Sunday, October 19, 2008
On Proposition 8
In response to my link to the Adventists Against Proposition 8 site on this blog, I received a message inviting me to check out the other side of the argument taking place within the membership of the SDA church. I appreciate the person who sent it, both for providing me with a link to the other perspective, and for do so civilly. It is so easy for debates on political topics, especially “moral” issues, to turn hostile in this era of polarization.
Fortunately, there are good Christians (and therefore good Adventists) on both sides of the debate. On the Adventists for Prop 8 site, I even recognize at least one professor from Southern Adventist University, my alma mater. Likewise, there is one I recognize on the anti-Prop 8 site, both of whom taught in the SAU School of Religion while I attended. I didn’t know either man especially well, but both seemed to have the respect of their students and I never had any indication that either was less than a man of good faith.
Now, about the pro-Prop 8 site: Since gay marriage became a major issue in American politics in 2004 (funny how it always does that in even-numbered years) anti-gay marriage advocates have been hesitant to emphasize what they oppose. They are rarely “anti-gay” or even “anti-gay marriage,” but “pro-family” or “pro-traditional marriage.” The Adventist site employs this method, prominently displaying a Photogenic Heterosexual Couple with One Girl and One Boy. I’ve never met these people, but I take it that by opposing Prop 8 I’ll somehow be opposing them.
That is what one would have to believe if one buys into this line of reasoning. By limiting the legal rights of gay/lesbian couples, somehow I’m aiding million more Photogenic Heterosexual Couples who might never meet and then conceive their One Girl and One Boy should there be any homosexual couples marrying in their vicinity. If denied a legal homosexual marriage, are gays and lesbians automatically going to turn to the traditional form by default? Will they then automatically forget the impulses they have felt all their lives, and suddenly start producing Photogenic Couplings of their own?
Some sincere Christians will attempt to argue for tolerance and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle within the church. I will not: The Bible is clear as to its position on both gay and lesbian relationships. Following the literal word of God, the Adventists for Prop 8 are in the right in terms of whether their faith supports such behavior.
The problem is that the United States government serves all faiths, as well as those who have none. Telling gays and lesbians that they are not legally allowed to marry because of what we believe will not impress them as to the sincerity of our beliefs: It will drive them into the arms of the open door churches that support their lifestyle, or away from church altogether. Forcing gays and lesbians to hide their inclinations from the public may cause them to enter into more heterosexual unions, but it will result in more and more of them pursuing double lives in secret communities, spreading dissatisfaction and probably disease.
A society in which gays and lesbians are allowed to open with their sexual orientation, and where we are allowed to address their lifestyle choices as a church is a society where they can be more effectively witnessed to. This is the society our church should pursue; instead, the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council has chosen to link arms with the evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics who seek to legislate their moral views. When those same evangelicals and Catholics return with a government-sponsored agenda that alienates those of us who worship on the seventh day, the Church State Council will have enabled them.
The failure of Prop 8, it is said, may embolden a different group, a cult of political correctness that will seek to marginalize those who feel the gay lifestyle is immoral and harmful. Given the evangelical Right’s influence over recent U.S. elections, which side does it appear more dangerous to enable? Which power is more likely to endorse a national Sunday law?
If the PC-ers do attempt to infringe upon our beliefs one day, it will be our duty to oppose them. That is then, and this is now, however: Now our duty is to oppose Proposition 8.
Fortunately, there are good Christians (and therefore good Adventists) on both sides of the debate. On the Adventists for Prop 8 site, I even recognize at least one professor from Southern Adventist University, my alma mater. Likewise, there is one I recognize on the anti-Prop 8 site, both of whom taught in the SAU School of Religion while I attended. I didn’t know either man especially well, but both seemed to have the respect of their students and I never had any indication that either was less than a man of good faith.
Now, about the pro-Prop 8 site: Since gay marriage became a major issue in American politics in 2004 (funny how it always does that in even-numbered years) anti-gay marriage advocates have been hesitant to emphasize what they oppose. They are rarely “anti-gay” or even “anti-gay marriage,” but “pro-family” or “pro-traditional marriage.” The Adventist site employs this method, prominently displaying a Photogenic Heterosexual Couple with One Girl and One Boy. I’ve never met these people, but I take it that by opposing Prop 8 I’ll somehow be opposing them.
That is what one would have to believe if one buys into this line of reasoning. By limiting the legal rights of gay/lesbian couples, somehow I’m aiding million more Photogenic Heterosexual Couples who might never meet and then conceive their One Girl and One Boy should there be any homosexual couples marrying in their vicinity. If denied a legal homosexual marriage, are gays and lesbians automatically going to turn to the traditional form by default? Will they then automatically forget the impulses they have felt all their lives, and suddenly start producing Photogenic Couplings of their own?
Some sincere Christians will attempt to argue for tolerance and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle within the church. I will not: The Bible is clear as to its position on both gay and lesbian relationships. Following the literal word of God, the Adventists for Prop 8 are in the right in terms of whether their faith supports such behavior.
The problem is that the United States government serves all faiths, as well as those who have none. Telling gays and lesbians that they are not legally allowed to marry because of what we believe will not impress them as to the sincerity of our beliefs: It will drive them into the arms of the open door churches that support their lifestyle, or away from church altogether. Forcing gays and lesbians to hide their inclinations from the public may cause them to enter into more heterosexual unions, but it will result in more and more of them pursuing double lives in secret communities, spreading dissatisfaction and probably disease.
A society in which gays and lesbians are allowed to open with their sexual orientation, and where we are allowed to address their lifestyle choices as a church is a society where they can be more effectively witnessed to. This is the society our church should pursue; instead, the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council has chosen to link arms with the evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics who seek to legislate their moral views. When those same evangelicals and Catholics return with a government-sponsored agenda that alienates those of us who worship on the seventh day, the Church State Council will have enabled them.
The failure of Prop 8, it is said, may embolden a different group, a cult of political correctness that will seek to marginalize those who feel the gay lifestyle is immoral and harmful. Given the evangelical Right’s influence over recent U.S. elections, which side does it appear more dangerous to enable? Which power is more likely to endorse a national Sunday law?
If the PC-ers do attempt to infringe upon our beliefs one day, it will be our duty to oppose them. That is then, and this is now, however: Now our duty is to oppose Proposition 8.
Comments:
<< Home
Hi Rob-I really enjoyed this and a lot of your previous blogs. I'm not really good at writing and expressing things the way I wish I could, and I feel like you do it so well! Thanks for being someone that can express these issues so well and in good written form!
My heart swelled reading this. I have hope that Prop 8 won't be passed, and I am doing my best to educate all my voting-enabled friends (since I'm practically impotent to do so). Rob, you're an awesome writer, but this is one of the best persuasive pieces I've ever read. I'm posting this on my Facebook site.
Rob,
My name is Michael and I am a pastor in San Diego, CA. I came upon your blog through thr facebook group, Adventists Against Prop 8. I am intrigued by your stance on this issue. However, Im not intrigued for the fact that you have valid, Biblical positioning on this subject but because I do not see how one claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ can not stand up to the issue of same-sex marriage. This issue at hand, and I'm sure you know this (or at least I hope you know this), isn't about civil rights. This issue is for us as believers not to marginalize and tolerate political correctness. Jesus never stood for letting things that were ungodly to slide in his time. Look at the sermon on the mount. He list several controversial issues, even in this time, and has a black and white answer. We all believe that murder is wrong and 100% intolerable, right? And we all agree that we long for murderers to come to a loving knowledge of Jesus Christ. But if four judges of the supreme court came together and unanimously decided to overrule the democracy of the United States of America and allow all murderers in California to continue their heinous acts on society, and the church came together to propose a Prop on that, would vote "NO" on that? The bottom line, Rob, we as believers, must fear and reverence the Lord God Almighty above all. We as the Church can still validly, effectively, and LOVINGLY reach out to the homosexual community and bring to the transforming power of Jesus Christ. That happens through personal and intimate encounters by the body of Christ.
So, as a brother in Christ, I urge to stand firm in the fear and love of the Lord Jesus Christ and not vote NO on Prop 8.Rob,
My name is Michael and I am a pastor in San Diego, CA. I came upon your blog through thr facebook group, Adventists Against Prop 8. I am intrigued by your stance on this issue. However, Im not intrigued for the fact that you have valid, Biblical positioning on this subject but because I do not see how one claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ can not stand up to the issue of same-sex marriage. This issue at hand, and I'm sure you know this (or at least I hope you know this), isn't about civil rights. This issue is for us as believers not to marginalize and tolerate political correctness. Jesus never stood for letting things that were ungodly to slide in his time. Look at the sermon on the mount. He list several controversial issues, even in this time, and has a black and white answer. We all believe that murder is wrong and 100% intolerable, right? And we all agree that we long for murderers to come to a loving knowledge of Jesus Christ. But if four judges of the supreme court came together and unanimously decided to overrule the democracy of the United States of America and allow all murderers in California to continue their heinous acts on society, and the church came together to propose a Prop on that, would vote "NO" on that? The bottom line, Rob, we as believers, must fear and reverence the Lord God Almighty above all. We as the Church can still validly, effectively, and LOVINGLY reach out to the homosexual community and bring to the transforming power of Jesus Christ. That happens through personal and intimate encounters by the body of Christ.
So, as a brother in Christ, I urge to stand firm in the fear and love of the Lord Jesus Christ and not vote NO on Prop 8.
My name is Michael and I am a pastor in San Diego, CA. I came upon your blog through thr facebook group, Adventists Against Prop 8. I am intrigued by your stance on this issue. However, Im not intrigued for the fact that you have valid, Biblical positioning on this subject but because I do not see how one claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ can not stand up to the issue of same-sex marriage. This issue at hand, and I'm sure you know this (or at least I hope you know this), isn't about civil rights. This issue is for us as believers not to marginalize and tolerate political correctness. Jesus never stood for letting things that were ungodly to slide in his time. Look at the sermon on the mount. He list several controversial issues, even in this time, and has a black and white answer. We all believe that murder is wrong and 100% intolerable, right? And we all agree that we long for murderers to come to a loving knowledge of Jesus Christ. But if four judges of the supreme court came together and unanimously decided to overrule the democracy of the United States of America and allow all murderers in California to continue their heinous acts on society, and the church came together to propose a Prop on that, would vote "NO" on that? The bottom line, Rob, we as believers, must fear and reverence the Lord God Almighty above all. We as the Church can still validly, effectively, and LOVINGLY reach out to the homosexual community and bring to the transforming power of Jesus Christ. That happens through personal and intimate encounters by the body of Christ.
So, as a brother in Christ, I urge to stand firm in the fear and love of the Lord Jesus Christ and not vote NO on Prop 8.Rob,
My name is Michael and I am a pastor in San Diego, CA. I came upon your blog through thr facebook group, Adventists Against Prop 8. I am intrigued by your stance on this issue. However, Im not intrigued for the fact that you have valid, Biblical positioning on this subject but because I do not see how one claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ can not stand up to the issue of same-sex marriage. This issue at hand, and I'm sure you know this (or at least I hope you know this), isn't about civil rights. This issue is for us as believers not to marginalize and tolerate political correctness. Jesus never stood for letting things that were ungodly to slide in his time. Look at the sermon on the mount. He list several controversial issues, even in this time, and has a black and white answer. We all believe that murder is wrong and 100% intolerable, right? And we all agree that we long for murderers to come to a loving knowledge of Jesus Christ. But if four judges of the supreme court came together and unanimously decided to overrule the democracy of the United States of America and allow all murderers in California to continue their heinous acts on society, and the church came together to propose a Prop on that, would vote "NO" on that? The bottom line, Rob, we as believers, must fear and reverence the Lord God Almighty above all. We as the Church can still validly, effectively, and LOVINGLY reach out to the homosexual community and bring to the transforming power of Jesus Christ. That happens through personal and intimate encounters by the body of Christ.
So, as a brother in Christ, I urge to stand firm in the fear and love of the Lord Jesus Christ and not vote NO on Prop 8.
Wow, you were so impressed by your view that you posted it twice.
Pastor, Jesus preached many things in His time, but He never sought to legislate any of them. His kingdom was not of this world, and while we are part of this world, we render unto Caesar.
Preach your beliefs, but if you need the government to enforce them then you've got a problem.
Pastor, Jesus preached many things in His time, but He never sought to legislate any of them. His kingdom was not of this world, and while we are part of this world, we render unto Caesar.
Preach your beliefs, but if you need the government to enforce them then you've got a problem.
Rob, a friend sent this to me, I don't think we've met, but in the Adventist community...
There's no compromise. Your reasoning is lacking. There was a man who wanted to marry a horse... in fact, Arbys has a new commercial about a guy who loses a bet to marry a goat... (I should just ask my hotel to remove the TV from my room - would have never seen it).
When one taboo passes another and greater taboo is joked about by comedians, then it begins to break new ground in media, and then accepted by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) -often sooner, it's reprobates then brings it to the light (coming out of the closet) as a right, it's tackled by the law, while more and more people accepts it. Some high minded so called Adventists just love to be so reasonable and on top of the issue. Romans 1:20 to the end says it best.
Rob, to see where your position ends, we must see where it begins. Frank Kameny the father of the Homosexual Rights movement used the Kinsey study on the Sexual Habits of Americans to persuade the APA to reclassify Homosexuality as normal/healthy behavior. Now I have no love for the APA, but it can't be denied that their influence -no matter how corrupt and unscientific- is huge. Soon after the reclassification of Homosexuality as being normal, the laws to decriminalize the behavior began to change in the United States and across the world. Fine, I'm a Constitutionalists and a Libertarian; two consensual adults can do most of what they want in private. Marriage is not a private institution, it's public, witnessed, and sanctioned by society with protections built all around it.
Frank Kameny, 83, now says, "Bestiality is not my thing … But it seems to be a harmless foible or idiosyncrasy of some people. So, as long as the animal doesn't mind (and the animal rarely does), I don't mind, and I don't see why anyone else should." "If bestiality with consenting animals provides happiness to some people, let them pursue their happiness." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66060
Peter Singer, Princeton University's Ethicist, father of the Animal Rights Movement, called the "Most Influential Philosopher Alive" by The New Yorker, The New England Journal of Medicine bestows on him "more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior" than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell, is okay with it and says so in his essay "Heavy Petting," published at nerve.com http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292677/posts
Hear me Rob, to support gay marriage in any way is to make it public institution, witnessed, and sanctioned by society with protections built all around it. G-d forbid, your child or anyone else in the next generation who suffers to live in this world. Can you hear it? "It's their right, why should zoophiles have to hide their proclivities?" What are you going to say when your son -Lord Forbidding- uses your arguments for this matter?
The foundation is rotten, I admonish you brother to reconsider your position. Christ may not have tried to change the laws in his day, but have you considered why? First, his kingdom is not of this world, thus mans unjust laws were never supported by Him; secondly, Christ did not live in a Democracy as a man, His vote did not count; thirdly, Christ's opinion of all moral and social matters is known and expressed in the Word. In fact when Israel was a theocracy led by Christ as Cloud by day and Pillar of Fire by night the death penalty was the civil order for the day for homosexual acts; lastly, G-d has endowed you and I with the responsibility to let our light shine within biblical context in our free society. Do not throw to reprobates your stewardship in our Republic or soon after they will come for our children... in fact, they already are.
Please read Deuteronomy 16 & 17; if the people appoints individuals who followed God's Laws and practiced moral behavior, God would richly bless that nation. But, if the people continued to tolerate evil and corrupt leaders, then they had failed in their responsibility and will be judged harshly.
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20 (NASB)
There's no compromise. Your reasoning is lacking. There was a man who wanted to marry a horse... in fact, Arbys has a new commercial about a guy who loses a bet to marry a goat... (I should just ask my hotel to remove the TV from my room - would have never seen it).
When one taboo passes another and greater taboo is joked about by comedians, then it begins to break new ground in media, and then accepted by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) -often sooner, it's reprobates then brings it to the light (coming out of the closet) as a right, it's tackled by the law, while more and more people accepts it. Some high minded so called Adventists just love to be so reasonable and on top of the issue. Romans 1:20 to the end says it best.
Rob, to see where your position ends, we must see where it begins. Frank Kameny the father of the Homosexual Rights movement used the Kinsey study on the Sexual Habits of Americans to persuade the APA to reclassify Homosexuality as normal/healthy behavior. Now I have no love for the APA, but it can't be denied that their influence -no matter how corrupt and unscientific- is huge. Soon after the reclassification of Homosexuality as being normal, the laws to decriminalize the behavior began to change in the United States and across the world. Fine, I'm a Constitutionalists and a Libertarian; two consensual adults can do most of what they want in private. Marriage is not a private institution, it's public, witnessed, and sanctioned by society with protections built all around it.
Frank Kameny, 83, now says, "Bestiality is not my thing … But it seems to be a harmless foible or idiosyncrasy of some people. So, as long as the animal doesn't mind (and the animal rarely does), I don't mind, and I don't see why anyone else should." "If bestiality with consenting animals provides happiness to some people, let them pursue their happiness." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66060
Peter Singer, Princeton University's Ethicist, father of the Animal Rights Movement, called the "Most Influential Philosopher Alive" by The New Yorker, The New England Journal of Medicine bestows on him "more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior" than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell, is okay with it and says so in his essay "Heavy Petting," published at nerve.com http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292677/posts
Hear me Rob, to support gay marriage in any way is to make it public institution, witnessed, and sanctioned by society with protections built all around it. G-d forbid, your child or anyone else in the next generation who suffers to live in this world. Can you hear it? "It's their right, why should zoophiles have to hide their proclivities?" What are you going to say when your son -Lord Forbidding- uses your arguments for this matter?
The foundation is rotten, I admonish you brother to reconsider your position. Christ may not have tried to change the laws in his day, but have you considered why? First, his kingdom is not of this world, thus mans unjust laws were never supported by Him; secondly, Christ did not live in a Democracy as a man, His vote did not count; thirdly, Christ's opinion of all moral and social matters is known and expressed in the Word. In fact when Israel was a theocracy led by Christ as Cloud by day and Pillar of Fire by night the death penalty was the civil order for the day for homosexual acts; lastly, G-d has endowed you and I with the responsibility to let our light shine within biblical context in our free society. Do not throw to reprobates your stewardship in our Republic or soon after they will come for our children... in fact, they already are.
Please read Deuteronomy 16 & 17; if the people appoints individuals who followed God's Laws and practiced moral behavior, God would richly bless that nation. But, if the people continued to tolerate evil and corrupt leaders, then they had failed in their responsibility and will be judged harshly.
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20 (NASB)
Your remarks to my last statement clearly show that you have been desensitized to the deceptions of society. We only render unto Caesar unless the law is contrary to the Law of God. God is the ultimate authority, not the "rulers and powers of this dark world." In fact, that is who our battle is against. Carl said it well...Jesus was not in a democracy. But Jesus did not simply keep his comments to himself in light of the political/pharisaical agenda. Christ didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it and when the earthly precepts grow contrary to the Truth, that is where God Almighty implores us, as His Church, to stand firm and speak Truth.
Jesus was limited in His ability to change unjust laws because He was not part of a democracy? I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense, seeing as how you gentlemen think He's so weak as to need our help at the ballot box.
This kind of "faith" is worthless, just like your arguments are to me.
Post a Comment
This kind of "faith" is worthless, just like your arguments are to me.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
