Of marriage, injunctions, commitment, and sexuality.

I suppose that I could always take the time to look back in the archives, and count the number of posts that I have placed on this blog concerning marriage.  I don't propose (no pun intended!) to do such a count, but I know that there have been quite a few.

Two of today's news items have to do with that honourable, and God-given institution.  The first was the news that a Lib-Dem MP had named the 'anonymous' married footballer at the centre of one of the, now discredited, 'super-injunctions'.  Of course, the internet has been filled with his name for many days, and the hard-copy version of yesterday's Sunday Herald also named him.  Personally, until yesterday, I had never even heard of Mr Giggs - but then, I am no fan of overpaid, over-hyped, sports 'personalities'!   However, I find this case to be of some interest.  I have read comments that place the blame for the whole affair (sorry! No pun intended, again!) on the female who was allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair with the soccer player.  I have seen her described as everything from naive, to a devious, money-grabbing, opportunist.

It is not my place to either condemn, or defend, her - but I would make the point that "it takes two to tango"!  Whether she seduced a married man and father, or whether such a man seduced her, or even if the whole situation was mutually planned, the fact remains that if he had been faithful to his own marriage commitment, then there would never have been a story.

One report states that "Mr Justice Eady said when rejecting a second application - the first of Monday's attempts - by Sun publisher News Group Newspapers to discharge the privacy injunction, that the court's duty "remains to try and protect the claimant, and particularly his family, from intrusion and harassment so long as it can"."  Surely such "protection" is, primarily, the duty of the husband and father, not the court?!

The other related news item has been the ongoing debate, within the Church of Scotland, at its General Assembly, regarding the ordination of homosexual and lesbian clergy.  According to a report in the (Glasgow) Evening Times newspaper, "The Church of Scotland has agreed to lift its ban on gay ministers.  Commissioners at the institution's General Assembly voted by 351 to 294 to throw out the ban, which was brought in two years ago."  The report goes on to say that: "The Church has also agreed to set up a new commission which will prepare a report on various theological issues linked to the subject to be brought before the Assembly in 2013. After the publication of this report, the Church will discuss the subject again."

I feel, so very much, for those ministers, elders, and members of the Kirk who take a Biblical view of the practice of homosexuality/lesbianism.  There will, I suspect, be a great deal of 'soul-searching' in the coming weeks and months.  Will this decision lead to an exodus, from the Kirk, of those who are not prepared to bow down to the idol of 'political correctness'?  It's a major decision - and one that I am glad I don't have to make.

Any who do will, almost certainly, be immediately tarred with the fallacious term "homophobic".  The 'liberal' wing simply don't seem to understand the Biblical concept of loving the sinner, while hating the sin.  Yet that is exactly what the Christian Gospel teaches is the attitude of Almighty God.  Whilst it is not a synonymous situation, I think of the woman who was, allegedly, caught in the very act of an adulterous relationship (those 1st-century Pharisees would have had no doubt as to the guilty party in any alleged affair between a former beauty contest winner, and a footballer!), and brought before Jesus in order to trap Him into either agreeing to her being stoned to death, or denying the Mosaic law that demanded that penalty..  When all had disappeared after His statement "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7; RSV), He asked the woman "... where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again"." (John 8:10-11; RSV).  He was able to love the sinner, but did not condone her sinful act.

It seems to me that too many are prepared to major on the love and forgiveness of God (both of which are of inestimable importance - indeed, the former is the very essence of His nature), but forget that He is also the holy One, Who cannot even look upon sin.  The proof of that is seen at Calvary where, in the Persona of the Son, He became sin for us (see II Cor.5:21).  It was at Calvary that, as Graham Kendrick puts it in his song Come and see, "wrath and mercy meet."    It was there that He suffered the death that each one of us deserves, that we - heterosexual, homosexual, or lesbian - might receive the life that He gives.  Of course, that involves my acknowledgement that I am a sinful being, and that only He can do anything about it.   I then come, in repentance; receive His forgiveness; and start a life that is so new it's referred to as being "born again" (see John 3:16).

It's a life that's truly worth living - and, indeed, a life for which, almost paradoxically, many in the persecuted church are prepared to die!