My daughter sent me this e-mail last night of a discussion she and one of her Christian friends had via an e-mail discussion. She asked her father and me, as well as one of her brothers, what our thoughts were and we expressed them to her. She also responded to the young man in a much longer conversation than is recorded here, but I am curious what some of my readers thoughts are concerning his views. How do you think these types of views will affect the future of the church?
Mom,
One of my Christian friends from TN wrote this on his blog:
"Voted AGAINST the "marriage amendment" to the state constitution. I figure its going to pass anyway, but I'm steadfastly against it. "
so I asked him -
"Why vote against the marriage amendment? interested in hearing your thought process...your comments about politics they are always intriguing :) "
he said:
"Well, there are several reasons.
1. Government should not legislate morality.
2. Knee-jerk constitutional amendments are a very bad idea, and are very seldom beneficial.
3. "Same sex marriage" is not legal in TN now. We don't need language added to the constitution that is already handled by other legislation.
4. The amendment does nothing to "protect" existing marriage. Even if gay people were allowed to marry, it won't affect a straight marriage one bit. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce now already; its a misnomer to cast this initiative as "protecting families and marriage"
5. Its restrictive legislation, and does not promote "life, liberty, and happiness" for all citizens. I'm not FOR gay/same-sex marriage.
It is already illegal, and amending the state constitution for a morality initiative is bad, bad, bad public policy."
Let me know your thoughts on this. I will address this more in the next few days.
Dana Burk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
(Dana: I cannot sign in with my identity to leave the message. I left the previous message :))
Ed Rangel
It seems like some Christians think that the government should outlaw all kinds of immoral things and to some extent I agree with that ideology. However, a people that is forced to be moral will not have a change of heart, the law will be obeyed because of the fear of retribution. King Hezekiah failed miserably when he forced the people to do away with idolatry. He left us the lesson that a people as a whole can only be changed one person at a time and not by force. Although, a preemptive attack on moral issues might not be such a bad idea, but what would it accomplish? Several years ago a Texas law on sodomy was challenged yet sodomy still takes place in that very place wherein it is outlawed. Obviously, as you can perceive, my feelings are mixed towards this ideology.
This type of thinking might also bleed into the church, as you already pointed out. Nonetheless, in this holy realm we cannot legislate only abide and comply.
My fiancée and I have debated this very issue a few times. Here are a few points to consider:
1. Should government legislate morality? I agree with Ed Rangel when he says that this can have disastrous consequences, not only because one cannot force a change of heart on someone, but also because I believe it is the Church who should primarily be doing this work. Often, we as Christians hide behind government, asking it to witness for us, instead of doing it ourselves.
2. There are two types of marriage: I see a distinction between marriage by law and marriage by the church. The first we do to follow governmental protocol (giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s), whereas the second is a union before God, designed by Him, one which no man is to break (Matt 19:6). If these are two separate things, then should we dictate what secular marriage is to be?
3. What is government’s purpose in defining marriage? Since the government is secular and for the people, there must be a secular, beneficial purpose to marriage. If there is such a reason for not allowing non-heterosexual marriage, then this amendment is valid. By faith I know that God does not make mistakes; He designed marriage to be between a man and a woman because He knew it was best. Hence, I can trust that marriage between a man and a woman is beneficial to society, whereas homosexual marriage is not.
4. Would legalizing homosexual marriage make homosexuality more commonplace and give people the impression that it is not displeasing to God? If God hates homosexual relations, then would it be wrong for me to “encourage” it by not voting against it? Is voting for this amendment a way that I can do God’s work, influencing society by the laws I choose to support? On the other hand, a key part of the gospel is our freedom to choose who or what to follow, a principle we can reflect by the form of government we support.
5. What are we withholding from couples by not allowing them to get married? I don’t know the answer to this question, but there are privileges marriage confers in the world, such as the right to know medical information about your spouse when he/she has been in an accident, inheritance, tax cuts, etc., that seem wrong to withhold from a couple who want to be married but legally can’t.
I can go on and on in circles about this issue, but the bottom line is that I am quite confused about it and I would really like to understand what God’s will is in all of this.
Tracy
I have been studying Ezekiel 22-23 and the prophet paints a frightening picture of the morality in his society. The priests were a joke and themselves liars and thieves. The political leaders were no better and thus created a corrupt citizenship. Having thought more about Dana's post I feel even stronger that the judicial system is not the place to legislate morality. What propels this thought process is the fact that most of our leaders have a warped sense of what morality really is; what they think instead of what God says. No doubt that many politicians prey on our fears and offer us what we want to hear in order to elect them (hopefully I'm just cynical). Someone once said in reference to the immoral lifestyle of Ezekiel's time: "Ezekiel 23 is a mirror reflecting what current society, including national and state leaders, does behind closed doors. A steady lifestyle of this no longer bars the path to the White House. Such men and women as these are not answers to our moral and spiritual problems; they are part of the problems themselves!"
Ed Rangel
I posted my comments here: http://ukce1861.blogspot.com/2006/11/comments-on-other-blogs.html.
Personally, I think the government should and does legislate morality. I've explained further on the above referenced post.
Post a Comment