This morning news broke that is not surprising when given the direction our culture in the United States combined with previous Supreme Court rulings: same-sex marriage is now a right that must be legally recognized in every state.
Here are some opening truths for us to remember: Jesus is still King, God is not surprised or caught off guard, Jesus will continue to build his church until his return, and he has tasked his church to be a continuing witness of his love and grace. With these in mind, here are a few of my thoughts:
First, this does not change how the church should view marriage. On the one hand, Christians have always (if imperfectly) held up marriage as a great societal good. In Genesis 2 it became the first pillar of society given by God. Yes, Genesis 3 tainted it as with everything else, but in Jesus there is a redemptive element to marriage.
The church should not simply be about trying to produce a bunch of heterosexual monogamous relationships under the banner of “marriage.” Instead, under this banner our goal should be to produce such relationships that provide a clear gospel witness. With Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Peter 3, and Matthew 22 in mind, we see several truths: (1) marriage between a man and a woman is a temporary, earth-bound relationship; (2) though we are to hold it in high honor, the greatest focus is to always be living for Jesus; (3) Christian marriage is to be a sanctifying relationship where the husband grows to mimic Jesus more and the wife grows in a greater love and relationship with Jesus; (4) so marriage is pointing us to a greater eternal reality of the relationship between Jesus and his church; and (5)we can never view Christian marriage as separate from discipleship.
Our one man, one woman understanding of marriage is not important simply because God created them male and female in the beginning (though that is part of it). It is vastly important because it stands as a gospel witness of Jesus and his church and is to bring us to greater holiness and Christ-likeness.
The nations of the world will define marriage however they desire. Always have and always will. Some cultures throughout the ages have and do view marriage as a sense of property ownership or as part of a political treaty. These are also not Christian and God-defined views of marriages even if between a man and woman. Regardless, we as the church are called to practice what the Holy Spirit gave us in scripture. This is our duty: we obey King Jesus and we hold marriage as a sacred relationship that helps us grow in Christ-likeness.
Second, we must keep looking at the world through gospel-influenced eyes. First Peter 2:17 says, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” Ephesians 6:12 says, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” And 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 says, “For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.”
Yes, biblically speaking, we are to see ourselves in the midst of a war but we are not to see any person or group of people as our enemy. Politicians, the Supreme Court, members of the LGBT community, our neighbors, our family, people spread out across the world—no person is our enemy.
What they are is the same as we were before we followed Jesus. What they are is how we are all born into this world.
They are people created in the image of God, meant to be significant, meant to reflect his glory to the world, but lost, broken, and held under the chains of sin. From the moment of our conception in our mother’s womb we are children of Adam. This means we are children of Genesis 1, 2, and 3.
The only thing that separates us and makes us different, no matter our gender, ethnicity, social class, or orientation is Jesus. If we are in Jesus then we have been redeemed, we have been reshaped, and we have been renewed. We are no longer bound by our birth identity in the flesh. We are no longer children of Genesis 3 but of Genesis 12: children of Abraham, children of promise, and children of God. We have been forgiven, adopted, and restored.
But none of that is because we were more righteous (Romans 3, anyone?). None of that because we were more special (1 Corinthians 1). None of it because of anything we did (Ephesians 2). It is only by the grace of God working in our hearts through the gospel that the Son, Jesus, has freed us (John 8, Ephesians 2). As God has lavished his grace upon us, so he has called us to take the good news of his wonderful grace to others, indiscriminately.
If they disagree with us on marriage, we are to go to them in grace and love and share the beauty of the gospel. If they disagree with us on the proper way to honor God, we are to go to them in grace and love and share the beauty of the gospel. If they disagree with us on ethics, we are to go to them in grace and love and share the beauty of the gospel. If they hold a gun or sword at us and say they will kill us, we are to go to them in grace and love and share the beauty of the gospel.
Yes, we are in a war, but not with people. And our weapons of warfare are not picket signs or bumper stickers about Adam and Steve or the power of legal force. Our belt is the truth of Jesus. Our breastplate is the righteousness of God covering our sin. Our shoes are the good news of peace in, through, and with Christ. Our shield is our faith rooted firmly in the finished work of Christ. Our helmet is the gracious salvation God has given us. Our sword is God’s word which is not to bludgeon but to declare the greatness, love, and righteousness of God in Christ. And it is all bound together with prayer.
Two final sub-thoughts with this: We must look for avenues of grace. Malachi 2:14 describes marriage as a covenant. At the core of the fight in favor of same-sex marriage is a remnant of a godly reality. Those of the LGBT community have fought for this because they desire to share in a greater bond; because at its core they still see something special about marriage.
This goes back to the fact that we are all created in the image of God. God is relational, he is eternally triune: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is also covenantal. We clearly see in scripture God making a covenant (a relationship built on promises, but something more solid than mere verbal promises) with Noah, Abraham, the people of Israel through Moses, and David, and then a new covenant through Jesus.
In our hearts we long for deep relationships, for covenant relationships because we have been formed in God’s image. Those in the LGBT community long for these things because they have been formed in God’s image.
I do not say this to diminish the reality and consequence of sin, ours or theirs. Rather, this gives us a point of contact. We all have the same longing, just expressed in different ways. We all have the same desire, just corrupted in different ways by sin. We must see the reality of this longing as an avenue to speak the truth of the gospel: no mere person in any relationship will make you feel complete and perfectly loved. Yes, relationships lived out in a God-honoring way can point us in the right direction, but it is only God himself through the work of Jesus and the Holy Spirit dwelling within that will complete you and bask you in perfect love.
Anyone’s desire for marriage is an avenue to point to the truth of the gospel, and our need for Jesus and his righteousness.
We must be people of prayer. We often hear 2 Chronicles 7:14 quoted in response to events like this: “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” The thing is, though, God is not talking about the United States. The States have never been, are not, and will never be “my people who are called by my name.” There is only one Christian nation and that is the faithful church itself (1 Peter 2:9-10).
We do need healing. We need healing from our oft divisions, whether over music or personality clashes or lack of grace and love towards God, each other, and neighbor. We do need to turn from our Sunday-Christian mentality that has devalued through its non-practice evangelism and discipleship. We need to reclaim a daily passion for God and love for others.
So we need to pray. We pray to be the people that Jesus has called us to be: missionaries of a wondrous light in a world of spiritual darkness. And we pray that we might walk in the holiness and righteousness of Jesus, not to browbeat those who don’t but to be an example of God’s transforming love and grace.
This is not a day for us to lament our nation. This is a day for us to renew our hope in Christ. Politics, laws, and courts will never change a person, make a nation godly, or win the world for the gospel. The people of Jesus living for Jesus and declaring the good news of Jesus as the Holy Spirit works through them will.
I’ve been working doing drywall in my basement today, thinking I should post something. I’m glad Mike sent this in. I’d like to share a few of my thoughts, which are much like Mike’s.
1) We no longer have to debate whether this is a Christian nation. Was it? Talk amongst yourselves. But that debate is moot now.
2) We now live as Christians have in most of history and most of the world – in a culture hostile to our values.
3) Our concern now is religious liberty – the question of whether we will be allowed the freedom to live by our convictions.
Roe v. Wade established abortion as a right, but we’ve been free for 40 years to be anti-abortion. Now that same-sex marriage is a “right” will we be free to live in opposition to it? Will it be more than a right, will it be a compulsion?
You’d better choose your candidates carefully next election folks.
4) There oughta be a severe flogging for any Christian who acts like this is the end of the world or that the church is finished. Jesus said fear not to a church in a LOT WORSE fix than we are in today.
5) Like Dr. Moore said, let us remember that we are on the RIGHT SIDE of HISTORY! Maybe not this year but eternally.
One thing to also remember is the sovereign, all knowing, and ask wise God put us here precisely at this point of history to exalt him and spread his gospel in this culture and context.
Will we stand up and embrace it or falter as we pine for better days… Whenever those were.
1. The nation was more (or less) Christian when slavery was legal, Jim Crow, women had few rights? We sometimes get a skewed perspective that doesn’t account for the periods during which we were not present.
2. Probably
3. Abortion was legal in many states prior to Roe, as was SSM prior to today.
4 & 5. OK
I forget where he gets his stats, but Stephen Nichols in his book “Jesus Made in America” states that there is a greater percentage of people participating in church today in the States than during the country’s funding period.
Not sure this country has ever been well-funded
Not sure about the book you mentioned, but the stats are pretty easy to find. First, there is the US Census of 1790 for national population. As for religious bodies, the Episcopals, Methodists, Catholics, and Presbyterians kept good records in both the colonial and early Federal periods and are available. Probably some were lost, though not many because of their hierarchical system, and those lost would be a fraction of a percentage point. There were only a handful of synagogs in the US back then, and no mosques or dojos. As for Baptists, the numbers are probably less exact, but you have Ashplund’s Register of the Baptist Denomination in the United States, I believe published in 1790 (I have a reprint copy, but it is at the office and I am at home). And he gives all the stats he could find for General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Particular Baptists, 7th Day Baptists, German Tunkers, and every other Baptist group he could find. Compare the two (and while I have not, I know people who have), and the number of church members comes out right at 10% of the population.
Now: the last time I heard a sermon including this was from Dr. Robert Culpepper, retired missionary to Japan and professor at the “old” Southeastern. And he asked, “Would anyone argue that the church today, while claiming a larger percentage of the US population, has more influence today than did the church of 1790?”
John
I don’t think this article would have been received well from our Founders who were contemplating a rebellion against King George and England. They saw, as we should see, our liberties being trashed, not by a government represented by the people, but from a tyrannical court ever bent on usurpation and eradication of rights, freedoms, and liberty. They prayed, they sought redresses, and they didn’t ask the church to change; rather most in the church agreed with the Founders. In response, they acted as Christian statesmen (not all, but many were) and placed their lives, their lands, and their reputations on the line so that liberty might stand so that the King and his court would not dictate its demands on a free people, even if that meant rebellion. They didn’t lose hope in Christ, but they certainly did with good ole King George, and they did something about it.
First of all, they were not primarily committed to the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Second, are you suggesting armed rebellion?
Nate,
This is a country founded on freedom. Whether we like it or not, every race, every religion, every righteous person, and every sinner is free.
Under our constitution every sinner can sin, and every righteous person can live righteously. You have to remember there is a vast difference between the church and government. If the sinner wasn’t free to sin, and the righteous wasn’t free to live righteous, this would be a messed up nation, and a messed up government.
The church is losing popularity in our nation because of our attitudes toward people, we should pull together and win souls, that is our place in this world. We live in the greatest nation in the world, I would not want to live anywhere else. I love America, and I love our government, and most of all I love Jesus.
The Supreme Court is friendly toward the church, this is a fact. The Supreme Court is also friendly toward all people, this is a fact. We as the church should be about the Father’s business, and win souls.
Do I support sin? Of course not, but sin is here to stay, sin will not interfere with me doing God’s will. Sin is what puts food on the pastor’s table, that’s right, no sin, no pastor, and no salary.
You are missing my point Dave. No, the Revolution wasn’t primarily concerned with the spread of the gospel, but the Founders certainly understood (as did many of the clergy) that the usurpation of the King without a voice from the people trampled not only the liberties of the colonists, but also the liberties of those who came to this country to worship freely. Make no mistake, this Court and this govt. no longer cares about the 1st amendment and today’s ruling (overriding the will of the states) to determine for themselves is as vicious as England’s tyranny on the colonies.
As for armed rebellion, I pray that will not come to pass, but when the govt. sends its troops into our churches to force us to comply with this or some other law that the people’s representatives never were given a hearing for… well… The Founders had their own opinion on that.
“The Founders had their own opinion on that.”
Yeah, and so does Jesus. The difference is that Jesus doesn’t have opinions, he has all authority in heaven and on earth. He said things like, “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” He said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” I can’t for the life of me find where He said, “Take up arms against those who persecute you.” He did tell Peter to put down his sword and then healed the man’s ear who had come to arrest Him.
Adam, I guess you would have moved to England after the Declaration had you been living in the colonies then, yes? Or would you have fought with the British?
Why is dying not an option anymore?
If you’re referring to pure pacification to the point of death, that is certainly commendable. Not all Christians have agreed with that approach through the centuries, but you are entitled to that opinion.
However, the U.S. isn’t 1st Century Rome and Obama is not the Emperor (no matter how he acts) and so we (as citizens) don’t have to respond exactly as the 1st century believers did (many whom weren’t even citizens of Rome). They had few options, however, we, as citizens, have rights and if the Supreme Court overrides those it remains to be seen what will transpire.
I am not going to answer your hypothetical because hundreds of years later it is difficult for me to chart a specific course of action that I would have taken had I been living then. Not to mention that such an answer would be irrelevant. I was responding to your suggestion that taking up arms ought to be an option now.
That’s fine Adam, but your reply insinuated that any action by believers other than turning the other cheek would be Un-Christian. However, as Tarheel and I have already pointed out, pure pacifism, while commendable, is not something Christians have fully agreed upon throughout the centuries.
So Adam B.,
Christian Soldiers in the US military who are killing Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc today are sinning – as were our grandparents who did so with Nazis and Japanese? Christians are commanded by Christ never to enter armed conflict against those who immorally kill and oppress?
I did not know you had become a pacifist.
Its easy to pile on and intimate that the revolutionary war was an unjust war, now….as one who so opines benefits from the freedoms those who “pledged their fortunes and sacred honor” fought and died for.
I do not know if a time will actually come again when Americans will once again have to stand up to tyranny from our own govt.
Tarheel, you need to go back and read what Nate wrote and what I wrote. You have grossly misrepresented what I said.
I am not a pacifist.
Adam, I take it then you would not consider raising arms against this govt. no matter the grievance?
By the way Dave was the one to bring taking up arms against this govt., not me. He asked me if that was what I was asking for. My response was that I was praying that would not take place, but also mentioned the Founders did when pressed to the wall without the ability to redress the King and his court overruling the will of the people.
As to what point, and to what measure will this generation have to go? Remains to be seen.
Not real comfortable with a discussion of armed rebellion here.
But we have weapons of warfare that are far more powerful than guns or bombs. They have the power of God. They are the ones Paul and the early Christians fought with and they accomplished more than an armed rebellion ever could.
Nate (and others who would advocate for armed rebellion),
When you can provide me with chapter and verse from Scripture then we can talk.
Until then, I would suggest you read up on the Apostle Paul, who was a Roman citizen, but who was beaten, stoned, imprisoned, and ultimately martyred for the faith.
We don’t take up arms. We take up a cross. If you aren’t willing to ride the beam, you aren’t following the Jesus of scripture, but the Jesus of American Exceptionalism.
The Jesus of AE is being found wanting. “he” is a fake, an imposter, and a fraud- a false “gospel” for the digital age.
Thankfully, the real Jesus is still there and He is still calling His people to stand for the Gospel not by armed rebellion, or political machinations, or cloistered retreat, but by speaking the truth in love and dying daily…even to the point of the shedding of our blood.
Keep your rebellion.
I want Jesus.
Ryan, again I have not advocated for armed rebellion, rather I have brought up the Founders (armed rebellions who started this nation).
You have lived, as probably many generations of your forefathers did, in the shadow of those armed rebels and not under King and Queen because those rebels purchased (many with their blood) the very freedoms you have enjoyed, which are now (by SCOTUS) being repealed right under our very eyes.
If you wish to view that as unbiblical you may. As I have said repeatedly, pure pacifism is commendable, but it is not something every Christian has agreed with throughout the centuries. However, please refrain from implying that myself or my forefathers (who have fought in many wars for this nation throughout its history) are not Christian because of the stands they took. They were not fighting for your Jesus of AE (whatever you may think that is), they were defending what they believed to be right and true and good.
By the way, the Apostle Paul used his citizenship to his well-being otherwise he would have been stoned in Jerusalem, and because of it he was able to take his appeal to Caesar.
I’ll keep Jesus (for He is the Only One that matters), but I’ll probably stay a rebel as well, just like my forefathers.
I would argue the biblical concepts and arguments that underpin the theories of personal (and family) self defense, Just-War theories and arguments for Christians serving in the military, all would be applicable to justify at which point a rebellion against a ruling government is tolerable under Scriptural guidelines. That said, there are some, including some who even occasionally frequent voices here, who do advocate complete and total pacifism, and reject any argument, even if it is supported by scripture, if it does not agree with them.
I would further add, that in the current case of the potential for armed rebellion, there is a stronger case in support than there was in the American Revolution. Romans 13 and 1st Peter 2 both speak to submission to the governing authorities. However the United States was one of the first, and to a large extent still is one of the few nations where in principle and in governing documents, the people have the power. That is, the people of the United States are the ones who elect their leaders, and through the ballot box, guide them as to how we want this nation to be run.
As then the government of the United States is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, it could rightly be argued that any attempt to usurp that form of governance is akin to invasion or the theft of power, and any armed rebellion then would not be against the true powers of this government, but rather restoring those rightly in charge (the people of this representative democracy) to power, and removing those who are taking power that does not belong to them.
Further, I would argue that as this is a government “of the people” any Christian who does not participate in the political process (i.e. voting), is intact in violation of and not following the principles taught in Romans 13 and 1st Peter 2. If we the people are the true governing authorities through our participation in the voting process, to not do so is against the will and word of God.
As in any case of Just-war, armed conflict of any kind is and should be a last resort. However, to quote from the Declaration of Independence:
Adam B.,
With your juxtaposition it seemed as if you were saying that the armed rebellion against tyranny was unchristian – If that’s not what you meant – rather than simply saying I grossly misrepresented you –please explain what you did meant.
SV
Are you seriously implying that you believe the current US government is more oppressive than Rome? Is that what you are mean to say?
By all means, please convince me!
I apologize if my words were not very clear. What I intended to say is that the current political situation, where I believe that there are forces corrupting the political process and taking control and power that the Constitution does not afford them; is more in line with my views on Just-War and armed rebellion, than the Revolution that founded this country. Hence why I put the effort in to explain why I believe it is a Christian’s duty to participate in this government, and that any efforts made to change this government from its intended function, constitute an invasion or rebellion itself, and thus any response from us is not a rebellion, but a resistance against invasion by a false government, freeing Christians from any obligation under Romans 13, to submit to such actions, to such tyranny.
I personally believe that the Revolution was fully appropriate and in line with Scripture, but again, what I was saying, was that the current political climate in this country is leading to a point where those who hold true to the original founding document of this country, will not be the ones committing rebellion, they will be the ones rescuing the true form of government.
Christians need to stop being naive. For most of Western history (since the rise of Constantine) Christianity has been favored, encouraged and in many cases missionary efforts aided by the government. Christian morality had the force of law throughout the West. This marks a sad end for the ascendancy of the church in the West and portends greater storms in the future. Yeah, we all know how the story turns out in the end, but that doesn’t mean this chapter is a happy one. In fact, where we are today reads much more like a chapter in Amos.
In Acts when the Christians were accused of turning the world upside down because of the impact of the church they didn’t have the “backing of the government”…
Storm clouds make perfect weather for walking on water (Matthew 14)… Let’s not be naive about what the power of God can do with our without government “approval”…
The world is always changing; Jesus is always a sure Rock.
“Storm clouds make perfect weather for walking on water.”
Man. What a great line.
Mike,
Thanks for the Christocentric, gospel-propelling perspective offered here. That is certainly what is needed most among Christians right now and that is probably where we will struggle the most in the days ahead – both emotionally and socially.
The only caution I wanted to throw out, which is similar to what Nate says above, though my comment is much more subtle and focused on one thing you said. You stated that “this is not a day for us to lament our nation.” I would appreciate it if you would consider amending that statement for the following reasons.
1) Romans 13 makes it clear that government, which is ordained by God, is not intended to be “a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” Therefore, we must acknowledge that these 5 justices are anything but just and this is worth lamenting.
2) The future destruction of the family in America is inevitable. I grieve for the children that will now be raised in homes with such confused ideas being handed down to them from both their parents and our government. These are perversions that will scar children for life and I would not wish this off on anyone. This is worth lamenting.
3) The impact of this decision on our churches and parachurch institutions remains to be seen, but there is a very real possibility that schools and seminaries will be forced to close and churches may eventually be driven underground. Our own beloved SBC could dissolve before our very eyes, along with the mechanisms like the CP, IMB, and NAMB that allow us to mobilize effectively for gospel ministry. To lose such things would sad, and the potential for this is worth lamenting.
4) There are many cases in the Bible where the people mourn and grieve in the midst of tragedy and hardship. John even sees the souls of those who gave their lives for the sake of Christ’s name in Revelation 6 and they are anxious to see the Lord’s justice pronounced on their wrong-doers. This reflects a holy desire for God’s intent for mankind to be fulfilled. Today, the SCOTUS has become more like the one’s that slaughtered the souls in Revelation 6 than the rulers in Romans 13 who are God’s servants for our good. Therefore, we have a biblical warrant, and I would argue, a mandate to lament today’s events.
Again, I totally agree with your points about how we need to move forward. But I believe the gospel-centered emotions that Christians should have today are far too complex to simply say we should not lament. That would imply we don’t fully appreciate the gravity of the situation or the very real damage this will do to our friends and neighbors, as well as to the generations to come.
So I would plead with everyone here to shepherd your people to have a broken heart in the days ahead. A heart that is broken for our neighbors. A heart that loves our neighbors and does not want to see them deceived by a corrupted group of government officials and political activists. And a heart that, while broken over these events, has its hope set not on the things of this world but on our beautiful Savior and sovereign King.
Grace and peace brothers. May the Lord grant us all wisdom for the trials ahead.
-Bob B.
Well said, Bob.
Yep
Amen, Bob. My heart grieves, as well. This is a bad for the USA. Yes, God is still sitting on His throne, and He is not wringing His hands in worry and fear. But, it is a sad day…especially when we think about all the bad consequences that are coming….and, all the suffering that will take place….and, what our children and grandchildren will have to deal with.
David
Bob, yeah a bit of clarity may be in order:
The “not lament” is not of course a statement about not grieving sin or it’s effects. It is about how we tend to tie the tides of our nation to our sense of spiritual well being.
As citizens of a better Country we’re ambassadors here. Yes, it’d be nice to have the sense of peace that Paul wrote about in 1 Tim 2, but: We have a gospel infused with the power of the one who spoke all things into existence. And that gospel is a light that shines brighter where it is darker.
Would I prefer a different course for the country? Yeah, on a lot of things, not just this. But, we should open the flood gates wide of love, service, and gospel proclamation, and guard against a defeatist attitude.
That was my point: Let’s not act like we’ve lost the country; let’s go forth in the power of an unfailing God.
I agree wholeheartedly Mike. And I’m sure you’d agree we want to avoid putting on a superficial happy face toward what has happened. I think what we’re both after is the balance of grace and truth, which is admittedly difficult to find right now. Grace and patience toward everyone, but especially with each other, is really essential right now. Grace and peace brother. Thanks for sharing.
Jeremiah was rightly called the weeping prophet. If we believe the repercussions of sin are coming to our own nation, then I can’t see why our own lamentation is not in order.
Matt,
If repercussions because of sin didn’t come upon us for what we done to the Indians, or black women being raped, and black men being castrated under slavery, and our government sending our troops to war for no reason costing thousands of lives including our own sons and daughters. I reckon there will be no repercussions for gay marriage.
Isaiah 3:9 …and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
There is still no such thing as same-sex marriage, regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Dave is right. As that great theologian Johnny Cash once sang, – “it’s goin’ by the book.”
https://changeworthmaking.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/an-irrelevant-ruling-the-supreme-kangaroo-court-there-is-still-no-such-thing-as-same-sex-marriage/
First, Dr. Bob Pearle said it well today: “Our nation has morphed from a republic into an oligarchy.” Sen. James Lankford posted a video from yesterday’s Obamacare ruling highlighting the same thing. In that decision, the court referenced what the drafters of the law “meant” to say. Judge Roberts put it this way: “This court is not a legislature.” Only that’s what it has now become. The third branch of our government enjoys a very weak system of accountability.
Second, in every case but one, the votes of the Supremes track with the political party of their nominating President. (Reagan’s appointment Kennedy is the exception.) For the most part, they are no longer voting based on Constitutional interpretation, but primarily based upon political ideology. We must elect the right President largely in order for him or her to appoint the right justices in this new oligarchy in which they both write the laws and determine their constitutionality.
NOT FINDING GAY MARRIAGE RIGHT IN CONSTITUTION:
1. Antonin Scalia (Ronald Reagan)
2. Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush)
3. John G. Roberts (George W. Bush)
4. Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (George W. Bush)
FINDING GAY MARRIAGE RIGHT IN CONSTITUTION:
5. Anthony Kennedy (Ronald Reagan)
6. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Bill Clinton)
7. Steven Breyer (Bill Clinton)
8. Sonia Sotomayer (Barack Obama)
9. Elena Kagan (Barack Obama)
It should be noted that Reagan never used any type of litmus test for his nominations. He was willing to nominate judges who he did not agree with 100% because he felt the courts should be a-political. Unfortunately Democrats have not been as kind and fair in their dealings.
It should also be noted though that Reagan attempted to nominate Robert Bork but was shut down by the legislative branch. That’s how we got stuck with Kennedy. Thankfully, he also snuck Scalia in on them. 😀
Thanks Rick. I was trying to remember who appointed who. Very disappointing that Kennedy cast his vote that way. I have a feeling that we haven’t heard the last on “religious” vs. “civil” marriage.
In regard to slavery rights, Abraham Lincoln said “You don’t have a right to do wrong.” The African American plight has been about civil rights. Homosexual rights have not been considered civil rights … until today. Slavery was a sin; homosexuality is a sin. Abraham Lincoln’s quote applies to both.
If you are keeping SCOTUS trivia, here’s one to think about: John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, also served as the President of the American Bible Society. They don’t make ’em like they used to!
I have very limited time as I’m shortly to be at a wedding rehearsal, said wedding I am doing tomorrow. But may I commend my pastor’s words he published earlier today? I think they are stellar and fit well with the writer of this article.
Pastor Russell St. John of Twin Oaks Presbyterian Church.
http://topctopics.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-marriage-church-and-social-media.html?spref=fb&m=1
Good reminders in your article … but…
“Those of the LGBT community have fought for this because they desire to share in a greater bond; because at its core they still see something special about marriage.”
You think? I don’t. I think its much more about an equality statement and the benefits of marriage in our society… or what they view as benefits. You give a much more noble sound to a horrible screeching noise, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful…”.
“… noble sound to a horrible screeching noise …”
That pretty well describes what I heard today, particularly on the liberal media coverage. I’m sure all the noise drifting upward from America today sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard, as the angels gripped the rim of Heaven in amazement.
Most of the local media interviews with gay couples who ran down to the country clerk’s office today for their paperwork spoke to the benefits side of the decision (insurance, social security, etc.), rather than marital bliss.
For the Affordable Care Act I think that the Presidents image should be carved at Mt. Rushmore. The Justices ruling on same sex marriage cannot be blamed on the President. Justice Roberts said the Supreme Court is no place for politics, he also said it’s their job to interpret the law according to the constitution.
The church was asleep in 73, and the church is asleep now. Until each church member becomes a witness to their neighbor, we deserve what we get. I reckon it’s alright if we don’t witness, we are all sinners, and on our way to heaven, aren’t we Dave?
I might suggest you read the Bible, Jess. Maybe a good modern language Bible would knock some some of those cobwebs out, and get that theology worked out.
1. Of course we are all sinners. Nothing us clearer.
2. No, we are not all headed to heaven. That would be universalism, a heresy and denial of the truth.
3. That is why we proclaim Christ and his gospel.
Not sure where you come up with some of your ideas. Even ol’ Ling Jimmy doesn’t teach that stuff.
Dave,
KJV only. You took what I said out of context. I just asked a simple question, because you said all the church is sinners.
I’m just trying to be humble, brother.
“Affordable Care Act”…. better stated “Insurance Company Bonanza”. Is there really anyone in America that believes that the Insurance Companies did not roll the President? Come on,…. The Insurance Companies might sponsor the carving of the mountain. Wow!
Today’s ruling on the other hand, is simply a mistake. Roe v. Wade has extinguished millions of lives. The supreme courts attempt to reassign meaning to marriage will have similar results on the culture over time. Pure stupidity, wrapped in politics with no upside.
The POTUS, claiming Christ, while actively spitting on the splendor of His creation. Not good.
I’m just wondering what people are going to use the guns for. When they try to force you to perform a SS wedding? Do we think the government will send armed individuals to force us to perform weddings?
Amen, Bill Mac. Nothing I have read so far requires any minister to perform any wedding, same sex or otherwise, or penalizes him (or her) for not doing one. Until and unless that happens, this whole talk about it being the death of the church, or being justification for armed insurrection is ridiculous. And as for acts of civil disobedience, I fail to see where this comes into play for clergy; after all, we are not being required to do any such weddings, nor are we being forced in any way to modify what we preach. (For clerks of the court, I can see such an act of civil disobedience, and I would fully support any who did so.) Unless that happens–and I think that either it never will, or in the unlikely event it does, will almost immediately be overturned in an act of judicial activism by the very Supreme Court conservatives are castigating today–all such talk is just hot air being blown by people with political motives, not with faith-based or even moral ones.
And I predict that the GOP will howl the loudest about this, and never once mention that Republican George W. Bush was President for 8 years and had a Republican majority Congress for 6 of those 8–and no Constitutional Amendment was ever even brought up in Congress to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. A Constitutional amendment back then could have avoided all this today. But it was “politics as usual” and the GOP saw that they could get the votes of conservative evangelicals for nothing more than lip service, while doing very little we wanted.
John
John Fariss,
Amen!
Or – since most conservatives believe this to be a state issue – they chose not to nationalize it.
Besides – even if they had passed a constitutional amendment and it had been ratified by all of the required states for it to become part of the Constitution – the Supreme Court still could ruled it unconstitutional and struck it down given the ruling that they gave probably would have. Remember the only reason that the Supreme Court was hearing this in the first place was a federal courts had struck down duly passed State constitutional amendments in-laws.
I knew that Jess never misses an opportunity for Republican bashing (facts are almost always completely irrelevant to him) but I didn’t realize you had joined him, John.
How is it bashing the GOP if it is the truth? And I’ll be glad to criticize the Democratic Party as well, BTW. I think only marginally more if them–if any at all–than I do the GOP.
John
No, not if it was an amendment to the US Constitution. SCOTUS has authority to interpret state and federal laws, and state constitutions and amendments against the US constitution, but not an amendment to the US constitution.
John
That’s not correct. If they determine that a new amendment violates the existing document – they can declare it unconstitutional – lest you think they “can’t do that” – after all the times we’ve seen where they “discover” fundamental rights buried within the document hundreds of years after the document was written.
An amendment to the constitution becomes part of the constitution. The Supremes cannot declare the constitution unconstitutional.
They used to not be “able” to write law.
The SCOTUS does what it wants now – anything that 5 of them agree on.
Heck justice Breyer has been known to use international laws as a basis for his rulings.
Can the SCOTUS overturn a US constitutional amendment? I wouldn’t think so.
They don’t have the authority to do so – but I think they could yield the power anyway.
Could they not issue an unimpeachable , unappealable ruling that essentially eviserstes the legal wording of an amendment that it becomes essentially worthless?
In fact the ruling philosophy of SCOTUS these days – by 5 of them – is that the Constitution itself is a living and breathing document – that changes and evolves with cultural and philosophical whims – therefore at anytime – while I agree – they do not have the actual *authority* they have taken upon themselves the *power* to rewrite as they see fit – and there is no appeal to it.
*Wield the power anyway.
Dave, that is an interesting proposition. Didn’t they over rule the Constitution in Roe v. Wade when they took away due process (I think that’s Art. V) from the unborn just be redefining what life is?
Didn’t they overrule the Constitution when they let Obamacare–a tax per the Court–stand when it originated in the Senate not the House as the Constitution states?
Didn’t they over step their power by rewriting Obamacare because the bill was written badly in their view? They have no Constitutional authority to do that–but they do have the power.
If the Supreme Court has the power to redefine words, marriage for example, then why would the wording of any law be an obstacle to their political views?
England was not overthrown with a Declaration. They were only overthrown with guns. The real debate in the future will not be homosexuality, Obamacare, this or that, but will be the Christian’s role and responsibilities in an armed resistance.
Time to reread Bonhoeffer?
The President is really rubbing into everyone, who was against Same Sex Marriage, face, tonight, with his “Rainbow White House.” He has it all lit up. Look up a pic.
Is this Presidential?
Good grief.
David
Oh how our presidents “evolution” has come full circle – it was just a few short years ago – 2011 to be exact – that he did not favor gay marriage – that is until he wanted to shore up the democrat base for the 2012 general election.
Wow, what a vivid distinction in understanding. God states that those engaged in this type of passion will burn eternally in hell. President Obama celebrates their decision with great passion, at the American peoples house and his temporary home!
Obama has made gay marriage a big issue. You can’t expect him not to take a victory lap.
I think the rainbow lights is low class…not presidential, at all.
“… rainbow lights is low class …”
An obamanation that causes desolation.
Dave,
I have news for you, the President is not on the Supreme Court. He cannot decide any laws.
The House has voted 50 times to repeal The Affordable Care Act. Your friend John Boehner, could have spent his time on something to help the country, not take people’s insurance.
The Republicans are not speaking up on the gay issue because votes are more important to them than anything else.
There are no innocent parties
Actually Jess, the President does decide laws. He does so by either signing them into existence or vetoing them. He cannot write legislation although most Presidents are actively involved in getting the House to do their bidding (e.g. ObamaCare).
I also agree with you that most of the Republicans care more about their position of power then the will of the people. Washington is not reflecting the will of its constituents, which is why we might be forced to rebel by displaying civil disobedience.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/white-house-lit-rainbow-colors-supreme-court-ruling-32064558
Up next for the SCOTUS.
**WARNING: Language and innuendo…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3AVcCggRnU
Rev. Dr. Cofield, wow! It’s been a while!
I mostly lurk nowadays, good Dr. Miller.
First off, please remember that the “just war” doctrine was contrived by Augustine in support of the Catholic church-state in its murderous campaign against the Donatists and any other enemies of its hegemony. Please remember: Augustine did not adhere to inerrancy but rather was an allegorist. As such, he was prone to such abuses of the holy texts as to claim that Luke 14:23 could be used to justify using violence to enforce compulsory membership in state churches as opposed to the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation. The truth is that in the New Testament no justification for the concept of “just war” exists, and in the Old Testament the only “just war” was one that God Himself commanded His people to undertake. Old Testament military and political leaders who undertook military campaigns apart from God’s will as revealed by divine revelation to prophets and such saw their efforts – and in many cases their very lives – come to ruin.
Second, we really do need to step back and abandon the idea that the Constitution is being subverted by nefarious conspiratorial forces that are hi-jacking it from us against our wills or anything of that nature. It is true that America was founded as a republic with democratic principles as opposed to being a true democracy. However, that was steadily dismantled over time. The right to vote was extended to those other than its original subset of males who were large landowners. We began to elect U.S. senators, governors and many other offices directly as opposed to by indirect means (i.e. selected by state legislators or other office holders) as it was originally. Right now, only the electoral college and the ability of the courts to set aside laws is the only thing that prevents us from being in effect a pure democracy whose government reflects the will of the people.
And claiming that we have anything other than what the people want is simply a desire to reject plain facts. It is similar to how liberals reacted to the election of Richard Nixon in 1968: how could HE have won? I didn’t vote for Nixon! Nobody I know voted for Nixon! Well just as the nation was more than merely the left-liberals who backed Hubert Humphrey, the nation is more than evangelical Protestants. The whole “Moral Majority” thing failed because there was no moral majority.
Honestly, our most populous and influential states (and by influence I mean politics, economics and culture) are in the northeast and far west. Hollywood and Silicon Valley are in California. Wall Street and Madison Avenue are in New York. Banking, finance, insurance, medicine, Ivy League universities … more of the same. Which is why the common conservative tactic of scapegoating Washington D.C. is comical … D.C. is only a reflection of the people with the power and money, and if anything it is a trailing indicator. But the reality is that we cannot claim that we are being usurped and taken over by people overriding the will of the majority when our biggest and most influential states haven’t voted for a Republican since Reagan. By the way: it was this same Reagan who put Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. O’Connor and Kennedy have consistently given social liberals victories in every case involving abortion and homosexuality for the past 30-35 years. It should not be a surprise, because Reagan made abortion – and no fault divorce – legal at the state level as governor of California. Reagan – and the Bush family – were able to get away with claiming to be social conservatives because evangelicals saw what we wanted to see. Reagan’s agenda was defeating the Soviets, not religion or even morality, and the Bushes were servants to the bankers and oil companies.
Another thing still: this is the country that elected Bill Clinton twice and Barack Obama twice. Conservatives deal with this by resorting to what basically amounts to nullification by claiming that those elections were “stolen”, “flukes” or otherwise illegitimate, but the opposite is true: without the Iran hostage crisis Reagan loses to Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore. But the fact is that in presidential elections in the last 35 years it has been at best a stalemate between overt social liberals like Clinton, Carter and Obama on one hand and people who pretend to be social liberals long enough to win a GOP primary – but do absolutely nothing to stop social liberalism after getting elected – in Reagan and two Bushes on the other.
Bottom line: any talk of “taking our country back” will actually mean taking it back from the majority of citizens who have expressed their will in federal, state and local elections for a good two generations now (presuming a generation of around 20 years). Moreover, they have expressed their will via the culture, by the R and PG-13 movies (and even G-rated and “family” movies and TV shows regularly contain blasphemy and other immorality) that they consume, the rock and rap music that they listen to etc. They have done so by continuing to send their children to public schools that promote practically every abomination and lie as righteousness and fact. Add it all up and what evidence is there that this government is anything but what the people want? And if that is the case, how could even Augustine’s just war doctrine – which again was not based on the Bible in the first place – be used to justify shedding blood against a legitimately elected, popularly supported government?
That is true, here, I’m afraid, and a truth that we do not want to face. If same-sex marriage was put to a national referendum, it would likely pass by a better than 5-4 margin.
Dave, that’s what the pundits suggest.
However, it was put to a referendum in one of the most–if not the most liberal state, California. It did not pass. It was not a landslide, but it did not pass.
The people’s vote was thrown out by a crafty appeal before the Supreme Court, but the vote did not match the polls. In a real-life vote, traditional marriage won.
For me, that is something to consider. The polls suggested one outcome. The polling place gave a different one. I guess my question would be, can we ever know.
I will say this as a somewhat prophetic prognostication: the government may soon be going after church tax exempt status and they will use “discrimination” laws to accomplish it–not because the government loves gays (though it seems to), but because they are thirsting for tax revenue.
I just had a two-hour conversation with a savvy constitutional lawyer in this regard.
Since I am only purporting to be “somewhat” of a prophet, should this not come to be true I can only be stoned with nerf balls.
The tide has turned. That vote was several years ago, was it not? The vote would be different if it happened today, I’m afraid.
It seems to me that a dramatic shift in public opinion took place about the time Obama shifted his public opinion, around the last election. When he changed sides on the issue (not sure whether that was chicken or egg, cause or effect), there seemed to be a radical shift in opinion and things moved rapidly.
I doubt that gay marriage would lose at the polls anymore except in perhaps a few very conservative states, and nationally it would win handily.
“The vote would be different if it happened today …”
Sad, but an increasingly clear state-of-the-union.
A recent Pew Research poll paints the portrait well re: the shift on changing attitudes on gay marriage. If only we had more 90 year old white conservative Republican men in this country!
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
The Donatists were heretics and terrorists. Look up the Circumcellions, who they were, and what they did. “Just-War” against people like that is more than permissible.
And who called the Donatists heretics and terrorists? Why, the Roman church-state. The same who centuries later called Protestants like you heretics and terrorists and slaughtered them as such. Again, that any Baptist would accept Augustine’s judgment as concerning what constitutes a heretic when Augustine believed in such things as praying to Mary/saints/angels and purgatory is simply amazing.
And by the way: states obviously have a right to defend themselves, to protect their borders and citizens and establish order. That right is consistently implied all over scripture and is explicitly declared in Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, 1 Peter 3, Titus 3 and similar. But that is quite diverse from Augustine’s just war doctrine that, similar to the doctrines of Eusebius before him, was at best eisegesis used to support the political interests of the Roman Empire.
And in any case, even Augustine’s just war doctrine cannot be used to justify taking up arms against a legitimate government. Obama was democratically elected, and twice. So was Clinton. And as stated earlier, some of those judges on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans in sheep’s clothing: Reagan and the Bushes. Vaughn Walker, the California federal judge who wrote the critical opinion that was the precedent for this Supreme Court decision was an openly gay George H. W. Bush appointee.
This country has been moving leftward on social issues for over 60 years, which means that it even predated the counterculture movements in the 60s and 70s. And honestly, one can actually state that the true beginnings of this nation’s social leftward march was the Scopes trial 90 years ago. And during that time, the only truly sustained opposition to the march towards social liberalism – meaning that it was supported by legal, educational, business etc. establishments as well as the overwhelming numbers of voters – was Jim Crow. The pro-life movement? Please. Not one single state actually outlawed abortion to directly challenge Roe v. Wade, and only a few states have so much as made third trimester abortions legal or passed meaningful regulations on abortion clinics (and many of those that have, such as Texas, only did so after the horrific Kermit Gosnell case). The state laws outlawing gay marriage? They passed in a number of states true, but with significant opposition from legal, business, media, educational etc. institutions, making it clear that their days were numbered. I remember when the law banning recognition of gay marriages performed in other states was passed in my state that the leading political columnist for my state’s biggest newspaper predicted that the law would be rendered moot within a couple of decades and he was entirely correct.
So go ahead and pursue your notions of “just war” but don’t be shocked when you find out that 60% or more Americans will be lined up on the other side. At the very least you will not be able to claim that you weren’t warned.
One of the biggest issues (problems) is that the citizens of this country (as Dave suggested) do not understand that we are a republic, not a democracy. I personally don’t care if a national vote was put to the people. According to the Constitution that is worthless although far too many people (including Christians) seem to think whatever the majority believes is where the country should go. The reality is the President is not picked by a popular vote. If he were only a handful of states would do the choosing.
SCOTUS came up with some sort of parlor trick to find a Constitutional decree for Abortion and now they have done the same for Same-Sex Marriage. When they find a way to override the 1st Amendment and snuff out our freedom of religion (and expression) they will. In fact, many of the citizenry already believe our voice is invalid. Try speaking your mind about Same-Sex Marriage in any Fortune 500 company and your be handed a pink-slip, but let someone call a Christian a bigot and they will be paraded as expressing their Diversity.
“do not understand that we are a republic, not a democracy”
This country WAS a republic at its founding, but over time its republican nature has been steadily whittled away to the point where the only thing that restricts us from being a “majority rules” democracy is the electoral college and the ability of federal courts to set aside laws. Also, after Republican-appointed judges Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor and George Souter joined with the liberals to overturn state laws against sodomy, there was no rationale in our system of laws for denying gay marriage, because our Constitution and other federal laws never defined marriage in the first place.
And as for the abortion decision, federal law never at any time decreed that life begins at birth, which is why abortion was legal at the state level in much of the country before Roe v. Wade anyway. Without a federal or Constitutional law defining that an unborn child is a living person with its own set of legal protections (or providing protections to an unborn child based on some other rationale) then the freedoms in the Bill of Rights applies to the woman carrying the child. Which means that in the absence of legal protections for unborn children, the Bill of Rights gives a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, and the unborn child has no rights for the Bill of Rights, Constitution etc. to respect that would prevent it.
So really the question of “democracy” versus “republic” doesn’t matter, because the fundamental problem is that our Constitution and other federal laws never stated what many conservatives think that it does and badly want it to. We conservatives WANT to think that our Constitution has all of these meanings somehow embedded in it because of our convictions that America was founded as a Christian nation and as such our founding laws, traditions etc. somehow reflect and advance the contents of the Bible. The opposite is actually the case: America’s founding fathers was a motley crew of Unitarians, deists and freemasons. What few legitimate evangelicals were involved in our nation’s founding were more concerned with matters of state and politics and believed that the sermons should be reserved for Sunday pulpits, and were simply glad that the new nation protected their rights to worship as they saw fit. But the reality is that the Constitution was the product of secular (some would say pagan) Enlightenment philosophy than the Bible; it was a lot more Voltaire and Rousseau than Jesus Christ or Moses.
Think about it: the right to blaspheme? Constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. The right to join and promote an anti-Christ religious movement? Protected by the same. So, our first amendment stands directly in opposition to and defiance against the first and third of the ten commandments. I guess one would have to be reared on the “America is New Jerusalem, the shining city on a hill founded as a Christian nation” rhetoric not to notice things like that, but it is honestly, truly the way that America has always been from its founding, from Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence as a secular humanist manifesto in direct rebellion against the CHRISTIAN British monarchy (and labeling the observant, even pious, Protestant King George a tyrant in the process was a deliberate touch) to George Washington’s ceremony commemorating the cornerstone of the capital being laid not being a Christian one with prayer, but a freemason ritual where Washington poured an offering of corn, oil and wine on the cornerstone of our government.
This goes into the “we conservative evangelicals see what we want to see” category.
Job, while I agree with much of what you infer, the fact remains the Bill of Rights largely exists because of a Baptist Preacher (Leyland). Furthermore, as you stated, the 1st amendment is a right to speech (both things I agree with and more importantly, things I disagree with). As for your discourse on Roe, if SCOTUS hadn’t determined a “constitutional” right the States would have decided on the Abortion issue. This is where it should have been decided as Same-Sex Marriage should have been decided also.
Therefore I agree with you about the U.S. being a republic (which it still is). If Christians (and other citizens) continue to kowtow to SCOTUS, the President and others who wish to fully remove us from the Republic we are, that is there decision, nevertheless it doesn’t mean those of us who disagree simply have to throw our hands up and surrender.
You are free to believe this country has more to do with Voltaire than Judeo-Christian values, but the Scripture chiseled on much of Washington begs to differ, as does much of the Federalist Papers.
As you said, people see what they want, and they act according to what they see. It remains to be seen how evangelicals will act in the coming days.
“the fact remains the Bill of Rights largely exists because of a Baptist Preacher (Leyland).”
Perhaps Leyland was following in the tradition of Roger Williams, who though Baptist lest we forget became a “many paths to heaven” pluralist. So again, while Christians were involved in our nations’ founding, precious few of them were evangelical, and even the evangelical ones were not theonomists or anything similar but regarded government as a secular enterprise. So, allow me to state also that freedoms of speech and assembly are nowhere endorsed in the scriptures, who consistently teaches the opposite in both Testaments.
As touching Roe v Wade, similar to Leyland, the original attorney for Jane Roe was a Baptist, and indeed a Southern Baptist! The facts of the case are simply bad for pro-lifers. Jane Roe wanted to terminate her pregnancy, but the state of Texas prohibited it. Her case wound up at the Supreme Court, and the state of Texas’ position was not so much that life began at birth – a claim for which there was no legal basis for any court to respect anyway – but rather that the 10th amendment gave them the right to outlaw the procedure. Roe’s argument was that her rights as an individual under the Bill of Rights trumped the rights of Texas given by the 10th amendment. In siding with Roe, the Supreme Court did as they do when they routinely rule that individual rights trump states’ rights. The only reason why pro-lifers single out Roe v. Wade alone amongst the many decisions that have favored individuals over states is because of the belief – declared as it is explicitly in the very Bible that our Constitution was directly written to ignore and reject – that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. So to state that Roe v. Wade is wrong because abortion should have been a state issue would require you to take the same position in the many other cases where the Supreme Court where the court decided that the protections for individuals given in the first 9 amendments in the bill of rights trump the powers to the states granted in the 10th amendment. Our constitution, lock stock and barrel, is designed from the ground up to articulate and defend human rights, not to advance Christian teachings or Biblical morality.
” If Christians (and other citizens) continue to kowtow to SCOTUS, the President and others who wish to fully remove us from the Republic we are”
Sir, this is the willful disassociation from reality that I am speaking of. How are the people “kowtowing to Obama” when the people elected Obama twice by large margins? Were Obama allowed to run for re-election again, he would crush any Republican, be it Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz etc. just as he did John McCain and Mitt Romney. You think that Obama is a horrible president who is ruining the country and so does nearly everyone you know and respect, but see my “how could Nixon have possibly won!” point above. People who think like us are a decided minority in this country and have been for quite awhile.
As for the Supreme Court, their not adhering to your political and religious views does not make that body illegitimate. The Supreme Court was staffed according to the mechanism that our laws require: nominated by elected presidents and confirmed by elected senators. Disagreeing with their decisions is no just cause for defying them. Were that the case, people who reject the Supreme Court decisions that you agree with would have an equal right.
Whether you are of the opinion that our government is a democracy that reflects the will of the people or a republic that reflects its founding documents, the reality is that neither is Christian in any true sense. So the only thing that has changed is that it is now that much harder to pretend otherwise. Maybe it was easier in the past to pretend as if the Constitution ever somehow reflected Jeremiah 17:9, Ephesians 2:2-3 and Romans 5:12-21 but now it is a lot easier to recognize that the Constitution is a humanistic document that presupposes, declares and promotes the opposite.
Job, you’ve lost me. I have not said anything that is “Christian only” rather I have been speaking of Constitutional Issues. Christians can choose to live under tyranny or to stand up to it. It’s their choice. I have never once said the Constitution was Scripture or its equivalent. If you want to believe this country had precious few evangelicals as its beginning, great.
And, the slide down the slippery slope begins…
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.VY4ok_lVikq
Perhaps Gay IS the new Black. The “Rainbow White House” was a display offensive to many Americans on publicly funded property. We have been discussing the condemnation of a display in South Carolina that some people associate with Southern Pride. (No need to rehash those arguments here.) Simply notice that the public display of Gay Pride on federal property in Washington, DC, faces nary a peep of protest.
“… there are days like this, when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt,” Obama said, speaking in the Rose Garden yesterday.
Hmmmmm ….
With all the media coverage of yesterday’s events, I was particularly struck by a sign raised high over the crowd gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court (perhaps you saw it, too):
“The Constitution Is Our Shield Against Bible-Based Discrimination”
In the days ahead, Bible believers may very well be placed amongst “hate” groups like the KKK. Homosexuals, and other assorted sinners, will not sleep until true Christians who oppose immorality are silenced and destroyed. To say anything about America’s moral decay, any of it, from the pulpit will be considered hate speech and subject to civil penalty. The SCOTUS decision has liberated yet another evil in our society.
Are the folks in your church “really” concerned about this development … or will they do church as usual on Sunday with no visible burden or intercession on their lips? Are we desperate enough to humble ourselves, pray, seek God’s face, and turn from “our” wicked ways yet? Nothing seems to disturb most people these days including those who claim to be Christians, as long as it doesn’t directly affect them or their Social Security checks or whatever. I’m reminded of a Vance Havner quote, “The tragedy of today is that the situation is desperate but the saints are not.”
Max,
Here is one who loves his Social Security check. I have paid for Social Security Insurance since I was 14 years old, I’m in my 60’s now, your “or whatever” means me and a lot of other folks who have worked hard all their life. I always have been a Bi-Vo pastor. Unlike many of you who decided not to pay Social Security. So please don’t go there, you will not win.
Jess, I’m in my late 60s. Been working steady since my first job chopping cotton at age 7 and just let up last year. I look forward to my monthly SS check, too … earned it with a lot of blood, sweat and tears. I’ve also been a Southern Baptist that long. It’s been disturbing to watch our generation not raise the stir they should have as our nation spiraled into moral chaos. They won’t even show up for a prayer meeting, what few there are these days; most have been canceled for lack of interest.
The only opinion that really ought to matter is that of the Master Builder. The creator Himself. Our nation has fought “Christian” vs. “Homosexuality” and I think both sides have plenty room for error. For the Christian side– I believe the LGBT community is angry for being “picked on by the Christian community” –let them who is without sin cast the first stone–when they are not picking on the murderer, drug addict, or how about heterosexual adulterer? So why shouldn’t they call us “Haters”. I see the Christian community as being judgmental and rightly so–this ought to anger the LGBT’s and their supporters–but could it anger God more? The sad part is they don’t want to hear what we have to say because it does not show the Love of Jesus–but rather the wrath of God! No one likes to be told they are wrong, or are going to hell. It is God’s place to judge and our place to love others. There is a difference in holding a fellow believer accountable, for shaming the name of Jesus Christ, but for the non-believer, they will not understand this. God says vengeance Is mine I will repay. We need to pray, and remember that Love covers a multitude of sins. Had it not been for my personal prayers, personal seeking of God Himself, I would have lost my husband over to the gay community–but instead, my choice to obey, seek God through word and prayer, and not saying or doing anything without approval of God–he has overcome, we have overcome and can say our marriage has made it nearly 29 years and still getting stronger. We have the power of the Holy Spirit in us, that is a huge difference between a believer and non-believer. But the Christian community as a whole has completely failed in being obedient to God’s word on every point. The Master Builder has an instruction manual that does not return empty or void. How many fail to consider every aspect of the Word of God, to repent of their own personal sins, to pray without ceasing. It is not my place to judge others outside of the context of Scripture- know yourself, know boundaries of who you associate with, when it okay or not okay to speak up or just to simply pray. Remember it is the Holy Spirit who convicts, remember who plants, who waters, and who grows. Christians, fellow believers, we are way out of line. Remember that God judges the heart, He sees and knows everything. We only see the outward results–but consider the who what why where when and how exactly before you take action. Be quick to listen, slow to speak. Ask God for wisdom, pray John 17. Just pray, seek, trust, obey. Point people to Jesus, not to their sin, especially if you have unconfessed sin in your own life. If we can’t model Christ like behavior, or character, do we have any room to talk? what about in Haggai–give careful thought to your ways, God’s house is in a spiritual ruin, why? because we are too focused on ourselves. This battle is not over, God will win. Christians will not, Homosexuals will not. It is between God and Satan. We must seek God to find our appropriate role in this, because it is a job that only God can handle and we need to be on His side. Time to separate the sheep from the goats. Lets all follow Christ, He’s a pretty awesome role model. He will handle the political side if we look to Him and ask. He will give us direction–in His time–oh how often we jump the gun too soon because God does not act quickly enough for our time table. Let remember Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. .
“”””The sad part is they don’t want to hear what we have to say because it does not show the Love of Jesus–but rather the wrath of God!”””””
I don’t know if you mean to suggest there is no wrath of God to come upon unrepentant sinners. If that is you view, then I think you are greatly mistaken.
If you do believe that the wrath of God is to come upon unrepentant sinners, then I don’t know how you could call warning them of such, “hate.” It seems that is the highest form of love.
The fact that you agree with the propaganda that the homosexual lobby has been spewing for decades, just demonstrates to me how effective they have been.
I can only speak from my limited experience–having ministered in the San Fran Bay Area during the initial outbreak of AIDS–that nearly all (though not all) homosexuals I encountered (personally, at church, and on AIDS panels) rejected the Bible’s message because they rejected the Bible’s God.
Of course Christians can always be more loving, more sensitive and find more effective ways to communicate the gospel but I believe it is a huge fallacy to blame the unresponsiveness of the homosexual community on “haters in the Christian church.”
Emily,
You have brought up some great points. We cannot be a witness unless we live a better lifestyle (living by faith) than those whom we try to witness to.
You are correct in saying there is adultery in the congregations.
I thank God for every church member that one can see Jesus in.
Be witnesses by “living a better lifestyle”?
What should concern us the most is that SCOTUS is once again deciding what the law “should be” instead of their constitutional role of deciding what laws “are” and if constitutional. We have a few unelected judges legislating. And yes, this has been happening quite a bit in history but the question is why do we continue to put up with it?
This issue (along with Roe and a bunch of others) should be decided by either people voting in the states or by elected representatives. Yes, that is messy and divisive. And many times it won’t go our way. But the bottom line is either we have a democratic process with a “representative government” or not.
This is why I agreed with Justice Roberts ruling on Obamacare. He was right. Elected representatives voted on it (yes at midnight so why are they still there?) and it passed. We overturn it using the democratic process.
We are sliding toward an Oligarchy when unelected judges are legislating. And that should scare the right and the left if they think it through.
My thoughts on these issues.
We bury ourselves in our computers, complaining about all that goes on in our country, and won’t even get off the couch and do something about it.
We and the congregations have to witness, unless we do, we have no right to voice our opinion.
The church sleeps while our nation goes to hell. We have to reach one soul at a time in our nation.
The SBC has to look to the cross and what it represents once again. I’ll bet I have said this 100 times.
If any of you want to see baptisms rise, act on a working visitation program, a heart to heart, one on one, visitation. It has always worked for me. Don’t forget to let the Holy Spirit direct the worship services, or else what you gain, you will lose.