Why It Is a Big Deal that Presbyterians Redefined Marriage
Because Presbyterians redefined marriage we are going to see more ignorance of the Bible
Basically, when people want to learn something, they look it up on the internet. And, all too often, what they really want to learn is “Why I am right.” The news story about the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) endorsing “gay marriage” will feed that lust for misinformation. If you have a child or grandchild struggling with same sex temptations, you had better pray they talk to you about it before they do “research” on the world wide web.
Thus, there is an ongoing effort to pretend that the Bible really supports homosexual practice and homosexual “marriage” rather than simply throwing the Bible out as a false document. I don’t understand where this impulse comes from. It would be far more honest to stop pretending the Bible is even ambiguous on the matter and simply tell people that the Bible is a false document and that the god portrayed therein is a non-existent god.
But somehow a great many people would rather lie about the Bible and lie about the god portrayed therein. And now the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is doing more to feed that weird need to disobey God and pretend that we aren’t disobeying him at the same time.
By the way, there are other Presbyterian denominations, and many of them have not lied about the content of the Bible as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has done.
Here are a few points about the content of the Bible:
- The creation account (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) defines marriage as heterosexual.
- The Ten Commandments presuppose that marriage is heterosexual.
- The stuff you hear about how “the Old Testament also condemns shellfish” is anti-intellectual garbage repeated by the ignorant to spread ignorance. Yes Israel was supposed to abstain from certain animals but God-fearing Gentiles were never expected to follow those dictates (which is why Christians don’t either). There was never any confusion about rules like not stealing, murdering, or fornicating and rules banning Jews from eating animals that didn’t have split hooves.
- Jesus explicitly refers to Genesis 2 and creation to give the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman (Matthew 19.1-6). He states that the alternative to this arrangement is celibacy (Matthew 19.10-12).
- The Apostle Paul tells us that cultures are given over to homosexuality as judgment of idolatry. You can find this in Romans chapter 1. I don’t think this proves you need to assume you are guilty of idolatry if you are dealing with same-sex erotic attractions. Paul is talking about how nations work in human history. Cultures that are dominated by theological inversion (worshipping the creature rather than the creator) are beset with sexual inversion. In a culture dominated by God-deniers, the leading deniers are not necessarily the same ones who have to deal with sexual inversion. But it is still quite obvious that homosexual actions (as opposed to temptations) are sinful in the Bible.
- The Apostle Paul again: People who give in to homosexual temptations and refuse to repent of that lifestyle” will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” The church, says Paul, is made up of ex-homosexuals—along with ex-thieves and ex-heavy-drinkers—who have been forgiven and declared right with God (1st Corinthians 6).
I’ve been reading the Bible for a long time. There is no passage of literary interpretation that can contradict my basic argument. Homosexual practice is condemned as a perversion of sex in all the Bible and marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. The fact that polygamy was tolerated for a time does not change the message. People who practice homosexuality need to stop and entrust themselves to Jesus in order to inherit eternal life.
Why the quest for a religious permission? Why don’t those Presbyterians just give up and stop calling themselves Christians?
I think part of the reason is that there is no secular rationale for homosexual marriage. A major plank of contemporary atheism is Darwinian evolution—which doesn’t make any sense of declaring that homosexual marriage is a good thing. The only thing that really justifies homosexual marriage is a superstitious belief that whatever two people want to do together must work out to the good of all involved, including any children adopted from a heterosexual union (because, believe it or not, homosexual unions don’t produce children).
So demanding homosexual marriage as an institution requires a bit of superstition.
PS: On a barely related note: I also posted today about a believer in homosexual marriage to whom, for some reason, many conservatives listen.