Hypocrisy and Gay Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

Roger Olson writes, in a post Are divorce and remarriage and homosexual relations comparable?:

A recent guest editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (April 1, 2012) argues that evangelicals are inconsistent, if not hypocritical, when they tolerate divorce and remarriage but condemn homosexual relations.

MarriageThe article Olson refers to is by Tim Turner, a former pastor who is himself divorced and remarried. Turner doesn’t himself use “hypocritical” or related words, but that is what the charge he makes amounts to. He argues, rightly, that the Bible has a lot more to say against divorce and remarriage than against homosexual practice. He sees divorce as a much greater threat to families than gay marriage is. Then he writes,

So why all the blood, sweat and tears on the gay-marriage issue and not on the things that are truly a threat to families? Sadly, that’s easy enough to figure out.

Within our churches, and even the evangelical community, we want the freedom to do what we want.

We want to divorce when we want to and to remarry when we are ready, and we don’t worry too much about those troublesome words Jesus spoke 2,000 years ago. Christians divorce and remarry at a very similar rate to that of everyone else in our society.

However, most of us are not homosexuals; we may not even know any. And really, we have to draw the line somewhere, don’t we?

This is an issue which I looked at on this blog, from a rather different perspective, back in 2007, in a post Homosexuality, Divorce and Gay Marriage. See also my 2008 follow-up posts Is there a moral difference between homosexual practice and remarriage after divorce?I do NOT applaud divorce and remarriage and Remarriage, homosexual “marriage”, and burning passion.

I stand by what I wrote in those posts. Jesus made it clear that sexual relationships outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage are wrong. He taught that remarriage after divorce, presumably if consummated, is adultery. While Jesus did not mention homosexual relationships, in the Old Testament and in the letters of Paul they are listed together with adultery as equally wrong.

Nevertheless Jesus taught that, in the law of Moses, God allowed divorce and remarriage, as a concession to the hardness of human hearts. Because of this concession, I have no objections to the state and the church permitting divorce and remarriage, provided that it is not used as a pretext for sleeping around, or for abandoning responsibilities for one’s family. But it should always be taught that this is less than God’s ideal.

My argument was that the same concession could reasonably be offered to gay and lesbian couples. Thus I have no objections to same sex civil partnerships with no Christian celebration. I would prefer the word “marriage” to be reserved for heterosexual couples, but would not want to make a big issue over the word.

As for celebrating civil partnerships or gay marriages in church, I am pleased that this is not a part of the UK government’s current controversial proposals. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that gay marriages in church should be allowed. But I do see the force of Tim Turner’s argument: it is indeed hypocritical for Christians to campaign against gay marriage, and to refuse to celebrate them in their churches, while at the same time they are happy to remarry divorced people with no questions asked.

35 thoughts on “Hypocrisy and Gay Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

  1. What’s your opinion on having a wedding ceremony in a church where one or both of the parties has been previously married and divorced?

  2. Rhea, I would support the current practice in the Church of England, at least in our diocese, which is that the priest/pastor has to enquire into the circumstances and get his/her bishop’s approval for the wedding. This approval is normally given unless one of the couple being married was responsible for the breakdown of the other’s marriage. There may also be a time element involved in such decisions, to make sure people don’t rush from a marriage breakdown into a new marriage (or at least if they do so rush that it is not with the church’s blessing). But this does allow people to put past mistakes behind them and make a fresh start.

  3. Maybe my memory is failing, but I do not remember reading that divorce and remarriage is ever called “abomination”.

    Homosexuality is so called in the Bible. That particualr sin is like spitting in God’s eye, saying that He did not get His creation right, and further disobeying the very first command to Man, “be fruitful and multiply”. (Gen. 1:28)

    Jesus did address the homosexual issue in a round about way. When asked about divorce, He responded that God created mankind “male and female”. (Mtt. 19:4 & Mrk. 10:6)

    • I agree with you about homosexuality and Scripture it is very clear, the problem is while not called and abomination divorce and then remarriage is called adultery and adultery is on the list of those who will not be part of the kingdom of God, I think the church has compromised because many in our congregation are on their second or even third marriage.

      • Thank you, Danny. This may well be part of the reason that the church today speaks out about homosexual practise but not about divorce and remarriage.

  4. I was always taught that the word we translate as ‘abomination’ in Leviticus (in referring to a man lying with another man as a woman) is something that is a cultural taboo, and not a moral one. And on top of that, there WAS a word that would mean something that’s a moral taboo that could have been used instead, if that was the author’s intention. With that understanding, it seems like ‘abomination’ isn’t the best modern day translation.

    Anyway…I’m sure that Peter knows WAAAY more about that than I do; hopefully he’ll shed some light on that 🙂

  5. Galveston, I suggest you read Leviticus 18:26-30 KJV, which refers to multiple abominations. Only one item in the preceding list, in verse 22, is explicitly called an abomination. But the context implies that all of the forbidden practices should considered abominations. And that includes the simple adultery of verse 20.

    Also, interestingly, for a man to take back his ex-wife after she has remarried is called an “abomination” (Deuteronomy 24:4 KJV).

    Do you consider contraception to be a sin on the same level as homosexual activity, because it is also “disobeying the very first command to Man, “be fruitful and multiply””?

    Rhea, your interpretation may very well be right, although I claim no expertise on this matter. Consider some of the other things called an “abomination” in KJV, such as: eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10-12); sculpture (Deuteronomy 27:15); the proud, liars and “he that soweth discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19); incense (Isaiah 1:13); “that which is highly esteemed among men” (Luke 16:15); not to mention divers’ weights (how can they dive without weights?) (Proverbs 20:23) 😉

  6. My simple views on marriage: If two men want to marry each other, that is fine with me. If two women want to marry each other that is fine with me. If a man and a woman want to marry each other, that is fine with me.

  7. “Nevertheless Jesus taught that, in the law of Moses, God allowed divorce and remarriage, as a concession to the hardness of human hearts. Because of this concession…”

    Well, I’ve never read Matt 19:8 like this! I read it as ‘the concession was of the Old Covenant but it is not so with the New Covenant’. The concession came through the Law of Moses – whereas Jesus is saying (without a doubt in my mind) that for his followers, there is no concession.

    It is curious, is it not, that if we look at a part of the Western world where there is the greatest levels of church attendance – the USA, with its 50% church attendance, compared to 8-10% here in the UK – that we find the highest divorce rate in the Western world. More so in the Bible-Belt states – indeed the great irony is that in the US the more liberal and tolerant states (tho not all), esp. those that have allowed same-sex marriage, tend to have the lowest divorce rates in the US. Nearer home, although Ireland may boast 50% mass attendance it still leads Europe in the single parent family stakes (hence altho’ divorce isn’t high, the breakdown of the family is).

    I think on the part of some of conservative brethren, there is a tendency to focus on the easy morality of condemning the homos, while not displaying the same degree of ‘condemnation’ when it comes to divorce. From my late teens until my mid 20s I was a conservative Evangelical; twenty odd years on it is rather depressing to tot up the number of friends and acquaintances from that period of my life, who were likewise conservative Evangelicals, who are now divorced (and many remarried). I’ve also noticed the phenomenon of Christians who have married a divorced partner becoming RC and having the first marriage annulled (despite the fact the grounds for one or two of these annulments seem very flimsy – but that’s never been a problem in Rome if you have money or if you look like you’ll make a good practicing Catholic they’ll let you in and you ‘officially’ get the slate wiped clean!).

    Hence I think Turner has a very valid point. The viciousness of some of our conservative friends when it comes to SSM is disproportionate and (in the case of some) just plain obsessive. I think what it demonstrates is just how far from the Gospel these ‘conservatives’ have strayed. They have become Pharisees, straying gnats and swallowing camels. In recent months on the Anglicanmainstream blog (or The Anglican Porn Channel – as it seems so obsessed with matters sexual, that you really wonder about the preoccupations of the minds of its contributors!) and its allied sites, there has been a call to lobby Tesco because it donated a paltry sum to Gay Pride; and there has been links to the petition to call for a rejection of gay-marriage. As is the case with AM there has been the usual descent into salaciousness, innuendo, half-truth and finger pointing – in addition to the cry that SSM will undermine society and the family.

    Well, this is all well and good, I suppose, yet the startling fact is that marriage and the family has been under attack for years and yet we haven’t seen petitions and lobbying on the same scale. The real issues that have affected family life are complex and diverse, though I would suggest economic factors have played a big part; as well as other cultural and social reasons. Yet we’ve heard little from our conservative brethren about these issues – however, mention something to do with homosexuals living in committed relationships (a tiny 0.5% of the population) and there is a concerted and disproportionate (not to mention nasty and self-righteous) campaign, which is, like it or not, a case of shutting the stable door l-o-n-g after the horse has bolted.

    But does this mean Christians should say nothing on the matter of SSM? No, I think there is something Christians can bring to the debate on marriage and SSM. Though it has to be proportionate, otherwise they are devoid of integrity. And given, as Turner has said: ‘Christians divorce and remarry at a very similar rate to that of everyone else in our society.’ I think our conservative chums have far more pressing matters, nearer to home to worry about, than preoccupying themselves with the morality of a tiny number of the population. But it has always been more preferable to point the finger of accusation than suffer the more painful task of holding up a mirror hasn’t it? And given it is far easier to stand up in the pulpit and give a semblance of morality by bleating on about homos – knowing full well that there will be few in the congregation – is far more palatable to one’s flock than mentioning divorce (or remarriage) which is a topic that is likely to be less appetising than soundly condemning something remote and tangential to the everyday lives of many a pew filling conservative.

    Revd John Richardson recently remarked (not on the subject of gay marriage, but I think the quote is apt here):

    ‘My experience within conservative evangelical circles is that there are
    many areas of life – for example to do with business, ambition, class, culture,
    etc – where we do not give nearly enough attention to the implications of the
    gospel. We are good on a narrow range of things, but we have yet to achieve
    anything like the breadth of application of our forebears.’ (see: http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/its-official-not-five-marks-of-mission.html#comment-form tho’ alas even Revd John is condemned by his own words as recently the subject of gay-marriage has dominated many of his posts!)

    Until there is proportionality and an equal application of requirements of Scripture concerning marriage, then those who seem obsessed with the subject of gay-marriage (and homosexuality in general) are condemned by their own mouths. Turner’s words are prophetic and should guide our conservative friends the next time they feel the urge to climb on their soap boxes or initiate yet another petition or lobbying campaign. A little more thought about Luke 4:23 and less said about Lev 18:22 seems appropriate me thinks…


  8. Mike, I take your point. But is it fine with God? But that is a matter between the couple and God, and perhaps one the rest of us should keep out of.

    Peter, thank you. I think our positions here are quite similar, except on the concession in Matthew 19:8. Do you really think that this concession was something which Moses in a moment of weakness wrote into the Law although it was not really a command from God? Or do you think that this particular jot or tittle from the Law passed away when Jesus came? I know there are some difficult issues concerning how applicable the Law of Moses is to us today. But the principles behind it still stand, including that God makes concessions to human hardness of heart.

  9. “Jesus made it clear that sexual relationships outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage are wrong.”

    Sorry, Peter, but he didn’t: that’s your interpretation of what Jesus taught; and we need to draw a distinction between the the things Jesus said and our interpretations. The two are not necessarily the same.

    Galveston: See Malachi 2:16 – http://bible.cc/malachi/2-16.htm – it really doesn’t get much stronger than that: “I hate divorce,” says God. I don’t think you’ll find a passage where God says, “I hate homosexuality.” … that’s left to the humans, who all too often end up hating the homosexuals too…

  10. Phil, the problem with referring to Mal 2:16 is that the Hebrew really doesn’t say “I hate divorce” at all, and the justifications for this in English translations are not convincing. The new NIV, ESV, and some other modern translations get this right.

  11. Martin, thank you for making that point, which I had also intended to make. Anyway, calling homosexual activity an abomination, depending on exactly what it means, sounds just as strong as “I hate divorce” – and both are equally Old Testament.

    Phil, to go back to your comment, yes that was a rather simplistic summary of the argument. Please go back and read my earlier posts for a fuller explanation.

  12. An interesting conversation, folks, as I have come to expect here.

    I think we can say without question there were things in the ancient society of Israel which fell well short of the creation norms for generous, fruitful, shalom-bringing practice which were outlawed in Israel. Some we understand clearly and others, not so much.

    Mixing the threads of two cloths, say cotton and linen, in the same garment was among them. A teenager who refused to receive correction was also stoned and his body was left outside the camp as an example to others was another.

    We probably all know we live under a different covenant from that of Moses and Israel and that what was so in the early chapters of the great story does not always work so well in later chapters, say, for instance, poligamy? So what can we bring forward from the earliest chapters of our story into our present time?

    It is clear to me that the original norm for married life was one man with one woman for a lifetime. And we know creation, as it is, contains many broken situations. Some things, apparently, can be mended and others cannot.

    I usually make everyone hate me when I say this yet I cannot see another way to say it, at least not yet: Homosexuality, like warefare, is apparently not only not a normative condition; it is also apparently not something which can be mended in the here and now. Perhaps we will see an end to war some day prior to the consumation of all things but it seems unlikely because situations do come to pass, such as despots like Q’daffi and Hussien, murdering their own people, situations which make war, after all other recourses have been exhausted, a better choice than the staus quo. So I ask, are not committed unions between persons of the same sex a vastly more healthy circumstance than the deadly promiscuity of “the gay lifestyle?” While almost nothing is said about what we now call homosexuality in the Bible, a great deal is said about promsicuity and none of it is good. So, given violence, war may be better than some other choices. And given promiscuity, is not marriage a better choice for everyone than deadly intimacy?

    The problem, of course, and the reason why most conservatives who have actually thought this thing through are so opposed to this “grace” solution in this broken situation is the knowledge that what becomes “lawful” becomes “normal” in the eyes of most (low information?) people. That is a circumstance which, I think, cannot be helped.

    Of one thing I am sure: as Christians we are utterly disobedient if we continue to push God’s same-sex oriented people away from our fellowships.

    Have you ever read the chapter on these issues in 20 Hot Potatoes the Church is Afraid to Touch by Tony Campolo? The book is about 20 years old but the chapter is not out of date at all.

    Prayers and blessings!

  13. Peter!
    Thanks for the encouragement! Hoping you have had a blessed Maunday Thursday service. I am off to a tenebrae service momentarily, it being only half past 5 (pm) in the midwestern U.S.

    Prayers and blessings for what you are doing. There are not enough good words toward a genuine Christian Mind out there and I genuinely appreciate yours. I’ll keep blogging if you will. Perhaps we can play off each other when one runs out of gas…
    The very best Holy Weekend — a phrase I have never heard nor used before! — to you!

  14. Martin – thanks; I shall consult my wife (she’s a Hebrew scholar and knows about these things).

    Peter – I shall indeed review earlier postings: got plenty of time for that right now :-/

    Trace – excellent stuff, thank you. Seems to resonate with my observation on another thread about faithfulness: my reading of scripture is that it’s unfaithfulness that is the ultimate abomination – from Adam & Eve’s unfaithfulness in Eden to Judas’ betrayal in Gethsemane. What God seeks from us is faithfulness, to God, to one another, to those around us — and the church, in ruling that gays may not marry, effectively forces them outside. Also seems to tie in with Jesus observation about divorce, allowed under the law as a concession to human weakness; why then can those who regard homosexuality as sin not allow a similar concession under grace for marriage?

  15. Thank you, Phil. Yes, it would be good to have Sue’s input on the Hebrew. I have her book so I can vouch for her scholarship. My own Hebrew is too rusty for me to figure out the details, but it is far from clear that Malachi 2:16 is about God’s personal attitude to divorce.

    There is a detailed discussion, from the conservative Christian scholar C. John Collins, at the ESV website (PDF). Collins’ section 4, on the ethical implications of his conclusion, are also relevant to this discussion.

  16. Matt, I’ve looked up that verse in various English translations…and there seems to be some ‘confusion’ as to how to translate part of it. Is it ‘homosexual offenders’? Because I definitely wouldn’t label myself as a homosexual offender. Is it ‘men who practice homosexuality’? I’m still safe, as I’m a lesbian 😉 Is it ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’? Um…I have no clue what that means. Is it simply being who are gay? Because if so, then I guess I AM up the creek without a paddle :/

  17. Matt – good question. Going back to the point of the original article – Jesus said very directly that anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery. In the verse referenced adulterers are lumped together with men having sex with men. We do theological gymnastics, it seems to me, to pardon one and allow for it, but would not even consider doing that for the other circumstance. Can a man or woman who divorces and remarries maintain a fellowship with God and His Church? We have answered yes and to my bias, I believe rightly so, although it is not ideal and divorce is always a human tragedy. Likewise can a homosexual maintain a fellowship with God and His Church? I also believe so, although it is very difficult for the homosexual to find a fellowship where he may be allowed to express his belief and faith in God.

  18. Rhea – The TNIV and 2011 NIV use the term “practicing homosexuals.” I’m not saying that this is the ultimate translation from the Greek but, as I understand it, that is very close to Paul’s original intent. It’s not my intent to condemn, just wrap my mind around where you are coming from.

    Wade – I have heard sermons in the past that reach the same conclusion as Peter does here regarding heterosexual divorce and remarriage. I don’t know that I agree with their conclusion, however, and I try to avoid theological gymnastics. (I’ve never been very athletic 😉 I don’t know that straight divorcees have an “out” when it comes to remarriage.

  19. I appreciate the consistency Matt. But again as the author of the article points out he is accepted in most Christian fellowships without question despite his obviously “adulterous lifestyle”. If may prohibit him from being a Pastor (although there are certainly many prominent Pastors in the US who are on their second marriage), but otherwise no questions asked or judgement given. No sermons for the person to come out of their “immoral lifestyle” – to become celibate. All things we ask and seem to require of the homosexual who would dare to enter our fellowship. (Remember also at one time people believed being blind was a result of sin – Jesus corrected that)

  20. Matt, Rhea and Wade, thank you for your conversation. My own understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:9 is that it probably does list practising homosexuals (not sure about lesbians, Rhea) as sinners, alongside adulterers (and what did Jesus call people who remarry after divorce?), the greedy, slanderers etc. So why do our churches turn a blind eye to some of these sins but get so hot under the collar about homosexuals?

  21. Pingback: Shadow Dancing: A conversation about faith, hope and gay love in the church « Phil's Boring Blog

  22. Divorce is a blight on the Church, there is no doubt about it and it needs to be looked upon and ealt with much more seriously in the Church. I believe that most Christians who get divorced and remarry are adulterers. I don’t think The MOST HIGH is overlooking in quite like the Church is. There is hypocrisy in the Church thought and it cannot be denied.

    There can also be no doubt that homosexuality througout scripture is looked upon quite terribly. I timothy 1:10, Jude 7, Romans 1 however that does not mean that other wrongs should go overlooked.

    I would like to respond to Trace and legalizing homosexual marriage by saying that it is a better choice than promiscuity (If I understood him correctly). Getting married is not a safe guard against promiscuity. If a man is married that does no mean that they will not sleep around. If a man is whoremonger, I doubt he will stop overnight because he gets married. “Faithfulness” to another has to be the pattern of ones life. So, legal “marriage” or civil unions for that matter will not stop the promiscuity much, if at all (I have my doubts). The question is why is that why are homosexual’s so promiscous overall.

    Also, what is the role of government. I believe he government according Romans 13:1-5 is put in place by God to do what is right and good. When those in goverment legalize sin, it is going against what God has said and will be judged accordingly.

    Also what will be the ramifications for the Church? undoubtedly it will come to a point that it will be illegal to deny same sex marriage. Pastor Scott Lively is the first American ever to be sued in U.S. Federal Court under the Alien Tort Statute for violation of the international law of “Crimes Against Humanity of Persecution for speaking against homosexuality”.

    To Wade, if a person is divorced (as a believer ) and it is not biblical and they remarry, I don’t believe they should be afforded fellowship in the Church; are they not in sin? I Corinthians 5:1-12 speaks on this issue plainly.

    Lastly, If we claim to be Christians, we should not label ourselves sinners.

    I Corithians 6:11 ” And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

    Therefore we have no reason to hold onto a label unless we are proud of it and don’t think it is wrong. Unless we believe what our mind tells us above what God says about us?

    May The LORD Jesus continue to help us!


  23. Thank you, Paul. There is a lot of food for thought in your comment, especially about whether marriage is in any way effective in controlling sin, and about the role of the state. Sadly I don’t have time at the moment to get any further into these issues.

  24. YOU MENTIONED THAT JESUS TAUGHT GOD ALLOWED FOR DIVORCE AND REMArriage….I SUGGEST YOU REREAD THE SCRIPTURES…Jesus did nt ever teach or anything close…he said when asked what did moses allow or command…then he said it was not that from the beginning..he also said what God has joined together let man not seperate..he also said according to mark and luke if a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery….he also said if divorced remain single or reconcile with your wife…

    the bible teaches that god says he detest divorce..

    so where in the world do you see the lord teaches that divorce is Gods plan or even approved..and if divorced where is there any scripture stating where one can remarry while there spouse is still alive….

  25. Divorce as a topic is not directly in scope of Peter’s initial post. The recognition of permissive will and creative will is highly applicable here. Jesus teaching is clear that divorce is permitted albeit as a concession to our sinful nature. In other words it is not “compulsory”, and we are surely right to seek full reconciliation in a breakdown scenario for as long as that is possible. However it is sadly not always possible – I have known of a number of such cases. Paul, in an “I not the Lord” statement, clearly allows a Christian half of a marriage to let a non Christian spouse go if they insist. I do recognise that in those statements he does not explicitly go on to support re-marriage. Divorce provides a way forward of last resort. And Matt 5 v32 certainly looks to me as if it recognises re-marriage may be expected, though it is arguably not permitted in the circumstances defined there.

    And as for “hate divorce”, I note Matin’s comment on the real meaning of the Hebrew in Malachi 2 v 16. Even the very “conservative” ESV does not use that strength of English. I have checked him out.

    Incidentally and as background, I am thankfully still married to my wife after nearly 35 years. My parents were marrried until my father’s death after 57 years. I do not have a personal stake in this!

  26. Pat, I suggest you reread the Scriptures, and start with Matthew 5:32 which clearly implies that divorce and remarriage is permitted in cases involving porneia, whatever exactly that means.

    the bible teaches that god says he detest divorce.

    Actually it is now widely recognised that Malachi 2:16 doesn’t actually mean that. See for example the ESV rendering.

    Colin, thanks for saying much the same as I wrote before even reading your comment.

  27. I think this is one of those areas where the good Lord heaves a massive *sigh* and mutters quietly under his breath, “Freakin’ humans; and every time I think of drowning them all, up pops another rainbow… ah, me, well, I did create them in my image so I suppose a bit of bloodymindedness is inevitable… time for another concession, I guess…” (or something along those lines)

    his anger is but for a moment; his favour is for a lifetime

  28. What is your suggestion on a Pastor whose unbelieving wife divorced. The Pastor has remarried using 1st Corinthians 7:15 as the scriptural backing. Now the pastor is praying over Holy Communion in the church and serving the communion to the members of the church. What is your view scripturally about this ?

  29. Guys…Have you not read Luke 16:15 (AV) Jesus said “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knows your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.” Then in 16:18 He says “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” Then, Jesus goes straight into one of the most graphic descriptions of a man going to eternal torment (hell) and pleading with father Abraham to please send the begger Lazarus back from the dead to warn his five brothers so they would repent. Repent from what? Doing what is highly esteemed among men but is abomination to God…..Divorce / remarriage!

    Sounds like today’s America. We have let Hollywood program us into believing that since John Wayne, Dick Van Dyke, Lucile Ball, Bob Hope, Carol Burnett, Andy Griffith, Johnny Carson, Roy Rogers, and about every star that we’ve ever looked up to is divorced and remarried it must be okay for us? Our mothers and grandmothers watched soap operas that promoted adultery, divorce, and remarriage and they’ve bought into it. Before TV, divorce in the bible-belt south was almost nonexistent, but now it is over 50%. The same media is selling us on same sex marriage, homosexuality and transgender. Satan is slick. Psalms 12:8 says ” The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.” Actors and actresses live some of the most unbiblical livestyles and yet we put them on pedistals.

    Jesus never directly preached against same-sex marriage or even homosexuality, but he did speak several times against divorce/remarriage. This doesn’t mean he condoned or even allowed that. It just means he drew the line in the sand at sexual/marital relations as one man one woman for life. Anything other than that is iniquity and out of his will. If we as a people don’t stand where he stands we are doing what is right in our own eyes and can’t expect his blessings.

Leave a Reply

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

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image