Is somebody out there blogging under my name?
December 17, 2008
I received this comment via my extensive online social network (i.e., the Gnome), apparently responding to my piece of yesterday:
"With what does the Christ of MsMiller reach out? A piece of paper and the promise of a few years ofcompanionship, perhaps some great sex, and then what?"
Herein lies the problem with Trueman's piece. He doesn't seem to understandthat there is a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church. Iwould never compel a religious groupto perform gay marriages in their church. It would be a flagrant violation ofthe First Amendment and honestly, an abridgment of their freedom to associatewith whom they please.
Likewise,I see no reason for a religious group to compel a state government to denycivil marriages based upon their interpretation of the Bible.
Disagreementsover the words of the Bible have led to over 30k Christian denominations, manyof whom disagree over very fundamental issues. From that perspective, doesTrueman have a response like this for the 29,999 denominations he doesn'tbelong to, particularly the ones that accept gays with open arms?
To quote the concerned writer, herein lies the problem.... I didn't actually address any of these issues in my piece. Let me assure concerned readers that (a) I was not addressing the issue of the difference between civil union and church marriage. (b) I did not make the case for a civil government to ban civil marriages of gays. (c) I did address the issue of how the Bible is being used by some pro-gay union advocates, and what I thought some of the problems in their approach to the Bible might be. I can only assume that Outraged of Tunbridge Wells (for it is surely he) has come across another blog, written by somebody posing as me who did write about these things and plagiarised the last line of my original post.
As to the last question, yes, I do have a response: to all those of you out there who aren't in my denomination, REPENT, REPENT, REPENT of your sin against the light, admit that, yes, I really have got everything sorted out and that those who disagree do so purely out of envy and spite, and humbly, humbly, humbly beg my church to take you in before it is too late.
"With what does the Christ of MsMiller reach out? A piece of paper and the promise of a few years ofcompanionship, perhaps some great sex, and then what?"
Herein lies the problem with Trueman's piece. He doesn't seem to understandthat there is a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church. Iwould never compel a religious groupto perform gay marriages in their church. It would be a flagrant violation ofthe First Amendment and honestly, an abridgment of their freedom to associatewith whom they please.
Likewise,I see no reason for a religious group to compel a state government to denycivil marriages based upon their interpretation of the Bible.
Disagreementsover the words of the Bible have led to over 30k Christian denominations, manyof whom disagree over very fundamental issues. From that perspective, doesTrueman have a response like this for the 29,999 denominations he doesn'tbelong to, particularly the ones that accept gays with open arms?
To quote the concerned writer, herein lies the problem.... I didn't actually address any of these issues in my piece. Let me assure concerned readers that (a) I was not addressing the issue of the difference between civil union and church marriage. (b) I did not make the case for a civil government to ban civil marriages of gays. (c) I did address the issue of how the Bible is being used by some pro-gay union advocates, and what I thought some of the problems in their approach to the Bible might be. I can only assume that Outraged of Tunbridge Wells (for it is surely he) has come across another blog, written by somebody posing as me who did write about these things and plagiarised the last line of my original post.
As to the last question, yes, I do have a response: to all those of you out there who aren't in my denomination, REPENT, REPENT, REPENT of your sin against the light, admit that, yes, I really have got everything sorted out and that those who disagree do so purely out of envy and spite, and humbly, humbly, humbly beg my church to take you in before it is too late.
