tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post6819614805757673289..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: SHOULD WE REDEFINE MARRIAGE?Ben Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-67514158495302652772008-12-10T08:13:00.000-08:002008-12-10T08:13:00.000-08:00While I believe that homosexual practices are sinf...While I believe that homosexual practices are sinful it is pretty clear to me that the attempts of Christians to fight these matters on the political stage is simply not a product of New Testament Christianity. It is not to say that Christians should not courageously and yet graciously claim that such is sinful (Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 6). But, the reality is we simply don't find Christians in the NT fighting to change Roman laws about various practices; or even complaining about them. Paul nowhere declares, "Hey, I won over some of Caesar's household - maybe we can get some laws changed that will make Rome more 'Christian-like' in it's national laws." <BR/><BR/>Indeed, there are tensions about the believer's interaction in the political arena (e.g., participation in military, et. al.). But, far too often Christians are trying to change the nation's laws, when that is not our particular calling (we just don't see this effort put forth in the NT). Our calling is to change the hearts of men and women. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, two other problems I see with your political approach: 1) Practically speaking, taking a stand in this way tends to put up a wall to the gospel reaching the hearts of homosexuals. It's one thing to gently sit down with a homosexual and talk about his problems on a personal basis; to show him that his practices are sinful and that he is lost if he continues in such; and to help him change his life-practices. It is another to take politically charged positions - that will be perceived as "hateful" whether it is or not. It comes across as "Elder brother religious bigotry" (Luke 15). Such politicization of Christian perspectives actually prevent the former from happening. It creates barriers to the gospel of Christ's love rather than breaking them down; <BR/><BR/>2) Fighting the battle on this level is ultimately trying to win a carnal (i.e., political) battle, not a spiritual battle. It is this mentality that Jesus warned about in Luke 13:1-5 where he exhorted the Jews to "repent," not of particular sins, but of a way of operating in the carnal world - fighting against Rome with carnal weapons. Whether military or through political power plays, this will backfire - just as it did on the Jews in the 1st century. <BR/><BR/>Do I hope that the people of this nation will seek to live righteous lives by turning to Christ and ending the promotion of homosexual practices? Absolutely. As I do for all nations. But, I believe this political approach is neither in the spirit of NT Christianity nor, ultimately, an effective tool for the gospel to reach the hearts of our lost younger brothers.Stanford J. Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03626466136123744600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-3631431666720917962008-12-09T18:12:00.000-08:002008-12-09T18:12:00.000-08:00See the following link for more discussion of this...See the following link for more discussion of this matter.<BR/><BR/>http://www.religiousresearcher.org/blog/?p=249<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-64751401276514916622008-12-08T15:55:00.000-08:002008-12-08T15:55:00.000-08:00Well said, Benny Three-Sticks. Thank you for taki...Well said, Benny Three-Sticks. Thank you for taking the time to express these sentiments.IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16315227626348856638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-25661379518209480332008-12-08T13:49:00.000-08:002008-12-08T13:49:00.000-08:00But Brother Witherington, you forget my point: A s...But Brother Witherington, you forget my point: A secular government has no business defining marriage. Thus it should never be called upon to give "legal permission" to <I>any</I> marital union. God puts people together, not the state.<BR/><BR/>Now, circumstances currently being what they are—one where the state claims it <I>is</I> in the business of defining marriage—you're quite right. It does become a matter of justice. And there you have to decide whether it's just to allow gays to marry. And your definition of justice has to come from <I>somewhere</I>; and among us Christians, it's gonna come from God and the scriptures, whereas some non-Christian justice will derive it from whatever philosophy he or she has consciously or unconsciously embraced.<BR/><BR/>That's where the trouble comes in. The decision will inevitably become a religious one. And the definition of marriage is <I>not</I> a universally held religious view. Some religions have no marriage; others allow for polygamy. The judge's and the legislature's decisions will ultimately be led by popular culture—if Jesus is popularly followed, you can make a case for the scriptures' stance, but if He's not, anything could pass. And in California (sad to say, 'cause I live here) He's not.<BR/><BR/>Government's role is to establish justice, but I still argue it is not to establish marriage. Of <I>any</I> sort. Marriages are best tended to by the churches that recognize, support, and encourage them. The state, in turn, allows any two willing participants—regardless of counseling or even state of intoxication—to marry; and divorce whenever one of them tires of the responsibility. How is that just?K.W. Lesliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03443010541317409555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-65105669280119831822008-12-08T07:25:00.000-08:002008-12-08T07:25:00.000-08:00Amen, Amen Amen!Amen, Amen Amen!Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-19537549390438832862008-12-08T03:50:00.000-08:002008-12-08T03:50:00.000-08:00Actually Brother Leslie is probably dead wrong. Go...Actually Brother Leslie is probably dead wrong. Go back and read Rom. 13 which says that governmental officials, including the top one are 'servants of God' who are in charge with maintaining justice. From a governmental point of view, who has legal permission to get married and who does not is not only a legal matter, it is a justice issue--- which is precisely what gays are claiming. And when you define what just relationships look like, and which relationships are illegal or unjust, then in fact you are in a mode of operating in a theological way. I'm afraid you can't make a clear cut separation of church and state on a social matter like marriage if the government is tasked with maintaining justice, whatever that entails, by God himself. See also 1 Peter.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for where marriage is defined Mat. 19.1-12 is pretty clear. Jesus says marriage is an act between and man and a woman whom God joins together, and the only alternative to that is being a eunuch (i.e. celibate) for the kingdom. It is a myth to suggest Jesus said nothing of relevance about gay or lesbian behavior. The implications of Mt. 19.1-12 are clear enough. Paul is equally clear in 1 Cor. 7 and Ephes. 5.31ff. Both ground marriage in the creation order of sexual differentiation of males and females.<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-70423457736669220202008-12-07T23:54:00.000-08:002008-12-07T23:54:00.000-08:00What is the biblical version of marriage? I don't...What is the biblical version of marriage? I don't know where it defines marriage as the bonding of a man and a woman. There isn't much to support the American view of marriage or a nuclear family in the Bible - in fact there is much to contradict it. <BR/><BR/>NT Wrong has an interesting article on this today:<BR/>http://ntwrong.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/biblical-gay-marriage/stephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15155479615000768875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-66945624861091165532008-12-07T22:44:00.000-08:002008-12-07T22:44:00.000-08:00K. W. Leslie hits the real point. For Christians,...K. W. Leslie hits the real point. For Christians, marriage is a sacred union. The government has no place in defining its definition either in a heterosexual or homosexual way. The government's role is to protect the rights of the individual. If two or more people desire to create a special legal status which gives them certain rights within that contract, the state can play a role in determining whether that kind of status should be granted, but this does not define that status as what Christians traditionally understand as marriage. <BR/><BR/>Each faith community needs to decide about this issue on their own. There should be no coerceing by the government or by any group to force its will upon a voluntary faith community, unless that community is practicing something which restricts an individuals constitutional rights. Since we are talking about voluntary faith communities, anyone who is not wanting to adhere to the agreed rules of that community are free to find another community that embraces their values more accurately. <BR/><BR/>It is not so difficult for faith communities to clarify their definition of marriage to fit their doctrine. Since the denotation of the word marriage includes not only the idea of the sacred union of woman and man, but also the idea of a close or intimate union, such as a marriage of ideas, it will be increasingly difficult to confine the word marriage to the concept of a man and woman union. We can awkwardly continue to always define what kind of marriage we are meaning or we can jump on step ahead and coin a new term which easily defines the exact type of marriage we have in mind. Not only will we avoid the constant repetition of the conflicting issue of hetero vs gay marriage, but we will be using a new term that is unquestionable in its meaning. <BR/><BR/>A few weeks ago I was playing with this idea and in a half humorous - half serious mood I created a Facebook group called Mananwife. The description of the group is as follows: Mananwife - The marriage of a man and a woman. With the use of elision man and wife becomes mananwife. <BR/><BR/>Since the definition of marriage as the union of man and woman is no longer clear, it is the proposal of this group that we form a new word to define the marriage of a man and woman that will leave no doubt to its meaning.<BR/><BR/>Usage of this term may be as follows: "Wow, that is great, when did you become mananwife." "I got engaged today, we are going to mananwife in June." "I can't wait until I go mananwife." "That was one of the most beautiful mananwife ceremonies I have ever seen."Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12509596389764649667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-61468048332517441172008-12-07T19:51:00.000-08:002008-12-07T19:51:00.000-08:00Rob this is a good question. Of course I think we...Rob this is a good question. Of course I think we must struggle against our sinful inclinations, whatever they may be. When we start baptizing those inclinations and calling them good, or even holy, we've certainly seriously crossed the line on that particular matter, and should be called to account. I don't think however Christians are called to struggle with their sinful tendencies alone. I believe in the body of Christ and its ability to not only hold us accountable, but also to hold us up when we are about to fall down. The issue however is, one has to be part of such a Christian community and be prepared to be honest in that community. <BR/><BR/>As for your friend, I applaud her honesty, as it gives her friends a chance to be of help to her. I don't think you can or should say that she is beyond the pale simply for having such inclinations. There is a difference between a Christian struggling with a besetting sinful tendency, and a non-Christian who baptizes their sin and calls it good.<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-46601803001226008212008-12-07T18:51:00.001-08:002008-12-07T18:51:00.001-08:00Respectfully, I disagree. It's not about redefinin...Respectfully, I disagree. It's not about redefining marriage. It's about whether or not it is within the purview of <I>government</I> to define it.<BR/><BR/>In this, I would agree with gays and lesbians: It is not. Marriage is sacred. Sacred means holy; holy is defined by God. Not man. Not government. Not Proposition 8. Proposition 8 takes a view of marriage that may be widely recognized, but is only morally objectionable within our Judeo-Christian worldview—which inherently means it is a <I>religious</I> objection. And if we recognize that government has no business legislating religion—or forcing its tenets upon anyone else—then we must also recognize that Prop 8 goes too far.<BR/><BR/>Government has <I>never</I> had any business recognizing marriage in any way, shape, or form. Marriage is valid in the eyes of God, and the state has no business determining what God has put together, or whether He has or not. The fact that we allow judges and JPs to perform marriages is as wrong as if they performed baptisms; yet we somehow have become used to it.<BR/><BR/>It is not a civic issue but a doctrinal one. I would not recognize a gay marriage any more than I would recognize a baptism performed by a Unitarian, communion offered by a Jehovah's Witness, or an exorcism perfomed by a witch doctor. But God forbid that the <I>government</I> should decide to have any say in any such matter.<BR/><BR/>The proper position of the government is to stay out of marriage altogether. That should be left to churches. For civic purposes, the government should recognize domestic arrangements, but nothing further. And Christians should stop turning to Caesar to handle our religious disputes.K.W. Lesliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03443010541317409555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-86388361377232731542008-12-07T18:51:00.000-08:002008-12-07T18:51:00.000-08:00That's a good post. I pretty much agree with most...That's a good post. I pretty much agree with most of it.<BR/><BR/>However, there is one thing that I would ask for further clarification on...<BR/><BR/><BR/>I firmly believe that it is possible for a person to be sinful and still be in Christ. That is, that Christians <I>struggle</I> with sin.<BR/><BR/>What is your view of Christians who are homosexual? It's a touchy subject for me. I have a friend who recently came out of the closet. She has never kissed a girl before. She's never had sex. She doesn't act on any urges, and isn't interested in a relationship of any kind right now. She just happens to be attracted to good looking women. This is a thing that she's really wrestling and trying to understand.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I believe that there are Christians who struggle with homosexuality just like there are Christians who struggle with lust or addiction or lying. But, if homosexuality is a sin, and a person is a Christian who recognizes homosexuality as a sin, and decides to <I>embrace</I> homosexuality rather than struggle with it, what are your beliefs about such a situation?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I understand that this is an INCREDIBLY general and impersonal hypothetical situation, and that it's nearly impossible (if not entirely impossible) to judge a person's salvation like this without knowing them unless they just come out and say "I hate Jesus," but since she came out of the closet I've been torn. She doesn't act on any of her lesbian desires, but there's so much conditioning from my family that says "she's not one of God's" that it kind of bothers me any way.Rob Pennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02213274926132371888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-55924215857461649452008-12-07T17:50:00.000-08:002008-12-07T17:50:00.000-08:00When a society gets to the point that the question...When a society gets to the point that the question of redefining marriage is on the table, it's just a matter of time before it happens. In these matters it is easy for a President to respond as Barak Obama did, because he just shifts the responsibility to the states and can wash his hands of the entire affair. I think eventually all states will be forced to accept the redefining of marriage. The real challenge will be what do I do when my children are taught in school that something I think is a sin is an acceptable and noble and good way of life. As time goes on I believe that living by the Sermon on the Mount will become an even greater challenge, do to society's increasing attitude that true Christian morals are bigoted and evil. Still, we are commanded by our Lord to adhere to the command of "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604275914196707575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-72234842523087669222008-12-07T17:36:00.000-08:002008-12-07T17:36:00.000-08:00Excellent post, Ben! I'll be bookmarking it for f...Excellent post, Ben! I'll be bookmarking it for future referral.<BR/><BR/>My only question: Is there a particular reason that civil unions should only be allowed for gay and lesbian couples? I have two great-aunts (sisters) whose husbands died in WWII. They've been living together ever since. Why should they not have hospital rights, tax benefits, etc?<BR/><BR/>One caveat: there's pretty strong support for the idea that same-sex attraction is at least partially genetic:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/index1.html" REL="nofollow">New York Magazine</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/" REL="nofollow">Slate</A><BR/><BR/>Although that doesn't refute your point about whether something is "of God" which I think is very well taken.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09900722116531326873noreply@blogger.com