Interplanner
Well-known member
I understand the intention of the city clerk who has been jailed in Kentucky for not granting same sex marriage licenses. But we need to size up things here and take a 200 year look.
If anyone here at TOL knows how to get this message to her, I think we can save her some grief. I will be trying Huckabee's hashtag shortly.
In the mid 1800s there were evangelical pastors who preached against any state authority over marriage at all. They warned that it would lead to people with completely disparate views of life having control over who would and would not marry and divorce. Voila.
All we have from Genesis is the verb 'to cleve' or to join one's partner (from the other gender) and this is a belief of the church. But more exactly, it is a belief that can only be practiced by those with all the beliefs of Genesis: that God created this world and mankind; that this is a real space and time event, and that we exist in real space and time and history after it when we marry; that sin has come and created horrible situations if God's commands are neglected; that sex belongs only in a marriage.
To most of us (98.5% I think) it would seem completely obvious that these things are just as much foundational to our country as is the opening line of the Constitution about being endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. But for now we have a culture which is trying to leverage anything it can against these beliefs. So the 1.5% is to be treated identically to the 98.5%. This will not change without a disaster that makes people take stock.
Therefore it is churches that need to practice marriage as Genesis sees it (so long as the particular church does) so that it is that community of people who are witnessing and validating it. The long view of the evangelical pastors of the 1800s is right. It is not something that should be practiced by the state.
Kim in Kentucky should resign on the basis of the realization of this, not try to continue in that confused context. If she makes her announcement on this basis, she won't be jeered at so much, and she will have the opportunity to validate the cluster or suite of concepts which reinforce marriage. A house divided cannot stand. "The house" used to be united on these things, but secularism has decided to attack it.
One of secularism's tactics is to ridicule one item by itself. Any discussion of marriage is not a one-item discussion, but is connected to the whole fabric of the Bible. One ABC news last night, this was shown to be true when the homosexual person retorted to Kim about God's judgement that he didn't think there was any. Exactly. But the same mentality of single-item thinking shows when an "evangelical" homosexual says that homosexuality is completely compatible with Christ's teaching. That's just more shredded fabric.
We are not trying to salvage one strand at a time. The only thing we have to say as Christians is that the whole fabric stands as one piece or else is not Christian, is not the Biblical message. Avoid those circumstances where this cannot be said. A marriage license clerk in a bezerk milieu is not one.
If anyone here at TOL knows how to get this message to her, I think we can save her some grief. I will be trying Huckabee's hashtag shortly.
In the mid 1800s there were evangelical pastors who preached against any state authority over marriage at all. They warned that it would lead to people with completely disparate views of life having control over who would and would not marry and divorce. Voila.
All we have from Genesis is the verb 'to cleve' or to join one's partner (from the other gender) and this is a belief of the church. But more exactly, it is a belief that can only be practiced by those with all the beliefs of Genesis: that God created this world and mankind; that this is a real space and time event, and that we exist in real space and time and history after it when we marry; that sin has come and created horrible situations if God's commands are neglected; that sex belongs only in a marriage.
To most of us (98.5% I think) it would seem completely obvious that these things are just as much foundational to our country as is the opening line of the Constitution about being endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. But for now we have a culture which is trying to leverage anything it can against these beliefs. So the 1.5% is to be treated identically to the 98.5%. This will not change without a disaster that makes people take stock.
Therefore it is churches that need to practice marriage as Genesis sees it (so long as the particular church does) so that it is that community of people who are witnessing and validating it. The long view of the evangelical pastors of the 1800s is right. It is not something that should be practiced by the state.
Kim in Kentucky should resign on the basis of the realization of this, not try to continue in that confused context. If she makes her announcement on this basis, she won't be jeered at so much, and she will have the opportunity to validate the cluster or suite of concepts which reinforce marriage. A house divided cannot stand. "The house" used to be united on these things, but secularism has decided to attack it.
One of secularism's tactics is to ridicule one item by itself. Any discussion of marriage is not a one-item discussion, but is connected to the whole fabric of the Bible. One ABC news last night, this was shown to be true when the homosexual person retorted to Kim about God's judgement that he didn't think there was any. Exactly. But the same mentality of single-item thinking shows when an "evangelical" homosexual says that homosexuality is completely compatible with Christ's teaching. That's just more shredded fabric.
We are not trying to salvage one strand at a time. The only thing we have to say as Christians is that the whole fabric stands as one piece or else is not Christian, is not the Biblical message. Avoid those circumstances where this cannot be said. A marriage license clerk in a bezerk milieu is not one.
opcorn:
