1

"But it dozen’t have a right to rename or redefine an institution whose existence precedes and predates the state itself."

You have made this blanket assertion before. Care to prove it? And if so, so what? Prostitution also likely predates the concept of a "State". Does that mean the State has no right to define it now?

By your argument incidentally, where it all went wrong is when the state started approving divorces in violation of Church wishes. And I'm quite surprised at your idea of a marriage defined as "validating love". I had thought that a marriage could not exist without the blessing of God. Love between two people does not necessarily play a role in that. Happy Valentines Day!

2

"But it doesn’t have a right to rename or redefine an institution whose existence precedes and predates the state itself."

Which amendment is that?

The government recognizes artificially created humans as children and I don't hear evangelicals complaining about that.

And if I assume this prohibition actually can be found in the Constitution, are you admitting then that the Federal Government does not have the right to equate religion and science in public school classrooms?

3

Re: "St. Valentine's Day"...

In actuality, St. Valentine is a very minor figure in the Western liturgical calendar.

Instead, today is "St. Cyril and Methodius." They were the Apostles to the Slavic people,
and, in recent years, Pope John Paul II named them "co-patrons of Europe" -- another of his less-than-subtle reminders, to secular Europe, of its true roots, and a call to repentance and a return to faith.

Septimus

4

"It’s funny, but why is it that pastors who want to build mega-churches, after having accomplished that goal, end pushing their congregations into being members of “small groups”?

This is an interesting question. First, I think pastors can easily fall into the trap of "bigger is better" in terms of the size of their church membership. Part of the problem of the Rick Warren influence that Lunar Skeletons notes in that same post is the quality of teaching from the pulpit has greatly diminished. This is not entirely Warren's fault as he is only part of the larger "seeker-sensitive" trend that has removed the important aspect of discipleship from the gospel.

Pastors of mega-churches understand that they can't possibly shepherd the thousands of members that come to their churches. Someone has to step into that gap. Small groups are the best mechanism to fill the gap.

5

But it doesn’t have a right to rename or redefine an institution whose existence precedes and predates the state itself.

Does slavery predate the state itself? If so why wouldn't it too fall under this protection?

6

Prostitution also likely predates the concept of a "State". Does that mean the State has no right to define it now?

Patrick--Has there ever been a time when prostitution was defined as something other than trading something (money, food, drugs, etc.) for sex or is there some movement to expand the definition? By the same token, has marriage ever been defined as something other than a union between a man and a woman? Even in societies that practiced polygamy, the marriage covenant was only between the man and woman exchanging the vows. For example, if a man took a second bride, his first was married to the husband, not to the subsequent bride.

7

BT--Same question for slavery.

8

But while the state doesn’t have primacy over other institutions (whether marriage, corporations, schools, etc.,) it does have a responsibility to decide how it will recognize other spheres. The government certainly has a legitimate right, if it is deemed to be in the state’s best interest, to extend certain privileges to those who are now excluded. But it doesn’t have a right to rename or redefine an institution whose existence precedes and predates the state itself.

It's not a matter of whether it has a right. Any move by the government to regulate marriage (either by benefits or penalties) will redefine the institution, whether we like it or not. Marriage may have pre-existed the US government, but it has never existed in a single form. By codifying marriage, the government has already altered it.

So, turn marriage over to the churches, synagogues, mosques, or whatever other institution people want to formalize their relationship. If marriage is sacred, the government shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses any more than it issues baptism licenses.

Then, take the benefits that currently are limited to married couples and apply them equally to all citizens. For example, instead of making spouses eligible for coverage on employee health plans, why not give each employee the option to add one other adult? Most married employees whould probably choose their spouse. Unmarried employees or married employees whose spouse already has coverage might choose to extend coverage to an elderly parent or unemployed sibling instead. A gay employee might choose his partner. And none of it would have any effect on how Christians define marriage

9

Briefly, I think that marriage not only predates the state, but as the family is the original model for the state and humanity's primary social institution, it precedes the state in importance as well as in chronology. It is a fundamental building block of civilization, and a positive one.

Slavery, of course, is not.

10

To the degree that family predates the state and is more imporant than the state it is also relatively immune from the state. Gay families exist regardless that gay marriage does not and will continue to do unless you want to turn the state into an agent of repression, like it is in Saudi Arabia.

11

I think you would agree with my Reason article then, Boonton.

12

Coleman

"Briefly, I think that marriage not only predates the state, but as the family is the original model for the state and humanity's primary social institution, it precedes the state in importance as well as in chronology. It is a fundamental building block of civilization, and a positive one."

More than children? Was the traditional definition of child not the offspring of a man and woman who procreated as God intended them to?

And then we allowed children to be redefined to include articially created human beings!!!!!

WILL NO ONE SPEAK FOR THE CHILDREN???

In other news, we can all laugh at how an administration that plays to its anti-gay bigot base allows a gay prostitute into the white house briefing room to throw softballs to a gay spokesman (Scotty) who scripts are written by two gay guys (Ken and Karl). What a bunch of sad hypocrites. They make the liars for jesus look good!

13

forgot the link

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html

14

My short answer to Lunar Skeleton would be "for the same reason a very small church would".

He implies megachurches are built and *then* small group ministry is started. I don't know if he intended this, but any megachurch I've ever heard of was built upon small group ministry, not vice-versa.

That may be beside the point. Lunar Skeleton has some near-prophetic things to say about the church and art, but I don't understand his beef with small groups... you'd think they would be even MORE necessary in large churches. Although, I'm an elder at a small church (usual attendance is 50-70), and I'd actually say small groups are just about as necessary for us as for any church. Small groups are not just bible studies, although that's an important function of them. They also serve as a place for people to fellowship and minister to one another. In our church, even with about 50 active members, there is ALWAYS someone who is sick, has a sick family member, has had a death in the family that week, just had a baby, just lost a job, has financial trouble, or just about any crisis you could name. When this happens, our church has always tried to rally around the person or family in crisis... to bring them a meal, calls or cards of encouragement, prayer, money if a cancer patient's health insurance is about to lapse, house-sitting, household chores for the handicapped or injured, etc, etc... whatever the situation may call for. Like I said, there is always a crisis to attend to. If you get in a situation where the entire church gets involved with every single crisis, you eventually run into "compassion burnout" as we called it. Even with only 50-70 people, being involved with every single crisis of every family will easily wear people out. But with small groups, you cut the problem down to size. The people in the small groups will minister to one another, perhaps not even always aware of all that is going on with everyone else in the church, but then again, it's much less likely someone will get "missed" because they just happened to have their crisis in a high peak week of crises. People in small groups become much more aware of what's going on in each others' lives. A crisis that may have looked lower priority on the church's entire list of current personal crises will probably be more well attended to by those close to the person in a small group rather than as part of an unofficial laundry list of everything going on in the church.

15

"Has there ever been a time when prostitution was defined as something other than trading something (money, food, drugs, etc.) for sex or is there some movement to expand the definition..."

Actually in many places in the world, even in the US, past and present, many would consider the above a more accurate description of marriage, not prostitution.

I noticed another little Valentine's day story in the news today. Mary Lou Tourneau plans on marrying her teenage sweetheart and the father of her two children. Why is this marriage "sanctified" by both state and church?

16

Larry Lord :

You should tell those folks that there's really explicit stuff on tat site; apparent Republican male prostitutes as faux reporters displaying the Full Monty...

Really, I gotta say, Joe, do you really want a place at the same table as "Jeff Gannon?"

But seriously, let's hope the conservatives can at least in this case, agree with Progressives and make sure that Scottie McClellan, Karl Rove, Eberle, and Gannon get the appropriate subpoenas, not only about Plame, but about how Gannon got there in the first place. There may be much, much more here than meets the eye- it could be the 2000's version of the Franklin Coverup Scandal, a scandal, which if it ever got the light of day shone on it, might make Iran-Contra look like a summer picnic.

17

Because small groups is where people get connected. The huge church serves as an organism to take care of the community in a way that no small group could.

18

amber lynn:
The huge church serves as an organism to take care of the community in a way that no small group could.

How do they do that? I'm honestly seeking an answer, not trying to set you up or anything.

19

It is time to privatize marriage. If the institution is really so sacred, it should lie beyond the withering hands of politicians and policy makers in Washington D.C.

Dang it! Finally someone who agrees with me regarding this! I've always had disdain for the person marrying others to say "by the power vested in me by the state of blah blah blah I declare you man and wife" The state has no power to declare such unions into existence. What a farce. If marraige is an agreement/promise between two people to love each other, how does it follow that the state creates such an arrangement? How queer! The last thing I want that close to my private life is the state.

Of course, the state has the ability to recognize marraiges as such, not actually create them, and that is probably what is meant by that despicable phrase. But many people probably think that the state actually somehow creates marraiges.

So the state just validates marraiges. But to what end? Tax purposes? Health benefits? Excuse me while I puke. How dry and disgusting it is to become a gatekeeper between people and their promises for the sake of fiscal expediency. Idiots!

Better is to have a closer-knit non-legal community validate such a promise for the express purpose of verifying that the two made that promise so that the couple can be respected as such by people who matter, not fools at the IRS.

20

As I posted in response to an earlier post about same-sex and polygamous "marriage"...

I keep the vows of my one and only marriage but it's no skin off my nose if the state treats my family for socio-economic purposes as it would treat a grouping founded on another faith or no faith - even if it's a homosexual or poly grouping.

The state is incapable of adding religious legitimacy to my sacred marriage. All it can do is recognise the fact that its observance creates a socio-economic unit. State recognition of marriages of divorcees with living ex-spouses is not state absolution from marriage vows; it is state recognition of unChristian civil unions as socio-economic units for socio-economic purposes. I don't see how the state can see homosexual or poly socio-economic units any differently.

Civil marriage and religious marriage are separate concepts. They can co-incide but they should not be confused. UnChristian 'marriage' is an evangelical challenge, not a civil issue.

21

"Briefly, I think that marriage not only predates the state, but as the family is the original model for the state and humanity's primary social institution, it precedes the state in importance as well as in chronology. It is a fundamental building block of civilization, and a positive one.

If family's the original mode of the state and "humanity's primary social institution," why are conservatives so enthusiastically attacking social programs that benefit mothers and children -- school lunch programs, education budgets, food stamps, social security, etc,...? Hey, I know guys tend to have responsibilities Issues and don't like to pay alimony or taxes, but this is just immoral.

Oh, and happy Heterosexual Pride Day.

Amy

22

If marriage is the foundation of society then gay marriage will not destroy it. The worst that will happen is that gays won't be happy in their gay marriages....which isn't going to be any worse than the status quo since if hetrosexual marriage is the key to happiness then gays aren't achieving it now by definition.

If you want to argue anything else, then I think you should show how it follows logically. Simply because there's no record of ancient tribes having gay marriage tells us nothing about whether we should have it now. There is a lot of evidence that ancient people did not practice celbricy or monogamoy yet this is not proof that sleeping around is the 'foundation' of modern society.

23

Civil marriage and religious marriage are separate concepts. They can co-incide but they should not be confused.

I know they are two distinct things, but a problem is that it is difficult to be "religiously" married without also be civilly married. Difficult navigating certain areas of society, etc. Also I don't think there is such a thing as a civil marraige, just a civil recognition of a religious (or private) marraige. At worst, it should be that people are married by their community, and as an afterthought they register civilly to say they were married. Of course, what a hassle. The general intrusion of the state in any benevolent private affair is at best an annoyance.

24

"Simply because there's no record of ancient tribes having gay marriage tells us nothing about whether we should have it now. "

Actually many cultures have included gays and lesbian in their marriage traditions. But they didn't see it as "gay marriage" they saw it as "marriage".

If anyone would like proof, start with research on Native American tribes and cultural traditions. It's not exactly some esoteric secret that's difficult to find.

25

I'm curious...

If so many of you are against state regulation of marriage, why don't you 'divorce' your marriages from all state regulation and supervision? If you mean what you say, divorce your spouses legally and simultaneously restate/maintain your religious vows. Do it tomorrow if you're serious.

If you worry about how much you'll lose without state recognition, given the way the state is now set up, that worry ought to tell you how unchristian evangelicals have been to queer people by voting and lobbying against same-sex marriage rights.

Amy

26

J.J.,

"The people in the small groups will minister to one another, perhaps not even always aware of all that is going on with everyone else in the church, but then again, it's much less likely someone will get "missed" because they just happened to have their crisis in a high peak week of crises."

The beef with this argument is as thus. I join a church, let's say a mega-church. A problem arises in my life which requires spiritual guidance and/or counseling. Rather than having a pastor, someone who has been trained in the Bible and the teachings of the church and has some clue as to what Christ might have to do with my problem, I get a small group leader who most likely has a non-church-related full time job,a family, and other personal commitments. Small group ministry will most likely be 8th or 9th in his or her priority list.

It seems to me that the sheep being led into small group ministries at mega-churches are getting the short end of the stick, ministry-wise. While there may be less of a chance of being missed (an unproven assertion), what they are getting as far as spiritual care is a pale comparison to what a pastor would be able to offer the crisis-afflicted individual.

Would this be an unfair assessment? If not, how do small group ministries respond to this critique?

27

gedi:
Whille there may be less of a chance of being missed (an unproven assertion), what they are getting as far as spiritual care is a pale comparison to what a pastor would be able to offer the crisis-afflicted individual.

I agree they don't get significant attention in small groups. Additionally, small groups are a forced. However, small groups (maybe not exactly in the form we know them today) probably should be a big way of loving each other within the church. But they should occur naturally as a result of the believers seeing needs, freely loving, etc. Such free association drives people to invest their time and suddenly a small group becomes extraordinarily important.

A pastor's role, while depending on the church, isn't well suited to address one-on-one needs, even in a church of 30 or 40. Should probably replace the word pastor alternatively with the word teacher, healer, counselor,etc. So for an example: unless we're talking about a genius here, it takes a vast amount of time to prepare to simply teach people things every week. Unless you're talking rotational teaching style, sharing the load with others, being a teacher-pastor is just about all you can do (in addition to working within a free association small group)

28

Brandon,

"But they should occur naturally as a result of the believers seeing needs, freely loving, etc. Such free association drives people to invest their time and suddenly a small group becomes extraordinarily important."

Thank you for bringing up another clear problem with church programs and processes like small groups. More times than not, they are not driven by love.

"A pastor's role, while depending on the church, isn't well suited to address one-on-one needs, even in a church of 30 or 40. Should probably replace the word pastor alternatively with the word teacher, healer, counselor,etc."

True, counseling is not the pastor's chief role. However, Jesus did a whole lot of one-on-one ministry. Peter did a whole lot of one-on-one ministry. Paul did a whole lot of one-on-one ministry. I guess I find it hard to see how a pastor would not be able to budget some of his time offering spiritual care.

"So for an example: unless we're talking about a genius here, it takes a vast amount of time to prepare to simply teach people things every week. Unless you're talking rotational teaching style, sharing the load with others, being a teacher-pastor is just about all you can do (in addition to working within a free association small group)"

Honestly, I am not sure I buy this one. Yes, preparing sermons and bible studies takes up a lot of time, but much of spiritual care can utilize the same sources as that which is being prepared for Bible study, the Bible. If you are doing a Bible study on the Good Shepherd for instance and counseling a depressed person, what would make that person feel loved more than to know that Jesus lays down His life for His sheep, especially the depressed person? How much more comfort can a depressed person have than to be reminded that the Lord does not abandon him/her like the hireling, but He guards and protects the sheep even with His own life on Calvary?

This, of course, implies pastors are spending most of their time in the Bible, and not reading 40 days of porpoise, or a 12 books series on the end of the world drivel. Perhaps this is the real problem which small groups is trying to address. Spiritually dead pastors...