Ruth Graham’s write-up on the recent Q conference in Boston is a fascinating take by a journalist looking in on what evangelicals are doing. In the end, she says Q’s efforts to be relevant will be undermined by its commitment to traditional Christian views on sexuality, which were made very clear at the conference (which I am very grateful for, by the way). She writes, Today a majority of Americans support gay marriage, including 43 percent of white evangelical Protestant millennials. Those numbers seem bound to tick upward in the years to come, particularly among the peers of Q’s on-trend attendees. And as the Supreme Court hears arguments this week…
-
-
Ryan Anderson says Kennedy may rule against redefining marriage
Ryan Anderson went on Bill Bennet’s radio program today and said that he believes Kennedy may rule against redefining marriage (listen above). In Anderson’s own words: I went in thinking that Kennedy might have already made up his mind and Kennedy might be inclined to strike down these laws. I came out thinking Kennedy hasn’t made up his mind. And there’s a good chance that Kennedy’s going to be inclined to uphold the male-female marriage definition. I would like to let myself believe that Anderson is correct, but I am still very skeptical. Yes, Kennedy asked some tough questions. But Kennedy has written two landmark opinions in favor of gay…
-
Brief Reflections on the Oral Arguments
Before yesterday’s oral arguments on gay marriage at the Supreme Court, I had contended that the Court’s decision was pretty much a foregone conclusion. I predicted that by the end of June, the Court would rule gay marriage to be a Constitutional right. Now that the case is in, I have listened to all of the arguments made by attorneys on both sides of the question. I have also listened to the Justices’ grilling of those attorneys, and I can say this. I am no Constitutional scholar, but I heard nothing today that would alter my original prediction. The Court will ensconce a Constitutional right to gay marriage.
-
Transcript and Audio of Supreme Court same-sex marriage case
Below are the audio and transcripts of oral arguments made in the same-sex marriage case heard by the Supreme Court today (Obergefell v. Hodges). Justices heard each side present arguments in answer to two questions: 1. Does the 14th Amendment require states to issue marriage licenses to two people of the same sex? 2. Does the 14th Amendment require states to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states? The Court will render a ruling on these questions by the end of June. In the meantime, you can listen to or read the arguments from both sides below.
-
Gay marriage will cause a winnowing of the evangelical ranks. It already is.
Most readers already know how historic today is in our national life. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments concerning gay marriage. The Justices will render a decision on the matter by the end of June. Given the high court’s precedents in the 2003 Lawrence decision and in the 2013 Windsor decision, most observers agree that the current case is a forgone conclusion. The Supreme Court is poised to declare gay marriage a constitutional right. Seventy percent of Americans already live in states where gay marriage is legal. But by the end of June, one hundred percent of Americans will live in a state where gay marriage is legal. That…
-
Ben Witherington’s hard-hitting critique of Rachel Held Evans’ new book
New Testament scholar Ben Witherington has penned a fairly hard-hitting review of Rachel Held Evans’ new book Searching for Sunday., which landed on The New York Times bestseller list last week. Witherington likes Evans personally and even affirms her as a “genuine Christian person.” He is generally sympathetic with some of her complaints about evangelicalism. Nevertheless, he comes down pretty hard on her affirmation sex outside of marriage. He writes: I wish Rachel had continued her studies in a formal way and been better trained in Biblical interpretation and how to deal with difficult ethical and theological issues. I have seen what happens when Christian college kids come to seminary…
-
Uncommon moral clarity from a politician
Bobby Jindal has an Op-Ed in The New York Times today defending religious liberty in the face of recent challenges. The main point of the article is indeed religious liberty, but the most remarkable paragraph in the article is this one: I hold the view that has been the consensus in our country for over two centuries: that marriage is between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that the American consensus is changing — but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion. When is the last time you saw a politician with national aspirations willing…
-
Questioning the one-sided media narrative on transgender children
I have noticed more and more material appearing in popular media promoting the embrace of transgender identities. It seems that the push for the normalization of transgender is now focusing on children. And usually, this is done with images and real-life stories that have a powerful emotional appeal (see videos below). The common narrative that I am seeing in these pieces goes like this:
-
Can Christians escape persecution by doing good?
I had a brief back-and-forth with some friends on Twitter yesterday about whether Christians can escape the opprobrium of the world by doing good. I argued that we cannot. Others suggested that we can. Enter Collin Hansen’s new book Blind Spots, which I just started reading today. He is very helpful on this point: Take, for example, the strange promise you sometimes hear from those who see lack of compassion as the greatest problem with the church today. They argue that our compassion can win the world’s favor. So when we sell our stuff, save our schools, and serve the suffering, we won’t make enemies.
-
Why gay marriage will fail
Peter Leithart has an insightful piece at First Things explaining why gay marriage will ultimately fail. Because it owes to a culture-bound distortion created by heterosexuals (so-called “romantic marriage”), it will ultimately come to the same ruin. His conclusion is spot-on: Gay marriage may further damage marriage; but heterosexuals damaged marriage nearly beyond recognition all on our own. Read the rest here