Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Will the Marriage Amendment Protect Marriage?

On May 8th North Carolina citizens will have the opportunity to pass an amendment to the state constitution stating that “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”

When I started blogging my plan was to sort of wade in slowly from the shallow end of the pool.  But here I am, diving head first into the deep end.

So here goes.  As a person who recognizes and accepts the authority of the sacred scriptures I must acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is condemned in those scriptures as an “abomination.”  I must also admit that the sins with which I struggle almost daily like lust, greed, oppression of the poor, pride, jealously… the list goes on and on… are soundly condemned in the same way by the same scriptures.  To quote the apostle Paul, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 2:23)

So when I acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is a sin I do not do so condescendingly.  I could write a hundred blogs on my sins alone and just be warming up.

The question is, will the marriage amendment protect marriage?  If the amendment is passed will it help make marriage a more healthy institution?  I’m not an expert, but I’m guessing the answer is no.  Let me give you a few reasons why…

1.      Statistics vary, but the population of gay individuals in the U.S. is currently around 3.5%.  So I have to wonder why some people (many of whom are my friends who I greatly respect) are putting so much effort into passing an amendment that targets such a small segment of the population.
Why not channel those efforts (and the millions of dollars being spent) toward some really proactive, constructive ways to reduce the divorce rate?  It’s at 50% right now – among non-Christians and Christians alike.  Why not pour our energies into combating child sexual abuse?  According to the National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse, 27 percent of women and 16 percent of men have been sexually abused (some by ordained clergy).  
If we need an amendment to reinforce the law on same sex marriage (if you didn’t know, there is already a law about same sex marriage) then why not an amendment to address problems that are much more prevalent?  How about an amendment designed to curtail an economic system that tends to nurture and reward rampant greed (a sin addressed in scripture many more times than same sex relationships)? The only reason I can think of is fear.  We are afraid of losing control.

2.      Which leads me to the next reason the amendment won’t protect marriage.  By our own admission, the movement to get the marriage amendment passed is driven by fear.  The gay community is perceived as a “threat” to the “traditional family” (as if there were such a thing).  In our religious world we tend to become afraid of certain perceived “threats” on the stability of the family or the church and, driven by that fear, we react.  Instead of “acting” in faith we “react” out of fear.  We forget that the instruction Jesus gave more often than any other was “fear not.”  I would argue that anything we do motivated by fear will not produce the desired results.

3.      Which leads me to the next reason the amendment won’t protect marriage.  Inevitably, our efforts to get legislation passed or get certain people elected grow out of the conviction that it is our job to “reclaim” America.  But I think we would be hard pressed to find any teaching of Jesus instructing or even allowing his followers to lean toward nationalism.  We are not called to “reclaim” our nation for Christ.  We are called to “proclaim” the gospel of Christ.  As much as I love and respect those who feel obligated to promote some form of nationalistic Christianity, I believe that those efforts are misguided and frankly, destructive.  

4.      Which leads me to the last reason the amendment won’t protect marriage.  (I think the list could get really long.)  Simply stated, the effort to pass the amendment does not reflect the way of Jesus.  The way of Jesus is the way of transformation, not the way of legislation.  Jesus came to give us new birth that leads to new life, not new laws or amendments.  Christians around the world just celebrated the Resurrection of Christ.  What is absolutely central to our faith is that the world needs the power of the Resurrection, not the power of legislation.  The world needs transformation in the hearts of men and women, not transactions in the halls of congress.  The world needs Jesus!   

Thanks for reading with an open mind.   





59 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Rob. This was my first attempt at posting and I accidentally deleted it.

      Delete
  2. Well said, Pastor Rob. It's refreshing to hear a perspective that is bathed in grace approaching this very divisive issue. I'm proud to call you my pastor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very well said.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I suppose we are afraid of losing control of the American way of life as we know it.
    I understand that a sin is a sin, but I have a hard time with two males or two females kissing.

    In a perfect world, we wouldn't have child abuse, divorce, and other sins that take away from the kind of life that Jesue intended us to live, but we don't live in a perfect world.
    If we just ignore the homosexuals and their demands to marry with a "judge not attitude", then what happens when they demand to be married in a Christian church?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comment

      Delete
    2. Well said pastor... and hatred of gay people is what this amendment is about...you should hear how some christians talk about gays...and all those among you so called christians who is without sin cast the first stone

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your comment

      Delete
    4. Gays? God calls them sodomites and says it is an abomination. Which means he despises it. Look up "gay" in the dictionary and then look up "sodomite." The church's biggest mistake thus far is renaming sin to pacify the conscience of the pew sitter.

      Delete
  6. Seriously? Coming from the pulpit? Well, then let's just condone casual sex or premarital sex, since we all fall short. We shouldn't teach against it, we should just accept it as an accepted "standard" of our modern society. Accepting issues like this in society will desensitize our nation to sin, causing it to become even more common and accepted. Slippery slope, don't 'cha think???

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for your comment. I would be happy to interact more with you about this topic, especially if it would help us to find some common ground. For example, if I somehow said anything that seemed to condone sinful behavior I apologize. That was not my intent. I simply tried to share the perspective that, in my opinion, legislation is not the way to make marriage more healthy institution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I totally agree with the pastor heterosexuals ruin their own sanctity of marriage. Divorce, and infidelity can only happen within marriage. People don't need the help of homosexuals to perform those sins. So with this amendment will heterosexuals stop ruining their own marriages? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is so refreshing to read this post. We Christians have what I call our "pet sins" - homosexuality and abortion. We justify or completely overlook our rampant greed, lusts, gluttony, selfish ambitions, oppression of the poor, and many other sins discussed in far more instances in the bible than these "pet sins". I appreciate you highlighting that very important point.

    I also appreciate what you said about channeling our efforts in a more constructive way. Combating child sexual abuse, some of which is perpetrated by ministers, is a much greater problem than how the government defines marriage.

    Thank you for pointing us toward grace and the gospel of Jesus Christ and away from destructive politics and nationalism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What a well thought out and informative view...
    I really appreciate that you are brave enough to share
    your viewpoint with us...
    If the Christians that fight so hard to put an end to gay marriage would spend as much time on combating gluttony and greed our children could live long enough to possibly figure this whole thing out ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. The intent of the amendment is to allow the people of NC to "define" marriage...it is not designed to "protect" marriage. The amendment will keep some liberal judge from overturning the current law as has been the case in a number of other states.
    Thirty other states have already passed amendments and we are the only state in the Southeast that hasn't.

    I believe it would take a God sent national revival to reduce divorce rates and the other crimes you mentioned.
    I also believe as Christians we should be "salt and light" in the world and that does include at the polls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I'm grateful to participate in a healthy conversation with other Christ followers. I would point out two observations; a point of divergence and a point of agreement.

      I respectfully disagree with the idea that the ammendment is intended to "define" marriage, not "protect" it. For one thing, marriage as a sacred institution has been around for many thousands of years. I think we know what it is by now. If not, it has already been defined very well in scripture. I would argue that the protection of the institution of marriage is exactly what the ammendment is designed to do. I actually think the wording of your comment bears that out... "the amendment will keep some liberal judge from..."

      The thing that we agree on is your second observation. I also believe it will take a God sent revival (I don't think a "national" revival is relevant) to reduce divorce rates, modern slavery, oppression of the poor, sexual perversion of all kinds etc. and I think that is exactly what the church should fully expect and proclaim; that the kingdom of God is present in this world and revival/renewal/the redemptive movement of God in this world is not only possible, it is happening! Correct me if I'm wrong but when you say "it would take a God sent national revival..." it sounds like you don't think that's going to happen so we should settle for an ammendment instead.

      Delete
    2. I appreciate your comments...however, I stand by my statement that the amendment is designed to "define" marriage by the people of NC. Perhaps I should have added "in the judiciary". I agree it has been defined very well in the Scripture and I don't believe we have any disagreement there.
      I don't know the motive of your blog...but it seems to intentionally mis-represent the intent of the amendment
      in order to confuse people and keep them from the polls or voting for the amendment.
      As I previously mentioned, I believe we as Christians should be "salt and light" even at the polls.
      I do pray for a revival in this country and do believe God is sovereign, and he can send revival as he chooses. I do believe a God sent holy spirit revival would solve many problems we have.

      I don't have to choose between voting for the marriage amendment and a revival from God. I will vote "for" the amendment while praying for a revival in this land.

      God Bless you Pastor and I will pray for you and your congregation.
      Sincerely,
      J McEntire

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks for continuing the conversation. I think that our primary disagreement is philosophical not theological. I totally agree that we are to be salt and light in the world. I think our difference of opinion centers around how we do that. I would encourage you to closely examine the scriptures and history to see how the church has done it well (and how we haven't). I think I can honestly say that I'm not trying to "confuse" people. I'm simply, and emphatically, stating my opinion that I do not beleive this amendment or any other will accomplish what you and I have agreed needs to happen. on Will the Marriage Amendment Protect Marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pastor...I think our differences may be more than just philosophical.
    However, did you happen to read Skip Foster editorial in the Star this morning? I actually like his argument and most of the time would agree with him since I tend to lean more Libertarian.
    But I believe if this amendment is not passed and a judge overturns the current marriage statue, it could have far reaching effects. Our children could be taught in schools that this is a "normal" lifestyle. Pastors could be charged with hate speech for preaching against homosexuality from the pulpits...not to mention being charged with discrimination if they don't perform same sex marriage ceremonies. Sometimes, the rights of the majority should trump the minority opinion.
    Removing prayer from Schools is one example of the minority opinion over-riding the majority. I was raised in a time when each day at school was started with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and then prayer. As I look back, this had a tremendous influence on a young boy who wasn't raised in a home that prayed. I still believe many kids could be influenced by this. Unfortunately, those times are gone..but we have to be a positive influence where we can.

    Sincerely,

    JMcEntire

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you for referring me to Foster's article. I agree with his argument. About the fear of what might happen if the amendment is not passed, I would still argue that followers of Jesus are called to simply continue to follow Jesus and do so fearlessly. What the Government does (or doesn't do) will not hinder the movement of the kingdom of God in this world. Rome couldn't stamp out Christianity in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries and, with all due respect to those campaigning for the amendment, I don't think we need the Government's help in the 21st century.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rob -- just tonight I was referred to this superb posting. I feel foolish now -- you made my arguments much better than I did! Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  18. It really disturbs me that I'm reading what appears to be Christians who do not believe that we should try to defend the precepts of the Bible or defend marriage to be only between a man and a woman. Of course there are many sins, and as the Bible teaches one sin is just as bad as another. However, we as Christians confess our sins, and with God's help we turn away from them. We don't petition the church, the government, or society to condone the sin and make it acceptable with all sorts of entitlements. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Therefore, I believe that one must confess that sin and choose not to live that lifestyle any longer if he/she wants to spend eternity in heaven. There is already a law about marriage, however at this particular time in history the institution of marriage established in God's Holy Word is being attacked just as every Christian belief, symbol, and practice is being attacked on every side by minorities and Government leaders who have no thought of God's Holy Word. We can't sit back like we did when spoken prayer was taken out of the schools. We are told render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. I don't believe that is only speaking of money. We are to take a stand for God's Word. Onward Christian Soldiers.

    Furthermore, I agree with Pastor Rit Varriale of Elizabeth Baptist Church in his article in today's paper 4-28-2012.

    ReplyDelete
  19. First of all, great post Rob! Second, looking at nearly all the people who posted disagreeing with you, they all have one theme in common: government interference in religious issues.

    Maybe those of you who have that underlying theme in your complaints need to be trying to get the government out of your religion. When you vote for this amendment, you are allowing the government more control from a religious perspective. You are telling the government it's ok to get involved with religious affairs. That may sound neat on the surface, but if the government is going to get involved in religious affairs, there's going to be times when you don't agree with their decisions.

    As for prayer in schools, that shouldn't have been in there anyway because it's a violation of the separation of church and state. Oh and as for those of you who like to claim that things were better when we prayed in school and said the pledge of allegiance, that isn't necessarily why things were better then. There's no proof behind that belief.

    The world has changed dramatically in different areas in the last 30 or so years. All change is not necessarily linked back to religion and how it's used and perceived in the world.

    This is coming from a Christian, although in today's world a lot of Christians have this saying "If you don't agree with me, you are not a real Christian".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comment

      Delete
    2. Read it and weep, Mike and Rob.

      http://www.inplainsite.org/what_happened_when_the_praying.html

      Delete
  20. I am looking for a church to attend and i can now take Zoar off my list

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comment. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss our different perspectives more.

      Delete
    2. No Thanks,I have heard all i need to.

      Delete
    3. Amen. Anonymous! Shocking to say the least.

      Delete
    4. Chrisian Freedom Baptist Church in Kings Mountain we believe the bible from cover to cover. Not a perfect church but we are deffinately not a feel good church.

      Delete
  21. Thank you for your comment. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss our different perspectives more.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As a fellow pastor, I find your comments on this subject not only to be hard to believe,coming from a pastor, but also very dangerous to the church.

    There is no doubt that we all have sin and deal with that sin everyday. That is a given. It is also a given that Christians should love the homosexual and try our very best to win them to Christ. I don't see how that can be done if we as Christians and as a church condone their lifestyle.

    If someone you love was going to stick their hand on the hot burner of your stove would you not try and stop them. If they continued would you not establish some rules in your house to keep that from happening. Ultimately if they want to burn themselves there is nothing you can do but you owe it to them to try and stop them. It is your responsibility to try and stop them.

    Would you say that John the Baptist was wrong in preaching against Herod's adulterous lifestyle? Was Paul wrong in His condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle in Romans 1?

    We are called, as Christians, to stand on truth. If the scripture is perfect truth then it is our foundation. Therefore, when we stand on the truth of scripture we do not stand alone we are standing with God. I don't know about you but that is where I want to be.

    I love you brother, but I totally disagree with your stand on this issue. This is exactly why the church has lost so much of its influence in this lost world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your comment but I am somewhat confused as to how you could read the blog and come away with the idea that I condone homosexual practice.

      Delete
    2. I am curious how the above Anonymous poster would feel about legislating into State Constitutions ALL truth given in scripture. Why stop at homosexuality? And which truths would he think needed legislating and why? Additionally, how does he think we - as a society - should deal with differences in interpretation of scriptural truth. For instance, if a particular grouping of conservative Christians believed that drinking was immoral and led to societal disintegration (sound familiar?) would the above poster believe that it should be written into the constitution that alcohol become illegal. What about cigarettes? Or candy for that matter which has been shown to lead to juvenile diabetes - for which an argument could be made is predatory behavior on our children by large multi-national confectionary producing companies. I hope I make my point. Why does the above poster feel he gets to pick and choose what becomes lawful or not WITHOUT making a single judicial-philosophical argument about what might be a desirable PROCESS for settling such matters. Perhaps it is a GOOD thing to peaceably decide these issues in a public forum rather than descend into atomistic factionalism.

      He completely misses the point that Rob believes homosexuality is sinful behavior and that the church should proclaim as much. For some unknown reason, he wants to take the additional step of making sinful behavior illegal but cannot explain WHICH sin and why. I'd like to hear from him.

      Delete
  23. As a fellow pastor, I agree with the spirit of your posts and am encouraged to know that there are pastors out there who look at the character of our Father and the whole testimony of the Bible when it comes to making value judgments.

    Alot of pastors are using this issue as an opportunity to re-energize their congregations to go to war against culture and worldliness. The war begins (and ends) in the deepest parts of each individual who must be reconciled to the Lord as a son or a daughter. Our nation will be better when the Christians in it become peace-loving disciples of Christ who truly believe that Jesus is the only savior and don't try to make the government co-Lord or co-Savior with Him.

    Thanks for your leadership on this issue. Peace

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your affirming words and good insight

      Delete
  24. Thank you for posting with a spirit-filled, Godly attitutde. In reading your blog I am left with a clear understanding of your message, which I believe, is that we are all sinners, saved by grace, and that no sin is greater than another. Also, I love that you point out we, as disciples of Christ, need to be about His business. I fail all to often to remember just what He did for me and what I need to be doing for Him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comment. It's good to know there are like minded people out there

      Delete
  25. Thanks Pastor for these timely words. They were a breath of fresh air in a world choking on religious smog. As one of our church members said when he read this: "we are not alone." My name is Matt Orth and I am an elder at Broad River Community Church in Boiling Springs. . .you are not alone. Let's get coffee sometime. . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Matt. I would. Be happy to meet for coffee. Email me - rob@zoarchurch.com

      Delete
  26. Turn our back on sins that we come face to face with, such as the one we are facing today at the polls.

    I challenge every Christian to ask themselves what would Jesus do in that booth?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks for the blog Rob I agree with post. I have been visiting Churchs will visit Zoar soon. Do you do out reach and visitation ? Seems like most preachers don't seem to make this a part of there jobs anymore like to here from you. Howard1965@carolina.rr.com

    ReplyDelete
  28. Great post, Rob. Thanks so much for sharing. So glad you're our pastor.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Great post, Rob...that came from the mind and heart of Christ. Thanks for listening to him and not culture, Christian or otherwise. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lauren, thank you for your affirming and gracious words

      Delete
  30. Wow. Impressed with the statements and responses by Pastor Rob. If I am in Shelby, I would enjoy visiting Zoar Baptist.
    Ed Hiott

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, thank you for your comment. Hope you can worship with us sometime

      Delete