This week's letter comes from Rev J.A. Matteson in Redmond who takes this opportunity to go "All Old Testament" on the gay marriage debate while simultaneously defending President Obama. Now that's something that you don't see everyday. Thanks for the letter, Rev. You can pick up your earthly reward, a bag of Strictly Organic Coffee, at our office, 704 NW Georgia.
With regard to Mr. Bates' letter, "Obama the Stonewaller", I reply: I would agree with Mr. Bates in his assertion that Obama shifted positions on the marriage debate. In his defense I would simply ask: How many times in your life have you changed your thinking on an issue after concluding you were wrong? Is not Obama entitled to do the same? Mr. Bates is correct in spotlighting the change in positions. Where Mr. Bates lost credibility with me was when he positioned himself as a theological expert with regard to the Bible's teaching toward marriage. Mr. Bates has clearly never read the Bible from Genesis to
Revelation for if he had he would know that marriage in the Bible is explicitly and implicitly understood to be between males and females. I challenge Mr. Bates to cite one example where the Bible endorses same sex unions by defining them as marriage, blessed by God. Mr. Bates is either biblically ignorant or defiant toward the Bible's clear teaching on the subject. If the latter is the case then he is merely a blowhard spouting meaningless rhetoric and his tyrannical ramblings ought to be ignored by thinking people. At the risk of reiterating the obvious and boring readers allow me to reiterate biblical basics pertaining to marriage: 1) the Author of marriage brought together Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, for the express purpose of propagating godly offspring, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24); 2) human anatomy is designed with this purpose of procreation in mind, the man carrying the seed and the woman the egg. Survival of the species depends on both sexes; and 3) male and female together represent a complete picture their Creator, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27). Mr. Bates, please do not patronize your readers by purporting knowledge in a subject matter when it is clearly absent. You favor redefining marriage and you have that right. But your beef is not with people like me, but with God who has defined marriage as between men and woman. I suggest you lodge your grievance with Him.
Rev. J.A. Matteson, M. Div.