Truth and Preference

Generations change in their orientations related to almost anything we identify as social.  God permits, in common grace, for nations to work through and adopt for social benefit, whatever peaceful laws work for them.  The laws ought to be directed toward peace, freedom and in a context of respect (love) for mankind.  The best laws permit the functioning of minorities and majorities, as long as those minorities and majorities do not resort to violence.  Vituperation in verbal exchange is a form of violence and should not occur, but is more acceptable than physical violence.  Differences in culture ought to be faced by all persons in discussion of effectiveness and ineffectiveness, of right and wrong, of respect, rights and freedom.

This humane and respectful approach to human differences is not to be interpreted as approval but acceptance by God for the conclusions and patterns for life that are ultimately approved in legal or permissive processes.  For whatever reasons, sound or flimsy, the individual has the right, sometimes a prevailing obligation, to resist that which is approved in society.  For the Christian the foundation for support or resistance to any social pattern is based on Scripture.  The general rule is that whatever is not spoken against in Scripture is permitted in the society.  The affirmations of Scripture are to be supported, modeled and sought in the Christian’s participation in the society, but respecting the persons who form and live by whatever laws emanating out of humanistic systems.  We will use the current (2013) accent related to same sex marriage to clarify the above perception and the Christian orientation, both of which are to be respected for the context they represent.  They should not be confused.  The humanist and the Christian gaining common grace from God will try to live within the natural laws.  The Christian has the obligation to live within the morality of Scriptural admonition.  The first problem for the Christian is to discover what that spiritual context is, and then follow it.  Cacophony of voices may make that difficult.

The headline of one story for October 21, 2013 was: Detroit Baptist Pastor, Allyson Abrams Resigns After Marrying a Woman. She resigned because she felt the church would split if she remained.  Her concern for the congregation, in my opinion, shows her basic wisdom in the treatment of a matter that was decoded in favor of others rather than self.  But the problem relates not to common grace that permits whatever the society permits, but to the interpretation of the Christian context.  The problem has several issues about which we do not have adequate review and reporting.  Scripture would have us work through our marriages.  This lady had been married brfore, but that did not work out.  We do not know the details. Scripture would have us develop friendship (without sexual meaning) but that would not include marriage intimacy.  Scripture would have us keep the law, but the lady disregarded that and went to another locale to marry and then return to her rejected legal context (even if that context is on the verge of some repeal). She offered the proposition that: same sex marriage is aligned with Christian teachings.  To be fair we would need to hear her argumentation, but the Scripture has some firm words to offer against both the belief in homosexuality and the practice of it.  Her assertion, according to the report follows: The Bible teaches that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will be accepted into God’s realm . . . . For the Bible could not be clearer.  Such a statement presents several problems: 1) – if the assertion is true, it could have been clearer; 2) – if the assertion is true it applies only in emergency situations like that of the malefactor’s case crucified next to Jesus, as the New Testament makes the growth of righteousness in the Christian as proof to the Christian that his or her faith is genuine, and does not presume upon an easy redemption; and, 3) – if the new concept introduced by Abrams is legitimate we have a new debate on biblical meanings.  In this last she argues that she does not care if her mate is male or female in that the love God gives is the point of the marriage.  We are asked to shift the debate from gender identity to the nature of God’s love to cover any type of relationship that may be entitled as marriage.  Such a concept has been conjured by persons to relate to their pets, even to the point of making their pets beneficiaries of their legacies. The Christian will be faced in the future with legal oddities against sacred marriage and friendship. It is a repetitive approach.