The Supreme Court Just Gave American Evangelicals a Gift

[Crabtownboy]

Now we Evangelicals can take up the cause of helping those in need. No Supreme Court ruling is needed.

Evangelicals are tenacious, persistent, and driven when they want to fight for a cause. The problem is that American evangelicals have been swept up in fighting for the wrong cause for a long time.

When the Supreme Court ruled to make same sex marriage the law of the land, American evangelicals received a gift that many don’t want: official permission to fight for people in need instead of fighting against same sex marriage.

Whatever you believe about same sex marriage, the role of government, and the future of the church in America, disagreeing with same sex marriage on moral grounds does not demand a public campaign to prevent it from becoming legally sanctioned. While I remain committed to creating room for affirming and non-affirming evangelicals who unite under the common banner of saving faith in Christ, evangelicals in America should have never made legalized same sex marriage a central moral issue to fight in the courts.

While I don’t believe Matthew 25 is exhaustive in its presentation of what matters to God, we do get a glimpse of the kinds of people who have internalized and lived out the message of Jesus. They work to alleviate the most pressing needs of others in our world.

That isn’t a call to relativize our sexual standards. Rather, I see Jesus pointing us toward the issues that pertain to the most basic aspects of human dignity: food, shelter, clothing, justice, and sickness:

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,

I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,

I was a stranger and you invited me in,

I needed clothes and you clothed me,

I was sick and you looked after me,

I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

We can disagree all day about same sex marriage. Heck, the majority of evangelicals will most likely continue to disagree about this issue for another 20 years until the millennials take their place in church leadership.

However, there’s no denying that millions of people around the world are suffering significantly, and Jesus wants us to focus our energies on serving them. If there was ever a group of people who should give a damn about children dying of hunger, deeply wounded people suffering in prison, and thousands upon thousands of refugees fleeing unprecedented violence in the Middle East, it should be American evangelicals.

http://edcyzewski.com/2015/06/26/the-supreme-court-just-gave-american-evangelicals-a-gift/

 

[Don]

Please tell me I'm misunderstanding this. Because what it sounds like is, this author has just said the Supreme Court says it's okay, so we should just accept same-sex marriage and not call it sinful anymore, and think about other things instead.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Please tell me I'm misunderstanding this. Because what it sounds like is, this author has just said the Supreme Court says it's okay, so we should just accept same-sex marriage and not call it sinful anymore, and think about other things instead.

Read it again, and again and again if necessary. Your take is not my take on what he said.

Read the Matthew passage very carefully and put it in the context of what he wrote.

I agree with the writer that Evangelicals should never have taken this issue to court. That was a huge mistake IMHO and I say that not because I am in favor of gay marriage. I am not.

 

[SovereignGrace]

It appears the OP originator is in accord with same-sex marriage.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It appears the OP originator is in accord with same-sex marriage.

I believe you misread him.

 

[targus]

CTB doesn't think that it is possible to do both at the same time I guess.

 

[matt wade]

By the same token, there is no reason to oppose abortion since it's been ruled legal.

This is the idiocy of christian liberalism in full display. They let the government dictate their beliefs rather than the Bible.

 

[Crabtownboy]

By the same token, there is no reason to oppose abortion since it's been ruled legal.

This is the idiocy of christian liberalism in full display. They let the government dictate their beliefs rather than the Bible.

Your thinking is way too shallow. You do not understand why I say it was a very bad idea to take the issue to the courts.

 

[matt wade]

Your thinking is way too shallow. You do not understand why I say it was a very bad idea to take the issue to the courts.

Maybe that is because you haven't said why it was a very bad idea to take the issue to the courts.


We can only go based on what is posted. The OP very clearly spells out

1. Gay marriage has been decided by the courts to be legal.
2. Therefore, evangelicals should drop the issue and worry about feeding people.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Maybe that is because you haven't said why it was a very bad idea to take the issue to the courts.


We can only go based on what is posted. The OP very clearly spells out

1. Gay marriage has been decided by the courts to be legal.

That is true whether you and I like it or not. And that is one of the major reasons it was foolish for Christians to bring this topic to the courts. They forced the courts to rule and now they hate the ruling. If they had not forced the courts to rule then gay marriage would not now be the law of the land. In other words, they brought about what they hated.

2. Therefore, evangelicals should drop the issue and worry about feeding people.

No, it means that evangelicals should now become wise enough not to bring such issues to the courts. Doing so brings no one to Christ, but it does drive some away from Him. Doing so does not change anyone's lifestyle but it may harden those already engaging in that lifestyle.

We need to change our emphasis to that of helping people in need. This will put Christians and evangelicals in a much better light in the minds of the public at large. Helping a person in need opens the door to engaging them and bringing them to Christ if they do not know him already.

Bringing government, i.e. the courts, into moral issues may result, as we have just seen, in bringing about what we do not want. Helping people has a much better chance of having the results we want.

Evangelicals are at their best when they are helping people. They are not at their best when they are litigates.

Christians should not engage a secular court system to help them on a spiritual matter. If they do then they will have to live with the results, even if they hate that result.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I can only assume you mean we need to join the Democrat Party.

Because I'm sure you know that most Christians do care, do give, do obey.

If you don't, I really feel sorry for you.

 

[Revmitchell]

How is this going to the SC evangelicals fault. They are not the ones pushing it.

 

[Crabtownboy]

How is this going to the SC evangelicals fault. They are not the ones pushing it.

Rev.:

Who brought the issue to the courts?

Would there have been a ruling making gay marriage the law of the land if the courts had not been involved?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I can only assume you mean we need to join the Democrat Party.

Because I'm sure you know that most Christians do care, do give, do obey.

If you don't, I really feel sorry for you.

I agree, but that has nothing to do with the issue they forces the courts to make a decision on.

As I stated:

Christians should not engage a secular court system to help them on a spiritual matter. If they do then they will have to live with the results, even if they hate that result.

 

[Revmitchell]

Rev.:

Who brought the issue to the courts?

Would there have been a ruling making gay marriage the law of the land if the courts had not been involved?

Who was shoving this down our throats? By the way was there not both a claimant and a defendant?

 

[Don]

Yes, the matter has been declared legally settled. This is the shallowness of the opening post article:

That doesn't mean laws can't be changed.

That doesn't mean the law is moral or ethical.

That doesn't mean that just because it's legal, it should be considered moral and ethical, and obeyed without question.

And it definitely does NOT mean that while we were fighting this particular battle, and will continue to fight it, that we are somehow *not* doing the other things mentioned by the author of the article.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I agree, but that has nothing to do with the issue they forces the courts to make a decision on.

That's pretty funny considering this was your first statement….

"Now we Evangelicals can take up the cause of helping those in need."

Kinda renders the rest of your point moot, and my observation spot-on. This is not a spiritual thread, it's a political one.

 

[Crabtownboy]

That's pretty funny considering this was your first statement….


Kinda renders the rest of your point moot, and my observation spot-on. This is not a spiritual thread, it's a political one.

Then I suppose you agree that secular courts should not be expected to rule well in spiritual matters. Right?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Of course not, but that's not the intent of your thread and you know it.

This was a Pharisaical attempt at judgement of those not in lock-step with the Democrats. It was NOT meant to be a lesson in American Civics.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Of course not, but that's not the intent of your thread and you know it.

This was a Pharisaical attempt at judgement of those not in lock-step with the Democrats. It was NOT meant to be a lesson in American Civics.

I do not agree with your assessment of intent of the piece cited. If I had thought as you do I would not have posted it.

I see it as simply saying, let's stop chasing issues and start living as Christ commanded in Matthew.