Why the SCOTUS Decision on Marriage May Be Good for the Church

Tertullian is famous for saying, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” (Apologeticus, Chapter 50). The persecution of Christians isn’t an objectively good thing, yet in God’s providence, he can and does use evil for good (Gen 50:19–20). I was saddened by the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision to legalize homosexual marriage nationally, but we should interpret these events in light of God’s omnipotence, wisdom, and ultimate desire to bring glory to himself. Government endorsement of homosexual marriage is not pleasing to the Lord, but that does not preclude him from using it to build his Church and advance his kingdom.

When the United States government makes decisions clearly opposed to both special and general revelation, we are reminded that Christians are a pilgrim people. In his common grace, the Lord has given the civil government as a blessing to the world to restrain evil and promote justice (cf. Gen 4:14–16; Rom 13:1–7). However, God’s common grace—including its institutions—ultimately serve the purposes of his special grace. God has delayed final judgment and given indiscriminate non-salvific blessing because he has more people to save. He has elected people whom the Spirit has yet to apply Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Therefore, this present age is a mixture of redeemed and unredeemed, of covenant keepers and covenant breakers, of those in Adam and those in Christ.

The Church exists in this present evil age as a body of believers whom have been called out of darkness into Christ’s marvelous light (1 Pet 2:9). The Church does not find its identity in the present evil age. As those found in Christ, we are a pilgrim people sojourning unto our homeland in the age-to-come, the New Heavens and New Earth. Indeed, “our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 3:20).

We must recognize eschatological tension here. On the one hand, Christians have been redeemed and presently are seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Eph 2:6). We have come to the heavenly Mt. Zion (Heb 12:18–24). Yet on the other hand, a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God (Heb 4:8). Let us therefore strive to enter that rest (Heb 4:11).

The U. S. Supreme Court’s decision will not cause the world to end immediately. But even when the world that now exists (2 Pet 3:7) does end, it will end with the glorious and climactic victory of Jesus Christ.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (Romans 8:28–30).

Remember that this glorious image of Christ is formed in us first through suffering. We are conformed to Christ’s suffering so that we too might share in his subsequent glories (Phil 2:5–11; 3:10–11). Let us not be surprised or defeated when God’s law is challenged by our governments. This is to be expected. Indeed, it is but one providential way through which God purifies his Church and testifies to the world of his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

Leave a comment



Greg - AKA Tiribulus

2 years ago

Outstanding sir! There are purifying times ahead for the church on this continent. I pray Lord make me ready.

Emilio@redgrace

2 years ago

Amen! I love the way encouragement has intensified as a result of the evil that God has ordained for our good and His glory. We are entering into genuine Christian endurance which we are all in need of (Heb. 10.36). Great post brother.

KStrett

2 years ago

Historically, the church grew during times of persecution. However, redefining marriage for homosexuals could be the beginning of the great falling away.

There are many Christians and Churches who are caving into the gay political movement. A friend’s sister left her Church because they baptized two unrepentant homosexuals.

When the Church leadership was confronted, their response was “we are called to love and not judge.” The same friend left a Church because they were actively reaching out to the homosexual community.

As far persecution, the supreme court ruling makes the Biblical position that homosexuality is a sin the equivalent of believing black people are inferior.

If a Church attempted to keep black people out, they would probably lose the lawsuit which would ensue. This means eventually a Church will lose a lawsuit about either not allowing homosexuals to join or refusing to marry homosexuals.

The federal government controls the majority of student loans. Since Christian colleges have a code of conduct that doesn’t allow for homosexual behavior, they should expect the government to cut off student loans to Christian colleges. Eventually, there will be a battle to strip Christian colleges of their accreditation.

Sooner rather than later, any Christian presence on college campuses will be eliminated. This means student groups too, which started before the supreme court ruling.

Christians who home school will be subject to governmental overseers. Christians could even lose their children at some point.

This will affect every Christian charity. There does not seem to be much realization on how this ruling will impact the freedom of religious expression. I would much rather see the church fight back than take a passive attitude welcoming persecution.

Bruce Sanders

2 years ago

Your words indicate anger, pain, fear … these are deep emotions, you have my sympathy.

You spoke of churches showing love without judgment … there is wisdom there.

You spoke of God’s law being violated … welcome to the footsteps of Jesus.

You spoke of counter-measures … ponder carefully the saying, “That which I feared most I have brought upon myself.”

To start your healing, may I suggest advice from your Reformed brothers and sisters in Belgium, Canada, Sweden … who are far ahead on the path you must now tread.

KStrett

2 years ago

Bruce,
I am not 100% sure what you are getting at with your response.

“Your words indicate anger, pain, fear … these are deep emotions, you have my sympathy.”

My post had nothing to do with emotion at all. My post was about the logical implications of the supreme court decision.

“You spoke of churches showing love without judgment … there is wisdom there.”

Disobeying God’s word is the opposite of wisdom. Churches who disregarding what the Bible says about homosexual in favor of current cultural fads are not being wise.

“You spoke of God’s law being violated … welcome to the footsteps of Jesus.”

Okay….. and your point is what?

“You spoke of counter-measures … ponder carefully the saying, “That which I feared most I have brought upon myself.”

Are you quoting Job 3:25?

For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.

It does not say “I have brought on myself.” I am not a big fan of taking Bible quotes out of context.

“To start your healing, may I suggest advice from your Reformed brothers and sisters in Belgium, Canada, Sweden … who are far ahead on the path you must now tread.”

This is exactly where I based my comments about persecution. In 2010, the Canadian government ordered a Christian pastor to never express moral opposition to homosexuality again, fined 5000 dollars and had to apologize for hurting feelings.

If your point was my post was unfounded, you are incorrect.

Bruce Sanders

2 years ago

Quite the contrary KStrett, your opinions might turn out to be well founded, and since you opposed these outcomes, you have my sympathy.

Since you retaliated against my attempt above to bring comfort, you might want to read Brad Gregory’s book, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society.

Also, I believe it would be helpful for you get feedback from your Reformed friends in Canada, especially if they are in same-sex relationships. From my experience and the media, these persons have people skills which help them make excellent contributions to society, especially in leadership and government.

KStrett

2 years ago

If a Church believes homosexuality is a sin and will not allow unrepentant homosexuals to join and/ or the Church refuses to marry two people of the same gender should the government shut down the Church? Yes or No?

“and since you opposed these outcomes, you have my sympathy.”

Bruce, what is you position? You don’t oppose the outcomes I outlined?

“Since you retaliated against my attempt above to bring comfort,”

Bruce, why do you come right out and say clearly what your point is? You are being incredibly vague.

” Brad Gregory’s book, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society.”

What is the thesis of the book and how does it apply to my post?

“Also, I believe it would be helpful for you get feedback from your Reformed friends in Canada, especially if they are in same-sex relationships.”

This is an argument for emotion. If I just talked to some nice homosexuals who claim to be Christians, I would like them and change my opinion. This is a logical fallacy.

Let me ask you this:
If they really believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, wouldn’t they follow what the Bible says?

Saying there are unrepentant homosexual Christians is like saying there is such a thing as a Christian Satan worshiper. It is self contradictory. You can’t be a unrepentant homosexual and a Christian at the same time.

The Bible clearly states homosexual acts are a sin. In fact, all sex outside of marriage is a sin. Seeing that homosexuals were never married in the Church, you are left with two options:

A. Jesus is God but let a group of people live in sin for 2000 or so years and forgot to mention that he is cool with homosexuality. This throws a monkey wrench into the notion of Jesus’ divinity.

or

B. The notion homosexuality has the Biblical stamp of approval comes from man rather than God.

“these persons have people skills which help them make excellent contributions to society, especially in leadership and government.”

This is a red herring. There are two issues.

1. Whether homosexuality is Biblically permissible.
2. The ramifications/ persecution that will ensue from the supreme court decision.

Bruce Sanders

2 years ago

KStrett

Looks like we have a good discussion going. This is refreshing.

So lets look at your two main issues:

Point One: – What is biblically permissible?

You feel there is cause for Reformed to ‘limit’ (I will be generic) certain individuals because of sexual orientation, yet you (generic again) do not display the same attitude to persons who have grudges against their parents, or have adulterous thoughts, or openly covet other people’s fame, wealth, power, etc. In the same vein, you drive to expensive churches in expensive cars wearing expensive clothes … bottom line, modern Reformed Christians in America live in a gray zone: tolerating / excusing certain biblical infractions (sins) while focusing / enforcing others. When pressed on such issues, Reformed theologians use finely-tuned ‘interpretation’ to justify their stance, however, much of the world is not listening to the complex rhetoric, and sees the church as simply being hypocrites.

In the above context, SCOTUS has been enacted by the majority of American citizens to force a change in Reformed gray-zone boundaries, or to put it another way, to bring peace to the empire by banning unjust persecution / harassment / debasing of certain individuals identified by the Church (and others). Furthermore, after taking examples from past and current events, divergent religious beliefs have caused atrocities not to be repeated going forward.

Point Two: – Persecution of Reformed Churches

Based on my Internet research of events in other countries, I suspect existing Law and new Case Law will determine American outcomes. I previously mentioned Canada because its culture has similarities to America’s, and over many years, Canadian Reformed churches have learned what to do and not do. I suggested you proactively learn from that experience. For starters, if I were you, I would tone down public criticism of churches outside you gray zone of non-acceptance … they are doing Reformed a favor by openly accepting those whom you do not and by doing so ameliorate the public’s negative view of religious intolerance.

Post Script

I was purposely vague above because I do not know you (other than being Reformed) and so threw out various topics to see which ones were of most interest to you and what conclusions you would draw by reading between the lines I wrote. I mentioned the “Unintended Reformation” book because Reformed love to point the finger at everyone else (these podcasts since day one being a good example). The book convincingly builds the case that if modern Reformed wants to complain about today’s secular society it should point the finger at its own history and current practice of (many times needlessly) using theology to fragment the Church and distance itself from it. When I first learned of Reformed and started taking courses, I was shocked at how so few congregants in America and internationally could divide themselves into so many independent groups.

KStrett

2 years ago

You did not answer my question.

If a Church believes homosexuality is a sin and will not allow unrepentant homosexuals to join and/ or the Church refuses to marry two people of the same gender should the government shut down the Church? Yes or No?

“grudges against their parents, or have adulterous thoughts, or openly covet other people’s fame, wealth, power, etc. In the same vein, you drive to expensive churches in expensive cars wearing expensive clothes ”

You are making a straw-man argument. Being wealthy is not a sin. Being famous is not a sin. Wearing expense clothes or driving a nice car isn’t a sin.

You go on to mention mental attitude sins which you are comparing to a behavioral sin the Bible calls an abomination. You knock this down in an attempt to show all sin is permissible. It is not.

Moreover, you are ignoring the mental attitude of the sinner. It is one thing to sin and regret it, it is another to believe you can sin at will and it is permissible.

“In the above context, SCOTUS has been enacted by the majority of American citizens to force a change in Reformed gray-zone boundaries, ”

The supreme court is a different issue. It is a constitutional issue not a theological issue. The issue is the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

A bisexual wants to marry both one man and one woman and can’t do so. Should the supreme court trample state’s rights and force every state in the country to issue marriage licenses for multiple partners? Yes or No?

You are going to attempt to dodge this point.

If a homosexual can redefine marriage but a bisexual can’t are they being treated equally under the law? Yes or No?

” I previously mentioned Canada because its culture has similarities to America’s, and over many years, Canadian Reformed churches have learned what to do and not do.”

Canada is essentially making it a hate crime or hate speech to state what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. Do you agree with this?

Bruce Sanders

2 years ago

QUESTION ONE: “Can / should the government shut down a church”?

My answer is “No”: Church and State are separate in the United States. An individual though, if legal rights are violated, does have the right to sue. This becomes Case Law, which I mentioned above.

QUESTION TWO: Should the Supreme Court force States to issue marriage licenses for multiple partners?

My Answer is “No, not at present.” Prior to SCOTUS, surveys showed the majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage (60%+ per Reginald Bibby). SCOTUS was a civil rights response. Regarding polygamy (in any one of its multiple forms), with the exception of parts of Utah, there is insufficient support.

QUESTION THREE: If a homosexual can redefine marriage, but a bisexual can’t, are they being treated equally under the law?

My answer: This question seems to be the same as Question 2 (Bisexuality pertains to gender choice … bisexual pairs can marry under SCOTUS … however, more than two individuals makes the union polygamy).

QUESTION FOUR: Should anti-homosexual preaching in Canada be a hate crime / speech?

My answer is “Possibly Yes.”

To publicly say, “the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin” is not individual-specific nor incites “genocide” and hence is not illegal (Google: Hate Speech and Canadian Law). Despite this, if an individual feels targeted he/she can file a complaint with an appropriate Tribunal, and severe ramifications can ensue, contingent on details.

The intent of Canadian Law is to keep the peace so that various cultures and religions can live in peace. Speech, running counter to this intent, can be legally judged.

KStrett

2 years ago

“My answer is “No”: Church and State are separate in the United States. ”

You will not find the phrase the separation of Church and state in 1st amendment of the Constitution or any where else.

Your position is self contradictory. If you support the “separation of church and State” you should have a problem with a pastor being hauled up before the board of political correctness.

However, you don’t have the problem with government persecuting a Pastor for giving a Biblical perspective on homosexuality, which tramples free speech and the freedom of religious expression but you do have a problem with the government shutting down a church for refusing to marry two people of the same gender or not allowing homosexual to join which you should regard as a violation of homosexual’s rights?

“An individual though, if legal rights are violated, does have the right to sue. This becomes Case Law, which I mentioned above.”

In other words, you don’t want to come right out and say Churches who refuse to marry two people of the same gender or won’t allow unrepentant homosexuals to join should be shut down but if the judge rules that way you wouldn’t have a problem with it?

“My Answer is “No, not at present.” Prior to SCOTUS, surveys showed the majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage (60%+ per Reginald Bibby).”

The supreme court doesn’t rule on popularity. It rules on the Constitution.

” SCOTUS was a civil rights response. Regarding polygamy (in any one of its multiple forms), with the exception of parts of Utah, there is insufficient support.”

If redefining marriage is a civil right, polygamist’s rights have to be violated too!

“(Bisexuality pertains to gender choice … bisexual pairs can marry under SCOTUS … however, more than two individuals makes the union polygamy).”

You own argument dictates the supreme court should have upheld state’s rights. Homosexuals could marry someone of the opposite sex too, therefore there is no violation of the equal protection clause.

Homosexuals did not want to marry but to redefine marriage. They wanted the “the civil right” to redefine marriage. Equal protection dictates if homosexuals have the right to redefine marriage everyone has the exact same right

A bisexuals who wants to marry two people should have the supreme court force individual states to recognize multi partner marriages.

Otherwise, homosexuals had marriage redefined and a bisexuals did not and therefore both groups can’t be treated equally under the law.

How can you assert something is a civil right grant the right to one group and deny the exact same right to another?

“My answer is “Possibly Yes.””

You are against freedom of religion and freedom of speech, correct?

You can’t have it both ways. If it is permissible with you a Pastor is fined and order to shut up about homosexuality being a sin, you have government in the Churches monitoring what is said.

Bruce Sanders

2 years ago

Okay KStrett, let’s go through this one more time:

1) Legal marriage in America is the union of two persons.

2) The SCOTUS decision eliminated gender as a restriction … it did not address the topic of three or more persons in a legal marriage, leaving that topic for another time.

3) It is not illegal for anyone (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, university professor, etc) to make the public statement, “This religious book says homosexuality is a sin.” There are two key words in this sentence: “public” and “homosexuality,” which are in contrast to “private” and “homosexual’ (a person).

4) In Canada (a good case study since they accepted same-sex marriage in 2005) it is not illegal to respectfully talk one-on-one in a private conversation with a homosexual person about any of the concerns you expressed above.

5) No church in Canada has been shut down since same-sex marriage law was enacted. Some fines have been levied against certain preachers after the preacher was found to have made public statements against a specific homosexual individual and that person felt they were being targeted as an act of discrimination. The person filed a complaint and legal process ensued. Complaints have been filed against many persons, not just preachers.

6) The Canadian Government does not spy on churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, universities, etc. The legal process only begins with a complaint filed for race, gender, sexual, etc discrimination. The filing process has no fees so that every one has legal recourse for what he or she feels is an injustice. This process helps to maintain public peace.

7) Regarding marrying homosexuals, religious institutions opposed to such have made membership a requirement prior to marriage counseling and the wedding. The Canadian Government accepts this ‘filtering’ process; understandable since many religious people work for the government.

8) Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two of the foundations of Canadian democracy; however, if freedoms are abused, the other party has recourse.

In summary, KStrett, recognizing we live in a pluralistic religious country with conflicting ideologies, my hope is we find ways to live in peace, especially since my rights as a Christian have not been compromised.

Bill

2 years ago

Here’s my take on this. Authorities including judges are there because God put them in charge. The laws that come from authorities are for our own good. Now the question comes with what happens when a law contradicts scripture ? Examples would be no fault divorce, abortion, and homosexual marriage ? I personally think that laws that sanction adultery (no fault divorce and remarriage), murder ((abortion), and sodomy (homosexual marriage) are still the rules by which God governs the civil realm. And like Moses permitted divorce due to the hardness of the hearts of the people so God permits abortion and homosexual marriage. That said these laws are to govern the land of the United States of America and not intended for the church. Members of church congregations need to be refused homosexual marriage by the church. Also they need to be admonished of the serious of the sin if they are committing homosexual acts and excommunication should follow should the church member show an unrepentant heart.

KStrett

2 years ago

“And like Moses permitted divorce due to the hardness of the hearts of the people so God permits abortion and homosexual marriage.”

Divorce is permitted in the Bible. Homosexuality and abortion are not. Just because the culture deems something permissible does not mean it has God’s stamp of approval. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah:

Prior to being destroyed you would be saying God permits all the things happening there too.

Bruce Sanders

2 years ago

Well put Bill!

So lets go back to Camden’s original paper: “SCOTUS may be good for the Church.”

Since we should point at ourselves before pointing at others, how might SCOTUS be good for the Reformed Church?

Bill

2 years ago

Bruce, my my take on Camden’s post is that it is in line with conservative evangelicalism. He maintains clearly that this law is not pleasing to God, and that it actually will result in persecution of the Church. And during times of persecution we’ve seen the church purify itself in its doctrine and invigorated. I disagree with Camden, but I do admit that most conservative evangelicals are on Camden’s side. The reason I disagree is that the civil realm and the church are different spheres which God governs differently. God governs the church through the gospel and civil society through the secular government. For me there is nothing wrong with God choosing to enact through the civil government laws that sanction homosexual marriage. Because God thinks this is the best way to govern a society. And yet this is the same God that clearly teaches that homosexuality is an abomination, a sin so serious that it resulted in Sodom and Gomorrah being wiped out. Yet I do not think God contradicts himself, a law that is best to govern a society does not necessarily have to be a law that punishes sin (homosexuality). The laws in the church, where open and unrepentant homosexuality would result in excommunication, is perfectly compatible with a law that sanctions homosexual marriage in the civil realm.

Bill

2 years ago

Bottom line is this, homosexual marriage is legal in every country in the western developed world. Europe, Canada, and Australia. It’s only countries like Iran and Russia where homosexual rights have not been enacted into law. So it is pretty clear to me, that taking into account that the vast majority of the populations in the advanced developed nations support homosexuality, laws legalizing homosexual marriage are the best way to govern a modern society. With that said, there should be no question that the bible judges homosexuality to be a base depravity, and an abomination to almighty God. The Church needs to continue preaching about sin and that homosexuality is a violation of God’s moral law. Only the gospel can address this sin. And we should not expect civil laws to be an antidote for sin, but instead they need to be looked at as what is the best way to govern a secular society. Even in theocracies like Israel Moses permitted no-fault divorce, so we should expect that in secular societies laws will not restrain sin but in some cases where two consensual parties are involved the best civil laws may actually approve of sin between two consenting adults. We can not legislate morality according to biblical moral laws simply because the majority in society is non-christian and their moral values are not in agreement with the bible. So it makes no sense to put in place civil laws in accordance with biblical morality, because to do that would require a christian dictatorship instead of a democratic government that reflects the views of the majority of the people.

Bill

2 years ago

With that said , I have serious concerns about adoption of children by homosexual couples. It is one thing for two consenting adults to engage in a sinful activity between the two of them. But it is something entirely different for little children to be raised in a homosexual marriage but the adopting parents. Because here are affecting children that have no say in the matter as they are adopted by gay parents. Children deserve the best parents and I just can not see a gay couple being able to raise children in a proper way.

Bruce Sanders

2 years ago

Bill, you may want to rethink your position on Camden’s anticipation of persecution. I say this not because of the SCOTUS issue, but because of attitudes frequently exhibited by Reformed in discussion / debate. The attitude (in my opinion) comes from Cornelius Van Till’s presupposition approach, followed by a black-and-white version of, “I’m right, and if you oppose me you’re wrong.” Various websites have expressed irking frustration from this (e.g. Steve Shives’ critique of Van Till’s “Defense of the Faith”). In the past, the frustration resulted in ongoing wars of words … but now with SCOTUS comes a new retaliation … legal action.

The Tribunal program in Canada (see my reply above) allows anyone with a complaint to simply fill out a form (no lawyers, no expense … deliberately made easy so that anyone can vent, thus relieving any need for public violence). Due process then ensues between the Tribunal and the accused, with full legal process and judgment. As KStrett above mentioned, one pastor was hit with a $5000 fine.

Above I asked: “What benefit does SCOTUS bring to Reformed”? My first suggestion is: start sensitivity training with crafted catechismal responses, for both church members and as a community service. I can see many upsides. (I have other ideas, however, will let others reply).

Bill

2 years ago

Bruce, I live in Canada. I’m canadian, and at the beginning I used to think that in Canada there was no free speech. And now I can see that there is. So you are right, one of the benefits of living in Canada for me was to rethink a lot of my assumptions. I used to be like the americans, that we have to legislate the bible into law. But I learned from a strong canadian christian politician, Preston Manning (his father was a christian preacher). His position on abortion was very interesting, he did say that although abortion is murder, he would not restrict abortions via legislation unless through a referendum 50% or more of the canadian population voted tor it. Even though he was a christian and he would never condone an abortion, he realizes that his role as a politician was to govern for the majority of canadians who are not christians. The job of a good political leader is to maintain the civil order so that the gospel can be preached, and he knew that banning abortion when the vast majority of canadians favor abortion laws far from promoting order in society so that the gospel can be preached it creates strife, bickering, and dysfunction. you see I personally favor legalization of marijuana, simply because so many people do it, that it makes no sense to criminalize something that is so widely accepted by society. With that said, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, much less marijuana, and would never consider it because it destroys your health. However, we have to legislate based on what society considers acceptable, specially in cases were the harm inflicted is primarily to the individual that commits the sin. If somebody chooses to go to hell (by smoking pot or engaging in homosexuality), let him go, that’s my take on it. The government can not through legislation improve the personal morality of the people.

KStrett

2 years ago

“And like Moses permitted divorce due to the hardness of the hearts of the people so God permits abortion and homosexual marriage.”

Divorce is permitted in the Bible. Homosexuality and abortion are not. Just because the culture deems something permissible does not mean it has God’s stamp of approval. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah:

Prior to being destroyed, you would be saying God permits all the things happening there too, when the reality is God does not approve.

KStrett

2 years ago

“I live in Canada. I’m canadian, and at the beginning I used to think that in Canada there was no free speech. And now I can see that there is.”

If you are forced to appear before the board of political correctness because you said homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit, you do not have freedom of speech or religion.

“I used to be like the americans, that we have to legislate the bible into law. ”

This is a Straw-man argument. No one in America is trying to legislate the Bible into law.

Holding the position redefining marriage isn’t a right, isn’t legislating the Bible into law. Nor, is believing abortion is murder.

There are logical and legal arguments against these positions. Just because someone opposes a liberal position doesn’t mean they are attempting to legislate the Bible into law.

“he did say that although abortion is murder, he would not restrict abortions via legislation unless through a referendum 50% or more of the canadian population voted tor it. Even though he was a christian and he would never condone an abortion”

This is the most illogical position I have ever heard. If rape were popular would he appose it or would he say he would not stop people from being raped unless a referendum of 51% of the Canadian population voted for it?

“he realizes that his role as a politician was to govern for the majority of canadians who are not christians.”

If murder is morally wrong, you wouldn’t just stand back and say “meh…. people support it.” That is absurd!

Moreover, there are good reasons to stand against abortion that have nothing to do with theology.

“The job of a good political leader is to maintain the civil order so that the gospel can be preached, and he knew that banning abortion when the vast majority of canadians favor abortion laws”

There are principles that come from a Biblical world view where you stand up for something that is morally wrong. To ignore them is to ignore what the Bible says, which is like ignoring God.

Would you argue a Christian should have said nothing about the murder of the millions of Jewish people in Nazi Germany because a political leader’s job is to maintain civil order and Jewish people just weren’t very popular?

Standing up against the murder of 6 million Jewish human beings would just get in the way of preaching the Gospel…..?

Abortion comes directly from the eugenics movement of the early 1900s. It was never about a woman’s right but rather eliminating the genetically inferior. Abortion was a tool to stop the inferior from reproducing.

” you see I personally favor legalization of marijuana, simply because so many people do it, that it makes no sense to criminalize something that is so widely accepted by society.”

In other words, you favor a Mob rule political system. If 51% of the people think rape is good, rape should be legal?

If a car full of stoned teens forgets to stop and kills a family……. it’s okay because 51% of the people wanted to legalize pot.

“However, we have to legislate based on what society considers acceptable, specially in cases were the harm inflicted is primarily to the individual that commits the sin.”

You have to pay for the health care of the person who destroys their health, do you not?

With pot being readily available, people driving while stoned will rise dramatically, which means more accidents and more fatalities. Do you think that is a good idea?

You use the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy quite a bit.

Bill

2 years ago

Bruce, and I forgot to say that with regard to sensitivity training being a benefit of this new legislation. I gotta disagree. There is already too much political correctness in North America. Anything you say seems to offend somebody or some group. It is getting to the point that there is no more freedom of speech for anybody. I am not talking about christians, I am talking in general. In Europe or Latin America people speak their minds. In North America this is no longer the case because people have become so sensitive that anything you say might offend somebody. If anything we need less sensitivity training, and more training on tolerance of differences, so that in a diverse society people will not take offense when something negative is said about them. So I am for more diversity of opinions, and less sensitive training which in fact reduces free speech for everybody.

Bruce Sanders

2 years ago

Bill:

We don’t disagree. In my statement, “sensitivity training with crafted catechismal responses” I meant Reformed congregants will need wording that expresses their position and apologetic without running afoul of the new Law. There is a right way and a wrong way to deliver the same message. The Canadian Pastor fined $5000 with forethought could have delivered the message without being reported.

ralph acerno

2 years ago

It remains uncertain how this Jerusalem council of the RCA will
make its decision. One thing is certain. Should this denomination come to any affirmation on open gay lifestyles or marriage-or even simply allow churches to do as they please in this area-then dissenting churches must be allowed to leave the RCA with their property-and we would be the first ones out the door.

reformed-forum-logo-white400

Contact Info

Reformed Forum
P.O. Box 27422
Philadelphia, PA 19118

+1 440.973.6786
mail@reformedforum.org

Copyright © 2017 Reformed Forum