AP has this report on the first Sunday after the Prop 8 vote:
On the first Sunday after a gay marriage ban passed in California, activists rallied in defiance, including hundreds of protesters outside an Orange County megachurch whose pastor brought Barack Obama and John McCain together last summer for a "faith forum."
About 300 gay-rights advocates fanned out along sidewalks leading to Saddleback Church in Lake Forest to voice their anger of the church's support of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters Tuesday that overturns a state Supreme Court decision in May legalizing same-sex unions.
Ed Todeschini, a Human Rights Campaign volunteer, accused Saddleback in particular of helping propagate what he called misinformation about the Supreme Court ruling, including that gay marriage would have to be taught to kindergartners.
A message seeking comment left at the church's main office, which was closed Sunday, was not immediately returned.
"They told such obvious lies. They used their lies to deceive the public," Todeschini said of the church, which gained national attention in August when its pastor, Rick Warren, brought Obama and McCain together to discuss their religious faith. The two candidates embraced during an often-contentious presidential campaign.
Todeschini said Sunday's rally was peaceful, with demonstrators waving placards with slogans including "Equality for all" and "Shame on you."
The amendment was passed last week with 52 percent of the vote, and backlash at churches over their support swept across California on Sunday after days of protests.
In Oakland, a large protest at the city's Mormon temple led the California Highway Patrol to close two highway ramps to ensure pedestrian safety. Protest organizers said they hoped to tone down the anger that has characterized some previous demonstrations.
"Our intent is not to disturb churchgoers," organizer Tim DeBenedictis said in a statement. "Our goal is to mend fences and build bridges so that all Californians can achieve marriage equality under the law."
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
To say "polygamy and women are nothing but property, are practices sanctioned by the Bible," is a total abandonment of Biblical teachings.
No it isn't. What punishment did God issue Jacob for having two wives and two concubines? Where do you find any indication that God disapproved of that arrangement? In addition, given that the Bible references bride-prices on numerous occasions, particularly in the Torah which is given from God, how could you with a straight face claim that the Bible doesn't approve of the notion of women as property (the bride-price isn't paid to the bride but to her father)?
Let me propose an alternative reading: Those things, which we (rightly) find problematic today, represented God reacting to the contextual norms of the time by trying to make them a little more just - just as the extreme sexism of the Pauline Epistles, when read in terms of the more extreme sexism of the society of the time, is actually progressive in context. If we accept this as a hypothesis, must we also not admit the possibility that we are to react similarly to our own culture's norms - to be on the leading edge of progress rather than the trailing one?
But all that is neither here nor there. One does not have to approve of LGBT individuals' biological tendency to be attracted to persons of their own sex to recognize that in a pluralistic society in which no religious sect has a right to impose its beliefs on others, LGBT individuals deserve the right to marry any consenting adult they choose, regardless of gender.
Only problem is homosexuality is a sin specifically identified the Old and New Testaments. There is nothing hateful about calling someone is sin to repent, and that is what Christains are called to do, preach the Gospel.
The problem with that statement is that Prop 8 isn't just "calling someone in sin to repent" - it's codifying one interpretation of Christianity's definition of acceptable romantic relationships into law. You have the right to free speech in calling on LGBT individuals to repent - though I'd problematize your characterizing it as "nothing hateful," given the number of LGBT friends I have who feel hated by Christians and not without reason - but you don't have the right to use the coercive force of law to pressure them to repent, and you don't have the right to deny their equal civil right to marry. Your right to "call someone in sin to repent" does not extend to your being able to use the civil law of a secular state to do so.
JG,__-from one Christian to another-__I will try to cut to the chase by going back to the initial article above. "It's very unfortunate and embarrassing that the (Christian religion) is in large part responsible for the act of bigotry,".. the Reverend Ed Bacon.____Since when, Reverend, have Christians been expected to stand on the sidelines and allow society to be infiltrated with untruth under the guise of "equal civil right"? It can happen if Christians take the easy way out and fold like a cheap suit, choose to go into denial, or unknowingly stay ignorant of the true foundation of their faith. To be salt of the earth requires not losing the flavor salt was intended to have. To be the light of the earth is likened to a city on a hill that cannot be hid. When you light a candle, you set it up on a platform so that it can give light to all who are in the house. __It is in this context that compels a Christian to speak out in a given situation, even/especially when the situation is within the context of "civil law of a secular state." This has nothing to do with hateful.__You are correct to say the Christian has no right to "pressure anyone to repent." We need to keep in mind that we should not "think lightly of the riches of God's kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance." (Romans 2:4) It is on this that we all depend on, to bring any one of us to repentance. ____Just because polygamy is mentioned and described in the Bible, the reader cannot presume it is sanctioned and approved. The Christian must not fail to consider the historical context, genre, of a given word, phrase, sentence, book in Scripture. We would be utterly unfair to the text and unfortunately mistaken to succumb to understanding Scripture through the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than allowing the true meaning to stand. ____ ______
Since when, Reverend, have Christians been expected to stand on the sidelines and allow society to be infiltrated with untruth under the guise of "equal civil right"?
Question: Do you believe that Christianity is the only true religion? If so - isn't the Constitution itself, which enshrines freedom of religion into the very fabric of our nation's being, "allow[ing] society to be infiltrated with untruth under the guise of 'equal civil right'"? If you believe other religions are not true, then by your own logic you should be calling for them to be banned in this nation.
It is in this context that compels a Christian to speak out in a given situation, even/especially when the situation is within the context of "civil law of a secular state."
You're free to speak out. Speak out until you're hoarse. What you're not free to do is to use the "civil law of a secular state" to enforce your viewpoints - which is what Proposition 8 is. Proposition 8 is an attempt to enforce one interpretation of one religion's viewpoint on what constitutes a permissible romantic relationship onto everyone - whether they're followers of that interpretation or not.
This has nothing to do with hateful.
Apparently we haven't been watching the same "Christian" Right. If they're not hateful toward LGBT individuals, I'd like to see how exactly you define hate.
My LGBT friends feel hated by Christians. This in itself should be a sign that Christians need to make some changes.
You are correct to say the Christian has no right to "pressure anyone to repent." We need to keep in mind that we should not "think lightly of the riches of God's kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance." (Romans 2:4) It is on this that we all depend on, to bring any one of us to repentance.
I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. What I was saying was even stronger than that Christians don't have the right to pressure anyone to repent; what I was saying is that nobody has the right to codify their religious beliefs and their religious prohibitions into law. Call people to repentance to your heart's content, but the moment you try to use the law to impose your religion's values on someone else, you're going to find me, and hundreds of thousands of other patriots, standing in your way. And we're done being nice about it. Equal civil rights are not optional, particularly for those who await equality. They are an absolute necessity, and anyone who stands in the way of equal civil rights doesn't understand what America means.
Just because polygamy is mentioned and described in the Bible, the reader cannot presume it is sanctioned and approved. The Christian must not fail to consider the historical context, genre, of a given word, phrase, sentence, book in Scripture.
Thank you for making my point for me. We must not fail to consider these things - and this is equally true for the New Testament as for the Old. This is equally true for the Epistles. To make the mistake of considering the Torah and the Prophets "contextual," while not reading the Epistles in the same light, is incredibly problematic.
We would be utterly unfair to the text and unfortunately mistaken to succumb to understanding Scripture through the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than allowing the true meaning to stand.
First, you presume that there is a "true meaning" - that Scripture is meant to mean one thing to all people at all times. This is an error that predates the Enlightenment, but was strengthened significantly by Enlightenment thinking (and particularly the notion of epistemological certainty). You've already admitted that some parts of Scripture meant different things in different times, as you've successfully (and correctly) put Jacob's polygamy and the Torah practice of women as chattel into context.
Why can't the Bible say different things to different people in different times? Why can't it be a source of stability in one time, and a source of revolution in another - and both be part of God's plan? Why do you want to imprison your Bible within the logical walls of foundational epistemology?
Moreover, if one were to discern the "true meaning" of the Bible - why keep the book around at all? Why not just live with the fewer propositional statements of "true meaning" and dispense with all those messy narratives? In short - if there is a "true meaning," wouldn't that make the "true" systematic theology text more useful than the Scripture?
Second, you pretend that it's possible to understand Scripture without the interpreter's ideas or bias - as if there's such a thing as an objective and absolute viewpoint. There isn't. There is no person who can read the Bible without his or her own views coming into play. That's part of being a human being - we cannot leave our experiences, our memories, our ideologies, our biases behind and evaluate anything on a strictly "objective" basis. It simply isn't possible.
I have come to a conclusion that you deliberately choose to go against your intelligent judgement that one would have the gall to propose that one's personal bias can be totally laid aside when trying to understand Scripture. Either you play ignorant or you do not take a point to its logical conclusion. I choose the the former because I really do believe you very well know the intricacies of biblical exegesis and the very fine line of distinction that can exist next to eisegesis. You are so privileged to hold a seminary degree. The fact that you are a Christian gives me ample freedom and trust to use scriptural passages in these posts. From your posts, it is now clear that you have no sympathy toward the stance a Christian is to take in matters that are crucial to the heart of the God you know. The defence of anti Prop 8 is fine, in fact, understandable, considering the source of supporters. The second it becomes wrong is when a Christian decides he is ok to support homosexuality through something like prop 8. Therein, lies the problem. A follower of Jesus holds to His claims, one being "the way, the truth, the life," another being, "the same yesterday, today and forever"....and one who comes to the (miraculous) understanding that there are absolute truths from the beginning of time as set forth by God(and fulfilled through Christ, see Matt 13:35 where even Christ's parables are directly out of truths that existed before Adam and Eve.)__We Christians also hold to a "right" to uphold God's truths, and yes, without apology or "emabarrassment" as ironically termed by Rev Bacon.__Choose which camp you're in. I will hold you to be consistent.
"Only problem is homosexuality is a sin specifically identified the Old and New Testaments.
Why is that a "problem", Todd? I mean, in the sense that we are all "sinners", no? If "sin" is a barrier to marriage, no one would be allowed to marry. But somehow, we allow thieves, liars, rapists, murderers, dishonorers of their parents, coveters, etc. to marry.
why are only the queer "sinners" not allowed to marry?
'Splain me that.
Surely what "the Bible sez" (or doesn't say) should be irrelevant to a country that "promises" freedom of religion to all of its citizens. My faith does not teach me that committed, loving relationships between consenting adults is a "sin". Why should your religious tenets trump mine? Or those of any other faith than yours? Or those of people of NO faith?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.