Bob Thiel, the leader of the "Continuing Church of God" (an Armstrongist splinter group), has his panties in a wad over the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints support for the Respect for Marriage Act. According to Bob, these folks have guaranteed that "sinful behavior" has been legalized. He went on to ask: "What about those, like us in the Continuing Church of God, who consider same-sex relations an abomination and that same-sex couples cannot have a real marriage?" (For those who are interested, you can peruse Bob's commentary at your leisure at Mormon Church Endorses, then U.S. Senate Passes, pro-homosexual marriage bill) Apparently, Bob feels that this act somehow violates his religious freedom - though he never quite gets around to explaining how it does that.
Poor Bob doesn't seem to understand that a civil government has the right and authority to define and license marriage in whatever way seems best to them. In the United States, Bob and other religious leaders are able to define marriage according to the dictates of their own beliefs and consciences without government interference. Indeed, they can set any standards and perform any rituals which they deem appropriate and necessary to satisfy their religious beliefs. Nevertheless, for a marriage to be recognized by the state as legal and binding, it must conform to the laws which the state has instituted. In other words, Bob must have skipped any government or civics classes offered by whatever school he attended, because this is very basic stuff!
In reality, Bob simply longs for the good old days when it was perfectly acceptable to openly discriminate against LGBTQ people and deny them equal rights! The truth is that neither the Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage nor this act of Congress in ANY way infringes on Bob's right to define marriage in whatever way seems best to him. Bob (along with folks who think like him) is still free to define marriage as being between "one man and one woman." No one is forcing him to perform or endorse a same sex marriage! I suspect what really sticks in old Bob's craw is the implication that a gay person could be permitted to enjoy the happiness, stability, and other benefits that derive from a monogamous union sanctioned by the state.
As for the Bible, Bob apparently rejects the notion that a gay person could ever be considered moral and respectable. After all, gay people don't really love each other, do they? Gay people aren't really capable of being faithful to one person, are they? It may not be good for a man to be alone, but it's OK for a gay person to be alone - right? Marriage is an honorable estate for everyone - EXCEPT gay folks, right? A man should leave his parents' home and cleave to his spouse, EXCEPT if he's gay, right? A person should NEVER go against his/her nature or violate the dictates of his/her conscience - UNLESS he/she is gay, right? I mean, why would we allow a homosexual couple who has been together for fifty years to share property or have any survivorship rights? Why on earth would we allow homosexual couples to make medical decisions for each other, visit each other in the hospital, or allow them to make funeral arrangements for each other when one of them dies? Maybe the more appropriate question should be, what do any of the rest of us lose by allowing them these things that the rest of us take for granted?
Finally, just for the record, the way that Bob and his allies characterize what the Bible has to say about homosexuality is obscene! Although I have written extensively on this subject, I felt that it was necessary to point out that Bob's interpretation of Scripture in this regard is NOT universally accepted. First, we should note that our understanding of human sexuality is much more extensive than it was two or three thousand years ago! Indeed, the notion of sexual orientation was wholly unknown to the people whom God used to write Scripture. Second, in ancient times, among many of the pagan peoples in and around the Promised Land, it was apparently standard practice to worship their deities with sexual acts that often involved both male and female temple prostitutes. Hence, many of the Scriptural references to same gender sexual relations are made within this context. Finally, the characterization of Sodom as a homosexual city is ABSURD! In the entire history of humankind on this planet, there has NEVER been a city where the entire population was homosexual! In this connection, notice what the prophet Ezekiel had to say about this city. Speaking about the sinfulness of the Jews, he wrote: "As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen." (Ezekiel 16:48-50, NLT) The narrative that God wiped out Sodom as a consequence of the homosexuality of its population is NOT supported by Scripture!
It should also be noted that Bob was very selective in what he included and excluded from Scripture when discussing this subject. Like many of his like-minded associates in the ministry of the ACOGs, he failed to mention or account for God's apparent endorsement (or at least toleration of) polygamy in Old Testament Times. What does that do to the "one man, one woman" formula? Likewise, Bob mentioned that God condemned cross-dressing, but he fails to account for God's condemnation of wearing blended fabric clothing! Talk about cherry-picking!
In supreme self-righteous prudery, Bob concluded with this statement: "So, leaders that ignore what the Bible teaches are leading others toward destruction." Well, there, at last, is a statement with which I can entirely agree!
Without commenting on the full post, let me strike a particular note in favor of Universalism (the evangelical variety, see Gregory MacDonald, that requires repentance at sometime and someplace as God provides. Otherwise, it could be called No-Free-Lunch Universalism. Karl Barth, Von Balthasar and Thomas Torrance waltzed up to the front door of this kind of Universalism but decided to just stand on the welcome mat).
ReplyDeleteJesus said concerning Sodom (NRSV):
"And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. “For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."
Jesus points out clearly that God had the necessary persuasive powers to reform Sodom if he had wanted to. Jesus indicates that the Sodomites had a greater inclination to believe in God in faith than the generation of Jews he was dealing with. He was using this comparison as a rebuke to that generation of Jews who were witnesses of the power of God though Jesus.
And why did God deny this divine and effectual persuasion to the Sodomites? This is not explained. But it would be exceedingly unfair if God could have converted the Sodomites and did not if this were to result in the loss to them of salvation. God could have saved them but for some reason or purpose didn't - one might conclude based on the later non-Univeralist, non-Patristic soteriology of the Christian movement. The solution is easy for Calvinists who believe, "It is what it is." But Calivinism presumes a God that you might not be happy with.
The solution is also easy in Universalism but with retaining a belief in a loving God. The Sodomites will be reformed when and where God determines. And they will be a part of the Apokatatstasis like every other group of reformed sinners. This forces one to reconsider the nature of Hell but this is as far as I will go.
Note: I am not equating Sodomites here with homosexuals as the literature has developed. The vices of the Sodomites ranged far and wide and could be thought of as symbolic of all of Godless mankind. I am using this latter sense.