Are Christians supposed to fight to keep our laws godly?

[Alenee]

We have a petition going around in WA state to defend marriage as between one man and one woman, even to the point that gay couples cannot have basic civil rights that are given to a hetero couple.

 

I have a serious internal battle going on here and want biblical backing for or against fighting this. I know from scripture of course that gay marriage is not godly. However I'm not so sure that as a Christian, I am supposed to fight against legalizing gay marriage. I haven't seen one scripture as of yet that tells us to fight government to keep laws godly. I know that as a Christian, that when I read a particular scripture about one sin or another, that I am not to do said sin. But is it my commission to go about telling others what they're doing is sin? I really don't think so.

 

Dh heard a sermon recently where the pastor said we are not to fight our government.

 

All of this to say, help! I want to do the right thing and am moreso on the side of keeping my nose out of others' business unless I come face to face with it and am urged by the Holy Spirit to speak up. :bigear:

[Bird Girl]

I tend to come from the perspective that I have the freedom to practice my faith here in this country because others have the faith to practice theirs--including nothing at all if they choose. Therefore, I would not vote for a law which was based only on my own religious beliefs (the bible says XYZ and so the law must also say it.) For example, I drink alcohol (it's a part of my church service, even) but alcohol is forbidden by the Qur'an. I would not want a law passed that restricted the production and consumption of alcohol based on what the Qur'an decreed was right, or in this case, wrong.

 

My family is Catholic, and so our perspective may be a little different from that of protestants who identify their religion with that of our founding fathers, and thus, feel entitled to return our country to what they perceive as our "Christian roots." I believe much more in the separation of church and state, and the protection that religious faith receives when it is separate from the rule of law.

[Cricket]

I think about this a lot too. I am very uncomfortable with churches getting together to support certain political agendas. I don't think that is the role of the church. Salvation does not lie in political parties. Does voting against gay marriage get people any closer to reconciliation with God? If churches stuck to preaching the need for salvation and the Gospel, most of these issues would take care of themselves. :) If I have a chance to vote on propositions though, I do vote according to my beliefs.

[Spy Car]

I thought (stipulating that I'm not religious and outside the faith) the prime directive was to love your neighbor?

 

And that one needed to work on the beam in ones own eye before worrying about the mote in an others.

 

Denying ones neighbors the same civil rights we enjoy ourselves strikes me as wrong. If two people of the same gender falling in love and wanting to spend their lives together (with legal protections) is wrong, then as far as I'm concerned it's for each individual to be responsible for his or her own actions. It's certainly not my business if it doesn't cause harm to others or myself.

 

And gay couples being able to marry during the short time it was legal here certainly didn't break my leg.

 

So while I work on that beam in my eye, I'm for letting people be.

 

Bill

Edited July 8, 2009 by Spy Car

[Alenee]

I thought (stipulating that I'm not religious and outside the faith) the prime directive was to love your neighbor?

 

And that one needed to work on the beam in ones own eye before worrying about the mote in an others.

 

Denying ones neighbors the same civil rights we enjoy ourselves strikes me as wrong. If two people of the same gender falling in love and wanting to spend their lives together with legal protections is wrong, then as far as I'm concerned it's for each individual to me responsible for his or her own actions. It's certainly not my business if it doesn't cause harm to others or myself.

 

And gay couples being able to marry during the short time it was legal here certainly didn't break my leg.

 

So while I work on that beam in my eye, I'm for letting people be.

 

Bill

 

I can somewhat see what you're saying but I want to address what I bolded in your quote.

 

First, love doesn't mean just having flowery words and being nice. Love also says and does the hard things when necessary. For instance, if a person asked me if something they were doing was wrong, and I knew that yes, it was wrong, my telling them that it is wrong is the loving thing to do. If I choose to beat them over the head with the truth, that of course isn't loving. But telling them the truth in a way that leaves no room for doubt is still love even when it might cause them pain to hear the truth.

 

Second, the verse you refer to about the beam refers to committing the same sin. If you are preaching to someone not to do a certain thing, yet you yourself indulge in that same act, you are the one with the beam in your eye and shouldn't be the one preaching...as the verse states, you need to remove the beam from your own eye so that you can see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

[nmoira]

 

I have a serious internal battle going on here and want biblical backing for or against fighting this. I know from scripture of course that gay marriage is not godly.

Is any civil marriage godly, even if between a man and a woman? It's my understanding that the answer is "no," but I could be misinformed.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Is any civil marriage godly, even if between a man and a woman? It's my understanding that the answer is "no," but I could be misinformed.

I don't understand.

[Lovedtodeath]

Jesus said that his followers were to be no part of the world. When they wanted to make him an earthly king he refused. His focus remained on preaching even though he had abilities that could be of civil benefit. (controlling the weather, healing, multiplying food) We are commanded to stop mixing in company with someone calling himself a brother who chooses to act in a wrong way (homosexuality). I think that this points to staying out of it.

[EthiopianFood]

I forgot to quote the person who said they support another's right to freedom of belief because they themselves want this same freedom, but I completely agree. I don't think you can say that the government has to respect your beliefs, but then claim that everyone else's beliefs should NOT be respected because they don't line up with yours. I doubt many Evangelicals would agree with all of the founding father's beliefs either.

 

Second, the verse you refer to about the beam refers to committing the same sin. If you are preaching to someone not to do a certain thing, yet you yourself indulge in that same act, you are the one with the beam in your eye and shouldn't be the one preaching...as the verse states, you need to remove the beam from your own eye so that you can see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

 

This is not my interpretation of the verse. I agree with Bill's, and this is coming from someone who comes from a Christian tradition.

 

Is any civil marriage godly, even if between a man and a woman? It's my understanding that the answer is "no," but I could be misinformed.

 

Are you meaning that a civil marriage isn't God's will because it isn't performed under God, so therefore it is a separate category from "traditional" marriage anyway?

[nmoira]

I don't understand.

The OP said that gay marriage is not godly. I was under the impression that any civil marriage is also "not godly" in the Christian sense because there is no union before God. Most people these days don't have a problem with men and women who have a civil marriage only being given the rights and privileges afforded married couples.

 

I just threw that out because sometimes it helps to step back and look at the bigger picture when discussing questions of rights.

[nmoira]

 

Are you meaning that a civil marriage isn't God's will because it isn't performed under God, so therefore it is a separate category from "traditional" marriage anyway?

Yes. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

Oh I see. I though that was a Catholic belief?

[Spy Car]

I can somewhat see what you're saying but I want to address what I bolded in your quote.

 

First, love doesn't mean just having flowery words and being nice. Love also says and does the hard things when necessary. For instance, if a person asked me if something they were doing was wrong, and I knew that yes, it was wrong, my telling them that it is wrong is the loving thing to do. If I choose to beat them over the head with the truth, that of course isn't loving. But telling them the truth in a way that leaves no room for doubt is still love even when it might cause them pain to hear the truth.

 

Under the conditions you outline here, I think a very reasonable case could be made for giving a person seeking your opinion (or of the position of Christian teachings as you best understand them) an honest answer, even if it's not the answer they hoped to hear. That could be called "loving". I'm with you there.

 

But it's quite another thing to actively deny civil rights, including civil marriage, to people we've decided don't merit them.

 

I think love is also about not doing what would be hateful to ourselves to other people. I'd find it hateful if my rights were voted away.

 

And most people marry because they love another person and want to build a life together. What's wrong with that? And isn't it better than the alternative? Sometime it seems to me gays get clobbered for being "promiscuous", but then when they want to settle down with another person in a monogamous relationship they get clobbered again. You must see that I'm sure.

 

Second, the verse you refer to about the beam refers to committing the same sin. If you are preaching to someone not to do a certain thing, yet you yourself indulge in that same act, you are the one with the beam in your eye and shouldn't be the one preaching...as the verse states, you need to remove the beam from your own eye so that you can see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

 

I thought the spirt of this dealt with all sorts of judgement making. And was an acknowledgment that we are all less than perfect and that focusing on our brother's sins while ignoring our own was hypocrisy. My understanding is, however, very limited and I'm not claiming otherwise.

 

I am interested in the original question. Best wishes for finding an answer you're at peace with.

 

Bill

Edited July 8, 2009 by Spy Car

[Erica in PA]

This is a good question! I don't think that Christians *must* stand up politically for this sort of thing, but I think there are good reasons for doing so, if someone choose to go that route. I personally believe that this battle over homosexuality is a bit of a benchmark, in terms of the US moving toward a postmodern, "post-Christianity" culture. For many people I think it does go beyond simply getting benefits for gay couples (hence the resistance to accept merely civil unions as opposed to marriage itself)-- it has to do with gaining society's stamp of approval, and showing that we have "progressed" past the moral and religious standards of the past. For a society to officially sanction what the Bible teaches to be completely wrong (Romans 1), that is clearly not what many Christians would want to see happen. In that sense, I can see feeling the imperative to be the salt of the earth, seeking to preserve and uphold that which is good and right, even in the midst of a sinful world. And isn't that what all of us are doing, when we seek to stand up for various political causes, on either side, standing up for what is right? So I don't see why those who support gay marriage should be the only ones standing in this case (other than that is much, much easier to take that position in today's culture!)

[Danestress]

The OP said that gay marriage is not godly. I was under the impression that any civil marriage is also "not godly" in the Christian sense because there is no union before God. Most people these days don't have a problem with men and women who have a civil marriage only being given the rights and privileges afforded married couples.

 

I just threw that out because sometimes it helps to step back and look at the bigger picture when discussing questions of rights.

 

I thought even the Pilgrims had civil, not religious marriages. It was apparently important to them because the Bible doesn't really have a marriage ceremony. I don't mean to say that they didn't think marriage was Godly or important or condoned by God but that the act of actually binding yourself in marriage was civil. That's my understanding. Am I wrong about that?

Edited July 8, 2009 by Danestress

[Orthodox6]

Yes, it can be.

 

When one studies history, one learns that, in the beginning for Christians, all marriages were "civil" marriages, performed according to the government's requirements. After a while, the Church included the blessing of a marriage as one of her tasks. From this, the sacrament of marriage, with its beautiful service, developed.

 

 

 

Is any civil marriage godly, even if between a man and a woman? It's my understanding that the answer is "no," but I could be misinformed.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Orthodox6

[Alison in KY]

This is a good question! I don't think that Christians *must* stand up politically for this sort of thing, but I think there are good reasons for doing so, if someone choose to go that route. I personally believe that this battle over homosexuality is a bit of a benchmark, in terms of the US moving toward a postmodern, "post-Christianity" culture. For many people I think it does go beyond simply getting benefits for gay couples (hence the resistance to accept merely civil unions as opposed to marriage itself)-- it has to do with gaining society's stamp of approval, and showing that we have "progressed" past the moral and religious standards of the past. For a society to officially sanction what the Bible teaches to be completely wrong (Romans 1), that is clearly not what many Christians would want to see happen. In that sense, I can see feeling the imperative to be the salt of the earth, seeking to preserve and uphold that which is good and right, even in the midst of a sinful world. And isn't that what all of us are doing, when we seek to stand up for various political causes, on either side, standing up for what is right? So I don't see why those who support gay marriage should be the only ones standing in this case (other than that is much, much easier to take that position in today's culture!)

 

:iagree:

[Pamela H in Texas]

Like Carmen mentions, the scriptures talk about staying out of the affairs of the nations at this time. Jesus refused, more than once, to get involved in governmental affairs. He called them on things, but didn't seek to change things (other than to encourage heart changes of individuals, but it was usually the individuals who were abused and neglected by the pharisees and sadducees <sp>).

 

On top of that, there is a concern in getting into things of Satan. The whole issue in the scripture is that Satan talked man into believing he could determine what was best for himself. Throughout history, man has tried various ways of governing himself with constant overall failure. Governments might work for certain issues or even for a short time (The most glaring example from the Hebrew Scriptures is what Solomon's people experienced under his rulership when he was following God), but no government can right the wrongs of Satan and the garden of eden. There is still war, sickness, death, etc. But though it's been thousands of years of not working, Satan still misleads people blinding them to all that hasn't been done through government, encouraging them to "get involved."

 

One big reason not to get involved is that there is only ONE government that will bring about the changes people REALLY want. Peaceful conditions, health, etc can only be brought about by God's Government with his son, Jesus as King. The scriptures talk about how the kings of this earth go up against Jesus and will be crushed. Who wants to be a part of a system that 1) isn't doing God's will now though Jesus left the example for us and 2) is going to be crushed by the one we're to be following?

 

To me, the evidence that we should NOT get involved in whether gays marry (or a number of other things) is CLEAR, not only because the scriptures don't tell us to fight for Godly laws, but because it is evident that we are to be following Jesus' footsteps. And finally because we don't want to be part of a failing system that is slated for destruction.

Edited July 8, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[Kathy in MD]

I can somewhat see what you're saying but I want to address what I bolded in your quote.

 

First, love doesn't mean just having flowery words and being nice. Love also says and does the hard things when necessary. For instance, if a person asked me if something they were doing was wrong, and I knew that yes, it was wrong, my telling them that it is wrong is the loving thing to do. If I choose to beat them over the head with the truth, that of course isn't loving. But telling them the truth in a way that leaves no room for doubt is still love even when it might cause them pain to hear the truth.

.......

 

But denying them the right to family health care benifits, the right to survivor pension rights, the right to family income tax breaks, the right to inheritance tax breaks and even the right to sit by their death bed and make funeral arraigements (unless a seperate legal document is signed) IS beating them over the head. Especially since these are things not Biblically related but "Ceasar" related. ("Grant unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's.....')

 

I prefer to err on the side of love. I'm not wild about homosexual marriage, but I feel that they do need some form of legal protection to rights that heterosexual couples now take for granted.

 

BTW, it wasn't too long ago that widows could lose everything because most states granted all jointly held property to the husband's estate and the widow had to pay inheritance tax on the things she helped pay for and worked for. It wasn't pleasant for the widow and the minor children so why should we insist on the same problems for the less conventional families.

[Blessedfamily]

Like Carmen mentions, the scriptures talk about staying out of the affairs of the nations at this time. Jesus refused, more than once, to get involved in governmental affairs. He called them on things, but didn't seek to change things (other than to encourage heart changes of individuals, but it was usually the individuals who were abused and neglected by the pharisees and sadducees <sp>).

 

On top of that, there is a concern in getting into things of Satan. The whole issue in the scripture is that Satan talked man into believing he could determine what was best for himself. Throughout history, man has tried various ways of governing himself with constant overall failure. Governments might work for certain issues or even for a short time (The most glaring example from the Hebrew Scriptures is what Solomon's people experienced under his rulership when he was following God), but no government can right the wrongs of Satan and the garden of eden. There is still war, sickness, death, etc. But though it's been thousands of years of not working, Satan still misleads people blinding them to all that hasn't been done through government, encouraging them to "get involved."

 

One big reason not to get involved is that there is only ONE government that will bring about the changes people REALLY want. Peaceful conditions, health, etc can only be brought about by God's Government with his son, Jesus as King. The scriptures talk about how the kings of this earth go up against Jesus and will be crushed. Who wants to be a part of a system that 1) isn't doing God's will now though Jesus left the example for us and 2) is going to be crushed by the one we're to be following?

 

To me, the evidence that we should NOT get involved in whether gays marry (or a number of other things) is CLEAR, not only because the scriptures don't tell us to fight for Godly laws, but because it is evident that we are to be following Jesus' footsteps. And finally because we don't want to be part of a failing system that is slated for destruction.

 

 

I'm justing asking to understand (no alterior motive)... does this mean you feel it unscriptural to vote at all? Because if you vote at all, you're involved in government affairs and helping to make these decisions one way or another.

[JFSinIL]

I echo Bird Girl's post.

 

I also believe that if you do not believe in or approve of gay marriages - then you are not gay. Just stick to your hetero lifestyle and leave the gay folks alone. If either of the gay couples who live on my block were able to get married in this state I am sure they would - their marriage would have no impact on mine.

 

Wasn't too long ago that in many states an inter-racial marriage was taboo.

 

Separation of church and state, remember? Gay folks should be able to get a civil marriage in all 50 states. Whether or not any religions also let them wed can be up to the religion.

 

As for "Are Christians supposed to keep our laws Godly" - they are not just YOUR laws. They are also laws for agnostics and Jews and Muslims, gays and straight, black and white, disabled and neuro-typical etc. etc. and etc.

Edited July 8, 2009 by JFSinIL

[TXMomof4]

I thought (stipulating that I'm not religious and outside the faith) the prime directive was to love your neighbor?

 

And that one needed to work on the beam in ones own eye before worrying about the mote in an others.

 

Denying ones neighbors the same civil rights we enjoy ourselves strikes me as wrong. If two people of the same gender falling in love and wanting to spend their lives together (with legal protections) is wrong, then as far as I'm concerned it's for each individual to be responsible for his or her own actions. It's certainly not my business if it doesn't cause harm to others or myself.

 

And gay couples being able to marry during the short time it was legal here certainly didn't break my leg.

 

So while I work on that beam in my eye, I'm for letting people be.

 

Bill

 

I want this day marked in the record books - I'm agreeing with Bill. Kind of. I think that churches need to work on actually being what God intended before we can make our country what God would like. Like a mans first obligation should be to care for his family, the church needs to be sure it is on strong footing before it goes to demand everyone else behave in the way they deem appropriate. What good does it do to campaign against gay marriage and in the process alienate completely the members of the gay community?

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't vote your conscience - I would vote against gay marriage, but I'm not going to give money to a group to campaign against gay marriage when that money could certainly be used in more effective ways to bring others to Christ. I'm not going to spend my time on campaigns against things I disagree with morally when I could spend that time working on a personal level with people that I actually have an opportunity to influence. I doubt there is very little evangelism that occurs on a mass level, and certainly not in a combative "I'm right, you're wrong" political battle.

 

I guess it's not so much about removing the beam from my own eye (although that is something I'm working on) as much as truly loving my neighbor. If all professing Christians actually DID that, wouldn't the world be a better place?

[Happy]

I think Carli's original question is a good one. How politically involved are Christians to be in this world? It doesn't come down to only gay marriage, but abortion, capital punishment, and a host of other things. Let's not get sidetracked with only discussions of the legalities of gay marriage. I believe her question to be bigger than that. (Correct me, Carli, if I've mis-stated.)

 

I have very mixed feelings about this....as a twenty something (a couple of decades ago) I heard a wise, godly older man say one of our problems in the country was that too few Christians got involved in the political system. I believe he was saying that not so much campaigning on the ideals of Christianity (which is what is happening these days) but a hope that if believing, loving, faithful men and women were in involved in decision making, then better decisions would be made on a political level.

 

For a while I believed we should be very politically active, but now, not so much. I AM sick to death of so called 'conservative' politicians being exposed as slime. YUCK. I feel like I've been manipulated a great deal over the years.

 

It's my opinion that Christians want our government to be a 'Godly' one for fear that if U.S. policy and laws don't line up with God's laws then any blessing He would bestow would be removed. It is a valid fear in their eyes and I believe it to be the reason behind the passionate advocating of certain stances.

 

In my personal thought....I keep coming back to Galatians 5:22...the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Against such things there is no law.

 

Perhaps the verse doesn't apply as well as it should in this discussion, but I strongly feel if we as Christians were doing as many of these as well as we could, our country would be a better place.

 

An interesting question.

[nmoira]

Yes, it can be.

When one studies history, one learns that, in the beginning for Christians, all marriages were "civil" marriages, performed according to the government's requirements. After a while, the Church included the blessing of a marriage as one of her tasks. From this, the sacrament of marriage, with its beautiful service, developed.

I'm aware of this, but it doesn't answer my original question as to whether civil marriage between a man and a woman is considered Godly now.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I'm justing asking to understand (no alterior motive)... does this mean you feel it unscriptural to vote at all? Because if you vote at all, you're involved in government affairs and helping to make these decisions one way or another.

 

Yes.

 

Really, it's simpler than that though.

 

People support who they think can get the job done. Someone supports democrats, another supports republicans, this person supports some of each he thinks can get the job done, right? I support the ONLY government *I* believe can REALLY get the job done.

 

Now, I have no doubt there are plenty of other people here that believe only Jesus can really solve all of the country's (and the earth's) problems. The way I see it would be like this:

 

Say the U.S. goes to war with Canada (chosen because of the ridiculousness of the idea). Would you support both the U.S. and Canada's governments, how they chose to handle things, etc? If you were in the position to DO something (as simple as voting but possibly as big as developing strategy) would you do so for both? No, of course not. You would pick a side and if you're smart, you'll pick the winning side! LOL

 

In terms of what is slated to happen (and I believe it because prophesy has proven to come true in the past), I am simply choosing the side that is going to win. And from now through the final battle and into the "new system" I will do things to promote that kingdom, not any other, esp not any other that will fall due to the one I support.

 

:)

[Gretchen in NJ]

I thought (stipulating that I'm not religious and outside the faith) the prime directive was to love your neighbor?

 

And that one needed to work on the beam in ones own eye before worrying about the mote in an others.

 

Denying ones neighbors the same civil rights we enjoy ourselves strikes me as wrong. If two people of the same gender falling in love and wanting to spend their lives together (with legal protections) is wrong, then as far as I'm concerned it's for each individual to be responsible for his or her own actions. It's certainly not my business if it doesn't cause harm to others or myself.

 

And gay couples being able to marry during the short time it was legal here certainly didn't break my leg.

 

So while I work on that beam in my eye, I'm for letting people be.

 

Bill

 

This is not a civil rights issue. People are being mislead into believing it is one. I love this article by Thomas Sowell. Here is a snipet from it:

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

 

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

 

Gays have the same rights as anyone else does This is not a race issue. It is a behavioral issue. Yes, to the OP's question. IMHO, you should keep your faith in mind when deciding which laws to support.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Gretchen in NJ

[Orthodox6]

My answer would be valid only for Orthodox Christians. I don't know about other groups.

 

Sorry my earlier response wasn't helpful !

 

I'm aware of this, but it doesn't answer my original question as to whether civil marriage between a man and a woman is considered Godly now.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Originally Posted by Bird Girl

I tend to come from the perspective that I have the freedom to practice my faith here in this country because others have the faith to practice theirs--including nothing at all if they choose. Therefore, I would not vote for a law which was based only on my own religious beliefs (the bible says XYZ and so the law must also say it.).

 

Another consideration, similar to this, is that from a christian standpoint, we're not trying to force people to behave as God intends for people to behave (or think or feel or whatever). Instead, the scriptures tell us to give people the opportunity to learn about God and choose to love him which will be shown by what they do. The scriptures are CLEAR that there will be people (the great majority of people) who won't make that choice (including a good number of people who call themselves followers of Jesus). That isn't our concern. Our concern is with giving people the opportunity to make the choice and helping further those who choose God. The scriptures say nothing of trying to prevent people from making other choices.

[nmoira]

My answer would be valid only for Orthodox Christians. I don't know about other groups.

 

Sorry my earlier response wasn't helpful !

I appreciate it nonetheless. :) Sometimes forums feel like conversation, so I forge ahead, undoubtedly seeming rather brusque.

[Danestress]

I'm aware of this, but it doesn't answer my original question as to whether civil marriage between a man and a woman is considered Godly now.

 

Considered Godly by whom? If the church has at some point developed rituals around marriage, then are you asking if all marriages performed before that time were "ungodly" or if any marriage that is entered into civilly is "ungodly?" In the eyes of whom? Everyone? Some? Certain denominations?

 

I've never really known any Protestant that believed that only church weddings were legitimate and Godly. Of course many people prefer them (especially mothers of the bride!) but that doesn't mean that civil marriages are "ungodly." I would guess that the majority of evangelical protestants would say that a marriage entered into prayerfully with a mutual desire to Glorify God in the marriage and in the raising of children is "godly" whether it was church blessed or not.

[Gretchen in NJ]

This argument makes no sense to me.

 

What do you find confusing?:confused:

[KarenNC]

I'm aware of this, but it doesn't answer my original question as to whether civil marriage between a man and a woman is considered Godly now.

 

From what I have seen, it depends on the specific marriage and the specific group under discussion. The laws that govern civil marriages are not identical to the religious standards that all various groups of Christians use to determine whether or not they will officially sanction a marriage or recognize it as legitimate.

 

There are groups who will not recognize (as religiously valid) or sanction religiously a marriage where one or both partners has been divorced, but such is not a barrier to civil marriage. There are groups who will not sanction or recognize religiously marriage where there is a specific level of consanguinity (say first cousins), but state laws vary on whether those types of marriages are legally allowed (and in some cases those laws vary depending on the age or reproductive capability of the couple). There are groups who will not recognize or sanction religiously a marriage between people of differing faiths or even differing denominations of the same faith, but those people are not barred from civil marriage.

 

There are also groups who will consider a civil marriage legally and religiously binding, but will not perform the actual ceremony if it contravenes certain religious criteria (due to cohabitation, interfaith status, pregnancy, etc). Sort of betwixt and between, I suppose.

 

The Roman Catholic Church, at least, is known to give religious annulments to those who were legally civilly wed and then divorced, from what I understand on the grounds that it was not a "true" marriage in the first place per their religious criteria. Note that I'm not saying they do this for all civil marriages, but they do for some, so obviously civil marriage does not equal religious marriage in every instance for them.

[Orthodox6]

I did not take amiss anything you wrote ! :) I answered with a "history reply" because of what I ended up writing later -- that my answer to the question (whether "civil" marriages currently would be deemed "Godly" marriages) can apply only to Orthodox Christians. We don't number many at this website, so I did not explain how we view the issue.

 

P.S. The word "now" wasn't in the original version of your question, which also led me in that direction.

 

We all squared now ?!

 

I appreciate it nonetheless. :) Sometimes forums feel like conversation, so I forge ahead, undoubtedly seeming rather brusque.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Orthodox6

[nmoira]

Considered Godly by whom? If the church has at some point developed rituals around marriage, then are you asking if all marriages performed before that time were "ungodly" or if any marriage that is entered into civilly is "ungodly?" In the eyes of whom? Everyone? Some? Certain denominations?

I don't mean it to be that complicated. My point isn't to question the validity of marriages, or to say that marriages should be Godly, but rather that marriages that are not considered Godly already exist and to no great controversy.

 

I've never really known any Protestant that believed that only church weddings were legitimate and Godly. Of course many people prefer them (especially mothers of the bride!) but that doesn't mean that civil marriages are "ungodly." I would guess that the majority of evangelical protestants would say that a marriage entered into prayerfully with a mutual desire to Glorify God in the marriage and in the raising of children is "godly" whether it was church blessed or not.

And so two atheists who get married would not have a Godly marriage?

[OnTheBrink]

I think about this a lot too. I am very uncomfortable with churches getting together to support certain political agendas. I don't think that is the role of the church. Salvation does not lie in political parties. Does voting against gay marriage get people any closer to reconciliation with God? If churches stuck to preaching the need for salvation and the Gospel, most of these issues would take care of themselves. :) If I have a chance to vote on propositions though, I do vote according to my beliefs.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[nmoira]

P.S. The word "now" wasn't in the original version of your question, which also led me in that direction.

 

We all squared now ?!

Absolutely. :)

[Impish]

I'm in Canada. Gay marriage is legal here.

 

Have to say, nothing has changed. My marriage hasn't suddenly become lesser than to me. I haven't felt robbed, or slanted, or like my marriage is suddenly not worth what it was...or any of the other arguments I've heard put forth by folks against same sex marriage. I was married in a church...mind you, not the church that I would ever worship at, we were married at a church of MIL's faith because her brother is a pastor in the same faith, and he asked to perform the ceremony. How's *that* for confusing? :lol:

 

I didn't get to vote on the issue either. :glare:

 

I don't see how it *isn't* an equal rights issue. In God's eyes, all sins are equal. I sin on a daily basis. Everyone does. So how can anyone point to same s*x couples and call them sinners, when none of us are any better? I would even go so far as to say that its like the adulteress who was about to be stoned that Jesus saved. How can Christians point to gay people and refuse them equal rights on the basis of sin when our sins are equal in weight to God?

 

It just makes no sense to me. It was honestly one of the many issues I struggled with when I was turning back to Christ.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I think there should be legal unions that have nothing to do with marriage, per se. That way people could legally join together for health benefits, survivor benefits, financial stuff. It wouldn't be limited to gay couples, but to anyone--elderly sisters, a widowed mother and adult child, etc. I've known lots of people who aren't in love or a couple who would benefit from this type of arrangement and it's protections. The legal benefits of marriage should be available for all.

 

(Of course, I'm sure my lil' plan doesn't have all the kinks worked out, but you get the basic idea.)

[Corrigan]

Hi, I'm newly registered, so I hope you don't mind me joining in this conversation.

 

I'm not religious at this point. I'd consider myself on the atheist side of agnosticism, to be descriptive. However, I was raised in the United Pentecostal Church, so I come from a very, very, very fundamentalist Christian background. One of the reasons I left the church as an adult was exactly because of issues like this.

 

I absolutely do NOT believe that Christians have any imperative to fight for "Godly" laws. Who determines exactly what is "Godly" anyway? The whole notion is ridiculous, IMO, because WHERE would one draw the line? Would it be the Catholics, who could fight for laws requiring weekly confession? Would it be the Baptists, who could fight for laws outlawing dancing in nightclubs or the sale of alchol? Would it be the Pentecostals, who could fight for laws requiring all women to wear skirts that cover their knees? Would it be the Mormons, who could fight for laws requiring everyone to wear the special undergarments? Fighting for laws simply because they would uphold your personal religious beliefs is a slippery slope indeed.

 

Additionally, I agree very strongly with the PP who mentioned that most evangelicals would not agree with the founding fathers on some points. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, if they knew more about many of those men's true religious/spiritual beliefs, as outlined in their surviving letters and writings, they'd disagree with them on many things. It's only been over the last 100 years or so that people have managed to convince themselves that this country was founded and lead by conservative Christians of today's ilk. It's simply not a fact and when people complain about "revisionist history" they often fail to realize that by perpetuating this myth, they're guilty of teaching it themselves.

[theresatwist]

This is not a civil rights issue. People are being mislead into believing it is one. I love this article by Thomas Sowell. Here is a snipet from it:

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

 

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

 

Gays have the same rights as anyone else does This is not a race issue. It is a behavioral issue. Yes, to the OP's question. IMHO, you should keep your faith in mind when deciding which laws to support.

 

I think what you're leaving out is the question of whether homosexuality is a choice and that's really the central question. If you don't believe that homosexuality is a choice (as I don't) then denying homosexuals the right to marriage is no different than denying blacks the right to marriage or people with Down's Syndrome the right to marriage. Hence, the comparison to the civil rights movement I think is accurate. "We're not denying you equal rights! If you were white we'd gladly let you go to the better schools, vote, and own property!"

 

I find the comparison to pedophiles to be really sick. Homosexuality, whether you approve of it or not, is a kind of true and mutual/equal love. A pedophile and his victim does not have that type of relationship. There is no love in that relationship. only fetish. One party is in a position of power, while the other party is the victim.

 

However, I think the most important point is that whether you think forbidding gays to marry is discrimination or not, gays absolutely face discrimination in our society. Remember Matthew Shepherd? The question of whether gays face discrimination should not be limited to the controversy surrounding gay marriage.

[Danestress]

I don't mean it to be that complicated. My point isn't to question the validity of marriages, or to say that marriages should be Godly, but rather that marriages that are not considered Godly already exist and to no great controversy.

 

And so two atheists who get married would not have a Godly marriage?

 

No. Two atheists who get married would probably not be considered to have a "Godly" marriage by most Christians. I guess it depends on how you define "Godly." Without inviting God into it I would imagine most would say that "Godly" isn't the right adjective. That doesn't mean that it's not a happy marriage, a legitimate, loving, honorable, and good marriage that we should honor and support and give legal protection to.

 

I *think* I am in agreement with you - that our society recognizes the legitimacy and social utility of many marriages that are not church sanctioned and blessed, and I would say that's exactly what Government should do.

[Blessedfamily]

Yes.

 

Really, it's simpler than that though.

 

People support who they think can get the job done. Someone supports democrats, another supports republicans, this person supports some of each he thinks can get the job done, right? I support the ONLY government *I* believe can REALLY get the job done.

 

Now, I have no doubt there are plenty of other people here that believe only Jesus can really solve all of the country's (and the earth's) problems. The way I see it would be like this:

 

Say the U.S. goes to war with Canada (chosen because of the ridiculousness of the idea). Would you support both the U.S. and Canada's governments, how they chose to handle things, etc? If you were in the position to DO something (as simple as voting but possibly as big as developing strategy) would you do so for both? No, of course not. You would pick a side and if you're smart, you'll pick the winning side! LOL

 

In terms of what is slated to happen (and I believe it because prophesy has proven to come true in the past), I am simply choosing the side that is going to win. And from now through the final battle and into the "new system" I will do things to promote that kingdom, not any other, esp not any other that will fall due to the one I support.

 

:)

 

Thanks for answering, and you brought up some very good points. :001_smile:

[OnTheBrink]

This is not a civil rights issue. People are being mislead into believing it is one. I love this article by Thomas Sowell. Here is a snipet from it:

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

 

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

 

Gays have the same rights as anyone else does This is not a race issue. It is a behavioral issue. Yes, to the OP's question. IMHO, you should keep your faith in mind when deciding which laws to support.

 

I'd rep you if I could. *visualize green squares*

[BikeBookBread]

I'm glad I'm not the only Christian who has been thinking about this lately. Our pastor has been going through The Beatitudes. The one that many modern (western) Christians have seen to forgotten about is in Matthew 5:10:

 

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 

Yes, we are to be set apart, holy, righteous etc. as Christians. We must vote what we believe to be the Godly stance. However, the time will come (later hopefully rather than sooner) when we won't have a voice. Will we be ready to stand for Christ under the spectre of persecution? Will we consider it a blessing? Because it is. I think the idea of fighting for our "rights" is a very western/American idea. It's not a bad idea...it's great! But....

[plain jane]

I'd rep you if I could. *visualize green squares*

 

Some of these? :D

 

[Rebecca77]

I'm assuming this is what your husband heard. This is an e-mail my pastor sent out responding to it.

 

 

Dear NWBC and Salt and Light patriots,

I love John MacArthur in many ways. He has stood for God’s truth in many areas in which the church has gone astray and we thank God for his ministry. However, there are times when MacArthur makes me want to tear my hair out. So before I go bald, I need to vent.

His current series on “The Christian and Government” is a case in point. For the life of me, I do not understand MacArthur’s consistent passivism when it comes to the church being involved in government and politics. The way MacArthur interprets the Bible in this area is out of step with so many godly Christian leaders both past and present.

Today, I did not hear all of MacArthur's program but at the end he concluded with a comment to the effect that Christians should not protest against their government no matter how evil it is. I find this attitude to be irresponsible in many ways.

First, the government under which the first century Christians lived and the government under which we live are entirely different. Our government is set up as the government of the people, by the people, for the people. Our government derives its authority “from the consent of the governed” unlike the government of Rome which was a dictatorship. In the first century, the citizens had no vote, no right to oppose their government, no way to lawfully change their government. On the contrary, our government gives the people the right and duty to be involved in government. For Christians to be passive and disengaged in government is to shirk our responsibilities given to us by our own government.

Second, the calling of every believer is to be “the light of the world and the salt of the earth.” This means we are to bring God’s truth to our culture. Both by evangelism and by promoting righteous laws, we are to have a sanctifying influence upon our culture. As Prov. 14:34 says, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” Paul said in Eph. 5:11-12 to the Christians concerning their influence upon their culture, “Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness but instead even expose them.” The word “expose” means to reprove or rebuke and our government does not get a free pass. So as John the Baptist rebuked King Herod for his moral sin, the church today has every right to expose the sins around us and in our government and point sinners to Jesus Christ who alone can save them. How can we be passive and fulfill our responsibilities in this area?

Third, our Constitution explicitly gives the citizens of our country the right to protest against our government. The first Amendment says that our government cannot prohibit or abridge our “freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In other words, we have the right to protest and bring our grievance before our government. Would MacArthur have us throw away these rights when our own government acknowledges that we have them?

Fourth, verses like 1 Pet. 3:13 say that we are to submit ourselves to “every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.” Notice the condition for this submission is tied to the government that is punishing evildoers and praising those who do right. What about the governments that are praising the evildoers and punishing the ones who are doing right? Are we to unilaterally submit to them? The reformers, Calvin and others, addressed this issue and set forth clear biblical principles by which citizens should oppose and resist a government that has become tyrannical. It was these principles that greatly influenced the founding of our own nation.

Since our government acknowledges our right to protest, and since Christians are to be the salt of the earth and light of the world and expose the darkness around us as we preach the gospel of Christ, and since we live under a government that has its authority from the consent of the governed, it is irresponsible, in my opinion, to tell the church to be passive when it comes to trying to influence our government toward biblical and godly values. Our nation was not founded on the principle that Christians should be passive, it is contrary to the Bible, and such a view will only further promote the moral decline of our nation.

I hope that you will take MacArthur’s teaching on this subject with a grain of salt. It would probably be worth pursuing a series on this topic in our own church. Let us pray for an outpouring of repentance and revival in our country that God might turn our sinful hearts back to Him.

 

Your servant in Christ, Alan

 

2Chr. 7:14 and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

 

 

 

 

{0}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• <LI style="DISPLAY: block" key="MarkAsRead">Mark as read <LI style="DISPLAY: block" key="MarkAsUnread">Mark as unread <LI class=BorderTop key="DeleteMessages">Delete <LI style="DISPLAY: block" key="MarkAsJunk">Junk <LI style="DISPLAY: none" key="MarkAsNotJunk">Not junk <LI class=BorderTop style="DISPLAY: block" key="PrintMessages">Print
  
• View message source
  

This message is too wide to fit your screen. Show full message

 

 

<IMG id=3rdPartyOmniture style="DISPLAY: none" height=1 alt="" width=1 name=http://msnportal.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnportalhotmail/1/H.1-pdv-2/>

• 
  
• © 2009 Microsoft
  
• Privacy
  
• Legal
  

• Help Central
  
• Account
  
• Feedback
  

[Kathy in MD]

Side note, there was one state that was so terrified of giving gays ANY rights that they passed a law and overrode the govenor's veto that banned ALL legal contracts between members of the same sex. That meant that I couldn't buy a house with my mother, go into business with a sister or have a Medical Power of Attorney for a female relative. But my dh could because he was of the opposite sex.

 

I don't know if that law's still around, but that's the extremes some will go to.

[Cricket]

Like Carmen mentions, the scriptures talk about staying out of the affairs of the nations at this time. Jesus refused, more than once, to get involved in governmental affairs. He called them on things, but didn't seek to change things (other than to encourage heart changes of individuals, but it was usually the individuals who were abused and neglected by the pharisees and sadducees <sp>).

 

On top of that, there is a concern in getting into things of Satan. The whole issue in the scripture is that Satan talked man into believing he could determine what was best for himself. Throughout history, man has tried various ways of governing himself with constant overall failure. Governments might work for certain issues or even for a short time (The most glaring example from the Hebrew Scriptures is what Solomon's people experienced under his rulership when he was following God), but no government can right the wrongs of Satan and the garden of eden. There is still war, sickness, death, etc. But though it's been thousands of years of not working, Satan still misleads people blinding them to all that hasn't been done through government, encouraging them to "get involved."

 

One big reason not to get involved is that there is only ONE government that will bring about the changes people REALLY want. Peaceful conditions, health, etc can only be brought about by God's Government with his son, Jesus as King. The scriptures talk about how the kings of this earth go up against Jesus and will be crushed. Who wants to be a part of a system that 1) isn't doing God's will now though Jesus left the example for us and 2) is going to be crushed by the one we're to be following?

 

To me, the evidence that we should NOT get involved in whether gays marry (or a number of other things) is CLEAR, not only because the scriptures don't tell us to fight for Godly laws, but because it is evident that we are to be following Jesus' footsteps. And finally because we don't want to be part of a failing system that is slated for destruction.

 

I disagree with this. We (well, many here!) are citizens of the United States so we have a duty to our country to vote and be involved in the political process. God has ordained the governments that exist and that is the form of government we have. I don't think Jesus ever said Christians should not be part of the world. Jesus had a specific purpose--to die for us. It was not to establish an earthly kingdom and over throw Roman rule. I think it is a huge jump to assume that because Jesus didn't establish a kingdom while he was here, Christians should not participate in a political process. Sure, governments will never be perfect and I think it is wrong when Christians look to a particular candidate or political party as our country's salvation. It is like a previous poster stated there is this notion that if we just vote in the right people, God will continue to bless our country. God has blessed this country *in spite of* our leaders and ourselves for many years now. We haven't earned his blessing because we are so wonderful. But because those governments are imperfect is not a reason to not be involved. I think governments are a necessary evil. They (hopefully!) restrain evil and allow us to live our lives in a little security at least. I don't think that because we participate in a political process we will come under the wrath of God.

[Saille]

This is not a civil rights issue. People are being mislead into believing it is one. I love this article by Thomas Sowell. Here is a snipet from it:

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

 

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

 

Gays have the same rights as anyone else does This is not a race issue. It is a behavioral issue. Yes, to the OP's question. IMHO, you should keep your faith in mind when deciding which laws to support.

 

I disagree. A gay person who marries a straight person in order to be afforded legal rights is, to my mind, the equivalent of someone who marries to obtain a green card. If two consenting adults wish to form a civil marriage bond, it makes no sense to say that they're welcome to do so if they choose an alternate partner. This is exactly what inter-racial couples used to be told. This is a civil rights issue.

 

Polygamists...I have issues there, but they center around closed communities and underage marriages. Pedophilia is clearly a separate issue, for the same reason. A child is not capable of consent. Period. Neither of those issues have anything to do with legal issues surrounding homosexuality; they are lumped together by folks who argue against gay marriage, and there's great shock value there, but that doesn't mean the comparison makes sense.

 

Which brings us back around to the IP's question. I agree with several other posters. Typically, my conscience dictates that I vote in a way that doesn't impose what I would do on others. However, "Harm none" is my other rule of thumb. If the issue I'm voting on has the potential to be harmful to others, that's the critical factor. So, if NAMBLA got an issue on the ballot, I'd vote against it. However, I don't see who would be hurt by homosexual civil unions. I understand folks who find such a concept counter to their beliefs would be upset, but I don't see how they'd be *hurt*. Whereas I have had plenty of friends who have been actively hurt by the lack of civil marriage rights.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Saille

[KJB]

 

And most people marry because they love another person and want to build a life together. What's wrong with that?

 

Bill

 

In general, I agree with you here Bill. To respond specifically to this question, I'll tell you my concern.

 

IMO, marriage is an institution designed first and foremost to protect children.

 

My reservation about gay marriage centers around giving gay couples equal footing for adoption with heterosexual couples. If we acknowledge gay marriage and gay families as equal to or the same as traditional families, how then can we then give favor to heterosexual couples wanting to adopt?

 

I believe that parenting is best when a child has a woman for a mother and a man for a father. I will never ever be convinced that having same sex parents is equal to having a traditional family assuming all four potential parents are good people.

 

I am not against gay adoptions, either. I am sure many gay couples are excellent parents and wonderful people. I just don't think, all things being equal, a family with two same sex parents is equal to or better than a traditional one.

 

Legitimizing gay marriage says same sex couples and traditional couples are equally good for children; biology tells us otherwise.

 

Deep breathe. Hit submit. Await need to delete!