It is pretty clear that passing Proposition 8 in California has led many to repent of their sins and will draw an increasing number to Christ. We should celebrate this victory for the reconciliation of the world to the God who sent His Son to win it back.
Anger Over Prop. 8 Erupts In San Francisco
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
sigh...
Ken, you know that advocates of Prop 8 are only trying to protect their children. You may not agree with their method, but I think their hearts are in the right place.
My mother (85) watching the protests on TV says "They are mocking God." But, then again, she is from the old school, literally......
Do we, or do we not have the right to govern ourselves? Or do we just have to take egregious and unjust court decisions and turn the other cheek? Maybe Jesus would say yes. He was indeed compassionate toward people caught in sexual sin, I know, and hard on Pharisees like me, but Paul later filled in the blanks for him, as I see it.
When blacks demonstrated for equality, they did so peacefully, without anger and were willing to suffer for it-as they did. You will not see that kind of protest from the kind and gentle folk from San Fransisco, who will not tolerate any criticism of their lifestyle.
A Catholic journalist from a San Diego based paper a few years ago went to report one of their "celebrations," and said she stood and a street corner watching 5 men across the street totally naked. Next to her were uniformed policemen who ignored the whole thing.
To win the world we may have to suffer, since I foresee our president elect fulfilling his promises to overturn DOMA laws. Even if he doesn't, it is highly likely that some judge in California or elsewhere will overturn Prop 8.
Do some easy Google research on the annual "celebrations" out West and see where we are headed. I am not against compassion. I am also for protection.
I find this mob very disturbing--it's hard for me to try to stand back and try to be objective about it. But when I do, it's hard for me not to think that, to some extent, we've picked this fight... and that the gospel will be set back because of it. I'm sure I'm not seeing the whole picture because I'm reacting to what I see as blind spots among Christian activists in this area.
I may not be seeing something, but I don't understand the argument that this is about protecting our children.
1. Homosexuality is not at all the same as pedophilia any more than heterosexuality is. A gay elementary school teacher is no more likely to harm your children than a straight one.
2. Homosexuality is not something that can rub off on someone. There may be some people in the middle who can swing both ways, but in general you either woke up one day attracted to the opposite sex or you woke up attracted to the same sex. So we are not protecting our children from becoming gay by trying to hide homosexuality. It's well out of the closet.
So are we trying to keep our children from thinking it's acceptable by passing laws to keep individual homosexuals from making a commitment to each other? Wouldn't some instruction at home be more effective?
The real issue--and the one we should address, it seems to me--is that evangelical organizations need to be free not to hire individuals who practice homosexual sex, given our religious beliefs. Of course the polarizing efforts of Christian activists have not left us with a sympathetic ear on this score once we lose the current battle--and we will lose it eventually, I predict, probably sooner rather than later.
Perhaps the nation should not call any joining "marriage." Leave that language for religious organizations to use. Isn't any marriage outside the church just a civil union anyway? Maybe the state should call all of its joinings civil unions across the board and give no legal status to "marriage" whatsoever.
I likely have some blind spots here, but we have such strong unexamined assumptions in one track that I feel it does us well to consider other Christian concerns that usually aren't mentioned.
I am really with you on this. In your response you sum up my sentiments well. (Let the state do what it wants with unions- marriage is the church's job. That being said, I agree with you also that the mo scene in California terrifies me.
Also- I had to check my feelings towards the LDS who are bearing the brunt of the violence. My heart was somewhat calloused as the attacks began against them. Yet, this is mob situation is unacceptable no matter your religion or creed.
above post by Glenn Knepp
Many detractors of prop 8, many homosexual rights activists, are also troubled by this mob eruption.
Ken, you make some valid points, and I obviously respect your opinions, or I wouldn't read you.
Where I disagree is that we have picked this fight. Even here I am willing to be proven wrong. But the fringe element among the gay community has been characterized by such an "in your face" attitude it is hard for me not to feel that Conservatives are being more defensive than offensive. I won't give any examples, it would be pointless. They abound, however.
Thanks JM. I wish those who take extreme positions on both sides could talk to each other as well as you and I can.
What's in a word Ken? Non Christian marriage exists in other cultures so why should Americans hijack it for heterosexual Christians only? If homosexual couples are committed to each other why not let them be married by a willing marriage celebrant.
As for children, I know children being brought up in homosexual households. These children are flourishing with two loving parents and a stable environment. And surprise surprise, they aren't homosexual.
I am disappointed by the protestors but I can appreciate their frustration and anger. It won't win them much support. However they don't represent the majority of gays affected by the law I think.
This same argument on who could marry who was raging in the church (and especially on college campuses) many many years ago--it is not new.
Then the marriage battle was about interracial marriages which preachers told us were totally against the clear teaching of the Bible.
College campuses refused to allow interracial dating and we Christians fought to keep laws that banned marriages between blacks and whites.
We were taught by our preachers that the Bible was clear in condemning interracial marriages and they had the verses to back it up. They even told us that the Bible taught that the negro race was condemned to serve the other races--it was all right there in the Bible.
So we Christians listened to our preachers and opposed changing any laws to allow for the unbiblical mixing of the races.
Now, some of us are quite embarrassed that we let these preachers convince us of what he Bible said about mixing the races.
So now that preachers are tossing around a new set of verses some of who listened the last time are more cautious about the latest alarmist verse-quoting by preachers.
We can't always trust how preachers quote verses when they are addressing political issues.
John Mark, can you not see the irony in asking "do we not have the right to govern ourselves?" Many gay and lesbian Americans wonder the same thing.
It's wrong to use a few extreme examples of Gays Gone Wild to argue for restricting the rights of all homosexuals. Surely you realize that there are also fringe elements in the heterosexual community. They engage in wanton promiscuity, infidelity, abuse of children and minors, rape, using sex for manipulation, using sex for monetary gain, etc. You can easily find out more. Expand your Google research by looking up "spring break", "wet T-shirt", "topless bar", "teacher arrested", and more.
Sure, some actions by gay people should be banned, just as some actions by straights. All you need to do is make a distinction between the private acts of mature, consenting adults from acts that are objectively harmful. Once you do that, there is no justification for imposing your theology on other individuals, not in a free nation such as ours.
I want to make clear that I am not questioning my church's position on homosexual sex or its interpretation of the key biblical texts. The issue I'm raising is purely about how my church and the evangelical community should go about engaging the world.
AMEN!!! AMEN, Ken!!! I have often thought about how political activism in all of the horendous condemnations of certain behaviors or choices, is SO Unkind, even if one isn't Christian. Kindness is a hard won battle in issues that are felt so strongly. But, I agree with Steph, and Jose...there is no reason to impose our religious understanding on another!!! Our country was founded for the practice of religious freedom. We should be winning the war by reasonable discourse and concern for society. Period! In fact, legalizing monogomy in a homosexual commitment, is only affirmin something the Church should be standing for...loyalty, commitment, fidelity and other character traits that represent a good character...But, I'm afraid the Christian community is representing hysteria, condemnation and judgment, harshness, and unkindness...and for those who claim to be "walking in the Spirit" and "full of the Spiritual fruits", at that!
Preaching, testifying, witnessing, praying-- these are all excellent ways for the church to minister to the world. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, comforting the afflicted, visiting the lonely-- you bet.
Legislating and litigating, not so much.
Jose,
I go back to my original comment. What I want to protect my children from is living in a culture where the full authority of the government endorses a deviant lifestyle. So far, I haven't seen a move to endorse Spring Break excesses, etc. And sure, I would like to see an end to the exploitation of women by the whole porn industry, Girls Gone Wild phenom, and to get rid of predatory teachers of both sexes.
If, as some have suggested, the church should take a new position on the whole marriage debate, allowing for civil unions, or some equivalent- I leave this up to my betters. I don't know how it could be done, and I don't think it would solve all our problems. I have followed the whole mess in the ECUSA church for several years (the one in my town has pulled out) and I think the aggression in that whole sad affair has been on the part of those who want to redefine marriage, then insist they still have access to all the privileges and sacraments of the church.
My point is that we should have equal access to protection under the law, which Ken mentioned. I don't claim to be the voice of wisdom, but I feel as though Christian conservatives are only doing what they think is right. Time will tell if they are, or were.
Thanks for giving me a hearing... see you in about a week.
"Deviant lifestyle"??? Educate the children??? That's rich, considering that the two most likely places children will be molested and abused are 1)at home, and 2)at church. Though children have a 1 in 1,500,000 chance of being kidnapped by a stranger, 95% of rape and incest survivors report that their assailants were family or well-known to the individual survivor.
Statistics from RAINN and other organizations don't lie, unlike neoconservative christians who want to use the State to force their religious beliefs on others. No matter that "marriage" is now a legal definition based on Christian paradigms paraded around by our Chief Evangelical, nor that religious bigotry matters more than gay people adopting children who will otherwise languish in orphanages and the foster-care system--because all that matters is that they repent, right?
So when is the Catholic church going to repent for their bishops' child-abuse scandals? When are the Protestant and Mormon churches going to repent for underage polygyny and hate crimes against gays? Are they going to take responsibility for the actions of those under their leadership? Or is repentance only necessary if you're "deviant" from the presumed norm?
I wonder how much a supporter of individual rights (especially the right to bear arms) neoconservative christians will be when gays refuse to stop protesting, and take up arms against anyone who tries to take away THEIR rights! Inalienable rights aren't just for hetero folk anymore!
Post a Comment