A recent conversation I had about my stance on prop. 8 :
I agree marriage is God's institution. I support it. I hope to do it one day. My problem, however, is multifaceted. Homosexual activity is merely one of the perhaps unlimited sexual sins that the Bible refers to as porneia. A single statute in our state's constitution hardly deals with the problem of sexual sin. Everybody lusts and sins in their mind. God's wrath would be poured out on everyone of us because of this. Even if we, or anyone else, obeyed this statute, if doesn't keep anyone from sinning. It can't and won't stop fornication, homosexuality, or any other sin. I also think that our legislation should not be used as a tool to police our nation's morals. I know our laws and our country were founded on the Bible and its principles, but I believe the authors intent of toleration has been lost.
Like John Locke said " That the Church of Christ should persecute others, and force others by fire and sword to embrace her faith and doctrine, I could never yet find in any of the books of the New Testament." In Locke's works (which were used as strong inspiration for our nation's founding and laws) he is very clear that a person's civil enjoyments were not to be prejudiced because of their church or religion, or lack thereof. For this reason I hold that the interests of a church need to be fundamentaly seperated and distinct from that of the state's, and vice versa. Another point is that I believe marriage to be an issue of the church. It is a matter of worship and faith. A worshiper in the church is subject to the church's laws, and also to any law his government makes. We are to obey the laws of land, and of course not do anything that the Bible tells us not to, but this proposition does not require anything of christians except to be tolerant of non-christians. A law of the church is incapable of saving a man's soul. It has even less influence over a soul that is purposefully running from God. Instead of waging a war for temporary political domination, we should be fighting in spirit and truth. Not against a non-believer, but on his side. How can we win him over to Crist with Truth, when we are forcefully trying to oppress him? Of course I am for calling wrong what is wrong, and right what is right. But before you try to instil the law into someone's heart who does not want to hear it, we should ask the Spirit to work, Since it is only He who can change hearts in the first place.
As far as God's wrath, in that passage He states that it was He that gave those vile men over to their wicked hearts and evils passions. And in the next chapter he warns us against judging a person who marries another person of the same sex, when we ourselves are at the same time lustful, because God judges impartially. It is His goodness alone that leads either one of us to repent of sins, not by laws of man or the church.
I hope that clears up my position!
2 comments:
good thoughts.
On the other hand Josh, Paul's point is not "you're a sinner, I'm a sinner, oh well what can you do?" He argues later that Christ and his Spirit brings about a real transformative change in the lives of those who are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone; so much so as to call them to live separate lives from BOTH the world and self-righteous religion. If you have Paul's role-cal of sin in the first chapters of Romans without his doctrine of justification you would get self-righteous moralism; if we preach justification and reconciliation without calling sin "sin" we have half a gospel which is no Gospel at all, if we receive the first chapters of Romans without the last, we preach antinomianism - "let us sin that grace may abound" - which leads men only to hell. Perhaps some of you're problem comes from preachers who do not declare the whole counsel of God and who do not "purge the temple" first by uncovering the churches' sins and calling her to repentance first.
Post a Comment