It's really important that you and every other pastor needs to say 'I'm not going to perform a same-sex wedding,' but let's be honest, there's not really a danger that the sheriff's gonna show up and say, 'you have to do this.' So far as I know, no pastor has been sued successfully for refusing to marry someone on other grounds- that's not the real danger. The real danger is we're going to pay an enormous social, cultural price for not doing a same-sex ceremony. We're going to be considered morally deficient. Let's admit it. We're much more accustomed to being accused of being morally superior. They've said we've been 'stand-offish' meaning better than them, now a large part of this culture thinks we are morally deficient.And as they are seen as morally deficient they will become increasingly irrelevant. Good!
At that meeting the SBC issued a resolution declaring their opposition to same-sex marriage (the Supremes will rule within 10 days). It quotes lots of Bible passages, but none of them speak of "the covenanted, conjugal union of one man and one woman" that the resolution says is the "biblical definition of marriage."
That prompted Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin to check out the familiar marriages in the Bible:
Adam married Eve without a covenant.
Abel and Seth married their sisters.
Abraham married half-sister Sarah and had a child through Sarah's maid.
Jacob married two sisters, the first through deception.
Moses likely had at least two wives.
David had at least six wives. And don't forget Jonathan.
Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Lot slept with his daughters.
That biblical definition thing doesn't actually exist in the Bible.
Kincaid also skewers the specific resolutions, then ends with this:
The only way this can be seen as “love and respect” is through the notion that whatever Christians do, regardless of how cruel, is by definition “loving” and that the difficulties that they place on others is “for their own good”.
No comments:
Post a Comment