An Analysis of the Evan
gelical Response to the Supreme Court Homo-marriage Law by Dr. Brook Stockton
Why a lot of evangelicals aren’t actually that upset about the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision
By Daniel Silliman June 29
[In brackets and red are Dr. Stockton’s comments of the reaction of the leadership in Christianity on the radical, culture changing decision of the Supreme Court’s Law-making on June 26, 2015 as reported by the Washington Post.]
This analysis is by Daniel Silliman, an instructor of American religion and culture for the Heidelberg Center for American Studies at Heidelberg University.
David Cloud (Southern Baptist) doesn’t think Christians should be upset by the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
[Christians, in general, fail to grasp the extraordinary nature of the Supreme Court’s ruling. This was no minor decision. It will alter the course of history.]
This doesn’t mean he approves of the decision.
From Cloud’s perspective, the Supreme Court was “shaking its puny fist at God” when it ruled last week that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marriage. But this shouldn’t be upsetting to those who believe the Bible, Cloud says.
“This type of thing only reminds the true child of God that he is a pilgrim in a strange land,” writes Cloud, a fundamentalist Baptist who runs a small publishing company in Port Huron, Mich. “We claim to believe God’s promises. Let’s act like it in the face of adversity and not be a people who wring their hands at the mere thought of trouble and what might come.”
[How different Cloud’s reaction is to the Biblical prophets that cried, “Awake, and weep . . . . Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm . . . . Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light” (Joel 1:5; 2:1; Ephesians 5:14). Apparently, Cloud is part of the causal church movement.]
In the days after this landmark Supreme Court decision, many conservative evangelical Christians expressed discouragement and frustration. Some said they feared for the United States. On this major issue, the religious right has suffered a serious loss. Yes, they have.
Other evangelicals, the minority who support gay rights and marriage equality, celebrated the decision.
[The goats will always rejoice in evil and compromise. When Evangelicalism is divided, the nation will be divided.]
Evangelicals make up about a quarter of Americans. Like the country as a whole, they are divided over same-sex marriage. Opinions have notably shifted in recent years and reactions to the ruling are predictably divided. As the headline of one Iowa newspaper put it, “Ruling brings celebrations, sadness.” What is true for Iowa is true for evangelicals, too.
[Agreed, but call it what it is, “Apostasy.”]
Many evangelicals, however, want to pursue a third option besides celebration or sadness.
In the days after the Supreme Court’s decision, these evangelicals seek to refocus. They see the Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to emphasize what is really important. They are taking a moment to point people to what they believe is the core of Christianity.
[This is commendable. Good for these men!]
Perhaps most prominently, Russell Moore, the Southern Baptists’ leading voice on political issues, took this position in an opinion piece for the Washington Post. Though he is an advocate for traditional marriage, Moore argued that Baptists should not confuse family values with the good news of Jesus Christ.
“While this decision will, I believe, ultimately hurt many people and families and civilization itself,” Moore wrote, “the gospel doesn’t need ‘family values’ to flourish. In fact, the church often thrives when it is in sharp contrast to the cultures around it.”
[What? The “gospel doesn’t need “family values to flourish?” The gospel is built on family values (See Deuteronomy 6:6-6). Has he never read the Ten Commandments? Moore appears to have a narrow, shriveled, “eternal life insurance policy” view of the gospel. The gospel not only includes the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord, but includes all the commands in the New Testament including instruction on marriage and how to raise a family. Moore’s comments demonstrate what’s wrong with Christianity—an antinomian mind. Maybe Moore needs to read Psalm 11, “If the foundations of marriage and family are destroyed by an army of liberals, what can the righteous do?”]
Moore encouraged Christians not to react with anger, but to “seek the kingdom” and “stand with the Gospel.” “This is no time for fear or outrage of politicizing,” he wrote. “We see that we are strangers and exiles in American culture.”
[More wimpy Christian flim-flam. Why not be angry? There are things to be angry at! “Be angry . . . and sin not,” commanded the apostle. “Because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth,” stated the Lord. Solomon remarked, “there is a time to hate . . . to tear down . . .”
This can seem like it’s nothing more than a reaction to losing the culture wars. Some on the religious right are talking about a “fall back position.” But evangelicals’ reaction to last week’s Supreme Court decision also shows a deeper ambivalence many feel towards politics.
[The reporter is correct. There is deep ambivalence among Christians. This section shows a complete lack of Christian leadership and instability within Christianity, a double-mindedness that exposes an unstable, ungrounded church.]
For these evangelicals, there is a sense the focus on contentious cultural conflicts has hurt Christianity. Christian witness has become political statements. Christian practice has become arguments on Facebook. While they still very much believe in cultural engagement, there is a sense that they have been doing it wrong.
[First, most Christians haven’t been doing anything. Many just “go with the flow,” and the more devoted retreat to their closet to practice private pietism. What Christians need to understand is that they are not safe in a society where their neighbors do not practice the Ten Commandments. The Supreme Court decision will impact the public and private schools, advanced education, Hollywood, movies, T.V. commercials. Their children are going to be recruited by the music pops stars to practice the new faggot, tansgender orthodoxy. Transgenders will be showing up in the restroom and showers of their choice. Their churches are going to be tested, sued, and gradually choked by government codes and policies. It is hard to see how these “leaders” can be more lukewarm than they already are. The problem here is that the Southern Baptist have become a “seek-friendly” church preaching maple syrup sermons so as not to upset anyone. How much better if these men preached the pure truth and rattled a few cages. Maybe they would produce something more than Christian creampuffs.]
[These pastors are typical antinomian pastors that do not believe God’s law-order applies to all men and all of man’s institutions; that is, they take a piestic approach to the Ten Commands and apply it to their own lives in private, religious exercises, but they do not believe that Christianity is a public religion; that is, that the Ten Commandments are the rule for all men and all of man’s institutions. Furthermore, when they pray, “Thy kingdom come” they are not praying that God’s rule would come among men and order society. Rather, they are looking to the Second Coming of Christ as an escape from responsibility and the solution for all of man’s political problems. To casual Christian pastors, God’s Commandments are the great option and not an absolute for all men. These are sweet, cordial get-along pastors that don’t want to offend anybody by telling them they are accountable to the law of the LORD God. For this reason they are telling their congregations not to be upset over the Supreme Court law, but love homosexuals, and preach a gospel that doesn’t make any demands on them. Thus, this is the error of modern evangelicalism, the casual church, and the “all-inclusive church.” It is a saltless Christianity. Good for nothing!”]
The rest of the article deals with a history of Christian activism or the lack thereof and is not included here.]
Recent Comments