British COGOP couple take stand, make world news

[dolfan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... d-off.html

[DeWayneTN]

I have read about the couple but missed that they were COGOP. Wow.

[RamboPreacher]

link no workey. darn

[Pastor Gary]

Here's a follow-up commentary that contains the original article link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... -test.html

...and a statement from our fellow COGOP members themselves:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... stice.html

[Pastorbps]

The new ruling has also met with approval from many Christians who don't share the John's views. 'Christ himself said nothing about gay people' says Michael Arditti, a gay Christian and author of Lourdes, a novel that debates Christian versus secular values. 'The only aspect of personal relationships that Christ consistently condemned was divorce.'

Interesting that he brought up "divorce." I wonder why he did that? He could have stopped at saying, "Christ himself said nothing about gay people."

[Pastor Gary]

The new ruling has also met with approval from many Christians who don't share the John's views. 'Christ himself said nothing about gay people' says Michael Arditti, a gay Christian and author of Lourdes, a novel that debates Christian versus secular values. 'The only aspect of personal relationships that Christ consistently condemned was divorce.'

Interesting that he brought up "divorce." I wonder why he did that? He could have stopped at saying, "Christ himself said nothing about gay people."

I think I can answer that. During the recent Hawaii Civil Unions debate those in support of gay marriage (or civil unions as a step toward gay marriage) inevitably referred back to the (disproven) stats that claim Christian divorce rates are as high as those for non-Christians, their point being "who are YOU to claim you're trying to save the institution of marriage when you are not exactly setting a great example of what that might look like?"

It is a standard talking-point of those seeking to legitimize homosexuality and redefine traditional understandings of marriage and family.

[Pastorbps]

I think they want to know why the inconsistency.
"You condemn homosexuality which Jesus was silent about but you make allowances for divorce (and remarriage) which He was not silent about. If you were going to be firmly and unconditionally against something, shouldn't it be what He spoke about and not what He didn't speak about. Instead, you are firmly and unconditionally against something He was silent about and make allowances for what He openly condemned. If you make allowances for what He verbally condemned, why are there not allowances for homosexuality which He was silent about. Seems you pick and choose with no rhyme or reason."

Just pointing out their argument. Are you prepared to answer them?

[dolfan]

Pastorbps, I will answer.

Jesus defined marriage in his condemnation of divorce. "A man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife," Jesus said, quoting the Torah's definition of marriage. "What God has joined together," he said, "let no man put asunder."

Jesus specifically defined marriage. The same argument they would make dooms them. Why would they say that Jesus approves homosexual marriages when he only specifically defined marriage as heterosexual? Jesus' statements on divorce also voids the homosexual marriage, ab initio.

[Pastorbps]

Jesus specifically defined marriage. The same argument they would make dooms them. Why would they say that Jesus approves homosexual marriages when he only specifically defined marriage as heterosexual? Jesus' statements on divorce also voids the homosexual marriage, ab initio.

Can you argue the indissoluble nature of marriage as an ideal set forth by Jesus but make the male/female aspect of marriage an absolute set forth by Jesus? Why is one aspect of His statement an "Ideal" and the other an "absolute?" If lifetime marriage is an ideal but it can be altered then the heterosexual nature of marriage may be an ideal which also can be altered.
You say His statement teaches marriage is between a man and woman. Their argument would be, "And it also says, let no man put asunder" and yet people do and churches accept it has been dissolved contrary to Jesus' statement. If one part can be ignored, then the other part can be ignored.

[Pastor Gary]

Jesus specifically defined marriage. The same argument they would make dooms them. Why would they say that Jesus approves homosexual marriages when he only specifically defined marriage as heterosexual? Jesus' statements on divorce also voids the homosexual marriage, ab initio.

Can you argue the indissoluble nature of marriage as an ideal set forth by Jesus but make the male/female aspect of marriage an absolute set forth by Jesus? Why is one aspect of His statement an "Ideal" and the other an "absolute?" If lifetime marriage is an ideal but it can be altered then the heterosexual nature of marriage may be an ideal which also can be altered.
You say His statement teaches marriage is between a man and woman. Their argument would be, "And it also says, let no man put asunder" and yet people do and churches accept it has been dissolved contrary to Jesus' statement. If one part can be ignored, then the other part can be ignored.

Bruce, I'm not sure if your question/challenge was directed to me, or to the board. If it is to me, why? I am married to my high school sweetheart, and we make 40 years in June. Of all the couples I have counseled and officiated at their weddings, I think there is only one who divorced, and that was not "on my watch", as they moved far away. I work feverishly to save damaged marriages and, like God, I hate divorce.

[Pastorbps]

No, no. I didn't mean it that way at all. I think we all feel that way about divorce and I think it is great you have that record regarding counseling people. I am simply pointing out the argument we are now having to answer. I have felt for a long time these issues are going to be tied together. Whether we hate divorce or not is not the issue they are raising. They are raising the issue as to why "No Divorce" is an ideal but there are exceptions while not saying that about heterosexual aspect of marriage. "Why isn't it that heterosexuality is an "Ideal" but there are exceptions?"
I am trying to get people to see the association between the two issues.
This has been my argument all along. D&R is not an island unto itself. Our views on it are intertwined with MANY issues. You don't tamper with it without it affecting, by implication, many other issues.

[Pastor Bill]

I think we often tie too much together.

the fact is it's not even about marriage, it's about sexuality, God created sexuality, and defined it very specifically as to be between a man and woman, within the bonds of marriage. Any deviation from this is sin.

That's pretty simple, Yes we realize that people sin, and yes we believe there is forgiveness for sin (whether that sin is sexual or not, including even homosexual sins) but that does not mean it's condoned. Divorce is the same way, it's not what God want's for any life, sometimes it's unavoidable, sometimes it's even "justified" but it's not God's perfect will, it's our falling short.

The real issue here is that no one wants to hear that sin is sin, and anything that can be latched onto to redirect or cause confusion from the real issue becomes an easy target. Especially if it can be used to point out flaws in someone else rather than having to prove your own point.

[dolfan]

No, no. I didn't mean it that way at all. I think we all feel that way about divorce and I think it is great you have that record regarding counseling people. I am simply pointing out the argument we are now having to answer. I have felt for a long time these issues are going to be tied together. Whether we hate divorce or not is not the issue they are raising. They are raising the issue as to why "No Divorce" is an ideal but there are exceptions while not saying that about heterosexual aspect of marriage. "Why isn't it that heterosexuality is an "Ideal" but there are exceptions?"
I am trying to get people to see the association between the two issues.
This has been my argument all along. D&R is not an island unto itself. Our views on it are intertwined with MANY issues. You don't tamper with it without it affecting, by implication, many other issues.

I suppose they could argue that way, but it is only an emotional argument and not a biblical one. Here's what I mean, and I'm using your first statement of their argument (and I know you're just playing "devil's advocate", if you will, and that it isn't your argument) as the jumping off point:

1. If their argument is that Jesus condemned divorce and that Christians allow for it, the proper response is that Jesus defined marriage and divorce, and that homosexuals qualify for neither. In Jesus' own words, he defined what marriage is -- a union between a man and a woman, and that by God. (Anyone else who thinks that is an incomplete definition, please note that I'm not trying to be comprehensive in restating Jesus' definition; this is a limited issue so I'm limiting the restatement to that issue.) Jesus also defined what a divorce is: a putting away. Let's ignore, for the moment here, whether the putting away is valid or invalid, allowed or disallowed. Jesus countenanced the activity of divorce, which is to say that he was aware that married people divorce.

The point is that only married people can divorce. You'd think that goes without saying, but in the rabbit hole of perverted relationships you have to state the obvious. Only married people can divorce.

For the homosexual to argue that Christians are hypocritical on divorce is relevant to the question of Christian fidelity to biblical doctrine; it is not relevant to whether homosexual marriage is allowed by Jesus Himself. The most "points" a homosexual can "score" is to say, "Well, you're no better than me." That may or may not be true in any instance. What it does not mean, though, is that, "My relationship is, therefore, as biblical as yours." Christian hypocrisy on divorce does NOT elevate homosexuals to eligibility for marriage.

2. It is an emotional appeal. Gotchas count in contemporary debate. And, while I won't sell the church out on the whole about divorce since there is this whole host of believers in places I don't even know about let alone how they live out their marriages and how their churches help disciple them maritally, let's take it as a given that the homosexuals have a point about American Christians and divorce. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that American Christians do divorce in rates not significantly less than the whole unbelieving population. Okay.

So, what?

How does that elevate homosexuals to the point of being eligible for Christian marriage?? It doesn't. All it does is furnish a rhetorical "A HA!" It means nothing else. Now, it does, unfortunately, distract a large portion of people from the truth; it does hook some people into thinking, "Yeah, well, looky here. You're no better than the gays. Why CAN'T they marry? Huh? Huh? Tell me that!" And, so on and so on and round and round goes the chest thumping and childishness that passes for reason nowadays.

[Pastorbps]

Here is the problem. Jesus defined remarriage after divorce as an unsanctioned union ("Adultery" which is clearly condemned). You say Jesus never sanctioned same sex unions but neither did He sanction marriage after divorce.
It is not a question of hypocrisy but consistency. If God says to put away one's wife and to marry another constitutes adultery but churches accept there are exceptions to that rule they relegate Jesus' statement to a suggestion or "ideal" rather than a commandment or fact. If what Jesus said is merely a suggestion or ideal then the heterosexuality of the marriage union must, for consistency sake, be considered a suggestion or ideal but not a strict commandment or fact.

You are right, I am playing the devil's advocate but my point is again to point out Christianity's redefinition of marriage as "Ideally for life" has far reaching implications.

[dolfan]

Pastorbps, I want to be careful not to slip into semantics.

Hypocrisy and inconsistency are brothers from the same mother. Pretense, here, is virtually indistinct from simple integrity. If Christians "pretend" or act as if Jesus did not repeat God's original commands about marriage, they are not acting with integrity about the faith.

My counter to your faux-argument was simply that even if that's the case -- that Christians are being inconsistent or engaging in pretense -- it doesn't add weight to the homosexuals-can-marry argument.

In getting anywhere with people nowadays, it seems as if any weight on the "my side" of the scales is enough weight for "me" to get "my way". A proposition must be so overwhelmingly persuasive to everyone everywhere that no one challenges it in order for it to be treated as truth. But, truth does not identify itself as true by mere consensus.

That's a mistake "by" the homosexuals in your faux-argument. To get around that rather glaring error, shifty words like "relegate" get thrown in. By whose account does the inconsistency of Christians about marriage/divorce "relegate" Jesus' definition of marriage as man-woman to a suggested "ideal" rather than a "commandment"?? Answer: Those who have no intention of obeying the commandment as given in the first place. Becuase it does not follow from that inconsistency that marriage is relegated to "suggestion" rather than "commandment" at all.

Let's take a wholly unrelated proposition from a different person but with an overarchingly same point -- obey God.

Matthew 3:7-10 "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: 'You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire'."

Luke's chapter 3 account says:

7John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.

11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.

14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”

He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah. 16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with[b] water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” 18 And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them.

That sounds downright sermon-on-the-mount-y, doesn't it? Luke called John the Baptist's message "the good news". So, I'll bite and agree with him; John the Baptist spoke with divine authority about the idea that God can raise children of Abraham (that is, children of the seed of faith, see Heb. 11) from rocks.

Well, what are the commandments related to that idea? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. Examples include giving food, clothing to one another, deal honestly with each other on business, don't take more than you're owed and don't lie about peple

Do Christians not also act inconsistently with regard to these? If we do, what status does our hypocrisy or inconsistency relegate these commands to? Does our failure to consistently produce fruit in keeping with repentance then justify the sins of those around us who are either nominal Christians (in much the same way as gays claim the faith) or unbelievers? No. It doesn't. We would not fold our arms and say, "Well, you know, since we can't really pull this off ourselves, we shouldn't even bother with the effort of trying to 'save some.' We can't even save us."

That is a bogus milquetoast response to those who challenge truth with lies. It isn't helped by poorly reflecting the truth of Christ in practical, real terms. Yet, that response is no answer at all.

Put it another way: If we agreed with every proposition made by homosexuals about Christians and marriage in practice, homosexuals gain no ground on their biblical footing about "gay marriage".