The right wing conservatives think it’s a decision/ And you can be cured with some treatment and religion/ Man-made rewiring of a predisposition/ Playing God, aw nah here we go/ America the brave still fears what we don’t know/ And God loves all his children, is somehow forgotten/ But we paraphrase a book written thirty-five-hundred years ago/ I don’t know.
I didn’t watch the GRAMMYs last night.
I always catch onto music trends about six months after the fact, so anytime I try to keep it current, I just reveal my ignorance. However, I did keep up on Twitter last night, and as I laughed along about Pharell’s hat and Lorde’s soulless gaze, I saw news of the marriage ceremony that took place on the GRAMMY stage. And as I turned it over in my mind, four truths began to sift to the surface.
#1 Marriage is Not a Spectacle
Unless you’re trying to make a brash political move.
Why else would you use music’s biggest night as an excuse to march across the stage, en masse, and say “I do?” It’s disingenuous to claim that what happened last night was about love.
I am not claiming that the heterosexual and homosexual couples involved don’t love each other. But I’m thinking that their love took a backburner to the lights, camera, and action activism that was on display in Queen Latifah’s ceremony.
Marriage is not a spectacle unless you have a point to make.
But the Gospel? The gruesome and glorious death of our Savior on the cross? This is a spectacle that we need to make much of, a dramatic display of God’s redemptive plan throughout history. This is central, not just to marriage, but to life itself.
#2 Marriage is Not About Love
Not entirely.
One of the central tenets of the homosexual movement is that we can’t help who we fall in love with. But, as believers, we’re subjected to a higher standard than the one who gives us butterflies. If marriage is chiefly about love, it’s chiefly about the love we have for God and how our love for all others is interpreted through that lens.
The Macklemore song that blasted during the couples’ ceremony has a lot to say about love and hate, and dissolves into a crooning of 1 Corinthians 13, a popular trademark of many a ceremony. But the love 1 Corinthians 13 calls us to is a much higher call than same-sex or opposite-sex attraction: it’s the love that drove my Savior to the Cross for my sin, which he does not love or overlook, but for which he of so great a love bled and died!
Unless this is the kind of love that is central to our discussion of the homosexual lifestyle, and of marriage, we’re having the wrong conversation.
#3 Marriage is Not About Acceptance
Marriage is about forbearing with one another’s sins.
But we can’t get anywhere with the stuck-in-the-rut mentality of giving in to our predispositions. I am a sinner. My predisposition is to be opposed to the will of God all day every day (Romans 7). There are changes that I need to make in my life day in and day out. And marriage is all about changing. Growing. Learning.
I am inherently unacceptable to God. It is only through the spectacle of Christ’s loving death on the Cross that I can drawn near to the Father. It is only through the spectacle of Christ’s loving death on the Cross that I can draw near to others in a meaningful way.
#4 This Ceremony Was Not About Marriage
This ceremony was not about marriage.
And it’s naive of us to think that the homosexual agenda is simply about marriage.
It’s also naive of us to think that marriage is just about marriage.
It’s not. It’s about Christ and his Bride. And an attack on marriage is an attack on one of the clearest pictures of the Gospel that we have in this life.
The problem with the homosexual lifestyle is not that it makes me uncomfortable. The problem with the homosexual lifestyle is not that I have a personal vendetta against gay people. The problem with the homosexual lifestyle isn’t that it is an affront to my lifestyle.
The problem with what happened last night is rooted far, far deeper: fundamentally, it is a blatant display of a misunderstanding of the message of the Gospel. Heterosexual, homosexual, anywhere on the straight/”queer” spectrum, if we don’t get the Gospel right, then conversations about our personal rights as we find them in that Book written “thirty-five hundred years ago” are meaningless.
What the GRAMMYs taught me about marriage is that we do not understand it, because we don’t view human relationships through a Gospel paradigm.
We preach acceptance… through the monumental spectacle of unearned love by blood of Christ and for the glory of God. And the world does not know or understand it. So when we start the conversation that needs to be had about these issues… let’s start there.
This article makes so much sense. When we, as believers, try to understand life without the lens of the Gospel, we ignore the sacrifice Christ made and insert our own belief.
Similarly, I did not watch the show but caught it later, thanks to YouTube. As I watched the “ceremony” take place, I couldn’t help but think about the reasoning behind the insertion of this polarizing issue. It made sense that the producers would put not only a statement but an action in the show about same-sex marriage. The entire known world (minus you and I) is watching this award show for the performances, acceptance speeches, and occasional outbursts of opinion (i.e., Kayne v Swift). So why not (literally) come out and proclaim an opinion about same-sex marriage? And with the entire audience applauding, it made all opposition look like mindless hate-filled people who all vote conservative.
If you believe in something, it’s best to politely present your argument instead of relying on the likes of Queen Latifah and Madonna to help shovel it into the faces of viewers.
Great article. I am just sad to say that the Baucham’s are the only people I have heard use the argument that marriage is about Christ. It seems that most Christians do not understand this. But if we do not even understand what it is we are defending then we will naturally go about defending it the wrong way.
My husband and I attend a Reformed Christian Church, so far, all of the members I met from there all believe that marriage is about Christ. (to include my husband and me)
I truly appreciate your blog. I, too, did NOT watch the Grammy’s. (Downton Abbey and Sherlock won out, hands down). I have chosen not to watch ANY “awards” shows and one reason is that I refuse to feed into the narcissism (sp?) and hype. It is a very small way for me to put God before man when it comes to “popularity, status, and honor.
Now, in response to Rev. Warren~~I sense that you are confused between compassion for sinners, hatred of sin, and the need for redemption. Marriage is clearly defined in the Bible`1 man and 1 woman. According to you and others who commented on this debacle, there was a lot of “homophobic rhetoric”. You’re right, we, as God-fearing Bible believers in addition to those of us who are saved, should be better able to express ourselves in a manner to be better received. HOWEVER, Truth is Truth. It is not relative. I do not acknowledge their definition of marriage. Civil unions were just fine. But to redefine “marriage”, in my not-so-humble opinion, is totally against the Word of God. Pray for their salvation and love on them but don’t cosign.
In reading all the 60 comments, I’m always sad to see confessing Christians abandaning the Holiness of God and embracing the lies of this culture that flat out hates God. I truly believe that God can only seperate the wheat from the tares at this point in the American Church. I just hope these confessiong Christians repent before they recieve God’s holy wrath. I’m also encouraged to see God’s remnant still proclaiming the Gospel in light of the growing hostility towards the Church. Historically, compromise of confessing Christians and the antognisms from a culture towards the church are early signs that point to more harsh tactics to silence God’s elect. I’m reminded by your faithfulness to Christ that God is in control. Again, may the battle cry be heard to all who belong to Christ and know his voice “Soli Deo Gloria.”
Grace and Peace!
Ya bruh. It always saddens me to see people compromise the gospel
Great article, praise God in your display of the truth and the glory He receives from it. Continue to spread the good news. God Bless you!
Thank you! God bless you as well!
No bible believing Christian holds sin up as virtue…No follower of Jesus should deny that his love calls us to “go and sin no more”…
So insidious, how people define “homophobic”, is anyone that believes the way we were designed should be ignored. Let them cry…tears and sorrow follow the breaking of God;s will too…praying for the truth to set more people free from the lie….blessing to you!!!
Outstanding
Thank you!
Celebration of sodomy, sorry only gave me the shits and I had to object as to why these homosexuals should not be joined in HOLY matrimony.
Jasmine might need to learn the difference of possessive and plural. It’s frightening that she has a degree in literature and is a teacher. But of course, she’s a homeschool graduate. Perhaps that says enough.
If grammar faux pas make you disqualified to get a degree and teach literature, heaven help us.
Thanks for reading, and for the helpful hint.
And it’s “faux pas” without another “u.” I’m glad you were not MY teacher. And I praise God you are also not the teacher of my child. Wow. That’s impressive. Even when you tried to sarcastically argue me, you didn’t check your accuracy (though I did note that you fixed the sad errors in your little blog). I pray that the children that you “teach” have had better English teachers previously and will again in the future.
No one is arguing with you -it was definitely a grammatical oversight, though not just on my part. (Although I’m pretty capable of making them all by myself, even with Google’s help and handy dandy editing features) You’re definitely taking grammar nazi to another level, though. If this is enough to make you afraid for the educational future of your children, I hope you do teach them yourself, lest you’re not able to check the grammatical veracity of each and every one of their teachers.
Sorry, but you have a little ‘faux pas’ of your own here: ‘Even when you tried to sarcastically argue me,…’? It should be ‘argue WITH me’, of course. Just trying to help you fix the sad errors in your little comment : -), courtesy of a home educating mom.
Grammar Nazis do not respond to these kind of accusations.
In fact, when I comfort a Grammar Nazi, I like to say: “There, their. They’re, there, their.”
Me fale Unglish? Dats umpossible.
You can always tell whose arguments are the weakest by watching for when the ad hominem attacks start to pour in o_O smh. God bless you Jasmine. I pray that you always remember whose opinion really matters
She’s an AWESOME homeschool graduate!
and spelling “flames” are indicative of someone with nothing significant to contribute to the conversation.
I disagree with your “Marriage is not a spectacle” point. It is almost always a spectacle. Often involving a large intricate ceremony in front of a large audience.
further marriage is not simply a religious institution but also a civil one. People often confuse the 2.
And while you are free to believe (and practice) what you want about religious marriage, civil marriage has its own history, meaning and significance. Often intertwined with religious marriage, but still something different.
There are moments where it’s a spectacle…but that’s not where the majority of marriage is lived. It’s the day in-day-out refining process of marriage that builds a bond and not simply love.
A marriage ceremony might take place in front of a large audience (although, not usually as large as a televised awards show audience), but the marriage itself is lived out differently, as Josiah points out.
And, further, I believe marriage is an institution for the Church, not the state, and making it a civil one opens it to the type of spectacle this article addresses. But that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.
Thanks for commenting, Ken, and for being respectful in your disagreement!
then I don’t understand what mean by “marriage isn’t a spectacle” if you weren’t referring to the specific marriage ceremony at the grammy’s?
Civil marriage has been around for at least as long as religious marriage (certainly longer than christian marriage). As to which came 1st it is impossible to know since they both have been around since before recorded history.
Yes…a ceremony that people are invited to…not displayed on national tv. Our wedding included me & my husband, our family and friends in God’s house. Not broadcasted unexpectedly to millions of people. Ours was a ceremony that included God as our witness, not millions of unexpected people and an artist who was sworn in minutes before the ceremony. That kind of ceremony wasnt done out of love, it was done to stick their opinion on how SOME people THINK a marriage should be in the faces of people who were trying to watch a MUSIC AWARD PROGRAM. NO WEDDING CEREMONY OF ANY KIND has anything to do with awards. Wrong place, wrong time.
“Our wedding included me & my husband, our family and friends in God’s house.”
and why did you have your family and friends? Why didn’t you just go to your church and have the wedding be between you, your husband and your clergy?
My wife and I watched the ceremony and we were moved to tears. It was a powerful performance by Macklemore and the wedding ceremony was love at its best. I agree with the first poster, there was way too much homophobic rhetoric in this piece. Sexual orientation is neither chosen nor changed be we straight or gay.
Knowing many married couples straight or gay or lesbian I will tell you that gay and lesbian couples have as much love between them as my wife and I. Same love.
Hello Reverend,
Genuinely curious, as a reverend, how do you explain verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9, the first marriage as defined in Genesis 2:24 and echoed in the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6? Or do you ignore them? Or even the most basic of marriage sermons in the NT, starting in Ephesians 5:25? Everything about marriage in the Bible speaks of man/woman, husband/wife. Everything about homosexuality say it’s a sin. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus condoned it for a second.
I’m just surprised anytime I meet someone who insists they are a Christian, supports gay marriage but have a hard/difficult/impossible time reconciling their Christianity, the above verses and their support for same-sex marriage.
Thanks.
Are you asking a question or are you making a statement? As I look at your statement again you are asking me a question and yet you think you know the answer.
It is not that I ignore scripture, it is that I (this is me speaking) I do my best to interpret scripture based on its spiritual and cultural context, as well as the context that particular scripture is used in the passage.
The argument that you make is one of omission and that is a slippery slope to build an argument.
If we dare say that same sex marriage is wrong because it is not spoken on in the Bible than your argument can be used to support polygamy because God never spoke against it. In fact many pillars of our Christian Faith had multiple wives. Polygamy was essential for the culture of that day.
Yes, many struggle with reconciling their religious self with their sexual identity. This struggle is a man made one. That struggle comes because of what that person was taught and what was pounded in them.
Actually, God did speak against polygamy. It happened in Genesis 2 when God gave the design for marriage. It happened in Exodus 20 in regards to the commandments (with the correct hermeneutic for interpretation given in Matthew 5). It happens in the NT in several places, especially instructions for those who are elders and deacons (to serve as a model for the rest of the church). Look at Ephesians and the model of marriage which is a picture of Christ and His “1” Church. Sodomite marriage, polygamy, etc., is a moral travesty and a degraded of the picture that God gave us as a view of Christ and His Church.
I strongly disagree with that. Those are not objections to polygamy at all.
Yes, God did speak against polygamy. He specifically told the kings of Israel that they were not to multiply wives:
Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away. Deuteronomy 17:17.
When the Bible records episodes of polygamy, or any other sexual perversion, unhappiness was always the result. For example, the stories of Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon show the problems that come with having more than one wife. By the time of Malachi (500 B.C.) the ideal of marriage between one man and one woman was spoken of as God’s ideal. God told them why He did not receive their offering:
Yet you say, For what reason? Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have done treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. Malachi 2:14-16.
The Lord purposely made only one wife for Adam. God could have made others if He wanted to, but He did not. One wife - not many, not a child and not a man - was all that Adam needed. And for the New Testament, the Apostle Paul gave the qualifications of a bishop, which includes monogamy.
A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife. 1 Timothy 3:2.
The same is true for all sexual perversions. It was against the original purpose of God’s creation. Man messed it up, not Him.
Hmm. I recall the objection to Solomon having multiple wives was the fact that many were of different beliefs. It wasn’t the amount of wives but the quality.
Polygamy was tolerated among many at that time. But, for Solomon and the children of Israel it was unpardonable, as it was a direct and outrageous violation of the divine law (Deut. 17:17, which you cannot ignore), and the very result which that statute was intended to prevent was realized in him. That he violated the command of God in marrying foreign wives does not negate the fact that he violated the earlier command not to multiply wives.
Nope. That scripture is not a reflection of polygamy on all men, it is a reflection of polygamy as it relates to Kings. Context!!!
Solomon was a king. Again: When the Bible records episodes of polygamy, or any other sexual perversion, unhappiness was always the result. For example, the stories of Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon show the problems that come with having more than one wife. By the time of Malachi (500 B.C.) the ideal of marriage between one man and one woman was spoken of as God’s ideal. God told them why He did not receive their offering:
Yet you say, For what reason? Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have done treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. Malachi 2:14-16.
The Lord purposely made only one wife for Adam. God could have made others if He wanted to, but He did not. One wife - not many, not a child and not a man - was all that Adam needed. And for the New Testament, the Apostle Paul gave the qualifications of a bishop, which includes monogamy.
A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife. 1 Timothy 3:2.
You are trying to make square blocks fit into circle spaces. And Malachi 2:14-16 is again speaking on leadership, this scripture was written for the Levitical priests.
Reverend Palmer,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Okay, so let me be more specific. Do you preach on marriage? If so, what parts of Scripture do you use? If you ever preach(ed) on (and let’s assume you have) Ephesians 5, for example, how do you explain to same-sex couples that marriage in the Bible is only ever taught/written about with respect to one man, one woman? If the basis for our faith is (and must be) the Bible, the inspired Word of God, then we either accept it as just that - the Word of God - or we ignore the parts that make us uncomfortable. (To be clear, I make that last statement broadly. I don’t claim that you specifically have ever ignored a part of Scripture because it could be awkward.) The Gospel transcends cultural, ages, time and it must! Otherwise, time will render it irrelevant.
Ignoring my “argument of omission,” let me be more specific and refer to what IS mentioned in Scripture. Jesus didn’t omit marriage when he spoke. When he did speak on it, he affirmed it as a one man, one woman union. Homosexuality is never referred to in the Bible in a positive light. It’s called sin. If the Word of God is the basis for our faith, how can we cherry pick which parts to accept or those to reject for “cultural” reasons? Even the most secular anthropologists (Westermarck wrote a good book on marriage…can’t remember the exact title right now, should be easy to look up) have written about marriage being between a man/woman for eons, in societies all over the world and was always about the next generation, existing to serve the family. Homosexuality isn’t new for sure but neither is marriage. It has existed as an institution between one man/one woman for millennia.
Thanks for the response.
I can’t speak for the rev. but I do know of many christians who view the bible as a guidebook, not a rule book. I.e. they don’t believe in absolute adherence to every word in it (or as an ala carte menu as many christians seem to do), but rather a set of themes to be applied in to life. Just as these christians realize that the rules about eating shellfish are more contextual about the times, they also realize the passages describing same-sex behaviours are not about homosexuality, but rather lust. and just as they have learned that, in modern times, it is possible to eat shellfish without getting sick, they have also learned it is possible for 2 men or 2 women to love each other, and their sexual behaviours are not just a cause of unbridled lust (i.e. someone who just wants to try everything with anyone).
Ken,
Thanks for the response.
Christians using the Bible as a ‘guidebook’ doesn’t explain away the fact that marriage as defined in the Bible is exclusively between one man, one woman. The issue here is the push to redefine marriage. I don’t have the authority to change a word of Scripture - no Christian does. So any Christian who wants to redefine marriage as being something other than one man/one woman needs to demonstrate how they can do this and not contravene Scripture, God’s word etc. The problem here is that you cannot do this and if you try to go down this illogical path, then the Bible is reduced to far less than a mere ‘guidebook or ‘set of themes,’ it becomes less than worthless. Hey, I see the command to not murder as a ‘guideline’ or ‘theme’ so I’ll think about whether I really want to integrate it into my life or not. Hopefully, those around me will understand my desire to use that part of or all of Scripture as a ‘guideline’ instead of the foundation of how I should live.
And no, to pre-empt the absurd possibility of it being asked, I do not equate homosexuality with murder. I wrote that to show the illogical and silly lengths to which you could go when you reduce the Bible to a set of ‘guidelines/themes’ which can/could be adapted to suit the passing whims and fancies of culture, time and man.
“The issue here is the push to redefine marriage.”
Civil marriage, not religious marriage. You are free to believe what ever you want. However, you are not free to impose those beliefs on others. Conversely, if a gay (or inter-racial, or interfaith or any other couple your religion disagrees with) couple shows up at your church I would stand next to you (figuratively if not literally) on the church steps and tell them no they don’t have the right to force the church to marry them against this churches particular religious views. And direct them to a justice of the peace (or a church that was willing) to marry them.
“I don’t have the authority to change a word of Scripture - no Christian does.”
The council of niceae did. As did the writers/translators of the many different versions of the bible since then. Further, many christians interpret the bible in different ways. That is why there are so many different sects of christiainity (catholic, evangelical, baptist, pentecostal, episcopal, mennonite, amish…)
Even you have done this with your example about murder. I believe the actual passage you are referring to is most often translated as:
“thou shalt not kill” (not murder). but you have interpreted “kill” as “murder”, but they are not quite the same thing are they?
In addition to Danger_Man’s comment, I have to ask how the idea that sexual orientation is something we are born with fits with the historical fact that homosexuality (and even pedophilia) has been extremely commonplace in some cultures (ancient Greece and Rome, for example), while in others (the modern U.S.), only a relatively small minority of people are homosexual.
What you are describing when you are talking about Rome is sexual behavior which is not sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is the romantic, emotional and sexual attraction to the same, opposite or both sexes. Sexual behavior does not always determine ones sexual orientation. An example of this is what happens in male prisons.
Saying something is wrong because it is found in a minority of people is another slippery slope argument.
I never meant to imply that it is wrong because it is found in a minority of people.
Romans 1 tells us that homosexuality and other immoral desires exist due to the depravity of man (without the Fall, there would be no homosexuality or any other immorality). Because we do not honor God as he deserves to be honored, we are overwhelmingly assailed by sinful desires. The Gospel is that Jesus came to defeat those desires for those who believe in him.
As for comparing Rome to prisons, that is nowhere close. Male prisoners rape other male prisoners out of a desire for control and because they do not have access to women. In the ancient civilizations I mentioned, the men often had wives, as well as easy access to prostitutes, yet they chose to engage sexually with each other and with young boys. Some historians even say that homosexual interactions were generally more affectionate than heterosexual ones.
I didn’t compare Rome to prisons. And again you are describing sexual behavior and not sexual orientation.
How does choosing sex with a man over sex with a woman (when both options were available, in many cases) not suggest orientation toward men?
Again you are talking about behavior. In the examples you gave regarding Rome you talked about married men also having sexual relations with men, etc. Again this is sexual behavior and not compatible to the issue of sexual orientation which is the romantic, emotional and sexual attraction to the same, opposite or both sexes.
Huh? Sexual “orientation” INCLUDES sexual behavior! You even said yourself “…is the romantic, emotional and sexual attraction to…” Otherwise, it’s just two people hanging out.
What he is saying is that sexual behaviour alone, is not sufficient to determine orientation. Many gay men married women, but that didn’t change the fact that they were gay. Orientation is generally the driving force behind sexual behaviour, but it is not the only one. However, the reverse is not true (your sexual behaviour doesn’t effect your orientation).
Danger_Man and Dempy have already engaged you on some of your arguments, Reverend Palmer. We are obviously in deep disagreement regarding the nature of sexual orientation and how it should be viewed in light of the Scripture (which is my meter for judging the nature of a relationship, not the amount of feelings I possess regarding that relationship), but I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment with an equal measure of passion and restraint. Be blessed as you seek truth (I’ll be interested to see the discussion above unfold).
WOW Rev, I wish more people in this world thought as you do. I am an openly Gay man in South Africa where who I am and how I live is widely respected and accepted.
I find that the point of the Grammy’s wedding was to show the world that Love is Love no matter who you are or where in the world you live. The people chosen for this were people that have had hardships in life and have either struggled with Family acceptance or with the financial point of getting married. I also think any Marriage Gay or straight should be done with all those who love the couple and respect them not on an international show. This said it was still Beautiful!
Thank you Brian and you made some excellent comments.
Too bad that just like you his thinking on this is non scriptural and is diametrically opposed to God. No wonder you liked what he said.
This is where you are wrong.
the apogee of human sexuality is the union of husband and wife, penis and vagina, sperm and egg. Two of the same sex can never reach this apogee together.
Yikes, some pretty clear homophobic undertones here. I was on board for the first two sentences and then it took a hard left turn into crazy land.
So at least we have the fact that neither of us watched the show in common. Or maybe you were just on board with the Macklemore lyrics? =)
What was “homophobic”? That word is thrown around ridiculously. I didn’t sense that she was afraid of homosexuals (or homosexuality) at all. In fact, if she was “homophobic”, she probably wouldn’t have written this. In the words of the great theologian, Inigo Montoya, ““You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”.
I had a friend who was gay, she had a daughter who wasn’t, I asked her one day about the word homophobic and what exactly does it mean to the homosexual community. She told me that not only is it “fear of someone who is a homosexual” but it’s also someone who “hates homosexuals” as well as those who “disagree with homosexuals”. I asked why do they view people who disagree with them as being homophobic, she explained to me that a disagreement can quickly lead to hate, which can quickly lead to fear. She said “it’s a nasty cycle”. I tried to talk to her and explain that just because someone disagrees with someone else’s opinions, views, or lifestyle, doesn’t mean that they hate or even grow to hate those folks. She said she understood, but for her mom and for her mom’s partner and all the other folks she knew in the same situation, that wasn’t the case. Anyone who so much as disagrees is a homophobe. I find that very, very sad.
Hey Jasmine:
Great article and well written. I do have one question. Are we Reformed Christians guilty of something similar when we parade interracial marriages?
Hey doc! You may appreciate this article: https://www.raanetwork.org/traditional-vs-modern-cereal/
The article Phillip linked is a great place to start! I see homosexual marriage and interracial marriage as two separate issues. Getting our wires crossed there is losing some pretty important ground in the discussion. Thank you so much for commenting, reading, and encouraging, sir!
Hey Jasmine:
Thank you for your gracious reply and respecting the ole man. You’re absolutely right, homosexual marriage and interracial marriage between a man and a woman are two separate issues.
I should have been clearer. I was only engaging your first point, “Marriage is not a Spectacle”. I sense in some cases it happens with interracial marriages and I just resonated with your insight. Probably not the best time or forum to bring up that up. But again thank you for your kindness and the article was really on point, my sister.
No need to reply, you have your hands full with the other crazy minister :-).
@Louis Love, Hi there I am a black male married to a white female, so I will give you a personal take on it. The color of ones skin has more to do with culture and environment than it does with any major difference otherwise (Society USA).
Some folks consider interracial marriages as inherently wrong as same sex marriages. To be biblical and just in any determination of any action or ceremony performed in Gods name you need on only look to his book “BIBLE.”
There exist no such litterateur to support or denounce interracial marriages except in the hierarchy of lands governed by kings to preserve blood lines (Old Testament).
So with that bit out of the way I love my wife sincerely and we both are very strong in our faith. Equal yoke is the major concern when marriage is between a man and a woman (pigmentation is not a choice unlike sexual behavior), I don’t think ones personal opinion or preference supersedes the word or God.
Nothing is aimed at you personally I grew up in the Old south. I have seen so much racial divide and hatred. What there really needs to be is a solidarity of God’s people no matter the color of the skin, for in the end those things we held to as men of flesh will no longer be.
I do believe that marriage should be a celebration with family and friends and not paraded into a media buzz however.
Hey Graphicpoet:
Thanks for the response.
I have two sons and they both are in interracial marriages. One daughter in law is Hispanic and the other is White. Seven of my eight grandchildren are racially mixed.
They have challenges in their marriages similar to what my wife and i have had in the past 35 years. The racist issues they have faced are the least of the challenges they have faced. Their issues are just like any other couple. So to make much of their ethnicities seems (as young folks would say) lame. Each time it happens it serves as a cheap shot at some perceived difference. The way we think about race in this country in particular is biblically untenable anyway. There’s just two, Adam’s or Christ’s.
I like how you put it “equally yoked is the major concern…”. Also I agree with you that “marriage should be a celebration with family and friends” and I would add the local Church body.
Good chatting with you, but as they say, Sunday’s a coming and I have much work to finish.
Hear, hear!
Soli Deo Gloria!
Well done Jasmine, how the world hates the goodness of God. How He provides the beauty of His glory through the church and marriage.
It does. But we all inherently hate the goodness of God until our eyes our opened by the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2). It’s out of the richness of his love and grace that any of us are able to pursue him. Soli Deo Gloria!
Marriage and all life through the lens of the Gospel.. Amém ! God be praised because his promises are true: faithful parents can leave a legacy for the generations to come. God bless you Baucham family. I am praying for you.
Thank you for an encouraging response! The Lord bless you as well.
I disagree. I think the marriage ceremonies at the Grammy was chiefly about love, because that’s what marriage is chiefly about, true love between people who want to be with each other everyday for the rest of their lives. It gave the couples who’s love is looked down upon by others a chance to finally be together and that was a beautiful thing. So that ceremony was not an attack on marriage, it was a support of it. It should be interpreted for what it was rather than through the hypocritical lens of the gospel.
Thanks for the comment, Melissa. But the only way I as a Christian should ever be interpreting something is through the lens of the gospel. So again, you’ve expressed the fundamental disagreement I addressed in my article: this issue is bigger than love and marriage.
Wow it’s so refreshing to see a respectful disagreement on such a volatile topic without a stream of disparaging rant replies. Still I am questioning my own judgment in entering the conversation, but I feel compelled. It is particularly the phrase “hypocritical lens of the gospel” that compels me. It is not in anger that I write but with a certain sadness that the most incredible love story is regarded as hypocritical. The gospel is about a perfect divine being coming in human form to regain relationship with a world that had walked away from him. Not only did he become human but he came as a servant and suffered an agonizing death in order to restore the relationship that was lost. I don’t see how this is in any way hypocritical. The primary difference in believers and “non believers.” Is that at the center of our world we have Christ, God in human form dying for those who treat him as enemies. At the center of the unbelievers world is self, and “my rights.” Sure there are those hypocrites in the Christian faith who use their “religion” to as a “moral high ground” from which they feel they are entitled to judge and accuse. And I am truly sorry if this has bee your primary experience of Christians. But to call the pure gospel message hypocritical is inaccurate. I pray we Christians can truly exhibit the real love of Christ, the self sacrificing, suffering for others kind of love to the world, especially those in the homosexual community. That is not hypocritical.
And, by the way, everyone says their worldview is the better worldview (it’s not something that only Christians do). It can even sound like, “all religions are the same.”.or “all roads lead to heaven.” Any statement of belief implies that any opposing beliefs are inferior or wrong. Even the statement that there is no objective truth assumes a position of superiority that can see and know everything. When someone accuses a Christian of being exclusive. They need to acknowledge that they are fundamentally doing the same thing as the Christian. Namely, stating that their world view is superior. Acknowledge it. Own it. If we don’t we all are hypocrites (which I’m sure is true of us all at times anyway).
May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord make his face to shine on you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
There is more to marriage than love.
http://tinyurl.com/n7ksv3s
“Marriage between two persons of one sex could have no validity, as none of the ends of matrimony could be accomplished thereby”
Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Marriage & Divorce § 225 (1st ed. 1852)
Stellar-very, very good.
Thank you! God bless.
You have succinctly expressed what God has revealed. Thanks.
Soli Deo Gloria!
wow what a blessing thanks for sharing and Praise God for inspiring you to write this:)
Thank you for the encouragement!
Great gospel-centered thoughts here. Well written, too. Thanks for sharing this.
Thank you for reading! God bless you.
Excellent! Thought provoking…and…why didn’t I think of that!!
Isn’t it so interesting how many different perspectives can come from the same situation? Thank you!