This is such a confusng and incoherent argument, it really puzzles me.

Many scholars and theologians agree that it was likely the case that Jesus was married but that it wasn’t recorded. Indeed many apocryphal accounts take note of Jesus’ relation to Mary Magdalene as having likely been his wife. Jesus was also a Rabbi and to be a Rabbi you need to be married.

“In fact, when his disciples moaned about his harsh teaching on divorce, saying maybe it’d be easier never to marry in the first place, Jesus seemed to agree, saying anyone who could live like a eunuch should seriously consider doing so (Mt 19:12).”

Jesus’ answer to his apostles listed in Mt 19:12 was not rebuking marriage, it was acknowledging that marriage is a large responsibility and those who are fearful of not being good husbands should not get married.

“When a would-be disciple asks if he might bury his dead father before joining him, Jesus scoffs, ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead.’ (Lk 9:60) If you think that’s harsh, he not only demanded that his disciples leave their families, but that they hate them (Lk 14:26).”

This was in reference to those who would rather obey their families whims than risk chastisement from their family for doing so. In Matthew 10:34-37 when Christ says that he will cause families to be set against each other, he’s not saying that this will just inherently be the case for no reason in particular, but that it be done because families will not always agree on belief and that it is better to accept Jesus than to appease your family.

“And, on another occasion, when informed that his own mother and brothers were waiting outside to see him, Jesus’ waved his hand in the direction of his disciples and said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother’ (Mark 3:34–35).”

Doing the will of God reunites you in the company of your heavenly father, and by relation allows you to be the sibling of Jesus. If anything he’s using a cutesy example of how he has his actual siblings, but also that of having spiritual siblings.

“As Charles E Moore writes, Contrary to the tradition that salvation is guaranteed by ancestry or that one’s highest social obligation is to family, he reminded his listeners that the covenant that first drew God’s people together was based not on bloodlines but on faith and the miraculous power of God (John 8:31–59). In other words, you’re not saved because of your father’s blood, but because of Jesus’ blood. Or, as Rodney Clapp puts it, It is through a new family, born again of the Spirit, that God’s kingdom breaks into our world.”

The scripture Charles E Moore is quoting from refers to the fact that your birth right as an Israelite is revoked if you do not keep God’s law.

The rest of your article is taking assumptions and projection and blowing it out of proportion. Another thing you seem to not understand is that Jesus Christ as Lord was the same God of the Old Testament as he was of the new. Just because Jesus while alive didn’t feel the need to preach against homosexuality doesn’t mean he didn’t condemn it. Homosexuality was also condemned by his apostle Paul as prophetic revelation from the Lord when Paul condemned sexual immorality, including, but not limited to, homosexuality.

You know what those studies won’t reveal, Cat? They won’t reveal how SSM parents teach their children that ignoring, even mocking, the will of God is perfectly okay.

I agree with all that you said Erica.

Hey Cat – would you be able to point me in the direction of those articles?

I don’t agree. Explain to me how what I wrote was wrong. Did Jesus redefine the family as the community of his followers? Did he shatter Israel’s obsession with bloodlines and geographic boundaries? Did he incorporate the single, the widowed and the orphan into a new family of God? Your critique isn’t based on what I wrote but on what you fear others might think.

Top 10- Mike’s a good guy, albeit his edge and passion might not be to the liking of some. He has a huge heart for Jesus and Mike says a lot of stuff people don’t like.:-) I pray for more courage and wisdom for him, so should you! He is a wonderful storyteller and visionary. So, stay tuned to his blog!

Mike, you missed my point, and it seems missed your own point. Why did you write this article? To back away from the issue at hand, or at least divert attention away from it.
Your article was shared with me separately by two young people who are struggling with same sex attraction. It seems that what you wrote was seen by them as a loophole. This means your lack of clarity on the ‘family’ argument against same sex marriage is extremely unhelpful for those who are seeking the truth on this issue.
Yes, you mention families later on, but there are no Christians who would deny that the family of God is the eternal family. But unlike you, they don’t see any reason why that would mean using the Bible’s teaching on marriage and family somehow makes it difficult to argue against same sex marriage. How does the fact that human families are secondary to God’s family make it difficult to argue against same sex marriage in any way whatsoever? It doesn’t. Do human families not exist in the secular order of things (which is under the rule of Christ anyway)? Is the legislation of same sex marriage not just as destructive to “secular” families as it is to Christian ones? Does the current progressive ideology not contradict biology in the secular world as well as in the Church? Although you muster a lot of biblical truth, your attempt to use that truth to attack the arguments against SSM simply show how deluded and disconnected you are from reality – or at least from sound logic. That is why your theology is terrible.
So, what is your actual point? Your purpose seems to be dismissing the very real short term and long term threats faced by families and children in nations where same sex marriage has been legalised. Just like you, the devil will flood us with truth to float a single lie that will bring us undone. Yes, there are many other issues that the Church must face and indeed is facing, however imperfectly. But the issue of the day is the legalisation of SSM and the resulting lack of free speech for Christian teaching and testimony, redefinition of “children” and “parent” as rights “conferred” by the state and subsequent loss of autonomy of the biological family, the possible removal of “father” and “mother” from birth certificates, the loss of parental rights over what their children are taught in school concerning gender and sexual behaviour, and the possibility that religious couples will no longer be able to adopt children, being deemed an “unsuitable environment” for child rearing. These problems are not hypothetical. They are all occurring right now in countries where SSM has been legalised. Why would you not mention these facts? Where exceptions for religious people were promised or even legislation, they are now being undermined and even repealed. This is the case in Scandinavia, Canada, the UK, and increasingly in the USA since legalisation. So to back off on this one like a threatened invertebrate while diverting attention to other issues is not helpful. This really is a crucial issue and you have totally dropped the ball. People need clarity and you offer them sleight of hand. That is why I condemned your article. My point stands. I’m not arguing against the truth you presented but your conclusion. The sheep need to be protected from you. The Bible is clear on the issue of marriage and family, so your attempt to muddy that clarity with your disingenuous ‘focus’ on discipleship is deceptive and dangerous.
Jesus asked His disciples to allow the children to be brought to Him. This is not because those children were special in any way, but because Jesus is a king with whom children are safe. The Herods slaughtered the children of Israel, then they slaughtered the children of God, the first century martyrs. Our own culture murders millions of children in the womb, and is now attempting to destroy them through sexualising them (grooming them for promiscuity) in government schools, and encouraging and funding “self harm” through an unscientific doctrine of gender fluidity. Then, anyone who will not bow to this agenda will be marginalised and persecuted by these totalitarians. Legalising SSM is only one step in the process of destroying what remains of our culture, yet from what is happening elsewhere it is clear that such legislation is the cork in a bottle of lethal poison. It is the duty of rulers – including Christian ones – to testify against evil and also to restrain it. Right now, we need Christian leaders who have a spine, not those who “offer superficial treatments for my people’s mortal wound, (who) give assurances of peace when there is no peace.” Perhaps you mean well, and I should give you the benefit of the doubt, but if so, you lack spiritual discernment. Either way, you are being no help to the sheep or to the Christian cause on this issue.