On November 1st, I observed that there were eleven anti-marriage ballot measures in eleven states, and that it looked as though all of them were going to pass. I said that this prospect made me very, very sad.
Well, they all did pass, and I hadn't even guessed just how sad they would make me. And it wasn't even my marriage, my family, or my kids on the chopping block. But maybe it's because my own marriage has been for so long the light and the stay of my life that I feel so strongly that nobody should be turned away from the door.
Most of the people commenting on this post agreed with me, but not all of them. "kb" in particular had plenty to say. Here is his latest, replying to my latest:
John M. Burt wrote:
>Well, we can start with 1 Corinthians 7: 25-31, 36-40, when it comes
>to the early Church's attitude towards marriage.
>
>Or, if we really want to be gruesome about it, Matthew 19:12.
>
>The early fathers of the Church, of course, presumed that the world
>would end quite soon, and that there was no need to be concerned
>about providing a new generation, or even much reason to be
>concerned about earning a living.
>
>I'm not sure where you came up with a reference to "perversion",
>unless you are unclear on the definition of "concupiscence" . . . ?
>
>Getting back to the original subject, I have to say that the passage
>last month of all eleven anti-gay, anti-marriage, anti-family ballot
>measures leaves me very, very sad. Please excuse me for saying that
>I think no decent person should feel anything but sorrow at this
>turn of events.
to which kb replied:
Hi John,
Sorry for the delay -- I've been wanting to give this response the time it's due and I've been going absolutely nuts this past week.
First off, let's look at the Scripture you mention.
You are right that 1 Cor 7:25-31 and 36-40 *appear* to be taking a very discouraging look at marriage, but you're missing the point. The point comes in vv.32-35:
--8<--
I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
--8<--
The issue is not that marriage is bad, but that being unmarried allows a person to devote more of their time towards serving God. It is mentioned twice here "an unmarried... is concerned about the Lord's affairs." Throughout Scripture we see a jealous God, one who wants our complete devotion -- this is merely a continuation of that.
As for Matt 19:12, if you take it in context (as all things should be... more on this later) you'll note that in this situation, the Pharisees (Jewish religious leaders) were trying to "test him" (v.2). The Jewish law permitted a man to divorce a woman, however that seemed to create issues of adultery under Jesus' teachings... they were fishing for a contradiction.
I think you'll find yourself mistaken when you look a little deeper in the the early church with regards to the concerns about providing a new generation or earning a living. For instance, the Apostle Paul (who wrote a significant portion of the New Testament) continued earning a living while preaching the Gospel. He was a tentmaker.
While the early church (and, for that matter, the present-day church) has believed that "the world would end quite soon" we can see that it hasn't yet ended. Now, is it going to end tomorrow? I don't know. Nobody does. See 1 Thes 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 3:3; Rev 16:15. Does that mean we should live lazily today because nothing will matter tomorrow? No! See 2 Pet 3:11-18.
I'm guessing your bringing up of concupiscence has something to do with a Catholic background. From a Protestant standpoint, this point is moot. As man is inherently sinful (since the Fall), we are able to look to one standard as right: God. He expresses himself in different ways, most tangible of which is by his Word (the Bible). And, incidentally, homosexuality has always been a "perversion" of the right expressed there.
A return to the issue of context. Take a look at Psalm 53:1. You'll note that taken out of context, a person could claim "the Bible says 'there is no God'!!!" When we see it in context, however we note that it doesn't say that at all. Yes, it has those four words in that order, but it does prepend it by saying "The fool says in his heart."
John, I'm sorry this all makes you sad. My sorrow, however doesn't change the fact that I strongly believe this to be a step in the right direction and I hope the Parliament of Canada passes similar legislation soon.
Just as I don't believe we should allow special concessions to those suffering from other mental illnesses such as deviant sociopathic murderers, I don't believe a homosexual should be allowed special rights. Homosexuality is a treatable deviant mental illness -- just because culture has embraced it doesn't make it right.
I have nothing against homosexuals, and nor do most good Christians, however we do have something against the sin of homosexuality. Just as we find lying unacceptable, homosexual behaviour is not appropriate.
All I can say to this: "please excuse me for saying that I think no decent person should feel anything but sorrow at this turn of events" is that it seems obvious that the majority of voters on this matter were not "decent" people. What that says about the voting demographic is up to your interpretation.
Cheers,
-kb
--
Kris Benson, CCP, I.S.P.
Natural Networks
http://www.naturalnetworks.ca/
+1(250)961-2533
And here is John's comment on that:
We're getting pretty far off my original point, but I've found a site which expresses it pretty well. You can follow the link above, or copy this one:
http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm
You insist that you "have nothing against" homosexuals, but then you qualify that statement in such a way as to suggest that you have no more against them than you have against "sociopathic murderers". Well, how nice.
As for legislation, current and future: Kris, you and your comrades have something which you feel you must fight against, and you have so far fought hard and well. But the rest of us have something precious to stand up *FOR*, and that is why we will stand firm while you tire, and why ultimately we will prevail.
As for the voters of Oregon, and of the U.S. generally, I have never thought the majority of them were decent people. That's just one more thing we will have to rise above.
3 comments:
Sad and sick to my stomach; for, being familiar with history, I know just how badly Americans can behave, regardless of stated belief system.
My own observation has been that, it doesn't matter what we believe. We act first, and find our reasons afterward. There is no belief system that a good person cannot turn to the service of good; that a bad person cannot turn to the service of evil; that a coward cannot use to excuse his cowardice; that a bigot cannot use to prove the necessity of his bigotry. What matters is who we are, not how we rationalize who we are.
This is why the great spritual leaders are always stripping down to basics, and the petty ones are always building complex systems on top of those basics. You can't get to "Oppress these human beings over here" from "Love thy neighbor as thyself" directly; you have to build complex word mazes.
This is why I generally stop arguing early. The longer you argue a point, the further from the point you get.
This is Peni, wondering how many lynchings there'll be before this nightmare is over
Whilst I agree with you that it is sad to see homosexuals being treated on the same terms as murderers, I am at least heartened by the quality of the debate.
As a regular user of Usenet forums, I usually see topics such as these descend into name calling. It is truly a relief and a pleasure to see that intelligent discussion can take place on the internet, no matter how irrevocably opposed the two parties are.
I would consider reinstating "kb" on the list of decent people because he has at least thought about his motives and can defend and argue them rationally.
Even if he is wrong. ;)
You have a point. His arguments were, after all, good enough for me to post them here, and they are stimulating further discussion, which is a good sign.
Maybe . . . halfway decent? :-)
Post a Comment