Marriage Protection Sunday: Rod Parsley's Helpful Sermon Starters

A major focus of Air America's State of Belief program today was the whole "marriage protection" issue. Clicking the link for Marriage Protection Sunday (who knew? I thought today was special because it was Pentecost!) took me to a page of resources from Rod Parsley's "Center for Moral Clarity". It included sermon outlines offering suggestions for preachers. Including a portion of one here, just to give you an idea of the helpful coaching one of Ken Blackwell's biggest supporters is giving to religious leaders, regarding how to convince their congregations of the importance of a Marriage Protection Amendment.

I've heard the story about a boy who was almost 3. Typical of his age, the boy was eager to explore. More than a few times over a period of several weeks, he discovered the kitchen knives, both in the drawer that is just above his eye level and in the wooden block on the kitchen counter (which should have been out of his reach but somehow wasn't).

His parents solved this potentially deadly issue by putting the knives, kitchen scissors and other sharp implements in a plastic tray. They placed the tray on the highest shelf in the kitchen - where even Dad, who was more than six feet tall, had to stretch to bring it down. It wasn't terribly convenient for the cooks, but the disaster that would have ensued if the little boy had continued access to the kitchen knives called for drastic action. Preventing a tragedy became more important than the parents' convenience. The parents were more than willing to sacrifice some convenience for the son they love, even though he exasperated them occasionally.

America today is in a similar situation when it comes to those who would tinker with the definition of marriage. Some would do tremendous and permanent damage to our society if marriage was ever allowed to become anything other than what it has always been. The definition of marriage needs to be made inaccessible protected in a place where no one can get to it. In this case, that requires a drastic measure - an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating the obvious: that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Getting the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment passed will not be convenient, but it is essential for the safety of the institution of marriage.

Funny, I've never felt that my own marriage (of almost 19 years) was threatened in any way by the existence of same-sex relationships--or whether such relationships are afforded legal status.

On a serious note, though--and I really don't have a clue how one goes about this, how do we learn how to work together in a respectful way with people who may not share our worldview, but with whom we share common goals. Oscar pointed us to a post (And Civil Unions for All) he had put up at Underground Railroad. He had surmised that people wouldn't have been comfortable with that as a front page post here, and I'm sure he was right. There are some thing in that post that are pretty hard to read. But it also offers insights into why someone might oppose this whole idea of the government as "defender of marriage"...

What's more is that the state involving itself in marriage defies the Biblical norm. Neither the governments of the northern kingdom of Israel nor the southern kingdom of Judah was involved in the marriages of their citizens - marriage were purely the purview of the family. The unified kingdom of Israel was never involved in marriages - marriage was purely the purview of the family. Even in the pre-Saul Israelite theocracy the government, such as it was, was never involved in the marriage of its citizens - marriage was purely the purview of the family. So if the Biblical model of marriage - from "In the beginning" to "Amen" - is of marriage being purely the purview of the family, then how is it that those who claim to support family values and claim to believe in the Bible blatantly defy the Biblical norm by acceding to the secular practice of state-sponsored marriage?

I can not be party to that.

I will not be party to that.

That's an objection I would not have known about if I was unwilling to listen to what Oscar had to say, or if I had gotten so wrapped up in objecting to his views on same sex relationships that I never even got to that part of his post.

Alternate link for comments