Here’s a comment from an Evangelical Christian I saw on Facebook:
My Church stresses inclusivity. All are welcome. By grace through faith anyone can enter the kingdom of God. We will find out at death, but right now it is above my pay grade. I only accept it.
I am in favor of equal treatment for all humans. I am not in favor of gay marriage. The Bible does define marriage as a man and a woman. I know at least one person from several gay couples. I have no problem. Their decision. God will separate the sheep from the goats. We are all going to be surprised who we find in Heaven or Hell. We may make a judgment, but God is the judge.
This Evangelical Christian thinks his church is inclusive, all are welcome. But is it? Can an LGBTQ person be a pastor, Sunday school teacher, nursery worker, or youth worker? Of course not. His or her wicked lifestyle precludes them from doing anything in the church but sitting in the pew. The goal is to convert LGBTQ people and rid them of their “Sodomite” lifestyle. Once delivered from their sin, then they can serve in the church.
This Evangelical, like many namby-pamby Christians, says it is up to God to judge LGBTQ people. Does he really believe this? Of course not. He doesn’t want to look like the bigot that he is, so he plays the God is the final judge card. However, since this person believes the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God, he already knows God’s opinion on all non-heterosexual behaviors. Why is he afraid to say what God has said on the matter? Come on, tell the truth: All sexually active non-heterosexuals will go to Hell when they die and be tortured by God for all eternity.
He wants us to believe that there will a lot of surprises in Heaven. Really? Isn’t God’s Word clear? The Bible says in I Corinthians 6:9-11:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
and in Revelation 22:13-15:
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Seems pretty clear to me . . . there will be NO LGBTQ people in Heaven.
This Evangelical Christian says he “supports equal treatment for all humans” and then turns right around and discredits what he said. He supports “equality” that is defined by the Bible. Since God defines marriage as one-man-one woman-for-life, same-sex marriage is a sin. He realizes this makes him look bad. After all, he is denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law and the same civil rights he enjoys, so he plays the HEY I KNOW A GAY COUPLE card. This is the same card played by racists.
He desperately wants to be seen as a nice guy. I know a lot of Christians like this. Good people, nice people. Great neighbors. But they have beliefs that are hateful and discriminatory. They want us to separate the belief from the person, love the person hate the sin. However, much like a skunk and his smell, you can’t separate a person from his beliefs. This Evangelical’s beliefs stink like a factory farm on a warm July day. Try as he might to spray perfume on his beliefs, they still stink.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
Hi Bruce,
There seems to be a crusade against same-sex marriage in many Evangelical churches. It lies hidden underneath, but when legislation is being prepared to approve of same-sex marriage, the masks of niceness drop off and we see them for who they really are and what they really believe.
Shalom,
John Arthur
What I can’t understand is, why is the emphasis by these evangelicals on homosexuality, gay marriage, etc? Correct me if I’m wrong but Jesus spoke very little, if at all about these subjects but ALOT about loving your neighbor, feeding the hungry, etc. If they’re so gung-ho about the bible and what it says, then why don’t they rally around these subjects more?
I know the answer (fear combined with hatred), both of which goes against having faith in god. Shit, it’s no wonder why I’m so glad I walked away!!!!
Why did god create homosexuals?
So that churches could stay in business!
Seriously, these fundies don’t want “sin” eradicated. If there was no more “sin” to preach on, they would be out of a job. Aye, what a viscous cycle…. And one I’m grateful to be off of.
Monty: EX-ACT-LY!!! “If there was no more “sin” to preach on, they would be out of a job.”
If homosexuality were eradicated, they would HAVE to find something else to be against. It’s how they set themselves apart from the “world.”
Okay, here’s where I’m pissed off. I’m old enough to remember the American marriage going through a dramatic change, when divorce rates skyrocketed. Now, there was some preaching about it. But lo and behold! Gay people start intruding in our thoughts, going and getting sick with AIDS. (Of course, it spread to heterosexuals and children too.) That started the demonization of gay people. And then those gays want rights…like to marry! BOY, then preachers really got something to scare everyone about. “Those gays want to marry…how wrong! Ruining marriage!” Brother, marriage is ALREADY ruined…by heterosexuals. I’m SICK of this hypocrisy.
for a bit of amusement:
Reposted this at NLQ and one of the commenters is claiming that this person you quoted that hates gay marriage has had a pile of divorces. Interesting. I guess marriage is sacred to them until it gets hard.
“I have no problem. Their decision. God will separate the sheep from the goats. We are all going to be surprised who we find in Heaven or Hell. We may make a judgment, but God is the judge.”
in this one set of sentences, we get to see the classic excuse of a coward “I’m just following orders” when they have no problem with what a tyrant does. They have the sadistic fantasies but want to insist that it isn’t really them, just their god.
These folks get to think that they aren’t responsible for setting the rules, and they get to look forward to the secret pleasure of watching their cultural enemies suffer. They’re despicable.
Obergefell was decided in 2015, almost seven years ago. Since then, Evangelical churches have been forced to solemnize marriages between two men or two women…um, wait, no, they haven’t.
Also, hiring someone to bake a cake for your wedding does not make them participants. It’s a CAKE. And so on with all the other vendors’ excuses that boil down to simply not wanting to do business with gay people or serve gay customers.
This issue pushes my buttons big time, because I joined the engineering workforce in Silicon Valley in 1981, and I was astounded at all the overt bigotry against gay folks in the industry. All the crass, stupid assumptions. All the snide comments. Early on, I was mentored by an absolute gem of a manager (not even in my department!) who helped me understand what performance requirements for engineers in our organization were really about. He wasn’t out at work, until some jerk observed him holding hands with his partner in a public place far from our workplace. Then, gods below, the crap that went around about him. He was ultimately driven out.
Since then, I’ve had a few other gay colleagues, many comfortably out a couple of decades later. I did notice that, to a man, they did NOT share the determinedness of many (not all!) of their straight colleagues to NOT LISTEN. Maybe being an ongoing target of discrimination makes you pay more attention to people you’re engaging with.
Anyhow, so, straight old woman here, who gets really, really cranky when jerks of any variety try to take out their insecurities on people who are as NORMAL as anyone else.
Question for Bruce (or anyone else who knows the Bible better than this ex-Catholic): Where does it actually say that a marriage is between one man and one woman? I seem to recall the Old Testament Patriarchs having wives, concubines, slaves…a whole rent-a-crowd of people who were undoubtedly all pressed into service for sex at some point. I remember in the New Testament, an instruction that a bishop (elder?) in the church should have only one wife. That passage didn’t address concubines and slaves, either.
Somebody who has the book seared into your brain, please help me out here.
Hi Karen, if I might answer with the version taught to me.
My pastors’ and church’s understanding is that it is implied (even though they would tell you that it is as clear as day):
1) Genesis says, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Jesus also affirms this statement when he talks about the permissibility of divorce. It says “his wife”, not “wives”, therefore no polygamy. I think this is a weak argument from rhetoric. As you said, a lot of devout Biblical figures themselves had more than one wives and they were never chided by God for this very issue.
Furthermore, when confronted with the differing accounts in Matthew and Luke concerning the number of angels the women saw at Jesus’ tomb – one in Matthew and two in Luke – apologists would say that “one” does not necessarily mean “only one”. Matthew’s sources just didn’t bother mentioning the other angel, who was undoubtedly present at the scene.
Well, why couldn’t this argument apply to that Genesis passage then? Everything seems like rhetorics to iron away all the wrinkles in the arguments.
2) Polygamy was never recorded as having a good outcome in the Bible, so it couldn’t have been God’s original plan. A lot of problems in the patriarch’s family can be (supposedly) traced back to the fights and jealousy between their wives or their descendants through multiple wives (Hagar vs Sarah, Jacob’s wives and their respective slaves, the story of David’s children Tamar, Absalom, and their half-brother Amnon, Solomon and his pagan wives, etc.).
But then again, it sounds a bit stretchy. Why didn’t God clearly say anything against it if it was a great sin?
The only explanation is that it was not a sin, but now it is. An exception to the general mode of relationship between the Old and New Covenant, which is “it was forbidden, not anymore.”
3) As you said, one requirement for the position of elders (low church Protestants’ interpretation) / bishops (high Church Protestants’ and Catholics’ interpretation) is having only one wife. But then, this is a special position, there is no other stipulation that ordinary Christians are forbidden from taking more than one wives.
4) The apostle Paul likens the relationship between Jesus and the church to that of a husband and his wife. Since the (universal) church is one and Jesus can’t have more than one brides or churches (indeed), therefore a Christian marriage has to be monogamous if it is to follow the model of Jesus.
Bonus argument: since Jesus and his bride are certainly different in many ways, with Jesus as the leader/head, this strongly argues for the establishment of different gender roles in marriage. Hence, no same-sex marriage and “complementarianism” reigns supreme.
However, it is confusing since the relationship between Christ and his church is definitely meant to be metaphorical and theological, whereas polygamy vs monogamy is a practical and ethical issue. Is this a false equivalency?
Finally, if I’m not mistaken, I once read somewhere that the Christian prohibition against polygamy evolved out of a similar sentiment found in early Rabbinical Judaism at the time.
But I’m sure that the Catholics would argue that monogamy has always been an integral part of the Holy Tradition since the Church’s inception. And no doubt there will be Natural Law arguments supporting monogamy, as well.
In the end, it is highly complicated, even though the Bible is supposed to be a clear guide for all mankind.
(So sorry for the convoluted answer!)
Actually, this is really helpful! I was afraid I’d missed something obvious. Convolution: for dictionary definition, see Bible.
More than a few Evangelical doctrines are “implied,” and not explicitly stated. That’s what you need a theological education so you can “understand.” 😂😂
The apostles, the ones supposedly with the greatest faith ever, received miracles and special explanations – “to you has been given the key to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven”.
Ordinary Christians receive “blessed is he who does not see and yet believes”. Plus so many difficult, confusing, and convoluted arguments which can only be thoroughly understood by a professional theologian or philosopher.
And somehow the ordinary Christians are the ones with the lesser faith.