Listen to these sermons, and older sermons, with our online Sermon Player.

I write to you as a supporter and a friend. I greatly enjoyed reading your books, The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from my Father. I support many (but not all!) of your policies; unlike some of my friends in the US I think that your health policy does not go far enough but at least you are trying to improve on an unjust and inefficient healthcare system. And I do not think you are a closet Muslim, Marxist or the anti-Christ about to take over the US! I say all this because up until today, if I were allowed to vote in a US election, you would have been my preferred choice. In other words I write this as someone who respects what you have done and who you are. But I am writing with a great deal of sorrow and disappointment. Why?

Your ‘coming out’ on the issue of same-sex marriage. You have just issued a statement stating that you have ‘gone through an evolution on this matter’. You used to think that civil partnerships were sufficient but now apparently you do not. And the reason for this change of heart/mind? I do not accept the cynical comments that suggest you have only done this because of the ‘pink dollar’ where it is alleged that because one in six of your main financial supporters is homosexual, you feel obliged to them. I do accept that you are reacting to Joe Biden’s statement and to the passing of the marriage amendment in North Carolina. And I also accept what you have declared in your statement that it is because of personal experience of monogamous gay couples that you have decided to take this route. You believe that it is an issue of equality and therefore it is an obvious thing for you.

I am disappointed that you have, for reasons of ‘real politick’, kept silent on this until now, trying to claim a neutral position, in order to keep floating voters and the African American constituency on board. You have waited until it is almost impossible to have any kind of sane and rational discussion on this. It has now become a shibboleth of contemporary culture – our children are often indoctrinated in schools and our media in general would hardly dare question or challenge the gay rights lobby. The gay rights lobby want people to think that ‘Gay’ is the new ‘Black’- thus equating their ‘struggle’ with that of the anti-racist movement, (I am curious as to whether you really do equate the ‘gay rights’ agenda with that of the civil rights movement of Martin Luther-King – is that not a bit insulting to those who engaged in that struggle?). In today’s illiberal atmosphere to be opposed to anything the gay rights lobby demand is the equivalent of being a card-carrying member of the KKK. However even though I know that reasoned argument is no more likely to persuade, than the possibility that you will actually read this, please allow me to go ahead and suggest why, although well meaning, your support of same sex marriage is so wrong.

Please forgive me for basing my remarks on your own words.

What is Marriage?

“I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonise, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose” – The Audacity of Hope p.40).

Your public statement yesterday was a prime example of that over simplification. It is like the use of the now Politically Correct term ‘equal marriage’. This is a clever use of the English language – directly implying that those who are not for gay marriage are not for equality. The elephant in the room here is that of course that the term equal marriage is not self-evident in its meaning. It is of course code for same-sex marriage. The problem is your use of the word ‘marriage’. You state that ‘the word marriage evokes powerful traditions etc.’….But that is to cheapen the meaning of marriage. I recently debated with the architect of the Liberal Democrats policy on gay marriage – what astounded me is that he was unable to define marriage – which does not bode well for his redefining it! It is not just about evoking powerful traditions. It is about the meaning of what is the basic building block of most, if not all societies, and certainly of American culture.

Marriage means the union of one man and one woman. It is given for a threefold purpose – mutual support and companionship, the good of society and the procreation and raising of children. Whilst it can be argued that homosexual couples can fulfill the first two, the third is impossible. Not even the President of the US can decree that two people of the same sex can have children without the intervention of a third party! It is for that reason that the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has spoken of government ‘redefining’ marriage. And surely he is right. Same sex couples cannot marry without first of all the State redefining marriage for everyone. In other words in order to satisfy the demands of a powerful minority lobby you are prepared to support the overturning of marriage for everyone. Some equality!

Although I am not an Episcopalian I do like the Book of Common Prayer. In the section of ‘Solemnization of Matrimony’, it states “For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.” The bottom line is that neither you, nor the Senate, nor Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor the British parliament, nor the European Court, nor the United Nations; has the right or authority to overturn and ‘redefine’ what God has granted to the whole human race.

Is ‘Redefining Marriage’ Progress?

“I wonder, sometimes, whether men and women in fact are capable of learning from history – whether we progress from one stage to the next in an upward course or whether we just ride the cycles of boom and bust, war and peace, ascent and decline” – The Audacity of Hope (p.324)

You spoke of your view evolving. The assumption is that such evolution is a positive thing. All self-styled progressives believe in progression. They believe that we are moving from the swamp into nirvana. Each human generation is better than the one before. Every politician wants to be seen as ‘Progressive’. Everyone wants to Progress. No one wants to be the Red-Neck Neanderthal who stands in the way of that Progress (unless of course you are the Red-Neck Neanderthal!). On this understanding of human history it is generally assumed by those who consider themselve Progressives that their views are the enlightened ones, and that everyone
else has been Left Behind. It is what happens when you miss the boat of the culturally liberal rapture!

But…and it is a big but! What if this is not progress? What if this is regression? What if this is part of the ‘bust’ and ‘decline’ that you mention above? There are different views of history – the progressive one that so many liberal fundamentalists espouse as their faith (‘things can only get better’) and the regressive one (‘things always get worse’). I am an historian and I cannot accept either position. History is in fact cyclical. There are, as you point out, cycles and ups and downs. In this respect I used to argue that marriage has always been understood as being between a man and a woman and that the current attempt to change that is a sign of continual regression. I was wrong. In actual fact marriage has not always been considered as between a man and a woman. As it happens this morning I was reading an ancient Syriac document from the 2nd Century, entitled Bardesan (I know, I know, I seem to have way too much time on my hands!). I read the following:“And what shall we say of the new race of us Christians, whom Christ at His advent planted in every  country and in every region? For, lo! Wherever we are, we are all called after the one name of Christ – Christians. On one day, the first of the week, we assemble ourselves together…..The brethren who are in Gaul do not take males for wives; nor those who are in Parthia two wives…nor do those who are in Persia take their daughters for wives.” The author was pointing out that Christians had a different moral code from the cultures they found themselves in. Apparently during the 2nd Century in France there was gay marriage, in Iran there was polygamy and incest. In time that all changed and the Christian ethic and ethos became the predominant one in the West and it is that on which our culture is built. If we follow your ‘evolution’ it is not that we are progressing into some kind of inevitable secular paradise of ‘equality, diversity and freedom’, rather we will be heading back to the world of Greco-Roman and Barbarian paganism. Is that really where you want to lead us?

What are the Consequences of ‘Redefining’ Marriage?

“I’m reminded that the actions of those in power have enormous
consequences – a price that they themselves almost never have to pay” The Audacity of Hope (p.48).

What are the consequences of redefining marriage? It seems to me that very little thought has been given to this – which given that it is such a massive change in the fundamental bedrock of our culture – is more than a little surprising. Both the arrogance and ignorance of the elite, and the dumbed down nature of the general populace (where we are continually taught just to accept the words of our masters and betters, and discouraged from thinking for ourselves) means that this has largely gone unconsidered. It is taken as self-evident that gay marriage will be a good thing leading to further equality, diversity etc. – words which, because of our relativistic post-modern culture, themselves have little meaning or substantive content. The British Government is so confident in its own ability to be the moral judge and arbiter and so sure of its actions that it has not even published a ‘green’ paper on the subject (a normal practice when new government legislation is introduced).

I suspect that most people are in fact opposed to same-sex marriage (that is until they are suitably re-indoctrinated) but do not think it is that big a deal. What harm can it do? I don’t have time but let me list the main foreseeable effects. Firstly marriage itself will be undermined. Secondly when a government takes to itself a power it should not have (such as redefining marriage) then a step is taken towards tyranny. Thirdly, if you decide to redefine marriage this year, what is to stop another president or government redefining it again in five years? Why should a man not be allowed to marry sixty wives? Why should a woman not be allowed to marry her sister? Why can’t I marry my son and get all the tax and inheritance breaks? If the government can change the definition of marriage now, it can do so again in the future. If the criterion for marriage is as the Equalities minister in the British government stated ‘two adults who love one another’ then what can stop John marrying his brother George?! The only response I have ever heard to this is a snort of derision followed by assurances from politicians that this is not their intention. Well, with all due respect, assurances from politicians are largely irrelevant for two reasons – past experience and future uncertainty. In the past we were assured that civil partnerships would be the end of the matter and that gay marriage was not on the agenda. And in the future the personal assurances of today’s politicians, even if they were worth the paper they are written on, are not binding on tomorrow’s politicians. What after all is to stop their views ‘evolving’?

One other consequence is this – I don’t believe in two categories of marriage – religious and civil. There is just marriage. I am not interested in protecting my own wee religious corner. I am interested in protecting marriage for the good of all – especially the poor. Whilst the actions of the elites (whetherliberal or conservative) impact the whole of society, they impact the powerless and the poor most. Please think about the consequences of what you are doing – not just for the powerful nor just in terms of your own re-election – but think of the havoc that the redefining of marriage and its subsequent undermining will have on the most vulnerable in our society.

Why should we give into religious bigots?

“To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition” The Audacity of Hope (p.218).

This is a common argument. At least from the secular fundamentalists who divide the world into good and bad. On the one hand there are the bright, intelligent, reasonable, progressive, forces of light….on the other there are the outmoded, hypocritical, regressive, religious reactionaries. Except for the most militant of atheists, it is generally accepted that if you want to be religious then you have that right as long as you keep it private and on no account let it interfere with public life! Being religious should be like being a Trekkie or joining a knitting club. Separation of Church and State is being reinterpreted in a way that the Founding Fathers would have found quite frankly ridiculous. As you point out above to ask us to divorce our personal morality from public policy is a practical absurdity!

The question is not why should we give into religious bigots (we should not), but why should we give into any bigots at all whether religious or secularist? Who is to decide what is bigoted? Who is to decide what is right and wrong? Is it really just to be personal morality? If so, then that will be dependent on whoever governs, which in modern democracies has largely come to mean whoever has the money and thus the media on their side. Is there a Higher Law? Or must we be governed by the law of the dollar, or the law of Big Corporations, or the law of the gay rights lobby, or the anti-Jewish lobby, or the pro-Jewish lobby, or the law of Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch?

What would Jesus do?

“But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God’s Spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.” – The Audacity of Hope (p.208)

And this is where you come in. According to the Word of the God which you bowed the knee before and submitted to, you are an ‘authority that has been established by God’. You are God’s servant (Romans 13). It is incumbent upon you to ask – what does God want me to do? And how would you know? Not because of some dream you had in the night, or some dream from your father. Not because you were given a pair of magic spectacles which allowed you to read ancient- Egyptian hieroglyphics! Not because of some opinion polls or focus groups. Not because of right wing fundamentalists telling you what to do. But rather because you believe in Jesus, the Word of God, and therefore you follow His Word.

As you know the Bible does not give us detailed political policies. It does not for example tell you how exactly to run the American healthcare system (which is why Christian brothers and sisters can disagree – unless they are unbiblical enough to equate their views on ‘socialized medicine/universal health care’ with the divinity and resurrection of Christ). However it does – as you must know – provide us with basic principles for life, society and living. And one of those principles is marriage. God created man, male and female. God gave us marriage for our good. God gave us marriage for the good of society. What God hath joined together let no man put asunder! Do you not think it is wise for us as a society, and for you as a leader in that society, to ‘obey the Maker’s instructions’? Salvation is not just personal.

But some will argue that the Bible says nothing about homosexual marriagesso it cannot be that important an issue. That is true – in the same way that it says nothing about pedophilia. But no one is going to argue that the Bible supports pedophilia. The teaching and principles about marriage are clear from the Bible. It is only a peculiar kind of a- historicism combined with a post-modern desire to make things mean whatever we want them to mean, that enables anyone to get away with the brass neck notion that the Bible does not have clear teaching about marriage. It is a vitally important subject and one which no government  has the right to overturn.

We need far more people to do what you describe above, kneel before the cross, submit ourselves to God’s will and dedicate ourselves to discovering His Truth. But when we profess faith in Christ we must also walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Ultimately one day both you and I will answer to a higher authority than the electorate. We will have to give account for what we have done with the gifts and responsibilities that a loving God has given us. Surely you do not want to be known as the President who sought to overturn the will and truth of God on marriage?

Sir, as I said at the beginning, I have a great deal of sympathy and respect for your position. Insofar as I am in any way connected with those who send hate-filled messages portraying you as some kind of monster, I apologise. But I cannot support or defend you in this. To advocate and support same-sex marriage could have a far more devastating effect and harm than any good you have or indeed could do. I plead with you to think that perhaps you may be mistaken, and to truly seek what the Lord wants, and what is best for all of us,

Yours respectfully

David A. Robertson

A Scotsman who cannot vote in a US election (how discriminatory is that?!) but who nonetheless prays for you and others in authority.

Solas CPC,
St Peters Free Church
Dundee
Scotland
DD1 4JJ

Listen to these sermons, and older sermons, with our online Sermon Player.

Listen to this sermon, and older sermons, in our online Sermon Archive.

Listen to this sermon, and older sermons, in our online Sermon Archive.

Lyra is a community of professional musicians. Most of the members are students or postgraduates of Saint-Petersburg Conservatoire, working in different choirs of Saint-Petersburg. Some are also soloists at musical theatres of the city. Though the members of the community represent different musical professions: choir conductors, opera singers, instrumentalists, music teachers – they are all united by love for choir and ensemble singing.

In 2001 Lyra were awarded the Montreux (Switzerland) international choral festival diploma. In 2005 the group was also a winner of Coleraine International Choral Festival (Northern Ireland).

You can hear some mp3 samples of Lyra here.

When: Saturday, 12th May 2012  at  7.30pm
Where: St. Peter’s Free Church, 4 St. Peter’s Street, Dundee, DD1 4JJ
Cost: £5

Tickets are available from the church office or contact Sulvi on 01382 807 004 or  07999 818 323.

Solas is hosting a six-episode journey through the life of Jesus, from birth to his reported resurrection.

This is suitable  for anyone, from any background, who is interested in learning more about the life of Jesus.

When: Starting Tuesday 24th April, for six weeks.
Where:  St. Peter’s Free Church, 4 St. Peter’s Street, DD1 4JJ.
Cost:  The accompanying book costs £5. Suggested donation of £2 per session.

We’ll start with coffee/tea and cakes, then a 20-minute DVD, followed by a time for questions and discussion.

Find out more at www.lifeofjesus.tv

View the poster Life of Jesus – Solas (PDF)

St Peter’s Free Church Sermon Archive

St Peter’s Free Church Sermon Archive

St Peter’s Free Church Sermon Archive