Last night's haboob and storm made it onto the CBS national news.
The monsoon weather cycle pushes dew points near 70 but we got down into the mid-80's overnight so I spent some time in the garage early this morning working on the VW. Just little tasks, including getting the gas tank ready to install. I've read that the cheap way to clean out the rust is to put a chain and about 2" of kerosene inside and shake it all about. So I bought both at Home Depot and will give it a try tomorrow. If it doesn't work I'll have to take it to a radiator shop and have it boiled out.
I also went online and ordered from Rock Auto the parts I need to get the brakes done on the Rambler. Alas, they're out of stock on the front drums so I'll see if I can get them through O'Reilly's. We'll probably be back up into the triple digits by the time the parts get here and it's really hard to work out in the garage even first thing in the morning; temps are already around 90. But if I have the parts here I can chip away at it if/when we get another "cold front" moving through.
As part of my sermon intro yesterday I asked how many of them had read Robinson Crusoe. One other person. (heavy sigh) I encouraged them to read it soon. If you also haven't, you'll be surprised. It's not what you think. Yes, he gets shipwrecked and sets up life on an island, and yes, a native he names Friday shows up. But Defoe used that interesting story to talk about... well, if I told you there'd be no reason to read it for yourself. And you should. And the last section, Crusoe's afterthoughts, is superb.
I've changed my routine a bit since we got back from vacation. I'm still waking up stupid early and am usually out in my chair by at least 4 a.m. But instead of turning on Mike and Mike in the Morning (ESPN2) I'm drinking my coffee with Kindle in hand for an hour or two. I'm about 25% of the way through "Fiddler's Green," the sequel to "Fiddler's Gun," and so far it's just as good. It doesn't have the quality, the significance of classics like Robinson Crusoe, but these two books are good summer reading.
OK, back to the topic...
As mentioned, I'm convinced I can - and should - vote my conscience, including on the matter of same sex marriage. The fact my conscience is informed by the Bible is my business. Just as we're free to vote however we see fit, we're free to source our decisions anyway we choose. I choose Scripture.
But I shouldn't expect my view of the Bible's authority to carry any truck with those who don't share my evangelical faith. And it's silly for me to moan and complain that society uses different sources to arrive at different conclusions. So, if I can't advocate for my viewpoint based on a submission to the teachings of the Bible am I effectively locked out of any advocacy?
One common misunderstanding among people outside the faith - and too many inside - is that God gives us commands just because he wants to. A kind of cosmic, "Because I'm the mommy and I say so" dynamic. Not the case at all.
The primary truth of Scripture is God's love for us, taught and illustrated from Genesis to Revelation. The depiction of God as a stern, Scottish grandfather couldn't be further from that truth. Accordingly, those things he proscribes or prescribes come for his concern for our well being. Like a good parent, God seeks to keep us from those things which, no matter how attractive, or "right," or "better" they look, will entrap and enslave. And guide us to that which brings blessing.
That means I can argue from effects. It may not persuade, but it's a legitimate line of reasoning. That is: "Same sex marriage has overriding deleterious effects." Those effects are negative not typically on those who desire it for themselves, but for society. Granted, that makes it a tougher sell to an increasingly self-centered culture unconcerned about anyone but themselves. But for those willing to examine the bigger picture it's worth discussing.
Ah, but can that case from effects be made?
2 comments:
"So, if I can't advocate for my viewpoint based on a submission to the teachings of the Bible am I effectively locked out of any advocacy?"
If your view can be defined as "bigotry" then you can be dismissed. However, everyone is a "bigot" by some definition unless they agree to every marriage arrangement. I (or the Bible) draw the line at this point but others still have a line they won't advocate beyond (marrying cousins, parent/adult child relations, etc). Why is my line in the sand bigotry and not their line? If there are moral standards where do they come from?
Some will dismiss this as a "slippery slope argument" but acknowledging a slope means we agree there are "bad" forms of marriage at the bottom of the slope. There must therefore be valid standards by which marriage can be judged and not just bigoted opinions.
Dave, I agree with you. And I don't think I've done a very good job of explaining my thoughts on this topic, thoughts which are still developing.
I have no hesitation in stating to anyone that my views are informed by Scripture. I just don't expect them to accept that as a valid starting point. In American culture the Bible is no longer assumed to be authoritative. But I do think I can make a case from practical effects.
I think the spread of the term "homophobic" fits what you describe - an attempt to make me sound crazy, irrational. Same with the bigotry you describe. It's a clever and specious argument.
Post a Comment