Ponderings on SSM

As pretty much everyone is aware, SCOTUS ruled in favor of SSM on Friday. Many celebrated with rainbow colored pictures, some expressed sadness and disagreement, and more than a few expressed great hate, anger, and condemnation.  Its ok to disagree with the ruling, but when the fruits of the spirit get cast aside and replaced with hate we (Christianity in general) have a big problem

I wrote on World Vision’s local church SSM autonomy policy and reversal about 15 months ago, where in I focused on folks who possess other than strong faith. Folks responses to Friday’s decision have many parallels to that posting, so I’ll copy a snippet….

The issue of whether SSM is aligned with, or counter to the scriptures is not the big deal. The issue of whether the ancient creeds of the historical Christian faith have been cast aside to the point that SSM is a bigger deal than the trinity is not the primary issue at hand either. This is not to say such is not important, especially over the long haul, but they pale in comparison to something else right here, right now.

The big deal today is the weaker brother and sister as well as those who were trampled upon….

The most disturbing aspect of this is the folks in tears over loosing their faith. It is a tragedy.

The brood of vipers behaviors actions appeared the last straw for many. One person said, “I was hanging onto Christianity by a thread, its now been broken”. There are many similar stories, and no doubt even more that will never be known. I think such is quite likely destroying the work of God which Paul preaches against in Romans 14.

Those experiencing the last straw are not just gay folks, not just young folks, not just old folks, but a wide variety of Christians from a whole multitude of life stories and denominations… this is a much bigger problem than what the govt does, or doesn’t do as concerns marriage.

Lastly, while I am pro SSM, I do allow opposing views on my blog comment stream… barring in mind that I will delete spam, TLDR, and hate comments. If you can keep it pastoral and disagree, do feel free to chime in. You won’t convince me, as I’ve studied this for over ten years, but the dialog may help those on the fence to lean one way or the other.

4 thoughts on “Ponderings on SSM

  1. Many people are conflicted, because it is an issue with many moving parts, social implications, and moral implications. It will polarize many people.

    But I never doubted that politically it would be approved. From strictly a constitutional standpoint, I don’t see how discrimination of any type can be legal.

    I think the Supreme Court made the correct legal decision. That may not necessarily be the correct social or moral decision, but that’s a totally different topic (in my view)

    Next up for legal battle…. legalization of canibus.

  2. @Dennis, I agree, the court really didn’t have any option, short of some type of smoke and mirrors thing (which admittedly they do periodically). The social and moral aspects are really separate entities from the legal, irrespective of gov’ts proclivity to morph into nanny state mode.

    I could rant on legalization of cannabis for hours…bottom line, it has to come off sched 1 one way or another. The human carnage, to say nothing of the massive costs of enforcement and punishment are insane. Alas, one mustn’t be blind to the hidden potential for problems… at least with alcohol, we have decades of public health experience, where as with cannabis, science will be playing catch-up for quite a while. It will also force a healthy shift in the funding of law enforcement and the criminal justice system

  3. Firstly, I believe that government needs to stay out of marriage, as a whole, because it is a religious institution. I know they instituted it to take care of legal “needs” (taxation of married couples, insurance benefits, inheritances, etc.) but there are legal means that can accomplish the same thing without marriage becoming involved. Marriage is just not governmental business.

    My second thought is that, while many Christians feel threatened (and looking worldwide, there is cause for concern), it is also our duty and calling as Christians to love those we disagree with. That is our only calling. And while many focus solely on the “feeling” aspect of love, which leads one down a crooked path, others focus solely on the “letter of the law” aspect of love, which leads down an equally crooked path. I believe that Jesus would rather have us walk the middle, between the two, because you can’t point out truth in love if your actions are so unloving that you push everyone away. I do not agree with the court’s ruling, but I can love and respect people who do, as people, without having to agree with all their stances.

  4. Greetings Dawn,
    I agree govt should not be in the marriage business. It really rankled me when I got my ordination cert to have to go down to the courthouse to register it… plus the business of then being a target for IRS scrutiny. (One of many reasons I never did so LOL)

    The middle path is the toughest I think, but such is where Christians who have heartache over this are called to be. I think back years ago when I held the same view as you do today. It took a lot of study and a lot of serious pondering to come to a sense of peace over even being neutral on SSM back in 2007 with the ELCA’s churchwide Landahl amendment… and even then, there was always a nagging question of “what if I am wrong” especially in regards to the teaching and millstone deal. As time passed and more study and experience ensued, my views shifted more to the pro side of things… but this is a tough path too, as fighting against ones tradition / historical interpretations is far from simple. I think this is where caution for some on the fence is advised… its often times far easy too jump on the bandwagon to go with the flow of the masses without considering the deep theology running in and around this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *