Category Archives: Marriage
When a Christian person refuses service to a gay person it is all over the news. Every news outlet in the country carries the story and wags their head at the “shameful” treatment of the poor gay people. By the end of the day everyone has seen the story and knows the basic details of how this innocent gay person (or couple) has been terribly mistreated by the awful Christian person (or couple).
Instances of overblown media attention include the case of the baker in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding; the florist in Washington that refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding; and the printer that refused to print t-shirts for a gay-pride parade. (Just for good measure let’s throw in the pizza shop that refused to provide pizza for a gay wedding.)
In each of these accounts a Christian business owner is exercising his or her right to live and do business according to their faith. They are refusing to provide service – not because they hate the gay people – but because they do not want to show support for gay marriage, something their faith will not allow.
But, have you ever heard the mainstream media (MSM) report on the large amount of support these Christians received from the gay community for doing business according to their faith?
This post will likely be deemed “offensive” and “hate speech” by some. It will certainly be considered politically incorrect. Those realities make it all the more necessary and bewildering.
It seems Caitlyn Jenner, the new identity of the man formerly known as Bruce Jenner, will be named “Woman of the Year” by Glamour magazine. Now, there is so much packed into that statement that needs addressed, it is hard to know where to start.
Let’s consider the state of a society that celebrates and throws parties when a man is named “Woman of the Year.” It seems our culture loves embracing confusing ideas that aren’t based in realty. And by doing so we have become hypocrites that loathe the truth. We tell a man dressing as a woman that “she” is courageous and beautiful. We then tell people that believe in God, heaven, and eternity that they are “anti-science.” Even though biologically Bruce Jenner is a man and, therefore, scientifically he is living a lie. Our culture says we should celebrate his decision and support him in his confusion. But don’t you dare claim to pray or believe in divine intervention because that is unscientific.
Speaking of science. It has been shown, scientifically, that unborn babies have a heartbeat by 8 weeks. They can hear sounds and have recordable brain activity by 12 weeks. And by 20 weeks they can feel pain. And yet our President and many others praise Planned Parenthood for killing unborn babies. All the while, Planned Parenthood (and many abortion advocates) can’t really say when an unborn child really becomes human. You know, scientifically speaking. But let’s go ahead and tell a man dressed as a woman that he is in fact, a woman. Because, you know, equality and all.
I don’t want to focus on the chips so much as I want to focus on the partnership Doritos has entered in to with the It Gets Better Foundation. But before I do, let’s talk about the chips for a second.
Every company has the right to support whatever they want. But they also must know that by doing so they bear the responsibility of the consequences. For example, I stopped supporting the United Way and Susan G Komen for the Cure years ago. Why? Because they are partners with Planned Parenthood and, as much as possible, I want to make sure not a single dollar of my money goes to that criminal, vile organization that takes pleasure in profiting from the murder of innocent babies. By the way, that’s the reason I don’t support the Girls Scouts as well.
When I learned that PepsiCo was using the cells of aborted babies in their flavor testing process for various sodas, I immediately stopped buying any Pepsi products. In fact, that was nearly 8 years ago. So while Doritos has every right to support homosexuality, I have every right to show my disapproval of their decision by not buying their products. Just as I show my support for Chick-Fil-A’s position on marriage by eating there as often as possible.
Now, having said that, let’s talk about the real irony and near stupidity of this decision by Doritos.
The more I read the less I’m sure of. Is Kim Davis an example that Christians should take note of for her refusal to compromise her religious convictions? Is she a criminal interfering with “the law of the land” that needs to either “get with the program” or get out of the way?
One thing I am sure of is that most people, by now, have at least heard of Kim Davis. And I am fairly certain that most people have made up their mind about whether they view Davis as a hero or a villain. But all the noise and static in the media and on blogs takes time to wade through.
At the risk of personifying irony by becoming part of the noise and static, I wanted to share some thoughts on what could, potentially, be one of the most crucial incidents in our nation’s history.
There seems to be a grave misunderstanding taking place that could alter the course of events if not adequately cleared up. Some are inclined to think that the Supreme Court of the United States makes laws in our country when, in fact, they do not. The Supreme Court has no authority to make laws but, in reality, is to uphold existing laws. It is Congress that has the task of making laws. For this reason Kim Davis is well within the bounds of law to refuse to sign a marriage certificate for a same-sex couple. Why?
After posting an article related to the Ashley Madison hack last week, I had the opportunity to engage in conversation with a family member, a long-time friend, and a pastor-friend regarding, essentially, whether or not pastors caught in the scandal should be restored to pastoral ministry. It was an occasion for learning as it helped to clarify thoughts on forgiveness and consequences.
There is two sides that have voiced thoughts on how a pastor caught using Ashley Madison should be handled.
The first voice says that the pastor should resign or be fired. This side believes in forgiveness and encourages the church to forgive the pastor if he is repentant and seeks forgiveness. This side also emphasizes the critical need for the pastor to seek counseling to restore his marriage and family. But ultimately, this side does not believe the pastor should stay in his role at the church and should move on. Indeed, this voice isn’t sure the pastor is even qualified to be a pastor anymore.
The other side says the church should consider not just forgiving the pastor but becoming his biggest support in seeking reconciliation with his wife and healing for his family. This side says that since Christians have a bad reputation for shooting their wounded that perhaps allowing the pastor to continue at the church would be a powerful witness. This side does not believe the church should allow the pastor to be in leadership or even preach for a season; but that he can stay on staff through the healing process and, in due time, when the leaders believe it is appropriate, be restored to his position.
So Daniel refused to compromise his convictions, even while working for the king (a secular entity). That decision led to his punishment; a punishment Daniel was fully prepared to accept, even to the point of death. At no time did Daniel plead his case or demand his “religious convictions” be honored. The end result was that Daniel’s accusers were thrown into the den of lions where they all perished, and the king decreed that only the “God of Daniel” was the true God.
Does this biblical account relate to the Kentucky clerk that now sits in prison for refusing to compromise her convictions?
I think there is a relationship between the account of Daniel and this Kentucky clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The relationship is that Ms. Davis – the clerk – is living according to her religious convictions despite the laws of the land. The current law makes it illegal to deny a marriage license to any couple seeking to be married, refusing to comply with that law is an act of disobedience to the law.
At one time our Founders sought refuge from government persecution for their religious convictions. They left their homes to establish a place where people could freely live out their faith in every aspect of their life. What is happening today is a return to that same government persecution that our Founders desperately wanted to leave behind.
One area this seems most apparent is in the effort to force Christians to accept homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” Sure, there may have been a goal of simply seeing this lifestyle legitimized and legalized; but that appears now to have been a precursor for the larger goal of forcing every person to accept and celebrate it. But there can now be no doubt that seeking simple “equality” is a long forgotten idea. And the rhetoric we were fed that “no one would be affected” was nothing more than a well-rehearsed talking point in a carefully crafted campaign.
A statement in an article from a couple months ago echoes what, I believe, many Americans are thinking:
I’m sure many people were glad when the cheating website Ashley Madison was hacked and the identity of its users was revealed. I know I was. I thought “serves people right.” But very quickly the depth of hurt inflicted on many families across the country became very real to me and my initial happiness was turned to sorrow for the hurting families.
I think there is a tendency among Christians to assume that the only people that use such websites as Ashley Madison are contemptuous people that deserve whatever happens when they are finally exposed. What we tend to forget is that many of the users are friends, neighbors, and pastors.
The people who signed up for the cheating website are not just anonymous men and women with no families, reputations or careers. They are husbands and fathers, wives and mothers, deacons, elders, and pastors. The extent of hurt and heartache inflicted by this single act may never truly be known. But one thing is for sure, no one should be laughing.
Consider, according to Christian culture analyst Ed Stetzer, roughly 400 pastors, elders, and deacons resigned their position on Sunday. We may be tempted to think that a good thing, that they should not be allowed to serve. Whether that’s true or not remains to be seen. But what about the churches? If that number is correct then 400 churches just lost key leaders. And with a shortage of qualified leaders already causing issues among churches, the enemy, Satan, is surely smiling.
That’s a loaded question isn’t it? One that continues to be hotly debated in our culture and in the corners of churches across the country. It’s not like many of the other hotly debated theological questions because, unlike the millennium, the mode of baptism, and worship wars; this question carries eternal consequences.
Few of the theological discussions taking place today affect the eternal destination of a person. Consider, whether you are pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trip, your salvation is secure. Whether you believe in a literal millennial reign of Christ on earth or not in no way affects your salvation. And whether you were baptized three times forward, once backward, or with a bucket over the head doesn’t change your eternal destiny.
But that isn’t true for the question of homosexuality.
There is significant evidence that homosexuality is a moral sin to be repented of (Romans 1:26-28; Lev. 18:22; I Cor. 6:9-11; I Tim. 1:10). These verses, and others, indicate that homosexuality is a sin God finds offensive, an affront to His design for man and woman and marriage. That being the case, it stands to reason that only by repenting of homosexuality can a person be born-again and receive the free gift of salvation in Jesus Christ proclaimed in the Gospel message.
If homosexuality is a sin then there is no way a professing Christian could support homosexuality or same-sex relationships.
Therein lies the problem.
It seems many Christians’ views on homosexuality are “evolving.” For example a well-known Christian counselor for Wheaton College recently resigned her position after revealing that she now supports homosexual relationships; a position she opposed just months before.
I’ve been saying this for years. And not just me, many voices concerned about the fallout of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” have said it.
If the government legalizes same-sex “marriage,” what legal or moral basis would there be to refuse to legalize polygamy or polyamory?
Let’s think logically for a moment. The U.S Supreme Court has found a “right” to same-sex “marriage” in the constitution. Often citing autonomy of adults and their ability to consent, SCOTUS decided that a civil right exists to allow homosexual adults to marry. If that is the case, then what possible moral of legal reasoning could there be to refuse to legalize polygamy and polyamory?
Go ahead, I’ll wait while you think about it.
Oh, you say it’s bad for the kids. I see. So not having a mother or a father – as in the case of same-sex “marriage” is acceptable, but having two or three moms or dads is not? Is that what you’re arguing? Come on, you need to do better than that.
The Supreme Court just ignored every argument for what is best for children and found a civil right for relationships in which kids will be denied one or the other – do you really think they will deny legalization of polygamy on the basis of kids having three moms of two dads? If the court doesn’t think it’s a big deal for a child to have no mom or no dad, they will surely not care if a child has multiple of one parent or another. Try again.