Ideas Have Consequences

The Respect for Marriage Act, a Misnomer

November 22, 2022 Disciple Nations Alliance Season 1 Episode 48
Ideas Have Consequences
The Respect for Marriage Act, a Misnomer
Show Notes Transcript

The so-called Respect for Marriage Act threatens the perfectly designed beauty of marriage by putting into law a radically harmful definition that misleads people about the transcendent nature of marriage. In contrast to the harmful consequences that become manifest when something as essential and foundational to society as marriage is redefined, strong marriages recognize and value the way God has created us and our children and create a safe and beautiful family space for the development of children, culture, communities, and nations. Let us boldly stand for marriage and love our neighbors by helping them understand what is lost when they miss out on their Creator's perfect design. 



Scott:

I feel like Christians are always on the defensive because it's like we're being labeled as hateful people who are bigots and discriminatory on these issues of marriage. But that's just false. Any definition, you know is going to essentially discriminate unless marriage is defined so broadly as it's just becomes absolutely meaningless, which which is the road that you go down essentially, once you start redefining words.

Luke:

As Christians, our mission is to spread the gospel around the world to all the nations. But our mission also includes to transform the nations to increasingly reflect the truth, goodness and beauty of God's kingdom. Tragically, the church has largely neglected the second part of our mission. And today, Christians have little influence on their surrounding cultures. Join us on this podcast and rediscover what it means for each of us to disciple the nations and to create Christ honoring cultures that reflect the character of the living God.

Scott:

Well, welcome everybody to another edition of ideas have consequences. This is the podcast of the disciple nations Alliance. And once again, I'm Scott Allen, the president of the DN A, along with colleagues and friends, Tim Williams, joining us from North Carolina. Hi, Tim. Hello, and we've got Luke Allen from up in Oregon in Central Oregon there. And in the office here, it's Dwight and myself, Dwight, good to see you today. Thank you. We are going to talk today about something that happened on Friday here in the United States. The United States Senate basically passed or set up to pass, I should say, a law that or a bill, excuse me, that is called the Respect for Marriage Act. And what it does, essentially is It codifies into federal law, the 2015 Obergefell versus Hodge Supreme Court ruling, which was the ruling that basically legalized or recognized same sex marriage in all 50 states of the of the nation. Before that states, were free to codify in terms of their laws, the definition the biblical definition of marriage marriage, between one man and one woman for life with the Obergefell versus Hodges Supreme Court decision, they were no longer able to do that. It so it forbid, it forbids states from passing laws or ordinances that defined marriage exclusively as one man, one woman. And so essentially what this law does, or this bill, I should say, is it It codifies into federal law, that Supreme Court decision. So this is an issue that is obviously really important here in the United States, important for the church. But it's, this is something that's happening now, obviously, around the world. Many nations around the world have similar laws that now have enshrined in law. a wholly new definition of marriage, a counterfeit definition of marriage. And the United States has done this as well. I think one of the questions, guys is why now, you know, is there a reason that this became an issue all the sudden, I mean, it's 2015 is a little while ago, why now and 2022? are we passing laws to codify Supreme Court decisions? I have some thoughts on that. But do you guys have any insight on that? You know, basically, my my take on this is that it this is really kind of a fallout from what happened over the summer, which was we had a really momentous ruling in the Supreme Court that overturned Roe versus Wade, the the abortion ruling. And that was momentous, because that was essentially the the law of the land. There was a federal license to for, you know, that legalized abortion and essentially, that was overturned at the Supreme Court and now the decision is going back to the States. And so, there was a kind of an outcry, especially amongst those that support same sex marriage, LGBTQ community and what been beyond two there was a fear I should say that the same kind of thing would happen putting initially with Obergefell, and that could be overturned, as well. And so I think there was pressure kind of brought on to codify it beyond the Supreme Court to codify that in federal law. And there was an attempt to do this after Dobbs with abortion, right there was there was an attempt to codify Roe v Wade, the Federal license to abort babies in law, but it failed. So. So there's this kind of action now to codify into federal law, not just state law, but federal law. These These both issues of abortion as well as same sex marriage. So I do think that's part of the reason it came up now, part of the reason is that there's a there's in Washington, DC right now, in the United States, we have supporters of same sex marriage that are in all three branches of government, you know, so now's the time, let's do it now. Before that changes. So anyways, the Senate passed or, you know, pass this essentially this bill, in a bipartisan fashion. I thought that was another interesting piece of news that came out on Friday that were virtually all of the Democrats supported this 100%. And then a 12. Republican senators, Senators also voted in favor of enshrining same sex marriage into federal law, which is a bit surprising. Why is it surprising because historically, or traditionally, the Republican Party has stood for the long standing historical biblical definition of marriage. And in fact, it's been in the party platform at different times. I'm not exactly sure if it's there, right now, I know, it was, as late as 2016, actually written into the Republican Party platform that we as a party support, marriage between one man and one woman, we are not in support of redefining marriage, these 12 Republican senators, many of them, I think, more than more than three of them and actually been strong advocates for the Biblical definition or the true definition of marriage earlier. And it's just one of these things that takes you by surprise, because I remember when Barack Obama, you know, the former president, United States, himself said openly and publicly that he supported the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman. That was the way that we understood this issue for a long, long time. And then in a blink of an eye. Not only did he change, but a whole lot of people changed and the momentum is all on the side of that change. Now, now you've got these 12 Republican senators who have also changed. And there's no sense that it's going to slow down or stop or that momentum is going to be is going to be turned around. It

Luke:

was ground of momentum when I think about the global audience out there. This sounds kind of political, this introduction, but I mean, we've seen time and again, I mean, we hear this from the global DNA movement in Ethiopia recently, what is America doing? What are these ideas coming out of America? You know, these don't stop at our borders, these when these continued to just spread around the world. And we see this now in Latin America and Africa. And things that were fringe issues in the 90s are now normalized in the US. And the conversations are now starting in, you know, places like Kenya. So, yeah, for the global audience, you know, well, this is the first place when it comes to some of these ideas.

Scott:

No, that's That's exactly right. Look, the most the most committed group to these to seeing these changes in definitions and laws are here in the United States, maybe in Europe, and they're but they're, they're very much missionary, if you will, in the sense that they're they're very zealous to see these changes happen everywhere. And I'm very ashamed and sad to say that we're on the leading edge as a country of pushing this in countries around the world. And so yeah, for example, I was in Columbia, South America not too long ago, and the pastors in the churches that I was training, were alarmed. That curriculum was coming into their public school system through through their federal government. That was teaching children this redefined marriage and it was doing so graphically, you know, with the little picture books of men and men, you know, essentially copulating in curriculum for children. So they were absolutely, you know, aghast I guess, and, you know, this and angry and they weren't going to put up with it. This is the church. These are the pastors I was speaking with. And in fact, they didn't. They organized a massive nationwide rally that included Protestants and Catholics, which is very unusual in a place like Colombia, and they were able to put pressure on When the government to, you know, to prevent that curriculum from coming into their public schools, good for them, but they did look at me as an American and say, Scott, this is coming from your country, you know, what are, what are you doing? And it, it, it really spoke to my heart. And it was, you know, it was it was something that for me was honestly, it was a bit life changing, because I thought I, you know, I'm involved in a global ministry, I want to see churches strengthened around the world, but that I've got to we, you know, we've got to pay attention to these things that are happening in the United States, because as you were saying, Luke, they're spreading around the world, they're very aggressively.

Luke:

Hi, friends, thank you so much for joining us today, we really appreciate your time and attention, as this is such an important bill that was just voted on this last Friday, and will be again soon. Please join us in prayer and tell your communities to pray with us as well, that this so called Respect for Marriage Act will be turned down. also help us spread the word about the effects of this bill could have on all of us as believers in the US. And you can do that by sharing this episode, or taking a look at any of the resources that we mentioned in this episode, and sharing those as well with your friends and family. And if you're listening in a different country, we would encourage you to continue to promote God's definition of marriage and disciple your nations and God's true, good and beautiful way for all of us to live. Lastly, to find any of the resources that we mentioned in this episode, or to find highlight clips, social media posts that you can easily share with your community, just go to this episode's landing page, which is linked down in the description below. Thanks again for listening to this episode of ideas have consequences.

Scott:

A little bit more about the bill. And we can talk about what this means and how we need to respond to it as the church. But there was a an amendment that was put into the Senate's version of the bill that would provide protection for a dissenters if you will. And this would be Christian organizations, Christian churches, Christian universities, and Islamic ones and Jewish ones as well, not just Christian ones. But you know, in the United States, most most of the dissent would come from Christians. But it would uphold religious liberty, although I was listening to legal experts at the Alliance Defending Freedom, and others. And they were speaking about that amendment as really they called it a fig leaf it was in this is their quote, it would give lip service to protecting religious liberty, but it wouldn't in effect, and specifically, the end and the advocates of same sex marriage and the whole LGBTQ movement are really open. They're not They absolutely are open and say in terms of what their objectives are, they do want to see Christian schools, universities, organizations, they want to see them essentially go away. They want to see them weakened significantly. And as a stepping stone towards that they want them to lose. This is kind of the next step for them, I think is they want them to lose their nonprofit status. And so that's kind of on the agenda. It's it's really back to the law itself, you would have a law maybe to protect a group. Let's say there was a lot of discrimination in the United States against homosexual people, gays, lesbians that wanted to be married. And they couldn't do it, or they were facing all sorts of public pressure. That is not at all the case. So you might say, Well, why do we need a law then? That's a good question. I think, I think the main people that are feeling pressure right now on these issues, aren't gays and lesbians and other people in the in the LGBTQ community? It's it's Christians. In other words, the pressure is coming from that community towards churches and schools and whatnot. i You just think of the some of the cases that have been in the headlines over the last few years. I think of the florist in Washington State burial settlement. And you might think of the baker in Colorado, Jack Phillips, I, I think those are really representative of where we're at. And just just to highlight those cases, briefly, Baron el Stutzman is a florist was approached by some friends of hers who were gay. They wanted to they were planning their marriage ceremony or their and they asked her to prepare, you know, the flowers flower arrangements for their, their marriage. Again, they were friends. She had prepared flowers for them for a long time. But she said because I'm a Christian. You know, I am going to decline to do this, because it goes against My belief about marriage, which is a really fundamental belief that I hold, and, essentially, and she said, I'd be happy, right? It's not like you can't get people to make those flower arrangements for you, I'd be happy even to recommend other people to do that for you. So you would think in a live and let live society, that would have been the end of it, they would have gone out and got somebody else to make those flowers for their marriage and kind of just leave her alone and let her live out her faith as in the business world. But that's not what happened to her. It's not what we're seeing happen writ large in the society. They sued her. And not only did they sue her, but the Attorney General for the state of Washington jumped on board that lawsuit and brought the weight of the state law against her. And she lost, she lost that case. And it was appealed. She lost that it went all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court declined to hear her case. Bottom line is she was sued out of business so that she's no longer a florist, essentially, because she had to pay this huge fine. This is the same basic thing happened with Jack Phillips, although his case went to the Supreme Court again, it was, it was the same thing, you know, we want he's a baker, we want you to make this cake for our wedding. No, let me recommend another Baker that would be glad to bake you a cake for your wedding. I'm a Christian, I want to run my business according to my deeply held religious beliefs. That's not good enough, you have to bake us the cake, we want that, you know, went all the way up to the Supreme Court, Jack Phillips one. But interestingly enough, the activist community still is going after him with different pretexts. They're not leaving him alone. So all that to say all of the, you know, if there's a group that needs to be protected, actually, on this issue, it's not gay, lesbian, transgender people who want to be married. It's, it's people who dissent and say, My deeply held religious beliefs, I want the space to practice those in my business or in my church in my school without being sued. And without being threatened with, you know, with Yeah, these crippling lawsuits that essentially would put me out of business or shut down the school.

Dwight:

And this law will make that even more difficult.

Scott:

Exactly the it's called the Respect for Marriage Act. But if you were in my view, if you were to call it what it's really going to do, it's going to be let's shut down the nonprofit status of Christian organizations law, because that's going to be that's going to be the actual effect of of this, this law. Yeah.

Dwight:

Or support gay marriage? affirm it,

Scott:

or Yeah, affirm it, or lose your nonprofit status law? Exactly affirm gay marriage or lose your nonprofit status, etc. I mean, I think that's that's essentially the realistic picture of what's going on here.

Luke:

Welcome to the negative world.

Tim Williams:

We can propose a policy respect for intellectual and religious dissent.

Luke:

Make a pride month for it.

Tim Williams:

You know, essentially free speech, free speech, religious liberty. I mean, just as a reminder, in case people forget or heard of that before, yeah.

Scott:

Well, you know, it's, I think this is where I believe I want to shift and talk a little bit about the broader worldview that's underpinning this, which is post modernism and, and, and how it really is intolerant. It's, it doesn't have a foundation for freedom, whether it's religious liberty, or any kind of freedom, or respect for people's rights. It doesn't it's very much at the end of the day, it's about power and accruing enough power politically or otherwise to rammed down your understanding of truth on everyone else. And so that we I want to talk a little bit about that. But before I do just any thoughts on just the basic law, I was listening to one of the senators from Texas talk about it even this morning, and he said, there's still there's still a final vote that has to happen. They're trying to push it back after Thanksgiving. And they're trying to add one more amendment that would explicitly protect dissenters from redefined marriage. You know, protect them from losing nonprofit status. It doesn't look like that's going to be successful, although if just three of the senators the 12 Republican senators voted for that amendment. It could it could be successful. So there's still some room all that to say to to call some senators and to make your voice heard if you're in the United States on this. But guys, any thoughts on the law itself? The bill, I should say, keep calling it a law. It's not a law yet, but it looks like it's headed that way. On the bill.

Dwight:

Are you going back? Oh, go ahead.

Luke:

No, you can go for it.

Dwight:

I'm just I'm going back to Scott's. We've talked before about the how marriage has been redefined even, you know in culture. Yes. And we saw that graphic recently the 71% of Americans support gay marriage or affirm it. Yes. And that's that's a huge proportion of our culture. Yeah. Large, mid vast majority of our society. Yeah. And you went back to the definition of marriage, traditionally, and how it's even changed in, in Webster's.

Scott:

Yes, yes. That was like, Yeah, let's talk about those definitions in the power of words. But just on that 70%. Recent polling has shown that 70% is Dwight, as you were saying 70% of Americans support same sex marriage, you're on board with that I think we should all support that. The thing that surprises me about that is just how fast that change has happened. Like, in other words, if you went back 20 years, it would probably be 30%. So we've, we've gone through a massive change on this issue in a very short period of time. That itself is really fascinating to look at, like, how did that happen? I mean, we're the disciple nations Alliance. And I think a lot about how do you change culture? And how do you embed culture into law and into definitions? Well, this has happened, these people, these people, these advocates for this have done that, in a very short period of time. And I don't think we're going to get into all of that in this podcast. But it's a really interesting case study, if you will, of culture change. There's a book actually, that was written, I think, was in the 80s, by some really powerful LGBTQ activists called after the ball. And that's a book if you're interested in this in terms of their tactics, or their strategy for how they were going to make these changes in the culture in terms of laws and definitions. They lay out there. And, and pretty much everything that they proposed in terms of a tactic or strategy to change the culture on this issue. They did with incredible success. So it's, I don't think Christians can model what they're doing, because they have a very different starting point in terms of how you change culture, but it was certainly very effective. What they did,

Luke:

yeah, I, yeah, it's not something we want to model, but it is impressive. It's impressive. And I just think of the way you know, they're always pointing at us, like stop and forcing your beliefs on us. And I just find it so ironic, because that's exactly what's happening to us the opposite. And I think it's just because they're more maybe more bold, you know, unapologetic, these are my beliefs, I'm not going to stop until everyone agrees with them. And that's kind of post modernism, you know, a lot of it boils down to selfishness, you know, my truth, or love yourself, or all these things. And until everyone affirms my selfish way of living, I'm never going to be content. And we'll keep pushing for that. So it's no surprise that we're here and we see this 71%, one of my first reactions when I saw this bill, is just just, we're just moving into the next step really, as far as the acceptance of these post modernism, tendons, tenants. And when you look back 15 years ago, the things that are normal now, we're still highly in question, when you look back 20 years before that, and you go, it really a lot of these go back to the 60s and the sexual revolution. But at that point, gay marriage was out of the question. Essentially, it was starting to be brought into the question, but now it's normalized, you know, double mastectomies that we see nowadays, they're becoming a lot more normal. That's something 15 years ago was out of the question. And now in this bill, you see things talking about polygamy, and of the legalization of that you see the verbiage about IMAPS, which is just minor attracted persons or pedophiles. And, you know, these are things that were like, Oh, that's not going to happen. But when you look back at history, every time that people you know, the social conservatives that come out and be like, you know, this is where we're headed. Look at look at where this is going to lead people now. You're just, you know, that's not gonna happen. That's crazy. You're just some culture lawyer, you know? And every single time they've happened, these predictions, that's right, and I don't think we're gonna stop here. Just it. It just reminds me the Old Testament, you know, everyone did was right in their own eyes, or Romans one. So I don't think it's unrealistic to kind of look at where this bill could lead us and start preparing for that.

Scott:

Yeah, that you're going where I wanted to go, Luke. I wanted to talk about this from the from the vantage point of a worldview and and see it as a manifestation or a fruit, if you will, of what's now the DOM worldview in in the West, and that is post modernism. And just to define that briefly again, post modernism is post modernism as a worldview is the is the belief that there are no publicly authoritative facts or truths that can transcend any group culture, there's only perspectives or interpretations. There's your truth, my truth, there is no longer the truth that's out there, there's no longer the truth about marriage, it's just interpretations and perspectives. Now, the way that that plays itself out, socially, or publicly, I would say is that, you know, not everyone is free to have whatever definitions or interpretations of things that they want. So it turns into a power battle, like who can amass the power politically or otherwise, to define things for everyone else, everything becomes a matter of kind of power politics, if you will. The biblical worldview, of course, is very different. You know, there is a reality that transcends groups and cultures and individuals, it's God's God creates the world he defines it. And that includes the definition of words, God's the one who defines things like love and truth and justice and marriage. I mean, he has the prerogative, as the creator, the creator of these institutions, and these concepts to define them. post modernism denies that it says, No, there is no god that defines words or definitions. It's just, essentially, it's just powerful people who impose their definitions on others. So so what we're seeing now is we're seeing post modernism worked out in law, and in definitions, and of course, those are going to shape curriculum in our public schools, they're going to shape all sorts of things in the institutions. And all of us are going to be living under those laws, curriculum definitions and institutions. And so I wanted to, I wanted to, you know, we've written quite a bit and talked quite a bit about marriage. And for good reason, you know, if you want to see a nation discipled and flourishing, absolute bedrock of that is a biblical understanding of marriage, because it's the most basic institution of any society of any nation. It's, it's created by God in Genesis chapters one and two. So before the fall, it's, it's an institution that God ordained and created before the fall, he's got a purpose in it. It's incredibly powerful and beautiful. And, and I don't think there's any, it shouldn't, you know, just no surprise that Satan, the father of lies, is going to come after this, with kind of the full weight of his fury, you know, this is he wants to destroy nations. And if you want to destroy a nation, there's no quicker way of destroying a nation than destroying some of these most basic these most fundamental social institutions, sex, marriage, family. That's how you destroy. So how does the question then is, how does God define marriage? And I want to just read a definition that comes out of the Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the American language, which was a dictionary that was rooted entirely in the scriptures. So this is a very biblical definition of marriage. Guys, I want to, I'm going to read this to you this is this is what I would call true marriage. This is what marriage actually is. And I'm going to read to you how it's been redefined. And I want you guys to just comment a little bit on the difference between the two. So here's marriage as it's defined in Webster's 1828. Rooted in the scriptures. Marriage is the act of uniting a man and a woman for life. It is a legal union of a man and a woman for life. It is a contract, both civil and religious, by which parties engaged to live together in mutual affection, and fidelity till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing promiscuous, the promiscuous intercourse is of the sexes, for promoting domestic happiness, and for securing the maintenance and the education of children. That's, that's a quite rich, large, big definition of marriage. There's a lot to it, right? Keep that in mind. Hold that now for a second. And let me read to you how marriage has been redefined and is now being codified into this law here that we're talking about. This definition that I'm going to read to you comes right out of my laptop here, which runs Microsoft Word. And if you if you have word on your computer, your laptop, you can hover over any word. And you can look it up, look up the definition of that word. There's tools in there. So if you look up the definition of marriage on your laptop, this is the definition you're going to read, unless they've changed it since it's changing. It says this marriage is a legally recognized relationship established by a civil or religious ceremony between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners period. Sad, what, just what, what stands out to you, Tim? As the difference between those two, what's changed? Or Luke or Dwight, just off the top? Like, what what's changed? What's two quick thoughts

Luke:

for me? One is in the redefinition. There's no space for the poor kids. You know, yeah, children already,

Scott:

they're not even mentioned.

Luke:

So not mentioned. And, and I mean, it's, it's very harmful. As we see this redefinition of marriage on the kids. It's, it's heartbreaking to see the way it tears up, that really messes up their life. So right from the get go, is when they're not raised in a household with one one father and one mother. Yeah. So that's the first thought second thought is, the second one is so open ended that first one. Sure, put together quite elegantly. The second one, I mean, just two persons. So you're saying I can marry my grandma, you know, like, it's, you know, we all draw a line somewhere, but that one leaves a lot of space for you to go any direction you want, you know, and, you know, it does say to persons, so the idea of marrying something that's not a person, which is some people are talking about already. Still, yeah, definitions,

Scott:

dogs. No, it's true. It's true. There's people that want to marry their, their, their pets. And then, of course, to is arbitrary to I mean, in other words, once you start changing definitions once, once you move into a postmodern place, and you say, there isn't a transcendent objective, meaning a God given meaning for marriage, but it's whatever we want it to be, it's whoever can, you know, amass the power to put it into law and curriculum, etc. There's no There's no end to it. So here, it seems arbitrary to say to like, who says two? Why not three? Why not? Five?

Luke:

Yeah. Where are you getting that from? Yeah, go ahead.

Dwight:

Scott. What's the line on civil and religious read that again, from the original, or from the 1918 20?

Scott:

Yeah, it says marriages, it uses the word contract, which I think covenant is probably would be more comfortable with today. But marriage is a contract, both civil and religious. In other words, it's recognized civil rights recognized by the state, right. And religious, right. It's recognized by the church or its,

Tim Williams:

transcends

Dwight:

Exactly. That's the word. I was gonna say simple law becomes transcendent.

Tim Williams:

Yes. Yeah, I talked about that sometimes with with my friends, as you know, as we talk about marriage, you know, and anyone who's been married for more than an hour, you know, I mean, knows that there are moments when it's hard. And, you know, we talk about just the commitment that's involved in marriage, and that it's not the state who makes you married, you know, when you enter into a covenant with your spouse before God, you're married, you know, not by the state of North Carolina or the state of Arizona, or the United States government. You're married before God, and you have you need to honor the covenant. Yeah. The spiritual covenant that's been created and has an effect on you. And if you attempt in some way to be unfaithful to that, it will bring about damage to yourself. Not to mention other people.

Scott:

Yeah, Tim, I think the transcendent thing that is so important, and so kind of little understood or grappled with even by Christians. I'm thinking of the passage that where Jesus is confronted by Pharisees, I think it's in Matthew on the question of divorce. And, and he essentially goes back and he says, marriage as God intended it to be, was in it goes all the way back to Genesis one and two, he talks about kind of marriage as God originally intended it and he uses Jesus uses the phrase, what God what God has joined together so there's this kind of, it's not even just a covenant before God. It's God Himself entering into it joining these people together there's something really deeply connected to God I mean, marriage marriages and what what all does that mean? It's we don't have the Time to go into the depth of that. It means a lot.

Dwight:

And what's interesting is, is the word marriage includes that transcendent context. Yes. And that's why civil unions wasn't sufficient. No, it has to be marriage. Because yes,

Scott:

but the postmodern one is, is, is completely secular. There's no mention of God in it. But the word

Dwight:

itself, marriage includes that idea of transcendent. And so that's why you have to that's why the captain,

Scott:

right, yeah, yeah, I honestly, this is this is a question why, why did they want it? Why couldn't they come up with another word to describe male male, quote unquote, marriage or whatever it is? Or, you know, but they wanted? They wanted to keep the word Yeah,

Dwight:

transcendent idea that it's a religious covenant.

Scott:

Yeah, I think I want to come back to the children piece of it too, because marriage in the Bible is the place that gives rise to families, you know, it's the it's the foundation is the building block of families, and families is where children are to be educated or to be cared for. These are really essential functions for any healthy society, you know, this is going to take care of the most vulnerable, the weakest amongst us, these little children. In God's designed that that happens in a family and the foundation of the family is a marriage between a man and a woman. Children are, they thrive, they flourish in a home, where there's a mother and a father. And there's sociological studies that back this up. I mean, over and over again, we all know this, there's a there's a level of just, you know, it's revealed in creation itself, if you will, and in conscience that children need a mother and a father, there's something that that both of them bring to the equation that can't be reduced to one or the other. And so this is all God's designed, but all of this is being rejected in this new definition, there's no marriage is, is something that's wholly apart from children, or procreation, or future generations, it has nothing to do with that in this new definition, then you can see the damage, of course, that that's going to lead to in society, you know, it's very much about the wishes, the strong feelings of the adults, you know, that that's what's driving it my strong feelings of affection or love, or whatever it is. And that's, that's post modernism as well, post modernism isn't driven by truth, capital T, it's driven by feelings.

Luke:

So yeah, and that's the idea. But then the consequences when they play out, it's so sad to see, but those usually affect the kids more than anyone else in the equation. And, you know, this, this, this feeling at some point that the parents had, you know, at the end, the one that suffers the most from that are the are the kids,

Scott:

I think they are the going to any change like this, they're the they're primarily the victims of this, you know, it's it's the, you know, the people say, well, there's no victims of this, this is this isn't going to hurt anybody. No, there's going to be victims of this, for sure. There are already and they will, you know, it's it's just going to continue. Yeah, I want to talk a little bit about you know, one of the challenges, I guess, that churches are Christians face with this is that when we stand for the biblical definition of marriage, the true definition of marriage, and we try to defend that. We're called haters. We're called bigots. We're called people who are discriminate discriminatory or discriminate discriminating. But at the same time, I want to come back and I want to say any definition, in a sense is going to be discriminatory. I mean, this new definition is discriminatory. We've already talked about it, it discriminates against people that want to be in a in a throuple a three person marriage, right? Because it says marriage is between two people. So it's discriminating and if discrimination is hateful, then it's hateful, then this is this too, is bigoted. In other words, I just want Christians I feel like Christians are always on the defensive because it's like we're being labeled as hateful people who are bigots and discriminatory on these issues of marriage. But that's just false. You know, this, any definition and this, you know, is going to essentially discriminate unless marriage is defined so broadly as it's just becomes absolutely meaningless, which which is the road that you go down essentially, once you start redefining words, they lose all meaning you No.

Luke:

Yeah, it becomes a place where everyone just, I mean, I mentioned earlier, just you can make your own boundaries off of what you feel is right, you know, yes. And, you know, some people still think it's weird to have 100 wives. And so there's a boundary there. And some people think it should be between one man and one woman. So okay, let's put all these definitions on the table. And now let's look at the physical effects of them on the people's lives and on society. And, you know, look at historical examples. And when you do that, every single time, no matter what the topic is, the boundaries that God puts in place, are the ones that actually work. Because He created us. That's right. And you see that time and again, so me you can you can make this argument for God's definition of marriage without even you know, bringing up the Bible, because we live in a world created by God. There's just physical consequences of pushing against those boundaries that he's made us to live in. Yeah, it's

Scott:

exactly right, Luke, this this, this is true. And it's built into the very nature of being of the universe. And this is why this traditional, or this biblical understanding of marriage is practiced by people all over the world, and it has been for millennia, you know,

Luke:

it's in societies that have never heard about God or the Bible. That's correct. That's correct.

Scott:

Yeah. So you have to, yeah, you have to be intentionally postmodern to move in a different direction here on this stuff, but that's what we've done.

Dwight:

Tim, what are you thinking?

Tim Williams:

I think I was thinking in a totally different vein. So, you know, feel free to circle back. But, you know, sometimes I think it's it, believers will ask, Why do you care about the laws and the policies, you know, like, just be spiritual? You know, I mean, of course, we talk a lot about this whole sacred secular divide. I mean, every everything is sacred, everything is spiritual and important to God. But you know, as the popular saying, goes, the law is a teacher. And, you know, so when we legally redefine words, you know, we're instructing children about what is, you know, morally acceptable, exactly, and how they, how they can live in this world, what is good, equally, equally good paths, you can do any of these and you know, the results for you are going to be all just the same. But as believers, we know that that's not the case. You know, we know that truth is knowable, and that truth brings flourishing. And so you know, finding ways to meaningly meaningfully and comprehensively love our neighbor in a way that gives us opportunity to, to proclaim the truth also and demonstrate model The truth is, best thing we can do.

Scott:

I think your point on law is really good. Why should we care about laws? You know, and obviously, your point about the law, being a teacher is really, really important here. The law teaches every one of us essentially, what is good and what is wrong, what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. I mean, that's that's that that's the effect of the law. So laws matter and it matters when you enshrine into a federal law, or even a state law that especially a federal law, it matters if what you enshrine in that is false. You're teaching a lie, you know, essentially to, to the whole society. Christians shouldn't want that to be done, we should want to do what's right for the good of the Society for the good of the culture. If we're, if we're concerned about discipling nations, I think about Martin Luther King Jr. had the famous quote, I'll read it here for you. It comes from his letters and papers from prison, or excuse me, that's the Dietrich Bonhoeffer the letter from the Birmingham Jail. And he talked about the difference between just laws and unjust laws. And he talked about it this way. So there's two types of laws. There are just laws and unjust laws. And I would agree with St. Augustine, that an unjust law is no law at all. How do you determine when a law is just or unjust adjust law is a man made law or code that squares with the moral law or the law of God? You could think about the 10 commandments or just the basic law of God's creation, the creation ordinance, how he designed things, so any kind of just manmade Law has to be in alignment with that law for it to be just so I agree wholly with that. And I would say that what you know is on the verge of passing here is an unjust law. And therefore, it is no law at all. And it Christians I think are duty bound, just like Martin Luther King was duty bound in his day, to stand against unjust laws. And in that time, the ones that he was standing against were the Jim Crow laws. We are also in this time, in this case, duty bound to stand against unjust laws, to refuse to recognize them as just laws are. Where real laws if you will, yeah,

Luke:

yeah. And this is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, you must remember that some things that are legal, legally rights are not morally right. And lives cannot make moral what's God's declared immoral? Yes, very similar. Yeah, really, really similar idea there. However, some people follow that up with, you know, well, Christians, why do you care then about the law, because if you think it's morally wrong, then just don't participate in it, just do your own thing, stay in church. And I think, Tim, what you were saying is really important is to recognize that, you know, the four P's of culture are always talking about paradigm principle, policy practice, after policy comes practice. And when you look at like, the Roe vs. Wade decision, 1973 Before that, abortion was pretty rare, you know, not very accepted. And then if you look at charts of exception, acceptance in the culture over over the, over the issue of abortion, it spiked in 1973 74. So laws do they do matter, and Christians should not just, you know, stay inside the church's walls and do your own thing, because?

Scott:

Well, first of all, you know, we're not going to be allowed to stay inside the walls, quote, unquote, of our churches and do our own thing. I mean, this is where again, the Baron l said summons in the I don't live in church. We don't live in church. That's true. We're in some Christian commune in Idaho, you know, it's, it's this idea that we can somehow not be affected by this. There's no way this is going to change everything. And it's a great example of, you know, Darrow often says, if the churches and discipling the nation, the nation is going to disciple, the church, this idea is going to come into the church, it is coming into the church, it's changing the thinking of our churches, and even if our Bible schools and our seminaries and particularly our young people are going along with this, they are being discipled by the nation in this area, not the other way around.

Dwight:

I think this is a bit of a tangent to but my mind is thinking as you guys are talking, and I'm thinking of our conversation last week with Darrell and Jeremiah, and Mona, you know about beauty and truth. And just we talked about the connection between truth and goodness and beauty, and that the three are not inseparable. And I'm thinking, you know, what do I tell my children in terms of why do we push back against this? My children are adults, so they're not asking me but if they were young, you know, why are you pushing back dad, and you'd have to go back to Genesis 3131 were God created his universe. We talked about systems biology and how intricate and complex that is, that was another conversation we had. And he said, this is very, very good. Meaning this is the most beautiful thing anyone could ever imagine. This is so perfect. So well done so perfectly designed, that it's going to lead to incredible flourishing for everybody who lives in this environment. And of course, Satan then came in said, timeout, we're going to change this really quick. And sin entered the world and deception and false thinking. And yet, we have so what's my arguments? Like? Do we want to pursue the best the beautiful, the very good, you know, that's what we're because the opposite isn't just slightly good, isn't slightly it's, it's destructive, its destructive, its destructive. And we talked about the impact on children. I mean,

Scott:

literally, it's just the best for children. And we know this even non Christians know this. It's it's just true that children do best in a situation where they're raised by their biological parents, their own biological mother and their own biological father in an intact home. Now, in a fallen world, that doesn't happen there's, you know, there's children who've been abandoned there's marriages that end up in divorces and we've got all sorts of problems and you can by God's grace people can struggle and you know, they can overcome and you know, it's we don't have a firm that we don't want to shrine those into law. Exactly. No, I was Yeah.

Dwight:

Our pastor was talking about Romania's orphanages under whatever his name is that guy Jessica, you know, you had 80 Babies laying in a in a room with two caregivers who kept them fed and watered and clothe all day. And today, there are adults that are just really struggling. And we know why it's attachment bonding disorder. Yes, I had a widespread it was it.

Scott:

What should be enshrined in law is what's best what's what's bad, what's best, what's good, what's beautiful, what's true. And, and we need to, we need to work hard for the exceptions because of the fallen world. But don't enshrine that don't uphold that as the best. That's what you're doing with laws like this. Exactly.

Luke:

Yeah. And I think it's, I mean, when you're talking about young people, so I'm gonna go to white, and a lot of times, a young Christian, they quickly get labeled, oh, you're a Christian, you hate gay people. It's one of the first things people say. And then we just fall into that role. So immediately, you're on the you're on the defense? And I would say no, not at all. First and foremost, we're called to love everyone in the world. They're all image bearers of God, that He loves immensely more than we could ever understand. First and foremost, yes. After that, what I want as a Christian is I want them to live a life of flourishing, and a life that is beautiful, a beautiful life. So instead of arguing for, you know, those truth based arguments that sometimes can seem rigid and strict, even though they're true. I say, let's, let's promote beauty. What's the beautiful thing here? What's the beauty that comes out of marriage. And there's that famous quote, beauty is a gateway to goodness and truth. We understand beauty all of us do, innately because we're men the image of God. And we see beautiful, beautiful things, and we all agree on them. So we see that a family that loves each other, and has family has kids, and they're growing up in a loving environment. And there's that bond in that we all see that as a beautiful thing. We all know it. Let's promote that. And that's what I want for you. And God calls me to love you, I want you to live in a place of flourishing. And what that doesn't look like is pushing against the boundaries that God's put for you to live in. So you, I think, just falling into this defensive place of oh, I'm not a hater. I'm not a hater. It's like, No, I just want what's best for you. Yeah, you know, and let's examine together what that is.

Tim Williams:

I mean, so many from the church easily, you know, I don't want to be a hater. And so the the only other option they know is to be an affirmer and a celebrator. And they just don't know how to, you know, how to how to live meaningfully. And in a place that recognizes truth, you know, personally holds to truthful convictions, and, you know, maintains a relationship, committed to speak love. I've had in my own life, you know, just a couple of relationships in particular, where people have been really surprised, you know, that I can truly care and have meaningful, you know, relationship, I care about somebody's house, I care about what they're thinking about, I care about what they like, what they don't like. And yet my my personal conviction is that, you know, you know that that same sex behavior, same sex marriage is sinful, it's not, it's not God's design. It's not what he has for them, maybe have something different for them? I think. I, you know, I would love to hear your thoughts. If you guys have any, you know, I mean, how, how do we help the church as the church is increasingly accepting this? How can we help the church to do better? You know, my, my thought on this is that a big issue with this is the issue of, of post modernism that's coming into the church. And, you know, this idea, well, we can't can't know truth, you know, everybody has their own experience. And people find that really compelling. And so I don't know if you want to give any feedback to that. Yeah, let's,

Scott:

let's go there. Tim, thanks for that transition. And let's just talk about the church. And that's all of us, in our churches, the churches that were a part of, and the church and the nation and the nations. How do we respond? What do we do? How do we go forward, you know, given the lay of the land as it is here with with this particular issue? I do think yet understanding that this is a outworking of post modernism, a denial of objective truth that didn't I love God is really important. Because we don't want it would that mean that we can't have a Christian faith at all? Once we deny objective truth, once we deny God, then it's nonsensical. You've lost your faith or you know, basically. So that we just have to understand that we have a very different worldview, a worldview where God exists, He created, and he defines. And and we have to just, we have to be completely good with that. Because it's good. As we've said, it's good for for everybody, you know, to live in that design. A couple of things, a couple of quotes. One is from rod Dreher that has always stuck with me. He says the church, we cannot be the church. If we lose our vocabulary, and the conceptual framework that makes us Christian, this isn't, you know, this, this seems maybe abstract, who cares if things get redefined? But Dreier is saying that if we allow something as fundamental as marriage to be redefined, and that definition comes into the church, if we ourselves go along with that, definitely that redefinition that counterfeit definition. Then he says, We cannot be the church and others we just cease to exist with. And I agree with that. It's that serious, it's that important. I mean, to continue, as the church to be the bride of Christ to be salt and light, we just can't lose these definitions. We have to protect them and defend them. And not just in the church, but in the society. You know, that's, that's, that's what he's saying here, I believe in. In a similar way, Chuck Colson, he said, you know, Christianity is a worldview, we have to live it. So we ourselves have to live by these definitions. In our own marriages, we have to express it. And we that means we have to verbalize it. And we have to contend for it, we have to fight for it, we actually have to go out there and fight in the political space and in every other space for it. Because he says, otherwise, it's not going to be there. If we just roll over and go along with post modernism, then we lose Christianity, we lose the biblical worldview, and it can be lost. I mean, we know at the end, Jesus wins. But in our generation in this particular place, it can be lost. So I, I'll just say one last thing, in terms of just the urgency that I feel for Christians to stand for the truth. On this, again, one quote that I have come back to many times is one from Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who lived at a time in the Soviet Union, when lies were pervasive, and there was pressure, lots of social pressure to conform to the lies. His credo was this, let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph, but not through me, you know, this, just this commitment to personal resistance. It it may come this redefinition of marriage, it may even be enshrined in law, but it's going to have to kind of, you know, not through me, I'm not going to I am not going to go along with that. I'm going to stand for what is true no matter what. And that that kind of strong sense of no matter what I'm going to stand for the truth, I think is really important for the church. Right now, let let you know, God knows what's going to happen. He knows the future. But yeah, let's stand strong, regardless, is kind of what I hear him saying. So yeah,

Luke:

that strong, confrontational kind of stance, though some people especially people that aren't comfortable that kind of are averse to Oh, I do that you know that. Let's leave that to the warrior types or whatever. But God calls us to love our neighbor. What does that look like? What is love and sometimes that'll look like affirming and encouraging those who are next to us and walking through life with us and supporting them and being there for them but sometimes love looks like seeking the highest good for them even if they don't want it and just knowing if you you know when a little kid's going to stick their hand in the fire I know you want to do that but I'm gonna pull you away. I'm gonna pull you away quickly and harshly because I do not want you to go in that fire. Same thing with any sin if I see you walk as

Scott:

fire will burn you you know fire will most loving whether you believe it or not, you know exactly I just want to underscore that Luke, we in our postmodern times the culture wants us to separate truth which doesn't really matter. From love, you know, and love is all about affirming other people's truths acceptance in biblically there is no separation between these two things. If truth and love they are. They go together deeply. They're two sides of the same coin. So to love someone to sincerely love them to sincerely They seek their highest good is to lead them towards the truth. So, do what you were gonna say something earlier. Yeah,

Dwight:

I was thinking of the Solzhenitsyn quote and I'm taking part of the challenge isn't just standing him saying not through me but not in me. Yes. Because I feel like you know, sometimes you just go, Okay, why not? Whatever and just, you know, will I, you know, I look forward to the future, you know, will I stand for truth inside my heart? Will I will I stay true? Will I stay true? Well, I continue to believe No, God knows what's best. He really does know what's best and I can trust in the living God. Yes. So I will stand on that. I mean, that's the first moral ground I have to fight.

Scott:

Yep, your own heart and my own decision. And that's where it begins. I can say what I want to you know, it's exactly right, Dwight. Yeah, exactly. And

Dwight:

the other is, is this whole thing of love? I mean, who among us doesn't struggle to love I mean, not. Not the sappy, affectionate thing. But, but the I want what? I really, I'm going to sacrifice for you. I want what's best for you. I mean, I saw somebody on the street yesterday. And it haunts me, I'm thinking, why didn't we stop? Why didn't we stop? You know, because we drove by him and I, you know, it's like, I'm just I don't love, you know, I don't love because I wouldn't engage. I wouldn't. I wouldn't sacrifice I wouldn't engage with that person and just really say, how, what's going on with you? How are we? How are you doing? What can I do for you? Those?

Scott:

That's, it's hard. Yeah, it is. It is hard. But but that's what we're called to. That's right. Oh, yeah.

Tim Williams:

That brings, you know, brings us full circle back to the 1828 biblical true definition of marriage. With this idea of covenant, you know, covenant is sacrificial love, marriage is sacrificial love, and, and that elevates the maturity of anyone in a relationship like that, to be able to look past themselves to look to the needs in the future, and, you know, the comprehensive care of another individual, and, and provides that care throughout a lifetime of ups and downs. All of that's absent in that new definition.

Scott:

Yeah, there isn't, there isn't the lifelong commitment or covenants, right. And, and that, you know, is rooted in the relationship between Christ and the church. I mean, Paul makes this explicit in in, in the Gospel of Ephesians, that marriage is a picture of the kind of relationship that Jesus has with his church. And that's that relationship is one where he says, Nothing will separate you from my love, you know, neither height, nor depth, etc. So it's this, it's this complete, solid, lifelong commitment, this covenant. And so marriages are a picture of that. And they might be a bad picture, a really false picture that marriage is every marriage, I would say, is a picture of that, either. It's a good clear picture of that, or it's a really bad false picture of that. But that's the way God designed marriages. Yeah, back to what we can do, how can the church so we talked about being like Dwight, just come back to you just really start in your own heart and mind, you know, make your own strong convictions on this, no matter what happens? I'm not going to change. This is true. And I'm going to stand for the truth no matter what, because things are gonna get rough. They are rough, they're gonna get rougher. But then don't lose hope, either. I think, you know, I think of Roe v. Wade. And we just, just a few months ago, we had this amazing experience of seeing a Supreme Court ruling overturned that I didn't think would be overturned in my lifetime. But it was, and that wasn't an accident that happened because of many years of significant strategic, coordinated effort to do what to change the way people understood what was happening inside of a mother's womb, that that was a human being that's a life and that life deserves protecting. And if you go back to the 60s and the 70s, when Roe was first decided the consensus in the culture at that time was this really is should be a woman's choice. We don't know what that is inside the womb. Let the woman choose. abortions, fine. That was the consensus in the culture and even in the church. In other words, it wasn't that different than we're looking at this issue of same sex marriage today. It seems like we're just this tiny little minority of people that hold our views. That's the way it was back in the 60s in the 70s, on abortion, then things began to change. So I just think all that to say, I think that we should, the church should set itself out to on to mobilize a movement that's pro marriage, a pro marriage movement. And it's gonna work to redefine law all the way down to you know, basic understandings and practices at the most basic level, that true marriage is between one man and one woman for life. We're gonna have to play the long game, we're gonna lose lots of battles. But you know, I think that if my point is that if row row shows us that it's possible with God's help, all things are possible. So let's, let's not give up, let's not throw up our hands and say, Oh, it can never change. Now it can change, it can change. But if we throw up our hands, it won't, you know, for sure. So.

Luke:

Yeah, and I mean, thinking about row at that point, and 70s, it was a consensus, you know, what is this person who, inside of a mother, or what, you know, what is this thing, but over time, as we looked at it, and we studied it, time and again, science pointed back to the fact that God was right, yes, that's a human right from the get go. And now we have 90% of biologists agree on that. From the point of conception, that's a human. And once those studies started coming out, and we started seeing those played out, the general opinion started changing pretty quickly. This is like 2003. Until now, I think the same thing is going to happen here with LGBTQ is we haven't really had long enough to see what happens in the long game, you know, just to these people physically, there's already plenty of studies that have come out on you know, the effects of this on a person, they're sad studies, I would encourage anyone to look with these up peer reviewed articles on this. And you see that people that live in a homosexual lifestyle, their chance of depression, and substance abuse goes up 50%, and their chance of suicidal ideation goes up to 100%. It's It's really sad to see, you know, these consequences. And then, of course, a lot of these articles will say, Oh, that's because they're not being accepted. They're not loved and affirmed. Right. But then you look at countries that are very loving and affirming, Sweden, you know, the Scandinavia, Scandinavian countries. And the stats are the same up there. And I think over time, we're gonna continue to really see this just

Scott:

but it's worth underscoring. Look, it's, it's not because those stats are the same, not because people aren't being loved and affirmed in that. It because they're, they're running counter to God's design. Just Just Just last week, I read this paper, I think you guys shared it with you, Dwight, this guy said, you know, jumping out of an airplane feels like flying until you hit the ground. There's just we live in a real world. It's designed in a particular way, and we can fool ourselves for a while to think we're flying. But pretty soon we're gonna hit the ground. And, you know, so? Yeah. Well, guys, I Oh, and we go ahead, Tim. Yep.

Tim Williams:

Yeah, you know, when we get on these, we talk at a lot of levels. We talk at the level of, you know, policy, we talk at the level of the church. And then we talk also at, at the level of how do I interact with people who aren't believers. And I think it's important as we interact with people who aren't believers, in a loving way to remember that part of our worldview story is that it is a universal experience that we are all sinners not they're sinners. We're good. All sinners, that that's something that we have in common. So when we talk about sin, it's not something that's out there on them that they have an issue, right, but that it's it's something that's internal and universal, all of us, we all experience temptation. That's right, and we all need redemption. And through that redemption, we get to that goodness, and that beauty and God cares about our redemption. And he's pursuing it in our lifetimes and throughout eternity, such

Scott:

as such an important point, Sam, exactly. And you know, right now, homosexuality is what you would call this is various in the church, it's a very socially acceptable sin. You know, it's but it's interesting to say who who does who decides which sins are socially acceptable in which which aren't racism, for example, is not today. I mean, nobody's out there advocating for racism. That's very socially unacceptable in the broader culture. Homosexuality is NOT that's acceptable. But we have to come back and say no, God It's to define right and wrong, good and bad, sinful and and sinful. And we all struggle with sin we all do. So the answer to sin isn't to affirm it in any of our lives, right? It's to modify it is to put it to death. And to live in a way that honors God in his strength. I think of Second Timothy 225 and 26. Tim, on our response to non believers, Paul says opponents must be gently instructed in the hope that God will grant them repentance, leading them to a knowledge of the truth. So that they may come to their senses and escape the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do His will. This is biblical thinking there's an enemy he's using lies, to take people captive and destroy them. But there's a truth. And we have to gently instruct people and ourselves in the knowledge of that truth, and pray for the power of God to grant them a repentance. That's just to recognize that into turn from that in love. That's love. This is love right here. Yeah. So yeah, it's

Luke:

hard, though data. How do we do that? You know, especially with the nonbeliever, how do we, how do we love them, and point them towards the truth? And not just stay silent, which is just the easy thing to do?

Scott:

Yeah, I don't think it's different. This is where Tim's point is really good about sin. The sin of homosexuality is no different than any other sin in this respect, you know, you know, and what the Bible says about sin is that we're to separate the sin from the center, so to speak, right? And this is true, we love people, we love sinners, Jesus came and died for sinners. He died for people that were his enemies, right? He loves them. He loves us, all of us. And so we're to do the same. We're to love people who are sinners, and who even are our enemies. That's, that's what Jesus did. That's what we're to do. But that wasn't, you know, Jesus Himself said, Go and sin no more, right. So he said, you know, he called sin sin, and he called people to no longer walk in that sin no matter what it is. And this is just another one that we have to remind, you know, we are we have to remind, we have to say this is a sin, don't walk in it, don't walk in it any longer. And that's not easy. That's hard, just like it is for any, we all have besetting sins that we struggle with. It'd be nice, you know, if you just snap your finger on it all, you don't, you know, the power of that sin and the temptation of it since you went away. Just often it's just a process that requires perseverance and prayer and help and support from the Christian community. So it is difficult

Luke:

though, when sins become people's identity. Like, you know, I think we all know that, you know, being an alcoholic isn't good. Most people don't accept that, or racist. But they don't go around saying like, that's their pronoun. You know, like, I am an alcoholic, you know, I'm trying not to be is what they say, you know?

Scott:

No, it's true. It's true. What you you're right there, Luke, we see this as a behavior. Whereas our opponents on this issue, see it as an identity. It's, it's, it's not something I do, it's who I am. And so that that does make it very challenging. You're right, because it's, they won't allow you to separate the sin and the sinner. They don't they don't agree with that idea. If you're condemning their homosexual behavior, condemning them, as a person,

Luke:

is there a place for living let live to be a part of all this? You know, as long as you're not pushing your beliefs on me, I'm not gonna say anything? Well, I think

Scott:

the way I would maybe reframe your question is, is there a place for tolerance in a pluralistic society? And yeah, that's a better way of saying, Yeah, I would say absolutely. And in fact, not only would I say, Absolutely, I would say, Only Christianity provides a platform for a tolerant pluralistic society. It because we believe in freedom, we believe that it people have the God given right to make choices. And we want to encourage them to make choices that are true and that are good, and that lead to human flourishing, that aligned with truth that doesn't exist, but we don't force them right. We don't force or compel. Now, notice this postmodern, you know, kind of world doesn't actually have tolerance there there is. There's a strong element of force and coercion involved in it. So it's it. That's a long discussion to have very important one. Why is it that Christianity allows for free, tolerant, pluralistic societies where we can live together Now that said, there needs to be one definition for marriage. This is where if I, you know, in terms of the broader society, I think the proper policy would have been something along the lines of civil unions don't redefine marriage, though call it something different. But we're not going to put people in jail or punish them necessarily. We're going to maybe allow that. But we're not going to allow them our opponents on this to redefine marriage, because marriage has a God given meaning and purpose. I know, some Christians would disagree with me on that. But I do think there's place for, you know, in the broader society for tolerance on this issue. And for pluralism, you know,

Luke:

yeah, yeah. But where I wanted to go with that is there's absolutely a place for that, you know, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, but it's like the, the, quote, socialism, the lie is going to come in, to an extent we have to live in a world, but that's always going to be true, or it is going to always be true, but it's not going to come through me. So when the intolerance reaches you, that's where your tolerance in a way needs to stop. Now they're pushing it on me. And that's the point where you say something. Yeah. So I'm just trying to get practical here. You know, when we're out in their normal, you know, maybe at a job or something, we don't have to go out calling people out. But if it gets enforced on us, like you see with the baker in Colorado, that's the point where you say something? For

Scott:

sure. For sure. Yeah. Guys, final thoughts as we wrap up any final words? Tim Dwight?

Tim Williams:

Sure. You know, Luke it as as you guys are talking right now, I'm just thinking is, you know, there's, there's, again, different individual levels of where I would say responses appreciated, or merited or whatnot. You know, you have adults who've made clear decisions about their lifestyles, who probably have scoped out and imagine what you what you think already, you know, and you can invite that conversation, you know, without diving directly into it, you can say, hey, you know, my, my friendship towards you, my care for you is not dependent on you having the same religious beliefs as I do. But if you ever want to talk through what those what those beliefs are, you know, then then I'm available for that, you know, I'd be happy to have that conversation with you. And, you know, we can share thoughts and ideas. I think another situation that I would say, think about is young people, young people are bombarded by various worldview ideas. And we know that, that, you know, the Christian worldview has the most merit for being able to guide them into a life of flourishing and satisfaction and positive experience and lack of regret and consequences. So, man, pour out your, your, your experience, your wisdom, whatever you can on on young people, you know, help them to guide the uncharted waters of their future, where they may have developed all these ideas and feelings and things, but they're not adults grounded in some kind of long term, you know, civil relationship. It's an opportunity for them to hear from somebody who truly cares. And

Luke:

yeah, absolutely. And it's good to have an urgency there. I mean, we see that from people with other opinions, going into schools and educating these young people. And if we're not providing a counter narrative, that's when their worldview is being shaped. So you know, these these little kids from preschool on up are hearing some ideas that are definitely not biblical Definitions of Words of marriage and sexuality. And if we're not, if we're not in there speaking those to them, where are they going to get that? So yeah, I totally agree, Tim, what's really important to keep in mind,

Dwight:

God bless the parents. At that point. I've got some friends that are really working hard to keep tech to engage in thinking and the worldview of their daughters, and in this day and age, wow, what a what a challenge.

Scott:

Well, guys, it's been a great discussion. This is such an important issue. And I just want to encourage all of our listeners to hold fast hold fast to the truth. And, you know, go get yourself straight with that in your own thinking. First, draw your own lines, make your own convictions and then be a voice for the truth contend for it in a loving way. We have to do that cup We'll have resources for people that want to go deeper on this or get some really great biblical grounding on this subject of marriage, sexuality family, we ourselves here the DNA put out a book here several years ago called As goes the family so goes the nation. And it looks at God's designed biblical design for marriage and family and its importance in fostering flourishing thriving societies. So I recommend that and then as far as if you have people in your life or in your in a situation where you've got relationships with same sex sex attracted people, I highly recommend the resources of Rosaria Rosaria Butterfield she was a professor who was homeless lesbian, became a Christian. And kind of so went through the process by God's grace interfaith and has written extensively on how Christians should respond to people in their lives who are same sex attracted or how we should think about these issues. Now, her website is rasa butterfield.com. She's written books about her experience. One of the titles is the secret thoughts of an unlikely convert an English professors journey into Christian faith. But then a lot of her writing since then is just how do we live faithfully with God's design of marriage and family in when when we have you know, people in our lives and relationships with people that are same sex attracted, so we're really recommend her excellent resources guys. Thanks for excellent thoughts today. And thank you all for listening to another episode of ideas have consequences.

Luke:

Thank you for joining us. This podcast is brought to you by the disciple nations Alliance. To learn more about the DNA you can find us on Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube, or on our website, which is disciple nations.org. As always, if you'd like to take a deeper dive into today's topic, feel free to visit this episode's landing page, which is linked down in the description below. On that page, you can find resources and tools that will help you continue to learn about today's discussion. Thanks again for listening