People are struggling with the Supreme Court decision yesterday. Many Christians who support it are not showing the grace Scripture requires of them. There is barely a calming voice in this.
So let me point this out:
And from David Dunn, and Orthodox Christian:
Such efforts demonstrate a fundamental – even idolatrous – misunderstanding of the meaning of “holy matrimony,” effectively denying Christ by vesting the state with divine authority.
Orthodox Christianity has survived far longer and far more antagonistic homelands than what evangelicals face today.
They demanded nothing from their governments in regard to protecting their sacraments. And yet they survived and have grown and have lived and have worshiped God. Not even Stalin could destroy the Orthosox Church.
Anyway, maybe people should actually understand the separation of Church and State… And be sure to read Allen Bevere‘s The Politics of Witness to see how badly both sides of the American political spectrum misuses the Church.
We are taking steps to ensure that we are not involved further in the mudslinging that characterized the quoted page in the last day or so. We do not endorse Dr. Jenney’s views on every topic, but he is, of course, free to express them in other forums or websites. They should not be taken as representative of our company or our software.
This is stated as plainly as possible. I know that I shall not hold Dr. Jenney’s personal religious and political views (which he posted publicly on FB–which allowed all of us to read them–and which he subsequently censored in this very forum) against Accordance or its manufacturer, OakTree, as Dr. Jenney’s extreme views are indeed not the views of OakTree Software. I encourage others to do likewise.
OakTree is an excellent company, and Accordance is wonderfully power Bible software, and its management took steps yesterday to reassure its customers that Dr. Jenney’s views are not endorsed by, and do not reflect the views of his employer, OakTree Software…
That said, I shall continue to be a loyal customer of OakTree and Accordance, and if you haven’t tried their software, I encourage you to do so.
Let me add, that I like Accordance as a platform and now as a company. There is no bashing of views, nor censorship, only a separation and an acknowledged separation.
In 1857, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down the Dred Scott decision. Within a few years, this “law of the land” was changed to reflect the new political reality — that slavery was constitutionally forbidden, specifically by the 13th amendment.
Today, 26 June 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States, handed down the decision that says that the equal right to marry is a constitutional right. They used the 14th Amendment, an amendment used several times in equality issues.
I see a lot of my friends freaking out about this, unnecessarily. Many believe that religious freedom is now over. It is not. Justice Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, state,
Those who adhere to religious doctrines may continue to advocate with utmost sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.
We have already covered current state laws in regards to protecting denominational stances, not that any evidence, logic, or reason matters to either side.
But, I want to quickly address ways to overtune it if you are so inclined.
“Marriage equality” is based on the 14th amendment. This amendment is the amendment that “brought the Constitution down” to street level. It required States to then be bound by the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution. One could try to overturn it. There is a small movement, usually based on “birthright citizenship” in existence. At least one current GOP presidential candidate sort of supports that.
Write a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is actually a long considered thought — but can’t get off the ground.
Remove the State from the marriage process altogether.
Some consider it possible that you could remove this judicial review from SCOTUS, but others disagree.
None of these are likely, to be honest. The real question is, in a pluralistic society, should you move to forbid it?
One of the things Christians need to realize — they have used the State to preserve the status of “marriage” (except for preventing divorce, it seems) but the State is neutral in such things, especially in our Republic. This is not a redefinition of marriage any more than allowing the State to first define it is.
I find it troublesome that so many American Christians think that this is the end of the world. And I find it so disheartening the logic on both sides. Love doesn’t win; the 14th amendment “wins.” This is not mocking God, but the logical conclusion to the 14th amendment and the modern notion of rights.
Frankly, if you are a conservative Christian, you should “rejoice.” If you are a Christian that supports equal monogamous marriage, then rejoice.
And for the love of all that is holy, this is not a mandate for the Church. The Church should never bow to the State. The thing about political realities is that they can change by a vote.