|
Post by brianwagner on Mar 25, 2015 11:09:03 GMT -6
Some great points Scott! I hope you don't mind my continuing this discussion. I love talking about the things of the Lord, especially with those that have the intention of doing better at winning the lost! My first observation was that we probably should not think of our Christian "salt and light" job as that we "allow the world to choose its own way." We are not yet ruling and reigning with Christ over the world, so we are only a compassionate "voice" in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. Voting is a voice, also, and I think we can compassionately support voting for things that protect the health of the nation by protecting the sanctity of marriage. The best type of enforcement that encourages these things is where the problem usually lies.
I think also three verses help clarify my salt and light job for me in these kind of situations - Eph 5:11-12, And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. 1Thess 5:21, Abstain from every form of evil. And - 2Tim 2:24-26, And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him.
Finally, another illustration that may help you reflect more about the cake that is clearly decorated to encourage the celebration of a perverted ceremony - It would be similar to sitting among fellow workers and laughing at their dirty jokes, in my opinion. We need to engage these same people in love, but at a suitable time and in a suitable circumstance. When we excuse ourselves from their activities that are sinful, we will probably reap false blame. We should endeavor to intentionally show love, even in the midst of such blame, but we are also showing love to them by representing the truth by our abstinence.
One extra thought... the Scripture is clear about showing affection between people. 1Tim 5:1-2, Do not rebuke an older man, but encourage him as a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, with all purity. The public affection that is displayed at a homosexual wedding, in my opinion, violates this command to treat other believers like we would a family member. The affection displayed is not the kind one would show his brother or a woman her sister, and of course, the future consummation of sex is intimated by the ceremony. I realize the command is not for unbelievers, but it reflects the obedience to Christ that I hope salvation will bring. I also think we do not do enough to encourage the heterosexual activity in our churches to reflect what this verse is saying, both positively and inferring as a boundary. Couples who are living together and profess to be believers should be compassionately confronted by the biblical obedience of church discipline.
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Mar 30, 2015 8:31:03 GMT -6
Scott, you wrote, "Someday in heaven will limiting public nudity have meant that more lost people were brought into the fold? I don't think so. So to me it's not a critical issue worth driving people away." I'm quite sure you would also have written, "Will limiting the definition of marriage to that of one man and one woman mean that more people were brought into the fold?" But we could also write, "Will limiting abortion mean that more lost people were brought into the fold?" No, certainly it doesn’t. It drives people away. In fact we could fill in the statement with any and all potential legislative limitations. "Will limiting murder, perjury, adultery, drinking ... mean that more lost people would be brought into the fold?” I acknowledge that limiting behavior does not transform a heart nor save anyone. You've acknowledged that point as well. Yes, any legislation that we as Christians would favor will not save anyone, yet you've agreed that there is some legislation that we must favor (particularly pro-life legislation). Supporting any particular legislation shouldn't be a pursuit that depends on whether or not there is a prevailing societal consensus for it. It would seem rather that it should depend solely on what we believe is true, short of legislating conversion to our religious faith. Being light means in part to stand for the truth. John 3:20 reads, "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." I think we should publicly declare the truth—even legislate it at times. Without malice certainly. You clearly agree. Our calling as light bearers is to present the truth. Certainly there will be differing opinions regarding what to criminalize. Should we criminalize telling a lie, drinking or homosexuality? Personally I wouldn’t argue for the criminalization of such general behaviors. But I have no objection to laws against perjury, laws that promote dry counties or laws that support the traditional definition of marriage. I recognize that unbelievers might find those laws offensive, but I believe that I can and in some cases must present a case for truth in the public arena. Now, whether that should extend to a traditional definition of marriage might be a point of difference even among Christians. But I hope we could agree that declaring truth in the public arena is not about a societal consensus. If I was in the minority of those who opposed public nudity or abortion, I would compassionately present my case for truth as God defines it. My voice might be diluted, but I would present my case nonetheless. I don’t have any personal hesitation in saying likewise that I would support a biblical definition for marriage in the public arena. Any and every expression of truth in the public arena will expose the evil deeds of unbelievers—from laws against littering to laws against murder. It’s unavoidable regardless of the legislation. I accept that. But in the end I have a calling to speak the truth in love—whether to my fellow Christian or in the public arena. Certainly prophets of old had no hesitation to do so. John the Baptizer had no hesitation when he stood before Herod. I see no compelling reason to forbid Christians from being light bearers of truth as their conscience demands. Paul wrote, “I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men” (Acts 24:16). May we always do so in a spirit of love, but I acknowledge that unbelievers will always hate the light—any light, any form of light, including any legislation that exposes their evil. There will come a time when the Holy Spirit will remove the church from the world in what we commonly call the rapture, thus removing a major restraint against evil. But for now I believe that my calling is in part to speak truth in the public arena while at the same time seeking to live in peace with all men.
|
|
|
Post by stjernss on Mar 30, 2015 23:22:05 GMT -6
Great dialogue guys! Let me start with Daniel - I’m not suggesting for a second that we don’t proclaim the truth in the public arena (BTW - it almost sounds like you’re equating proclaiming the truth with legislating it as if you can’t do one without the other). I’m saying we have to be VERY careful when we take the next step and force our beliefs on unbelievers. I wasn’t suggesting we base our stance on legislation on a “prevailing public consensus”. I’m talking about Rom 12:18-19: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” We’re in a position to pick our battles. If there’s a particular issue that becomes a HUGE stumbling block between us and unbelievers - and the sticking point isn’t just a difference of opinion but the fact we’re FORCING our beliefs on them, then we need to seriously examine whether we’re justified in creating that stumbling block. In that instance, the truth isn’t the stumbling block; it’s our actions – our imposing the truth on someone who doesn’t believe in it that’s the stumbling block.
I totally agree with your comment “…we could fill in the statement with any and all potential legislative limitations.” Yes, there are hundreds of legislative actions which you could fill in there which would not result in anyone being brought into the fold; and if ANY of those hundreds were to become huge points of contention, then I’d say it’s not worth fighting over because it has no eternal value (Note: murder and perjury are criminal issues not moral issues so they’re not the type of issues I’m talking about – adultery and drinking are). So I stand by the statement. The vast majority of those legislative actions aren’t going to create a problem between us and the world. So I’m ONLY talking about the handful of issues (like gay marriage) that DO create the division.
You acknowledge that limiting behavior does not transform a heart nor save anyone. So then what’s the point? Why fight so hard to limit the world’s behavior? If we believe you’re saved by faith in Christ and that any attempt at moral living apart from Christ gains you NO FAVOR with God, then why in the world would we waste any time promoting, or even worse, forcing, moral living on people who are apart from Christ? That makes no sense to me at all. Clearly we’re not doing it for THEM because our own faith teaches that what we’re forcing on them gains them nothing with God. You refer to the prophets of old, John the Baptist, and Paul and yet in NONE of those examples do we find God’s truth being forced on anyone. The truth is only being proclaimed in those cases and I’m 100% for proclaiming the truth. I’m 100% for speaking the truth in love in the public arena. The prophets didn’t need legislation to expose Israel’s evil nor did John the Baptist need legislation to expose Herod’s. So I'm still not seeing a clear Biblical justification for legislating these types of issues. I don't see how simply believing something is true justifies forcing others to conform to it. Brian - I certainly agree that we are a gentle voice but a gentle voice lovingly tries to persuade, it’s not a road block. Light reveals and illuminates but it doesn’t shackle anyone. It’s one thing to proclaim the truth; it’s something totally different to FORCE people who don’t agree with us to abide by that truth. It is obvious from my voluminous response above, I just don’t see that that’s what the Church is called to do. Did Jesus come and die to save the sanctity of marriage in this temporal world or to improve societal health and stability in this temporal world? Those sound like OUR agendas (well-meaning and well intentioned as they may be). But when our agendas (our attempts to force people to live God’s way for their own good) start driving people away from Christ, then I’m afraid we‘re in danger of having elevated our own causes above Jesus agenda: to seek and to save that which was lost. Guys, I appreciate your perseverance in trying to keep me on the straight and narrow (or perhaps I should say get me back on it!).
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Mar 31, 2015 14:45:53 GMT -6
Thank you Scott for taking the time to reply! And we are in this together, to keep each other on the straight and narrow! :-) I agree that we are never called to "FORCE people" against their conscience. I would guess that you do NOT think that abstaining from joining in their sinful activities or gently encouraging them to abstain from their sinful activities by accepting the forgiveness, mercy and grace of Jesus could NOT be defined as forcing them! But confirm if I am not understanding your view of this.
But Jesus did come to redeem the outward as well as the inward, thus He promises the resurrection and the new heavens and earth. But until then, we still pray - "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven", and we live lives that reflect that future grace. In fact, it is the salt and light from our actions, which include holding marriage in high esteem, that helps the world see that Christ can truly reflect His grace in this world right now, which make the promise of the next world more believable.
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Apr 1, 2015 12:22:52 GMT -6
Scott, good to get clarification that you don’t believe that we should base our stance for legislation on a prevailing public consensus, and obviously as a point of clarification I don’t believe that proclaiming the truth in the public arena is solely accomplished by means of legislation, but of course that has been the primary context of my posts. I agree that we should be careful and wise in how we legislate, but through the illustration of abortion I am trying to point out that we have (like the issue of “traditional marriage” legislation) an issue that is also a huge stumbling block between us and unbelievers and yet you’ve acknowledged that you would support pro-life legislation. If it can be said that we are forcing our view of pro-traditional marriage on unbelievers then it strikes me as no different that it can be said that we are forcing our view of pro-life on unbelievers. I’m acknowledging that perhaps in some sense ANY legislation forces unbelievers who have no heart transformation to comply. Furthermore, I’m trying to point out that we see this in Scripture. God’s laws for Israel applied to the whole nation, which included believers and unbelievers; unbelievers were expected to comply. The prophets insisted that the people of Israel adhere to God’s law (the law of the land), including believers and unbelievers. John the Baptizer told Herod that he should abide by God’s law although he was not a believer (when perhaps it could be argued that he should only have shared the gospel with him). Certainly there is a difference in part between confronting people about their sin and adherence to a corpus of laws, but in both cases there are times for it in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stjernss on Apr 3, 2015 13:36:22 GMT -6
Brian – I completely agree with your first paragraph above however now I’m not sure I’m clear on your view. You said you agree that we are never called to force people... Is it your opinion that our attempt to legislate the Biblical definition of marriage doesn’t constitute FORCING our beliefs on others?
Daniel – I think the abortion issue is totally different than the gay marriage issue. Abortion involves the taking of a human life so it falls into the same category as murder and I’ve never said that I oppose legislating against murder. I have no problem with us protecting the innocent from violence. The gay marriage issue is nothing like that. It’s just a moral issue like adultery or fornication (neither of which I would be in favor of legislating against). I would say abortion is pretty much the only issue amongst the divisive issues of our day that’s worth getting into a fight with the world over.
I don’t see how the Old Testament nation of Israel is applicable to us. Based on that example, wouldn't we be justified in passing legislation to make Christianity the official religion of our country to which everyone must comply - even unbelievers? You said earlier that our support for legislation should be based on what we believe to be true “short of legislating conversion to our religious faith”. Well, the example of Israel seems to me to provide the Scriptural precedent for doing just that.
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Apr 3, 2015 17:29:41 GMT -6
I fear that we may be going in circles. You and I believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, but many unbelievers do not. We believe it's murder, but they do not. We believe that we should "force" the point. They do not. They know that they are being forced, and they likely resent it as much as the traditional marriage issue. Forcing adherence to moral law is unavoidable, and murder or homosexuality are equally moral issues. That's my point. Every Christian must decide what values he believes are important, which for some includes a traditional marriage amendment, but we must not say that we should not legislate morality. The Scriptural examples show that God has established values that even unbelievers are expected to obey, but of course we cannot legislate conversion to the Christian faith.
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Apr 4, 2015 11:37:46 GMT -6
Scott, laws enforce morality for the betterment of society. Based on penalties imposed, there is a relative amount of forcing some people to conform to things they may not feel are right, or face the penalty. I have tried to approach my involvement in civil laws as one of advise and consent. In a representative democracy there is a corporate enacting and enforcing of laws. I support such enforcement. As a Christian, through my advice, public speech, and through my consent, my vote for representatives who promote certain policies, I hope to help form a society that exalts God, builds up believers, and wins the lost.
A good way of looking at all this is to ask what would I, or you, do if we were king of society with ultimate authority to enact laws without any opposing power to overturn what is enacted. How would I organize my realm? What laws and penalties would I enact against the practice of homosexuality that would help protect my subjects from ruining their lives and the lives of others by their fornication, an addiction that will also make it harder for them to seek salvation in Christ. Maybe the penalties for homosexual activity will be different than those for murder, and maybe there will be only a little penalty for those who practice this sin in private, versus those who attempt to promote this sin in public, much like drunkenness. But whatever I would do, if I were king, that is what I will promote through my civil responsibility of advise and consent in this country.
|
|
|
Post by stjernss on Apr 4, 2015 16:11:18 GMT -6
Daniel, I think the difference between us is that you are viewing this as simply a moral question with all morals basically being equal. I don't see it that way. Maybe I can be clearer with a somewhat extreme example. Murder and gay marriage are two VERY different issues. But I would say there’s a much more compelling reason for legislating against murder than there is for legislating against gay marriage, wouldn’t you agree? But even in the case of murder, there are a lot of people out there who disagree with that law (obviously, because there are a lot of people out there who commit murder!). We (us AND the world) don’t let the fact that murderers disagree with us on the issue prevent us from imposing it on everyone. Why? Because it’s too important. When it comes to something as serious as that (life and death in this case), the fact people disagree with us is irrelevant. Abortion is the same way. Gay marriage does NOT rise to that level. (Note: Please take this with a grain of salt. All I had in mind as far as murderers disagreeing with us was like KKK guys thinking killing African-Americans wasn't wrong or Nazi skinheads thinking killing Jews wasn't wrong. I was just trying to illustrate in a way everyone could relate to that there are some issues of such a serious nature that whether people disagree with us or not is irrelevant. We just can't stand by and not try to stop them.)
I had a few other thoughts on your John the Baptist example. I don’t think we should take John’s interaction with Herod as an example of how we should interact with our secular world today. I liken John’s condemnation of Herod as being the same as Jesus condemnation of the Pharisees. Jesus interacted with the Pharisees very differently than he did with the common masses. The Pharisees were in the position of being leaders in the faith and were thus held to a higher standard by Jesus. Herod, likewise, as a ruler in Israel (which had a national religion), was held to a higher standard. Those were reasonable expectations for people in those positions. You never see Jesus rebuking the tax gatherers or the prostitutes the way he rebuked the Pharisees or the way John rebuked Herod. Maybe that’s why sinners were drawn to Jesus and why they’re NOT drawn to us! I think an analogous situation today would be if a politician who claimed to be a Christian engaged in some sin. We would be justified in calling him out like John did Herod. But there’s no reason for us to expect the lost sheep in our secular world to live according to the Bible (we wouldn’t if we were in their shoes). We may think we’re being loving in proclaiming the truth to them about this immorality or that immorality. But if in heeding the truth we proclaim, they are still just as lost; if the truth we’re emphasizing can't save them, then how loving is the proclamation of that truth? It’s like a doctor prescribing something for a terminal patient that can't help his condition. I don’t see any love in that.
|
|
|
Post by stjernss on Apr 4, 2015 16:15:53 GMT -6
Brian – I like your example of being king of a society. It’s a very interesting way of looking at things and it certainly makes me think. I would suggest tweaking the idea slightly to ask: What would I, or you, do if we became king of THIS country that we live in today? Certainly the natural thing for us as Christians to do would be to enact the laws you suggest. I’m guessing you would probably also likely ban the TV shows, movies and music that are blatantly promoting sin. But in the end, after imposing and enforcing all of these laws, what would you have? You may have a much more wholesome and healthy society on the surface but it would be at the cost of a majority of your subjects hating and resenting you and everything you stand for (just as they would if a Muslim became king and imposed Sharia law on this country today). I think your statement that you would enact laws to “help protect my subjects from ruining their lives and the lives of others…” highlights a subtle difference in our perspectives. I see unbelievers NOT as people who have the potential of ruining their lives in this world through their sinful acts, with my job being to “protect them” by preventing that. I instead see their lives as already being totally and utterly ruined from the start (as ALL of our lives were) because of their separation from God with no laws of mine being able to prevent or fix that. The life of an unbeliever who lives morally is just as ruined as one who indulges in sin because both are destined for hell and that’s the ruin that I’m worried about. I’m not nearly as concerned with the temporal consequences of sin in this world. The justification for gay marriage legislation seems only to be based on avoiding those temporal consequences. I just don’t think the temporary benefits to society of the legislation outweigh the eternal losses. I understand that laws enforce morality for the betterment of society but if our attempts to better society undermine our efforts to preach the gospel and make disciples, shouldn’t we be concerned about our priorities? Which is more important, establishing a better society in this world (which is passing away and in which we are aliens and strangers) or winning people for Christ? In the case of gay marriage, I think that's what the choice boils down to. This isn't fair! It's two against one!
|
|
dean
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by dean on Apr 16, 2015 11:45:56 GMT -6
I've been quietly reading through all you guys responses! I've enjoyed the thoughtfulness put into each response as it helps me move through my journey in how I should respond to the subjects at hand. I'm still somewhat on the fence --- I can see a clear direction for legislating morality and a clear direction for not. I don't believe any man/woman/child will come to Christ without the prompting *if you will* of the Holy Spirit. None of us can make anyone know Christ, regardless if we legislate morality or not. Am I wrong in believing that only through the prompting of the Holy Spirit can one come to know Christ? I ask for a reason -- if that is the case - does legislating morality really accomplish anything eternal? How can one expect another to follow a direction if he/she doesn't know or believe it? If they do decide under threat of consequence to follow a certain path - does it only benefit them earthly? I don't see where faith/belief was a part of it - other than they believed if they followed a certain path, they would not get in "trouble".
I'm sure we've beat this poor dead horse enough - but I'm still interested in hearing more thoughts from you guys! Naturally, I would love to legislate morality that fits my beliefs, etc.... but - to what end does it do any real good? I'm referring in this case to Homosexuals, I understand how legislating abortion would benefit. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty darn traditional, I don't agree with Homosexuality or anything that goes along with it. I don't see where it benefits a society or anyone in it. I do see where scripture says it's not Godly. My wonderment is, from a Biblical standpoint - what good would legislating morality in the area of Homosexuality do for the belief in Jesus - if indeed it takes the Holy Spirit to truly bring someone to Christ? ***All this I wrote makes sense in my head, but it's a dangerous place to be at times haha* sorry if any of this is confusing or hard to follow - I write like I talk sometimes, all over the place!
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Apr 16, 2015 22:20:22 GMT -6
As Christians we do not demand adherence to God's laws as a means of salvation. No, salvation is by grace through faith. But Paul describes the Law as holy, just and good (Rom. 7:12) because by the Law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; 7:7). The most basic requirement for salvation is first an acknowledgement of sin. Law shows us that we are sinners. Whether the Mosaic Law or civil expressions of the Mosaic Law or other biblical laws. God designed them all for the shaping of his world. Law doesn't transform hearts. Agreed. But God still established law full knowing it would not transform hearts. Clearly the Holy Spirit alone regenerates, but law serves to show us our failures in contrast to his holiness. Once again, we must NOT say as Christians that it is wrong to legislate morality. We might disagree regarding what legislation to establish, and there is reasonable disagreement. But we are not wrong to promote civil expressions of it. I have no objection to establishing the death penalty for murder in respect for the biblical injunctions against it (Gen. 9:6-7; Rom. 13:4). I have no objection to establishing the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in respect for the biblical injunctions against homosexuality or even polygamy (Gen. 2:23-24; 4:19). These are timeless societal frameworks of law established by God.
|
|
|
Post by stjernss on Apr 19, 2015 14:16:28 GMT -6
Daniel,
I agree with you that the law shows us we are sinners and is intended to “lead us to Christ” as Paul states in Galatians. But that doesn’t mean that ANY use of the law will produce that effect. The end goal of the law is redemption. But the law can be used as a hammer, driving people away and having the opposite effect for which it was intended. The Christian attempt to force EVERYONE to abide by OUR beliefs in this area is driving people away from the faith in droves and not just homosexuals. It’s hindering the advancement of the gospel! That’s simply the reality of our world today. So I think the onus is on you to justify why enforcing this particular Biblical principle (keeping in mind there are tons of others we DON’T enforce) is so critical that it’s worth losing so many potential converts (and what are we gaining in return?). Is upholding this more important than the Great Commission? The reason you gave above for enforcing it is “in respect for the biblical injunctions against homosexuality…” Is showing respect for the law our end goal now? (Isn’t that the tail wagging the dog when the end goal of the law is redemption?) I think if we’re going to have stumbling blocks with the world, it should be over Christ or the cross and NOT over definitions or laws.
|
|
|
Post by stjernss on Apr 19, 2015 14:48:12 GMT -6
I also wanted to throw out another spin on the whole wedding cake issue. Jesus said: “He who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” So anyone who gets a divorce illegitimately and remarries is engaged in adultery (we won’t get into what constitutes a “legitimate” divorce but I suspect the majority of divorces today would NOT be legit in God’s eyes). So if a Christian providing cake (or flowers or pizzas) to a gay wedding constitutes a participation in, or endorsement of, the sin of homosexuality, then it would follow that a Christian who supplies a cake for an "adulterous" wedding is participating in adultery. Why has that never been suggested? Why aren't Christian bakers and florists worried about that situation?
I would say there's nothing wrong with supplying the cake because the sin of adultery does NOT lie in a wedding ceremony which might try to legitimize it. It lies in the sexual behavior between the two offenders. Likewise, the sin of homosexuality doesn’t lie in a wedding ceremony which tries to legitimize it but in the sexual acts of the offenders. So in neither case is a Christian participating in the sin by supplying the same products or services that he would to anyone else.
One other point, the Bible does NOT say: “There will be more joy in heaven over 99 righteous persons who successfully denied Satan cake and flowers and pizza than over one gay sinner who repents.” But don’t we seem to be acting like it does? Shouldn’t we be fighting to keep PEOPLE out of Satan’s clutches rather than fighting to keep temporal STUFF out of his clutches? Let’s set aside my contention that supplying the cake isn’t contributing to the sin in the first place. If the cost of an opportunity to show love, grace and acceptance toward a gay person is supplying a cake to the kingdom of Satan, then I’ll supply him with all the cakes he wants! That’s the bargain of the century! What’s he going to do with cakes? Build his kingdom? Those are WORTHLESS contributions and a worthless contribution is NO contribution. I may as well be contributing a piece of lint to his kingdom for all the good it does him while I get the chance to rescue someone out of his kingdom for eternity. We have a situation here where Satan is supporting Christian businesses giving Christians a chance to plant seeds in lost peoples’ hearts and we’re going to turn that business away??? Seems crazy to me.
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Apr 21, 2015 17:14:01 GMT -6
Let us not forget that no one truly gets saved unless they start trusting Jesus to take away their sins! Jesus died for our sins to be removed! I think you all would agree that just trusting Jesus to take away the penalty of sin (hell) or just the presence of sin (heaven), though important, are not the same as trusting Jesus to take away sin (e.g. my lying, my lust, my laziness, etc.) That is what I think the Scripture calls the repentance that is necessary to accompany true saving trust. So what should I expect would be the expression of repentance by an openly practicing homosexual who wants salvation from Christ? And why should I hinder his desire to want Jesus to save him from that sin by encouraging him to continue in it?
You make a good point, Scott, about second marriages that will actually be an act of adultery. If I was a baker, I could not participate in such a wedding by providing the cake, just like I can not participate in performing such a wedding as an officiating minister, and have had to respectfully decline doing so when asked. I counsel such couples to seek reconciliation with their true spouses in God's eyes and I offer my help to them to do so. The same, of course, would be true if a homosexual couple for some reason, perhaps my neighborliness or friendliness, would ask me to officiate their "wedding" when they find out that I am an ordained minister.
|
|