Tag Archive for 'homosexuality'

One Christian Libertarian’s View On Gay Marriage

Written by Colin. Published on July 6, 2010 ago in Politics, Religion and Theology. 7 Comments

Norman over at LibertarianChristains.com fielded a question today about gay rights. His answer is worth the read. In sum:

…not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God. Such non-agreement is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others. To me, this is the essence of being socially tolerant: though I disagree with a behavior I shall not raise an aggressive hand against it. I would use a similar argument to defend any non-aggressive behavior even if I believed it to be wrong.

This indeed is the linchpin on this issue between more statist Christians and Christian libertarians. Both views see homosexuality as a sin, an abomination before God of which we do not approve, condone and indeed as Christians we hate that sin (as we hate all sin). But only the former believes that we must (in order to be consistent) go a step further and engineer society by force, using the police and threatening to MAKE people conform to our religious views.

How Should the Church Respond to its Fallen Leaders?

Written by Chris A. Published on February 2, 2009 ago in General. 21 Comments

In all my years as a believer in Jesus Christ, I have witnessed many in the church who held positions of leadership succumb to temptation – such temptation as is common to man. This all started when I was a kid in the 80’s. Although I was very young, I remember quite vividly the scandals involving Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. Being young and impressionable, I responded much the way a secular person might be expected to respond. I thought these guys were obvious frauds. I mean, what other logical conclusion could I have arrived at? Here these guys were supposed to be Christians – one of them was a pervert and the other one was a pervert and a thief.

Fast forward to 2006, another very prominent Christian leader had a moral failure. Oddly enough, I had not known much about this guy until a few weeks earlier, and even then I had not known him so much as a Christian leader, but only as a political operative.

When the documentary film (and I use the word documentary loosely) Jesus Camp was released an already disgraced Reverend Ted Haggard made his debut to many Americans not yet exposed to the ideology fuelling the political involvement of many Evangelicals.  At one point in the film, Haggard addressed homosexuality in front of his congregation saying, “We’ve decided the Bible is the word of God. We don’t have to have a General Assembly about what we believe. It’s written in the Bible. Alright, so we don’t have to debate what we think about homosexual activity. It’s written in the Bible.” Ironically another scene showed him joking behind the pulpit, saying, “I think I know what you did last night. If you send me a thousand dollars, I won’t tell your wife. [audience and Haggard laughs] If you use any of this, I’ll sue you.” Imagine the shock of his parishioners and his wife when they learned of his own homosexual escapade.

The other day I happened to catch Haggard on Oprah as I was flipping through the channels. I watched part of it, but couldn’t watch the whole thing because it was too unsettling. He gave his account of his experience, as did his wife, his son and his daughter. Oprah showed scenes from the upcoming documentary made by Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, entitled The Trials of Ted Haggard. They showed scenes of the family in “exile” in Arizona, where they moved around a lot, staying in hotels and in the homes of friends. They also showed Haggard going door-to-door, hanging door hangers while attempting to sell insurance. At one point during the filming Haggard actually called himself a failure.

Selah
As I stated before, I never knew Rev. Haggard after the manner of a church leader, so I can never really empathize with those that he let down, or in his own words, “betrayed.” However, I still consider the man a brother despite that fact. In keeping with the principle of bearing one another’s burdens, I can no more disown the man than Christ disowned Peter for denying him three times. As I began to ponder the man’s situation, I couldn’t help but think it was wrong for this man to have to struggle so hard to make a living after he had faithfully served his  14,000–member church for 21 years.  Does that mean he should have been restored to the pastorate? Not necessarily, but neither do I think the man should have been reduced to being a door-to-door salesman, ostracized from those who once looked up to him.

Diagnosing the Problem
So who is to blame for the predicament Haggard is in? His own shameful actions? His church? God’s judgment?  Perhaps all have contributed in some way to his downfall, but I have to think that attitudes within the Evangelical community may also be largely at fault. Perhaps a judgemental attitude towards pet sins has dominated our consciousness, such that it lends itself to manifesting as sin in our own lives.

Perhaps, as the Apostle Paul said, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” (Romans 2:1) Nowhere could that be more true than in any of the examples presented here. Are these the natural bi-products of campaigns against certain sins, in place of our preaching the remedy for all sin, Jesus Christ?

Gluttons be Damned!
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how Christians would feel if I decided to start a ministry against obesity? I’d get a bunch of misguided zealots and hand them picket signs that read, “God hates fatsos!” and “Your God is your belly!” and “Finger lickin’ doom!” We’d get arrested for picketing KFC and McDonald’s and harassing their customers, but we wouldn’t care because we would be on a mission from God to warn all the fat Americans of their impending torment.  The only thing is that our message probably wouldn’t take off because there are just way too many fat Christians. I mean, you may be able to hide sexual indiscretion for a while, but you ain’t gonna hide that spare tire, my friend.

Now, Answering the Actual Question
So how should Christians respond to fallen leaders? The answer is found in Galatians 6:1:

“BRETHREN, IF any person is overtaken in misconduct or sin of any sort, you who are spiritual [who are responsive to and controlled by the Spirit] should set him right and restore and reinstate him, without any sense of superiority and with all gentleness, keeping an attentive eye on yourself, lest you should be tempted also.”

(The Amplified Bible)

Why I am not a Democrat

Written by Kenneth Martens. Published on July 16, 2008 ago in Politics and Religion. 14 Comments
This entry is part 5 of 5 in the series Christian libertarianism

This is part of my Christian libertarianism series, which is a description of my beliefs. I do not claim to speak for all Christians, all libertarians, or all Christian libertarians. In previous articles I explained how:

  1. My libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview
  2. Why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government)
  3. Why I appreciate Ayn Rand but cannot be an Objectivist
  4. Why I am not a Libertarian Party member

Today I will discuss why I cannot in good conscience join the Democratic Party.

In my last article, I explained why I believe the Libertarian Party (LP) is not a serious political party. If the LP isn’t the answer, maybe I can have an impact in one of the major political parties. Let’s look at the Democratic party. At a surface the Democratic party appears more congruent with libertarian values than the Republican party is. The Constitutional Conservative explains:

There are three areas to conservatism (or liberalism, if you prefer):

  1. Foreign Policy
  2. Social Policy
  3. Fiscal Policy

Libertarians will generally be liberal on foreign policy (isolationist, anti-military, many are anti-Israel, etc), and liberal on social policy (legalize drugs and so on), while conservative fiscally (return to gold standard, etc).

Foreign policy
Our own Colin Elliott has written an article explaining that libertarian policy is not isolationist, but is rather based on the non-aggression principle. The Democratic party may sometimes support policies that coincide with libertarian values, but this does not indicate any real agreement in principle. You might think that a libertarian would be eager to vote for Barack Obama, a candidate who has steadfastly voiced opposition to the war in Iraq. You would be wrong: Obama objects to the war in Iraq, but he’s no friend to libertarians. Just this past Monday (July 14) he vowed to send 10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan while reducing the troop levels in Iraq. Democratic foreign policy is unacceptable to a libertarian.

Social policy
This is the tricky one. As a libertarian, I support liberal social policy. That is, I can agree with legalizing drugs, permitting gay marriage, and so forth. However, as a Christian I cannot condone those same activities. I’m not advocating sin, I just want the government to get out of people’s lives. So although I sometimes agree with the policies the Democratic party advocates, I can’t agree with their reasons for advocating them. I can’t associate with an organization that asks me to accept sin as a legitimate lifestyle.

Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families make to our society and reaffirm our Party’s commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.

As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive. Every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law.

[Democrats.org]

Sure, I agree that everyone should have “full equality under the law,” but I cannot agree with the implicit assumption that Americans must accept the homosexual lifestyle as morally acceptable in order to have an “inclusive” society. I can advocate full equality under the law while also speaking out against sin.

Oh, and the Democratic party’s support for abortion rights doesn’t help much.

Fiscal policy
This is an easy one. Democrats typically favor increasing the scope of government programs, a more progressive income tax, and all manner of wealth redistribution programs. No principled libertarian can support Democratic fiscal policy.

To sum up
So, while libertarianism might appear to match with Democratic values, on closer inspection it is a poor fit. Libertarian principles are at odds with Democratic values in foreign policy and fiscal policy. On social policy, the Democratic party’s policies are often congruent with libertarian principles, but the underlying Democratic agenda is antithetical to biblical values. As a Christian libertarian, I disagree with the Democrats about foreign policy, fiscal policy, and social policy. Three strikes, you’re out.

Weekly Links: Underwear, Obama, Anglicans and Athiests – What a Party!

Written by Colin. Published on February 29, 2008 ago in Current Events. 6 Comments

In the great state of Oregon this week, Carmen Kontur-Gronquist , mayor of the small town of Arlington, managed to get herself recalled. What did she do to anger her fellow citizens? Blow up the budget? Tick off the small town aristocracy? Some kind of bizarre sexual deviance? No, no my friends – long before she ever considered running for office, she had a picture taken of herself in your basic set of underwear. At some point, the photos managed to get up on her personal and private myspace account. Someone who had access to the account copied the photo and it eventually got around to the citizenry.

In being asked why the recalled the mayor, school board member Grant Wilkins provided the nugget:

People aren’t laughing with us, they’re laughing at us

Well, to be honest Grant, I wasn’t laughing at anyone until YOU RECALLED YOUR MAYOR OVER A PHOTO TOO TAME FOR A TARGET CATALOGUE.

Barack Hussein Obama
Informed Comment talks about Barack Hussein Obama’s name.

I want to say something about Barack Hussein Obama’s name. It is a name to be proud of. It is an American name. It is a blessed name. It is a heroic name, as heroic and American in its own way as the name of General Omar Nelson Bradley or the name of Benjamin Franklin.

Anglican Church Continues to Fracture
Three Anglican churches have voted to split with the church of Canada and join the South American province.

In all, ten parishes have now split with the Canadian church, all of them because of a fundamental disagreement over its stance on blessing same sex unions.

We spoke to Steve Schuh from Vancouver. Also joining us was The Most Reverend Gregory James Venables, Presiding Bishop of the Province of the Southern Cone. He’s also the Bishop of Argentina and the leader of the parishes that have split with the Anglican Church of Canada. Archbishop Gregory James Venables spoke to us from Buenos Aires.

Audio interview here.

Atheist on Atheist Media
Reason magazine reviews Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy, concluding that he is unfailingly critical of religion.

Pullman paints every character connected to the Church or religion, from the fascistic zealots of the Magisterium to the crazed monk in the world of the dead who stubbornly believes he’s in paradise, with an antipathy that sometimes recalls Ayn Rand’s demonization of her welfare-state bureaucrats.

More Linkage
Map of America’s most sinful cities. Who would have though that Salt Lake City managed to make the top 7 in couple categories?

The Pew Forum has published a thorough survey on religious identity in America. Among the findings: one-tenth of Americans are ex-Catholics and the Jehovah Witnesses lose two-thirds of their children but still manage to grow.

A New Ice Age?

Lew Rockwell writes about the triumph of the Red-State fascists. Microsoft fined EU899 Million for “non-compliance” with anti-trust laws. The company overcharged for patent licenses that rivals needed to connect products to the Windows platform, the European Commission said.

Eskimo village sues over global warming.William F. Buckley dead!

Some Introductory Thoughts On The Anglican Church

Written by Bryan. Published on February 5, 2008 ago in Religion. 18 Comments

At the moment I am seriously considering starting to regularly attend a local Anglican church. I have been to one Sunday morning service, eight or so Sunday evening services, two guest lectures, and many morning prayer services hosted by the church at the university I attend, and now need to weigh the pros and cons of making it the church I regularly attend. There is a lot I like about the Anglican church in general (and this church particularly) yet I still have some reservations.

So what is it that attracts me to the Anglican church? In no particular order:

The Pros
1. Liturgy – There is a lot left to preference (unless you hold to a strict RPW) when speaking of how a worship service can be performed. I prefer a higher liturgy Sunday morning then the free for all format of a typical evangelical church, but both have their usefulness. Different forms of worship emphasize different aspects of God’s character. The liturgy in my experience emphasizes the holiness, beauty and mystery of God, things that I have missed in other church services and want to explore more.

2. Preaching – The preaching I have been exposed to has been tremendous. Although the church has a reactor, many different staff members and church members preach in the various services. This allows for a variety of perspectives on a variety of topics. Although I do not always agree with what is being said (do I ever?) the sermons are well thought out, biblically based, and have both theological and practical elements.

3. Intellectual Element – One thing that has really impressed me has been the commitment to intellectual life. I am not sure if this is unique to this specific church, or part of the Anglican character overall, but it is definitely pronounced in this church. They have a yearly lecture series that brings in a well known and knowledgeable speaker each year (Two years ago was Stanley Hauerwas, and Ian Hutchinson this last year). This commitment can also be seen in the small groups that they are starting up, other speakers they often bring in, and even simple things like publishing an announcement in the bulletin when a church member receives a Ph.d in philosophy.

4. Tradition – The evangelical church, except for a few exceptions, have lost all concept of tradition and nearly all of history. This is a huge loss, not because these things are essential to be a Christian, but because they provide a connection to our past and helps to regulate our future. The Anglican church still holds on to tradition through the creeds, prayers, and liturgy. Unlike the contemporary evangelical church, which is often afraid to look at history since they have a suspicion they will not see themselves in it, the Anglican church in my experience is not afraid to look at church history.

5. The Sacraments – Since beginning to seriously consider baptism and the Lord’s supper, my views have gone from Baptist, to Reformed, then back to Baptist but for the past year has been moving toward what I believe Anglicism teaches. Baptism of infants with baptism not only being an outward sign but a means which God uses to effect a spiritual change within us. Likewise, I believe that God uses the Lord’s supper to impart grace to those who receive it in faith. The topic of the sacraments is much to big for this entry, but one the fact that the Anglican church teaches (or at least allows for) a view that I believe has more scriptural support then other views is very attractive.

The Cons
What concerns me? Once again, in no particular order:

1. Homosexuality – The Anglican church is currently tearing itself apart over the question of homosexuality. It is not clear where the communion will go on this issue since there are major voices all over the map on it right now. What is for sure is that the firestorm over the issue is intensifying (See JI Packer explain the issues) and it will eventually come to a head. I hope and pray that homosexuality will not be embraced, but there is a strong possibility that it might be.

2. Women Priests – The Anglican church has allowed women priests for a while now. Although it has been several years since I examined the issue (I soon plan on examining it again so it is fresh in my mind to discuss) I am a complementarian and have never been convinced by the arguments in favour of women priests. Although among heavily conservative members of the Anglican church this is still an issue, it appears for my brief reading that among most this is no longer an issue.

3. The North/South Divide – On a whole the more northern churches (Europe, and North America) are liberal while the southern churches (Africa) are much more conservative. This is coming out full force on the homosexuality issue, but the divide seems to be much deeper, and will no doubt continue to arise. This is concerning because it shows a division within the Anglican communion that will not be going away soon.

4. Certain Members of the Anglican Church – Some members of the Anglican church have become so liberal they should have been excommunicated long ago. John Shelby Spong is really the best example of this I can think of. I do think the Christian tent should be a big one, but there are essentials to the faith that if you give up you are no longer in it. There are of course those in all denominations who should be excommunicated for giving up essentials of the Christian faith, but it is a concern when bishops in a hierarchical church can give up essentials and still hold on to their position.

My Conclusions
What does all this mean? There are things I really like in the Anglican church, and things that give me pause and caution. The particular Anglican church I have found seems to be a little bit on the conservative side, has an evangelical emphasis, and embraces traditional liturgy. There have been two question that have weighed on my mind regarding all this these last few months:

1. How much error can I tolerate in a church I attend? When saying that I understand that there is no doubt error within my own theology that I do not see, and that no church or denomination is without error. But what is a position that I view as error that I can live with, and what is one that stops me from regularly attending a specific church?

2. Correctness of theology is important, but so also is church practice (evangelism, missional living, discipline, accountability…etc). So although theology must be weighed in any decision to regularly attend a church, so must how that theology is lived out be weighed. Does the Anglican church (and this one in particular) meet my requirements in this regard?

Note: Since I began thinking this entry through and writing it I believe I have come to a decision on regularly attending this church or not (writing helps the thinking process). However the points and questions raised in this piece are still important and should be discussed and thought out.