Russell and Duenes

Stand for God’s View of Marriage and You’re No Better Than a White Supremacist

with 7 comments

dysonHere you see the indictment with the gloves off. And it’s not going to be just about “gay marriage” as we go forward. For too long we’ve thought that Jesus was just whispering sweet nothings when He said that we would be insulted, reviled, persecuted and falsely slandered on account of Him and His gospel. Perhaps Professor Dyson’s views in the video below are simply the most egregious and shameless example of outright slander against what God has revealed, but I think we can already begin to see more of what it will cost God’s people when we articulate and defend the beauty and wonder of God’s truth.

And those Christians who think they can make themselves cozy and safe by supporting gay marriage but not also supporting every manner of homosexual behavior, well, let’s just say that they won’t be able to escape the “you’re as bad as the racists of old” tag either. So it’s either abandon God’s Word – which is already beginning to happen among “evangelicals” – or get ready for the ride. Further, it will be of no avail, as you can see, to point to Obama or Clinton or other supposedly “enlightened” celebrities who once believed that traditional marriage is the way to go. What it will require is Christians, including those who go on TV, saying, “God says that marriage is between a man and a woman, and God is Lord of all, He defines all things, He is the ground of all knowledge, and all judgment is His. His Word is the foundation for human flourishing. And if someone’s view is going to be imposed, which is inescapable in human affairs, then I side with God.” And then let that play out. I know that sounds unthinkable in our overweening secularism, and no one should doubt the amount of courage it will take. But what this does is shift the ground upon which the discussion will be had, and allows the Christian to frame the questions and issues, rather than the secularist. That’s right where we should want to be.



Written by Michael Duenes

June 30, 2013 at 6:08 pm

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I think the reason that Christians are starting to embrace homosexuality is because it is perfectly possible to be involved homosexually without it causing damage to others or oneself. With proper pre-caution, in a sense a gay couple can have the same level of well being, love, and commitment as a married straight couple. If God’s Word says something is wrong, why is it possible that that something isn’t causing harm to oneself or others? This is the logic of Christians who don’t bother to combat homosexuality. Now I do think homosexuality can be dangerous if it is lustfully promiscuous. However, this is the same thing with heterosexuality. My basic point in a nutshell is that it is possible for homosexuality to be safeguarded where it doesn’t hurt the couple involved. The people on the outside are only “hurt” because they choose to make a big deal out of this still. Yet, theoretically there isn’t any harm done with the proper precaution. That’s why Christians think the traditional interpretation of the Bible doesn’t make sense and are abandoning this interpretation.


    June 30, 2013 at 6:26 pm

    • Manny, I appreciate your comments as always, and reaffirm our friendship, so as always, take my reply in that spirit. I don’t doubt for a minute that many Christians are embracing homosexual behaviors for the reason you provide. I just dispute whether that reasoning is accurate and valid. I argue that it’s not, and have laid out some of those arguments here:

      Disobedience to God’s commands always causes harm, even if you and I in our limited, finite, sinful “seeing” cannot see it. I take God at His Word. If you wish to argue that God is OK with homosexual sexual activity, then you and I have a different issue, don’t we? But the true Christian is bound to obey God, whether he feels like it or not, whether he can see whether it is “hurting others” or not. God is good. He does not command and prohibit things for no reason. He does it because He loves us, and He knows what “hurts others” and what doesn’t.


      russell and duenes

      June 30, 2013 at 8:37 pm

      • My problem is that to me it just seems that the only reason for homosexuality being a sin is because God says so. I’m not trying to downplay that reason at all. I’m just trying to acknowledge that notion yes, God does and should have motives for not allowing things other than because He says so. Yes, promiscuous gay sex or gay sex before marriage should obviously have harmful consequences. I have no problem viewing this as sin. What I have an issue with is understanding why it would be wrong to have a monongamous, sexually safe, etc gay marriage is wrong. Basically imagine your marriage right now, but homosexual. I don’t think there’s anything one can argue about that specific situation other than it’s wrong because God says so. It’s just hard for me to accept that.


        June 30, 2013 at 9:10 pm

      • If you think about it if a gay couple was monogamously married, safe with anal sex, loving, committed, and maybe even Christian for that matter etc. etc. the same as a heterosexually married couple, I don’t see any way of finding this wrong unless you say because God says so.


        June 30, 2013 at 9:14 pm

  2. Also, I’m sorry how I can have a tendency to lash out at you sometimes. You don’t deserve to take some of my inflammatory comments. I just feel like some individuals of a more conservative nature have hurt me in the past, which can easily allow me to stereotype all conservatives. This obviously isn’t fair and isn’t an excuse, but just letting you know. I know you have good intentions for what you’re doing though. I might disagree about some things esp of the political nature, but at the same time I think you have a good heart.


    June 30, 2013 at 9:34 pm

  3. I think the challenge, and difficulty, comes by virtue of the fact that allowing for same-sex marriage within the civil context has no bearing on the meaning or value of marriage within the definition of God’s word. This all warrants so much more conversation than a simple post will allow for, but I would like to make two points.

    First, it is not “gay marriage”–it is same-sex marriage. A marriage contract is just that: a contract. There is nothing gay nor straight about it. Further, if one says “gay marriage” in order to suggest that it is marriage between a homosexual couple, that fails, too, because folks get married for reasons other than sexual attraction all the time, both straight and gay. So, as a practical matter, saying “gay marriage” is nothing but derogatory. Simply, the state should not concern itself with why two folks are getting married, nor what it is that gets their motor running.

    Second, the state allowing for same-sex marriage does not *take* anything from those who espouse the Christian view of marriage. An opposite-sex married couple in Massachusetts does not find that their commitment to one another is any less valuable than it was almost 10 years ago when the state allowed for same-sex folks to get married. Further, the statistics show that, after the initial spike in marriages due to same-sex couples that had been waiting to commit to one another through marriage, both the marriage and divorce rate have settled back to where they were before. What this means is that the argument that marriage as an institution will suffer harm by allowing for same-sex marriage has direct and empirical evidence suggesting the contrary. From all available data, if there is no negative impact on marriage/divorce rates, then the “responsible procreation” argument doesn’t hold water, which means that there simply is not a justifiable *legal* reason to deny same-sex marriage. A religious reason, perhaps, but not a legal reason.

    Hope your summer is off to a great start, D. 🙂


    July 1, 2013 at 5:00 am

    • Bo – Welcome to the conversation. As always, my friend, you state your points well, and I appreciate that you’re willing to state them here. I’m unwilling to accept your assertion that “marriage is a … contract.” This begs the question. Just because people think of it that way or draw it up that way does not mean that’s what it is. People think that copulating is no different than getting together to play tennis. They can think that, but reality will out. You’d have to provide me with some overarching authority which makes claims on all humans everywhere that marriage is a contract. I’m under the authority of the author and inventor of marriage, so I take it that He doesn’t think so.

      I’m not sure I understand your argument about “gay marriage” not referring to a homosexual couple. In context, that’s the way I’ve used it. It may have other meanings, but meanings are determined by context. Two heterosexuals who get married, no matter what their motivation, are engaging in “heterosexual” or “straight” marriage, for lack of a better term. But I would simply say that they are engaging in marriage, and that other relationships are something else. Definitions are not utterly elastic. But this is part of the discussion isn’t it, namely: “What is marriage?” You and I answer that question quite differently.

      You are quite right, in one sense, that some couple in Oregon’s marriage does not have to tarnish mine. This would be true whether they are homosexuals or not. They may be heterosexual adulterers, and I might say that they have not “made my commitment less valuable.” But you’d have to define what “valuable” means. if you want to tell me that the adultery somehow diminishes my love for my own wife, you’re right, it does nothing of the sort. But if you want to say that it does no harm to the beauty, wonder, holiness and clarity of God’s design for marriage in our world, then I would disagree. Marriage is harmed by hard-heartedness and disobedience to God’s commands. Indeed, humans are harmed by it, for God intends marriage to be a picture of Christ’s unfailing faithfulness and love for His people. Anything that blurs or blunts this, blunts the most glorious truth that men and women can experience. What we all need is Christ’s love and forgiveness (not some cultural caricature of Christ’s love), and the need for this is diminished when we enshrine things in our laws and mores that reject it.

      Marriage is harmed by a lot of things, and no one person or sociological study can possibly isolate all the reasons. I could just as well point up a study that statistically refutes what you’ve asserted. Social studies are highly open to politicization, bias, and self-fulfilling prophecies, particularly in an area as sensitive as this. Further, I’m suspicious of sentences like, “All available data.” Really? ALL of it? You mean the data that I’m reading that contradicts what you’re saying isn’t really data? When we’re talking about sociological data, I would venture to say that no person can really say “all available data.” The world we live in is marvelously wonderful and complex (though simple in it’s elegance as well). It strikes me as going beyond what science can truly show us to say that “all available data” goes one way.

      As you and I have discussed before, “legal” reasons and “religious” ones are not so neatly cabined off. “Legal” reasoning is not religiously neutral. Indeed, nothing is. Everything proceeds from some conception of the good, the true and the beautiful, even the idea of law itself. The idea that the state should confine itself to “compelling interests” implies some notion of what is “compelling.” And how is that determined? And if you give a legal basis, then how is that determined? If we say it’s based on “fairness” or “equality” or “liberty” or “justice” or “health” . . . all terms that our courts use, then these are religious terms, not merely sociological or scientific ones. Fact is, systems of law are based on conceptions of what leads to human flourishing, based on what we take to be the unique nature of human existence. These are religious questions, not merely legal, sociological, or scientific ones.

      Hope you are continuing to enjoy your time in Ireland (assuming you’re still there). I miss our conversations. I look forward to that BBQ when you get back.


      russell and duenes

      July 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: