You may also like...

12 Responses

  1. Linn says:

    “The King’s Son” almost made me cry, and “A Letter from Paul to Christians in the U.S.” taught me how I need to live. Great choices today! (I still need to g back and read many of the links).

  2. Michael says:

    Thank you, Linn…glad they were of interest.

  3. Kevin H says:

    I had supplemented some commentary on the “Respecting the Respect for Marriage Act” on Facebook. I will copy that commentary here:

    Christians do not have to agree with or endorse same-sex marriage. Christians can hold to the traditional, orthodox sexual ethics that have been understood, held, and taught by the overwhelming large majority of the Church for 2000 years. Christians can, and properly so, be concerned with what is happening in the culture within which they live.

    Yet, at what point will Christians living in this country come to the realization that we do not and never have lived in a theocracy, but do live in a country in which its very own cherished Constitution forbids the favoring of any one religion over another, or no religion at all?

    When will Christians who claim to take Scripture seriously, even “literally”, as a collective whole start to take serious and “literal” the commands in Scripture that we are to be far more concerned with behavior, particularly behavior that dishonors God, that occurs within the church than outside of it?

    When will Christians who claim to take Scripture seriously, even “literally”, as a collective whole come to grips with the fact that when God calls “His People” to repentance, He is speaking to the Church, and not America?

    When will Christians who claim to take Scripture seriously, even “literally”, as a collective whole become far more concerned that the divorce rate is just as high in the church as the culture as a whole, that sexual and spiritual abuse has run rampant in the church and is often excused or covered up, that many in the church have taken to repeated slander, sharing of dubious if not outright false information, and justifying of God-dishonoring behavior in order to promote political agendas, that many in the church have taken to disobeying God by actively disobeying the government and calling others to do so over issues which do not directly contradict God’s commands in Scripture, that many in the church have taken to an emphasis of demonizing immigrants and focusing on things wrong about them or that they claim to be wrong, rather than placing an emphasis on care and compassion for them as Scripture instructs, along with a whole host of other issues which plague the modern day American church, than they are about issues in the government and the broader American culture?

    When will Christians who claim to take Scripture seriously, even “literally”, as a collective whole come to the realization that Jesus did not win by defeating and/or commandeering the government and enforcing law over the culture, but rather by service and sacrifice and targeting people’s hearts?

  4. Michael says:

    Well said, Kevin.

    I’m glad you’re asking these questions out loud…

  5. Captain Kevin says:

    Why did I even read the Idiots for Trump article? Sheesh!

  6. Captain Kevin says:

    The King’s Son. Whew, now I feel like I washed off the filth.

  7. Steve says:

    The respect for marriage act is pure political theater in my estimation. It seems individual states still have the final say from what I can tell. However, I honestly don’t get the LGBTQ community being lumped together with interracial marriage. Interracial marriage has been legal and the law of the land federally and in every state since 1967. It’s interesting that the act doesn’t recognize polygamous unions and I’m sure is offensive to some Mormons. Exactly where are our nations values coming from? The government has never been and will never be neutral.

  8. Michael says:

    Our nations values reflect the people who elect them.
    Most of America does not hold to “Christian” morality any longer and few Christians actually do either.

    Interracial marriage was included because Justice Thomas (who is in an interracial marriage) was talking about revisiting the law that made it legal…

  9. Kevin H says:


    Actually it was Clarence Thomas who started all the political theater by opining that the Supreme Court should revisit other previously settled cases that in his estimation may have been decided wrongly. Among other cases settled upon similar law as Roe v. Wade, he specifically mentioned Obergefell v. Hodges which was the case that made all states need to recognize same-sex marriage, even from another state.

    Those in Congress who support same-sex marriage then reacted as would be expected, they chose to codify the recognition of same-sex marriage into law rather than leaving it stand with just a Supreme Court decision that was being threatened of possibly being overturned. So once again, Clarence Thomas was the original cause of anything that would be considered “political theater”.

    As for interracial marriage, Michael is mistaken that Thomas mentioned this one specifically, even though it was settled along the same legal reasoning as Roe, Obergefell, and others he mentioned. His choice not to include this one was conspicuous, but fairly obvious why as he is married to a white woman. He’ll seemingly gladly challenge other rulings which do not effect him, but wants to leave alone the one that would affect him adversely.

    Congress probably decided to include it in the bill anyway to cover their bases, as again interracial marriage was not codified into legislative law but stood only on a Supreme Court decision that always has the potential of being overturned.

    And to echo Michael, our nation’s values come from the people that make up our nation. They will elect people to government who they best think reflect their own values.

  10. Michael says:

    Kevin , I stand corrected…other justices cited that case, but Thomas specifically omitted it.

  11. Steve says:

    Kevin, I don’t consider Thomas an activist judge. I believe Roe was wrongly decided and we have all seen that things after time can get overturn. Im grateful. Why do we need a respect for marriage Act if everything has been decided by law? It does nothing. The Act still relies on the legality of the marriage at the state level. These Acts can all get overturned easily as well. Wasnt it just a few short years ago that Bill Clinton singed the the defense of marriage Act that said just the opposite. It’s all politely theater in my opinion. I’m no lawyer but but it seems to me there surely is a characteristically difference between the Obergfell vs Hodge decision and interracial marriage. I won’t be surprised but not holding my breath either that it will be over turned. The entire concept of marriage should probably be removed from civil discourse if the goal is not to favor any religion which is impossible. That’s my point.

  12. The New Victor says:

    It’s been said that the Supreme Court isn’t the last word because it’s right; rather, that is right because it’s the last word. It’s been morally wrong on occasion going back 170 years. It’s up to Congress to codify laws Constitution or SCOTUS proof.

    The RvW thing is interesting as only Canada has the loosest or freest law as pro choice activists desire here, not EU countries which have restrictions. Then again, Canada’s euthanasia laws keep moving freer, even if slowly. Do we want to follow them down that path?

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading