A Dozen Thoughts on the United States Supreme Court Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage
By Ken McFarland, June 30, 2015:
- Some – perhaps many – of us who believe in God and His Word genuinely believe that His stated definition of marriage is that it be between one man and one woman.
- Having said that, some of us also believe that in serving both God and Caesar, we need to harmonize as fully as possible with the law of the land as legislated by Congress, as codified in the Constitution, and as interpreted by the Courts.
- When it comes to the recent Supreme Court decision concerning same-sex marriage, the Court has permitted it, not imposed or required it.
- Therefore, I am free, should I so choose, to go right on believing as a Christian in marriage as between one man and one woman. No one is depriving me of that right or taking away my “religious liberty” to believe it.
- Only in a case when the law of the land requires me, forces me, to make a decision contrary to God’s Law or my sincerely held Bible-based beliefs, must I then choose whom to obey. As a Christian, my obligation is thus clear. However, this Supreme Court ruling is not one of those times.
- Perhaps the closest to being forced by this ruling to choose between God’s will and the state’s decision is what a minister does when asked to perform a same-sex wedding. I see nothing in the ruling that would remove the minister’s freedom to choose . An Adventist pastor, for example, should still be free to choose not to perform such a marriage. Plenty of secular alternatives remain: judges, justices of the peace, etc.
- I believe that we Christians are greatly ill-served by expressing outrage and condemnation against the Supreme Court decision. We are called to live IN the world but not be OF the world, and we will never WIN the world with condemnation and disapproval and hate.
- We as Christians, in fact, have the privilege and obligations of accepting ALL into our midst. We are commanded to go even further than merely refraining from hating and condemning them – we are commanded to LOVE them. Same-sex couple. LGBTQIA people, yes, even sodomites and what we might wish to call egregious sinners.
- We are in fact forbidden to condemn those who engage in what we categorize as sins of the flesh, while we are still in the grip of the greater sins Jesus identified: pride, self-exaltation, rejection of others, “stoning” those with fleshly sins while we harbor even worse ones in our hearts. Only those clean of pride – only those who would die for someone before condemning them – can address the sins of another.
- We simply must abandon the fear that leads us to reject in an ever-tighter circle those who don’t look like us, act like us, believe like us, or practice their lives like us. Ultimately, that circle will be drawn around our own feet and no one else’s.
- Yes, there’s a great difference between hating the sin and loving the sinner. Do we ever get so caught up in excoriating the sin that we incinerate as well the sinner clinging to that sin? Perhaps if we truly spend our efforts – as Jesus commanded us – revealing and demonstrating His love, the sins would fall away of their own accord.
- Loving without limits is our commission. Unlimited by any sin or its hideousness, unlimited by how opposed it is to God and His will. Unlimited by how much we must fight back our inner hate and the revulsion we may feel. Only by this kind of love can we love as Jesus loves.
Ken McFarland is an Adventist author, Bible student and former vice president for editorial services at Pacific Press, the publishing house of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in North America.
We simply must abandon the fear that leads us to reject in an ever-tighter circle those who don’t look like us, act like us, believe like us, or practice their lives like us. Ultimately, that circle will be drawn around our own feet and no one else’s.
——————————————-
This fear is based on a false picture of God.
If God treats people like this, then we will most certainly do the same.
But you notice the end result of this fear as stated above–self worship. We only accept ourselves as acceptable–no one else.
That’s where the Pharisees reached.
“We simply must abandon the fear that leads us to reject in an ever-tighter circle those who don’t look like us, act like us, believe like us, or practice their lives like us. Ultimately, that circle will be drawn around our own feet and no one else’s.”
Your theory will make modern Adventism so generic that we have no identity separate from other Christians. Any “big tent” theology along with Pluralism is worthless and useless for any dynamic evangelism that is both definitive and particular to explain what and who as SDA is.
There’s a dangerous thought lurking here: the idea that Seventh-day Adventistm is all about itself.
” No one is depriving me of that right or taking away my “religious liberty” to believe it.”
Yes, as long as you keep it to yourself and don’t go public in opposition to it. This means, our religious freedom abridged. We can’t speak out against what we believe is evil.
In the jail ministry, I am keenly aware of this issue. None the less, I state that as a Christian, I oppose it and think homosexuality is sin and condemned by God.
I have also stated that Luther called the Pope the antichrist and devil’s apostle. I went on to say that it would not be politically correct to say this today, even if you agreed with Luther and considered his evaluation correct.
I don’t have to claim the Catholic church will enforce the mark of the beast. All I have to show is that any civil or religious government or church that sets itself above God’s authority has the “mark of the beast”. And that here in the US, we are losing our religious freedom on a steady basis.
I point out that in Dan. 3, the king sets up an image that represents his civil and religious authority and demands loyalty by commanding all to bow down. And this is the mark of the beast. Here in the end of the world, such a world wide system with civil, economic, and religious power will do the same according to Revelation as some interpret it.
So I am somewhat generic, but always leave a lot of EGW’s material on the subject and let them decide for themselves how this is all coming about.
Did Mr. Sorenson actually write that “I don’t claim that [the] Catholic church will enforce the mark of the beast.”! Wow. The Millennium has arrived for Mr. Sorenson.
“Any civil or religious government or church that sets itself above God’s authority has the “mark of the beast”. Double Wow. Any church? The Millennium has arrived.
“
I don’t think it should be some “great revelation” Dr. Taylor, that the antichrist has been depicted and symbolized historically by any false government, whether civil or religious.
The 4 secular kingdoms in Daniel are all church state kingdoms where the king is both civil and religiously infallible. They all represent absolute authority and acknowledge no authority above themselves on any level.
The three boys in the furnace are in big trouble for refusing to acknowledge this unlimited authority. So when I state any authority over and above God’s authority symbolizes the mark of the beast should be no “aha” revelation. It should be obvious.
The only reason SDA’s hold our view about America and Rome is because it is apostate Protestantism (religion) unites with the civil government to hand over to Rome her former power.
And the mark of the beast is to simply yield to this false authority contrary to God’s authority. As EGW has stated, it is only when people understand this issue and choose to accept the situation, that they receive this mark.
It is also equated with the unpardonable sin. Those who demand absolute freedom in religion and civil issues, will be the first to enforce their views on any who oppose them. So freedom of religion means we can oppose openly and freely any view we hold as contrary to the bible. This freedom is going away rather quickly as it is being equated with a “hate crime.”
So, believe what you want, just keep it to…
You seem to be saying that whenever your public expression of opinion is met with disagreement or even derision, you are stripped of your religious expression rights. That seems to be a silly argument. Freedom of religious expression does not guarantee you the right not to be criticized or even ridiculed.
Big hairy deal!! Nothing has changed!! The sin of yesterday is still the sin of today. For “ALL have SINNED”, and still in your SINS, except for GOD’s mercy, and forgiveness. “All sins demand the death penalty. Why condemn your brother in his SIN?? So, 5 people setting policy for 330 million people?? No big deal, individually public opinion hasn’t changed, and Nebuchadnezzar hasn’t been reincarnated and raised his idol again. The Supreme Court had no reason to revisit this issue. They have continued to joust a windmill without cause.
This changes nothing for the majority. But just as the ruling to allow interracial marriage changed for millions, this is a most welcome rule for the millions of same sex partners who will no longer be second class citizens deprived of the equal rights of making the most important choice of life. Why anyone would want to deprive others of such a right they enjoy speaks volumes about the intolerance, even antipathy to others not like them.
Elaine,
Any thoughts on polygamy? Brothers and sisters? Father/daughter? The law currently forbids these unions. Equal rights for all? …or just some?
If it is between consenting adults then I don’t have a problem legally. I would consider these relationships ‘sinful’ but I think the separation of Church and State suggests the State itself shouldn’t discriminate.
Most states ban marriages of first cousins and all states have age of consent laws. How arbitrary – one day’s age difference makes something sanctioned by the state forbidden and illegal!
All these things – and so many more – are obstacles on our “long march to equality” as President Obama says.
You ban marriages between 1st cousins? Really? Most of the royal families of the world, and most marriages of many traditional societies, are between 1st cousins.
You sure you ban first cousins marrying in the deep south?
The deep south states allow it. One of them I think forbids double-cousins from marrying. Avunculate marriage is prohibited in most English-speaking jurisdictions (Uncle-niece).
That consenting adult part is slippery – when do you become an adult? When the state says you are an adult? Seems kinda arbitrary and unfair to me. I have a couple of teenage daughters at home that don’t care at all for my definition of adult.
Steve, you’d flush all our ancient law regarding marriage down the toilet, eh? Can I marry my dog?
“Avunculate marriage is prohibited in most English-speaking jurisdictions (Uncle-niece).”
Wasn’t Abraham an uncle of Sarah? Do we see in polygamy the disction between the ‘ideal’ and God’s permissive will?
“…when do you become an adult?”
In most common law countries the common law says an adult is 21. I suspect that is based on biblical exegesis that suggests someone is an adult at 20. In most countries this was reduced to 18, on the basis of saying a person is an adult when they are old enough to fight and die in a war.
“Can I marry my dog?”
I suspect your dog lacks the legal capacity to give consent. It is the same reason insane people and children are not fully culpable for their actions if they commit a crime.
” Why anyone would want to deprive others of such a right they enjoy speaks volumes about the intolerance,…..”
And so we should have tolerated prostitution between consenting adults, eh Elaine?” A woman should have the right to sell herself in a sex experience as long as it is an adult? And she can stand on the street corner advertising her profession?
The civil government does not need to appeal to any religious reason to condemn and refuse any legal union between same sexes. Common sense and natural law tells us this is destructive to society in general and should be opposed without any religious implications.
Of course, churches can also oppose it as contrary to God’s law. And point to scripture to affirm their conclusion. But it is no violation of civil rights for the government to legislate against the Gay agenda. And for the government to support it and finance it is as a legal union is ridiculous. It only shows how far and powerful the liberal agenda has become over common sense and any rational consensus.
“And so we should have tolerated prostitution between consenting adults, eh Elaine?”‘
I can’t speak for Elaine but yes, the State should legalise prostitution. Just as the State legalises drinking alochol, charging loans with interest, or allowing shops to be open on the Sabbath – all things condemned by the Bible. You don’t have to support prostitution to understand the State should not be in a position to criminalise it.
Steve,
So the state should get out of the ‘morality’ business? Just criminalize important matters like littering and banking and hauling motor freight.
Ken,
I will confess up-front to not yet having read the court decision. Commentators I have heard and read, including at least two former federal judges and one retired New York State Supreme Court judge, disagreed with your point #3 by specifically saying the ruling required the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples requesting them. The problem is, even if your statement is correct, it clears the way for social opinion to drive legislation and enforcement actions that will require it. More than that, the stated objective of the Democratic Party is to pass legislation forcing public acceptance of it and the objective of the Gay Rights movement is to make anyone opposing them the object of both public ridicule and legal penalties.
The challenge I see this creating for believers in God is to pull their opinions out of the clouds of theologic theory and learn how to minister the redeeming and transforming love of God under increasingly difficult social conditions. End-time events are upon us with growing speed and ferocity and I fear the faith of many will fail because they have mistaken spiritual theorizing for actually experiencing and ministering God’s love.
How can self preservation be the leading edge of ministry?
It’s because we had no love for LGBT people that we have found ourselves underwater.
We’ve made the same Civil Rights mistake again.
Two additional comments relating to religion, power, and the individual may interest others.
David Brooks has a very insightful suggestion for Christians. He is a non-observant Jew, and author of the current best seller: The Road to Character. In his potent hope for Christians in the culture wars (in this three minutes read http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/opinion/david-brooks-the-next-culture-war.html ) Brooks seems to be taking his cue from Jesus in John 13.
Moises Naim’s “The End of Power” (Amazon) is stunning. Economic, political and religious power is vastly different that it was 75 years ago.
On the religion front, Roman Catholicism in Brazil was the dominant religion 50 years ago. Pentecostals numbered 6% of the population. Today, Pentecostals are 50% or so of the population.
On the political and economic fronts, it is not the major armies or the major banks that are running the world. It is the likes of Al Qaeda and hedge funds that are beyond the control of states and international banking.
In light of The End of Power, It seems that what will spread is not political power, but spiritual power, as foretold in Revelation 14. In fact, the prophecy describing Angels is quite in keeping with Naim’s observations about the shift in power, indeed the end of power as we imagine it.
I read and like David Brooks’ article.
Naim has some of his data correct, but he is totally far off on the present, and near future, relative to the powers who control the global society. It is the big banks who control everything, and give marching orders to the nations armies. The noose around the necks of all peoples is drawing tighter.
The ELITE ARE IN A RING, IN A RING, IN A RING, SUCH AS THE MASONIC ORDERS. EACH RING BELOW NOT INCLUSIVE WITH THE ORDERS FROM ABOVE, WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO KNOW. The powers that be (in high places) have it all signed, sealed, and delivered. The participation of the invited have all been paid, and given notice of their continuing rewards. The heads of states and the majority of the highest politicians
owe their souls to the Ring above them. The top environmentalists are in a near top Ring. They are on record
of stating the Earth would be so much more manageable with a total population of under 2 billion people. H-M-M-M DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS??? The hammer starts to fall in October 2015. Get out of the stock market now. Don’t have any bonds. The continued printing of fiat phoney money will not stop. Invest in 2 or 3 other currencies, Swiss, Singapore, Canada, China. Have a percentage in Silver Dollars. Have 3 months of cash minimum in your possession. Keep only funds in the Bank sufficient to pay your next 5 months bills. Interest rates will remain at near zero percent until the dollar and most other currencies collapse at the same time. To be Continued.
CONTINUED:
The ELITE BANKERS will install their new “ONE WORLD ELECTRONIC CURRENCY”. Every one will have a number. Without the number you will be unable to buy or sell. It will be managed by the top tier of the Elite. Giving marching orders to the UNITED NATIONS to control the day to day business, both regionally and militarily, using the combined military POLICE forces of NATO and the USA military. They will offer Russia a deal that can’t be refused. They will control and provide management of all food products and medicines, and healthcare, who qualifies, who don’t. Please don’t hide your head in the sand. This is in motion “NOW”. Other than CENTRAL BANKS, all private big banks will falter, and will confiscate your funds giving you worthless bonds, just as they’ve done in GREECE.
Oh my goodness.
Men’s hearts failing them for fear.
Take no thought for the morrow.
Your bread and water shall be sure.
Amen, Ken! I would add two more thoughts.
1. I’ve believed and stated for years that civil courts would eventually HAVE to give all people the same rights–they cannot make laws involving things that are purely moral issues.
2. Surely God, who loves every single one of God’s children, would greatly prefer that they be in monogamous relationships rather than in the promiscuous lifestyle so many (gay and straight) people espouse? To me it seems like a step in the right direction.
Agreed! The only problem is how it would affect religious liberty in churches.
I am still trying to figure out how someone who cannot help how they were born (especially a nonreligious person) can be expected to not practice their rights. The evidence is overwhelming to those who will look and listen and be honest, that this syndrome is not one that is chosen. That is what makes the difference.
There is no fear involved, when recognition of the actual happenings are already underway, and shortly to gain
momentum. It’s the reality we face, and time to prepare the best we can, and face the inevitable with indomitable spirit, in the power and grace of our Lord God Jesus Christ. If you’ve missed the economic stress and distress of nations since 2008, as indicated by the continued Global economic forfeiture of the art of responsible Financial Planning and balancing of budgets. Irresponsibility by endless printing fiat currencies
24/7, “out of thin air”, with nothing of value undergirding the
printed paper. This paradigm will result in the capitulation of all global currencies (planned by the ELITE BANKERS), preparing the way for their assuming control, and initializing
their “ONE WORLD CONTROL” of the masses, and all that entails, when ultimate power is in the hands of those who determine who can buy and sell. You can throw up your hands and scream, be fearfully rigid, ignore the harbingers, or prepare yourself and
family for what’s coming. Better to be a few years early than one day short. Greece is the first to fall, to be soon followed by Spain, Italy, and Ireland, Portugal. The handwriting is on the wall. Think about it.
The govt. cannot and will find it impossible to control the morality of the masses. UNLESS, they become a singular form of world domination, and dictate the instant death penalty for anyone contravening their statutes.
The state, formed under the auspices of a “loving God”, will be
a role model of love and grace. We are a few, existing in a “godless world”. Stiffen up your spine. Resist the godless masses
Nicely and fairly stated, Ken! In response to your first thought, Some – perhaps many – of us who believe in God and His Word genuinely believe that His stated definition of marriage is that it be between one man and one woman, I would like to say:
Some – perhaps many – of us who believe in God and His Word genuinely believe that while God originally (before the Fall) planned that marriage would be between one man and one woman, also patiently allowed polygamy, prostitution of one’s daughter, and the subjugation of women in OT times, and I believe, today, has sympathy for and pity on those born with a different sexual orientation (or He could have just made it so such babies would be automatically aborted). None of us are born perfect in this fallen world – we all have to live with the handicaps we are born with. I know many wonderful LGBTI persons who simply want the comfort of a lifetime partner to grow old and share memories with. I believe God would rather this happen than for them to live miserable, lonely lives, constantly tempted by their own attractions, unable to rid their minds of them, and persecuted and condemned for something that they were born with.
“I believe God would rather this happen than for them to live miserable, lonely lives, constantly tempted by their own attractions, unable to rid their minds of them, and persecuted and condemned for something that they were born with.”
Nature or nurture? The jury is still out. How can you pretend to speak for God when His Word explicitly condemns same sex unions?
How do you know that He patiently allowed human excesses?
What bothers me badly about this whole issue is legalizing this allows these couples to adopt children and bring them up around this life style.
one of many ‘issues’ eh?
That’s been happening in many states for quite a while. If you know of any studies showing deleterious effects due to such adoptions and families, please cite it.
What is the LGBT “lifestyle”?
LGBT people do not have a “lifestyle”.
Like the vast majority of us they have diverse ways of living.
Fact 1: LGBT people have been raising children from the beginning of history.
Some LGBT people marry heterosexually and in fact a majority still do. They raise children.
Fact 2: LGBT people who are in gay relationships have been raising children for decades. This us nothing new.
Most times the children are their own from previous relationships; other times they adopt, and are actually known for adopting children who are difficult to place.
So let us not use children to engender fear about LGBT people. They’re no more a danger to children than straight people.
You are absolutely correct about the disservice to children but it seems that hardly anyone on the left gives a hoot about a child’s welfare. It has been known for years that a child needs the influence of a mother and father, not two mothers or two fathers.
Maranatha
My reply was intended to reinforce Steve Tanner’s concerns.
These concerns are unfounded. There is simply no evidence for them.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision on Same Sex Marriages will not change how churches perform marriages within their confines of their house of worship nor will it change their belief. Marriage in churches will still go on. Besides, Canada has allowed gay marriage for ten (10) years. Furthermore, the court decision was a legal issue not a spiritual issue.
Many Adventists see “the sky is falling” with any Supreme Court ruling or new law that is expected to hamper their rights. But have failed to give any example of how that can happen. Under the present ruling there is nothing that will change the position of churches or force them to make any changes.
The kicker is if you have confidence, based on the competence and rationality of elected leaders and their judicial appointees, that the tight wire balancing act of religious liberty (described below) can be successfully negotiated in perpetuity, then you will believe/disbelieve anything.
If you believe that there will not be a cultural backlash to this then you haven’t been paying attention to backlashes.
What is “cultural backlash”?
LGBT people have been marrying in Canada for ten years now.
Fifteen years now in the Netherlands.
Furthermore those who would lead any “backlash” in the past are fast becoming a minority demographically.
The two dominant concerns are in conflict. Religious liberty includes the right to be free from someone else’s religion and theology. This is one of the dominant concerns. Although many, my self included, are thoroughly convinced that homosexual intercourse is a sin; and therefore homosexual marriage is inherently sinful, don’t we have to grant those who do not share our religious and theological conviction the right to be free from our religion, theology, and interpretation of Scripture?
Christians, who claim to want to be free of such things as Sharia Law, cannot logically impose their beliefs on others.
The conflicting concern is that the state, which has now sanctioned that which conservative Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe is sinful, must not prohibit or intimidate the free exercise of the religions of those who theologically oppose and refuse to acknowledge that which the state has now nonetheless sanctioned.
It is a conflicting concern because we are talking about legal and constitutional rights; and here is the rub: the church ultimately then has the right to discriminate; but does not have the right to impose its doctrinal beliefs onto the state, and the state does not have the right to impose its authority into religion.
I do not recall where in the Bible polygamy is proscribed except in Paul’s mysogynist view. So where is this commandment of one man one woman found?
If God solemnizes and accepts a gay wedding,is gay sex no longer adultery or some other sin?
Does a civil gay wedding erase sin of gay sex?
Obviously the Supreme Ct exceeded its Constitutional prerogatives in this decision.
Why does such a very small group of persons who engage in aberrant behavior receive so much attention?
If SDAS worked with such diligence in spreading the Gospel maybe earth’s final days would have already passed.
Mmaranatha
In regard to point #3, I wish that were so, however, just very recently in the state of Oregon, Sweet Cakes Bakery in Gresham, declined to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Rather than going elsewhere the couple has caused such a problem, the bakery has had to close down, been fined 135,000 dollars and ordered not to discuss it by the state. This has certainly infringed on their religious liberty, and they are not the only ones. It is only a matter of time until all Christians are impacted by by this issue.
I see Elaine has not answered to defend her position!!
TO: AK
If you read James Standish’s comments in the Adventist Record titled ‘Loss’ you will get more perspective on Interested Party’s comments about missing a father or a mother!
Do Standish’s comments constitute a study or an opinion piece? I asked for a study. Could you give me a link? I just looked at that site. The article you reference is not readily at hand.
Missing a father or a mother happens regularly in opposite sex marital situations.
Eileen refers to a Gresham, Oregon bakery that refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. Some of us have difficulty understanding how discriminating in commerce against a particular group is really an exercise of religious liberty. Would a refusal to sell a cake to an interracial couple be an exercise of religious liberty if the bakery owners were sincere bigots? In Richland, Washington a florist was sued for refusing to sell flowers for a gay wedding. I had some doubts about the right of the state to sue her until I read the judge’s decision in the case. The florist’s actions were the object of the lawsuit, not her religious beliefs. Read the decision if you really want to know the legal issues. http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Home/News/Press_Releases/2015/Arlene%27s%20Flowers%20summary%20judgment.pdf