UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES: 2004/02-03
Print Version
E-mail This Article
Leave CommentUNDERSTANDING THE TIMES
The Newsletter of Contend for the Faith, Inc
1 Chronicles 12:32
February - March 2004
JOY OF LEARNING
One of the most satisfying things I have the privilege of doing is teaching young people how to think about the world from a Christian point of view. It is exciting for students to grasp new things, and it is a joy for me to see the “light bulbs” turn on in their minds.
I received a note from a young lady named Lindsay who wrote to me after I spoke recently to a High School youth group. I had been speaking to them about how to recognize and refute bad arguments and sloppy thinking that permeate many discussions of our day.
Her note to me was very encouraging. She wrote in part:
“I happened to hear you speak last night, and I loved what you had to say. First off, I couldn’t agree with you more on all of the points you made, and secondly, believe it or not, my best friend at school happens to be a Mormon, and some of the things you said last night helped clear up some misconstrued thoughts I had about their religion versus Christianity. It helped me realize, yet again, that despite what she might try to portray, her ‘religion’ is nothing more than a cult, and I need to try my best to emphasize the wrong aspects of the Mormon faith without completely insulting her.”
She went on to write,
“I actually prayed last night that I would be able to use what I was taught by you last night sometime today at school with my friends, and it actually happened! My friend and I actually got into a conversation about it at lunch (she believes everything is ‘relative’), but she didn’t want to let the conversation progress very far, making me realize one of the main reasons people believe in relativity is to stay ‘neutral,’ or make sure they don’t offend anybody. I just found that interesting. Thanks again!”
At another church at which I spoke recently, a senior in high school named Amy came up to me and said enthusiastically, “This is great! You really make learning fun!”
To that I say, “Praise God!” I believe it is so important for Christians not only to believe the right things for personal salvation but also to be able to defend those beliefs for evangelization.
Believers are constantly challenged today to give reasons for their beliefs concerning the way of salvation (through Jesus alone) and biblical morality (why not have “same-sex marriage”). If we don’t become equipped and if we don’t equip our youth to answer the good questions people are asking, how can we hope to reach the lost and renew our culture?
Jesus taught that we should be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). That means we need to be able to think and speak from a Christian worldview to reach those “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” (Phil. 2:15).
SPEAKING SCHEDULE 2004
February 22
Defending the Faith Series: Thinking 101, Part One Sardis Baptist Church Sunday School Class, 9:30 – 10:30 am
http://www.sardisbaptist.com/ home.html
February 29
Defending the Faith Series: Thinking 101, Part Two Sardis Baptist Church Sunday School Class, 9:30 – 10:30 am
http://www.sardisbaptist.com/ home.html
March 7
Defending the Faith Series: How Do We Know God Exists? Part One, Sardis Baptist Church Sunday School Class, 9:30 – 10:30 am http://www.sardisbaptist.com/ home.html
March 14
Defending the Faith Series: How Do We Know God Exists? Part Two, Sardis Baptist Church Sunday School Class, 9:30 – 10:30 am http://www.sardisbaptist.com/ home.html
March 21
Roman Catholicism , Part One Homebuilders Sunday School Class, Calvary Church 10:45 am http://www.calvarychurch.com
March 28
Roman Catholicism , Part Two Homebuilders Sunday School Class, Calvary Church 10:45 am http://www.calvarychurch.com
UNDERSTANDING THE DEBATE OVER “GAY MARRIAGE”
In the last several months there has been huge debate in this country over the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. That discussion will no doubt continue.
But there is another debate raging in America today over what many believe is a much more imminent threat to the wellbeing of our society – the issue of “same-sex marriage.” Those who advocate redefining the divinely established institution of marriage are using what I call arguments of mass distortion (AMD). These destructive arguments need to be refuted.
From Boston to San Francisco ( America’s version of Sodom and Gomorrah?) activists are demanding marriage rights for “gays and lesbians” by using a variety of specious claims. Let’s examine a few.
“Gays should have the right to marry. They are denied this right at present.”
This argument is completely false. Every man in this country has to right and ability to marry, as does every woman, but the pool of marriage candidates is not unlimited. For example, the state of South Carolina has the following restrictions on marriage in its code of laws, Section 20-1-10 :
“No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or another man.”
There is a similar list of people whom women are forbidden to marry. The law prohibiting men from marrying men and women from marrying women is applied equally to all. Not only is it illegal for people to marry someone of the same sex, it is illegal for them to wed certain people of the opposite sex.
“The fight against laws preventing gay marriage is just like the fight against the old antimiscegenation laws.”
The antimiscegenation laws did prohibit men and women who were of “different races” from marrying, and they were unjust. In 1967, after several states had repealed these laws, the United States Supreme Court declared them to be unconstitutional.
The laws against miscegenation were unjust because they said some men could not marry some otherwise-eligible women simply because of skin color. But the fact that marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman was never in dispute. The argument for “gay marriage” is completely different than the argument for “interracial” marriage.
“Current laws on marriage discriminate. They should be made nondiscriminatory.”
When someone claims that current laws on marriage discriminate, the response should always be, “Of course they do! They must!”
The question is not whether there is discrimination in the law (there is), but whether it is just or unjust discrimination.
Virtually everyone in this debate is in favor of some restrictions on marriage; however there are reasonable restrictions and there are unreasonable restrictions. For example, it is reasonable (and just) to prohibit a man from marrying his neighbor’s wife. It is unreasonable (and unjust) to prohibit the same man from marrying a single woman whose skin is of a different shade than his.
Homosexual activists themselves are discriminatory in their misguided view of “marriage.” They constantly proclaim, “Two people who are committed to each other have a right to marry, regardless of gender.” Why only two people? Why not three or seven? Why are they so narrow-minded on this point? When asked why aren’t they in favor of polygamy, the typically irrational response by gay advocates is, “Well, because that is against the law!” NEWS FLASH: “Gay marriage” is against the law as well!
“It is unjust and immoral to prohibit same-sex marriage. Those who are allowing them are fighting for morality and justice.”
It is laughable that the same people who scream about the impropriety of conservatives who want to “impose your morality on us” have no problem at all attempting to impose their immorality on everyone else by ignoring statutes passed by the will of the majority.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom pretends to be upholding the California state constitution while he is knowingly and intentionally violating it and his oath of office. But so what? The liberal agenda is all that matters. For liberals, laws and constitutions are impediments to be circumvented rather than directives to be followed.
In an interesting reversal, many liberals who applaud Senate democrats for preventing votes on President Bush’s judicial nominees because they would interpret the US Constitution too “strictly” have themselves become “strict constructionists” when they decided that state constitutions in Massachusetts, California, and New York already allow “gay marriages” and no one realized it until now.
“Gay marriage does not damage heterosexual marriage at all.”
If marriage can mean anything at all then it effectively means nothing. The terms husband, wife, bride, and groom will eventually be outlawed as politically incorrect words. Everyone will simply be a gender-neutral “spouse” or, as in San Francisco, “applicant 1” and “applicant 2.”
Marriage is an institution fashioned by God for the purpose of encouraging stable families which lead to orderly societies. Those who tamper with this institution do so at the peril of us all.
