A good tactic for debating liberal “Christians” is to push their boundaries. For example, homosexual apologists like Matthew Vines and Michael Coren are religious liberals. In other words, they are religious in their liberalism. They aren’t liberals in the fact that they know what Christianity teaches and reject parts that they may find uncomfortable, they are religious in their liberal views.
Michael Coren and Matthew Vines try to be as religious as they can in other areas besides their promotion of homosexuality. They claim orthodox Christology, a high view of Scripture, and many other things that a true Christian would believe in.
The key to debating their liberalism is to turn their liberalism against them. If you ask them what a marriage is, they will most likely say that it’s a loving, committed union between any two people. At this point, you need to bring polygamy into discussion. Don’t use the word polygamy but simply ask them: “Why two?”
If they use the word polygamy, put out that fire immediately because it’s a Trojan horse. Remind them that you didn’t say the word polygamy and that you just want to know why their definition includes two people. At this point they will be forced to go to Scripture. They cannot appeal to tradition because they’ve already nullified it with their endorsement of homosexual “marriage” and homosexuality in general. Basically, at this point they’re trapped.
They’ll look to passages regarding marriage in the New Testament and be forced use them for there is nothing else that they’ll be able to point to. Every reference to two people in marriage is based on the gender binary, also known as man and woman. This is true for Ephesians 5, Matthew 19 and any other key texts on marriage in the New Testament.
Once you clearly point out to them that marriage in the New Testament is based on the gender binary, you need to point out the truth to them. The truth is that these people didn’t accept these liberal positions based on a careful reading of Scripture. They accepted these positions for other reasons then went seeking this revisionism so they can maintain a façade of religious orthodoxy. This is especially true for Michael Coren and Matthew Vines. A plain reading of both of their books shows that they came to these positions for reasons completely unrelated to Christianity then went seeking for answers to justify their new positions and to maintain a façade of orthodoxy.
The issue of homosexuality is one of many examples. This method can be used for anything, whether it be married priests, married bishops, female priests, interfaith dialogue, intercommunion, etc. The sky is the limit. Just take them one step further and say “Why not?”
One of my favorite movies is A Man For All Seasons. In this movie, St. Thomas More points out that he would give the Devil the benefit of the law, because if the Devil were to counter him, he would have no protection if all of the laws of the land were laid flat. Watch the linked video above for the entire brilliant speech.
When liberals try to twist the plain words of Scripture to suit their worldly agenda, we need to be sure that they now have to justify their position using the text that they’ve just thrown under the bus. Their answers will be as hollow as the liberal positions that they hold.
I have never yet made a Christian case for traditional marriage. There is indeed one but there is no use in being a proponent of that to non-Christians. Having said that it amazes me that so many so-called Christians are in favour of “gay” or “equal” marriage. The teachings of Jesus are quite clear – Matthew 19:4 says it all – end of story.
Interesting tactics Allan.
By the way. I love “A Man for All Seasons”. I am glad to say that I saw Charlton Heston perform in the title role in Aberdeen in about 1988. It was wonderful, I didn’t want the performance to end.
I have more respect for people who strike it out on their own like the John Calvins, Martin Luthers who had the courage to clear out of the Church when their lack of conviction in the teachings of the Catholic Church moved them. The liberals with their at odds views with the Catholic Church remain and attend the Church they hope to influence change. They staff our parish offices, parish councils, assist at liturgies, and head social justice committees. Why have these liberals with their lack of integrity remain in a Church they hope in vain to change core teachings? In a passive aggressive way, their silent protest effect nothing but maybe garner sissified empathy from other misinformed pew sitters.