Should a Christian attend a gay wedding ?

[Paidiske]

Yes! Would you want to go through chapter 14 verse by verse with me and I can show you how it picks apart your little analogy that being same sex married is in scriptures because it is not. Give me your best verse to support same sex marriages from chapter 14.

Again, I was not making a direct argument about same-sex marriage. I was suggesting that the argument about attending a same-sex wedding or not, was analogous to the argument about eating meat offered to idols or not.

 

[DragonFox91]

I would have asked my son (a non-Christian) to my baptism if he had been in the same state as me, but he was out of the state so I showed him the video of the event instead.

I think depending on who it is, it could be very important to have non-believers there, or at least get to see it. It's a major event.

A baptism is our public declaration for Christ - non-believers should be there. It's not very public if not.

Depends how old the son is.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Depends how old the son is.

In his early 30's when I was saved and baptized.

 

[ralliann]

Why would you be close friends w/ someone gay? My experience non-believers or those w/ different faiths try to lead you to their view every time & want you to endorse it. I'm guessing you already do.

What if it is your child, or your grandchild? These are difficult things for sure. My sister and I were discussing this just yesterday. We both have grandchildren. She said she would have no problem having her grandkid and partner over for dinner etc. Then I asked, what if they insisted on their partner to be acknowledged as their "spouse". That became another story.
These are painful things for all involved and people choose one way or another. "partner" or spouse? Nope, for me it is partner. But easier said than done.

 

[ralliann]

I have a couple of people I consider close friends who are gay. I don't discount their friendship because of their sexuality; it's simply a non-issue.

Not my experience. Mutual respect is pretty foundational to genuine friendship, though.

"mutual" indeed. Acceptance seems to be only one way these days though.

 

[DragonFox91]

What if it is your child, or your grandchild? These are difficult things for sure. My sister and I were discussing this just yesterday. We both have grandchildren. She said she would have no problem having her grandkid and partner over for dinner etc. Then I asked, what if they insisted on their partner to be acknowledged as their "spouse". That became another story.
These are painful things for all involved and people choose one way or another. "partner" or spouse? Nope, for me it is partner. But easier said than done.

I would support them financially but I would draw the line at attending the wedding.

Some parents aren’t close to their adult children, it happens even when this isn’t the issue. I would at least continue to support them financially. My guess is if they were gay we would disagree on A LOT more than this so other family bonding things wouldn't be an issue. It's sad, but this is what culture accepting homosexuality does.

 

[Divide]

Again, I was not making a direct argument about same-sex marriage. I was suggesting that the argument about attending a same-sex wedding or not, was analogous to the argument about eating meat offered to idols or not.

Smoke and mirrors. and it is a horrible analogy because the two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Well do you want to try again then? Because you had said that your camp has posted plenty of scriptures on the subject and you said you have more of them. Please tell me these scriptures.

Or perhaps admit you gave a bad analogy and....this one is better? Then give it. A small thing.

 

[Paidiske]

Smoke and mirrors. and it is a horrible analogy because the two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

Really? I see it this way:

Marrying a person of the same sex is not something a Christian may do.
Attending a gay wedding is a debatable matter, and we're not to judge those who differ in good conscience.

Sacrificing to idols is not something a Christian may do.
Eating the meat so sacrificed is a debatable matter, and we're not to judge those who differ in good conscience.

In both cases, we're arguing about the acceptability of an action connected with, but which is not directly committing, a sin. Just as partaking of the sacrifice could be seen as endorsing the idolatry, but is not necessarily such an endorsement, attending a wedding could be seen as endorsing the marriage, but is not necessarily such an endorsement.

The analogy actually looks pretty strong to me.

 

[ralliann]

I would support them financially but I would draw the line at attending the wedding.

Some parents aren’t close to their adult children, it happens even when this isn’t the issue. I would at least continue to support them financially. My guess is if they were gay we would disagree on A LOT more than this so other family bonding things wouldn't be an issue. It's sad, but this is what culture accepting homosexuality does.

Both our grandchildren, are very young at this point. But, we were discussing what if's. For me and possibly her, such a decision would also affect our children (would I lose them too?). I feel nothing but compassion for parents facing this. But yes, this is what acceptance of homosexuality does. It makes it even more so when some Churches accept it as good.

 

[Hazelelponi]

"mutual" indeed. Acceptance seems to be only one way these days though.

While the left is pushing hard, most of us have a line in the sand we can't cross.

For me that's a church agreeing to marry homosexuals. I won't even attend a church who would.

However, civil unions aren't religious marriages, and not every "marriage" even between two Christians is a covenanted relationship that includes God. Covenant marriages are exceedingly rare, yet that's what Christian marriages are supposed to be.

The state gives benefits to married couples (tax and otherwise) and that's what got us into this mess to begin with.

So now that so called Christians weren't willing to give up state benefits for marriage and so marriage has to include everyone and their dog... Sigh.

Now we have to deal with what our line in the sand is when it comes to wedding attendance.

My line remains the same. Civil unions are fine for those I'm close to - but myself being Christian currently, coming from an Islamic background, I don't have much opportunity to get invited to many gay weddings.

Who really does who is actually Christian?

Like I said before, the only real possibilities are people your related to or work associates. And when it comes to family, people will choose to love the best they can.

Jesus ate with sinners, no reason we can't too..

 

[DragonFox91]

Really? I see it this way:

Marrying a person of the same sex is not something a Christian may do.
Attending a gay wedding is a debatable matter, and we're not to judge those who differ in good conscience.

Sacrificing to idols is not something a Christian may do.
Eating the meat so sacrificed is a debatable matter, and we're not to judge those who differ in good conscience.

In both cases, we're arguing about the acceptability of an action connected with, but which is not directly committing, a sin. Just as partaking of the sacrifice could be seen as endorsing the idolatry, but is not necessarily such an endorsement, attending a wedding could be seen as endorsing the marriage, but is not necessarily such an endorsement.

The analogy actually looks pretty strong to me.

Most (all?) of the meat prepared was already sacrificed to idols so they didn't have much of a choice.

All these big corporations are all in with this agenda. You have to buy things to sustain yourself. So shopping at a big corporation that supports an agenda I disagree with is acceptable & not an endorsement of that they promote.

 

[Paidiske]

Most (all?) of the meat prepared was already sacrificed to idols so they didn't have much of a choice.

Some Christians of the time clearly thought not only that they had a choice, but the only acceptable choice was not to partake. Paul says otherwise.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And some will call evil good, and good evil. Scripture condemns this behavior; the world accepts it. So what that Christians would not attend a wedding based on that?

Whether one attends such a wedding is a matter of circumstance and conscience as far as I'm concerned.

As far as calling evil good and good evil, I think that is precisely the problem. The vitriol and hate which many Christians spit toward people is, as far as I'm concerned, a far grosser sin than that which they are condemning. When we are called to bear witness to the love of God which is in Christ for sinners, and instead we dehumanize our neighbor and punch down we are not bearing witness to the Gospel, nor are even preaching the Law--we are simply ourselves acting as transgressors of the Law.

When Jesus speaks to the woman caught in adultery, how does He treat her compared to how He speaks and treats the hypocrites who weaponized religion?

It isn't the prostitutes and "sinners" that Jesus' ire was targeted against, but the religious elite who spoke frequently of God's Law but were self-righteous hypocrites.

If you cannot in good conscience attend a same-sex wedding, then don't. But to suggest that a Christian sins by attending one is to add to God's commandments something He has not said; and when it comes from a place of condemnation and a misguided sense of righteousness then it is not an act of Christian piety but rather an act of religious hypocrisy. And it is in that right there that we find "calling evil good and good evil", because as depraved sinners we will find any way we can to justify our own rotten and carnal behavior. For as the Lord told us, our deeds are evil and we despise the light and prefer the darkness, and so we have already fallen under judgment and condemnation--which is why we can do naught else but trust in the mercy of God which is in Christ for us sinners.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ralliann]

While the left is pushing hard, most of us have a line in the sand we can't cross.

For me that's a church agreeing to marry homosexuals. I won't even attend a church who would.

This is an issue for me as well. I have not attended Church in a very long time. I desire a liturgical Church, but those seem to be accepting of it. So I am at a loss what to do.

However, civil unions aren't religious marriages, and not every "marriage" even between two Christians is a covenanted relationship that includes God. Covenant marriages are exceedingly rare, yet that's what Christian marriages are supposed to be.

I disagree here. Marriage IMO is about offspring, and setting them apart. You do not need clergy. God acknowledges it.

The state gives benefits to married couples (tax and otherwise) and that's what got us into this mess to begin with.

So now that so called Christians weren't willing to give up state benefits for marriage and so marriage has to include everyone and their dog... Sigh.

Now we have to deal with what our line in the sand is when it comes to wedding attendance.

My line remains the same. Civil unions are fine for those I'm close to - but myself being Christian currently, coming from an Islamic background, I don't have much opportunity to get invited to many gay weddings.

Who really does who is actually Christian?

Like I said before, the only real possibilities are people your related to or work associates. And when it comes to family, people will choose to love the best they can.

Jesus ate with sinners, no reason we can't too..

I can agree alot with this. The marital bed is pure and undefiled, for the offsring that comes from it. God ordained. Clergy being involved is not necessary for God to acknowledge that. But I think clergy and Church weddings are more about raising up a child in the way that he should go, more than the unity of marriage to to set Children apart. There is great responsibilty on the part of each spouse. Financially, emotionally etc.. Raising kids is no small matter for both parents.

 

[ralliann]

Whether one attends such a wedding is a matter of circumstance and conscience as far as I'm concerned.

As far as calling evil good and good evil, I think that is precisely the problem. The vitriol and hate which many Christians spit toward people is, as far as I'm concerned, a far grosser sin than that which they are condemning. When we are called to bear witness to the love of God which is in Christ for sinners, and instead we dehumanize our neighbor and punch down we are not bearing witness to the Gospel, nor are even preaching the Law--we are simply ourselves acting as transgressors of the Law.

When Jesus speaks to the woman caught in adultery, how does He treat her compared to how He speaks and treats the hypocrites who weaponized religion?

It isn't the prostitutes and "sinners" that Jesus' ire was targeted against, but the religious elite who spoke frequently of God's Law but were self-righteous hypocrites.

If you cannot in good conscience attend a same-sex wedding, then don't. But to suggest that a Christian sins by attending one is to add to God's commandments something He has not said; and when it comes from a place of condemnation and a misguided sense of righteousness then it is not an act of Christian piety but rather an act of religious hypocrisy. And it is in that right there that we find "calling evil good and good evil", because as depraved sinners we will find any way we can to justify our own rotten and carnal behavior. For as the Lord told us, our deeds are evil and we despise the light and prefer the darkness, and so we have already fallen under judgment and condemnation--which is why we can do naught else but trust in the mercy of God which is in Christ for us sinners.

-CryptoLutheran

You still do not get it. It is you who are condemning your fellow Christian here. That is good to you. I do not hate homosexuals. So stop implying that I do.

 

[Brihaha]

But, you are blessed that your son is not really gay! Mine either, Praise the Lord!

We all have obstacles to overcome as sinners in this life. How is being gay a worse obstacle than alcoholism? Or mental illness? Or lustfulness? Or lying?

Your comment is a fine example of the partiality and favoritism that condemns people. It seems some overlook scripture that refutes their narrative. What good is scripture if people don't read it and comprehend it anyhow?

James 2:9.

 

[ralliann]

We all have obstacles to overcome as sinners in this life. How is being gay a worse obstacle than alcoholism? Or mental illness? Or lustfulness? Or lying?

Exactly, it is sin. We don't celebrate it. We do not condone it. Why are persons of faith condemned for not doing that?

Your comment is a fine example of the partiality and favoritism that condemns people. It seems some overlook scripture that refutes their narrative. What good is scripture if people don't read it and comprehend it anyhow?

James 2:9.

It is sin!!!! As you have said. This is the only sin we are told to accept as if it were not. This is the problem.

 

[DragonFox91]

Some Christians of the time clearly thought not only that they had a choice, but the only acceptable choice was not to partake. Paul says otherwise.

You may want to read the 'but' statements Paul included.

 

[Brihaha]

Exactly, it is sin. We don't celebrate it. We do not condone it. Why are persons of faith condemned for not doing that?

It is sin!!!! As you have said. This is the only sin we are told to accept as if it were not. This is the problem.

But it is not your sin. Even if you choose to show love to a couple and attend the wedding. I don't think we are condemned for not celebrating homosexuality. They are just there, whether we agree with them or not. I only see folks condemn Christians when Christians interject themselves and judge or condemn gays. All our obligation consists of is responding yes or no on our RSVP to the wedding.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You still do not get it. It is you who are condemning your fellow Christian here. That is good to you. I do not hate homosexuals. So stop implying that I do.

I didn't claim you hate homosexuals.

But looking at this thread it seems clear to me that some here do, even if they don't want to admit it to themselves. We don't talk this way about other things, we don't say that a Christian can't buy their spouse a diamond ring because it condones the blood diamond trade and modern slavery. When was the last time you heard that being condemned?

But there's no shortage of words exchanged about homosexuals and trans people. Why is that? Why does it seem, at least from my own observations, that it is always someone else's sin that is the problem, and not our own?

Am I saying no Christian speaks against blood diamonds? No. Am I saying all Christians hate gay people? No.

But I am inviting all of us to really listen to our own words ("Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths" Ephesians 4:29), consider our own thoughts ("Holding every thought captive" 2 Corinthians 10:5), and take seriously the darkness of our own hearts ("The heart is deceitful above all else and desperately sick" Jeremiah 17:9).

-CryptoLutheran