From C4M
Dear marriage supporter,
Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples constitutes a “massive reengineering of our social life” by the state, an influential Christian scholar has said.
Kevin DeYoung, a pastor, theologian and popular author, wrote that redefining marriage has a huge impact across swathes of areas because of the gender-neutral assumptions it enshrines. Same-sex marriage falsely assumes “the indistinguishability of gender in parenting, the relative unimportance of procreation in marriage, and the near infinite flexibility as to what sorts of structures and habits lead to human flourishing”.
Same-sex ‘marriage’ enshrines in law a “faulty” view of marriage, “one that says marriage is essentially a demonstration of commitment sexually expressed”, DeYoung writes.
But marriage isn’t just about commitment and sexual expression. It is about the union of a man and a woman, and is a pre-political institution which predates the state and exists independently of it. The state recognises this marriage relationship and gives it legal standing, “for the common good and for the well-being of society”. Foremost in its purpose in doing so is the “well-being of the child” which is the natural fruit of the marital union, for: “Kids do better with a mom and a dad. Communities do better when husbands and wives stay together.”
The problem is that by expanding the definition of marriage, the whole institution is weakened as the meaning of marriage is changed: “same-sex unions cannot be accepted as marriage without devaluing all marriages, because the only way to embrace same-sex partnerships as marriage is by changing what marriage means altogether.”
DeYoung speaks wise words. Too many people, whether Christian or not, slip into the trap of thinking that while they are personally opposed to same-sex marriage, they ought in fairness to support the ‘right’ of gay people to marry one another. But this fails to understand that redefining marriage weakens all marriages and thereby harms us all.
At C4M we urge those who know same-sex marriage to be wrong to have the courage of their convictions and insist that the definition of marriage should not be changed.
If you would like to support us financially, you can do so using the button below.
Yours faithfully,
Colin Hart
Chairman
Coalition for Marriage (C4M)
If only C4M stood for "Church for Marriage" but the churches don't seem to stand for anything today.
ReplyDeleteSame old. Same old. Coalition for offensively Cruel Knastiness. C.O.C.K.
ReplyDeleteDD
C.O.C.K. and bull is all you spout.
DeleteDeluded Dunce.
DeleteTroll and master baiter.
Best ignored and their perversity starved of oxygen.
Sir
ReplyDeleteIn his article (link provided) Kevin DeYoung cites an interesting author:
'If Christians lose the cultural debate on homosexuality, we will lose much more than we think. David S. Crawford is right:
The tolerance that really is proffered is provisional and contingent, tailored to accommodate what is conceived as a significant but shrinking segment of society that holds a publicly unacceptable private bigotry. Where over time it emerges that this bigotry has not in fact disappeared, more aggressive measures will be needed, which will include explicit legal and educational components, as well as simple ostracism.'
Those reverends and pastors who are too afraid to speak up now are invited to reflect
Sir
ReplyDeleteDeYoung in his article cites another author:
'If Christians lose the cultural debate on homosexuality, we will lose much more than we think. David S. Crawford is right:
The tolerance that really is proffered is provisional and contingent, tailored to accommodate what is conceived as a significant but shrinking segment of society that holds a publicly unacceptable private bigotry. Where over time it emerges that this bigotry has not in fact disappeared, more aggressive measures will be needed, which will include explicit legal and educational components, as well as simple ostracism.'
If we do not speak up now in defence of traditional marriage, then we may have time in prison to understand what freedom is.
DD at 17:26
ReplyDelete'Same old. Same old.'
Then why not invite your Best Friend - Lucifer - to contribute something original?
Of course, he can't. For he has never invented anything original.
He has only ever mimicked the good (being parasitic upon the good) and perverted it.
Same old. Same old.
Sir
ReplyDeleteSo far I have criticised the present generation of Christian leaders.
Let me now turn to the Jewish community.
Christianity's roots are planted in the blood soaked soil of Judaism: it's law, prophets, poets, statesmen and heroes.
As the state has begun it's persecution of Christians (by applying civil disabilities under the Equality Act 2010) do not make the same mistake as you made under Weimar Germany.
The state's actors will not distinguish between Christian and Jew: on this issue.
DeYoung states that marriage "is about the union of a man and a woman, and is a pre-political institution which predates the state and exists independently of it". I wonder though if that is (or has been) true for all societies? For instance, I lived in West Africa where polygamy was common, although discouraged by the state and posing both legal difficulties and problems in the Church. You might say that only the first wife was the "real" one and the others were mere concubines, but that's not how local society regarded or spoke of them - although there was definitely a marital "pecking order". Whether there are traditional societies in which marriage is regarded as merely a temporary union of two people, or in which multiple people of both sexes are said to be "married" and in one household, I don't know. (If there are, I haven't heard of them). Nevertheless I feel that DeYoung has based his case on what he regards as a universal historical norm from which we are now departing. While "one man, one woman" has indeed long been normative (theoretically) in societies such as ours, I beg to suggest that his foundation may not be as obvious as he thinks!
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_DeYoung
DeleteWhy don't you do something really radical, write to him and ask?
You could then enlighten us all with his response.
Baptist Trainfan at 22:17
DeleteNevertheless, the biblical pattern has always been heterosexual marriage. Never, homosexual marriage.
DeYoung is correct in that marriage is pre-political.
St. Paul gives us the model of one man, one woman.
Where polygamy is practised the incidents of abduction and rape increases.
There is a reason for that result. Societies produce 50 percent of each sex: enough for the one man, one woman model.
It seems to me to be pretty bloody obvious that he's referring to our modern Western societies, the foundations of which have all been laid on Jewish/Christian/The Ten Commandment basics and teachings for several thousand years, which are now being socially engineered by "humanists", busy-body virtue-signalling PC "Social" workers, right-on politicians and the luvvie media, all egged on by the tiny minority of very vocal deviants, priestesses and the misled demanding their "rights".
DeleteNo society will ever be perfect for everyone but over the last hundred thousand years or so every permutation and combination will have been tried somewhere around the globe.
Sodom and Gomorrah are the relevant models and look how they worked out.
Some Minister you must be BT, perhaps you'd just better stick to your choo-choos.
Bewildered
With apologies to Ancient Briton for being off topic but I have just come across this and thought bloggers might appreciate the maximum notice to avoid it.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001gpt6
Anumpti Productions are busy in Llandaff Cathedral churning out more sickly "low budget" and "not in it to make a profit" "we haven't chosen the singers yet" fluff.
Will Janet Henderson be tuning in?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001gnhz
ReplyDeleteFurther apology, it appears there are to be two episodes to avoid.
All Ministers in Cardiff AFAIK were sent "flyers" for the recordings, which took place in late September. I know that some folk from my church took part.
ReplyDeleteProbably sad people chasing their ten seconds of "Ooh look, there we are!" fame on the TV, only invited to make up the numbers because there are so few remaining gullible Llandaff pew sitters left and even fewer interested in Songs of Praise.
DeleteThat’s an unnecessarily harsh - and generally unnecessary - remark about the personal motives of people whom you don’t know.
DeleteRB
The were very few Llandaff regulars in the audiences for the three dismal 2013 episodes even though they bussed in loads of kids from the Cathedral school.
DeleteI recall Mr Toad having to reorganise the chairs to make those present fit the camera angles in a futile attempt to create the illusion of a full house.
I think AB's blog covered the issues quite comprehensively at the time.
You remember readers, it was about ten days after Janet Henderson mysteriously did a bunk and bully boy --Bazza and his press officer were desperately trying to keep a lid on the can of worms.
For many years - and that certainly goes back to 1972 when I was part of a choir which sang on it! - "Songs of Praise" has not confined itself to the congregation of one church but has involved a broad spread of people drawn from churches, choirs, charities and the community. Radio 4's "Morning Worship" is a different matter.
ReplyDeleteThat must be why the viewing numbers have gone up so much and why it continues to enjoy a prime spot in the schedule.
DeleteNOT!!
Sir
ReplyDeleteOne of the key observations that both DeYoung and Hart bring into sharp relief is this:
'Same-sex marriage falsely assumes “the indistinguishability of gender in parenting, the relative unimportance of procreation in marriage, and the near infinite flexibility as to what sorts of structures and habits lead to human flourishing”.'
That quotation reveals the powerful and destructive influence of feminism.
If differences in sex are erased, then why is there a need for one man and one woman for marriage? Are they not interchangable?
I am coming to the view that the biblical view of the sexes has never been about equality nor complementarity- but about 'binarity' and hierarchy.
The very view that your forefathers held since time immemorial.
It would be interesting to read verses from the Bible that support complementarity or equality.
What about Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Not, I grant you, written in the context of a discussion about marriage - but suggestive, at least.
ReplyDeleteThere is no marriage in Heaven.
DeleteMatthew 22, v30
But it is quite clear that Christ considered marriage on earth to be between one man and one woman since he attended the wedding for feast at Canaa in Galilee and performed his first miracle there (of changing water into wine), further suggesting he wasn't averse to celebrating it either!
@BT. 'nor is there male or female' meant in regard to God's love for us all, not biologically or sexually. Surely you understand this.
DeleteI think we must be braced for SS marriage, beginning of course with the Church in Wales determinedly shooting itself in the foot again and emptying the pews.
LW
Baptist Trainfan at 12:07
ReplyDeleteI take it, that like me, you studied at Spurgeon's?
You know very well that verse is about salvation.
And you know, as a fact, that there were in the early church:
1. Jews;
2. Gentiles;
3. Slaves;
4. Free men;
5. Males; and,
6. Females.
Indeed, to deny that reality would render the New Testament incomprehensible.
Baptist Trainfan at 12:07
ReplyDeleteA text taken out of context risks becoming a pretext:
26 For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus.y
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Gal 3:26 - 27
Nothing suggestive about marriage.
Baptist Trainfan at 12:07
ReplyDeleteI see what you are doing. You are reading the 21st century idea of equality into 'for you are all one in Christ Jesus' - in an attempt to deconstruct differences and thereby erase them to arrive at a position of superficial equality, that is divorced from reality.
This explains why the current screeching by feminists against male-to-female transgendered men is futile.
It is the erasure of sex differences by feminists that is so encouraging to the transgendered.
The seeds of your own self-destruction have been sown by you - not by men.
I did say in my original post that this verse did not come within a discussion of marriage; and I think it basically says that, within the Church and among Christian people, we are all of equal status, i.e. sinners saved by the grace of God. We are all on a "level playing field" before him.
ReplyDeleteHowever I also think one does need to apply Scripture to contemporary contexts, otherwise it's merely an ancient text or a dead letter. And all I said was that it is "suggestive", nothing more!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63914891
ReplyDeleteLook, more Plod running amok in London.
Baptist Trainfan9 December 2022 at 15:20
ReplyDelete'However I also think one does need to apply Scripture to contemporary contexts, otherwise it's merely an ancient text or a dead letter.'
Tell me did St. Paul think like that?
"I say chaps, Moses wrote this centuries ago and we've all moved on!"
Or perhaps the works of Shakespeare are not understood by the Chinese peasant as they are 400 years old and written in old English which does not translate into Mandarin too well?
My God Singh - you really are the kind of person who has to win every argument. I bet you were a hoot in the pulpit!
ReplyDeleteDD
I can't speak for St Paul. But didn't Jesus himself say, more than once: "It is written ... but I say to you .."?
ReplyDelete'You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
DeleteMatt 5:43
Well BT what is your interpretation of Matt 5: 43-44?
ReplyDeleteBut I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matt 5:44
My interpretation is that it means exactly what it says.
ReplyDeleteBut it has to be taken in the context of the previous verses, in which Jesus is rewriting the criminal code of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" - lenient at the time it was written as it limited revenge and retribution - with something far more gracious and less prescriptive.
Not to revise the state's criminal code - but to circumcise the individual's heart to comply with the law:
ReplyDelete17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matt 5: 17 - 20
Moreover, the law to 'hate your enemy' is not found in the Old Testament (it was positive law made up by the Pharisees).
If the state applied Matt 5: 43-44 the result would be anarchy.
Clearly: Love is not all you need.
DeleteBaptist Trainfan10 December 2022 at 09:04
ReplyDelete'I can't speak for St Paul.'
True.
You are invited to comply with his instructions.
Sir
ReplyDeleteDD at 9 December 2022 at 21:04
Said:
'My God Singh'.
Either this is blasphemy or alternatively taking God's name in vain.
Either way it is sinful.
Your blog has Judaeo-Christian and Christian readers from around the globe.
Could she present an apology by twelve midnight?
If she fails to do so, then I'm free when replying to her to address her as 'Blasphemer DD.'
Dear AB:
ReplyDeleteHave you sold the Franchise rights for the Ancient Briton site and blogging monopoly to 'D Singh'.
Please e.mail me when you think its safe to re-enter your otherwise enjoyable exchange of banter without it being almost exclusively D Singh and his banal waffle.
No I haven't AC but I take your point. All comments are received from a 'noreply-comments' email address so AB is unable to reply directly to commentators.
DeleteSome years ago I also knew a Mr. Singh. I remember him well. Indijit Singh. It seems that at some stage in the 1600's his Rajput Hidu Kshatriya family of Singh's of North India (which I have frequently visited and love) went rouge and en-bloc became Sikh to blend in well with their new circumstance and benefit from Sikh gifted work and housing. This worked well because the name Singh is a compulsion in all Sikh boy names. But then up popped the Europeans (led by the absent Queen Victoria) and the arrival of some Bible-thumping Jesuit RC missionaries. You want education, food, work etc? Switch to Christianity and absorb the Bible. The Hindu turned Sikh Singhs gleefully became Christian. Eventually grandpa and grandma Singh ended up in Britain settling in Asian concentrated Hounslow ... and totally confused.
ReplyDeleteThe result - with Mr. Indijit Singh - was that in his religious confusions he became an intolerable bore in denouncing of one faith-belief and bigoted ooozing of the Jesuit catholic theology. To any goodness of his thousand year ancestoral Hindu or Sikh faiths he'd spit out wholly irrelevant quotations from the Bible. Workplace discussion about his prejudiced views on scripture were not in his vocabulary. Eventually, he was 'relieved' of his employment for no other reason than the workplace antagonisms he created from his confused and badly-educated prejudices.
I had another friend who had been a 40-a-day smoker. Great guy until he quit smoking and then became so loathsome in his constant lecturing to others after his 'conversion'.
I wonder.
Old Bill
That was a bit like a cream cake, as the old advert said, Naughty but nice !
DeleteUnison Off.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-63923460
ReplyDeleteThe women fighting to be priests.
The latest example of the BBC pushing some of its favourite agendas, feminism and the undermining of the Church.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63969712
ReplyDeletePlod at their finest.
🤣
Perhaps it is time to distinguish between state marriage (a civil contract terminable at will available to any two people ) and holy matrimony( the state assumed in traditional catholic theology). The two are different and cannot exist in the same definition.
ReplyDelete@Zebedee
ReplyDeleteReiteration first Zeb. I am not a police officer nor have I ever been one but I am respectful to those who are. Think for instance of the young West Midland Police officer who jumped into an ice-lake - ignoring all H+SE regulations and Force SO's - to do so in his brave but futile attempt to save life in Solihull this week. If you met him would you call him a 'Plod'. He is one of more than 130,000 UK officers without counting those of British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Police, MoD Police and the mass of PCSO's.
But to the point. If you insist on airing your grievances against the Police Service so frequently, will you do us all the favour of summarising your complaint rather than expect us to explore the websites for your www.bbc.co.uk/news-england-london-63969712-LGBTQ+zonk etc. So tiresome only to find that the item you wish us to outcry at are perhaps only representative of the far wider UK workplace.
There are I am sure other odd-ball website blogs you could entertain with your angsts. Meanwhile, I hope you have a very pleasant Christmas without need to call out The Old Bill.
Old Bill.