USATODAY.com - United Church of Christ backs gay marriage
USATODAY.com - United Church of Christ backs gay marriage
What should determine a denomination's decisions on social issues? Should it be something concrete or should denominations be more fluid with the times and culture? In comparison, we as American citizens point to the Constitution as a "concrete" statute to live by, but even that has been attacked in recent years as old and irrelevant to our current society. In the case with the American Constitution, legal advisers, lawyers, and judges want to subjectively interpret the intent of the law. I call this Neo-Constitutionalism. The reason I give the label, Neo-Constitutionalism, is because the statute no longer is the measuring rod for which the citizens are to live by, rather the people are the measuring rod by which to interpret the law.
In the same way we find many churches and denominations practicing Neo-Constitutionalism. In the article above, Rev. John H. Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ has practiced Neo-Christianity. He is not basing the decisions of the United Church of Christ on anything objective, concrete, or foundational. How is it that he can refer to his denomination as a Christian denomination and not follow the plain teachings of Jesus Christ? The Rev. Brett Becker of the St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cibolo, Texas (a representative of the conservative churches) said, "If we had put it to a vote of the people in the pews, it would have failed overwhelmingly," he said. "This is truly Independence Day for the UCC — we have declared ourselves independent from the teachings of Jesus and the clear teachings of Scripture." At the same time the Rev. Rebecca Voelkel, of Cleveland said that "the decision emphasizes that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are 'spiritual people who love and are loved by God.'" Like those well educated lawyers who practice Neo-Constitutionalism and take part of the law and redefine it to fit a specific agenda, so to are some denominational leaders and some pastors practicing Neo-Christianity. Now we have from Rev. Voelkel a redefinition of God's love. (For more thoughts on the philosophy and theology of this subject I would refer you to three other articles: "Holy or Love?", "Parents Raising Children; Bible Principles of Family Training", and "Was Esau Sexually Immoral?")
Should we practice what I have called Neo-Christianity (Neo-Constitutionalism) for the sake of cultural relevancy? Should an objective statute dictate how people live, or should people dictate how a statute reads?
Check out the UCC's controversial commercial here. (Requires Windows Media Player)
4 Comments:
"the decision emphasizes that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are 'spiritual people who love and are loved by God.'" - Rev. Rebecca Voelkel
Sure, God loves ALL sinners, but that does not change the fact that sin WILL be judged, and those that refuse to obey God's Word will be destroyed...gay, straight, whatever.
Also, 'spiritual'? Everyone calls themselves spiritual... the question is what spirit you have in you.
I followed some anti-war links a while back (out of anger) and some of them lead to this denomination's site. They align themselves with some real nutjobs...I guess it shows in their beliefs (or lack of them).
Ron,
In response to your last question, "Should we practice what I have called Neo-Christianity (Neo-Constitutionalism) for the sake of cultural relevancy," I will say what I said a long time ago in another topic of this blog -- The Church Growth Movement in perspective: "The truth of God's Word and the holy, distinct, set-apart lives of His people will change lives. Becoming 'relevant' at the exclusion of these things will ultimately do more harm than good."
Do we sacrifice truth for the sake of relevance? No, for it is the timeless truth of God's Word that is relevant to all humans of all times in every culture. Any church that sacrifices the truth of God's Word for the sake of relevance is no more relevant to society than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
Junior,
I was hoping that someone might pick-up on Voelkel's quote. It might be obvious to you and I that their view of love and the Biblical concept is quite different. They are redefining "love". They justify what they do as "love". They want to live as they want and practice caringness in society, thus they look like true Christians. When we say "no" your life style is immoral in the sight of God and accrding to the Scriptural teaching, they say that is hate, because it doesn't accept their life style. In essence they define social issues (statutes) by their own life style making a very subjective statute.
Sean,
Thank you for your clear articulation...you are very correct, but history will always show that we lived in a post-madern culture where extreme subjectivity was the philosophy of the day. Ultimately nothing will be considered wrong, except not allowing a person to live and do what they want (this is the logical conclusion to where we are heading). So how will our voice prevail, or what will have to occur that objective rule is desired again?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog