Recently I saw some statistics that indicated a relatively high number of young evangelicals who favored gay marriage. Their rational appeared to be based on fuzzy emotion and statements like, “as long as two people love each other.”
There are numerous problems with the statement and the sentiment behind it but I find it interesting and a little amusing that the person holding to this view has no problem setting the pre-condition of love to affirm the gay marriage. I mean really, like who sez there need be any pre-condition at all?
As a pastoral counselor I also run across this notion among young evangelicals (professing Christians) who seek to justify living together before marriage. When confronted with the biblical standard that marriage is a prerequisite for sex you might hear this or a variation of it; “we reject the traditional interpretation of that and have our own interpretation” thank you very much.
It would be inaccurate to describe this problem as peculiar to young evangelicals since finding an interpretation of Scripture that fits one’s wants and desires is not all that difficult. Scripture twisting of the evil kind and of the bumbling kind have been around as long as there has been, well Scripture.
In Matthew 5 Jesus over turns erroneous interpretations of Scripture by saying, “but I say unto you” six times. In each case he is more concerned about the heart, the control center of each person than he is with the outward behavior. For example:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.(Matthew 5:27-28 ESV)
Biblically defined, adultery is sex with someone other than your spouse. A man\woman relationship is in view if you observe the pronouns Jesus uses.
Lustful intent is, well, the lustful intent\desire to have sex with someone other than your spouse.
The what of the sin is adultery while the why of the sin is the lustful intent of the heart that demands inappropriate pleasure.
This is not exactly “in-depth” teaching that I’ve laid out here. I wonder though how much in-depth teaching the above young evangelicals have had that they could so easily disregard with contempt, “traditional interpretations” of Holy Scripture?
My two cents on the problem is two-fold, 1) poor or weak teaching from many a pulpit and 2) the heart’s demands that we battle against that often win when the “who sez” question is internally asked.
Sadly, “I sez” seems to be more compelling than God sez with a growing number of young evangelicals.
- Filet Mignon “Adultery” au miel (divine-seasoning.com)