You are here“The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage”? by Gary DeMar

“The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage”? by Gary DeMar

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Mick - Posted on 14 March 2010

Olson wants the right of homosexuals to “pursue happiness” but without the moral restrictions of the Creator who sets the limits of what a person chooses that makes him happy. All types of behaviors make people happy. Just because a person pursues that happy behavior does not make that behavior morally acceptable in the sight of God, and in the end, only God’s sight matters. In that same Declaration that Olson appeals to, God is said to be “the Supreme Judge of the World.” He is not a judge in the abstract. The signers believed that God judged in particular ways. They understood that you can’t have “unalienable rights” without a Creator, and you can’t make a moral statement against civil tyranny without a Supreme Judge. The same is true of other behaviors.

Keep in mind that Olson is supporting homosexual marriage. Marriage is a creation ordinance (Gen. 2:20–25; Matt. 19:4–6) that must be protected by the State not redefined by the State. There is no such thing as marriage without God. Homosexuals want God’s blessing of their union, but they don’t want God’s definition of marriage.

read the rest of Gary's Article here:
http://www.americanvision.org/article/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marr...

I posted something on this Newsweek article back in January. Gary does far superior job with this subject. If you are interested you can review my thoughts here:
http://planetpreterist.com/content/conservative-politics-homsexual-marri...

Tags
Virgil's picture

Gary wrote: "Keep in mind that Olson is supporting homosexual marriage. Marriage is a creation ordinance (Gen. 2:20–25; Matt. 19:4–6) that must be protected by the State not redefined by the State."

I disagree with this premise...the state's role is not to protect OR define marriage. In fact, "the state" is quite a modern structure which did not exist in Genesis or in the first century, at least not in the sense Gary is referencing. If Gary is wiling to let the State protect marriage, then he shouldn't protest when the State does what the State always does...adapt to satisfy the masses.

Christians need to stop asking the government for permission to marry, to be told what marriage is, and to bow before the bureaucrats in obedience of their rules. Let's start living our lives outside of the paradigm established by statists and start creating our own Church-centered, where the State means little and their rules just don't need to apply.

Mick's picture

Virgil,

I suspect Gary would appeal to Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

I submit we need to start demanding accountability and intellectual honesty. We need to stop fearing to speak where the Bible speaks and once again assert what is right and wrong because of what the Bible says. We need to stop fearing the “wall of separation charge” and insist on understanding what the founders meant by that. We need to show philosophically that secular humanism, ethical egoism and rational self interest are all religious views. They just worship the mind of man instead of the mind of YHWH.
Look at the arguments that Olsen presents as the reasons why “conservative” reject homosexual marriage. They are weak and nonsense. Yet when he is confronted with the “religious” argument against homosexual marriage does not argue why the religious view is invalid, he says

I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

That is like saying, using an analogy we are all familiar with here at PP, the Revelation 21 is not fulfilled in our lives today because people still cry, die and feel pain. I submit an argument against the scriptures must come from the scriptures. That is why I find Olsen’s reasoning flawed.

Mickey E. Denen

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Virgil,

I agree.

One thing to ponder. There is a difference between a marriage covenant and a marriage license.

Everything the state has to do with marriage today is based on the license. If you look up license in any law dictionary you will find that it is a permit; that is, permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal. The license also makes the state a "third-party" in the marriage.

Did God give the state the right and authority over marriage to license it? In other words, does the state own the marriage institution? Did God say the state should be a party in the marriage? I say no, in both counts. In fact, I say that Christians who accept that without question and support the concept are already in the process of giving to the state that which does not belong to the state. That road ends in idolatry.

Right-wing, "conservative" Christians want the state to use the license in the way they find attractive. Total folly. My opinion is that Christians need first recognize marriage for what it is. Then they need to tell the state to get out of it, as the authorized "owner" of the process. Let families and individuals do what they have been doing since Genesis. Did anyone go to the government for a license to marry in the Bible? Neo-con "conservative" Christians never seem to ask themselves that biblical question. Yet they are bought and sold over the idolatrous statist concept.

The day Christians gave marriage over as property of the state to be dispensed via license is the day that Christians lost biblical marriage.

What is coming, homosexual marriage included, is merely the logical outcome of the notion that marriage belongs to the state to dispense at its own will. Perhaps when it comes Christians will finally wise up and tell the state to get out of God's business.

Blessings,

Tim Martin

P.S. Here is an example of a marriage covenant that has been in use among my community at Covenant Community Church for the last 16 years.

http://www.truthinliving.org/Marriage_Covenant.php

Mick's picture

Tim,
Virgil and I continued our conversation Sunday morning and did not get recorded here. I agree, the state has control because Christians allowed them to take control. If I undestand the passage in Romans correctly, the solution is for Christians to do the "good" required by God, then the governing authorities would be changed by God and our freedoms would be restored.

I submit the Christians of our nation has forgotten what it means to be "under God" and "blessed by God." Both of these expressions recognize God as the source of the solutions to society not government. Our consumer minded society only sees the blessings of God as something financial. The Christians of our nation have forgotten the responsiblity to be a blessing to God Psalm 26:12, which gets back to the good of Romans 13.

Mickey

Mickey E. Denen

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Mickey,

I suspect we have quite a different "take" on Rom. 13.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let me create this scenario:

Let's say it is sometime after 2014. There is a believing family in your area that does not have health insurance. They object to the state control of health care by the state on both biblical and practical grounds.

One of their children (or perhaps a parent) becomes sick. They come to you and offer cash for your services as a medical doctor.

Would you provide care? Would you report that family to the governing authorities as lawbreakers?

Curious,

Tim Martin

Virgil's picture

Tim, and that's the way I think people will eventually start the civil disobedience process to actively opposed abusive government authority. I think this legislation is only the beginning and the wake up call for folks concerned with freedom and liberty.

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Virgil,

I'm hoping that Montana (and a few other states) opts out of the entire thing before it gets to that point. Judging from my interaction around here, I suspect that is a real possibility. I've heard similar rumblings about Arizona and Oklahoma.

Still, whether that happens or not will not change my approach. At least I have a lot of friends around here who are in the same boat. Talk about a great environment to build strong relationships with the local community!

We've got a draft declaration. Next meeting is third Thurs. of April... kind of funny. Check that date and you'll see what I mean.

Tim Martin

Virgil's picture

Whatever you do, you better post it here or keep me updated with what's going on!! :)

Mick's picture

Tim
That is easier than you think. By 2014, I will be salaried by the federal government and paid the same regardless of whom I see or what I do.

I would see them in my home for free, [or maybe for silver.:)]

Do you not agree that when Christians start to live by doing the good that God desires, the nation's governing authorities will change by the will of YHWH. We have the government we have now because people turned to the Government for the solutions to their problems and not YWHW. He has given "us" what "we" desired. Is that not Paul's major point?

I must say I am offended that you would consider the possibility that I would turn them in as lawbreakers. What Christian in the first century worshiped Caesar? Is it not the case that Christians suffered economic and social consequences at the hands of both Jewish and Gentile governing authorities to do the good that God required independent of the Law or the law?

Mickey

Mickey E. Denen

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Mickey,

I actually thought of listing gold or silver coins as payment in my hypothetical; funny you should mention that.

I am in general agreement with your analysis. The one thing I would emphasize is that it will be concrete action that will make a difference. When people "turned to the Government" they engaged in certain actions. They signed the forms and cashed the checks. They went along. They got comfortable rationalizing their participation. Slavery never comes about by magic. It comes by active participation. Likewise, the solution will not be merely wishing and hoping for something different. So long as everyone keeps doing what they were doing in the past, nothing will change. When the actions change, then there is hope for a better future. The problem is that tyrants have a long history of getting used to their gig. They don't like it when people say, "Uh uh, no more."

Going a step further, the only way I can see that people will change their actions is when their beliefs about God's Word concerning government changes. I personally believe that the common view among Christians of Romans 13 is completely mistaken on at least two points.

The first mistake is that Christians don't even understand that Paul calls those who bear the sword God's "ministers." In my mind, that explains an awful lot. God's ministers do God's will. Those who do not do God's will are not his ministers. It is as simple as that. Paul qualifies his entire discussion from the very beginning. I don't think Paul intended for Christians to have Nero jump to people's mind when he wrote about God's minister for justice. After all, it was Rome who killed Paul and brought about persecution on the Christians (at the instigation of the Jews, of course). They didn't do it because the Christians were obeying Rome's edicts. Most thinking people can sense a problem right here with the common conception of Romans 13

What Christians don't understand today is that all authority in this world is God's authority. God delegates his authority to his subordinates, his ministers. Those who reject God's rule and decide to rule on their own, for their own ends, have no authority. All they have is force. There is a well developed legal tradition, though now forgotten, which asserts "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." I believe the flip side is also true.

I constantly teach my children that there is a difference between authority and force. Authority and force two different things entirely. Most "conservative" Christians I know who discuss Rom. 13 believe they are the same thing. In fact, they believe you identify the lawful government by seeing who is capable of the most force. Why in the world do they do that? Because that is how they were taught to read Romans 13, a passage that, ironically, discusses God's ministers...

When I get into those discussions I try to use historical examples to foster thought. I ask, "Did the signers of the Declaration of Independence and American patriots who repelled the British soldiers obey Romans 13?" You see, in my view they absolutely did. Force and authority are not the same thing. The crown "broke covenant" with the colonies and in so doing forfeited any lawful authority in America. I believe one side was vindicated by God in the end; God doesn't bless rebellion. Yet, I have had Christians who have told me they believe the signers of the Declaration and the American Patriots were in sin when they rebelled against England. At least they are consistent with their pathetic view of Romans 13.

That historical precedent is eerily similar to what has happened again in this country. If the authority of the current government has been squandered, then I have the freedom and duty to resist and disobey. It is precisely in that act that I obey God. It's not so much "civil disobedience" as it is divine obedience. God expects nothing less from his people. And the best thing is, that is what God blesses over the long term.

The second big problem I have with the common view of Romans 13 is that I am a preterist. I do not believe Paul was talking generically about any and all governments that happen to exist forever and ever. Paul understood his context. Did you know that Paul gives a time-statement in 13:11? Why would he do that?

You see, Paul understood the covenant context of what was going on in his day. He understood the prophecies of Daniel which speak about God giving "care-taker" authority to four kingdoms/beasts. Rome is that fourth kingdom. Remember, God gave authority to Babylon, then to Medo-Persia, then to Greece, then to Rome. It was authority to do God's will. And in the end Rome did not bear the sword in vain against Jerusalem. That is why Paul told them to "wake up." But getting back to the covenant context in which Paul wrote. What happens during the time of the 4th Kingdom? That is when the kingdom and all authority is given over to the Son of Man.

You see, I don't believe we still live in the exact same covenant context in which Paul lived. We live after the point of transition where God's authority is taken from the 4 kingdoms and given to King Jesus. That is a big problem with most Christians who are futurists. They look to God's kingdom as something that comes in the future, and so suggest that we have to obey "ceasar" now. Nope. Do you see the problem? They have entirely missed the covenant context of what is going on with Paul and his teaching on Rom. 13. Someone needs to write a book on this entire issue as a preterist. But what I am confident of right now is that the preterist implications for civil government are far more radical and revolutionary than we have ever dreamed. You know those colonists? They were practicing preterists even if many of them held futurist theology. Does the saying "No King but Jesus" ring a bell for you?

Then there are the other problems. We don't have a "ceasar" in our political system. How can you apply that text literally to our situation? How would it apply to a system where, ostensibly, the people are the rulers? Technically speaking, wouldn't "ceasar" in our system actually be the Constitution? What happens when the current government disobeys its own law? Big problemo...

I did not present my hypothetical to offend you; I intended it to provoke thought. I am glad that you fully understand that, if things continue in the current direction, you will be a salaried worker for the federal government. Realize what that means. That means the federal government will have rules and details for you to follow. One of those things will be to report any and all who do not purchase the government mandated health insurance. You and I both know they will have a form for that, plus an enforcement wing that will be checking doctors for their compliance.

I am confident that you will do the right thing when that inevitable time comes in the future. But, perhaps, that will be a result of starting to think about the issue today. The most effective action is always deliberate action.

Blessings,

Tim Martin

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43