Skip to main content

It's Not About The People

It would be easy to go in two directions on this marriage question we're all been talking about lately, and neither of them are good.

I could simply thump the Bible here and there, unwilling to recognize that the most sophisticated advocates of same-sex marriage know the texts as well as I do, not in any way making human contact with these sinners or their allies.

I could also confess the truth of traditional teaching joylessly, almost reluctantly, and I can allow myself to be moved emotionally by the scenes of same-sex couples gaining legal recognition.

With respect to the first case, I'm going to say that I understand sinners. If you sin, that means in that moment, whatever it is has become more valuable to you than the God of the universe. We know intellectually how stupid that is. If you're a sinner, however,--and not in the theoretical--you know that reality in your own life; it's not just a pious guilt-trip you give to Johnny-Bob. It sounds good in fundraising letters; Christian leaders do it all the time.

In the second case, I don't want to be moved by what is disordered! Why are you doing that? You might be sitting there thinking, "But this group of 'biblically-faithful' Christians has so profoundly failed to love that this is why I'm moved! This is why they are here, because of us!" Stop it, right now. This isn't remotely true. Sinners sin because they love a created thing more than God. It's not hard. If that isn't you, you are not responsible. I love these thoughtful evangelicals; penance is a heresy and beyond the pale, but trying to be the Lamb of God Himself isn't.

Repent for failing to love, if indeed you have. I'm not stopping you. But stop giving Satan a foothold, by pretending that you can affirm the truth, while letting your own feelings deny it. "My delight is in the law of the Lord."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un