Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[ArmedProgrammer]

Interesting commentary from a UMC minister on the matter. He seems like he'd be a nice person and a good minister.

Adam Hamilton

No comment on anyone's theology. Wasn't the UMC (and especially the more liberal end of it) the ones that wanted to advocate against guns as well? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

 

[Southbendfamily]

Without looking for exact verbiage from their Discipline, yes, they are for gun control Through a UN charter.

 

[MisterChester]

To the extent church membership has declined over recent years, maybe the pastors should question how much their attempts to make their churches hip and progressive have contributed to that.

If anything in this world is constant, it's change. If pastors want to keep the pews full then some things are going to have to be put on the table. What is more important, keeping certain beliefs and values or change them so the word may live on without the threat of fading away completely? I've spoken to a few pastors. The hard headed ones seem to be having the most difficulty. It's not necessarily about being hip or progressive, it's about changing how you spread the message.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If anything in this world is constant, it's change. If pastors want to keep the pews full then some things are going to have to be put on the table. What is more important, keeping certain beliefs and values or change them so the word may live on without the threat of fading away completely? I've spoken to a few pastors. The hard headed ones seem to be having the most difficulty. It's not necessarily about being hip or progressive, it's about changing how you spread the message.

Changing how you spread the message is one thing. Changing the message you spread is quite another and that's what's happening in many churches.

 

[Woobie]

If anything in this world is constant, it's change. If pastors want to keep the pews full then some things are going to have to be put on the table. What is more important, keeping certain beliefs and values or change them so the word may live on without the threat of fading away completely? I've spoken to a few pastors. The hard headed ones seem to be having the most difficulty. It's not necessarily about being hip or progressive, it's about changing how you spread the message.

In the 2 millennia since Christ walked this earth there have been many cultures that have come and gone. In each of those cultures there have been trends and fashions that have been more fleeting than the cultures in which they existed. The Word has not changed, and is still around, long after the passage of several great empires. Men will try to change it, and it has been and will be delivered in adulterated forms. But it has never in itself changed. We are experiencing another trend in this country, and in the next decade there will be another. A few more decades, or maybe centuries, and this empire too will cease to exist. Yet the Word will still be as it always has.

 

[MisterChester]

Changing how you spread the message is one thing. Changing the message you spread is quite another and that's what's happening in many churches.

I need not go farther than the comment sections of the SC decision on WTHR's Facebook and see a massive difference of opinions among self-proclaimed Christians. Seemed to be mostly divided between those that are just shameful and filled with hate, and those that say it's not their place to judge and to tolerate it. I can take an educated guess on which side's pastors are preaching the right message that conforms with their values. That message will surely ensure their survival. It is evolving and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[MisterChester]

In the 2 millennia since Christ walked this earth there have been many cultures that have come and gone. In each of those cultures there have been trends and fashions that have been more fleeting than the cultures in which they existed. The Word has not changed, and is still around, long after the passage of several great empires. Men will try to change it, and it has been and will be delivered in adulterated forms. But it has never in itself changed. We are experiencing another trend in this country, and in the next decade there will be another. A few more decades, or maybe centuries, and this empire too will cease to exist. Yet the Word will still be as it always has.

It wouldn't have lasted 2000 years without changing. It's changing and evolving but sadly too many people see it as a bad thing. Even though that is exactly what happened over such a long period of time.

 

[gstanley102]

Changing how you spread the message is one thing. Changing the message you spread is quite another and that's what's happening in many churches.

^^^^ EXACTLY THIS ^^^^^

Also many have ignored the old axiom that your actions speak louder than your words.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I need not go farther than the comment sections of the SC decision on WTHR's Facebook and see a massive difference of opinions among self-proclaimed Christians. Seemed to be mostly divided between those that are just shameful and filled with hate, and those that say it's not their place to judge and to tolerate it. I can take an educated guess on which side's pastors are preaching the right message that conforms with their values. That message will surely ensure their survival. It is evolving and there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm guessing you spend too much time on those comment sections.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

^^^^ EXACTLY THIS ^^^^^

Also many have ignored the old axiom that your actions speak louder than your words.

Exactly. When us Christians don't respect marriage any more than we have (by achieving a 50+% divorce rate), we really haven't lead with our actions...how can we expect the non-religious to respect it?

 

[cobber]

Changing how you spread the message is one thing. Changing the message you spread is quite another and that's what's happening in many churches.

I need not go farther than the comment sections of the SC decision on WTHR's Facebook and see a massive difference of opinions among self-proclaimed Christians. [But I see your point about the comment section in say Mother Jones. I need go no further to have an understanding of the liberal Democrat mind.] Seemed to be mostly divided between those that are just shameful and filled with hate, and those that say it's not their place to judge and to tolerate it. I can take an educated guess on which side's pastors are preaching the right message that conforms with their values. That message will surely ensure their survival. It is evolving and there is nothing wrong with that.

Actually the trendy churches are the most affected by 'change for relevance'. As in declining attendance. Which is why the pastors try newer and better gimmicks to try to attract worshipers. But as the message becomes more secular and contemporary, the church loses the bond with the eternal principles it is supposed to be proclaiming.


For the faithful, or some I should say, marriage is a holy sacrament that comes from God. To say that we have suddenly discovered that God really meant to include same sex marriage suggests God rather inartfully communicated with His children down through the ages.


Kind of like Roberts' opinion on Obamacare. Doesn't matter what the law is, we have a social agenda here to promote, people!


Attention 21st century Americans. Words mean what they say. If they don't, then they have no real meaning at all.

 

[Mad Macs]

Exactly. When us Christians don't respect marriage any more than we have (by achieving a 50+% divorce rate), we really haven't lead with our actions...how can we expect the non-religious to respect it?

I saw a screenshot of an ex-friend of mine from a dating site whose been divorced TWICE now for cheating on his spouses. He claims to be a good Christian man who only wants to follow God's path for him and live a fulfilling life.

I also know truly Christ-like people as well so I don't have a knock against truly faithful people, just the fake christians who go around lying about how faithful they actually are.

 

[wagyu52]

Exactly. When us Christians don't respect marriage any more than we have (by achieving a 50+% divorce rate), we really haven't lead with our actions...how can we expect the non-religious to respect it?

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. The Christians in this country have degraded the institution of Holy Matrimony with selfishness, divorce and adultery. We have dropped the ball and are now reaping what we have sown.

 

[MisterChester]

Actually the trendy churches are the most affected by 'change for relevance'. As in declining attendance. Which is why the pastors try newer and better gimmicks to try to attract worshipers. But as the message becomes more secular and contemporary, the church loses the bond with the eternal principles it is supposed to be proclaiming.


For the faithful, or some I should say, marriage is a holy sacrament that comes from God. To say that we have suddenly discovered that God really meant to include same sex marriage suggests God rather inartfully communicated with His children down through the ages.


Kind of like Roberts' opinion on Obamacare. Doesn't matter what the law is, we have a social agenda here to promote, people!


Attention 21st century Americans. Words mean what they say. If they don't, then they have no real meaning at all.

I think if God didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't have happened. God through the bible can be very hard to explain sometimes. As the quote goes, the lord works in mysterious ways. I personally believe God doesn't want us bickering over stuff like this, we should just be happy and love each other like he asked us to.

 

[MisterChester]

I'm guessing you spend too much time on those comment sections.

Heck, it's a goldmine for funny uninformed commentary.

 

[bmbutch]

Changing how you spread the message is one thing. Changing the message you spread is quite another and that's what's happening in many churches.

Amen, His word Never Changes, & for me, His word is enough. I love my church, they still preach the Bible, & know the difference between being current, & not carnal.

YMMV, mine doesn't.

 

[rhino]

Someone remind me again: why is the government allowed any role whatsoever in marriage?

The business of heirs, property division, etc. should be determined by contracts for those who wish to enact them.

 

[miguel]

Someone remind me again: why is the government allowed any role whatsoever in marriage?

The business of heirs, property division, etc. should be determined by contracts for those who wish to enact them.

Yes, indeed!

Before there was any question about what marriage was, I was complaining about the requirement of a man and a woman to have to to to the court house to get "married". I wouldn't have done it, but my weak ass church required government permission before they would marry me, and by extension Mrs. Miguel required it, as she is no crusader, just regular folk.

So a pox upon the weak ass churches who comply with that requirement!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Someone remind me again: why is the government allowed any role whatsoever in marriage?

The business of heirs, property division, etc. should be determined by contracts for those who wish to enact them.

Control. To keep the wrong types of people from marrying one another. I agree with your statement.

 

[Lowe0]

Someone remind me again: why is the government allowed any role whatsoever in marriage?

The business of heirs, property division, etc. should be determined by contracts for those who wish to enact them.

Agreed. But, if we put it to a vote, would the people pass a referendum to eliminate legal marriage?