A Christian Response to the Court Decision about Same-Sex Marriage
by Dr. Bruce Campbell Moyer, July 19, 2015: David Brooks has written, for the New York Times, “Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. They can serve as examples of commitment. They are equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong, what dignifies and what demeans. They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely.
“The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life.
“This culture war is more Albert Schweitzer and Dorothy Day than Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham; more Salvation Army than Moral Majority. It’s doing purposefully in public what social conservatives already do in private.” (New York Times, 29 June 2015)
Talk has been cheapened by overexpenditure. It is action that makes our faith real. We are in for a lot of talk in the near future, especially on same-sex marriage, now legalized in the United States by the Supreme Court.
While I may not choose to conduct such a wedding, I applaud the court’s decision. Civil marriages are “weddings” separate from the church’s blessings. They are “blessed” by the love and commitment of the couple and the participants. I have chosen not to participate in some heterosexual weddings because of personal convictions that God was neither involved in the arrangement nor was it appropriate. All people, however, deserve the gift of love, protected by the state.
This does not sanctify it. It only protects it and dignifies people. Christians must be true to their theological convictions while still being loving and supportive of others who disagree, who do not share all of their convictions. This is, I think, where grace enters the picture. It is this grace that must characterize our lives and interpersonal relations. If we fail here, we have little to offer except more rules.
Dr. Bruce Campbell Moyer is an ordained Adventist minister and retired faculty member in the seminary at Andrews University. He has served as an urban pastor, a staff member at the Institute of World Mission, director of the Adventist Center for Global Urban Mission and coordinator of worldwide HIV-AIDS programs for the Adventist Relief and Development Agency (ADRA).
Amen! Our challenge is not to confront society and demand that it be changed into our concept of what it should be, but to overcome the wrongs we see with the power of God that is seen through our ministry of His love to the ills around us. It is not to argue about whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong, but to touch others with the love of God so they will be drawn to Him and want to live according to His will.
You are wrong, William. While we can not enforce any moral law on society, it is commendable and necessary to enforce civil law for the basic good of society.
Thus, as Christians, we agree that prostitution should be illegal by way of civil law and never need to mention any moral mandate as the reason it is wrong. The same for gambling, Gay marriage and many other civil issues that for a Christian would also be a moral issue in a religious context.
Thus, we defend civil rights, not because we are Christians, but because we are good citizens and defend the civil rights of everyone.
Yes, because we are Christians, our standards go higher than civil law. But this does not mean we can not agree with civil laws that apply to all without reference to any religious mandate.
To defend Gay marriage is not a civil thing to do. And for Christian, it is also immoral. So for the government to acknowledge that men can be legally coupled with men, and women like wise is not only immoral, but not civil, either.
Do we allow people to naked in public? or men and women to use the same toilet? or simply “P” in the street even if it is sanitary?
Many have a warped view of the meaning of separation of church and state. As though we can not have civil laws for the good of society in general if there is a parallel moral law to the same effect.
Have you no experience with the transformative power of God? If you had the cure for cancer, why would you spend all of your time telling people how deadly it is, why they shouldn’t get it and how they’re going to die if the get it when you can just give the cure to the dying and see them restored? God has given us the good news of a cure for sin and tasked us with delivering it to a dying world. You can argue about the disease, or you can minister God’s powerful cure. I have been touched by the power of God so I choose to minister his cure, where it appears you just love to argue about the disease and theories about salvation and the power of God.
David is an astute observer of society but he has idealized social conservatives. Liberals equally aid those in need: the ACLU; Doctors Without Borders, to name only two, are certainly liberal with help to the suffering.
But it has been the social conservatives who have been stridently opposed to same sex marriage, vaccinations, financial aid to struggling families and children.
Look at those states which are still opposed to health care for all and same sex marriage; they are the most religious AND politically conservative. They appear to be twin concepts that are rare separate.
I don’t believe that Doctors Without Borders is a partisan organization to be lumped in with the ACLU.
Can you give evidence of your “belief” about Doctors Without Borders? And if it is a “partisan” organization to be lumped in with the ACLU? This is how rumors begin.
Are you fully informed about either organization? Also, remember that ACLU has aided Adventists regarding Sabbath work. They are a powerful force for separation of church and state.
Elder Moyer, you write: “This does not sanctify it. It only protects it and dignifies people.”
Clarence Thomas writes in dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges: “Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples. The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity… The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”
God bless C. Thomas
Citing Clarence Thomas’ half-baked rant doesn’t help your argument.
My Argument? All I did was quote Justice Thomas’ dissent. I made no argument.
And you sir did not make an argument either. All you did was dismiss Thomas’ observations as a ‘half-baked rant’
So you believe government can bestow dignity, and government can take it away. Argue the case. Otherwise, you are just ranting.
Good thoughts Bruce, and kindly stated. Thanks!
From a more policy related point of view, it has always seemed strange to me that when you led before God in the dedication of our marriage, we needed an official license from Montgomery County. No other sacrament of the church requires such permission. I suppose the legal contractual part of marriage got goverment involved. Maybe it is time to separate the spiritual from the legal function. SDA’S historically have been community leaders in separation of church and state. Why not limit the function of government to the contractual functions how ever the law allows. The church could take care of the spiritual part of the relatioship as God directs. The church could do this without state permission. The GC could announce that SDA minisers would no longer accept or sign legal documents re marriage, but would perform marriage ceremonies before God. If those participants want, as most would, recognition of the marriage by the law, a quick trip to the courthouse to sign appropriate legal documents is all that is required. All people could be loved and respected as God’s grace directs. We could all move on with love for all.
Marriage in all states requires a license. Whether it is blessed by the church is optional for the couple. Clergy have been allowed to sign the certificate for the state, but no couple can be legally married in a church without a license.
We should be careful about pushing additional separation of church and state as churches are currently given tax exemption which could be changed.
There are good sociological reasons to oppose same sex unions. Marriage it isn’t!
The issue of government intervention on this issue is not limited to the Biblical aspect as it seems some here try to make it. This is primarily a societal concern, not a Biblical one. Governments are elected for the very purpose of ensuring that society is run in as healthy a manner as possible.
The fact that they have failed miserably in many aspects does not in any way translate to them not interceding when it is logically necessary. Just because they all too often make wrong decisions doesn’t mean they should then stop making decisions altogether. I am stunned that some don’t seem to see that this is where their reasoning goes.
Same-sex marriage cheapens the very concept of marriage and family itself which is the foundation stone of any healthy society. Just because many marriages don’t live up to the ideal is no reason to further cheapen the institution itself and I am absolutely amazed when I hear that argument being used as though it is legitimate.
Governments exist to protect the citizens over whom they govern. This should always begin with those who are the least able to protect themselves: our children. Same-sex marriage goes beyond a simple argument about “loving” relationships being recognized, it is a political agenda designed to FORCE something utterly unnatural to be accepted THROUGH LEGISLATION!
It is NOT just about being legally recognized or having it called a civil union would be good enough. This is also about having the right to adopt children as well as a whole host of other issues and it is primarily POLITICAL!
This whole thing is a social engineering experiment in which we and our children are the guinea pigs and there comes a point where we have to draw the line. NAMBLA is using the same arguments that same-sex proponents used. Do we want to go down that road too? Where does it end? I say it needs to end with protecting heterosexual marriage and upholding it as the ideal despite the fact that we have couples who don’t live up to the ideal.
I would laugh at the argument that “you can’t legislate morality” if those who make it weren’t serious. So you can’t can’t legislate morality but you CAN legislate acceptance? Can you not see how ridiculous that is? I would also argue that most laws we have do indeed legislate morality in one way or another, it just depends on whose morality you are considering.
The government has an obligation to do what it can to ensure we have a healthy, well-functioning society and heterosexual marriage is one of the single most important things that can be done in this regard. This has been shown in study after study to be the case (as if we needed studies to prove the obvious!). Protecting marriage should be the first step. Strengthening the marriage covenant should be the next. Eliminating no-fault divorce would be…
Conclusion:
“Strengthening the marriage covenant should be the next. Eliminating no-fault divorce would be a good start. How much might the divorce rate go down, and countless broken homes prevented, if you actually had to present a compelling reason for divorce and one or the other partner had to be demonstrated to be at fault for the marriage crumbling?
This argument about not having the government involved because it is a primarily religious issue is illegitimate in my opinion. This is primarily a SOCIETAL issue and that is where the government DOES exist to intervene.”
Written by a Person Living in a Nearby Country Who could be prosecuted for this opinion thus no attribution.
Interested Friend, we have heart for you plights, and appreciate your voice and concerns.
Elaine, you open a can of worms that makes my head hurt in this “no cost” decision.
The last Supreme Court definition of marriage came from Maynard v Hill (1888)
” And again: “It is not, then, a contract within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution which prohibits the impairing the obligation of contracts. It is, rather, a social relation, like that of parent and child, the obligations of which arise not from the consent of concurring minds, but are the creation of the law itself; a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life and the true 212*212 basis of human progress.”
“marriage, in the sense in which it is dealt with by a decree of divorce, is not a contract, but one of the domestic relations. In strictness, though formed by contract, it signifies the relation of husband and wife, deriving both its rights and duties from a source higher than any contract of which the parties are capable, and as to these uncontrollable by any contract which they can make. ”
The State holds no obligation to issue a license or marry people; these restrictions were added to protect our youth and offspring, and also to allow ease of access (without Religion). The Church definitely does hold such obligation.
Homosexual “marriage” is just another attempt by the LQBTs to force everyone else to accept them as “normal.” But they won’t be happy with the SCOTUS decision. They will want more. They won’t be happy until denominations lose their tax-exempt status and all religion is destroyed. And even then they won’t be happy. They’ll find something else to complain about.
They make up fewer than 3 percent of the population. It’s time they were relegated back to having an impact on the public debate that’s in accord with their proportion. They shouldn’t be allowed to harass and persecute a business that disagrees with them until the business is forced out of existence.
If a business doesn’t want to do business with someone, anyone, for whatever reason, that should be their right. At least that’s what the Constitution said before the progressives started writing so-called anti-discrimination laws and “hate” laws. Ridiculous!
AMEN
Right on target, sir.
Justice Kennedy stated in the decision that “marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves”. I am so glad that this institution (definitely lower case) can provide these folks happiness and life after death.
No they will not be happy, we all know that.
Maybe the President can issue and record marriage licenses; he seems to have nothing better to do than use his paid time and Government resources to represent “our” voice to the Supreme Court. I think we should send the bill for the $288 billion of fully absorbed costs to the 5 Justices for this “no cost” decision. Maybe the States that wanted this should pay for their own part though.
I would propose legislation to enforce the views of the people, not small groups of spoilt children. Maybe we should elect the Supreme Court Justices? We have and should continue, as the Church, to stand for those discriminated against within Religion. Should we not also stand against those that solicit dollars to represent their individual viewpoints as discrimination?
In fixing the root problem; we are definitely going to have to be able to teach children at some point in time. Suggestions?
A heavy dose of judgmentalism for those who need their daily quota! Judging other is far more often condemned in the Bible that homosexual ACTS when homosexuality was unknown and Christ never spoke a word about it. But there are many who eager and willing as they believe they can speak for him.
Bruce Moyer writes a thoughtful and insightful article. Our God is a God of freedom. He gave us the freedom to sin. Separation of church and state means we cannot hold others to our ideas of sin and religion. They do not believe they are sinning but are grasping their chance at happiness with someone they love. Their worldview is not yours. Maybe this is the only happiness/heaven they will ever know. But we do not understand the love of God.
Another thought–if the practice of homosexuality is what is wrong, then shouldn’t we vote to put everyone in jail who participates in it? It seems inconsistent one would vote against the legal partnership of such persons which would cut down on its promiscuity and the disease that accompanies it. It is my understanding that AIDS and other diseases in this group have decreased since the acceptance of monogamous partnerships.
Perhaps that was the sin of Sodom? They were not merely Sodomites; they were promiscuous Sodomites. I still think it is unhealthy. I mean, oh forget it.
Let’s not put them in prison. I don’t think that is the cure. Let’s do warn them. The sin of Sodom and the abominations of the Canaanites rank pretty high on the, DO NOT DO THIS EVER, list. They have gone places the human imagination ought not go.
Jude 1:
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
Yes there is the Church within the Body of CHRIST and there is the world; totally separate. One goes to Heaven and one to hell. We are to love the individuals, sin can be forgiven; but we are obligated to save by compassion or fear.
Ephesians 6:12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” This is the job of the Church.
2 Timothy 3:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
We are commanded to turn away from such.
Acts 3:
17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
James 1:
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
There are no excuses; you serve GOD or you do not. The fate is much worse that jail. Love requires us to teach this; not suffer or condone such.
You’ve made the point about needing to turn away from sin, but turning-away requires that we first encounter a power greater than the one holding us in that sin. What evidence can you show us from your testimony so we might see you have ever met the power of God and been redeemed? That you know from experience the path out of sin so that another might follow you and find redemption? What is there in your words to distinguish your noise from all the religious hypocrites in the world whose powerless forms of godliness are making a mockery of God and His redemption?
William Noel, are you calling the scripture a powerless form of godliness. Basically all Reality did was quote scripture. Why do you call it noise?
How can you argue with Reality’s point? “You serve God or you don’t”
BTW – You couldn’t do better than quoting Acts 3 yourself to make your argument. Instead of condemning Reality, follow his lead. Or maybe nobody listens to the bible anymore – Or maybe William Noel can say it better:
Acts 3:
And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Me? I am but a speck of dust. I cannot take a breath or step without HIM.
I am thankful to HIM that I can even present HIS Word and only by HIS will (and don’t do that very well).
But to ask with an open heart; HE can forgive, save, convict and bring us into more joy than we can imagine; perfect peace and Love, beyond all value. The path requires us to sacrifice everything in taking up our cross and following HIM; but the rewards are beyond this world, Heaven and the blessings while here are immense. HE will teach us in Love; so that we may Love others. HE will grow us that we may serve.
We all make mistakes so please watch over, admonish and pray for my Soul, my family, my community, the Church, my Country and in all the responsibilities that HE may lead. Please help in protecting all of these things that I hold dear. The needs are daunting; my faith and conviction are weak. Lately the setbacks seem great and the victories are few. I find myself questioning how this can ever turn out.
Rev. 12:11 tells of people overcoming the dragon by the word and the “power of their testimony.” Once again, you are long on the word but empty of the testimony that demonstrates the power of the word. Give us some testimony about how God has worked in your life or we have nothing to believe you are more than a noisemaker. Such noisemaking is the reason the church is growing so slowly and even dying in places like North America.
It is not correct to say that those opposing WO do so from a cultural bias in terms of equating their position to that of proponents. The former, because of leaving their strong cultural ties in acceptance of biblical truth and teachings, show clear evidence that they have come into line with biblical instruction and teachings, and moved away from the unbiblical cultural practices they formerly held. Proponents of WO on the other hand have been allowed themselves to be ‘braised’ in the pot of strong secular unbiblical cultural influences, such as feminism, which has undeniably crept into the Church. So to argue that both sides are equally influenced by cultural bias is therefore invalidated.
A second reason invalidating this accusation is that there are many in the West, (within the NAD, Europe and other first world countries), who also support a biblical position for WO. The cultural norms in these geographical areas are poles apart yet they are 1] one in belief and practice, 2] in harmony with the Holy Bible, 3] in harmony with the practice of the early Christian Church, 4] in harmony with the OT and NT, 5] in harmony with our pioneers, 6] in harmony with the plain instruction of the Apostle Paul and 7] the precedence that God has clearly shown in the Bible.
correction 1] Proponents of WO on the other hand have allowed themselves…
correction 2] …in the West, (within the NAD, Europe and other first world countries), who also support a biblical position for opposing WO…
Trevor,
You find this hard to accept, but opponents of women’s ordination haven’t proved their case regarding points 2, 4, 6, and 7; and many won’t try.
As a conservative, all I am seeing/reading/hearing is merely and emphasis on 1, 3, and 5; with point #5 being logically untenable.
Although I’ve stated an opinion on this issue, I remain open-minded to a compelling Scriptural argument; which I’ve yet to hear.
You want us to prove your proposed changes to Doctrine?
You own the testimonies of the Saints and those that came before us?
You think you own the BIBLE?
Why do you think that you are the voice of the represented multitudes of women? Why do you wish to represent their conviction and remove their protections in the BIBLE. Why do you think they would want you to represent them. Do I need to have my 15 year old daughter teach you; from the BIBLE?
Why would anyone that knows what a pastor does wish that on anyone; well less someone protected from such?
Why would we place someone into a Church that is obligated to their husband in everything (Numbers 30 and Ephesians 5)? If they are not married with a family, how can they achieve sufficient wisdom to guide a much larger family? How can they fulfill their requirements in Titus 2?
The failure to teach and rebuke in Titus 2 is the root cause of multitudes of root problems we are contending with now. The solution is easy; we follow GODS PLAN and fix the problem. Do you have a better plan?
You are confusing doctrine and policy. Teachings such as the seventh-day Sabbath are doctrines where the ordination of women is a policy that some ore arguing is a doctrine.
Doctrine is defined in the First Fundamental Belief and references 2 Timothy 3.
Maybe I should ask before I go through the Fundamental Beliefs; do they create Doctrine? Maybe I should ask what is your definition of Doctrine?
No, opponents of WO are not confusing doctrine with policy.
Obviously – The Doctrine of Equality is the most important doctrine. All other doctrines must bow before this highest doctrine. Women’s Ordination is the current imperative for the equalizers – but not the last.
Adventist’s need to firm up their doctrine of Election – which stands opposed to the doctrine of equality – Election is not policy,: its faith and grace.
I posted this on the wrong blog. Sorry. It was supposed to be on Stephen Ferguson’s blog. I will repost and respond there to some comments here.
Well said, Pastor Moyer. Who,BTW, is not only an ordained minister, etc., but the best bible teacher I ever had. He helped me get through my senior year at Auburn Academy when there was a lot of turmoil going on in my life. We may have had different views, but I always felt safe talking to him about mine. God bless you! G-)