The usual crew expresses how grateful they are to have actual contact with Matthew Lee Anderson (who is off of Twitter, in case you hadn’t noticed). Then they get to the topic at hand: the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Matt has previously written about the decision here. Alastair wrote about the realities that led up to the Obergefell decision here.

If you enjoyed the show (AND ONLY IF), leave us a review at iTunes.  If you didn’t enjoy the show, let us know and we’ll work to make it better.  Or we’ll ignore you.  And if you want to subscribe by RSS, you can do that here.

Finally, as always, follow Derek, Alastair, and Andrew for more tweet-sized brilliance.  And thanks to Timothy Motte for his sound editing work.

Posted by JF Arnold

  • Pingback: Podcast: After Obergefell | Alastair's Adversaria()

  • Hi gang.
    Good discussion.
    One point also from a UK observer.

    My online feelers are probably more tuned to the progressive end of the spectrum than the conservative, although I try to stay tuned beyond just things that reinforce my own opinion and make me feel good.
    Hence, ‘Hello Mere Fi’!

    I like dialogue, challenge and reflection.

    So I was amazed to hear @ajwtheology opine that the US conservatives feel fear at progressive hostility around the LGBT/marriage issue.

    What I’ve seen is totally the opposite – progressives running for cover and thinking of managing their online identities with more privacy due to the intense hostility fired from the hugely majority conservatives who feel that they have lost unjustly and then hit out with venom on comments feeds and Twitter.

    My conclusions:
    1: The debate is overheated in the US, with Christlike humility and gentleness in short supply on all sides, hidden behind the impersonal anonymity of online identities.
    Which direction you sense this aggression is going must depend on who you connect to most, but church numbers would suggest more activity from conservatives than to them.

    2: Christians (sadly in line with everyone else) have not learned how to dialogue with other opinions on line in a fruitful way that respects other perspectives, even other Christian views and traditions.
    I speak as one who has transgressed and then realized too late, in online contact with some of you at times, and apologised, and been forgiven, in blog comments feeds, on Facebook, and on Twitter.

    In the US this seems particularly vitriolic, where now everyone can communicate in the (over) confidence of their own correctness, and then look round for a posse to perform to and slap them on the back.

    Alistair’s recent article was THE most brilliant analysis of these behaviours that I have read anywhere.

    3: In these discussions, both sides lose perspective on the difference between church and state.
    Massively.

    What a non Christian state can legislate for is completely different from what goes on in the church – except when churches feel legally threatened in either direction.

    We are citizens of Heaven.
    The state will have different values the majority of the time.
    We should never be surprised or shocked by this.
    We should lobby where we can, and not be stunned when we aren’t heard.

    4: Christians I know or read and respect on both sides have good Biblical rationales for their opinions.
    More love and respect is needed in the knowledge that none of us can be certain we are right, and the church down the street may have well formed reasons for not seeing things the same way you do.

    We are all on a learning curve, and always will be in certain issues.
    This has historically always been the case.

    Cheers!
    (@unhappyhippy – my silly but now stuck non Twitter name!)
    Jez