Billy Graham released a statement yesterday supporting the North Carolina gay marriage amendment. The measure would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and the vote is on Tuesday. Measures like this one have passed in every state that has put them on the ballot, but polls are showing that this vote could be a close call. In the statement, Graham says,
Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern. I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected… At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage… The Bible is clear—God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment on Tuesday, May 8. God bless you as you vote.
The Billy Graham Association plans to run this statement in a full page ad in 14 newspapers across the state over the weekend. William Martin, who penned the authorized biography of Rev. Graham, says that he cannot recall another effort like the one the ministry plans in support of the measure to be voted on this Tuesday. Martin notes how unusual it is for Rev. Graham to weigh-in so directly on such a contentious political issue. He writes:
I am somewhat surprised that he would take that strong a stand. In the past, I have heard him say with respect to homosexuality, there are greater sins. Franklin has been more outspoken about it, but it sounds as if this is Mr. Graham expressing his own will.
Rev. Graham is not a polarizing figure. He is well-respected and loved by people of all political persuasions. Weighing-in on a contentious public debate like this one probably won’t gain him any friends, but it may lose him some. This could be a costly stand for him to take, but I am thankful that he did.
Lord bless you Billy. As a young new born again believer, Billy Graham was such good man of God to follow for a while. he truly has been used by God to help us, His Church, to walk in the light.
The Scriptures are clear on this subject of homo-marriage.
The world will fight their fight for sin, as we are goads. And God’s mercy will find more and more hearts that He will cleanse, and change.
Scripture maybe clear, but is it so clear to make Scripture the law of the land?
If so, let’s outlaw divorce. Let’s outlaw the remarriage of divorcees. Let’s outlaw working on the Sabbath. Of course, that would outlaw a good percentage of the ones we love, even ourselves AND it would outlaw Sunday football… On second thought, let’s just legislate against those that are ~clearly~ outside of Scripture, and we’ll deal with the other things within the church where churchy things belong anyway…
If we are free to vote in a way that honors God’s law in our land, then yes. “The law is good” so whether unbelievers realize it or not, it is good for them.
“On second thought, let’s just legislate against those that are ~clearly~ outside of Scripture,”
That would be nice. The Law says to love God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
God’s law is holy and very good.
Our nation’s freedom of religion is at odds with the first and greatest commandment of God’s holy and very good law.
Do you fight to protect that right? Do you celebrate it? That’s just plain gross! You’ve laid the foundation for people to break all the other holy and very good laws that hang on the premise of the first and greatest commandment. (notice that includes, according to you, an edict against same sex relationships)
“Our nation’s freedom of religion is at odds with the first and greatest commandment of God’s holy and very good law.”
No it’s not. Our nation had the Holy Bible as part of it’s foundation, and assumed this was the bases for our freedom of religion. At least that’s how I see History of the USA.
Have a great weekend and Lord’s Day.
My take is as the founders, it is very dangerous to make one version of ANY religion as state endorsed. The founders were very aware of the Church of England and that many people came here to protest its hegemony in England. Of course, the Puritans themselves did not come here for religious freedom, they came here to enforce their own version of religion, which is why they tarred and feathered Baptists when they dared to show up.
I agree that God defined marriage as between a man and a woman in Gen 2. However, this means that I do not think the gov’t has any business in the marriage defining business. This is the fundamental mistake, as once one grants that the gov’t can define it, then they have the right to redefine it, after all, we live in a democratic republic and if enough people vote people that will represent their will into office, eventually those representatives will reflect the majority of the people, at least in theory.
My conclusion is I think these efforts to define marriage at the gov’t level are misguided. What we now have are some states saying one thing and other states saying another. I think the state speaking on it at all is deeply flawed.
Mr. Johnson: It would be more accurate to say that the Puritans came to the New World in order that they might worship according to conscience, which was increasingly denied them under Charles I and Archbishop William Laud. They had a definite concept of what was true religion according to the Scriptures. Religious freedom, in the sense that all may worship as they see fit, was not really their goal. They had a distinct vision of the Christian commonwealth. Certain obstreperous Baptists (such as Roger Williams) were, in their view, disruptive to that desired community and were “encouraged” to leave.
In any event, it was a hard reality to sustain, as witnessed by the succeeding generations in Massachusetts.
So, in the US, you don’t have to BE a Christian, but you have to ACT like one according to the standard that you’re comfortable with. Your standard obviously doesn’t exclude you or your loved ones even though the true Christian standard does. Then, you cry foul when someone calls you on the inconsistency (see the Dan Savage post).
The church’s bigotry is evident…
The church didn’t have compassion during the AIDS crisis.
The church didn’t legally stand up for marriage while divorce was running rampant.
So, what’s the real agenda?
“So, in the US, you don’t have to BE a Christian, but you have to ACT like one according to the standard that you’re comfortable with.”
It would be a great idea to BE and ACT according to what pleases the Lord God, whether youb are an American, or a Russian, or Chinese. God will one day judge all mankind according to His truth, and His Word is truth.
I’m just saying what is basic truth, that even our for-fathers seemed to accept as they composed the “Declaration of Independance”.
BTW, my older brother died from AIDS. I care deeply about this disease.
Have a good weekend, and may the Lord Jesus open your heart to His truth, love and joy. So be it.