Let's start with his words "civil contract". If Troxler wants to discuss the roots of today's marriage crisis, that might be a good place to start. Too many people do not take there vows seriously because they see marriage as little more than a public contract which can be made and broken at the will of one or both of the parties to the contract. Marriage at its roots is more than that, though. Marriage is rooted in religion, and within that religious context, marriage is the union of two souls before God. Not a civil union, but the actual joining of two souls before God. When people treat there marriages this way, it becomes a much more personal, serious institution. Anything you do to your spouse, you are also doing to yourself. People who view marriage as little more than a civil contract as Troxler does tend to have little regard for marriage, which leads me to my second point.
Early in the article, Troxler tosses adultery into the face of heterosexuals, as if to say that you heterosexuals are the bigger problem for marriage. He's so close to right on, but yet so far off. Adultery is a problem for people who see marriage rooted in God as well as people who see marriage as a civil contract. It is easier for those in the "civil contract" category to step over that line, though, because for them there are fewer consequences to their actions. Had Troxler, in this part of his column, stopped and said, fine, you want to ban gay marriage? Then clean up your own house and work on stemming the adultery problem, I'd have been on board with him. Instead, Troxler begins using scripture well out of context to say Sinner, though has no right to comment on anyone else's sin.
Troxler tells us he was raised Methodist. I suspect he never studied his faith in depth in his youth, and also that he no longer practices his faith, because he spews out a lot of half correct items of Christian doctrine. First, he tries to place sins in some sort of hierarchical pecking order, when the Bible says that all sins are equal before God. I particularly liked this paragraph:
Of course, Jesus said a lot of other stuff, too. Rich people almost certainly won't go to heaven. They should give away their money. We should turn the other cheek to those who seek to hurt us. We should clothe the naked and feed the poor and house the homeless.We also should pray in private, without beating our breasts loudly and rending our garments in the streets like hypocrites.
Good stuff. Like rich people almost certainly won't go to heaven. Jesus actually was making the point that it is more difficult for the wealthy to get into heaven because of the trappings of wealth. When you are poor and have nothing, sometimes faith is the only thing you have that is your own, whereas the rich can very easily place themselves at the center of their universe and ignore their faith. I have no problem with his next two sentences, but I enjoy the fourth one about praying in private. I enjoy it because non-believers enjoy using that one to try to shut up believers all the time. To my understanding, that exchange in the Bible refers to those who feel the need to outrageously display their faith, those for whom the display of faith is more important than their actual faith. Used in the context that Troxler does in the column, it would render null and void any statements in the Bible about helping others find God. In fact, it would turn Jesus entire ministry into one great big sin.
As a general rule, I avoid discussing religion. I am not a biblical scholar, I'm just a little Lutheran who spent a lot of time in church as a youth, and who treated my biblical study as seriously as I did my school studies. When I see crap like this from Troxler, I always want to see someone smarter than myself dissect it and take it apart piece by piece. Sometimes my frustration gets to the level that I cannot help but do it myself, even though their are many much more versed than myself who could do it better.
1 comment:
Being a Methodist is a good excuse for ignorance. We left the church in the 60s when they started singing Kumbaya during the service.
As for gay "marriage," the gay activists don't want marriage per se, so much as they want to destroy marriage as a rite. It's another Leftist whack at Christianity. Because as soon as marriage is redefined by courts as between any consenting adults, churches will be forced to perform gay marriages or be accused of descrimination. With that finding, churches will be legally harassed by the rabid activist Left in courts and lawsuits until the few economically viable churches left are bankrupt or they give up performing marriages altogether. With help from the ACLU, there will be no one left who will maintain marriage as a religious rite between a man an a woman. Count on it.
The issue of marriage is, for writers like Toxler, just an excuse to demean religion. Secularists like Troxler don't just aim to make our society secular. If they did, they would really try to convince people of their ideas. Troxler wants to impose his own lack of religion and cynicism on others. If, as polls purport, 60% of Americans believe in God and/or attend church, that puts him distinctly in the minority view. Most decent people would accept that and allow that religion has a place in life, but all totalitarians and 99% of journalists simply can't abide any religion that might compete with their aspirations.
Read his article on prayer.(Aug 3, 2004 archives.) He doesn't want it before government meetings. It is a safe bet that he is opposed to it in schools. And if he was honest, I bet he would be opposed to it in churches. Because to totalitarians there can be no rivals. Thankfully this country doesn't support the Leftist Secular Mullahs who would, if they could, dictate to all of us.
Post a Comment