“At our last business meeting (December), our pastor and the deacons proposed an
addition to our statement of faith, affirming that marriage is between a man
and a woman. The older members of our church were surprised on the grounds of “We
thought it was already in there.” The pastor, the deacons, and the secretary
had gone back through thirty years of church records and couldn’t find it
anywhere ... so the change was made.
I suspect we’re in the minority of churches.”
I suspect we’re in the minority of churches.”
I suspect LLC is correct.
Despite the progressive proclivity for
rewriting history to suit the trends of the day, for nearly two millennia the
words “between a man and a woman” have been uniformly unnecessary in any mainstream
discussion of marriage. It would not have occurred to the vast majority of
Christians to contemplate marriage on any other terms.
The majority is not always right; in fact,
it may be that is rarely the case. But if you are advancing an interpretation
of scripture that has never been countenanced anywhere in
2,000 years of church history at any time prior to the last few decades, you are almost surely wrong on that
basis alone.
And that’s before we get into exegesis of
the relevant passages.
Some things really shouldn’t need specifying.
No comments :
Post a Comment