World Split Apart, Part II: Why Christians Are Losing the Battle to Protect Marriage

In the commencement address to the Harvard graduating class of 1978, the Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn focused on what he called “the split in today’s world”.  A split, he argued, that was “perceptible even to a hasty glance.”  It was the height of the Cold War.  Soviets were pointing their nukes at us and we back at them.  Solzhenitsyn warned his audience at the time that the “ancient truth” articulated thousands of years earlier in the New Testament, still held true—“a kingdom [in that instance the earth]. . . divided against itself cannot stand.”

In light of the US Supreme Court’s ruling on June 26, 2015, no one today can seriously dispute the fact that the institution of marriage is undergoing a complete transformation in the United States to the point that it too is causing a deep split in the world as we have known it for thousands of years.  As was the case in 1978, wherein Solzhenitsyn warned that “the anguish of a divided world . . . is that neither one can be transformed into the other without violence” most would agree that there appears to be little hope of reconciliation between those who are opposed to same-sex marriage with its proponents without the likelihood of violence.

Prior to the Court’s ruling, a group of Christian leaders issued a warning of civil disobedience if the Supreme Court legalizes same sex marriage.  Part of the language found in that warning specifically warns “the Supreme Court not to cross this line.” Source: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christian.leaders.vows.civil.disobedience.if.supreme.court.legalises.same.sex.marriage/53075.htm

Individuals signing the warning included former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters President Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, Franklin Graham, President and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse, and along with over 25,000 individuals on the Defend Marriage website.

In the few months leading up to this case, there were a number of instances in which small business owners were forced to cater to the LGBT crowd from New Mexico to Kentucky to Oregon and elsewhere.  Yet, the homosexual owners of a New York hotel were publicly castigated on social media for hosting a political event for Ted Cruz.  The owners apologized to their peers and said they would not let it happen again.  Apparently, calling for the refusal to provide services to customers such as Senator Cruz is morally and legally justifiable by the LGBT crowd, but bakery owners in Oregon refusing to provide bakery services at a same-sex couple’s wedding for the same reasons is not.

The stark ignorance of the Constitution is no less significant with this crowd either.  In response to the Court’s concern that the states have the right to handle these domestic issues—NOT the nine unelected members of the Supreme Court–the attorney who argued for the Plaintiffs declared without reservation that we “don’t live in a pure democracy . . . we live in a Constitutional democracy”. 

If she had only taken time to read the Constitution itself and perhaps even The Federalist Papers, she might have learned that the Constitution never even mentions the word democracy, and that Madison was adamant to point out that he and the Framers gave us a system of government under the Constitution that is “strictly republican.”  It is NOT a democracy.  (Of course, this is not to suggest that “usurpers”, as Madison and Hamilton called them, have not turned us into a democracy.)  Apparently, no one on the Court has read Madison’s writings either as the attorney’s assessment has been left unchallenged.

Without a doubt, constitutionally speaking, it is the exclusive prerogative of the states to decide domestic issues such as marriage.  Remember Madison’s words in Letter 45?  The national government should only be involved in “external matters”—i.e., defense and international commerce: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”  Madison, The Federalist Papers, Letter 45. 

The States have jurisdiction on all internal matters, and the list of those matters is endless, and most definitely includes the matter of marriage: “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Id.

The Plaintiff’s attorney was just as disinterested in the correct version of world history as she was in the writings of the Framers.   When Justice Scalia, during oral arguments, brought up the fact that no nation has ever allowed homosexual couples to marry prior to 2012 and wondered if the Plaintiffs were not asking the Court to abandon the fundamental basis of marriage that has been recognized by everyone for thousands of years, the attorney superimposed her version of reality onto the facts.  The Plaintiff’s attorney unabashedly explained that they were not trying to change the fundamental definition of marriage, since marriage has always been between two individuals and that was all her clients wanted. Once again, as with the erroneous statement about our republic being a democracy, no one challenged the attorney on this remark–no one on the Court and no one in the media or the religious right.

Finally, the “usurpers” relied on the cryptic due process provision of the 14th Amendment saying that it extends to “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”  The 14th Amendment, however, only says that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  Understand that this does not say the State can NOT deprive any one of life liberty or property, but if it does, it has to be done under due process of law.  It is also important to understand that even though the court uses the guise of the 14th Amendment for their ruling, it is, nonetheless, as Justice Scalia explains: “[A] naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

Sadly, a closer look reveals that the other side is no less prone to the vices of hypocrisy, ignorance, and dishonesty.  In fact, the division between these two groups is actually rooted in the same mindset not unlike the world of 1978.  After focusing on the split existing in 1978, Solzhenitsyn shocked his audience when he concluded his speech with the unexpected assertion that the “the split in the world [was] less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.”  A close examination of the current split over same-sex marriage will reveal to the unbiased observer that the malady tearing these two enemies apart is in reality the same.

Rick Wiles, for example, a high profile end-of-times broadcaster discussing the court’s hearing on same-sex marriage used his time to actually ridicule an already historically persecuted organization within the community of Christ-based organizations.  Source: www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cliff-kincaid-perfect-storm-gay-marriage-iran-and-obama-will-destroy-america

Apparently, it is ok for end-of-time Christian broadcasters such as Wiles to ridicule and belittle others within the community of believers (which qualifies as the very definition of persecution), but it is not ok for others to persecute him and his followers.  Wiles predicted in that broadcast that he and his followers would be severely persecuted because of the court’s ruling: “There is an ugly spirit of Antichrist rising up in the world” that is going to come after him and his followers which is something that has never really happened to Wiles and his followers.  However, the members from the aforementioned Christian group which Wiles was ridiculing were actually raped, murdered, and driven from their homes in the dead of winter out into the wilderness causing many to die in the early 1800’s at the hands of so-called American “Christians”.  Clearly, hypocrisy is no respecter of persons.

Finally, the institutionalized/mainstream Christian community also seems to share the same penchant for ignorance as the attorney for the Plaintiffs in the gay marriage case; whether or not it is by design or simply due to lack of real knowledge is irrelevant.  It is ignorance nonetheless.  Just as every attorney should be intimately aware of the constitutional history of United States, which the Plaintiff’s attorney clearly was not, every person professing to be Christian should be equally aware of their own historical record—i.e., the Bible.  Wiles and others like him claim that “God established marriage as a divine institution, and is a holy covenant between God and one man and one woman.”  He also claims that the “Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God, inerrant and complete.” Id.

Yet, a thorough reading of the Bible reveals some very interesting history about marriage, which institutionalized Christianity has chosen to ignore completely.  The Old Testament is filled with examples of men married to more than one woman simultaneously, including the greatest prophets and biblical leaders of all time—Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, for example—the three men considered to be the foundation of the Judeo-Christian culture were ALL married to more than one woman. 

The Mosaic code even explains the criteria that must be met in order to have more than one wife—Exodus 21:10.  The Great Deliverer Gideon had “many wives.”  Judges 8:30.  The mother of the prophet Samuel was married to a man who had “two wives”.  I Samuel 1:2-28.  The great King David and King Solomon were both married to more than one woman simultaneously.  Even Isaiah, one of the greatest prophets of the Old Testament predicts that the time will come when seven women will marry one man simultaneously.  Isaiah 4:1.  All in all, the period from Abraham to the birth of Christ covered a span of nearly 2,000 years, a significant span of years that cannot be dismissed as an aberration, wherein marriage was between one man and more than one woman.

As far as the New Testament goes, there is not one verse of scripture that negates the two-thousand-year-old traditional Judeo version of marriage found throughout the Old Testament.  In fact, the resounding silence on the issue lends more credence to the fact that the definition of plural marriage did not change.  If it had, one would certainly expect some significant exposition on the matter. 

For example, when Christ gave his Sermon on the Mount, he was very precise and specific in giving instruction to his followers about the old things that had changed completely.  Specifically, Christ declared: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matt. 5:27-28)  Later on in that same chapter he says: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”  (Matt. 5:31-32) 

Since, Christ took the time in this Sermon to address issues surrounding sex and marriage and to clarify his position on it, it seems logical that if plural marriage was going to be changed as well, he would have done it here.  His silence on the issue clearly confirms his assent to the institution as it existed in the Old Testament.

The closest thing to a negative is a verse found in 1Timothy 3:2, where the Apostle Paul expresses his belief that Bishops should have one wife.  However, it is important to note that Paul never describes himself as a prophet and he does not expressly state that the rule applies to anyone else.  It is also important to note that Paul was not a proponent of marriage at all and that he was prone to being an outspoken individual on matters important to him and his biases: “seek not a wife” Paul admonished his readers as those who are not given in marriage “doeth better.” (I Cor. 7:27, 38)

Another problem with Paul’s letters is that they contain a number of contradictions—whether through inadvertent translations or deliberate changes, we cannot really tell.  For example, Paul says that when he first saw the Savior, the others around him heard “a voice” but saw “no man”. Acts 9:7.  Later on, however, the record says just the opposite—those with him “saw the light . . . but they heard not the voice”. Acts 22:9. 

Next, we see Paul telling us to “be ye angry” (Ephesians 4:26) which directly contradicts Christ’s teaching not to be angry without cause (Matt. 5:22) and to “love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you.” (Matt. 5:43-44). In another place, Paul tells us to “drink no longer water”, (1 Tim. 5:23) which is a direct contradiction to sustainable life. 

Finally, we see Paul telling his readers to “leave the principles of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ” (Hebrews 6:1), in spite of the fact that his whole life was to preach the doctrine of Christ–so much for being “inerrant”, as mainstream Christianity claims, and so much for relying on anything he says about marriage.

Consequently, the one scripture that mainstream Christianity hangs their hat on in their assertion that the Bible defines marriage between one man and one woman is a verse found in the very first book of the Bible—“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”  (Genesis 2:24)  This verse is repeated again in Matthew and Mark with little variation.  There are several glaring problems, however, in relying on this verse as a basis for a one-man-one-woman definition of marriage. First, and foremost, is that it is not exclusive.  In other words the scripture does not say “shall cleave unto [only] his [one] wife.” 

Aside from this obvious omission, the biggest contradiction with mainstream Christianity’s interpretation of the scripture in Genesis is that almost every Old Testament book that follows has example after example of men who were called of God to lead and teach His people who had more than one wife.  If the commandment by God in Genesis was meant to be only one-man-one-woman, why would God’s prophets and leaders ignore that definition so blatantly and, more importantly, why would God be silent about it? 

The answer lies in Exodus 21:10, which is a scripture given through the prophet Moses who is also known as the great lawgiver—“if he take another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.”  The rule on marriage, then, was expounded to mean that a man could take another wife as long as he did not diminish the needs of the other wife or wives.  If Moses was speaking on behalf of God, then, in light of this scripture, it must be understood that he was clearly expanding upon the intent and meaning of the scripture in Genesis. 

With all of this evidence from their own Bible, it is dishonest, in the least, for mainstream Christianity to argue their entire case on one, single, ambiguous scripture in Genesis, while ignoring the volume of scriptures to the contrary–so much for historical accuracy.

As far as institutionalized Christianity’s claim of the Bible being “complete”, I will only say that the Bible itself references the Book of Jehu, Iddo and Enoch (2 Chronicles and Jude 1:14), neither of which are found anywhere in the Bible and at the end of the Gospel of John, the writer makes the assertion that we do not even have a fraction of all the works of Christ included in the Bible. (John 21:25).   Making and holding to these two claims about the Bible being inerrant and complete is no different than the LGBT crowd holding to the fact that they are not trying to change the definition of marriage and that they are just like any other married couple.

Likewise, asserting the claim to the Supreme Court, as did the gay marriage attorney, that our society is a constitutional democracy is neither grounded in the words of the Constitution nor the writings of Framers.  By the same token, asserting the second claim to the Supreme Court that marriage has always been between two individuals and, therefore, it should include two individuals of the same gender is to deny history.  It has never included members of the same sex.  Similarly, mainstream Christianity’s assertion that marriage is only between one man and one woman is clearly not based upon the Bible of Christianity.  As I said, both groups are afflicted with the same disease.

Clearly, in this world split apart, the two sides are afflicted by the same malady—hypocrisy, ignorance, and outright dishonesty.  In 1978, Solzhenitsyn made the claim that “the anguish of a divided world . . . is that neither one can be transformed into the other without violence.”  My concern is the same for the division surrounding marriage. 

Institutionalized Christianity has no moral ground to stand on in attacking the proponents of gay marriage when they ignore their own history and the fact that they have changed that history.  In the Book of Malachi, “the Lord” says that “I change not.”  (Malachi 3:6)  The Book of Hebrews echoes this message: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)  Plural marriage existed throughout the Old Testament, and it was not changed in the New Testament.  Changing that history changes them. 

Violence begets violence and, as Peter warned, “judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17)  Christianity is guilty of the very same thing they have accused the same-sex marriage proponents, “they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, and broken the everlasting covenant.” (Is. 24:5)   If judgments are coming on this Nation as a result of the gay marriage court decision, as so many in mainstream Christianity predict, then, according to their own Bible, it will come upon the house of God. 

The solution?  Christians need to read and learn from their Bibles for themselves, and American citizens need to read their Constitution and the writings of Madison, Hamilton and Washington themselves so as to take back control of their own lives from the hypocrites and the politicians.  The words of Isaiah are instructive and conclusive—“They that lead thee cause thee to err and destroy the way of thy paths.” (Is.3:12)  Take back control of your lives.

©June 2015 World Split Apart, Part II: Why Christians Are Losing The Battle To Protect Marriage, Madame Publius™