The Supreme Court’s Same Sex Decision, Morality, God & Man
In light of the Supreme Court decision to approve of same-sex marriage across the land, I’ve read comments on both sides of the cultural fence in regard to the “progress” of the sexual revolution that continues in the United States. While scores of examples in history and law could really push the argument in favor of one’s bias, as everyone has a moral bias, based out of a belief in something or someone, even if it is solely in self – in the idea that all people are universally good and can make good decisions. It is important to see the optimism in humanity, but do such statements ignore the human condition? When Jesus states there is none good but God, do we take the actual meaning of what he is saying and apply that to every day living? When we state as Christians that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, is that a condemnation or a hopeful revelation of a brighter future? And on that note, can that brighter future actually come to fruition without God?
The problem with people making statements such as, “conservatives hate the gays,” as some “liberal Christians” & non-Christians have said of late, is not only biblically unfounded, but it grossly misinterprets whole demographics as believing and applying that inaccurate assessment to every day life. It blankets all Christians living in America as right wing, Fox News promoting, close-minded bigots, but never really making the case for why their own argument isn’t fulfilling the same negative descriptions. It is a complete lack of understanding what actually details progress and whether or not said progress is in the will of God. I say this because the very definition of a Liberal Christian is biblically contradictory. A conservative can also adhere to understanding the fruits of our ancestors’ labors, while rejecting Jesus as savior. The latter term isn’t interchangeable and therefore not to be applied across the board.
Let’s look at Webster’s 1828 Dictionary for the definition of the adjective, conservative:
“Preservative; having power to preserve in a safe or entire state, or from loss, waste or injury.”
Now here is an “updated” definition off the iMac:
“Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.”
Also, let’s look at the 1828 definition of the word, hate.
“To dislike greatly; to have a great aversion to. It expresses less than abhor, detest, and abominate, unless pronounced with a peculiar emphasis.”
The iMac left out the word, abominate, but the rest of the definition was very similar.
The reason I bring up the definitions is because they’re wholly irrelevant in a society that has cast off restraint. This Supreme Court decision has very little to do with politics and everything to do with the moral degradation of a society that has redefined words to fit the moment – what feels good.
Recently on the homosexual topic, I mentioned to someone the understanding of “religion” during the Founding era was historically, the Christian faith. He asked how I thought I could redefine the word, “religion,” to fit my argument. To which I replied, “Isn’t that what you’re attempting to do with the word, ‘marriage?'” How do you explain why you are right and I am wrong without a moral framework grounded in truth? There was no reply. In regard to the politics, they are the “fruit” of a dying culture that has rejected the God of our fathers. This is not deifying the Founding Fathers and their era, but understanding their ideological framework was not only more biblically grounded, they took Scripture much more serious: See article here.
As Ravi Zacharias states in his book, Deliver Us From Evil, “…there is autonomous culture. Here every individual is self-determining and independent of authority.” Now listen to what he says here in the next sentence: “Morality imposed from without is resisted, and intuition as grounds for belief is optional.” How quaint that when one dialogues with those who consider themselves Christian or Catholic because of familial roots, they’ve very little understanding of what their belief in God biblically entails. They go for the moment as everyone else does because of that sinful human condition to reject God for the selfish moment. I elaborate in greater detail on that point, historically & biblically here: as well as how American Christians tend to fail unbelievers.
You’ll find that what news affiliate you choose, you’ll rarely if ever hear or read the moral origin of the argument, which ultimately defines its root is who God is. So the bible is misconstrued, misinterpreted, and even rewritten to fit the moment. How ironic that within one generation, what is known as “equality,” could be redefined again to fit a new culture that is neither satisfied with heterosexuality nor homosexuality, but something even both lusts may pale in comparison to. So when one looks at the biblical covenant of marriage, it is always within the confines of one man & one woman, never in any other context. When one points to biblical kings taking wives, note that God warned them before King Saul and look at what the lust of David and Solomon actually did to their families and the nation as a whole. These details tend to be glossed over or outright ignored.
Also, one has to denote where freedom as we understand it originated. And in a culture with a rich, biblical heritage such as ours, the understanding must historically detail that redefining words to fit our own agendas come into direct conflict with what the God of the Bible has mandated. Loving your neighbor never ignores the sin, but implies loving them unconditionally until the Holy Spirit convicts them. Then the Christian’s responsibility, relationally, is to help keep them accountable or said persons may cut off communication because they choose their sin (whatever that may be) over accountability, relationship, and ultimately God. Both situations, in regard to homosexuality, have happened to me personally. This applies to heterosexual lust as well. An area that has become so a part of our society today, it is laughable to even bring up an argument for abstaining from heterosexual lust as it is ingrained in our society as commonplace with near zero accountability.
Lastly, I’ll finish with the words of G.K. Chesterton, whom Ravi Zacharias also quotes in the same book. It prophetically speaks to the generations that are now in office, now in the workforce, and now in schools. Generations without hope, without purpose, without spirit-led Christians who stand firm on the Word of God as truth in an era where there is no truth but what you make it, a complete and utter contradiction.
“The new rebel is a skeptic and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore, he can never really be a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything, For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus, he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book, a novel, in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then as a philosopher that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a public meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts. Then he takes off his hat and umbrella and goes to a scientific meeting where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mind. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality, and in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”