Supporting Traditional Marriage is a Sin
Posted on December 11, 2006
I got some email from MassResistance.org today. It’s a brave new world, indeed.
Here’s a little background from the email:
A few weeks back we had an article by Newton Tab columnist Tom Mountain exposing the horrific ordeal of Emer O’Shea. Her third-grade daughter’s class was taught about cross-dressing and transsexuality by a GLSEN activist who works in the Franklin Elementary School in Newton, which the girl attended. Mrs. O’Shea complained, and for her efforts she was mistreated and demeaned by the school to a point where she finally enrolled her daughter in a private Catholic school. This caused outrage across the country!
Well, the liberals in Newton don’t like any challenge to their authority. So soon afterwards, the response in the Newton Tab came in the form of a ghastly op-ed column by a well-known minister.
Third grade!
Ghastly is not a bad adjective for the op-ed (I looked for a direct link to the Newton Tab site, and didn’t find one); I would call it sad. Another brick in the wall, if you will, in the construction of our collective cultural suicide machine.
Marriage between a man and a woman with children is not only out of vogue, it is now, in fact, a sin, according to this minister. Idolatry is a sin, right?
Mindless devotion to a “Leave It to Beaver” mirage of “traditional family” is simply idolatry. Our fixation on an imagined norm undermines our ability to value real families whatever shape they take. We endanger the actual relationships that sustain us, while damaging our psychic and spiritual well-being. Consider the tragically self-loathing, self-destructive Rev. Ted Haggard. He crusaded against gay marriage in public, and engaged in risky gay sex and drug abuse in secret. This man of deep faith and extraordinary charisma was twisted by intolerant theology that had no room for the man God created him to be.
At our church, we celebrate marriage and we celebrate families. I define a marriage as two adults bonded in sacred loving covenant, creating a home, sharing a life, supporting and nurturing one another, whatever joys and hardships the world may send their way. Gender configuration of the parents is irrelevant to what makes a family.
Take your husband or wife by the hand, and walk to the bathroom mirror. Think about your life, and your kids, your family name, your legacy and posterity.
You are irrelevant to what makes a family. Irrelevant, and to assign your family any value is the sin of idolatry.
It strikes me after some afterthought that some might not realize that the post title and tone are an expression of irony, otherwise known as sarcasm. I invite those interested to follow the link and read the whole story.
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
19 Responses to “Supporting Traditional Marriage is a Sin”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
You’ve grossly mischaracterized his position. He did not say that a traditional marriage was idolatry. He said:
All he’s saying is that he believes there exist other valid family arrangements. You can certainly debate him on that position, but do take care not to create a strawman.
Jeff, you and I are growing closer with everything I post. That’s not all he’s saying. I’ve linked his entire letter. The context is pretty easy to discern.
- He defends the manner in which the principal handled the lady’s complaint
- He expressed support for some homosexuals who he believes are upstanding members of the community.
- He criticizes the manner in which Mr. Mountain responded to the incident.
- He stated his opinion that the cohesiveness of a family is more important than its structure.
I’m sure honest men can disagree on some of those positions, but they are all valid, defensible positions.
I suppose you could call it that, but I don’t see how those statements are in any way related to the actual incident. It seems to me that they do nothing more than inflame the emotions of passersby.
O.K. I’ll bite: coming from a minister, what are the words “Mindless devotion to a “Leave It to Beaver†mirage of “traditional family†is simply idolatry.” supposed to mean?
Is idolatry a good thing? Should all ministers aspire to encouraging idolatry? Are the ministers words an affirmation of holding in special regard traditional marriage, or the opposite?
Help me out here. I don’t seem qualified to understand what the man was trying to convey.
Meatbrain: desperately tap dancing? I don’t even tango. I do know what the word “mirage” means, though.
Hell, my family doesn’t even exist. It’s a mirage.
You’re focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. By its definition, “mindless devotion” to anything is idolatry.
He’s stating that he finds it appalling that Mr. Mountain is so attached to the idea of a “traditional family” that he is more concerned about the composition of the family than its cohesiveness. He’s frustrated by this because he believes there’s already a significant shortage of loving families.
Agree or disagree with his positions, but it expressed no opinion on traditional families. It’s probably safe to assume that he still holds them in high esteem.
I think it is pretty clear that the minister said, “mindless devotion”, or as Arr Matey said, “support”…to a “leave it to Beaver Mirage”, or as Arr Matey said, “marriage between a man and woman” ….is “simply idoltary” or “sin”.
He said that supporting traditional marriage is a sin. I’m not sure where this minister finds this belief in expressed in any Bible. Every Bible I’ve ever read teaches against homosexual activities.
I have to disagree. “mindless devotion” is at least an order of magnitude stronger than “support”. One can easily support something without being mindlessly devoted to it.
As pastor, he has no doubt presided over countless heterosexual marriages. He also has a son. While I can’t find anything to prove or disprove that he is married, it’s quite possible that he is also in a heterosexual marriage. Frankly, I don’t see anything to support the assertion that he believes “supporting traditional marriage is a sin” other than your own questionable interpretation of one single phrase.
There’s no need to be rude.
There’s no need to badger, either. They are referring to:
Their interpretation isn’t out of left field, but I believe it is false because it rests on the belief that “mindless devotion” was intended to be synonymous with “support” and there is no further evidence to back that claim.
There’s no need to be rude.
There’s no need to badger, either.
Those are two of a half dozen reasons “meatbrain” doesn’t get to play in our sandbox any longer.
He just can’t help crapping in it.
The source of the problem here is that this…”minister” doesn’t seem to know the difference between his views and those of the Bible. He substitutes his own moral beliefs for Biblical precepts in regards to marriage, but then uses the Bible’s condemnation for acts that don’t align with his views.
In short, he replaces the Word of God with his own. Notice the qualification he makes in regards to marriage.
Notice this is HIS definition of a marriage.
While his definition may be politically correct, one thing that it is not is Biblical. If he wanted to be accurate in his statements then he should have also included his own definition of idolatry. Something to the nature of: I define idolatry as anything with which I disagree.
The views expressed in the article are the PERSONAL OPINIONS of one man, uninspired by God, unversed in the Bible. Ironic that he should be giving advice to others on Biblical scholarship while showing a lack thereof.
I don’t think it’s fair to make generalizations, but you’re right that he is certainly exercising some degree of independent thinking. Is that so uncommon or wrong, though? I didn’t think there were very many people that embraced any religion in its totality.
No, his use of the word was factually accurate.
http://www.answers.com/idolatry&r=67
That is undisputed.
I don’t think we can fairly judge that. For all we know, God asks him for advice.
undisputed.
I don’t think he was. He’s certainly giving advice on morality, but he’s no quoting scripture, just what he believes to be common sense.
I don’t think we can fairly judge that. For all
weI know, God asks him for advice.I am not in your camp, and have enough of a comprehension and appreciation of God’s Omniscience, to reject that statement in total.
He’s certainly giving advice on morality, but he’s no quoting scripture, just what he believes to be common sense.
His “common sense” is revealed in this… This man of deep faith and extraordinary charisma was twisted by intolerant theology that had no room for the man God created him to be.
The “intolerant theology” that he is referring to is the Scriptures that Malmberg’s common sense should derive from, but instead, he criticizes Haggard’s holding to the Truth of Scripture and condemning himself, which will free him to become “the man God created him to be”.
Malmberg perverts the Scriptures to align with his ‘reformed, social theology’, thus aligning himself with the apostate church.
Malmberg, among many, is just now beginning to fulfill Prophecy…
1 Timothy 4:1-3
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
I didn’t say he was right. Personally, I believe he is, but there are many tenets of your religion that I don’t subscribe to, so I don’t expect us to agree on that.
I don’t recall him quoting anything.
I don’t recall him quoting anything.
He responds to the controversy in the capacity of a “Reverend”.
As such, he then states; At our church, we celebrate marriage and we celebrate families., of which both are clearly defined in Scripture, and then states; I define a marriage as…
but there are many tenets of your religion that I don’t subscribe to
I do not subscribe to a particular religion or even religion itself. I have a personal, intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.
By Grace He offered me salvation and by faith, I accepted it.
I think it would be fairer to say that he doesn’t agree with all of the scriptures. He doesn’t attempt to argue that the scriptures support his positions.
Sorry, I should have been more general.
I think it would be fairer to say that he doesn’t agree with all of the scriptures.
Then he calls God a liar and makes himself a false teacher.
Matthew 5:18
18For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Deut. 12:32
32Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.
There is a stronger, like warning, at the end of Revelation.
One doesn’t get to cherrypick what they like or not.
Not much different than a blueprint.
Maybe so. I figure that’s for him and his god to work out.
I never said you should like this guy. I just want to make sure you hate him for the right reasons.
I just want to make sure you hate him for the right reasons.
You are not proficient enough in semantics, to even go there.