Same-sex marriages, Destiny church, and the Law
I don't know whether those of you in NZ have been paying attention to the recent news but here goes the background. The Destiny Church marched to parliment wearing black t-shirts with clenched fists punching the air and chanting the slogan 'Enough is enough'; they were protesting the Civil Union Bill which will allow gays to tie the knot. Since then peopl have arisen in a furor comparing the actions of Destiny to those of Fascist Germany. It is quite interesting even liberal Christians have risen against this fundamentalist element represented in Destiny and Maxim (who have for a long time been campaigning against this Bill). For people who preach free speech they are quick to condemn any speech that they do not agree with, Rousseau[?] 'I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it'. For people who preach tolerance they are quick to condemn intolerance, 'I can tolerate everything except intolerance'.
I am not going to condemn the media or the public except for that I've already said for 'judge not least ye be judged'. However, something that was said in church on Sunday has been dragged to the forefront of my mind. In 1 Corinthians 5:12 St. Paul says 'for what have I to do with judging those who are outside?', the Law is not for those outside the church; those who have not accepted the gospel. True it does say in Leviticus 18:22 that homosexual acts are an ambomination, but this Law was given to the Jews, God's Chosen People, not the gentiles. We as Christians have been grafted onto the olive tree of the faithful of Israel (Romans 11), and thus the Law was given to us. For Jesus came not to supersede the Law but to fulfil the Law. Thus the church should judge within itself this Bill and not force upon the world our point of view. It is not our job to preach the Law to the unsaved but rather the good news of Jesus the Christ. Because the world has decided to discard the Law is no reason for Christians to do and within the church and between Christians male-female marriages can be continued and the fact that the outside world allows same-sex marriages doesn't mean we have to.
Please comment on this because I'm certain I've come across far more fundamentalist and hardlined than I meant to be.
Finally just because the world makes something permissable doesn't make it anymore legal for the Christian therefore as long as it doesn't affect our ability to worship and serve God we shouldn't worry excessively.
God bless, from the fingertips of a coffee-addled mind.
I am not going to condemn the media or the public except for that I've already said for 'judge not least ye be judged'. However, something that was said in church on Sunday has been dragged to the forefront of my mind. In 1 Corinthians 5:12 St. Paul says 'for what have I to do with judging those who are outside?', the Law is not for those outside the church; those who have not accepted the gospel. True it does say in Leviticus 18:22 that homosexual acts are an ambomination, but this Law was given to the Jews, God's Chosen People, not the gentiles. We as Christians have been grafted onto the olive tree of the faithful of Israel (Romans 11), and thus the Law was given to us. For Jesus came not to supersede the Law but to fulfil the Law. Thus the church should judge within itself this Bill and not force upon the world our point of view. It is not our job to preach the Law to the unsaved but rather the good news of Jesus the Christ. Because the world has decided to discard the Law is no reason for Christians to do and within the church and between Christians male-female marriages can be continued and the fact that the outside world allows same-sex marriages doesn't mean we have to.
Please comment on this because I'm certain I've come across far more fundamentalist and hardlined than I meant to be.
Finally just because the world makes something permissable doesn't make it anymore legal for the Christian therefore as long as it doesn't affect our ability to worship and serve God we shouldn't worry excessively.
God bless, from the fingertips of a coffee-addled mind.
14 Comments:
hrmmm - I see and agree with your view, but I have just thought of a fundamental flaw in your logic.
"homosexual acts are an ambomination, but this Law was given to the Jews, God's Chosen People, not the gentiles ... and thus the Law was given to us."
This can only hold true if you hold Christians today to other laws the Jews were given: Such as not eating shellfish, not cutting your hair, the whole nine yards.
While to me it seems "correct" to seperate homosexuality from something like eating shellfish, but if you actually read it, it seems to be on an equal footing.
I completely agree with your position, but I am at a loss as to how to defend it. Thus, at the moment, your position is untenable unless you accept that OTHER laws given to the Jews hold for us as well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm interested - was the law of Moses directed at Sodom and Gomorrah? or was the law applicable to Canaan?
Sure, there was the ceremonial law given to the Jews, along with the moral and civil law, but I don't think the homosexual laws were given as part of the ceremonial law, so your allusion to Leviticus holds no water.
I'm not exactly sure if I agree with you here. I think if you think the Civil Unions Bill is a good idea or if you are suggesting for a minute that we throw away our democratic rights I think I dissagree with you. Otherwise I think I agree...
I just tried to write a big post on this, but it didn't say what I wanted it to, and then I found yours. I'll try again when I remember how to make sense.
Hey! Is that your real pic or did you really act in the Matrix?
'if you think the Civil Unions Bill is a good idea or if you are suggesting for a minute that we throw away our democratic rights I think I dissagree with you.'
I personally don't agree with the Civil Union Bill and I definately will fight for my democratic rights. However, the point I am trying to make is that even if the Bill is passed it should not have an affect on Christians. As it is said 'be in the world not of the world' if the Civil Union Bill is passed then we can continue with marriage. As I said I don't think it is our duty to change the morals of this world but rather seek and save the lost. If by making this stand against the Bill causes people to think that Chirstianity is about rules and control rather than freedom and life then is it worth it? [see John 3:17]
Umm, Didn't notice whether anybody had yet brought this up, but about the old testament law not being applicable to non jewish christians...
In acts, A council at Jerusalem decided that there were only four rules from the OT law that non Jewish Christians should try to keep.
Don't know the order in acts, but in my arbitrary order.
1. don't meat with blood still in it (cook your steak)
2. don't eat meat from strangled animals
3. Don't eaty meaty sacrificed to idols
4. Avoid sexual immorality.
I suppose it's up to interpretation as to whether that includes homosexuality or not.
Cant' find reference. Using internet at Rotorua Public Library and only have a couple of minutes left. Also, no time to double check no one has brought this up yet.
First, I did not act in the Matrix I just stole Apoc's picture since there has been some suggestion of similarity.
Secondly, 'was the law of Moses directed at Sodom and Gomorrah? or was the law applicable to Canaan?' these are not situations of the Jews judging the Sodomites et al. but of God judging them. In my opinion this puts it into a separate category altogether as God is the righteous judge His judgement of them must be correct.
Finally, 'the old testament law not being applicable to non jewish christians'. The reference you are seeking is Acts 15:24-29. This is a very valid point Jim, however, as I quoted in my post God does say that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 18:22). Furthermore, as St. Paul said 'everything is thing permissible but not everything is beneficial' (1 Cor. 10:23). Therefore, I think that is adequate justification for Christians not to do it.
Hey jared :)
Dont have much to say except:
1) The new testament does mention homosexuality being a sin thus is still applicable to today
2) it wasnt just the destiny church and Brian Tamaki that were involved in the protest. Trevor Yaxley and some other guy spoke too... and the fists/black t-shirts were only a small part.
3) if WE, Christians, dont stand up for the state of this country, who will? Dont we want a safe country to live in too? Dont we also have rights?
Many statistics show the disadvantages that children without fathers and mothers have... and yet we are saying its okay for children to be raised in gay unions, or in civil unions - of people who are not committed enough to get married.
4) i love the point that someone, i think it was Helen (?) came up with the other day - Jesus was not tolerant. He loved everyone, but by no means was he tolerant of their behaviour.
eg. Woman caught in adultery - "go and sin NO MORE"
people using the temple for the wrong purposes - Jesus got mad and ordered them out.
He was not tolerant of behaviour that goes against Gods law. And neither should we be. We are God's representatives here on Earth.
oh and just a wee comment for Erutane -
Some of the March/Protest was a prayer meeting, some was listening to speakers, and only a small part was actually marching.
The Haka was not to declare war, but was presented to Parliament as a challenge to them to make better laws.
I mean really... how much percentage of this country are actually homosexuals? Is the Government pandering to the majority or the minority?
Helen Clark herself has declared that she hates both Christians and marriage... what kind of prime minister do we have?!
The other thing that we must consider is that this bill is not just about homosexuals getting marriage rights, but is about couples who live together getting marriage rights as well. Who are we pandering to, dammit?! They already have the option of marriage if they wish to. Why offer them another alternative?
If other countries/leaders around the world can rule their country with morals and christian foundations, why cant we?
I know that it feels like we are depriving others of their rights... but whats next? We have already let a lot slip in this country. I dont want to raise children in a society like we have here.... Education system is terrible.... society is terrible...
I may just have to take up SAMs offer and move to Australia where i can feel like MY vote counts too... not just the minority of liberals.
Squirrel-fanatic, I first would like to say that I definately agree with your point '[what] percentage of this country are actually homosexuals?' We live in a democratic country and the laws should be designed to protect and defend the majority of the populace. If it is only a minority of the populace who are going to use the Civil Union option then maybe it shouldn't be passed. If people stated whether or not they would use Civil Unions as opposed to altruistically supporting it for the sake of the minority. However, what if the majority of the country desire and would use Civil Unions? If then we don't pass the law then we are no longer acting democratically but dictatorially.
With regard to your point, 'Jesus was not tolerant. He loved everyone, but by no means was he tolerant of their behaviour' I must disagree. Let me classify myself in this Jesus was definately intolerant when it came to the Jewish religion but very unconcerned when it came to politics. All of the examples you pointed out are proof of this. The one recorded chance when He got a chance to 'stick it to the man' (Caesar) he responded 'Render...to Caesar the things that are Caesar's...', not a very good example of political intolerance. He did not come to overthrow Caesar but Satan.
Jesus was definately intolerant of the Jews who claimed to obey the law living contary to the law but he did not condemn the Romans for their behaviour. Thus if the Civil Union Bill is passed then it will have no effect on us.
At a TSCF conference I asked Trevor G. (can't spell the last name =) about what he thought about politics and christians. His approach was that as citizens of NZ we should be concerned about politics, but as christians we aren't to push our word view on others.
I guess this has been my approach.
Jared, if I may pick apart the statement:
"If people stated whether or not they would use Civil Unions as opposed to altruistically supporting it for the sake of the minority. However, what if the majority of the country desire and would use Civil Unions? If then we don't pass the law then we are no longer acting democratically but dictatorially."
I really don't think this is going to happen. As I see it, politicians don't represent the christian population who disagree with the Civil Unions Bill. Its not like the Christians have veto rights over the bill. No, what is happening is (some) christians are going about the democratic process (which seems to involve protesting in our country) to try and have their voice heard. If the majority believes that the Civil Unions Bill is good, then Christians shouldn't be able to stop it going through. If on the other hand the majority of people don't support the Civil Unions Bill, it shouldn't go through. But then, democracy often isn't very democratic.
I found a really helpful perspective from the theologian and pastor John Piper. He's talking in an American context, but the theological and biblical issues are the same.
Check out the rest of the site too. It's got tonnes of really solid (and free!) stuff.
our pastors appeared before the select committee speaking against the CU bill... Chris, the pastor, told us on Sunday that results from the select committee show that 3/4 submissions are against the civil unions bill. So obviously the government is pandering to the minority if it doesnt listen to that!!
Post a Comment
<< Home