Our apologies for the delay in getting this information posted. We had some login issues that had to be resolved. Below are the relevant links for information regarding issues and candidates for the upcoming election. Please vote, and vote your values!
Early Voting/Poll Information/Downloadable Ballot - www.ncsbe.gov
Voters Guides - www.ncfamily.org
Information About the Issues - www.ncvalues.org
Please remember that next Sunday, Nov. 2, we will stream the I Stand live simulcast in Room 100 at 7:00pm (following evening discipleship classes). I Stand features Tony Perkins, Mike Huckabee, Phil Robertson, and others discussing the importance of religious freedom and the upcoming election. You can learn more HERE.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Have We Lost the Culture War?
Yes, the blog has been inactive for some time, and for that we apologize. Like you, we usually have too many irons in the fire or often don't manage our time as wisely as we should (at least this author, Adam, does not manage his time as wisely as he should!). We will attempt to do better this year, especially as we approach election time.
Our last two bulletin inserts have focused on the need for Christians to be involved in public affairs and politics. We argued that everyone has a particular view of reality, including those in government. Therefore, there is no government neutrality on ethical/moral/social issues. Someone's view of reality, and thus someone's morality, will be legislated. As Christians, while we are not called to establish a theocracy (God-run government), we are called to be salt and light and to fight to preserve the good and expose the darkness. We can do that in a number of ways, one of the most obvious of which is to simply vote, and vote your values (assuming you have good and true values!).
We can also argue for the good in the public square, and we can do so in a way which appeals to the reality we all share in common. God has "written on our hearts" as it were the natural moral law we all have access to by virtue of being rational human beings sharing the same reality. While this natural moral law points to God it need start with God, nor even invoke God, to have rational force. Unfortunately, as we've said in the inserts, rather than fight the bad philosophy in our culture which has led to the bad thinking and morally corrupt culture in which we now live, Christians by and large circled the wagons, withdrew, and failed to engage and transform a declining society.
Now we stand on the brink of losing the culture war completely. Not only will such a loss lead to even more moral failings, it will have a direct impact on our religious freedoms and ability to share the Gospel. While we shouldn't be surprised to face some type of persecution from the world, that doesn't mean we should go looking for it or invite it. The original Apostles "turned the world upside down" when they preached the resurrected Christ. It's time we do the same in our modern culture. We know that ultimately the war will not be lost in the long run, and we can have hope that truth is on our side because the God of Truth is on our side.
For more on the possible loss of the culture war and its implications, see this recent article from TownHall.com.
For more about the quotes from January's insert see here, here, and here.
Our last two bulletin inserts have focused on the need for Christians to be involved in public affairs and politics. We argued that everyone has a particular view of reality, including those in government. Therefore, there is no government neutrality on ethical/moral/social issues. Someone's view of reality, and thus someone's morality, will be legislated. As Christians, while we are not called to establish a theocracy (God-run government), we are called to be salt and light and to fight to preserve the good and expose the darkness. We can do that in a number of ways, one of the most obvious of which is to simply vote, and vote your values (assuming you have good and true values!).
We can also argue for the good in the public square, and we can do so in a way which appeals to the reality we all share in common. God has "written on our hearts" as it were the natural moral law we all have access to by virtue of being rational human beings sharing the same reality. While this natural moral law points to God it need start with God, nor even invoke God, to have rational force. Unfortunately, as we've said in the inserts, rather than fight the bad philosophy in our culture which has led to the bad thinking and morally corrupt culture in which we now live, Christians by and large circled the wagons, withdrew, and failed to engage and transform a declining society.
Now we stand on the brink of losing the culture war completely. Not only will such a loss lead to even more moral failings, it will have a direct impact on our religious freedoms and ability to share the Gospel. While we shouldn't be surprised to face some type of persecution from the world, that doesn't mean we should go looking for it or invite it. The original Apostles "turned the world upside down" when they preached the resurrected Christ. It's time we do the same in our modern culture. We know that ultimately the war will not be lost in the long run, and we can have hope that truth is on our side because the God of Truth is on our side.
For more on the possible loss of the culture war and its implications, see this recent article from TownHall.com.
For more about the quotes from January's insert see here, here, and here.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Urgent Pro-Life Action Needed!
The following is from an e-mail sent out by the the NC Values Coalition:
The biggest pro-life bill of this legislative session—HB 695, the Family, Faith, and Freedom Protection Act—has just been scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, July 9th, at 10:00 a.m. in the House Health and Human Services Committee. This bill will protect the unborn and put limits on abortion clinics that are putting women’s health at risk for the sake of making more profit.
Our hope is that the bill will pass the Committee Tuesday morning and be on the House floor Tuesday afternoon for a final vote of concurrence. Your help is critical at this point!
2. Come early on Tuesday, July 9th, to make a strong showing of support for HB 695 in the House Health and Human Services Committee, and be prepared to stay for the House session at around 2:00 p.m., should the bill be placed on the calendar. The Committee will meet in Room 544 of the Legislative Office Building, located at 300 N. Salisbury Street in Raleigh. Wear a light blue shirt to show your support.
As voters, we should demand that those who represent us show up to vote on this important pro-life bill, and I hope you will communicate to your House members that not showing up for this vote is a NO vote.
- Protects citizens from the application of foreign laws that would result in the violation of a fundamental constitutional right. Unbelievably, some courts in the US have actually recently applied Sharia law in family law cases, resulting in harsh treatment of women and children. (HB 695, which passed the House by a vote of 69-42 on May 16)
- Expands current conscience rights to refuse to perform or participate in an abortion to “other healthcare workers.” Pharmacists, nurse assistants, health care facilities, etc. deserve the right to object to performing an abortion, just as doctors and nurses can. Conscience rights are a matter of religious freedom under the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Section 13 of the Statement of Rights in the NC Constitution: “All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the desires of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” (Part of HB 730, which passed the House by a vote of 73-39 on May 16)
- Exercises North Carolina’s right under Obamacare to opt out of covering abortion services through the state exchanges created under Obamacare. Also prohibits Counties and Cities from providing abortion coverage. The majority of Americans don’t want to use tax dollars to pay for abortions, and this provision makes sure we don’t do it through state-funded insurance. (Part of HB 730, which passed the House by a vote of 73-39 on May 16)
- Prohibits doctors from performing sex-selective abortions, and allows injunctive relief and fines against the doctor of $10,000 for the first violation; $50,000 for the second violation; $100,000 for all subsequent violations. Most of the unborn babies who are aborted because of their gender are girls. There is nothing pro-woman about killing a baby girl because she is a female, and putting her mother’s health and safety at risk in the process. This is the REAL war on women. Six separate studies in the past 4 years document the sad reality of baby girls being aborted in our country simply because they are girls. According to the UN, there are over 163 million girls missing around the world, largely because of “gendercide.” (HB 716, which passed the House by a vote of 79-40 on May 7)
- “To ensure the safety of the procedure and prompt medical attention to any complications that may arise,” requires “(t)he physician performing a surgical abortion to be physically present during the performance of the entire abortion procedure” and requires “(t)he physician prescribing, dispensing, or otherwise providing any drug or chemical for the purpose of inducing an abortion to be physically present in the same room as the patient when the drug or chemical is administered to the patient.” Some women have bled to death after a surgical abortion, because the physician who performed the abortion left the abortion clinic. Frequently, chemical abortions are performed by web-cam, with the doctor in a different state observing by web-cam. FDA-approved protocol for RU486 requires the physician to be physically present so he can provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding. This is a common-sense provision to guaranty the procedure is safe. (SB 308, which was filed in the Senate on March 13)
- Requires DHHS to have a list of resources posted on its website for women who have had an ultrasound showing that their unborn child may have a disability or serious abnormality so they will not assume that abortion is their only alternative. (SB 308, which was filed in the Senate on March 13)
- Requires DHHS to adopt new rules for abortion clinics, requiring them to meet similar requirements to those for ambulatory surgical centers. The rules must address the on-site recovery phase of patient care at the clinic as well as the requirement for a transfer agreement between a clinic and a hospital. The Gosnell case in Philadelphia brought attention to the horrible practices that exist in many abortion clinics, including unsanitary conditions, absent physicians, and inability to admit abortion patients with complications to a hospital. But, sadly, North Carolina abortion clinics are guilty of many Gosnell-type violations. An abortion clinic in Charlotte has twice been shut down for such atrocities, and Dr. Mitchell Creinin, a California-based obstetrician, said about the clinic’s improper use of a drug used to induce abortion that “It’s no different than hearing about an orthopedic surgeon cutting off the wrong leg.” This provision will ensure that North Carolina does not allow abortion clinics to operate with unsafe, unsanitary conditions that endanger the lives of their patients, like Gosnell and what was happening in Charlotte.
Make no mistake, we do not like it that abortion is still legal and has resulted in the killing of 55 million unborn children in our country. However, since abortion remains legal, we can at least make sure it is safe, it is not used to select the sex of a child, that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund other people’s abortions, that all healthcare workers are free to follow their consciences and refuse to perform abortions, and that abortion clinics abide by common medical practices that guarantee the safety of patients. This is precisely what this bill is about—fighting the atrocities of abortion!
The biggest pro-life bill of this legislative session—HB 695, the Family, Faith, and Freedom Protection Act—has just been scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, July 9th, at 10:00 a.m. in the House Health and Human Services Committee. This bill will protect the unborn and put limits on abortion clinics that are putting women’s health at risk for the sake of making more profit.
Our hope is that the bill will pass the Committee Tuesday morning and be on the House floor Tuesday afternoon for a final vote of concurrence. Your help is critical at this point!
Here’s what we need you to do:
1. Call or email your North Carolina House Member and the Speaker of the House, Representative Thom Tillis. Click HERE to find out who represents you and how to contact them. Click here to find out how to contact Speaker Tillis.2. Come early on Tuesday, July 9th, to make a strong showing of support for HB 695 in the House Health and Human Services Committee, and be prepared to stay for the House session at around 2:00 p.m., should the bill be placed on the calendar. The Committee will meet in Room 544 of the Legislative Office Building, located at 300 N. Salisbury Street in Raleigh. Wear a light blue shirt to show your support.
As voters, we should demand that those who represent us show up to vote on this important pro-life bill, and I hope you will communicate to your House members that not showing up for this vote is a NO vote.
Responding to Gosnell and the Atrocities in Charlotte
The Family, Faith, and Freedom Act is a great advance for pro-life policies and Constitutional rights! Here are the outstanding benefits of HB 695:- Protects citizens from the application of foreign laws that would result in the violation of a fundamental constitutional right. Unbelievably, some courts in the US have actually recently applied Sharia law in family law cases, resulting in harsh treatment of women and children. (HB 695, which passed the House by a vote of 69-42 on May 16)
- Expands current conscience rights to refuse to perform or participate in an abortion to “other healthcare workers.” Pharmacists, nurse assistants, health care facilities, etc. deserve the right to object to performing an abortion, just as doctors and nurses can. Conscience rights are a matter of religious freedom under the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Section 13 of the Statement of Rights in the NC Constitution: “All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the desires of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” (Part of HB 730, which passed the House by a vote of 73-39 on May 16)
- Exercises North Carolina’s right under Obamacare to opt out of covering abortion services through the state exchanges created under Obamacare. Also prohibits Counties and Cities from providing abortion coverage. The majority of Americans don’t want to use tax dollars to pay for abortions, and this provision makes sure we don’t do it through state-funded insurance. (Part of HB 730, which passed the House by a vote of 73-39 on May 16)
- Prohibits doctors from performing sex-selective abortions, and allows injunctive relief and fines against the doctor of $10,000 for the first violation; $50,000 for the second violation; $100,000 for all subsequent violations. Most of the unborn babies who are aborted because of their gender are girls. There is nothing pro-woman about killing a baby girl because she is a female, and putting her mother’s health and safety at risk in the process. This is the REAL war on women. Six separate studies in the past 4 years document the sad reality of baby girls being aborted in our country simply because they are girls. According to the UN, there are over 163 million girls missing around the world, largely because of “gendercide.” (HB 716, which passed the House by a vote of 79-40 on May 7)
- “To ensure the safety of the procedure and prompt medical attention to any complications that may arise,” requires “(t)he physician performing a surgical abortion to be physically present during the performance of the entire abortion procedure” and requires “(t)he physician prescribing, dispensing, or otherwise providing any drug or chemical for the purpose of inducing an abortion to be physically present in the same room as the patient when the drug or chemical is administered to the patient.” Some women have bled to death after a surgical abortion, because the physician who performed the abortion left the abortion clinic. Frequently, chemical abortions are performed by web-cam, with the doctor in a different state observing by web-cam. FDA-approved protocol for RU486 requires the physician to be physically present so he can provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding. This is a common-sense provision to guaranty the procedure is safe. (SB 308, which was filed in the Senate on March 13)
- Requires DHHS to have a list of resources posted on its website for women who have had an ultrasound showing that their unborn child may have a disability or serious abnormality so they will not assume that abortion is their only alternative. (SB 308, which was filed in the Senate on March 13)
- Requires DHHS to adopt new rules for abortion clinics, requiring them to meet similar requirements to those for ambulatory surgical centers. The rules must address the on-site recovery phase of patient care at the clinic as well as the requirement for a transfer agreement between a clinic and a hospital. The Gosnell case in Philadelphia brought attention to the horrible practices that exist in many abortion clinics, including unsanitary conditions, absent physicians, and inability to admit abortion patients with complications to a hospital. But, sadly, North Carolina abortion clinics are guilty of many Gosnell-type violations. An abortion clinic in Charlotte has twice been shut down for such atrocities, and Dr. Mitchell Creinin, a California-based obstetrician, said about the clinic’s improper use of a drug used to induce abortion that “It’s no different than hearing about an orthopedic surgeon cutting off the wrong leg.” This provision will ensure that North Carolina does not allow abortion clinics to operate with unsafe, unsanitary conditions that endanger the lives of their patients, like Gosnell and what was happening in Charlotte.
Make no mistake, we do not like it that abortion is still legal and has resulted in the killing of 55 million unborn children in our country. However, since abortion remains legal, we can at least make sure it is safe, it is not used to select the sex of a child, that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund other people’s abortions, that all healthcare workers are free to follow their consciences and refuse to perform abortions, and that abortion clinics abide by common medical practices that guarantee the safety of patients. This is precisely what this bill is about—fighting the atrocities of abortion!
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Scout's Dishonor
While our issue of the month has moved on from homosexuality, there were a couple of other things I wanted to note related to this topic. The first is some reflection on the recent, and saddening, decision of the Boy Scouts. On May 23, 61% of the 1,400 members of the Boy Scouts of America National Council voted to allow openly homosexual youth into the organization. The ban on homosexual adult leaders remains intact, for now, but I have little doubt this current move is simply one step down yet another slippery slope.Why is this such a terrible thing? After all, if we believe homosexuality is wrong, shouldn't we encourage young men who are struggling with wrong behavior to be involved in a "good" organization like the Boy Scouts? That logic sounds valid until you examine in more detail what has taken place. The Boy Scouts' oath says, "On my honor I will do my best...to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." Obviously, every young man who is part of Scouting struggles with making wrong choices just as you and I do. But notice that no one was ever banning boys who struggle with homosexual desires or any other vice. The ban was on openly homosexual young men. In other words, these young men are not fighting desires they view as wrong, rather, they are embracing their homosexual desires and more than likely fueling those desires and identifying themselves with their perceived sexuality.
Now, with that in mind, read the Scout's oath again. The vote has essentially concluded that a homosexual lifestyle equals a morally straight lifestyle. The decision of the Scouts sends all kinds of mixed messages to our young people. I hope you understand by this point why homosexual behavior is actually immoral, regardless of what a vote decides. If not, I refer you to the previous two blog posts about this issue. One could no more vote homosexual behavior into the category of moral uprightness than one could vote that a geometric figure with four sides is a circle. But more than that, the leaders of the Boy Scouts have sent the message that morality is not objective, that moral values can change as the times change, and, essentially, that morality is decided by popular opinion. How on earth can our young men hope to live morally straight lives when the road to the good is seen as a multilane freeway with changing traffic laws rather than a oneway street?
Moreover, this ruling will not help young men with homosexual desires. If anything, it will fuel it. First, if "morally straight" and "openly gay" are compatible, then why should a young homosexual feel he needs help with his desires in the first place? Acting on his desires is not immoral according to the Scout's vote. Plus, as Doug Beaumont points out HERE,
Ironically, the notion that being "openly heterosexual" or "openly homosexual" is morally equivalent actually creates a new problem. The Boy Scouts of America is not just a social club or a bunch of guys collecting rocks or stamps. Scouting often involves shared, close-quarter activities like sleeping, bathing, changing clothes, etc. that young boys and girls are not allowed to practice together. So if someone subscribes to the moral equivalency of heterosexual and homosexual behavior, it actually makes the ruling as problematic as allowing young boys and girls to camp together would."
This post is not about telling those of you involved with Scouting to stop being Scouts. That decision is up to you. My goal is to simply help you think well about these issues and why they are important. I hope I have succeeded in that. There is one more issue I want to address before switching topics. Look for it in the next few days. - Adam T.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
I Object!
Through posts and links, we've given a brief overview of the natural law argument against homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage. In short, we said that everyone pursues what they take to be good for them; reason tells us what is in fact good for us (that which fulfills the purposes of our essence or the nature of our various faculties); therefore it is good to pursue what is in fact good for us and bad to not do so. Homosexual behavior, and by implication, same-sex marriage, are contrary to the purpose of sex and marriage and are therefore not good. Other provided links clearly laid out the biblical case against homosexual behavior, and it was hopefully clear that natural law simply compliments and provides a common ground foundation for what the Bible says. Let's briefly look at a few common objections to the arguments against homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.
1. "I was born this way." or "I'm naturally attracted to the same-sex."
It's important to clarify what natural law means by "nature." It does not mean genetics, biology, environment, etc. It means WHAT something is; its essence (i.e. human, tree, dog, etc.). The good for us is determined by what we are, that is, our nature. So think back to the example of the alcoholic. According to what it means to be human and the purposes of our various faculties, it is not good to drink in excess. This fact does not change even IF alcoholism were completely genetic. It would certainly mean that alcoholics may have a terribly difficult time fighting their urge to drink in excess, and some may find the struggle too much to bear and thus give in. But that reflects a weakness of the will and does not somehow make alcoholism a good thing. Such a fact would, however, mean we should have that much more compassion on someone struggling through such a battle. Likewise, even IF homosexual desires were purely genetic, it would not mean that homosexual behavior was good anymore than having a genetic propensity to drink in excess, or a genetic cause of blindness, or a genetic desire to compulsively steal candy from babies would be good things. Finally, we all have desires that we know we ought not act on. Simply having a desire, for whatever reason, or however strongly, does not necessarily mean that desire is good and should be pursued (even IF refraining from acting on that desire is extremely painful and difficult).
2. "Culture is evolving and morals change; you're just old-fashioned."
This assumes that morality is necessarily changing for the better. But how could one know this without arguing that objective morality exists so that the changing morals are more closely approaching the moral standard? But one would then have to make an argument for the existence of objective morality. If immaterial realities like human natures don't exist, however, or in a more ultimate sense, if God doesn't exist, then they have no foundation on which to argue for objective morality other than majority opinion or might makes right. Of course, if that's the case, then once upon a time slavery would have been okay rather than being objectively wrong in all times. Virtually no one arguing for same-sex marriage holds such a view since they are in fact arguing that those opposing same-sex marriage are objectively wrong. But that just brings us full circle in that we must ask the questions, "What is moral?," "How do we know it?," "How do we ground it?," etc.
In addition, moral progress would be impossible if morality is constantly evolving because there is no goal to progress towards. Ironically, since the moral reformer would be going against the majority opinion and the powers that be, he would in fact be immoral according to this view. So much for Martin Luther King, Jr. being a hero. Lastly, from a technical standpoint, this objection commits an appeal to age fallacy by claiming an idea is wrong or right simply because of its age.
3. "The church and state must remain separate. You can't set up a God-run government (theocracy)."
As I've said, I'm arguing from a natural law perspective. This ultimately leads to the existence of God, but one could, theoretically, accept these arguments and be an atheist (as some people do and are). Moreover, the Bible claims that murder and stealing are wrong. Yet no one is proposing such laws be removed from our government due to separation of church and state issues. This objection is simply inconsistent. Moreover, everyone is doing philosophy. The question is, are they doing it well or poorly? When the government takes a stand on a particular issue, or even when they decide to stay out of a particular issue, they are in fact making a moral, and thus philosophical, decision. They cannot be neutral regarding philosophy in general, and metaphysics (the study of being as being) in particular. This great short piece goes into a bit more detail regarding why that is the case.
4. "Homosexual behavior is often observed throughout the animal world."
Animals often eat their young too. What conclusions should we draw from this? Remember that moral goodness enters the picture when rational animals (i.e. human beings) know what is good for them and choose to act according to that or against that. Animals are not rational and thus are not bound by moral laws. We don't put lions on trial for murder when they kill their prey or even when they kill another lion.
5. "You're just an intolerant, homophobic, bigot."
In logic, this is known as an ad hominem fallacy. That is, it attacks the person rather than the argument. First, it's only possible to tolerate things I disagree with. If I agree with you, I'm not tolerating you by virtue of the fact that we agree. Also, the fact that I disagree with a position does not equal my intolerance of the person holding that position. All people are created equal, but all ideas are not. Therefore, homophobia is bad, and we should certainly love those who have homosexual desires. But my disagreeing with homosexual behavior does not equal my fearing the person practicing that behavior. Finally, I'm offering solid arguments from reason and revelation (which we have reason to believe is true) as to why I think homosexual behavior is wrong. Thus, I'm not ignorantly holding a view against a person, and therefore I'm not being a bigot. And ultimately, even IF I were being all of these things, that does nothing to say whether my arguments are sound or not.
6. "Not allowing same-sex marriage is violation of human rights."
This simply assumes the very thing in question. What is marriage? What are human rights? How do we determine those things? If natural law is correct, in agreement with the Bible of course, then marriage is a particular type of relationship for a particular purpose and same-sex couples could not be considered a married couple any more than a square could be considered a circle. Thus, there is no violation of rights because they have no right to marry someone of the same sex. On the other hand, everyone already has equal rights to marriage. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally free to marry any consenting adult is of the opposite sex and not a close relative.
7. "People used to think interracial marriage was immoral, but now they don't. It's the same for same-sex marriage."
This is known as a category mistake, comparing two different categories of things (think apples and oranges). Race/ethnicity is not the same as gender. One's race has nothing to do with whether one can marry and procreate. One's gender, however, has everything to do with whether one can marry and procreate. Terrible arguments were used against interracial marriage. Thankfully, we've moved past that. But we must learn, as Frank Turek observes, to treat equal things equally and non-equal things non-equally. A man and woman of different races are equal as persons with the ability marry and procreate. Two people of the same sex, while equal as persons, are not equal when it comes to marriage and procreation.
8. "Marriage is simply a construction of society, a contract for two people who love each other."
There are several issues with this. One, if marriage is not a particular kind of thing, with a particular essence and thus particular purposes and goods, then marriage is ultimately anything and thus nothing. If marriage can be whatever we want it to be as a society, then currently society has said it's for one man and one woman. Thus, by the objection's own logic, no rights are being violated by denying same-sex couples a marriage license. In fact, those being counter cultural by arguing for same-sex marriage would be immoral if this view were held consistently. Also, notice the smuggled in notion that marriage is in fact a particular kind of thing "for two people who love each other." Who says it has to be two people? Who says it has to involve love? Who says it has to involve people? That's a very narrow minded view of marriage! That's so intolerant! Finally, is it unchangeably true that marriage must be about love and involve people or can that be redefined as well?
9. "So, you're saying that people who can't have kids shouldn't marry?"
Not at all. A man and woman who are sterile and married are still a procreative KIND of relationship even if their relationship is not procreative in EFFECT. They are not doing anything contrary to the purpose of sex and marriage. I'll leave the answer at that since going any deeper would open up many other cans of worms not directly related to the issue at hand.
10. "A homosexual couple getting married will not hurt your marriage."
While it may be true that it would not directly hurt my marriage (though that's debatable), that's not why I'm against same-sex marriage. First, as a matter of truth, it's simply wrong just like homosexual behavior is. Secondly, I think it ultimately harms those involved, even if they don't realize it. Thus, I'm against it for that reason as well. Third, and finally, it will lead to many harmful implications for society as a whole and children in particular. I would refer you to here for more information about that, and I would also recommend Frank Turek's short book on the topic.
We've already destroyed marriage through no-fault divorce, the "hook up" culture, pornography, and other such nonsense. God forgive us. No doubt we must strengthen our marriages and families and honor God through them. May we not, however, continue down the wrong road and think that same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior is no big deal or that we have no good reasons to oppose them. We are called to love those struggling with homosexual behavior, but sometimes the most loving thing to do is speak the truth and/or help others to see the truth for themselves. May we do so with gentle and respectful boldness.
Recall that the Apostle Paul calls us to destroy arguments and every lofty thing built up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10_3-5). He calls this spiritual warfare, and the way you destroy bad arguments is with good thinking and better arguments. As Edward Feser notes here, "If Christians and conservatives are not prepared to defend traditional sexual morality in general, then they are going to lose the battle over 'same-sex marriage.' And that means that they are going to have to be prepared to criticize homosexual behavior itself, as well as sex outside of marriage, divorce, pornography, and all the rest. The other side is motivated by a moralistic fervor, and they frame the debate in terms of rights, justice, compassion, and so forth. That sort of rhetoric cannot effectively be countered except with equal and opposite moral force.…So, Christians need to rediscover their intellectual heritage." I agree.
For His glory,
Adam
1. "I was born this way." or "I'm naturally attracted to the same-sex."
It's important to clarify what natural law means by "nature." It does not mean genetics, biology, environment, etc. It means WHAT something is; its essence (i.e. human, tree, dog, etc.). The good for us is determined by what we are, that is, our nature. So think back to the example of the alcoholic. According to what it means to be human and the purposes of our various faculties, it is not good to drink in excess. This fact does not change even IF alcoholism were completely genetic. It would certainly mean that alcoholics may have a terribly difficult time fighting their urge to drink in excess, and some may find the struggle too much to bear and thus give in. But that reflects a weakness of the will and does not somehow make alcoholism a good thing. Such a fact would, however, mean we should have that much more compassion on someone struggling through such a battle. Likewise, even IF homosexual desires were purely genetic, it would not mean that homosexual behavior was good anymore than having a genetic propensity to drink in excess, or a genetic cause of blindness, or a genetic desire to compulsively steal candy from babies would be good things. Finally, we all have desires that we know we ought not act on. Simply having a desire, for whatever reason, or however strongly, does not necessarily mean that desire is good and should be pursued (even IF refraining from acting on that desire is extremely painful and difficult).
2. "Culture is evolving and morals change; you're just old-fashioned."
This assumes that morality is necessarily changing for the better. But how could one know this without arguing that objective morality exists so that the changing morals are more closely approaching the moral standard? But one would then have to make an argument for the existence of objective morality. If immaterial realities like human natures don't exist, however, or in a more ultimate sense, if God doesn't exist, then they have no foundation on which to argue for objective morality other than majority opinion or might makes right. Of course, if that's the case, then once upon a time slavery would have been okay rather than being objectively wrong in all times. Virtually no one arguing for same-sex marriage holds such a view since they are in fact arguing that those opposing same-sex marriage are objectively wrong. But that just brings us full circle in that we must ask the questions, "What is moral?," "How do we know it?," "How do we ground it?," etc.
In addition, moral progress would be impossible if morality is constantly evolving because there is no goal to progress towards. Ironically, since the moral reformer would be going against the majority opinion and the powers that be, he would in fact be immoral according to this view. So much for Martin Luther King, Jr. being a hero. Lastly, from a technical standpoint, this objection commits an appeal to age fallacy by claiming an idea is wrong or right simply because of its age.
3. "The church and state must remain separate. You can't set up a God-run government (theocracy)."
As I've said, I'm arguing from a natural law perspective. This ultimately leads to the existence of God, but one could, theoretically, accept these arguments and be an atheist (as some people do and are). Moreover, the Bible claims that murder and stealing are wrong. Yet no one is proposing such laws be removed from our government due to separation of church and state issues. This objection is simply inconsistent. Moreover, everyone is doing philosophy. The question is, are they doing it well or poorly? When the government takes a stand on a particular issue, or even when they decide to stay out of a particular issue, they are in fact making a moral, and thus philosophical, decision. They cannot be neutral regarding philosophy in general, and metaphysics (the study of being as being) in particular. This great short piece goes into a bit more detail regarding why that is the case.
4. "Homosexual behavior is often observed throughout the animal world."
Animals often eat their young too. What conclusions should we draw from this? Remember that moral goodness enters the picture when rational animals (i.e. human beings) know what is good for them and choose to act according to that or against that. Animals are not rational and thus are not bound by moral laws. We don't put lions on trial for murder when they kill their prey or even when they kill another lion.
5. "You're just an intolerant, homophobic, bigot."
In logic, this is known as an ad hominem fallacy. That is, it attacks the person rather than the argument. First, it's only possible to tolerate things I disagree with. If I agree with you, I'm not tolerating you by virtue of the fact that we agree. Also, the fact that I disagree with a position does not equal my intolerance of the person holding that position. All people are created equal, but all ideas are not. Therefore, homophobia is bad, and we should certainly love those who have homosexual desires. But my disagreeing with homosexual behavior does not equal my fearing the person practicing that behavior. Finally, I'm offering solid arguments from reason and revelation (which we have reason to believe is true) as to why I think homosexual behavior is wrong. Thus, I'm not ignorantly holding a view against a person, and therefore I'm not being a bigot. And ultimately, even IF I were being all of these things, that does nothing to say whether my arguments are sound or not.
6. "Not allowing same-sex marriage is violation of human rights."
This simply assumes the very thing in question. What is marriage? What are human rights? How do we determine those things? If natural law is correct, in agreement with the Bible of course, then marriage is a particular type of relationship for a particular purpose and same-sex couples could not be considered a married couple any more than a square could be considered a circle. Thus, there is no violation of rights because they have no right to marry someone of the same sex. On the other hand, everyone already has equal rights to marriage. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally free to marry any consenting adult is of the opposite sex and not a close relative.
7. "People used to think interracial marriage was immoral, but now they don't. It's the same for same-sex marriage."
This is known as a category mistake, comparing two different categories of things (think apples and oranges). Race/ethnicity is not the same as gender. One's race has nothing to do with whether one can marry and procreate. One's gender, however, has everything to do with whether one can marry and procreate. Terrible arguments were used against interracial marriage. Thankfully, we've moved past that. But we must learn, as Frank Turek observes, to treat equal things equally and non-equal things non-equally. A man and woman of different races are equal as persons with the ability marry and procreate. Two people of the same sex, while equal as persons, are not equal when it comes to marriage and procreation.
8. "Marriage is simply a construction of society, a contract for two people who love each other."
There are several issues with this. One, if marriage is not a particular kind of thing, with a particular essence and thus particular purposes and goods, then marriage is ultimately anything and thus nothing. If marriage can be whatever we want it to be as a society, then currently society has said it's for one man and one woman. Thus, by the objection's own logic, no rights are being violated by denying same-sex couples a marriage license. In fact, those being counter cultural by arguing for same-sex marriage would be immoral if this view were held consistently. Also, notice the smuggled in notion that marriage is in fact a particular kind of thing "for two people who love each other." Who says it has to be two people? Who says it has to involve love? Who says it has to involve people? That's a very narrow minded view of marriage! That's so intolerant! Finally, is it unchangeably true that marriage must be about love and involve people or can that be redefined as well?
9. "So, you're saying that people who can't have kids shouldn't marry?"
Not at all. A man and woman who are sterile and married are still a procreative KIND of relationship even if their relationship is not procreative in EFFECT. They are not doing anything contrary to the purpose of sex and marriage. I'll leave the answer at that since going any deeper would open up many other cans of worms not directly related to the issue at hand.
10. "A homosexual couple getting married will not hurt your marriage."
While it may be true that it would not directly hurt my marriage (though that's debatable), that's not why I'm against same-sex marriage. First, as a matter of truth, it's simply wrong just like homosexual behavior is. Secondly, I think it ultimately harms those involved, even if they don't realize it. Thus, I'm against it for that reason as well. Third, and finally, it will lead to many harmful implications for society as a whole and children in particular. I would refer you to here for more information about that, and I would also recommend Frank Turek's short book on the topic.
We've already destroyed marriage through no-fault divorce, the "hook up" culture, pornography, and other such nonsense. God forgive us. No doubt we must strengthen our marriages and families and honor God through them. May we not, however, continue down the wrong road and think that same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior is no big deal or that we have no good reasons to oppose them. We are called to love those struggling with homosexual behavior, but sometimes the most loving thing to do is speak the truth and/or help others to see the truth for themselves. May we do so with gentle and respectful boldness.
Recall that the Apostle Paul calls us to destroy arguments and every lofty thing built up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10_3-5). He calls this spiritual warfare, and the way you destroy bad arguments is with good thinking and better arguments. As Edward Feser notes here, "If Christians and conservatives are not prepared to defend traditional sexual morality in general, then they are going to lose the battle over 'same-sex marriage.' And that means that they are going to have to be prepared to criticize homosexual behavior itself, as well as sex outside of marriage, divorce, pornography, and all the rest. The other side is motivated by a moralistic fervor, and they frame the debate in terms of rights, justice, compassion, and so forth. That sort of rhetoric cannot effectively be countered except with equal and opposite moral force.…So, Christians need to rediscover their intellectual heritage." I agree.
For His glory,
Adam
Thursday, April 25, 2013
This is the Good Life
My apologies for being terribly slow with follow up posts regarding this months issue of homosexuality. Please know the slowness is completely my own and not that of the C3 committee. With that said, let's jump into the issues of homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" in more detail.
Realizing these are sensitive subjects, as a reminder, let me say that we are called to judge ideas and arguments and demolish those ideas that are built up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:3-5). We are not called to demolish people in the process. We're called to love people. These blogs are mainly written to help you think through the issues and arguments. They are not so much about how to talk to people. That would take another series of posts in itself. Suffice it to say that we are to prayerfully talk with people with gentleness and respect (1 Pet. 3:15), and often times the best approach is to ask lots of questions like, "What do you mean by that?" and, "How did you come to that conclusion?" in order to encourage the other person to think through the issues along with you. Perhaps we can explore this more at a latter time.
When approaching the topics at hand, however, we could certainly appeal to the Bible to make our case that homosexual behavior is sinful and that God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman. No doubt there are those out there who attempt to argue that the Bible teaches no such thing. I don't think their arguments are successful for a number of reasons, but I would refer you to here, here, and here as good starting points to learn more. Nevertheless, as I said before, such a debate about biblical texts is important, but it holds little weight in the public marketplace of ideas where the Bible's authority is not assumed and must be argued for. Such an argument for the Bible's authority can and must be made at the proper time, but it's not needed in order to know and argue for basic objective morality. The Bible makes many issues much clearer and provides specific insights we otherwise would not have, but simply reasoning well about reality, which we all share in common, provides the groundwork for objective moral laws and the good we ought to pursue (Rom. 2:14-15). Allow me to explain.
When talking about government, laws, human rights, etc. we're ultimately talking about pursuing the common good. And in this specific debate, we must ask "What is marriage?" and "Why is it good?" But what exactly does "good" mean and why ought we pursue it? You and I, and many things in reality, have specific ends or goals (known as final causes) our various faculties are directed towards according the kind of thing we are, that is, according to our essence or nature. So, philosophically speaking, good is that which all things are directed towards according to what they are. In other words, the good for something is that which fulfills the end or purpose for something or for a specific faculty. To use a stock example, a good eye is one that sees as it should, and likewise, a bad eye is one that doesn't see as it should. Hence, the good for us is determined by our purposes or final causes. Therefore, good is completely objective and can be known. We may take other things to be good for us which are in fact bad for us, but that does not change the fact of what is actually good for us.
The fact that good is seen as undefinable, unknowable, or utterly subjective is simply based on bad thinking/philosophy. If we don't actually have human natures that entail certain purposes/goals for us and our various faculties, then we can't know what is objectively good for us and good becomes a matter of opinion. But the fact is, we do have a specific essence which we all have in common, just like almost everything that exists in nature has a specific essence as the kind of thing it is, and therefore we can objectively know what's good.
Why should we pursue the good? The short answer is, because it's the rational thing to do. We all pursue what we take to be good for us. This is an undenialbe fact (When was the last time you pursued something you knew to bad for you without having a reason to think the good of it outweighed the bad?). Reason tells us what is in fact good for us, based on the purpose of our various faculties (i.e. eating for nourishing the body, thus it is good to eat and not good to make yourself throw up for weight loss purposes). Thus, the rational person will pursue what is truly good (i.e. "be good") even when that is in opposition to what they may "feel" is good. This is when "good" becomes a "moral good." Because we can think and know what is in fact good for us, we can choose whether to pursue that or to pursue something different. For example, we know that being an alcoholic is not good on many levels. Even the alcoholic may know this, yet his desire for alcohol may be seen as a greater good than what is in fact good for him, which is not drinking in excess. If he chooses to fight his desire then that would be both morally good and rational. If he does not, then that would be bad of course. The rational thing to do, and thus the right thing to do, is to fight his desire. And notice that this remains the case even IF his desire for alcohol, and thus his alcoholism, were completely a product of his genetics.
Now, apply this same principle to homosexual behavior and same-sex "marriage." It is obvious to virtually any rational person that the purpose or final cause of sex is procreation. The fact that it feels good and tends to emotionally bond a husband and wife together are secondary to the fact that when uninhibited it naturally produces children. It feels good and is emotionally bonding so that people will form these unions, have children, and raise them together. Taken further, this is ultimately why sex is only permissible within marriage and why marriage is a life-long monogamous commitment. It's certainly a picture of Christ and the church, but we're talking about natural purposes here ("natural" meaning according to something's nature/essence).
Seen in this light, it is clear that homosexual behavior is completely contrary to the purpose of sex and cannot be considered good in anyway. That is not to say that every time a husband and wife come together they must conceive a child, or even have that in mind, but it is to say that homosexual behavior doesn't even allow that possibility because it is completely contrary to, and disruptive of, the purpose of sex. Note again that this is true whether a person with homosexual desires is "born that way" or not. Furthermore, as we've mentioned, the purpose of marriage is to unite a husband and wife in the type of relationship that can/will produce children and provide a stable environment to raise those children. And once again, same-sex "marriage" is completely contrary to this purpose and cannot be called good, or even rightly called marriage, any more than a triangle can be called a square. It's simply not that kind of thing. Doing some philosophy has helped us answer the question of what marriage is, why it's good, and why we should pursue the good.
While the above has been extremely brief, the case presented is known as natural law and is very similar to what our founding fathers built this nation on. Notice that the arguments are built on reality we all have access to and the conclusions are objectively true and do not rely on personal preference, etc. Also note how one needn't necessarily trust the Bible, or even believe in God, in order to understand and accept these arguments. Of course why we actually have purposes built into us and our various faculties, and why we have a nature/essence and exist in the first place, ultimately point back to God and provide very strong evidence for constructing arguments for God's existence. Sharing the Gospel is the ultimate goal, but helping people think well and see reality properly is crucial in even getting to the Gospel in our culture. For a few more details on natural law, I refer you to here, here, here, here, and here.
For His glory,
Adam Tucker
Realizing these are sensitive subjects, as a reminder, let me say that we are called to judge ideas and arguments and demolish those ideas that are built up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:3-5). We are not called to demolish people in the process. We're called to love people. These blogs are mainly written to help you think through the issues and arguments. They are not so much about how to talk to people. That would take another series of posts in itself. Suffice it to say that we are to prayerfully talk with people with gentleness and respect (1 Pet. 3:15), and often times the best approach is to ask lots of questions like, "What do you mean by that?" and, "How did you come to that conclusion?" in order to encourage the other person to think through the issues along with you. Perhaps we can explore this more at a latter time.
When approaching the topics at hand, however, we could certainly appeal to the Bible to make our case that homosexual behavior is sinful and that God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman. No doubt there are those out there who attempt to argue that the Bible teaches no such thing. I don't think their arguments are successful for a number of reasons, but I would refer you to here, here, and here as good starting points to learn more. Nevertheless, as I said before, such a debate about biblical texts is important, but it holds little weight in the public marketplace of ideas where the Bible's authority is not assumed and must be argued for. Such an argument for the Bible's authority can and must be made at the proper time, but it's not needed in order to know and argue for basic objective morality. The Bible makes many issues much clearer and provides specific insights we otherwise would not have, but simply reasoning well about reality, which we all share in common, provides the groundwork for objective moral laws and the good we ought to pursue (Rom. 2:14-15). Allow me to explain.
When talking about government, laws, human rights, etc. we're ultimately talking about pursuing the common good. And in this specific debate, we must ask "What is marriage?" and "Why is it good?" But what exactly does "good" mean and why ought we pursue it? You and I, and many things in reality, have specific ends or goals (known as final causes) our various faculties are directed towards according the kind of thing we are, that is, according to our essence or nature. So, philosophically speaking, good is that which all things are directed towards according to what they are. In other words, the good for something is that which fulfills the end or purpose for something or for a specific faculty. To use a stock example, a good eye is one that sees as it should, and likewise, a bad eye is one that doesn't see as it should. Hence, the good for us is determined by our purposes or final causes. Therefore, good is completely objective and can be known. We may take other things to be good for us which are in fact bad for us, but that does not change the fact of what is actually good for us.
The fact that good is seen as undefinable, unknowable, or utterly subjective is simply based on bad thinking/philosophy. If we don't actually have human natures that entail certain purposes/goals for us and our various faculties, then we can't know what is objectively good for us and good becomes a matter of opinion. But the fact is, we do have a specific essence which we all have in common, just like almost everything that exists in nature has a specific essence as the kind of thing it is, and therefore we can objectively know what's good.
Why should we pursue the good? The short answer is, because it's the rational thing to do. We all pursue what we take to be good for us. This is an undenialbe fact (When was the last time you pursued something you knew to bad for you without having a reason to think the good of it outweighed the bad?). Reason tells us what is in fact good for us, based on the purpose of our various faculties (i.e. eating for nourishing the body, thus it is good to eat and not good to make yourself throw up for weight loss purposes). Thus, the rational person will pursue what is truly good (i.e. "be good") even when that is in opposition to what they may "feel" is good. This is when "good" becomes a "moral good." Because we can think and know what is in fact good for us, we can choose whether to pursue that or to pursue something different. For example, we know that being an alcoholic is not good on many levels. Even the alcoholic may know this, yet his desire for alcohol may be seen as a greater good than what is in fact good for him, which is not drinking in excess. If he chooses to fight his desire then that would be both morally good and rational. If he does not, then that would be bad of course. The rational thing to do, and thus the right thing to do, is to fight his desire. And notice that this remains the case even IF his desire for alcohol, and thus his alcoholism, were completely a product of his genetics.
Now, apply this same principle to homosexual behavior and same-sex "marriage." It is obvious to virtually any rational person that the purpose or final cause of sex is procreation. The fact that it feels good and tends to emotionally bond a husband and wife together are secondary to the fact that when uninhibited it naturally produces children. It feels good and is emotionally bonding so that people will form these unions, have children, and raise them together. Taken further, this is ultimately why sex is only permissible within marriage and why marriage is a life-long monogamous commitment. It's certainly a picture of Christ and the church, but we're talking about natural purposes here ("natural" meaning according to something's nature/essence).
Seen in this light, it is clear that homosexual behavior is completely contrary to the purpose of sex and cannot be considered good in anyway. That is not to say that every time a husband and wife come together they must conceive a child, or even have that in mind, but it is to say that homosexual behavior doesn't even allow that possibility because it is completely contrary to, and disruptive of, the purpose of sex. Note again that this is true whether a person with homosexual desires is "born that way" or not. Furthermore, as we've mentioned, the purpose of marriage is to unite a husband and wife in the type of relationship that can/will produce children and provide a stable environment to raise those children. And once again, same-sex "marriage" is completely contrary to this purpose and cannot be called good, or even rightly called marriage, any more than a triangle can be called a square. It's simply not that kind of thing. Doing some philosophy has helped us answer the question of what marriage is, why it's good, and why we should pursue the good.
While the above has been extremely brief, the case presented is known as natural law and is very similar to what our founding fathers built this nation on. Notice that the arguments are built on reality we all have access to and the conclusions are objectively true and do not rely on personal preference, etc. Also note how one needn't necessarily trust the Bible, or even believe in God, in order to understand and accept these arguments. Of course why we actually have purposes built into us and our various faculties, and why we have a nature/essence and exist in the first place, ultimately point back to God and provide very strong evidence for constructing arguments for God's existence. Sharing the Gospel is the ultimate goal, but helping people think well and see reality properly is crucial in even getting to the Gospel in our culture. For a few more details on natural law, I refer you to here, here, here, here, and here.
For His glory,
Adam Tucker
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Are We Living in Bizarro World?
Sometimes I feel I am living in Bizarro World. Please allow me to explain. We live in a culture where we constantly hear buzzwords like "political correctness," "tolerance," "equality," and a plethora of other so-called "virtues." Conviction is seen as bigotry, hate, or fear, love is defined as encouraging one to do whatever makes them happy, and good is seen as merely subjective and in the eye of the beholder. In a sense, our culture has become a Bizarro World of sorts where traditional values and the classical understanding of good are rejected and their opposites, or at least very distorted versions of themselves, are accepted and championed as the new coveted "virtues." It actually seems to reflect the words of Isaiah in Is. 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
The reality, however, is that these "virtues" have replaced the true cardinal virtues which are grounded in reality (and ultimately in God); virtues such as wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. In other words, we have rejected the truly beautiful (and truth itself) for whatever stirs the emotions and provides some type of shock value. As philosopher Dr. Edward Feser notes (and yes, Dr. Feser is a Catholic, though one need not agree with everything regarding his, or other Catholics', theology and doctrine to appreciate and learn from their teaching on metaphysics and philosophy),
A soul which strives primarily to acquire those traditional cardinal virtues, even while acknowledging the value within limits of open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness in the process of acquiring them, is rightly ordered. But a soul which primarily values open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness, and either rejects the traditional cardinal virtues or relegates them to second place, is disordered. Similarly, a rightly ordered society will value the traditional cardinal virtues over open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness, whereas a society which celebrates the latter over the former is disordered. Even if it uses the language of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice, it will not respect or promote true virtue, but only its counterfeit.A primary example of this counterfeited and disordered thinking is the idea of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. North Carolina is no stranger to this debate, and unless you live under a rock you know that choosing sides on this issue is often seen like being a Carolina or Duke fan, there is no middle ground! We have seen this illustrated in the controversy regarding Chick-fil-a, certain out-of-context comments from the CEO of Starbucks, the designations of "mother" and "father" being removed from certain government documents in other countries, and this past week's Supreme Court hearings regarding the Defense of Marriage Act and Prop 8. One of the more recent high-profile examples of this debate is the The Boy Scouts of America's ongoing inquiry regarding their decision to change their policy of not allowing practicing homosexuals in their leadership and membership.
Let me be very clear. I am NOT saying that those who support same-sex "marriage" are intentionally disregarding the cardinal virtues, truth, beauty, God, or anything else in attempt to simply make reality a Bizarro World. In fact, I think many of those who support same-sex "marriage" often do so out of very admirable and sincere motives. Likewise, many who oppose such a redefinition often do so out of very evil motives. Ideas, however, must be judged on their own merits and not on the motives of their supporters or opposition.
I hope you realize that quoting a Bible verse or saying "The Bible says it, I believe, that settles it," is not an adequate response to the same-sex "marriage" debate (or much of any other debate in our culture). How do we know the Bible is true? Why should someone accept it as an authority? These are questions that need to be answered if one is simply going to appeal to the Bible. Assuming you are a Christian, would you take a Muslim's word for it that you should accept some idea as true simply because the Quran says so? I certainly think the Bible does teach that marriage is designed for one man and one woman for life. But, I also think such a conclusion can be reasoned to and defended from simply thinking well about reality, a reality which we all share.
In the weeks to come we will be looking at some of the arguments for and against traditional marriage and same-sex "marriage." It is my hope and prayer that you will begin to think well about this issue and be able to lovingly and respectfully dialog with others about this as well. As we journey through this discussion it will become clear that same-sex "marriage" advocates, and those who struggle with homosexual behavior, are usually seeking very good things just in the wrong way. In other words, they've bought a counterfeit and have come to think that Bizarro World is actually reality.
I will warn you that thinking about this issue will, heaven forbid, require you to do some philosophy. But as G.K. Chesterton said,
Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out. The latter is what we commonly call culture and enlightenment today. But man is always influenced by thought of some kind, his own or somebody else’s; that of somebody he trusts or that of somebody he never heard of, thought at first, second or third hand; thought from exploded legends or unverified rumours; but always something with the shadow of a system of values and a reason for preference. A man does test everything by something. The question here is whether he has ever tested the test.The Apostle Paul says in Phil. 4:8, "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about such things." That is precisely what we are going to attempt to do. I hope you will join us.
For His glory,
Adam Tucker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)