To Whom Does Marriage Belong?
December 15, 2011
It seems clear to me that, despite our efforts to retain the significance and true meaning of marriage, the tide of public opinion, coupled with a judiciary (and certain legislatures) incapable of doing, or unwilling to do, the hard work of rational thinking, will at some point yield the radical redefinition of marriage as the law of the land.
How’s that for a needlessly wordy sentence? But I digress…
“Gay marriage” appears to be on the horizon in our lifetimes, as it is legal in several states already. The question will be, for those who call themselves followers of Jesus, how shall we respond to this earth-shaking paradigm shift? I’m not going to offer all of my thoughts in this post; rather, I’d like to suggest a starting point for our thinking, one which we should adopt now. I raise a question:
Under whose purview, for the Christ-follower, does marriage fall?
Asked another way, who determines who is actually married, and who is not? Is it God, or is it the state? The answer to this question is clear—and critical. But first, just a little (rather obvious) history…
For most of my lifetime, and certainly for several generations preceding mine (from the time states began to require licenses for marriage), there was no conflict: the state defined marriage as we, as Christians, would (laws against miscegenation excepted, of course, though these, while discriminating unfairly against mixed-race couples, did not touch the “basic formula” of one man/one woman). It was not the least bit controversial, back in 1982 when my wife and I applied for a marriage license, to do so; no one seriously contemplated any different definition. As recently as 10-12 years ago, the whole notion that the state would recognize same-sex couples as “married” was still rather preposterous. No one, in other words, could be blamed for applying for a marriage license.
Now, though, some states have determined to alter the very definition of marriage—and thus the question, who makes the call? The Christian must answer “God does”—and then we ought to act upon it. I would suggest that “acting upon it” might involve several different responses (and I will enumerate these at some point in the not-too-distant future), but first and foremost, we must adopt this baseline conviction: when God and state come into conflict, we must obey God rather than men. Marriage is ultimately the purview of God, and if the state attempts to usurp this role, we must politely, but firmly and resolutely, decline to play along.
Aggressive Capitulation: One “Church” Deals with the “Gay Marriage” Debate
November 24, 2011
I think I have found—or rather been again reminded of—my exact polar opposite when it comes to people calling themselves followers of Jesus. A little history here is in order. Between January, 1990 and March, 1993, I was pastor of a small Southern Baptist church in High Point, NC. Students of church history will recognize this time period as perhaps the most contentious in Southern Baptist history. While it may not be accurate to say there was a formal split in the Convention, it felt like one, as so-called “moderates” removed themselves and aligned with other Baptist groups, including at least a couple groups formed specifically as alternatives to a Convention increasingly determined to go back to its theological roots. Of course, I wholeheartedly supported this return to Biblical orthodoxy, even if I did not always appreciate the manner in which the “fight” was carried out. It was during this time that I became aware of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church, located in Raleigh. Pullen and my church were ostensibly part of the same movement, but we could not have been further apart. It was during my tenure at Brentwood, if memory serves, that Pullen Memorial was removed from membership in the local Baptist association, due to some radical stance the church had taken.
Fast-forward now some twenty years, and because liberalism is a progressive disease, a dysfunction lacking grounding in anything save for a willingness to embrace the newest and trendiest aberrations, the church has gone progressively further off the theological deep end. The pastor of Pullen Church, one Nancy Petty, had decided several months back to take a mirror-opposite position to mine with regard to “gay marriage”, the aberration that bestows on homosexuals the special right to radically redefine the institution of marriage in accord with their own proclivities. Ms. Petty had decided that, while she would continue to perform weddings of heterosexual couples as well as “weddings” of homosexual couples, she would no longer sign state-issue marriage licenses for anyone, as long as the state of North Carolina refused to belly up to the progressive bar and declare the two types of relationships “equal”. This past week, the congregation of Pullen Church decided unanimously to declare this the official policy of the church. This, of course, is their privilege and freedom as Americans; I suppose if there’s one thing upon which I and the good folks at Pullen can agree, it is that we both cherish religious freedom as Americans.
That’s likely where the similarity ends, of course. My position, and I’ve mentioned this before, is the polar opposite: I will not sign a state-issued marriage license in any state that so cheapens the meaning of marriage in this way, though like Ms. Petty, I would conduct the ceremony. Frankly, I would encourage any and every evangelical pastor to take this same position. Though I may at a later point post a more fully-orbed defense of my beliefs, suffice it to say that my rationale is pretty simple: I refuse to be in any way, shape, or form an accomplice to this aberration.
The folks at Pullen couch their decision in terms like “equal protection under the law” (“gay marriage” entails nothing of the sort), “discriminat(ion)” (perhaps this is accurate in one sense, of course; marriage is by definition, whether “inclusive” or “exclusive” of gay couples, an institution that discriminates, and no sane person would have it any other way), “denying (homosexuals) the rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples” (Pullen here makes a typical liberal mistake, believing that rights accrue to particular groups rather than to individuals; I could write an entire post on this), and basing their position on the notion that “before God all people are equal”, which certainly is true, but which is thoroughly irrelevant to the conversation. Then again, such is the norm, generally, for liberal attempts to reason.
Liberal churches such as Pullen pride themselves (not too strong a word, judging by their website) on their genuineness, innovation, and cutting-edge positions on issues. Again, this is their prerogative. But make no mistake: when “churches” such as Pullen Memorial Baptist act in ways such as this, they are doing little more than boldly standing for the right to meekly cower before the spirit of the age.
Let’s call it “aggressive capitulation”.
Only in Washington
November 24, 2011
The sky is falling.
Well, at least if the pundits are to be believed. The so-called “SuperCommittee” didn’t turn out to be so super after all, and was unable to agree to budget cuts this week, so according to a previous decision (one now being protested by Republicans and Democrats alike, and one being correctly defended, at least thus far, by President Obama), automatic “cuts” will kick in.
What…you noticed the quotation marks around the word “cuts”? Pray tell, why are they there? Simple: because as we’ve known for some time, “cuts” in Washington aren’t like “cuts” in your household or mine. Yep, that’s right, they’ve done it again; Washington isn’t truly “cutting” anything by making these “draconian cuts”; they’re just decreasing the big increase in spending by a little bit. Graphically represented, here is what our paragons of courage have done:
Yep, that’s right; even with the “sequester”, the federal budget increases by nearly two trillion dollars in nine years’ time.
Thank goodness the Republicans on the SuperCommittee didn’t capitulate to the leftists on the committee and do something less—including raising taxes.
What the Children in the “Occupy Movement” Need…
November 12, 2011
is to grow up. Do, by all means, take the five-and-a-half minutes it takes to watch this video entitled, “Three-and-a-Half Days”.
As Bill Whittle puts it, what we see in the “Occupy Movement” is that the chickens have come home to roost for the (godless, intellectually-bankrupt, I would add) self-esteem movement. Hear, hear, Bill Whittle!
Telling the Truth Can Be Dangerous Business
September 17, 2011
True confession: my wife and I like the film Ishtar. Really like it, think it’s hilarious. Yes, that Ishtar, the universally-panned, some-say-most-awful-film-ever. We crack up at it. If you have two minutes, watch the trailer, and note the irony in Dustin Hoffman’s words at the end:
The signature song of the two aspiring songwriters (Hoffman and Beatty) was “Telling the Truth Can Be Dangerous Business”. Boy, can it ever. Fast-forward to the 2012 presidential race, and focus on Rick Perry. Full disclosure: Rick Perry is my guy. Is he a perfect candidate? Of course not; don’t bother telling me how awful his HPAV vaccination executive order was (it was horrible), and I don’t care that he endorsed Al Gore in 1988 (I used to wear a puka shell necklace, so can’t we all be forgiven an indiscretion here or there?).
A Brief Aside on How to Choose a Candidate to Support in the Primaries
Step 1: Determine who is, and who is not, an acceptable candidate; i.e., “can I vote for this guy (even holding my breath, if need be), or can I not? Going back to 2008, Rudy Giuliani, for instance, failed that test; under no circumstances would I have chosen him over the Libertarian candidate (I assume my readers realize that pulling the “D” lever is never an option). John McCain was, though I held my nose. This time around, practically every candidate on the Republican side is someone for whom I’d vote against The Anointed One, though I’m honestly not sure yet on Flip Flopney. He stretches my tolerance quite a bit.
Step 2: Support the most-electable acceptable candidate. That candidate, in 2012, is Rick Perry. In fact, despite Smokin’ Barry’s terrible approval numbers, I’m not convinced any Republicans could beat him except for Perry and Flopney (and I’m not totally convinced on the latter). The goal isn’t to score ideological purity points; it does no good to nominate a Ron Paul or a Michelle Bachmann who cannot win the presidency (and they cannot). Rick Perry, on the other hand, is eminently electable, one or two gaffes aside.
Now, back to our story. Americans,understandably, hold Congress in contempt. We are tired of politicians, we say, who cannot get things done that need to get done. We want ‘em to work together to solve the problems of this country, we say. Fine.
So Rick Perry has the courage to bring up one of our significant problems: Socialist Security. He (rightly) calls it a Ponzi Scheme (don’t like that characterization? Look up the definition. Socialist Security is textbook, at least as currently configured). He even questions its constitutionality (and that is a discussion worth having as well). He is adamant that those to whom promises have been made (read: seniors and near-seniors) must receive what they’ve been promised (that is only moral and fair). But he rightly says that we have a huge problem that needs fixing.
But remember our title: Telling the Truth Can Be Dangerous Business. Along comes politician Flip Flopney in the recent Republican debate, and he accuses Perry of “scaring seniors” (well, perhaps those unable to read or understand simple English, one would suppose). And a new poll suggests that Republicans aren’t sure what to make of Perry because he’s telling the truth about Socialist Security. We’ve known Socialist Security was a looming problem for at least a couple of decades now, but politicians fiddle, Rome burns, and we get nearer and nearer to Socialist Security insolvency. Look, maybe you don’t like what Rick Perry has to say about the subject; maybe his choice of words isn’t your cup of tea. I get it. But we had better find some leaders who are willing to “touch the third rail” pretty soon, instead of politicians who keep punting this particular football down the field every chance they get.
Look, I understand that Socialist Security is a program that is well-loved, and that despite its dubious constitutionality, it isn’t going anywhere. Libertarian Byron, meet Reality Byron. Fine. But for goodness’ sake, let’s at least fix it so that other concerns aside, it can function as one of the better government programs rather than as just one more that is going south. In order to do that, we have to make it a real part of our national conversation. And instead of criticizing leaders like Rick Perry who are plain-talking about it, let’s work together to get it fixed. Yesterday.
And While We’re Talking about Taxes and Tea Parties…
April 21, 2010
It would do us good to peruse what the “loyal opposition” is saying, as exemplified by another writer in USA Today, this time a guy they gave a column to:
I sincerely appreciate Mr. Benjamin’s patriotism and don’t question it one whit: what I question is
- Does he really understand what the Tea Party movement is all about?
- Does he understand the red herrings that litter his piece and demonstrate, once again, the convoluted reasoning of so many liberal types?
- Does he seriously believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned the big government, bureaucratic mess that Washington has become? Seriously? With a straight face?
- Does he really think that comparing us to Europe or Japan persuades anybody who can think for himself?
- Does he really lack the imagination to envision an America that can accomplish not only what he envisions, but so much more, without the mess we have today, particularly the horrid entity he professes to love so much, the income tax?
- And does he really, honestly, “secretly love the ritual” of paying income taxes? Does he also love, I don’t know, diphtheria, brussel sprouts, and the designated hitter? Sheesh…
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
