2 Articles & a Statement on the "Respect for Marriage" Act:

The two articles, one from a respected Evangelical magazine and the other from a widely read online, Evangelical commentator,  agree on the basic facts of what the act does--mainly codifying recent SCOTUS decisions, particularly Obergefell. The CT article puts a positive spin on it, while Dennison takes a darker view.

I think the CT article is only available to subscribers. You may find it elsewhere. It is by Carl Esbeck.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/november-web-only/same-sex-marriage-religious-liberty-respect-marriage-act.html

https://www.denisonforum.org/daily-article/does-the-so-called-respect-for-marriage-act-threaten-our-religious-liberty/

In the Theological sense, I am an Evangelical, the LDS church is not. They have, however, been co-belligerents with us in many of the social battles of our time. The first line of their statement indicates that they still profess to be on our side in regard to a proper definition of marriage. 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement
I wonder, though, in our age of freedom to worship (in private), but not necessarily freedom to proclaim truth lest it offend, is the Mormon statement a retreat into a sort of modified Benedict Option (HM's brief definition: withdraw, hole up, and hope, wait, and pray for better days).

Not all slopes are slippery, but, clearly, some are. 

Christian leaders need to be wise. All of us need to pray for clear courageous thinking.

Pastoring, in regard to matters of sexuality and marriage is more complicated than it used to be.

 I guess I should be glad that I've entered the emeritus phase of my ministry. Pastoring, especially in regard to matters of sexuality and marriage has certainly gotten more complicated. I'm not, however, comfortable in just ignoring these matters. For one thing, Old guys like me are frequently asked to perform weddings. Given the right circumstances, it is something I'm glad to do. Secondly, I regard my years of experience as a trust. I think I have an obligation to help the next generations of shepherds. For these, and other, reasons I maintain an interest in the increasingly complicated realm of pastoral ministry in the sexual/gender/marriage realm.

In that regard, I recommend two articles that have come my way recently;

1. A blogpost by Gene Vieth, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2021/11/should-couples-and-their-pastor-reject-marriage-licenses/
   Vieth is a Lutheran, and as such interacts with a report that came from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I encourage my pastor-buddies to read the report. As a baptistic, conservative Evangelical, I find it helpful. The report is linked in Veith's post. Veith gives a good summary of the report. Basically, Veith and the longer report ask some post-Obergefell questions and offer some answers and counsel that are worth considering. My oversimplified summary is that the article's position is that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision didn't really change anything for a faithful pastor's practice. SCOTUS clearly misdefined marriage, but it didn't do so in a way that requires we shepherds of God's flock to do so. (Might that happen? Maybe. Realize, though, that while some slopes are slippery, not all are. I say for now we should be vigilant and try to drive in some stakes on the sloping terrain wherever and whenever we can.)
2. A second article, by Al Mohler, asks a question that I've seen come up several times, lately, though I don't remember exactly where (there are reasons why I'm emeritus). Here is the article. https://albertmohler.com/2021/11/10/briefing-11-10-21?utm_source=Albert+Mohler&utm_campaign=b40e1c087c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_08_09_12_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b041ba0d12-b40e1c087c-307975913&mc_cid=b40e1c087c&mc_eid=20aa58364c
   The question posed is a fine-line kind of distinction but one that in my humble opinion needs to be considered. Again, IMHO, I think that way back in the last century those of us who seek to hold to a Biblical view of gender/sexuality lost a significant semantic battle. That loss led to, or contributed to, a significant point of confusion. Is it proper to speak of a "Gay Christian"? Or even more pointedly, a "Gay Celibate Christian"? 

Pastors in the 2020s are faced with questions that weren't out there in the 1970s when I began my ministry. The requirement to be faithful to the Word remains the same.

Deer Hunting and a Book on Marriage, It's About Hitting the Target

I live in an area where real men kill deer.  One of the lessons I learned early on as the pastor of a church full of deer hunters is to not plan anything special during deer season.  If you can't beat 'em . . . I tried hunting for a while.  The problem is I lack patience.  To be a good deer hunter you have to put in time learning to think like a deer, you have to get up early, and you need to be quiet.  I'm not good at any of that, and I wasn't dedicated enough to learn.
Oh, and there is one more thing.  I don't shoot very well, so on those rare occasions when I did see a deer, and let the lead fly, I generally missed.  I figure I didn't miss by much, but as the saying is, "An inch is as good as a mile."

I was reminded about my ability to propel a 30/30 bullet right by a deer, without damaging so much as a hair, right after I read a book by John Piper, This Momentary Marriage.  We Evangelicals have talked a lot about marriage in the last few years.  Though we have thrown a lot of words at the issue, I fear that our aim is like mine on those cold November mornings.  We have focused a lot of attention on making clear what marriage isn't--it's not a relationship between two people of the same sex.  We haven't paid enough attention to what marriage is.  I'm concerned that in our zeal to protect marriage we, by our failure to hit the mark--truth be told we haven't even aimed at it--have actually weakened our culture's commitment to what marriage really is.  I found Pastor John Piper's little book to be a much needed lesson on straight shooting.
For a long time I've had this feeling in my bones that we Evangelicals were really giving the same-sex-marriage crowd some excellent arguments to support their cause.  The average man or woman in the pew, especially among the younger set within the church, describes heterosexual marriage about the same way as our dominant culture does.  It is roses, and candlelight, and wine, and soul-mate, and earth-moving sex.  I'm not saying that Evangelicals are selfish, some are, but we have done a pretty good job emphasizing that marriage is not about me using someone else for my own pleasure.  It is about me giving myself for and pleasing my mate.  I'll leave aside for the moment the difficult reality that we must wrestle with, that one gains the greatest satisfaction when one gives the most.  Screwtape, and even Wormwood, can play you with that one like a yo-yo in a windstorm, but, as I say, I'll save that one for another day.  The problem is when we make marriage all about pleasing our spouse--putting her or him in first place--we almost hit the target.  Almost.
In his introduction Piper admits the strangeness of beginning a book on marriage with the tragic stories of three martyrs--four really.  When Dietrich Bonhoeffer was hung by the Nazis he was engaged to Maria von Wedemeyer.  John and Betty Stam were young missionaries with a baby to raise when they were beheaded by the Chinese Communists.  Strange though it may be to use martyrs to introduce a book on marriage it is effective.

The aim of this book is to enlarge your vision of what marriage is. As Bonhoeffer says, it is more than your love for each other. Vastly more. Its meaning is infinitely great. I say that with care. The meaning of marriage is the display of the covenant-keeping love between Christ and his people.  (15)

If the pastor from Minnesota begins his book in an unorthodox manner, he proceeds to what is regarded in our culture as madness.  It's right there in the title of the first chapter, "Staying Married is not about Staying in Love."

I pray that this book might be used by God to help set you free from small, worldly, culturally contaminated, self-centered, Christ-ignoring, God-neglecting, romance-intoxicated, unbiblical views of marriage.
The most foundational thing to see from the Bible about marriage is that it is God’s doing. And the ultimate thing to see from the Bible about marriage is that it is for God’s glory.  (21)

Marriage is God's doing, and it is for His glory.   "Marriage was designed from the beginning to display the new covenant between Christ and the church."  (33)  Marriage is the doing of God, and the display of God--in particular the marvelous covenant love between Christ and His bride, the church.  That is why we should do marriage well.  Displaying such a grand theme is a high and holy calling.  We ought to do it well.
In the middle section of the book Piper helps us explore how to do it well.  He deals with issues like forgiveness and forbearance, the role of husband and wife, and the unique calling of singleness.  I particularly appreciated his framing of childbearing.

[T]he meaning of marriage normally includes giving birth to children, this is not absolute. . . . The decision about whether to conceive children is not ultimately a decision about what is natural, but about what will magnify the Redeemer, Jesus Christ. . . . Marriage is not absolutely for making children; but it is absolutely for making children followers of Jesus.  (140-141)

Piper's last two chapters give his view of divorce and remarriage.  While I disagree with his position that remarriage after divorce is always wrong, I do appreciate the fact that he continues with his theme of what marriage is really about.  "Keep your marriage vows in such a way as to tell the truth about the unbreakable covenant love of Christ."  (164)

Because of the brevity of the book, 192 pages, Piper is selective in choosing the particular aspects of marriage that support his theme.  In the broadest sense, this is a book about what marriage is, and why we should pursue the lofty goal of doing marriage well.  While there are ideas that husbands, wives, and singles will find helpful, this is not primarily a how-to book.

Some of the conclusions that Piper draws are not based on interpretation of scripture, but inference from scripture.  His conclusion that having children is not absolute is based on an extrapolation of the Bible's teaching on singleness.  While I agree with his conclusion, I wasn't impressed with how he got there.

I have already made known that I disagree with his perceived prohibition on remarriage, though I give him credit for humility and grace in admitting that others have come to differing conclusions on this.

Piper begins each chapter with a quotation from Bonhoeffer's writings from Tegel Prison.  These are well chosen and give power to the points Piper makes in each chapter.

The great value of the book is the encouragement it gives us to aim better as we address the issue of marriage.  I wonder if Satan is as pleased with Evangelicals defense of marriage as he is with the attacks that elicit the defense.  When the marriage we defend is a marriage that is about human pleasure--mine and/or my spouses--our argument contains the key points needed to refute what we say.  Why should others be denied the privilege of giving and receiving pleasure?  I fear we have wasted too much ammunition shooting at the who-should-marry target, and failed to hit the Who-marriage-is-about bulls-eye.

Like most of Piper's writings, you can read This Momentary Marriage for free.  Click on the link


(Oh, and about the deer hunting,  I gave it up, and worked on looking pitiful.  Apparently I do that much better than I can shoot.  Thanks to skillful and generous hunters, who are impressed with my hungry look, Kathy and I generally have all the venison we want.}

World Vision, A Survey:

I have not had any close alliance with World Vision, so there is a lot I don't know about them.  I see their ads and, from time to time, read reports of their work around the world, and was glad they were relieving suffering, and providing opportunities for those in our world who are in great need.  That they do this work in the name of Christ is commendable.

The announcement that World Vision in the United States is open to employing those who profess faith in Christ, who agree to WV's basic statement of faith, and who are also legally in a homosexual marriage, hit the Christian--especially--the Evangelical community like a plane-load of sacked up rice.

Maybe Richard Stearns simply wanted to get his message out before everyone else did it for him, but if he thought that his news release announcing WV's policy change would control the spin, he certainly misjudged.  Pretty much everybody that is anybody in the Evangelical world, and beyond, has weighed in on the subject.  My purpose here is not to rehash the matter in my own words.  More capable, not to mention quicker, writers and commentators have already explored WV's announcement.  I figure it is worth the time it takes to think through the issues involved, because it is likely that there will be other similar announcements from other ministries.  Those of who labor in relative obscurity have to make up our minds.  This is the issue of the day.  What follows is a brief list of some online comments and reactions, with brief descriptions and comments from me.  Hopefully what this will do is pull some material together so you can make better use of your time.
You are welcome.  :)

Richard Stearns's announcement:
Stearns's apologetic is that he and WV are seeking unity.  There is much I could say, I'll leave it at, "He didn't convince me."

Here is a brief critique of the WV decision, by Jim Denison.

John Piper makes the point that WV's decision "trivializes perdition — and therefore, the cross — and  . . . sets a trajectory for the demise of true compassion for the poor."
A friend of mine, who doesn't have national prominence, but who should, Norm Dietsch, commented on Piper's piece:  "As to the World Vision pres. argument that the issue divides churches and families, I wonder if he has heard that even the humble Jesus had a word to say about division.. Luke 12: 49-53.  We, too, care about the homosexual community-enough to stand for the truth of Scripture and to bring the good news of redemption and reconciliation for all sinners, and we recognize we are no better, but in need of the same redemption and reconciliation."

Al Mohler makes the same point John Piper makes and also warns about the slippery slope on which WV, and any other organizations who adopt similar policies now find themselves. ". . . moral revolutions are marked by events that signal major turning points in social transformation. Yesterday, [the day of the WV announcement], will be remembered as one of those days."
Warning: In spite of what some would tell us, some slopes truly are slippery, and some slick spots really are slanted.

Mark Tooley sees the bottom of the hill.  He simply declares "WORLD VISION GOES LIBERAL.  And of course it doesn't think it has.  Tooley's prediction or statement of fait accompli is not without evidence.  He refers to fairly recent history and quotes from some other conservative Evangelicals who agree.

Maybe I'm being too harsh.  I really like the man.  But I found Franklin Graham's announcement a bit self-serving.  I don't disagree with what he says, it just kinda sounded like he was saying "OK all you righteous people who are rightly offended at what World Vision did, the line to give money through a good organization forms right here."  As I say, maybe I'm being judgmental, and I continue to support Samaritan's Purse efforts but read on . . .

Matthew Lee Anderson helps us wrestle with some practical issues.  What happens when organizational problems intersect with human needs?  I'm not one of them, but thousands of Christians are involved in supporting a child through WV.  Should they just stop.  In a well-reasoned article, MLA offers some alternatives.

My list is clearly lacking a defense, other than Stearns's own, of WV's action.  If I find one, or if you point one out to me, I'll include it in the next post.


Before we go, let's make sure we remember, all over the world there are people, most of them children, in desperate need.  Whatever we conclude about WV's new HR policy, let's not forget them.