and Children. As a result of my experience and extensive observations of children in crisis on the Board, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on issues of adoption, child welfare and disfunctional family units.
MAJOR UPDATE:
Since February 2015, 2 months prior to this writing, no less than 3 children of gay marriages (2 female and 1 male) and one very famous gay couple, designers Dolce & Gabbana, have come out against gay marriage, especially as an environment for having and raising children. One of those children is Heather Barwick, and she hits the nail on the head with her explanation of why. Here is a link to her essay to the Federalist where she explains the huge problem in her own words: http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/. Another is Katy Faust, daughter of a lesbian couple, who wrote a letter to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy about the plight of children of gay couples; it went viral, so you can look it up on your internet browser. There is also an interview with her at http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/27183
Friday, March 27, 2015
A Christian's Response #8 To A Christian's Blog Supporting Gay Marriage
This is blog #8 of a continuation of my response to a missive/blog posted several months ago entitled "Why I am a Christian Who Supports Gay Marriage." Please Google it and check it out before continuing.
Concerning the Blogger's Statements About the Overpopulation of the Earth
Concerning the Blogger's Statements About the Overpopulation of the Earth
Consider this statement from that blog:
"I realize that God told Noah to be fruitful and multiply, and that is one of the reasons we have known of marriage as between a woman and a man – so they can make babies. But with the world population weighing in at over 7 billion people, is that really still as important as it was back when the inhabitants of the world fit inside an ark?"
First of all, God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28) way before He told Noah and his sons(Gen 9:1); the significance is that God provided for populating the earth both before and after The Flood. But in either event, to me that begs a question or two: 1) Exactly when did God ever countermand that directive to any of the resulting offspring; and 2)When did God ever suggest or provide for the concepts of birth control or safe sex, other than in the case of those who were either born, made or chose to be eunuchs?
In terms of overpopulation, I guess she is saying that God just did not understand or realize all the problems He would cause by not limiting the number of off-spring women or couples were allowed to have or by not providing instructions on how to practice birth control while having sex in marriage (or outside of it for that matter). If there is one thing all pilots, or those who look out an airplane window in flight, or even long haul truck drivers know is that the concept of the earth being overpopulated is as bogus as the recent claims concerning global warming and climate change (I guess God missed that one too!). There may be certain cities or population centers that may be considered to be "overpopulated", but that's a matter of choice made by the inhabitants based on their desire for a certain level of convenience, comfort and/or other personal factors, not because we are running out of land mass or adequate places to live.
It's amazing how we humans, especially those of the Western culture over the past few hundred years, have the sheer audacity to declare that since God obviously made a huge mistake in not planning ahead for the eventual overpopulation of the earth that He created, we need to come up with measures like abortion and family planning and, oh yes, gay marriage to resolve the problem. By the way, may I ask who has the authority or the right to declare when a location has reached overpopulation…And who gave that person or persons the authority to make that decision? In fact, I challenge any Christian who believes in the Bible to show me anywhere in the Scriptures where God specifically addresses the notion of overpopulation or birth control (yet I can show you unequivocally, in several places, where He rejects the notion of homosexuality and same sex relationships). Ultimately, birth control is strictly a manmade concept and convenience.
But all that being said, the truth is, God did (and does) provide for population control over the generations in four important ways:
- Life Span or Age - From the beginning of Genesis until the end of Genesis we see a very important dynamic concerning the normal life span of humans take place: The normal life span of the major players mentioned starts out at 900+ years (Adam lived 930 years), but by the last chapter in Genesis, the maximum life span was down to about 130 years (Jacob lived 147 years and Joseph lived 110 years.) In Gen 6, God said he planned to limit men's time on earth at 120 years.
- Body Physiology Concerning Fertility & Child Bearing - We see in Gen 17-18 (not even half way through the Book) that by the time the time God announced to Abraham and Sarah that they were to have a son, both of them laughed at the pronouncement because at age 100 for Abraham and age 90 for Sarah, both were considered to be well past the age to conceive and bear children. Actually, today, the average span of fertile years for women has decreased considerably since the time of Moses and Sarah, to where the average age for menopause for women in the Western Hemisphere, for example, is age 51.
- Large Scale Death by Natural Disasters, Man-made Follies, And Cultural Influences - Earth quakes, floods, storms, volcanos, tidal waves, fires along with wars, massacres, purges, mass-kill weapons and genocide have and continue to have a sometimes significant effect on the human population. Also, many cultural influences that are often determined through the presence or lack of religious beliefs, such as family size, have helped limit population growth in recent years.
- The Laws and Commandments Given to the Israelites - In the same Laws that were given to the Israelites concerning sexuality and deviant sexual behavior, there were also given laws to control marriages in order to stop incest and inbreeding that were previously allowed to facilitate early population growth.
A Christian's Response #7 To A Christian's Blog Supporting Gay Marriage
This is blog #7 of a continuation of my response to a missive/blog posted several months ago entitled "Why I am a Christian Who Supports Gay Marriage." Please Google it and check it out before continuing.
Concerning the Misrepresentation, Misinterpretation and Misuse of The Holy Scriptures
I think that perhaps the biggest travesty of the author's declaration is her gross misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the New Testament Scriptures, primarily the writings of Paul, concerning marriage and homosexuality. It seems satan has developed quite a talent, especially in this day of age of word processors, social media and bloggers, for causing the adding and subtracting some words in Scripture, and outright changing the meaning of others, in order to interpret the "message" according to the Scriptures, instead of interpreting the Scriptures according to the message, the Gospel of Christ. The problem is even more compounded when one tries to use a Bible translation that was never meant to be used as a reference or study Bible, such as The Message (especially when the author of The Message himself says not to do that!), to the exclusion of comparing specific passages or verses on a subject to other translations in order to insure that the base meanings and teachings of said passages are not altered. Using a couple of Scriptures that the blogger referred to, here are some examples of what I mean:
1) "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."(NIV, 1 Cor 6:9-10)
"Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom".(The Message, 1 Cor 6:9-11)
Do you see how different these two passages are worded, although they both originated from the same Scripture reference? Do you see how not just words, but whole concepts are different between the two? Did you notice that the NIV version lists specific identities that disqualify people from inheriting the Kingdom of God (such as "men who have sex with men"), while The Message version generalizes and softens the behavioral identities, leaving out the homosexual behavior reference, and changing the section referring to the Kingdom of God. Yet, if we compared these two different interpretations to other major bible translations, like The King James Version, The New American Standard Bible, The Catholic Bible or even the Amplified Bible (Which I hope you will take time to do in your own studies), you will find that virtually all of the other translations line up pretty much with the NIV translation, while none even come close to resembling The Message translation.
2) Concerning what the Scriptures say about marriage and getting married, she writes this:
"On top of everything, there’s the small issue that for a large part of the New Testament, people are told they shouldn’t marry at all. Paul maintained in no less than eight scriptures that you should only marry if you cannot control your lust and are 'burning with passion.'" I challenge her to present the eight scriptures she is talking about, and to show us any indication that Paul ever meant his "advice", not "commands", about marriage to include men marrying men or women marrying women; even The Message translation doesn't give the slightest hint of support for homosexual marriage.
Yet, here is what the Scriptures say about marriage in virtually the only chapter (1 Cor 7) in the New Testament where the sacrament is discussed in length, not just by Paul, but by anyone else:
"Now I want to deal with the things you wrote me about. Some of you say, “It is good for a man not to have sex with a woman.” But since there is so much sexual sin, each man should have his own wife. And each woman should have her own husband. A husband should satisfy his wife’s sexual needs. And a wife should satisfy her husband’s sexual needs. The wife’s body does not belong only to her. It also belongs to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong only to him. It also belongs to his wife. You shouldn’t stop giving yourselves to each other except when you both agree to do so. And that should be only to give yourselves time to pray for a while. Then you should come together again. In that way, Satan will not tempt you when you can’t control yourselves. I say those things to you as my advice, not as a command. I wish all of you were like me. But you each have your own gift from God. One has this gift. Another has that."(NIV, 1 Cor 7:1-6)
"Now, getting down to the questions you asked in your letter to me. First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations? Certainly—but only within a certain context. It’s good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to “stand up for your rights. Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it’s for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I’m not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence—only providing my best counsel if you should choose them."(The Message, 1 Cor 7:1-6)
Please note an important caveat that Paul inserts into this particular section of the Scriptures concerning marriage that is missing from virtually all the other Scriptures he penned: He qualifies this section as his own recommendation and advice to married couples (male husbands and female wives), NOT a command from either him or God. Basically, he felt that marriage and all its responsibilities, passions and problems could be a huge distraction (boy, is that an understatement!) from focussing on developing our relationship with Almighty God and learning and accomplishing the individual purpose for which He created each one of us, as it relates to spreading the good news of the Gospel. As for her suggestion that homosexuals ought to be allowed to get married because they burn with passion too, I guess the same could be said for those with other sexual proclivities, such as pedophiles and those involved in polygamy, incest and bestiality!
Interestingly enough, though most of Paul's thoughts in this chapter are, by his own admission, his advice, he specifically states in verses 10-11 that it is God' s command, not his, that a wife must not leave her husband, and a husband must not divorce his wife: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."(1 Cor 7:10-11) So much for that command, huh!
Then there is matter of the author's complete misunderstanding and erroneous interpretation of Romans Chapter 1 and it's integrally related chapters, 2 and 3. (I find it laughable that she chastises anyone for singling out Rom 1:18 without having read the whole chapter for context [which she highly recommends], then she herself presents Rom 2:1 without placing it in the context of the entire rest of Chapter 2!) Any basic study of the Book of Romans using any combination of the top ten most popular versions of the Bible (by sales, of which The Message is not one) will reveal that Romans 1:18 thru 3:20 develops the theme of righteousness from God through faith, as opposed to Man's attempt to achieve righteousness through his own behaviors and actions. Basically, the section reveals what happens when people try to live by their own righteousness instead accepting the righteousness God has provided through His Son, Jesus Christ. In fact, Romans 1:17 says this: "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.'" Paul sets the stage by showing that all have sinned and therefore need the righteousness that only God can provide. He expounds upon the sin of the Gentiles in verses 1:18-32, the sin of the Jews in verses 2:1-3:8, and then summarizes the sin of all - Jew and Gentile alike - in verses 3:9-20. Paul points out that the Gentile sin of pursuing his own righteousness is all about rebellion against God (much like it is today, including this subject) while the Jewish sin is more about being prideful and judgmental, especially against Gentiles, while they do many of the same things they accuse the Gentiles of doing; he then advises them both that righteousness comes only from God, and only through faith in Him and the saving works of Jesus Christ.
What God is telling us through the writings of Paul in the second half of the very first chapter of the very first Epistle in the New Testament is not rocket science or some mystical, deep revelation that's hard to understand! He's saying that if you are engaged in any of the shameful activities described in verses 24-32 in Romans Chapter One, which includes women exchanging natural sexual acts with unnatural acts and men abandoning natural sexual relations with women to commit "shameful acts with other men" (which is the definition of the word "homosexuality"), then you have willfully abandoned God and His righteousness; you have exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and you have chosen to worship and serve created things rather than the Creator…Period!
1) "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."(NIV, 1 Cor 6:9-10)
"Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom".(The Message, 1 Cor 6:9-11)
Do you see how different these two passages are worded, although they both originated from the same Scripture reference? Do you see how not just words, but whole concepts are different between the two? Did you notice that the NIV version lists specific identities that disqualify people from inheriting the Kingdom of God (such as "men who have sex with men"), while The Message version generalizes and softens the behavioral identities, leaving out the homosexual behavior reference, and changing the section referring to the Kingdom of God. Yet, if we compared these two different interpretations to other major bible translations, like The King James Version, The New American Standard Bible, The Catholic Bible or even the Amplified Bible (Which I hope you will take time to do in your own studies), you will find that virtually all of the other translations line up pretty much with the NIV translation, while none even come close to resembling The Message translation.
2) Concerning what the Scriptures say about marriage and getting married, she writes this:
"On top of everything, there’s the small issue that for a large part of the New Testament, people are told they shouldn’t marry at all. Paul maintained in no less than eight scriptures that you should only marry if you cannot control your lust and are 'burning with passion.'" I challenge her to present the eight scriptures she is talking about, and to show us any indication that Paul ever meant his "advice", not "commands", about marriage to include men marrying men or women marrying women; even The Message translation doesn't give the slightest hint of support for homosexual marriage.
Yet, here is what the Scriptures say about marriage in virtually the only chapter (1 Cor 7) in the New Testament where the sacrament is discussed in length, not just by Paul, but by anyone else:
"Now I want to deal with the things you wrote me about. Some of you say, “It is good for a man not to have sex with a woman.” But since there is so much sexual sin, each man should have his own wife. And each woman should have her own husband. A husband should satisfy his wife’s sexual needs. And a wife should satisfy her husband’s sexual needs. The wife’s body does not belong only to her. It also belongs to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong only to him. It also belongs to his wife. You shouldn’t stop giving yourselves to each other except when you both agree to do so. And that should be only to give yourselves time to pray for a while. Then you should come together again. In that way, Satan will not tempt you when you can’t control yourselves. I say those things to you as my advice, not as a command. I wish all of you were like me. But you each have your own gift from God. One has this gift. Another has that."(NIV, 1 Cor 7:1-6)
"Now, getting down to the questions you asked in your letter to me. First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations? Certainly—but only within a certain context. It’s good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to “stand up for your rights. Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it’s for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I’m not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence—only providing my best counsel if you should choose them."(The Message, 1 Cor 7:1-6)
Please note an important caveat that Paul inserts into this particular section of the Scriptures concerning marriage that is missing from virtually all the other Scriptures he penned: He qualifies this section as his own recommendation and advice to married couples (male husbands and female wives), NOT a command from either him or God. Basically, he felt that marriage and all its responsibilities, passions and problems could be a huge distraction (boy, is that an understatement!) from focussing on developing our relationship with Almighty God and learning and accomplishing the individual purpose for which He created each one of us, as it relates to spreading the good news of the Gospel. As for her suggestion that homosexuals ought to be allowed to get married because they burn with passion too, I guess the same could be said for those with other sexual proclivities, such as pedophiles and those involved in polygamy, incest and bestiality!
Interestingly enough, though most of Paul's thoughts in this chapter are, by his own admission, his advice, he specifically states in verses 10-11 that it is God' s command, not his, that a wife must not leave her husband, and a husband must not divorce his wife: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."(1 Cor 7:10-11) So much for that command, huh!
Then there is matter of the author's complete misunderstanding and erroneous interpretation of Romans Chapter 1 and it's integrally related chapters, 2 and 3. (I find it laughable that she chastises anyone for singling out Rom 1:18 without having read the whole chapter for context [which she highly recommends], then she herself presents Rom 2:1 without placing it in the context of the entire rest of Chapter 2!) Any basic study of the Book of Romans using any combination of the top ten most popular versions of the Bible (by sales, of which The Message is not one) will reveal that Romans 1:18 thru 3:20 develops the theme of righteousness from God through faith, as opposed to Man's attempt to achieve righteousness through his own behaviors and actions. Basically, the section reveals what happens when people try to live by their own righteousness instead accepting the righteousness God has provided through His Son, Jesus Christ. In fact, Romans 1:17 says this: "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.'" Paul sets the stage by showing that all have sinned and therefore need the righteousness that only God can provide. He expounds upon the sin of the Gentiles in verses 1:18-32, the sin of the Jews in verses 2:1-3:8, and then summarizes the sin of all - Jew and Gentile alike - in verses 3:9-20. Paul points out that the Gentile sin of pursuing his own righteousness is all about rebellion against God (much like it is today, including this subject) while the Jewish sin is more about being prideful and judgmental, especially against Gentiles, while they do many of the same things they accuse the Gentiles of doing; he then advises them both that righteousness comes only from God, and only through faith in Him and the saving works of Jesus Christ.
What God is telling us through the writings of Paul in the second half of the very first chapter of the very first Epistle in the New Testament is not rocket science or some mystical, deep revelation that's hard to understand! He's saying that if you are engaged in any of the shameful activities described in verses 24-32 in Romans Chapter One, which includes women exchanging natural sexual acts with unnatural acts and men abandoning natural sexual relations with women to commit "shameful acts with other men" (which is the definition of the word "homosexuality"), then you have willfully abandoned God and His righteousness; you have exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and you have chosen to worship and serve created things rather than the Creator…Period!
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
A Christian's Response #6 To A Christian's Blog Supporting Gay Marriage
This is blog #6 of a continuation of my response to a missive/blog posted several months ago entitled "Why I am a Christian Who Supports Gay Marriage." Please Google it and check it out before continuing.
The Problem With Judging Marriage By Old Testament Events, Standards And Failures.
The author writes in her blog that her biggest issue of all is that marriage, as defined in the Bible, has a long and complicated past. She goes on to give examples of many men (she conveniently left out women AND added an example of women-initiated incest which had nothing to do with marriage) from the Old Testament who repeatedly ignore God's marriage guidelines as if it is the norm for the whole population, rather than snapshots of the trials and failures of even those men and women whom He chose to use in leading His people to Jesus and the New Testament/Covenant, as if God was giving tacit approval of their behavior by using them as such. The problem is she fails to mention that in all of the cases mentioned, the perpetrators of these deviations to God's plans suffered devastating consequences for their actions and/or their complicity in their numerous violations of God's moral standards. The Problem With Judging Marriage By Old Testament Events, Standards And Failures.
You see, here is what we must understand about the Old Testament and why it is included in the Bible: The Old Testament/Covenant is a showcase of Man's (including womb-man, or woman) inability to live a righteous enough life on his own to restore his pre-Fall connection and relationship with Almighty God on his own, even when He gives them laws to live by, without the indwelling presence of God's life in them. Jesus Himself tells us in the fifth chapter of the Gospel of John that the Old Testament scriptures point to Him (Jesus) for that restitution of righteousness and eternal life. All of the failures of the Old Testament point to the New Testament for the only solution to the condition of Mankind, which is pretty well summed up like this: Christ gave His life for us (to eliminate the punishment for sin), so that he could give His life to us (when we become born again, He gives us Life), in order that He might live His life through us (we become ministers of reconciliation).
But there is another very important factor - a practical issue, really - which had an important impact on the development of the Sacrament of Marriage, the marriage covenant and sexual mores in general, especially as concerns issues of incest and intermarriage. That factor is that early civilization (specifically, Noah and his sons) was given the command to "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth."(Gen 9: 1, 7) Essentially, in the beginning, the population HAD to engage in such practices as polygamy and certain forms of familial and clan inbreeding in order to quickly establish a sustainable, wide-spread population base. Needless to say, it didn't take long for Man's appetite for sex and pleasure to start resulting in excesses and abuses, not to mention the inevitable development of genetic problems. Keep in mind that there was no God-given or -ordained laws for hundreds of years after the Fall, so Man only had his own customs and codes and the laws of nature to restrain and guide his behavior. Finally, as things got out of hand the second time around (the first resulted in the Great Flood), especially among His chosen people, God provided The Law (including the Ten Commandments) through Moses, as they made their way to the Promise Land, the new geographical area He had set aside to be the home for His chosen people, the Nation of Israel. This new Law provided statutes, rules and regulations, as well as associated punishments for violating them, for individuals and communities to live by if they wished to live under God's protection and provision. But, as you can imagine, and as we have seen in many of the Old Testament Scriptures, old habits and ways are often hard to change, especially where intense pleasure is concerned, and where such huge limits are placed on behavior that was once unregulated, for the most part. But God knew that the Commandments were just a starting point for controlling what only His indwelling presence in the form of the Holy Spirit could resolve...Filling that God-shaped hole for infinite love that all people are born with. That is what the OT Book of Jeremiah prophesied (especially in chapters 13 and 31), and the NT Book of Hebrew proclaimed (specifically in chapter 9).
You see, the crux of the matter is this: In the Old Testament, God did not live inside any man except Jesus; not even those men and women who were considered to be righteous in God's eyes or who attempted to live in a righteous manner had the Holy Spirit of God living in them, so they were doomed to eventually fail to live according to God's standards no matter how hard they tried. That's why they needed a Savior. However, in the New Testament, those who become born again (become saved) become temples of the Holy Spirit, both in the flesh and in the spirit. 1 Cor 6:19-20 puts it this way: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies." Do you not see that when we engage in sexual practices that our body is not designed for we are dishonoring God with the body He created for us? And that by legalizing such things as same sex marriage we are creating an environment which perpetuates dishonoring God with our bodies? Of course, those who are not born again are dishonoring God with their prideful lives anyway, so it doesn't really matter what behavior they engage in because they are dead to God and become susceptible to the often deadly consequences of their actions in this world, as well as eternal damnation spiritually for their prideful disobedience.
What we Christians of this day and age must realize and understand is that our relationship with Almighty God under the New Testament/Covenant is based on WHO WE ARE (i.e., either alive in Christ or dead in His absence) as opposed to being under the Old Testament/Covenant, which was based on The Law and one's actions and behavior under it. Ironically, God uses the concept of "traditional" Marriage in the writings of Paul in the New Testament (such as in Ephesians chapter 5) as the ultimate example of the relationship Christ wants with His Church and His people. Now I ask you, do we really want to mess with that dynamic?
By the way, doesn't Homosexuality also have a long and complicated past?
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
A Christian's Response #5 To A Christian's Blog Supporting Gay Marriage
This is blog #5 of a continuation of my response to a missive/blog posted several months ago entitled "Why I am a Christian Who Supports Gay Marriage." Please Google it and check it out before continuing.
I think the most disconcerting and, I admit, alarming section of the author's blog is her suggestion that Almighty God, in the form of Jesus Christ, our Creator, must approve of homosexuality and, therefore, gay marriage, because He did not come outright and say not to do those things. Jesus never spoke out against incest or rape or bestiality either, but that didn't mean He approved of these activities. Here's something else you may not have noticed: Jesus spoke several times about adultery, especially in terms of defining its relationship to divorce and remarriage, but He never came out and specifically commanded His followers not to commit adultery. That's because people who were under the Law already knew how God felt about these things because, contrary to the author's insistence, they were well addressed in Old Testament Scriptures which defined His laws, commands and regulations for the Nation of Israel, starting with Moses and the original Ten Commandments; and for those who were not under the Law it didn't matter, because they were going to do what they wanted to anyway, regardless of what Jesus said...or didn't say.
I think that Jesus often addressed issues as much by what He did not say, as by what He did say. Although Jesus never mentioned the word “homosexuality” (which was quite rampant in the Roman Empire at that point in history, as were many other sexually immoral practices), by inference He made some very definitive statements about it. (Paul was quite a bit more blunt, as we shall see later: He tackled the issue head on.) What I mean is this: If Jesus said something about the way things should be, wasn’t He also defining the way things (about the same issue) should not be, and visa versa?
In Mt 19:1-12, the Pharisees kept wanting to talk about divorce, but Jesus was trying to define the “Creator’s” whole male/female sexual plan in general so that the answer to their specific question would be obvious. Picking it up in verse 4: “Haven’t you read”, He replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man (male) will leave his father (male) and mother (female) and be united to his wife (female), and the two will become one flesh (have intercourse and make babies). So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Who was Jesus talking about when He used the term “Creator” in the fourth verse? I refer you to Jn 1:3 for the answer: “Through Him (the Word, Jesus) all things were made…”. That’s right, Jesus was referring to Himself as He was about to explain His objection to divorce by way of explaining His design and purpose for creating “them” male and female. Was not His use of the words “male and female”, as opposed to the words “man and woman” or “husband and wife”, an obvious reference to the main physical difference between male and females: The sex and reproductive organs? The Pharisees asked Him a “husband and wife” question; He responded with a “male and female” answer. In other words, the One who set up the whole sexual differences thing was about to explain how He intended these differences were to be used. So in the 5th verse, when Jesus says, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (notice, it doesn’t say “be united with woman” or “be united with his life partner”), and the two will become one flesh”, what was the “reason” He was talking about? Was not Jesus explaining His purpose for giving males a penis and testicles (with their sexual and reproductive functions), and giving females a vagina and womb (with their sexual and reproductive functions)? And by using the words “man and wife”, isn’t He inferring the condition (marriage) under which the “one flesh” thing should occur? Because isn’t the ultimate result of the “one flesh” thing the possibility that it will move from a mostly symbolic act of love (verb) to the actual creation of one flesh (noun), called a baby?
Now, look at verse 6. Under ideal conditions, Who is it that brings the male and female together to be joined as man and wife (not “man and life partner” or “life partner and wife”}? Jesus says that it is God who blesses this plan by inspiring a certain man and a certain woman to be joined together, a process which begins way before vows are exchanged at the alter. So with Jesus as the “Creator” and God as the “Joiner” of this process, how in the world could we infer in any way that They would cause or condone any aberration to this system, to include divorce, homosexuality, lesbianism, prostitution, promiscuity, “shacking up”, adultery, or any other behavior which deviates from the original plan?
Now, look at verses 10-12 of our scripture. After answering the Pharisees’ specific question about divorce, and, by inference, other deviations from the plan, Jesus addresses the disciples’ statement about His strict interpretation of the plan. It says, “The disciples said to him, ‘If this is the situation between a husband (male) and wife (female), it is better not to marry.’ Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they are born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of (God) heaven. The one who can accept this should.”(NIV) Jesus is saying that not everyone can accept this teaching, especially those who don’t know God, because those who don’t know God can’t be expected to know His plan for human males and females, given their strong sexual feelings and drives in the natural flesh, the aberrations created by the devil in a sinful world, and the confusing diversity of sexual behavior among the other creatures of this world. Extrapolating about those who do know His plan, Jesus infers, I think, four categories: 1) Those who have sexual feelings and can accept His marriage program; 2) Those born without sexual feelings or functioning organs; 3) Those whose sexual feelings and organs have been removed by men’s actions (such as castration); and 4) Those who give up or renounce their sexual feelings to pursue the spiritual things of the Kingdom of God. Of these categories, only two - #1 and #4 - allow for those who have sexual feelings and functioning organs.
Now, remembering that Jesus became human, with the normal sexual organs and feelings of a human, which category did He step into? Did Jesus practice what He preached? Here’s something else to chew on: Who do you think that the Creator of the world, and everything in it, identifies with more? Think about it: Jesus created one of the most pleasurable experiences known to humans, only to renounce these feelings and experiences in Himself in order to pursue the Kingdom of God with all of His undistracted being. Won’t He have more compassion and empathy for those who do the same?
Finally, there's one glaring problem with the whole concept of marriage and love: Jesus never equated the two in His teachings or in His commands; He never directly suggested that one depended on the other, or that there was any connection between the two. In fact, a minimum amount of research will reveal that concept of marrying for love is very recent in the history of mankind, like within the past 500 years! That's because God never intended for our lives to be focused on our relationships with each other to the exclusion of our relationship with Him; we were built with the capacity for limitless, unconditional love which only He can provide, and which can only be fulfilled when our focus is on our relationship with Him.
Guys, we must realize that it is the Father of Lies who has aberrated and perverted this beautiful system, just as he tries to pervert everything good that God has provided to man. We must understand and accept this premise if we are to take a stand against Satan and utilize the authority Jesus has given us to overcome his evil influences. Because the truth is, we are all affected one way or another by the aberrations the devil has caused. Christians with homosexual tendencies don’t have a corner on the market; it is just as difficult to deal with feelings involving promiscuity, pornography, adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, voyeurism - and the list goes on. As long as we have to deal with a flesh nature, we will have to deal with some aberration or another. Paul said it succinctly in Romans 7:21-25: “So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being, I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!”(NIV)
Here are a couple of more things I gleaned from those verses in Matthew 19 that I think impact our discussion. First, in verses 7- 9, Jesus answered the Pharisees’ trick question about the specific issue of divorce with an important general statement about the condition of mankind, which also explains why He didn’t directly address many issues of His day that are common to our times, such as homosexuality and abortion. In verse 8, Jesus says, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.” Jesus knew that unless men have a heart change, it was useless to try and change their behavior. Unless a man’s heart is softened by the love resulting from the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God, it will be cold to the things of God, and his behavior will continue to be controlled by the self-centered and self-serving influence of the corrupted flesh nature. Jesus knew that if He could change men’s hearts, He wouldn’t have to explain God’s plan about things; it would be obvious. And the good news is that, unlike for the Pharisees and mankind before Pentecost, the change of heart that changes our “want to’s” is available to all mankind today; there is no longer a valid excuse for ignoring the plans of the “Creator,” especially for Christians.
Second, did you notice in verse 12 how Jesus acknowledged that some people are born with design differences other than what He intended? If it is possible for some people to be born without sexual feelings or capabilities, isn’t it also possible that some people are born with abnormal sexual dealings and drives? Wouldn’t “abnormal” include anything that is different from the way the “Creator” meant things to be? In acknowledging that some people are born with abnormalities (and that others are made “abnormal” by the actions of other people), do you think Jesus was thereby accepting culpability for or approving of this type of situation? In other words, do you think that God, Who created man in His own image and likeness, also created a system for causing people to be born with variations to His original design? What possible reason could he have had for doing that: To create a little variety among mankind? And if you think He does cause people to be born with variations to His original design, then why do you think that He causes Paul to speak so adamantly against the behavior you could expect to result from these abnormalities in New Testament Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 6:9-20?
What I mean is this: I dare say that most people who participate in homosexual behavior will say that they were either born with homosexual drives and tendencies, or made that way by the actions of other people, or both. (Incidentally, science has already determined that there is no gene or gene mutation that causes homosexuality.) The inference is that since God either caused or allowed this to happen, then He must be giving His approval for this lifestyle, so it is okay for them to indulge in this behavior, regardless of what the Scriptures have to say. What a convenient way out of dealing with the aberrations and tribulations of our flesh nature! “After all,” they say, “didn’t Paul say that ‘Everything is permissible’?” This kind of thinking, I believe, results in what we know as “moral relativity,” probably the most potent destroyer of civilized society, in which our mores tumble like dominoes, as we progressively pursue man’s happiness, instead of God’s joy.
For the serious Christian, who believes in the Scriptures and who is trying to find God’s way in things like this, I ask you to consider some pointed questions:
- Do you believe God has (had) a plan for the way things should be in this world? I think that the very fact that He gave us the Bible, and His Holy Spirit to understand it, means that He does. That is why if you confess to know God, but don’t believe His Word as it is written, or try to dismiss parts of it because you don’t think that they apply to the world today, then you are terribly deceived, and you will always be confused in your attempts to understand His Word and interpret its meaning for your life.
- Do you think that God allows things to happen in this world that deviate from His original plan? I believe that the answer must be “yes”, if we are to believe that God is in control, and that His allowance is the cornerstone of the concept of “free will." But wouldn't you agree that the concept of "free will" also involves exposing ourselves and those around us to varying degrees of consequences when the choices we make are wrong and go against the the obvious plans of God for mankind?
- Do you believe that by allowing deviations to His original plans He is thereby approving of them? I opine, surely not! On the contrary, God has given us everything that He has to give – His Son, His Spirit, His Word, His Power – to counteract the deviations and aberrations that Satan has inflicted on mankind and this world. In 2 Peter 1:3-4, Peter puts it this way“His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”(NIV)
But you know what, if you're a born again Christian, here's something I think you need to take under consideration: Suppose the Lord Jesus Christ came to you and told you that He wanted you to teach a Sunday school class of teens and preteens an anatomy class as it relates to sex and marriage, because He was going to monitor your class and right afterward He would be teaching them a class on Ephesians 5:21-32 (21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the Church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.) and how the physical aspect of the marriage relationship is used to describe the spiritual aspect of His relationship to the Church. Can you in all honesty sit there and tell me that you would teach those young folks that the actual gender of the husband and wife makes no difference? I mean, really? And while you're at it, how would you be explaining the "two will become one flesh" issue in a lesbian marriage, or how the union of two gay people can result in the "one flesh" of a baby. which is the primary purpose for the sacrament of marriage?
You see, the BIG problem of this whole gay marriage issue is that not only does it contradict the biological reason for which God created the institution of marriage, but primarily it distorts the model God uses to explain the spiritual relationship He wants with His Church, the Bride, thru His Son, Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom.
You see, the BIG problem of this whole gay marriage issue is that not only does it contradict the biological reason for which God created the institution of marriage, but primarily it distorts the model God uses to explain the spiritual relationship He wants with His Church, the Bride, thru His Son, Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)