[Graham said marriage] “should not be defined by presidents or polls, governors or the media. The definition was set long ago and changing legislation or policy will never change God’s definition.”
The Rev. Murdoch Smith, pastor of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church in Charlotte, challenged Graham’s view, saying “I am always suspect when someone says that they know the mind of God.”
“President Obama stated that his position was evolving because he was open to what all sides had to say on marriage equality,” Smith said Thursday. “That openness ”¦ brought him to the conclusion that God blesses all who commit to one another in his presence.”
[blockquote]“I am always suspect when someone says that they know the mind of God.â€[/blockquote]
A man who makes such a statement has no business being an ordained minister. Christians do not claim to know the mind of God because they are extremely brilliant or because they have through their own insight been able to peer inside the divine mind. Nor are they mediums or wizards.
At the same time, every minister is called to proclaim the Word of God because God has spoken (1 Cor 2:16; 2 Cor. 4: 5-6).
Smith’s statement sounds humble, but what it amounts to is an assertion that we cannot know God’s mind because God has not spoken. That is not humility, but arrogance.
Isn’t it incoherent too? Fr. Smith goes on to suggest that one can indeed know whom God blesses and that such knowledge is praiseworthy.
If we then know the mind of a homosexual, then, that person knows the mind of God, as Smith suggests?
“…God blesses all who commit to one another in his presence.” But if God’s will is unknowable and evolving how do we know this to be true?
The liberal trap, I am sure that they consider this a feature, is that in order to support and defend gay sex and the gay life style they must destroy the authority of scripture in some way: some simply say scripture is make up, a fable or fairy tail; others say its the world of God but you have to interpret it properly and, even though interpretations vary and we can’t be sure whose interpretation is correct, in their own eyes their interpretation is correct because they say it is.
The end result is if the Church is based on Scripture whose meaning is determined by human opinion (resting ultimately on the self-given authority of the opinion giver) then that Church has nothing to offer. What is the basis for valuing one person’s opinion over another’s? If, at the end it’s opinions all the way down, who cares? Why should I waste my time listening to a sermon which is nothing more that a human beings opinion based on their own feelings or what ever. I can do that talking to myself in the shower. Best play golf on Sunday (and I don’t even play golf).
The “Read it all” link doesn’t seem to be working.
[Apologies – link now fixed – Elf]
I’m still waiting for word from those who consider any decision made on religious grounds to be offensive in the public square. I am waiting for Maureen Dowd to declaim on the threat of an impending theocracy. I am waiting for Richard Dawkins to declare Sasha and Malia victims of religious child abuse for being exposed to theology.
I am not holding my breath while I wait.