MERGED: How is someone who claims to be Christian yet aggressively promotes abortion and "gay marriage"?

[CMatt25]

Do you believe that God can contradict himself?

God? No. OTOH I believe the understanding of God and what He said by the finite human mind is a different story. It can develop over time. And still I believe it’s possible humans may never understand it all til if in faith they either meet Him or He come again.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

God? No. OTOH I believe the understanding of God and what He said by the finite human mind is a different story. It can develop over time. And still I believe it’s possible humans may never understand it all til if in faith they either meet Him or He come again.

Amen!

 

[CMatt25]

I support marriage equality, and I’m a Christian. Honestly, none of us have any authority to decide what religion someone else is.

.

 

[CMatt25]

I never denied that people have free will to choose what religion they want to be. Being a Christian means being a follower of Christ.

And based on their understanding they are striving to follow Christ as they profess Christ Lord and Savior. They’re Christian. I sometimes think Christians need to concern ourselves more with our own planks and less with throwing stones at other Christians.

 

[jrtrent]

My question isn’t why aren’t Mormon’s considered Christian. My question is why are the ones called Christians (Catholic or Protestant) I described in the OP considered Christian when Mormon’s are not.

That’s a good question, and one that has crossed my mind on a number of occasions with respect to a number of issues, including the three you brought up. One difference in your original question is comparing individuals, such as particular politicians, with an entire religion, Mormonism. But the question remains even if we talk about churches rather than individuals. Why should a church that, by its doctrine and teaching, allows or promotes such things as you describe still be considered a Christian church?

I see a parallel in the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It stems in part from an occurrence in the Presbyterian Church in the USA:

The doctrinal decadence of the Presbyterian Church in the USA came to a head in 1924, when some twelve hundred leaders in that denomination affixed their names to the Auburn Affirmation. That infamous document denounced the infallibility of Holy Scripture as a “harmful” doctrine. It also stated as the conviction of the signers that it was unnecessary for a minister in the church to believe in the virgin birth of Christ, his bodily resurrection, or the miracles of the Bible generally. The precious doctrine that Christ’s death on the cross was a sacrifice by which he expiated sin and satisfied divine justice was further decried as but one of many theories of the atonement and nonessential to the faith. opc.org/new_horizons/Kuiper.html[/INDENT}

In 1935, Gordon Clark delivered an address that included these thoughts:

Some years ago the modernists used to talk in favor of an inclusive church. The church, they said, was big enough to include all brands of theology. Today, however, they have changed their tune. They now have excommunicated the orthodox. The Affirmationist officials and their supporters decreed that those who remained true to the Word of God, those who objected to the General Assembly’s placing its own authority above that of the Bible, those who would not obey an order to support modernism, those who took their ordination vows seriously, had to be expelled from the church. . .

This, then, in brief is the situation conservative Christians must meet. Shall the truth of the Bible be upheld, or shall orders to support modernism be made the supreme authority over men’s conscience? This is no trivial matter; it is rather a life and death struggle between two mutually exclusive religions. One religion can without harm to its integrity reject the infallible Word of God, deny the virgin birth, repudiate Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, and deny the resurrection. That religion will remain complete even if all these things are eliminated; but that religion is not Christianity. opc.org/cce/clark.html

I have friends and relatives who are, or have been, members of ELCA congregations. With its weak stance on abortion, pervasive rejection of the infallibility of scripture, acceptance of the historical/critical approach to interpretation, its ordination of women, its ordination of homosexuals, and other issues, members had to question, as Presbyterians did in the 1920’s and '30’s, whether they still had membership in church that could legitimately be called Christian. The Methodist college I attended had a religion department staffed entirely of ordained ministers of the type who would introduce a course on the life of Jesus by holding up a Bible and saying their job was to help us discern the “historical Jesus” as we unpack “this book of myths and fables.” Despite the subject matter, I had no sense that I was in a “Christian” class.

I don’t think everyone has to be in the same organization to be Christian. Jesus once told his disciples that he who is not against us is for us. Matthew Henry, commenting on this, said, “If sinners are brought to repent, to believe in the Saviour, and to live sober, righteous, and godly lives, we then see that the Lord works by the preacher.” I’ve heard Methodist preachers deny the need for a savior because they didn’t believe in the concept of damnation (I should add that I’ve also heard Methodist preachers who are much more orthodox in their teaching). I see churches that, rather than call sinners to repentance, actually ordain people who openly and unrepentantly practice what the Bible calls an abomination.

I understand why some Christians don’t consider Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, to name two examples, to be Christian, yet, as a former Mormon and one spent many months in weekly home meetings as well as attending conferences and services with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I can attest that in those organizations sinners are brought to repent and encouraged to live sober, righteous and godly lives; that the scriptures are honored as the word of God rather than as human writings made by personally and culturally biased men; and that they trust in the work of Christ as the basis for their salvation. Though I don’t share all their beliefs, I have a much easier time accepting them as Christian churches than a great many Protestant denominations that have adopted modernist, liberal views on both scripture and social issues.​

 

[jrtrent]

My question isn’t why aren’t Mormon’s considered Christian. My question is why are the ones called Christians (Catholic or Protestant) I described in the OP considered Christian when Mormon’s are not.

That’s a good question, and one that has crossed my mind on a number of occasions with respect to a number of issues, including the three you brought up. One difference in your original question is comparing individuals, such as particular politicians, with an entire religion, Mormonism. But the question remains even if we talk about churches rather than individuals. Why should a church that, by its doctrine and teaching, allows or promotes such things as you describe still be considered a Christian church?

I see a parallel in the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It stems in part from an occurrence in the Presbyterian Church in the USA:

The doctrinal decadence of the Presbyterian Church in the USA came to a head in 1924, when some twelve hundred leaders in that denomination affixed their names to the Auburn Affirmation. That infamous document denounced the infallibility of Holy Scripture as a “harmful” doctrine. It also stated as the conviction of the signers that it was unnecessary for a minister in the church to believe in the virgin birth of Christ, his bodily resurrection, or the miracles of the Bible generally. The precious doctrine that Christ’s death on the cross was a sacrifice by which he expiated sin and satisfied divine justice was further decried as but one of many theories of the atonement and nonessential to the faith. opc.org/new_horizons/Kuiper.html

In 1935, Gordon Clark delivered an address that included this thought:

This, then, in brief is the situation conservative Christians must meet. Shall the truth of the Bible be upheld, or shall orders to support modernism be made the supreme authority over men’s conscience? This is no trivial matter; it is rather a life and death struggle between two mutually exclusive religions. One religion can without harm to its integrity reject the infallible Word of God, deny the virgin birth, repudiate Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, and deny the resurrection. That religion will remain complete even if all these things are eliminated; but that religion is not Christianity. opc.org/cce/clark.html

I have friends and relatives who are, or have been, members of ELCA congregations. With its ordination of women, its ordination of homosexuals, and other issues, members had to question, as Presbyterians did in the 1920’s and '30’s, whether they still had membership in a church that could legitimately be called Christian. The Methodist college I attended had a religion department staffed entirely of ordained ministers of the type who would introduce a course on the life of Jesus by holding up a Bible and saying their job was to help us discern the “historical Jesus” as we unpack “this book of myths and fables.” Despite the subject matter, I had no sense that I was in a “Christian” class.

I don’t think everyone has to be in the same organization to be Christian. Jesus once told his disciples that he who is not against us is for us. Matthew Henry, commenting on this, said, “If sinners are brought to repent, to believe in the Saviour, and to live sober, righteous, and godly lives, we then see that the Lord works by the preacher.” I’ve heard Methodist preachers deny the need for a savior because they didn’t believe in the concept of damnation (I should add that I’ve also heard Methodist preachers who are much more orthodox in their teaching). I see churches that, rather than call sinners to repentance, actually ordain people who openly and unrepentantly practice what the Bible calls an abomination.

I understand why some Christians don’t consider Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, to name two examples, to be Christian, yet, as a former Mormon and one spent many months in weekly home meetings as well as attending conferences and services with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I can attest that in those organizations sinners are brought to repent and encouraged to live sober, righteous and godly lives; that the scriptures are honored as the word of God rather than as human writings made by personally and culturally biased men; and that they trust in the work of Christ as the basis for their salvation. Though I don’t share all their beliefs, I have a much easier time accepting them as Christian churches than a great many Protestant denominations that have adopted modernist, liberal views on both scripture and social issues.

 

[tarboy]

I understand why some Christians don’t consider Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, to name two examples, to be Christian, yet, as a former Mormon and one spent many months in weekly home meetings as well as attending conferences and services with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I can attest that in those organizations sinners are brought to repent and encouraged to live sober, righteous and godly lives; that the scriptures are honored as the word of God rather than as human writings made by personally and culturally biased men; and that they trust in the work of Christ as the basis for their salvation. Though I don’t share all their beliefs, I have a much easier time accepting them as Christian churches than a great many Protestant denominations that have adopted modernist, liberal views on both scripture and social issues.

Clearly the people supporting abortion only profess their belief in words without understanding it.

Regarding the Trinity, I’ve always understood it to be Catholic doctrine, but not something scritpure emphasized or clearly stated. Thus non-Catholics will have different interpretations on the bible, which is why they are Christians rather than Catholics

 

[JonNC]

I support marriage equality, and I’m a Christian.

What does this mean? Marriage equality determined by whom?

Honestly, none of us have any authority to decide what religion someone else is.

This I agree with, and taken to its logical end, the government being involved in determining “marriage equality” by its very nature contradicts the 1st amendment. If the UCC or TEC wants to “marry” same gender partners, ok, but in terms of historic Christian teaching this is at best heterodox. The government has no power over whether they do, and the LCMS doesn’t. The best role for government on “marriage equality” is no role at all.

Jon

 

[livingwordunity]

What does this mean? Marriage equality determined by whom? taken to its logical end, the government being involved in determining “marriage equality” by its very nature contradicts the 1st amendment. If the UCC or TEC wants to “marry” same gender partners, ok, but in terms of historic Christian teaching this is at best heterodox. The government has no power over whether they do, and the LCMS doesn’t. The best role for government on “marriage equality” is no role at all.

Jon

The government apparently can’t recognize marriage from a hole in the ground anymore.

 

[JonNC]

The government apparently can’t recognize marriage from a hole in the ground anymore.

Let’s not underestimate the intelligence of those who favor same gender marriage. They know what they are doing.
My concern is the apparent contradiction regarding the establishment clause in the first amendment. On the one hand, even a hint of religion in schools is cause for legal action and media wringing of hands. On the other, government establishment of the religious rite/sacrament of marriage, and then changing its definition, is fine and dandy.

Jon

 

[livingwordunity]

Let’s not underestimate the intelligence of those who favor same gender marriage. They know what they are doing.
My concern is the apparent contradiction regarding the establishment clause in the first amendment. On the one hand, even a hint of religion in schools is cause for legal action and media wringing of hands. On the other, government establishment of the religious rite/sacrament of marriage, and then changing its definition, is fine and dandy.

It’s funny how those who will sue for any hint of religion in the public square act as if they don’t know about all the cities in the U.S.A. that are named Christian names. Also, the state lines were drawn based on Christian churches and denominations. Maryland, for example, was originally established by a friend to Catholics English King Charles I as a safe haven for Catholics who had been experiencing persecution. And in fact, the original capitol city of Maryland was St. Mary’s City, named after the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is why I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Maryland is named what it is especially when one can see how Virginia and Maryland on a map actually spell out “Virgin Maryland”. Secular historical revisionists try to deny that Maryland is named after Our Blessed Lady. They say it was named after the Queen Henrietta Maria’s middle name. But why would it be named after her middle name and not her first name? If it were named after her why wouldn’t it have been named Henriettaland instead of Maryland? This obvious question gets ignored. But even if Maryland were named after her middle name, Maria, it still would be named after Our Blessed Lady since Queen Henrietta Maria was a devout Catholic from a devout Catholic family, and her middle name, therefore, was most likely given to her in honor of Our Blessed Lady.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

This I agree with, and taken to its logical end, the government being involved in determining “marriage equality” by its very nature contradicts the 1st amendment. If the UCC or TEC wants to “marry” same gender partners, ok, but in terms of historic Christian teaching this is at best heterodox. The government has no power over whether they do, and the LCMS doesn’t. The best role for government on “marriage equality” is no role at all.

So what you’re saying is that the government should allow marriage to be a strictly religious thing, and not give it legal recognition at all? Meaning that family would be legally defined by blood relationships only, and no one would have to recognize anyone’s marriages if they didn’t want to – whether gay or straight. I’m sure that would go over well.

 

[JonNC]

So what you’re saying is that the government should allow marriage to be a strictly religious thing, and not give it legal recognition at all? Meaning that family would be legally defined by blood relationships only, and no one would have to recognize anyone’s marriages if they didn’t want to – whether gay or straight. I’m sure that would go over well.

Not at all. I am saying that 2 people can put a ring on each other’s finger, declare a bond to each other, financial and otherwise, and call it marriage if they choose, and the government doesn’t have a constitutional mandate to regulate it, or not.
Without constitutional mandate, it an issue of federalism, iow, the states. In America, the age of consent for marriage varies from 16 to 18, depending on laws within the several sovereign states. That doesn’t seem to be an issue that the Supreme Court needs to decide. Why then this?

Why does there have to be a federal legal recognition? Why should there be? What business is it of the federal government’s? If the issue is taxation, go to a flat tax, or the fair tax. All other issues can be handled by the states, just like they do age of consent.

I’ll leave with a couple of more thoughts;
#for those in favor of same gender unions, if the Supreme Court rules against you, then all chances of legalizing it end, and you would have been better off with a patch-work of state laws.

#If you are for an interpretation of the 1st Amendment as stating a separation of church and State, then consistency demands that you must be against any Supreme Court ruling on the matter, since marriage is a religious act.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

So what you’re saying is that the government should allow marriage to be a strictly religious thing, and not give it legal recognition at all? Meaning that family would be legally defined by blood relationships only, and no one would have to recognize anyone’s marriages if they didn’t want to – whether gay or straight. I’m sure that would go over well.

The institution of marriage was given to us by God, not by some government, as if it is a “right” that they can give or take away or define according to a vote or a rulng by a court. That our governments should respect the institution of marriage does not mean that they should control or define it. It is an institution that existed prior to any human government and one which will outlive any current government. JonNC is absolutely correct in his assessment; the government needs to stay out of it altogether.

 

[JonNC]

Because different Christian religions interpret the writings of early Christians/disciples/apostles differently. Some don’t interpret the writings as saying that same-sex relationships are wrong in the same way as the Catholic religion does.

All the more reason for the government to stay out of it. As I said, if a same gender couple wish to go to XYZ Church that will “marry” them, this is a free society. The federal government doesn’t need to, or have any constitutional mandate to say yea, or nay.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Because different Christian religions interpret the writings of early Christians/disciples/apostles differently. Some don’t interpret the writings as saying that same-sex relationships are wrong in the same way as the Catholic religion does.

And some interpret the writings as saying that there is no Trinity. And some interpret the writings as saying that Christ is not truly present in the Eucharist. And some interpret the writings as justification for spewing their hatred at the funerals of veterans, and on, and on and on… The problem is that there is something called truth which does not change shape according to what one wants to believe or wishes were true.

 

[johnnyc176]

And some interpret the writings as saying that there is no Trinity. And some interpret the writings as saying that Christ is not truly present in the Eucharist. And some interpret the writings as justification for spewing their hatred at the funerals of veterans, and on, and on and on… The problem is that there is something called truth which does not change shape according to what one wants to believe or wishes were true.

I would just add that the truth is not the problem.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Not at all. I am saying that 2 people can put a ring on each other’s finger, declare a bond to each other, financial and otherwise, and call it marriage if they choose, and the government doesn’t have a constitutional mandate to regulate it, or not.
Without constitutional mandate, it an issue of federalism, iow, the states. In America, the age of consent for marriage varies from 16 to 18, depending on laws within the several sovereign states. That doesn’t seem to be an issue that the Supreme Court needs to decide. Why then this?

Why does there have to be a federal legal recognition? Why should there be? What business is it of the federal government’s? If the issue is taxation, go to a flat tax, or the fair tax. All other issues can be handled by the states, just like they do age of consent.

I’ll leave with a couple of more thoughts;
#for those in favor of same gender unions, if the Supreme Court rules against you, then all chances of legalizing it end, and you would have been better off with a patch-work of state laws.

#If you are for an interpretation of the 1st Amendment as stating a separation of church and State, then consistency demands that you must be against any Supreme Court ruling on the matter, since marriage is a religious act.

Jon

I guess what I’m asking, and maybe it wasn’t clear, is: why should I recognize your marriage as meaning anything more than that you went through a religious ritual that I may or may not believe in? Why should I recognize you and your spouse as family? (I’m using a hypothetical “you” here, of course – I have no idea if you’re married or not.) I could marry a man in my church, so if you don’t have to recognize my marriage, why should I recognize yours?

The first amendment only guarantees that the government will not establish a national religion and won’t prohibit you from practicing your religion. Marriage, as a social institution with certain legal benefits, is completely separate from from religious marriage. If marriage were strictly a religious thing, it would mean your spouse would have no right of inheritance should you die, no right to make medical decisions for you should you become incapacitated – you would be nothing more than two people who happen to live together.

And if you think issues of marriage should be left to individual states, that’s still *not *a separation of church and state. How would the Full Faith and Credit claus work, if same-sex marriage were left up to the states? The constitution requires states to recognize the laws and proceedings of other states, yet if I marry a man in Washington, we’re limited on where we can move because not all states would recognize our marriage. Likewise, heterosexuals could face the same problem, if marriage were only a state issue.

 

[JonNC]

=gnosisofthomas;10539452]I guess what I’m asking, and maybe it wasn’t clear, is: why should I recognize your marriage as meaning anything more than that you went through a religious ritual that I may or may not believe in? Why should I recognize you and your spouse as family? (I’m using a hypothetical “you” here, of course – I have no idea if you’re married or not.) I could marry a man in my church, so if you don’t have to recognize my marriage, why should I recognize yours?

Why should I care whether or not you recognize my marriage? The Church does

The first amendment only guarantees that the government will not establish a national religion and won’t prohibit you from practicing your religion. On the first part, I agree. It isn’t "separation of Church and state, but establishment of a state Church. I could contend that by redefining marriage, the state is taking on the role of the Church.

Marriage, as a social institution with certain legal benefits, is completely separate from from religious marriage. If marriage were strictly a religious thing, it would mean your spouse would have no right of inheritance should you die, no right to make medical decisions for you should you become incapacitated – you would be nothing more than two people who happen to live together.

Here is the issue, the legal benefits. Those legal benefits need not be tied to marriage. In fact, they shouldn’t be. In our constitutional society, I make a will, and that person gets my inheritance. I make a living will, and that person chooses for me. It could be brother and sister, two elderly sisters, etc. You are speaking of civil unions here, not marriage.

And if you think issues of marriage should be left to individual states, that’s still *not *

a separation of church and state. How would the Full Faith and Credit claus work, if same-sex marriage were left up to the states? The constitution requires states to recognize the laws and proceedings of other states, yet if I marry a man in Washington, we’re limited on where we can move because not all states would recognize our marriage. Likewise, heterosexuals could face the same problem, if marriage were only a state issue.
I honestly think even the states should stay out of it. How does the full faith and credit work with age of consent marriages? Has that been an issue? Again, why should the government care about marriage? Estate laws and healthcare laws are set by states, and one is subject to those laws if they live there.

Jon

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Why should I care whether or not you recognize my marriage? The Church does

You may not care if anyone outside of your church recognizes it, but if your spouse were dying in the hospital you could be prevented from visiting her because you’re not family, leaving her to die alone. I guess you could hope that she’d never have to go to a non-Catholic hospital!

Here is the issue, the legal benefits. Those legal benefits need not be tied to marriage. In fact, they shouldn’t be. In our constitutional society, I make a will, and that person gets my inheritance. I make a living will, and that person chooses for me. It could be brother and sister, two elderly sisters, etc. You are speaking of civil unions here, not marriage.

You’re absolutely right, but it also gets very expensive setting all those things up. Wills can, and often are contested… particularly if the family of the deceased doesn’t like your spouse. Then there are other issues like tax benefits (good luck getting that flat tax any time soon!) and health insurance. You’d be basically making “marriage” a privilege of the rich, and making the poor suffer even more than they are now by these changes.

I honestly think even the states should stay out of it. How does the full faith and credit work with age of consent marriages? Has that been an issue? Again, why should the government care about marriage? Estate laws and healthcare laws are set by states, and one is subject to those laws if they live there.

I’m sure age of consent has been an issue of concern to some people, but still, states are required to recognize the heterosexual marriages that are legal in other states regardless. DOMA specifically allows them to ignore one type of marriage. We are states in union with each other, and DOMA creates a division in the union.

The fact is, there is legal marriage and there is religious marriage – the two forms of marriage exist, whether you like it or not. Personally, I wish we did what other countries do and keep the two forms separate… so that you have your civil marriage to get the legal rights, and you have your religious ceremony separately. But it doesn’t work that way here, and it doesn’t look like that will change any time soon.