By Andrew Walker, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Whatever one feels about organized religion or Christianity writ large, Jesus remains a highly favored cultural icon of compassion, charity, and love. Even most atheists and avowed non-Christians will acknowledge that Jesus is someone worth admiring and imitating.
Because of his enduring attraction, Jesus is continually summoned to support causes, regardless of how rooted those causes are in the words and deeds of Jesus himself. So there’s “Take Back America for God” Jesus; pro-universal healthcare Jesus; free market Jesus. With the ascendancy of same-sex marriage, a recent and popular incarnation is the pro-same-sex marriage Jesus. Proponents of same-sex marriage have wisely attached their cause to the Son of God.
Some, like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, are working from within progressive evangelical circles to change Christians’ views towards same-sex marriage. Even the far-left Human Rights Campaign, no ally of evangelicals, has launched an initiative aimed at making inroads within the Christian community, where support for same-sex marriage is still low.
Jesus is a useful endorser for activists who need opinion from all sectors of society to shift in their favor in order to secure a lasting cultural consensus—one where marriage is no longer based on the complementarity of the sexes oriented towards children, but instead on the emotional intensity of consenting adults.
To undo the norms of marriage as the union of a man and woman, marriage revisionists need Jesus on their side. They must recast the narrative of biblical Christianity, one that begins with a solitary man and woman comprehensively uniting to each other (Gen. 2:24) and culminates with Christ preparing a wedding feast for his Bride, the Church (Rev. 19-7-9).
This article is filled with oxymoron. There is no debate about same sex marriage just as there is no debate about abortion. You are either for or against it, no in between unless you mean by “debate” talking you to change your position or death, whichever comes first.
The same is true with “progressive evangelical”. There is no such thing. You are either “progressive” = LIBERAL or Evangelical = Conservative. Such slippery talk is meant to confuse and to conquer from inside. Unless we find some canonical “The Wedding at Gomorrah” Jesus celebrates the marriage of one man to one woman as we saw at Cana.
“emotional intensity of consenting adults”
human emotional attachments, including family, friends, ‘lovers’, whatever, are a form of idol worship, the antithesis of everything Jesus taught. we are to embrace our cross and follow Jesus, not man, or woman.
The greatest trick the LGBT religious lobby has pulled on the church, is to convinced the church is that they do not exist. Or that the cultural, religious and/or legal change in the concepts or definitions of family and marriage are just the logical movement of human history to a more inclusive and progressive path to a brighter future of love and happiness. Or another way, in the end we all get ponies and rainbows.
One has to go back to the political utopian myth embraced by religious liberals in the 19th century, which was based upon the complex mix of eugenics, Darwinism, and Marx’s dialectic. That the bend and trend of human history is the rule of love, compassion, solidarity, unity, conformity, all enforced by an enlightened and all powerful “state”. As the welfare and progressive state declines and continues to fail, insert PCUSA, progressive-evangelicals, millennials, in its place and we are along the same path of history,
I only point to the facts. Those who have embraced the progressive party line, ABC, ECUSA, PCUSA, UCC all on paths of gradual extinction. Their governing structures either collapsing, flat lining, comatose or close to it. In essence dead. Choose your path, but be aware of the outcomes.
What an odd post. I doubt that anyone can parse out the meaning of that first sentence. And then the second paragraph shows a command of history comparable to the command of syntax in the previous paragraph. Someone who does not know the difference between social gospel and social Darwinism (not to mention the difference between Darwin and social Darwinism) really should not comment on such things. Is the reference to “bend and trend of history” supposed to remind us of “…the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice” because Martin Luther King was echoing a 19th century Unitarian when he spoke those words? It is rather unclear exactly what is your point in doing so.
Pres, Phil, Cliff, Mike, Skippy
I am humbled that you seem to respond to my very post. I do seem to press your buttons, and you do have immense pride in your sense of knowledge and grasp of many issues. I would only ask that when you react to whatever I say that you actually being something to table either in original thought, commentary and further the discussion of whatever the topic may be.
My count is now three, this, abortion, and the “evolution” of gay marriage, where you react to something I have said without actually saying anything of original knowledge or insight. I suppose it is like the little name you hide behind. You choose not to sully your immense intellect or sense of moral superiority with such you consider motley fools. Again, I am humbled. You are a fine example of the PCUSA and they are blessed to have the benefits of your wisdom.
Well, no. Replying to EVERY ONE of your posts would make one a very busy person indeed! I am sorry that you do not think that the sharp difference between social gospel and social Darwinism is sufficiently significant to be classified as “saying something.”
Someone who continually spices up their posts with things like “Marx’s dialectic” is hardly in a position to accuse others of intellectual posing or snobbery. YOU were the one who brought up Darwin, eugenics, 19th century thinking, etc. in a very odd context.