I thank you for your respectful engagement. I'm pressed for time so please forgive me if my responses seem curt. I'm responding in a bit of a rush.
1. If the Supreme court decides marrying your dog is a true marriage, would you still say that "dog marriage" actually exists? It isn't shaky ground. God's word is sufficient for defining reality. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction here.
2. Again, God defines marriage, not the state or SCOTUS or popular opinion. It is a lie regarding of what anyone says because it opposes God's word.
3. You fail to distinguish a wedding from just any other meal. No one is saying grandma shouldn't share a meal with her grandson. Jesus did the same. But attending a wedding is not the same as eating with tax collectors and sinners. Weddings are significant events and attenders are there to celebrate with approval.
4. The time absolutely matters. Men of Issachar "understood the times."
It sounds like you're tempted to think subjectively about the situation at hand. There is a "right and wrong" set of answers, but those answers are uncomfortable and costly. You mention being shrewd about continuing her witness. The obsession about our public witness to unbelievers may very well be fear of man dressed up as missional zeal. Be careful about this. God bless.
This is the best post I have read to date on the Begg/Compassion issue. You were correct when you wrote... "This sends a confusing message about Christian truth at precisely the urgent moment where utmost clarity is needed. Further, it lends credibility to radical LGBTQ activist’s desires to remake Christian morality into the ethic of Sodom."
Karyn, you said "I think it is presumptuous for us to allege that we know the mind of God." God spoke to us in his word. It is not presumption, it is faith.
I am thankful that we can have a respectful debate about this issue. I do not accept that same sex marriage is condemned by Christ as a sin. I think it is presumptuous for us to allege that we know the mind of God. In the past, ‘Christianity’ as practiced by humanity has rationalised the oppression of women, slavery, racism, burning of witches, scientific progress, violence and war. I cannot accept that condemning a loving lifelong commitment in a legal same sex marriage is a sin given this background. There are mainstream denominations that accept, and so conduct , same sex marriages. As Christian communities, we must learn how to live with these debates ‘in progress’. There are, and will continue to be, many debates that modern life brings into our church families. To ignore the opinions of other religious denominations and theologians is fraught. The true question for Christians is how we bring Christ’s love to a troubled world, and how we learn from the mistakes of the past in doing so. It seems to me, and many other ‘normal’ congregation members, that it is, at best, hypocritical and, at worst, blasphemous, to use Christ’s name to condemn and judge. Only God can sit in judgement. The creation God made continues to evolve, the Word of God could only be understood within the parameters of the time it was written - how can we ‘read’ into that written Word God’s stance on AI? Transgender people? Space exploration? IVF? Organ and blood transplants? Genetic modification? Same sex marriage? Jesus said nothing about any of these things. But he did give us the two greatest commandments: loving God and loving one's neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:36-39). Both of these commandments raise questions for us about what it means to love, how do we properly show love? Jesus also said: "Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). Only God is without sin, we are to love those we regard as sinners as we love ourselves.
So, I believe, even if (same sex marriage) is a sin, Christians are not exhorted to condemn the sinners. God created humanity with intellect, a brain and free will; our world is as it is today as a result. The written Word is not cognisant of so much in the modern world that we must learn to live with uncertainty about God’s mind and pray ‘that God’s will be done’. And we must invite all to the Lord’s table in our church families and allow for competing, evolving views on church rites and who has access to them to co-exist, in our very best, human attempt to obey the most important commandments. I pray that we can both hold our different beliefs but neither of us condemn each other, or others, for them so reflecting Christ’s perfect love in this troubled world. Blessings.
With respect, you fail to note the difference between a legally-recognized union and what God considers a right relationship. Gay marriage does in fact exist, whether it's spiritually legitimate or not. No, I don't think we should celebrate spiritually illegitimate relationships... but an argument built on this is on shaky ground.
"...he’s advising this grandmother to celebrate a lie."
With respect, I don't believe that's what Begg was doing at all. First, it's not a lie that same-sex unions are considered a legal marriage in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of those involved. Second, saying "it's not a marriage" is burying our heads in the sand and hand-waving at things we disapprove of.
"The justification for his counsel is “love."
With respect, the justification for his counsel is based in a loving relationship, not some fuzzy postmodern notion. Jesus ate with sinners, and condemned their sin... but He didn't predicate loving hospitality on their immediate repentance. As you point out, Begg makes sure the grandson understands his grandmother's position.
"This sends a confusing message... the urgent moment..."
With respect, it doesn't seem wise to make a time-based argument here. Should this grandmother wait for a better time, when the moment isn't so urgent? I don't think you or I really believe that.
Don't get me wrong, Michael... I'm wrestling with this personally right now. I'm not convinced there's a black and white, right and wrong set of answers. On the one hand, Grandma's faith can be dismissed entirely because she doesn't really care about her grandson. On the other hand, celebrating what SHE considers an illegitimate relationship can be seen as a compromise, undermining her position.
This situation certainly calls for us to be a shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves, but I'm not sure that your arguments consider both. You seem most concerned about innocence, but not about any sort of strategic approach to a continuing witness.
Jesus pointed out that 'the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.' I'm not saying you're wrong, brother. I'm saying it may be wise to consider both sides of the argument before insisting that Alistair Begg must be wrong.
I thank you for your respectful engagement. I'm pressed for time so please forgive me if my responses seem curt. I'm responding in a bit of a rush.
1. If the Supreme court decides marrying your dog is a true marriage, would you still say that "dog marriage" actually exists? It isn't shaky ground. God's word is sufficient for defining reality. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction here.
2. Again, God defines marriage, not the state or SCOTUS or popular opinion. It is a lie regarding of what anyone says because it opposes God's word.
3. You fail to distinguish a wedding from just any other meal. No one is saying grandma shouldn't share a meal with her grandson. Jesus did the same. But attending a wedding is not the same as eating with tax collectors and sinners. Weddings are significant events and attenders are there to celebrate with approval.
4. The time absolutely matters. Men of Issachar "understood the times."
It sounds like you're tempted to think subjectively about the situation at hand. There is a "right and wrong" set of answers, but those answers are uncomfortable and costly. You mention being shrewd about continuing her witness. The obsession about our public witness to unbelievers may very well be fear of man dressed up as missional zeal. Be careful about this. God bless.
God defines marriage... not men and women who think they are smarter than God.
Michael,
This is the best post I have read to date on the Begg/Compassion issue. You were correct when you wrote... "This sends a confusing message about Christian truth at precisely the urgent moment where utmost clarity is needed. Further, it lends credibility to radical LGBTQ activist’s desires to remake Christian morality into the ethic of Sodom."
Thank you brother. It's heartbreaking.
Karyn, you said "I think it is presumptuous for us to allege that we know the mind of God." God spoke to us in his word. It is not presumption, it is faith.
100% correct!
I am thankful that we can have a respectful debate about this issue. I do not accept that same sex marriage is condemned by Christ as a sin. I think it is presumptuous for us to allege that we know the mind of God. In the past, ‘Christianity’ as practiced by humanity has rationalised the oppression of women, slavery, racism, burning of witches, scientific progress, violence and war. I cannot accept that condemning a loving lifelong commitment in a legal same sex marriage is a sin given this background. There are mainstream denominations that accept, and so conduct , same sex marriages. As Christian communities, we must learn how to live with these debates ‘in progress’. There are, and will continue to be, many debates that modern life brings into our church families. To ignore the opinions of other religious denominations and theologians is fraught. The true question for Christians is how we bring Christ’s love to a troubled world, and how we learn from the mistakes of the past in doing so. It seems to me, and many other ‘normal’ congregation members, that it is, at best, hypocritical and, at worst, blasphemous, to use Christ’s name to condemn and judge. Only God can sit in judgement. The creation God made continues to evolve, the Word of God could only be understood within the parameters of the time it was written - how can we ‘read’ into that written Word God’s stance on AI? Transgender people? Space exploration? IVF? Organ and blood transplants? Genetic modification? Same sex marriage? Jesus said nothing about any of these things. But he did give us the two greatest commandments: loving God and loving one's neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:36-39). Both of these commandments raise questions for us about what it means to love, how do we properly show love? Jesus also said: "Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). Only God is without sin, we are to love those we regard as sinners as we love ourselves.
So, I believe, even if (same sex marriage) is a sin, Christians are not exhorted to condemn the sinners. God created humanity with intellect, a brain and free will; our world is as it is today as a result. The written Word is not cognisant of so much in the modern world that we must learn to live with uncertainty about God’s mind and pray ‘that God’s will be done’. And we must invite all to the Lord’s table in our church families and allow for competing, evolving views on church rites and who has access to them to co-exist, in our very best, human attempt to obey the most important commandments. I pray that we can both hold our different beliefs but neither of us condemn each other, or others, for them so reflecting Christ’s perfect love in this troubled world. Blessings.
"'Gay marriage' does not exist."
With respect, you fail to note the difference between a legally-recognized union and what God considers a right relationship. Gay marriage does in fact exist, whether it's spiritually legitimate or not. No, I don't think we should celebrate spiritually illegitimate relationships... but an argument built on this is on shaky ground.
"...he’s advising this grandmother to celebrate a lie."
With respect, I don't believe that's what Begg was doing at all. First, it's not a lie that same-sex unions are considered a legal marriage in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of those involved. Second, saying "it's not a marriage" is burying our heads in the sand and hand-waving at things we disapprove of.
"The justification for his counsel is “love."
With respect, the justification for his counsel is based in a loving relationship, not some fuzzy postmodern notion. Jesus ate with sinners, and condemned their sin... but He didn't predicate loving hospitality on their immediate repentance. As you point out, Begg makes sure the grandson understands his grandmother's position.
"This sends a confusing message... the urgent moment..."
With respect, it doesn't seem wise to make a time-based argument here. Should this grandmother wait for a better time, when the moment isn't so urgent? I don't think you or I really believe that.
Don't get me wrong, Michael... I'm wrestling with this personally right now. I'm not convinced there's a black and white, right and wrong set of answers. On the one hand, Grandma's faith can be dismissed entirely because she doesn't really care about her grandson. On the other hand, celebrating what SHE considers an illegitimate relationship can be seen as a compromise, undermining her position.
This situation certainly calls for us to be a shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves, but I'm not sure that your arguments consider both. You seem most concerned about innocence, but not about any sort of strategic approach to a continuing witness.
Jesus pointed out that 'the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.' I'm not saying you're wrong, brother. I'm saying it may be wise to consider both sides of the argument before insisting that Alistair Begg must be wrong.
<3