I have a number of friends who are either in ministry with the United Methodist Church or teach at one of their affiliated universities. Over the past few weeks almost each of them have been following closely with the recent conference in St. Louis concerning what it was going to do about the issue of the moment, homosexuality. Was it going to allow their own churches and clergy to do what they want (and so have differing standards on sexuality across different parts of the UMC)? Or were they going to proclaim the traditional denominational teachings against homosexuality were still valid (and so alienate many who were hopeful that the final break between sexuality and morality was going to be broken)?
I have friends on both sides of the issue, those who are strongly against opening marriage and ministry to the LGBTQ community, and those who believe that to do so is the only possible route for being relevant in the future. For both sides this has been an excruciating fight about the future of their denomination. Most likely whatever happened division was still going to come, because both sides had dug in.
Surprisingly, the UMC decided to toughen their prohibitions against LGBTQ ordination and marriage. I'm surprised because it runs against the trends both in the culture at large and within mainline denominationalism, in which homosexuality is now considered a perfectly valid option for people about their lifestyles.
My heart aches for my friends in the UMC who have struggled for this, but I do celebrate because, while the UMC may be wrong on many things, on this it seems that they at least tried to stay within the bounds of Scriptural teaching, even if not for all the right reasons. Like much of conservatism today they may have gotten here not because it was right but because they were afraid of the future, which are two very different things. Scripture, in my interpretation of it, at least 5 times speaks to this as something that is abhorrent to God (twice in Leviticus and three times in Paul's letters). But nothing I have read about this says that they were fully prepared to make this their rationale.
We live in a strange time in which those who would disregard what seems to be the clear teachings of Scripture and those who are trying to do the right thing but for the wrong reasons will choose to continue this fight. More shame will continue to be cast upon the body of Christ in this fight...but to glorify God by doing his will, even against our fears and against our culture, must still be our singular purpose, no matter what others may do.
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Saturday, August 4, 2018
The New Liberal Scam...
I grew up in the dying days of the American liberal state. In the 1970s and 1980s the welfare state of FDR and LBJ was now giving way to the stark reality that many of the people it sought to lift up were in fact become wards of the state. A legacy of spending other people's money at an exorbitant rate, without any consequences for the failure of these programs, was finally giving way to some common sense: the Reagan revolution that rightly lowered taxes, sought to make people become responsible for their own lives again, and recognized that government was often the problem and not the solution became the majority opinion that has held for over a generation.
It's ironic, however, that a new 'liberal' scam has arisen. But this scam is being perpetrated by a form of government that has shifted continually to the right, and as such government control has increased exponentially in the name of freedom. Consider three examples:
1. Here in my home state of Kansas our secretary of state Kris Kobach has made it his signature issue that thousands of illegal aliens are voting and distorting our democracy. As such, then, measures must be taken to ensure that everybody voting is identified to be eligible to vote. Kobach has become something of a celebrity within far-right circles for his crusades and has reportedly earned close to a million dollars (much of it while in public office) by selling his services to anybody who wants to shut questionable voters out of the voting booth, even as his plans are often thrown out or are recognized to be ineffective and the problem is in fact not a real problem. In truth, I think it makes common sense to ensure that only citizens can vote and IDs ensure that we are who we say we are. In this day and age in which the viability of our electoral process is undergoing multiple attacks, shouldn't we know who is voting, just as we are questioning who is putting money into our campaigning and we are questioning how those votes are being counted?
But here's the scam...who gets to decide who is voting? The government. Only by going through a long and sometimes laborious process, all determined by the state, can we then have the right to vote. Some who do not have government-issued IDs (usually the poor or minorities) are excluded, even if they actually are citizens. People are not assumed to have a right to vote; only by proving their worthiness to the state are they enabled to vote. It's like assuming that people are guilty rather than making state in a trial have a burden of proof of guilt. We decry this in totalitarian dictatorships, but a form of it has crept into our own thinking here in the United States.
2. The expansion of rights to abortion and same-sex marriage and other issues is likewise another area in which government control is or will be restricting these things in the name of 'conservatism'. As a Christian I believe abortion to be wrong...but who decides whether something or not is illegal? Conservatives want to restrict freedom to choose, and must necessarily use the compelling power of the state to make their position felt, even as in many other areas (gun control) they vehemently say that the government has no right to interfere. And as a Christian I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin...but who gets to decide who others should sleep with? Must the state get to decide who others can and cannot marry? It seems strange that conservatives never say that multiple marriages (which Jesus called adultery) should not be illegal (and are supporting a man on his third!), even as they forbid same sex marriage. But marriage between two people whom the state says are incompatible to marry one another? Let the state ban it in the name of conservative freedom.
3. Then finally there's Mr. Trump's wall, which is perhaps symbolic of the modern conservative boondoggle of government waste. For years conservatives would wail about how the state would spend endless amounts of other people's money trying to fix social problems. Continually governmental social services failed to fix the problems they were claiming to solve, but yet the programs continued, and the only people to benefit from them were the legions of social workers who got their steady paychecks from the state in an industry that could never die.
Now Mr. Trump seeks to build a wall costing something in the neighborhood of $20 billion. Will it work? No, of course not. People will always find other ways to enter into the country. Ladders, tunnels, the trunks of cars, and the Canadian border will make this wall look like a laughable inconvenience the day it is finished. Mr. Trump proclaimed throughout his campaign that Mexico (the modern conservative movement's 'other people') would pay for it, but in fact they are not going to all; the shrinking amount of revenue in the governmental pie will have one more giant fork put into it. And the people who will be helped the most? The contractors who build these wall, raking in millions in profit by demanding more and more to make things work, just like social programs during the days of LBJ. The liberal mantra of the need for governmental control continues on.
At least the old liberals were honest about this. They knew they had to bring money in via taxes in order to create their programs, and at least they tried making people's lives better, even if they failed. But these new liberals? They are only concerned about the few at the expense of the many, even as they increase governmental control in many aspects of lives and spend billions to get their way.
It's ironic, however, that a new 'liberal' scam has arisen. But this scam is being perpetrated by a form of government that has shifted continually to the right, and as such government control has increased exponentially in the name of freedom. Consider three examples:
1. Here in my home state of Kansas our secretary of state Kris Kobach has made it his signature issue that thousands of illegal aliens are voting and distorting our democracy. As such, then, measures must be taken to ensure that everybody voting is identified to be eligible to vote. Kobach has become something of a celebrity within far-right circles for his crusades and has reportedly earned close to a million dollars (much of it while in public office) by selling his services to anybody who wants to shut questionable voters out of the voting booth, even as his plans are often thrown out or are recognized to be ineffective and the problem is in fact not a real problem. In truth, I think it makes common sense to ensure that only citizens can vote and IDs ensure that we are who we say we are. In this day and age in which the viability of our electoral process is undergoing multiple attacks, shouldn't we know who is voting, just as we are questioning who is putting money into our campaigning and we are questioning how those votes are being counted?
But here's the scam...who gets to decide who is voting? The government. Only by going through a long and sometimes laborious process, all determined by the state, can we then have the right to vote. Some who do not have government-issued IDs (usually the poor or minorities) are excluded, even if they actually are citizens. People are not assumed to have a right to vote; only by proving their worthiness to the state are they enabled to vote. It's like assuming that people are guilty rather than making state in a trial have a burden of proof of guilt. We decry this in totalitarian dictatorships, but a form of it has crept into our own thinking here in the United States.
2. The expansion of rights to abortion and same-sex marriage and other issues is likewise another area in which government control is or will be restricting these things in the name of 'conservatism'. As a Christian I believe abortion to be wrong...but who decides whether something or not is illegal? Conservatives want to restrict freedom to choose, and must necessarily use the compelling power of the state to make their position felt, even as in many other areas (gun control) they vehemently say that the government has no right to interfere. And as a Christian I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin...but who gets to decide who others should sleep with? Must the state get to decide who others can and cannot marry? It seems strange that conservatives never say that multiple marriages (which Jesus called adultery) should not be illegal (and are supporting a man on his third!), even as they forbid same sex marriage. But marriage between two people whom the state says are incompatible to marry one another? Let the state ban it in the name of conservative freedom.
3. Then finally there's Mr. Trump's wall, which is perhaps symbolic of the modern conservative boondoggle of government waste. For years conservatives would wail about how the state would spend endless amounts of other people's money trying to fix social problems. Continually governmental social services failed to fix the problems they were claiming to solve, but yet the programs continued, and the only people to benefit from them were the legions of social workers who got their steady paychecks from the state in an industry that could never die.
Now Mr. Trump seeks to build a wall costing something in the neighborhood of $20 billion. Will it work? No, of course not. People will always find other ways to enter into the country. Ladders, tunnels, the trunks of cars, and the Canadian border will make this wall look like a laughable inconvenience the day it is finished. Mr. Trump proclaimed throughout his campaign that Mexico (the modern conservative movement's 'other people') would pay for it, but in fact they are not going to all; the shrinking amount of revenue in the governmental pie will have one more giant fork put into it. And the people who will be helped the most? The contractors who build these wall, raking in millions in profit by demanding more and more to make things work, just like social programs during the days of LBJ. The liberal mantra of the need for governmental control continues on.
At least the old liberals were honest about this. They knew they had to bring money in via taxes in order to create their programs, and at least they tried making people's lives better, even if they failed. But these new liberals? They are only concerned about the few at the expense of the many, even as they increase governmental control in many aspects of lives and spend billions to get their way.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Beauty and the Beast...so gay, so sad
So the new Beauty and the Beast movie will have a repressed gay henchman longing to love his Gaston. Some of my fellow Christians, of course, are up in arms about this. A drive-in movie theater in Alabama has refused to show it, stating that they absolutely will not compromise on what the Bible teaches. We're horrified...SHOCKED...that something like this could come out of a Disney studio.
So...what's my feeling on this? I'm not even going to begin to justify what others are doing, but instead say that I believe that a lot of this is overblown. First, if you are expecting Disney movies to teach morals to your children, that's a problem. Second, homosexuality is now a part of American life, whether you like it or not. It's part of what America IS now...and so when a Disney channel shows have a character who has two moms, it's not that surprising. Should be shocked that even 'family' movies reflect this trend, much as they historically treated Asian as slanty-eyed lispers or blacks as subservient farmhands?
And third, and most importantly...if you want to do away with movies that, as one Facebook post I saw said, you couldn't watch with Jesus sitting next to you, then how many Hollywood movies could you really watch? Why are you so mad about this and so ready to pony up $10 for everything else?
-A chick-flick in which the unmarried couple sleeps together half-way through the movie...is that Christian?
-An action movie with lots of gratuitous violence as a man takes vengeance on a gang that hurts his family...is that Christian?
-A buddy cop movie with lots of foul language...is that Christian?
-A romantic family flick in which a woman falls in love with a beast who wears fancy garments...ummmm...
The point is this...getting freaked out that a gay character is in a Disney movie is most likely counter-productive. See it, don't see it, have a conversation about your family values with your kids...do whatever you want. But stop it with the outrage. You don't own the studio, though you've given them a ton of your money over the years. Your whiny self-righteous bitterness brings more shame onto Jesus than this movie ever will, and others can see it. No wonder people don't take your Jesus seriously.
So...what's my feeling on this? I'm not even going to begin to justify what others are doing, but instead say that I believe that a lot of this is overblown. First, if you are expecting Disney movies to teach morals to your children, that's a problem. Second, homosexuality is now a part of American life, whether you like it or not. It's part of what America IS now...and so when a Disney channel shows have a character who has two moms, it's not that surprising. Should be shocked that even 'family' movies reflect this trend, much as they historically treated Asian as slanty-eyed lispers or blacks as subservient farmhands?
And third, and most importantly...if you want to do away with movies that, as one Facebook post I saw said, you couldn't watch with Jesus sitting next to you, then how many Hollywood movies could you really watch? Why are you so mad about this and so ready to pony up $10 for everything else?
-A chick-flick in which the unmarried couple sleeps together half-way through the movie...is that Christian?
-An action movie with lots of gratuitous violence as a man takes vengeance on a gang that hurts his family...is that Christian?
-A buddy cop movie with lots of foul language...is that Christian?
-A romantic family flick in which a woman falls in love with a beast who wears fancy garments...ummmm...
The point is this...getting freaked out that a gay character is in a Disney movie is most likely counter-productive. See it, don't see it, have a conversation about your family values with your kids...do whatever you want. But stop it with the outrage. You don't own the studio, though you've given them a ton of your money over the years. Your whiny self-righteous bitterness brings more shame onto Jesus than this movie ever will, and others can see it. No wonder people don't take your Jesus seriously.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
The Kentucky County Clerk
The gay marriage fight continues on. I've posted on this before, and really don't have much else to say, but I am interested in the ongoing drama going on in Kentucky. An elected clerk in the courthouse has decided that she cannot issue marriage licenses to gays because of her faith, and even as the courts have ruled against her, she continues to resist. Now she says that she will not issues licenses to anybody.
The question of conscience has now become the new battleground in the fight over homosexual rights. Should those who sincerely feel that homosexuality is sin (I am one of them) have to do things that go against their conscience? Should bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? Must Christian adoption agencies have to place children with gay couples? It's a hard question: on the one hand, it does seem 'hateful' to deny somebody a service that would be offered to other couples. But on the other hand, are we 'blessing' a sin by helping somebody carry out that sin, no matter how small?
As a preacher I would feel compelled to say no to any gay couple that asks me to do their wedding. I cannot think that it is right to take part something that I feel to be sin. Maybe it will come to a point that I cannot do any weddings so as to be 'non-discriminatory', but I do know that people will always be able to be legally married, whether in a church or in a courthouse. Life and marriage will go on without me.
But as I have said before, because the legalities of marriage are dependent upon the state (e.g. inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospitals, custody rights for children), I do believe that gay people should have a legal right to be married and have that marriage recognized by the state. To deny them the same rights as straight couples seems to be an unlawful form of discrimination. I may not like or approve of what it is that they are doing, but as one who still has a libertarian bias, it is not in my power to say whether or not they can be married. I know of many straight couples that I think should not have been married (for various reasons)...but that's not in my power to contest from a legal point of view.
And so when it comes to the Kentucky clerk who will not issue licenses, here's my belief: she should either resign or be removed from her position. She does not have to like the law, but if she is an officer of the state, she has to carry out its policies or resign. If her conscience cannot allow her to do what the law requires, then she should step aside and let somebody else should do the job. Imagine a police officer who is Rastafarian: his religion tells him that drug enforcement of cannabis users is wrong. Should we keep him in his job? Or imagine a soldier who decides that he cannot kill for any reason based upon his understanding of Scripture. Should he continue to be a soldier?
Perhaps the laws were different when she was elected; too bad. Laws change, and even if as Christians we do not like the change, it is our duty to accept it in society, and officers of the law are compelled to carry out that law. If they cannot carry it out, then resign your post. When it comes to a law we do not have to like it, promote it, or affirm it. In our democratic form of government we might even work to change it. But accept it as law of the land we must.
Here's the thing about this story that most amazes me, though. The woman who will not allow gays to marry has been divorced and remarried three times. From a very literal understanding of what I read about divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, then she should not have been allowed a marriage license, either, for her current marriage! But the law of the state seems to be that somebody can be divorced and remarried as many times as possible; what of a clerk who held that she could not issue licenses to anybody with a previous marriage on their record? We would not tolerate that, would we?
The question of conscience has now become the new battleground in the fight over homosexual rights. Should those who sincerely feel that homosexuality is sin (I am one of them) have to do things that go against their conscience? Should bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? Must Christian adoption agencies have to place children with gay couples? It's a hard question: on the one hand, it does seem 'hateful' to deny somebody a service that would be offered to other couples. But on the other hand, are we 'blessing' a sin by helping somebody carry out that sin, no matter how small?
As a preacher I would feel compelled to say no to any gay couple that asks me to do their wedding. I cannot think that it is right to take part something that I feel to be sin. Maybe it will come to a point that I cannot do any weddings so as to be 'non-discriminatory', but I do know that people will always be able to be legally married, whether in a church or in a courthouse. Life and marriage will go on without me.
But as I have said before, because the legalities of marriage are dependent upon the state (e.g. inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospitals, custody rights for children), I do believe that gay people should have a legal right to be married and have that marriage recognized by the state. To deny them the same rights as straight couples seems to be an unlawful form of discrimination. I may not like or approve of what it is that they are doing, but as one who still has a libertarian bias, it is not in my power to say whether or not they can be married. I know of many straight couples that I think should not have been married (for various reasons)...but that's not in my power to contest from a legal point of view.
And so when it comes to the Kentucky clerk who will not issue licenses, here's my belief: she should either resign or be removed from her position. She does not have to like the law, but if she is an officer of the state, she has to carry out its policies or resign. If her conscience cannot allow her to do what the law requires, then she should step aside and let somebody else should do the job. Imagine a police officer who is Rastafarian: his religion tells him that drug enforcement of cannabis users is wrong. Should we keep him in his job? Or imagine a soldier who decides that he cannot kill for any reason based upon his understanding of Scripture. Should he continue to be a soldier?
Perhaps the laws were different when she was elected; too bad. Laws change, and even if as Christians we do not like the change, it is our duty to accept it in society, and officers of the law are compelled to carry out that law. If they cannot carry it out, then resign your post. When it comes to a law we do not have to like it, promote it, or affirm it. In our democratic form of government we might even work to change it. But accept it as law of the land we must.
Here's the thing about this story that most amazes me, though. The woman who will not allow gays to marry has been divorced and remarried three times. From a very literal understanding of what I read about divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, then she should not have been allowed a marriage license, either, for her current marriage! But the law of the state seems to be that somebody can be divorced and remarried as many times as possible; what of a clerk who held that she could not issue licenses to anybody with a previous marriage on their record? We would not tolerate that, would we?
Monday, February 10, 2014
Courage
Remember how dopey it was a generation ago when Dan Rather signed off his newscasts with 'Courage'. What on earth was he talking about? Nobody knows...but he took a word that at one time meant something real and honorably and noble and made it into a joke.
And a joke it has remained. We praise athletes for making a 'courageous' play...we laud actresses for their courage in taking off their clothes for a movie role (see Bates, Kathy)...and we laud politicians for 'courageously' making a vote on an issue that goes against what a high-spending donor would have wanted them to do. In truth, none of them act with anything like courage...we're just rather amazed that things have turned out the way that they did. Maybe 'surprise!' would be more like it.
So yesterday a future likely NFL player named Michael Sam came out and said that he was gay. The reaction? Overwhelmingly positive. We all knew that this was coming eventually, but in the past 24 hours we have seen countless stories praising him before he's played a single NFL down. Michelle Obama calls him 'inspirational.' His past success should be a 'guiding light' for all of us. And most of all? He's 'courageous'. His 'courage is unmatched'. And of course, he gets plenty of public support for all the courage he has shown and will show.
I've spent some time looking around the internet and have't seen a single negative story about Michael Sam. Yes, there is some thought that it will be a distraction, of course...but has there been a single story hating on him? Anybody come right out and said that it won't work? Any columnists demand that their teams not draft him because of his sexuality? Nope, nope, and nope.
Where, then, is the courage in this? Even as many Americans (including myself) still believe homosexual behavior to be a sin, there doesn't appear to be a single negative view of Sam portrayed in any legitimate media outlet. Even Fox News has reported it positively (even if they buried it enough that it took some time to find the link to this story). Nobody's going to lynch the kid for being gay. No fan will be allowed to scream something rude at him (like this idiot seems to have gotten away with). No teammate will be commended for saying he doesn't want him on his team (in fact, even the hint of bullying a kid based on sexuality got Richie Incognito suspended last season and means he will likely not play again, even as it appears the story wasn't really true).
In fact, this kid is now going to become a cultural icon. He may never be a great NFL player but he will always be the first openly gay NFL player, the Jackie Robinson of his time. I'd be certain that he will get at least a few select endorsements out of this, many more than a normal projected third-round pick might get. If nothing else he will continually be on the cover of SI, on given primary coverage by SportsCenter, and even make the front page of the New York Times?
Courage...it's really to throw that word out there, but where will the real courage be found? By somebody who still says that homosexual behavior is wrong, and endures the wrath of all those who will call him a bigot, a homophobe, or repressed. To speak what they believe to be God's will in this day and age...now that takes real courage.
And a joke it has remained. We praise athletes for making a 'courageous' play...we laud actresses for their courage in taking off their clothes for a movie role (see Bates, Kathy)...and we laud politicians for 'courageously' making a vote on an issue that goes against what a high-spending donor would have wanted them to do. In truth, none of them act with anything like courage...we're just rather amazed that things have turned out the way that they did. Maybe 'surprise!' would be more like it.
So yesterday a future likely NFL player named Michael Sam came out and said that he was gay. The reaction? Overwhelmingly positive. We all knew that this was coming eventually, but in the past 24 hours we have seen countless stories praising him before he's played a single NFL down. Michelle Obama calls him 'inspirational.' His past success should be a 'guiding light' for all of us. And most of all? He's 'courageous'. His 'courage is unmatched'. And of course, he gets plenty of public support for all the courage he has shown and will show.
I've spent some time looking around the internet and have't seen a single negative story about Michael Sam. Yes, there is some thought that it will be a distraction, of course...but has there been a single story hating on him? Anybody come right out and said that it won't work? Any columnists demand that their teams not draft him because of his sexuality? Nope, nope, and nope.
Where, then, is the courage in this? Even as many Americans (including myself) still believe homosexual behavior to be a sin, there doesn't appear to be a single negative view of Sam portrayed in any legitimate media outlet. Even Fox News has reported it positively (even if they buried it enough that it took some time to find the link to this story). Nobody's going to lynch the kid for being gay. No fan will be allowed to scream something rude at him (like this idiot seems to have gotten away with). No teammate will be commended for saying he doesn't want him on his team (in fact, even the hint of bullying a kid based on sexuality got Richie Incognito suspended last season and means he will likely not play again, even as it appears the story wasn't really true).
In fact, this kid is now going to become a cultural icon. He may never be a great NFL player but he will always be the first openly gay NFL player, the Jackie Robinson of his time. I'd be certain that he will get at least a few select endorsements out of this, many more than a normal projected third-round pick might get. If nothing else he will continually be on the cover of SI, on given primary coverage by SportsCenter, and even make the front page of the New York Times?
Courage...it's really to throw that word out there, but where will the real courage be found? By somebody who still says that homosexual behavior is wrong, and endures the wrath of all those who will call him a bigot, a homophobe, or repressed. To speak what they believe to be God's will in this day and age...now that takes real courage.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Working Outline Of The Phil Robertson Rant In My Head That I Don't Care To Finish
1. I care nothing about Duck Dynasty. I've never watched it. As always, I'm always very concerned when Christians find other Christians to idolize, and the attention that has been paid to this family in recent months has been insufferable. We raise them up only to watch them fall.
2. It's A&E's network. They weighed the financial fallout of Robertson's comments and decided to go with the gay lobby rather than the Christian lobby. They took a bad day for business and tried to make the best of it. They're probably wrong from a business perspective.
3. If the network were really serious about how much they hated these comments, they'd cancel the show. They'd pull from the shelves the greeting cards, video games, posters, t-shirts, and everything else that they sell to make money off that family. But again, it's all about the bottom line.
4. If the Robertson family really wanted to stand for their beliefs, they would walk away from the show in protest of this decision. It doesn't appear that they are going to do so. I'd bet that the huge contract they signed last year probably has something to do with this decision.
5. But can we please, please stop with the 'leads' about this story being that Phil Robertson is 'homophobic' or 'anti-gay'? 'Homophobic' implies fear and loathing. There's none of that in this story. He's a man who knows about sin and speaks against it. We live in a world that tells us that all kinds of things are wrong...but no longer can we call something sin.
6. I go back and forth on whether this is 'persecution'. On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail. He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse. But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement. To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution.
7. Why is it that on TV today weirdness is encouraged but some things can never be mentioned? All manner of lifestyle is promoted on the various networks of crap that are out there, but when a statement of belief outside the ordinary goes against the trends of today, that's forbidden? If you're going to promote weirdness, let it be where it may.
8. In a supposedly free country, stupid statements deserve mocking, not firing. Not sure we live in a free country, though. Not sure we ever did.
9. The right deserves part of the blame for what is happening. Read enough history of this country and you find that many behaviors and beliefs were suppressed, even persecuted from those of a 'conservative' bent when they ruled the country. Now this lack of tolerance is coming back to bite them. Freedom means freedom even for those with whom you disagree.
10. I have found it interesting that many people who cannot tolerate somebody disagreeing with them about gun rights or Obamacare or some other issue not cannot stand it that somebody cannot tolerate their views on homosexuality. Basically the problem is this: we live in such narrowcasted world today that we don't think we have to hear something we don't want. Even in diversity, we have become a nation of isolated belief structures.
11. Did you actually read the GQ article? There's a lot more in here than homosexuality that is interesting, troubling, and should raise eyebrows. But it's also a really poorly written article as well, with lots of frivolous bad language by the writer. The writer needed a better editor.
12. Amen to Phil's words about sin and his dangers...it's much more than about homosexuality, though this is part of it. We need to also pay more attention to other sins as well. Sins like heterosexual immorality and adultery are now far too overlooked, as is adultery. Sin is still sin, and the church does itself a disservice when it only focuses on one particular sin at the expense of others, especially a sin it does not think it has itself.
13. This too shall pass. The celebrity grinder will quickly move on to somebody else, and Christians will find something else to be outraged about.
2. It's A&E's network. They weighed the financial fallout of Robertson's comments and decided to go with the gay lobby rather than the Christian lobby. They took a bad day for business and tried to make the best of it. They're probably wrong from a business perspective.
3. If the network were really serious about how much they hated these comments, they'd cancel the show. They'd pull from the shelves the greeting cards, video games, posters, t-shirts, and everything else that they sell to make money off that family. But again, it's all about the bottom line.
4. If the Robertson family really wanted to stand for their beliefs, they would walk away from the show in protest of this decision. It doesn't appear that they are going to do so. I'd bet that the huge contract they signed last year probably has something to do with this decision.
5. But can we please, please stop with the 'leads' about this story being that Phil Robertson is 'homophobic' or 'anti-gay'? 'Homophobic' implies fear and loathing. There's none of that in this story. He's a man who knows about sin and speaks against it. We live in a world that tells us that all kinds of things are wrong...but no longer can we call something sin.
6. I go back and forth on whether this is 'persecution'. On the one hand, he's not being killed for his beliefs and nobody is throwing him in jail. He's certainly made his money on this show and this won't send him to the poorhouse. But on the other hand, he basically loses his job because of his statement. To lose a livelihood because of belief, no matter how fake that livelihood may be, certainly does border on persecution.
7. Why is it that on TV today weirdness is encouraged but some things can never be mentioned? All manner of lifestyle is promoted on the various networks of crap that are out there, but when a statement of belief outside the ordinary goes against the trends of today, that's forbidden? If you're going to promote weirdness, let it be where it may.
8. In a supposedly free country, stupid statements deserve mocking, not firing. Not sure we live in a free country, though. Not sure we ever did.
9. The right deserves part of the blame for what is happening. Read enough history of this country and you find that many behaviors and beliefs were suppressed, even persecuted from those of a 'conservative' bent when they ruled the country. Now this lack of tolerance is coming back to bite them. Freedom means freedom even for those with whom you disagree.
10. I have found it interesting that many people who cannot tolerate somebody disagreeing with them about gun rights or Obamacare or some other issue not cannot stand it that somebody cannot tolerate their views on homosexuality. Basically the problem is this: we live in such narrowcasted world today that we don't think we have to hear something we don't want. Even in diversity, we have become a nation of isolated belief structures.
11. Did you actually read the GQ article? There's a lot more in here than homosexuality that is interesting, troubling, and should raise eyebrows. But it's also a really poorly written article as well, with lots of frivolous bad language by the writer. The writer needed a better editor.
12. Amen to Phil's words about sin and his dangers...it's much more than about homosexuality, though this is part of it. We need to also pay more attention to other sins as well. Sins like heterosexual immorality and adultery are now far too overlooked, as is adultery. Sin is still sin, and the church does itself a disservice when it only focuses on one particular sin at the expense of others, especially a sin it does not think it has itself.
13. This too shall pass. The celebrity grinder will quickly move on to somebody else, and Christians will find something else to be outraged about.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Gay marriage
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments about this, so I will weigh in. I know my opinion means so much to them.
So...what do we do about gay marriage? The general consensus is that it is more and more acceptable in our culture. People aren't threatened by it like they once were. Most of us have friends and family members who are gay. Should it be legal?
As a Christian, I firmly believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It's not just that it's not a good 'lifestyle choice', but that it is wrong, a sin. Two scriptures in Leviticus and three in the NT cannot be spun in any other way...it's not just about pedophilia, or about temple prostitutes, or about inclinations. No, it's about acting on homosexual behavior, and Scripture is uniformly consistent that it is wrong. The fact that there are only five scriptures (many less than condemnations of heterosexual immorality, or greed, or injustice to the poor) should not convince us that this means nothing to God. Continually we see that it is an abomination (Leviticus) and keeping one from the kingdom from God (1 Corinthians). It is against our human nature (Romans) and against sound doctrine (1 Timothy). So Scripture is clear about this...it is not a behavior that is acceptable, especially for those who claim to be children of God.
But in recent years I've come to think that maybe homosexuals ought to have the right to marry. It's not that I think it any more right, and I would refuse to perform a homosexual wedding if I was ever asked. But here's why I think they ought to have marriage equality.
-1)If everything in our countries is about 'rights', then should people not have the right to marry whom they choose? The same people who are against gay marriage are the same ones who will scream if you take away any of their own rights. To be brief, let me just say that 'conservatives' really need to work out their idea of freedom, because right now it is a mess. They can't just pick and choose what ought to be legal, especially when many of their desires for freedom (to smoke, to buy handguns, etc.) are especially harmful to others. Gay marriage has not destroyed my family, an American family.
-2)If we have made marriage a cornerstone of civil policy, with many rights and advantages going to people who are married, then are homosexuals to not have the same opportunities? Should we not be affording people equal protection? We make marriage to be a tax advantage...should gay couples not have the same rights? We make it where marriage is a sacred bond that identifies two people as being their 'most important'...should a gay person not have the right to say who should be able to make decisions in regards to their lives in times of trouble?
It's not a perfect argument to be sure. And indeed, it leaves many questions about adoption and foster care policy, about issues of discrimination (which are usually overblown, BTW), and about the right of free speech (since, those of us who believe it to still be wrong are accused of 'hate speech' since we are holding an increasingly unpopular opinion). Two issues particularly concern me: First, what about polygamy? If we have changed the definition of marriage from 'one man, one woman' to 'two consenting adults', why not change it to whatever we want it to be? Why cannot a couple become a triad? Or any number of people desiring to enter into covenant relationship? I can guarantee that this will become an issue of civil rights within my lifetime now that gay marriage is mostly seen as a possibility. Second, what of those of us who do marriages who will refuse to marry a gay couple that asks us to? Or works for the county clerks that have to issue marriage licenses but in good conscience cannot? When will we be sued for discrimination? Will we have to stop doing marriages at all, and just make it matter for the JOP?
The battle is just about over; gay marriage activists are going to win. How Christians handle this will be interesting to see. Will we live and act in love and grace, or will we continue to act in hate and spite? I find it interesting that the real sin of Sodom that got God's attention and wrath was not homosexuality. Rather, as Ezekiel 16:49, it was about injustice, about ignoring the poor, about being gluttonous. In how we treat homosexuals, will we sadly fall into the same trap and treat them poorly? This will certainly not be a faithful witness to Christ.
So...what do we do about gay marriage? The general consensus is that it is more and more acceptable in our culture. People aren't threatened by it like they once were. Most of us have friends and family members who are gay. Should it be legal?
As a Christian, I firmly believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It's not just that it's not a good 'lifestyle choice', but that it is wrong, a sin. Two scriptures in Leviticus and three in the NT cannot be spun in any other way...it's not just about pedophilia, or about temple prostitutes, or about inclinations. No, it's about acting on homosexual behavior, and Scripture is uniformly consistent that it is wrong. The fact that there are only five scriptures (many less than condemnations of heterosexual immorality, or greed, or injustice to the poor) should not convince us that this means nothing to God. Continually we see that it is an abomination (Leviticus) and keeping one from the kingdom from God (1 Corinthians). It is against our human nature (Romans) and against sound doctrine (1 Timothy). So Scripture is clear about this...it is not a behavior that is acceptable, especially for those who claim to be children of God.
But in recent years I've come to think that maybe homosexuals ought to have the right to marry. It's not that I think it any more right, and I would refuse to perform a homosexual wedding if I was ever asked. But here's why I think they ought to have marriage equality.
-1)If everything in our countries is about 'rights', then should people not have the right to marry whom they choose? The same people who are against gay marriage are the same ones who will scream if you take away any of their own rights. To be brief, let me just say that 'conservatives' really need to work out their idea of freedom, because right now it is a mess. They can't just pick and choose what ought to be legal, especially when many of their desires for freedom (to smoke, to buy handguns, etc.) are especially harmful to others. Gay marriage has not destroyed my family, an American family.
-2)If we have made marriage a cornerstone of civil policy, with many rights and advantages going to people who are married, then are homosexuals to not have the same opportunities? Should we not be affording people equal protection? We make marriage to be a tax advantage...should gay couples not have the same rights? We make it where marriage is a sacred bond that identifies two people as being their 'most important'...should a gay person not have the right to say who should be able to make decisions in regards to their lives in times of trouble?
It's not a perfect argument to be sure. And indeed, it leaves many questions about adoption and foster care policy, about issues of discrimination (which are usually overblown, BTW), and about the right of free speech (since, those of us who believe it to still be wrong are accused of 'hate speech' since we are holding an increasingly unpopular opinion). Two issues particularly concern me: First, what about polygamy? If we have changed the definition of marriage from 'one man, one woman' to 'two consenting adults', why not change it to whatever we want it to be? Why cannot a couple become a triad? Or any number of people desiring to enter into covenant relationship? I can guarantee that this will become an issue of civil rights within my lifetime now that gay marriage is mostly seen as a possibility. Second, what of those of us who do marriages who will refuse to marry a gay couple that asks us to? Or works for the county clerks that have to issue marriage licenses but in good conscience cannot? When will we be sued for discrimination? Will we have to stop doing marriages at all, and just make it matter for the JOP?
The battle is just about over; gay marriage activists are going to win. How Christians handle this will be interesting to see. Will we live and act in love and grace, or will we continue to act in hate and spite? I find it interesting that the real sin of Sodom that got God's attention and wrath was not homosexuality. Rather, as Ezekiel 16:49, it was about injustice, about ignoring the poor, about being gluttonous. In how we treat homosexuals, will we sadly fall into the same trap and treat them poorly? This will certainly not be a faithful witness to Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)