I have a facebook friend who posted this as his status update. A friend of his wrote it in response to yesterday’s vote in Maine that repealed a law passed by the Maine legislature on marriage between homosexuals. I wonder what you think:
I want to give the church a big congratulations for their victory tonight in Maine.
Once again, you kept your eyes on the prize and won. I mean, why wouldn’t you win? You have G-d on your side! Your biggest talent lies in fundraising and your marketing departments never fail. Even though you could use a better PR department, you do a good enough job to get done what you want done. After all, fear is the best way to motivate people.
Tonight you’ve won Maine but you’ve lost the point.
Another 50,000 hungry people died today. Darfur continues. Shonda says she doesn’t need the man who just beat her and left her pregnant with another child. Church… you’ve won Maine but you’ve lost the point.
You’re no longer a place for comfort, healing, advice, direction, or peace. Rather, you’re just another political machine covered in your own filfthy agenda to make everyone look, act, love, and sound just like you through the use of fear.
Your hate is speaking louder than your love. Tonight, you’ve won Maine but you’ve lost the point.
I’m only asking you to comment on this article, not on the particular actions of the voters. Do you think this article is fair?* Do you think this is a fair comparison/contrast?
Thanks for participating.
*It should be noted that ‘gay-marriage’ has failed in 31 states now when put to the vote.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
34 Comments(+Add)
My sentiments as well.
blah… blah… blah…
Well said – I agree.
My response: Why did the church get blamed?
Certainly there is one non- believer, one athiest, one agnostic, one (plus) muslims, hindus, buddhists, church goer who is not a Christian, etc. who voted that Marriage should be between one Man and one woman.
I do not think it is fair, but as far as they did, I am proud of Christians standing up for what the Bible says is right and letting their opinions to be heard.
I think it is unfair to say that because they made that stand that somehow other work was not being done. These same Christians likely give to Darfur, feed those who are hungry, and fight abortion. They are not one issue radicals, they make a stand where it needs to be made, and they continue to do as the Lord commanded in terms of preaching the Gospel and helping those in need.
So it is a fake article, a red herring, a non-sequitor.
I agree with Pastorboy on this point. What a cop out – a common strategy.
I think it is as silly to blame the church and bring up Darfur as it is when Pastorboy makes comments against the Emergent church (- sorry for the negative example).
Such broad-brushing, particularly from the outside, is not to be taken very seriously.
That and the final comment about “hate” renders the comment pointless. Since when is it hate to not want the government to redefine the very definition of marriage?
all i can say is…
welcome to democracy.
this is how the system works.
regardless of how we feel about any particular decision.
this is the system we have.
i will say that the general gist of the article is unhelpful, unfair, and misses the point,
it still is important for the church to be careful about how they speak to issues.
admittedly Christians haven’t been very careful at times when speaking to this point on ‘gay marriage’.
so from the standpoint of the “how” i can see what the person is trying to get at however ham-handedly and uncharitably.
pb,
unfair or not, the Church gets blamed because too often an “anti-gay marriage” stance becomes an unbiblical litmus test of “true christian identity”.
you don’t see any atheists organizing en masse as atheists to make a distinctly atheistic stance on gays.
Nathan,
Atheists have no reason to.
jerry
but the critique assumes that somehow the complaint about the Church has no merit because they don’t…
somehow, somewhere, an “anti-gay” stance has come to be understood as central to Christian identity.
i’m not talking about if pro-gay or anti-gay is right or wrong…
i’m talking about the perception/belief that this should be a central defining issue.
PB is correct when he talks about people just standing where it’s needed, but in proportion and TONE to other issues it does seem that for some Christians “gay marriage” is of a greater pressing concern.
i mean, it says a lot about a person when you look at what they get “angry” about.
In the end, not one gay person got saved, and the devil was able to make marriage the issue and not Jesus and His redemption. When I got saved I heard about Jesus, but had the preacher talked about drugs or alcohol or any issue, I would have tuned him out.
Democracy is anti-gospel and issues like this provide a false bravado for Christians who “stand up for what the Bible says”. Yea, right.
Lest anyone suggest I never agree with PB –
I agree with PB on this one.
This is a complete non-sequitur. (And now that we’ve established PB knows what a non-sequitur is, maybe we’ll see fewer of them used against other Christians here in the future? Call me the eternal optimist.)
Not one gay person got saved because of what I ate for lunch today, either…
I guess I’m always wary of judging everything by its evangelical efficacy. In some sense I can understand an argument saying the American church has become too politically involved, but I don’t know how involved individual churches were involved in this instance.
Perhaps the author knows something I don’t, but my initial reaction was that he’s making a lot of assumptions.
i just wonder if the voters of Maine HAD voted to maintain gay marriage, we would still complain that the “government” had redefined marriage?
Maybe, but as Jerry noted, everywhere this has been on the ballot, it’s been voted down.
I think when people talk about the government defining marriage, they’re talking about courts and legislatures simply creating laws that define it.
Jerry – if the starving people in Darfur are on your mind, I’m sure you won’t mind giving up your dinner tonight, and every night to make sure that money goes to famine relief. Rick, how many people were saved today because you sat on your gluteous maximus on the internet and made big ass pronouncements about how ungodly others are? Not one. If you’re going to use your health excuse – just be glad you live in AMERICA where you can get insulin without the Taliban blowing you up in the street. I am glad to live here, btw, and glad for those who defended it with their lives so we can sit here and chat breathin’ free.
what a great mirror of the article.
a ridiculous rant just from the opposite end of the spectrum.
@ Cash,
what’s your major malfunction with Rick?
it seems he is a particular concern of yours here.
Could someone explain to me how banning state-sanctioned gay marriage is standing up for what the Bible says is right?
I must have missed a verse in there where forcing people by government fiat is a virtue. Scratch that, because that’s not even what happened here, because as powerless and Jesusless as that is this is largely symbolic. Now homosexuals will continue to live together, and do what they do together, it just won’t be officially called marriage.
This was about as “standing up for what the Bible says is right” as burning books on Halloween.
That was my point. Go ahead… just don’t call it marriage.
I feel attracted to Cash.
i don’t think the state should be calling anything “marriage”.
functionally and legally, “marriage” is a big contract that governs the disposition of property, powers of attorney, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
with the state, all marriage is “civil marriage”.
let’s just have civil unions.
and let “marriage” be a religious term.
that way, churches can bless or not bless according to their beliefs and the state can get out of that business altogether.
@Cash…
I have absolutely no clue what you are saying. Really.
Didn’t we just discuss non-sequitor…
#22 – And Nathan makes the salient point. To make the logical conclusion to your point, wht should we care what the government does or think?
Answer: We should not.
#11 – Perhaps one reason that this issue is so “defining” and such a litmus test is that for the vast majority of Evangelicals their view of the Scriptures regarding homosexuality are so black and white and simple to understand (in their eyes) that if one cannot recognize this so easily understood issue then any and every Scripture is meaningless and basically unknowable. This therefore becomes a serious attack on the very foundations of their faith.
For in the majority view, if one can’t accept this historical and very clear meaning of these portions of Scripture there is not much point in discussing other, less black and white portions of Scripture. In this regard one’s opinion on this issue is defining. In this case the world views are so far apart that those who see no prohibitions against same sex unions have at best a very low view of scripture or indeed are perphaps not “Christian”.
I personally think this is a secondary (though important) issue and that the “right” thinking on this issue is not a pre-requisite to salvation. I do see it as problematic, however, and does indicate a problem with one’s basic grasp of Scripture. If that makes me elitist or whatever, so be it.
#25 – Then why isn’t hedonism dealt with as a moral issue? There is more New Testament teaching about money by far than homosexuality. The reason the gay issue is such a pinata is because most haven’t ever had a sinful thought along those lines.
Interpretation: Grandstanding about gay marriage is safe since no stones can be thrown our way. Let’s make adultery and divorce illegal and see how the church votes.
#26. Rick, it is undeniable that hypocricy is rampant among us. However, your example is quite the strawman. While the teachings on hedonism/money/divorce, etc., may be ignored by professing Christians they are not being **challenged** as being untrue. While many may ignore the prohibition against gossiping, for example, no one I know of is advocating that gossiping is ** not ** a sin and that when Paul was issuing a prohibition against it, that was not what he was **really** saying. The same cannot be said for the pro-homosexual lobby which is seeking to redefine Scripture on this issue which blatantly redefines evil as good and good as evil.
“The same cannot be said for the pro-homosexual lobby which is seeking to redefine Scripture on this issue which blatantly redefines evil as good and good as evil.”
Then let us defend it by Scripture and not by voting. The Maine vote had nothing to do with Scripture, and if Jesus tarries gay marriage will soon be the law of the land. God hold us responsible for the church, not the country’s policies.
The reason hedonism isn’t challenged is because the church loves it as much as the world.
I think whenever discuss this issue, we always end up combining the issue of the way the church handles homosexuality and the way the state handles it. So the issue very soon gets muddled.
I do think on one hand, the Church shouldn’t be too concerned about how the state chooses to define marriage. However, I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with the residents of a particular state voting on this particular issue. But what I do find wrong is the Church trying to use the power of the state to try and attain what it wants. The problem with this is that eventually the Church will find itself on the receiving end of this power.
I also think that a big reason that homosexuality gets singled out a super sin of some sort many time is simply that many Evangelicals simply have no empathy for people struggling with this particular sin. We can more easily empathize with someone who is struggling with porn or drug addiction because many of us know what it’s like to be tempted in those areas. But it’s easy for us to marginalize homosexuality as a different sin simply because it doesn’t affect enough of us.
Rick, you remain one of my heroes, but we are very far apart on this issue and I have little common ground with which to argue individual points since it would require a complete rehash of your world view on the role a Christian’s civic responsibilities.
However, I will remind you that we are charged with obtaining justice for the poor, oppressed, widows and orphans and that can only be accomplished in the political arena.
(Hint. Charity does not equate to justice).
#29 – Phil, it may come as a surprise, but I agree with your points here.
I think the whole thing is stupid. The whole “Christians should be out there feeding the poor, not debating social policy” is ridiculous.
I believe we’re called to do both. Look after the needs of our fellow man WHILE preaching and defending the gospel, which includes taking a stand against unrighteousness.
There’s a time for everything. A time for looking after people’s needs and a time to vote on marriage.
John – You need a significant upgrade on your hero list, the current one is fatally flawed.
I do get your point, though.
Don’t let it go to your head. It doesn’t come with any fringe benefits that I know of.