Christians should be cognizant of the folly of fighting as the world battles, when one gets into the mud pit with the adversary, one is sure to come out dirty and muddy. Being “as wise as serpents and harmless as doves” comes to one’s mind from the instructions of the “Prince of Peace”.
A perfect Bible verse is “better is he that controls his temper than he that takes a city”, or another; “a soft answer turns away wrath”.
Inspecting the gospels of the sayings and actions of Jesus display consistent themes of not only avoiding the contentions of the day, but rather giving a better alternative and solution for the problem. Without a doubt there were social issues that could get one into serious trouble during Jesus’ ministry.
How about paying tribute to the Romans? One could easily get thrown into prison or executed should one instruct the people to not support the evil Roman Empire with pagan Caesars on the coins. And if one advocated paying taxes to Caesar, one could be beaten or killed by the Jews that were angry at the brutality of the Romans during the occupation of the Holy Land.
The narrow focus of questions as “you enjoy beating your wife, yes or no?” are questions designed only to generate strife and heated debate. As demonstrated by the media, some questions are designed strictly to embarrass or put the interviewee in a negative light.
The woman caught in adultery is another “no win” response, however Jesus did not use the narrow focus of either condemn the woman and we will declare your hypocrisy with mercy, or not condemn the woman and we will declare you a false prophet according to the law of Moses!! The trouble makers wanted Jesus defined by the narrow definition of the false accusers. Something was amiss since the male was nowhere to be found.
To wit, Christians today have fallen for the same tactics used to trip up Jesus, Embarrassing questions are used as a device for debate and creating controversy. It is legal to have a same sex marriage, but what to YOU say? How many Christian interviews have fallen for the oldest trick in the book? Quite a few have allowed the extremely limited question define them.
The interviewers know it, the listeners know it, but unfortunately there have been consistent squirming, backtracking, and double talk created attempting to answer a question with a loaded premise either for or against same sex marriage. If the affirmative is given for same sex marriage, then the “Christian” appears as a hypocrite according to the word of God and loses credibility with the faith, even with those not believing in God.
And if the response is given not for same sex marriage, naturally the person is labeled hateful and intolerant and not being loving to those needing understanding. Sounds like the perfect no win scenario concocted by those with an agenda, does it not?
Being for or against something the world has embraced leaves an unsatisfactory response based on what is expected to be heard, as the woman caught in adultery and the paying of taxes unto Caesar. How does one reconcile that the standard of “be ye separate from the world” and not give an answer that would insult those wanting a religious call on same sex marriage or other testy subjects? There is a distinction of making a religious call and validating same sex marriage.
What would Jesus say? Render the things that are Caesar unto the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s? Or would Jesus give the response of what God intended for marriage based on the Genesis narrative?
Same sex marriage or traditional marriage are loaded issues today and one would be painted with the same disdain regardless of the response. Condemnation would not be the answer from Jesus, but neither would validation of action that would be contrary to the word of God.
Being for or against something not ordained by God would probably not be answered by Jesus, as the example of paying tribute to Caesar or not. Jesus would have used a different paradigm by not debating by a limited and preconceived conclusion based on two negative outcomes.
Christ would have revamped the question of being for or against same sex marriage, perhaps redirecting the response to the marriage construct actually created by God. A similar question was fabricated by the Pharisees regarding a woman that married seven brothers that died with only one outcome assumed by the Pharisees concerning which brother she would be married in eternity.
Jesus corrected them by saying one will be not be married nor given in marriage at the resurrection in Matthew 22:30, so an Earthly standard recognized only on Earth would not be appropriate in heaven. The guidelines of Earth would not necessarily translate over to the spiritual realm.
Jesus did not address deviations to God’s standards and would have perhaps redirected the marriage question of same sex marriage back to the original intent. God does not provide options to His established word and is clearly not the Author of confusion. Typically one method is presented, as with marriage, and adjustments are not ordained.
Cultural standards as same sex marriage or polygamy are not sanctioned in the Bible. These clear departures from the definition of marriage may be approved by the common man and society, but God does not change His word because it becomes popular to do so.
Jesus would have articulated a parable regarding marriage according to God plan. Under no circumstance would Jesus contradict God’s word.