The Missing Links – February 10, 2013

  • A self-described lesbian leftist professor describes her conversion at Christianity Today.  “I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired. But the Bible got to be bigger inside me than I. It overflowed into my world. I fought against it with all my might. Then, one Sunday morning, I rose from the bed of my lesbian lover, and an hour later sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church.”
  • a Liberal-Democrat Member of Parliament and former minister, explaining why she voted against the redefinition of marriage in the British Parliament on February 5.   “My concern, however, is that by moving to a definition of marriage that no longer requires sexual difference, we will, over time, ultimately decouple the definition of marriage from family life altogether. I doubt that this change will be immediate. It will be gradual, as perceptions of what marriage is and is for shift. But we can already see the foundations for this shift in the debate about same-sex marriage. Those who argue for a change in the law do so by saying that surely marriage is just about love between two people and so is of nobody else’s business. Once the concept of marriage has become established in social consciousness as an entirely private matter about love and commitment alone, without any link to family, I fear that it will accelerate changes already occurring that makes family life more unstable.”
Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

Recommended Blog – Harvard’s The Fish Tank

I’ve just become aware of this theology blog, which is the blog of the Harvard Icthus: A Journal of Christian Thought.  The content of the journal itself is available online, and the newest issue has some interesting-looking articles like “A Christian View of Propositions” and “An Apologetic for God’s Existence.”

One of the recent posts I especially liked, “Commanded to Love,” makes the excellent point that Jesus’ command to love our neighbor in Scripture can’t be used as a blanket justification for any and all behavior—in this case, homosexual behavior.

The author describes a recent film called The Constant Process about a lesbian Episcopal priest named Susan Russell.

In the film, to defend her position on homosexuality, Susan Russell referred to Mark 12:28-31,  in which Jesus declares the two greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Yet I am unsure as to how loving another person somehow translates into condoning any particular behavior. After all, we are called to love murderers, adulterers, liars, and thieves; that does not mean that murder, adultery, lying, and thievery are not sins. In fact, it would seem that practicing love includes condemning these sins.

1 John 5:3 tells us that love for God is “to obey his commandments.” When we consider this in the context of loving others, it appears that we should assist each other in obeying God’s commandments. In other words, when Christians sin, other Christians should point it out and try to help correct the behavior of their brothers. Hebrews 10:24 tells us to “spur one another on toward love and good deeds.” Jesus even provides a guideline for how to go about doing so in Matthew 18:15-18.

If loving each other means helping each other obey God’s commandments, then our arguments over gay marriage and homosexuality ought to focus on God’s commandments concerning homosexuality. It is a moot point to use the commandment to love each other as justification for any position on homosexuality . . .

Good point.  Unfortunately, many people see “love” as a free pass for any personal choice.  But true love often calls for opposing what is harmful.  “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov. 27:6).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Miss Calif. Says Traditional Marriage Answer ‘Cost Me My Crown’

I admire Carrie Prejean, Miss California, for sticking to her guns.

As the Christian Post reports:

Miss California Carrie Prejean, who was named first runner up in the Miss USA Pageant on Sunday, says she believes her answer on same-sex marriage cost her the title but admits that she has no regrets.

During the Las Vegas pageant, Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, asked Prejean whether every state should follow Vermont’s recent move to legalize same-sex marriage.

“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other,” responded Prejean. “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.”

“And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman,” she continued. “No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

On Monday, Prejean spoke about the gay marriage question to entertainment host Billy Bush, co-host of the NBC ceremony.

“It did cost me my crown,” Carrie told Bush on his radio talk show. “I wouldn’t have had it any other way. I said what I feel. I stated an opinion that was true to myself and that’s all I can do.”

“It is a very touchy subject and he is a homosexual and I see where he was coming from and I see the audience would’ve wanted me to be more politically correct,” she added. “But I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Bookmark and Share