City Bible in the News
Posted on May 14th, 2005 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryThere’s an article in the Statesman Journal, from about a month ago discussing how Evanglicals in Portland are addressing the issue of gays and gay marriage.
There are a few interesting quotes from City Bible.
Robert Jameson, pastor of administration at the City Bible Church of Portland, said that Christianity calls for welcoming all people.
“We don’t support gay marriage, but we’re not against homosexuals,” he said.
The different interpretations about what the scriptures say about marriage has to do with the fact that man has applied popular sentiment to the message, Jameson thinks.
“People let culture filter through what is right or wrong,” he said. “The majority of American Christians — and Americans for that matter — believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”
He ends with this quote:
Jameson said the chasm between Christians on the subject is disheartening to him.
“One of the most embarrassing things is the inner bickering about what is right and wrong,” he said.
I suppose it is embarrassing to have Christians argue over right and wrong.
But I think he means it is embarrassing when people disagree with City Bible.
RSS feed for posts
May 14th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
I’m just curious as to why the financial accountant is now the spokesman.
May 15th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
catalyst,
that was hands down the weakest post of your career. I think you should abdicate the throne there to the reformed pope. That would be sweet–Melchizedekian at best–and then I could tithe to the reformed pope.
you are scratching the bottom of the barrel so bad the oatmeal has wood chips in it. (spit spit, phtooh!)
Robert Jameson is like McGiver–he always does really cool stuff.
and that post was so long and boring, I thought for a minute I was back in Utah during my missionary training. kinda gave me the shivers just like when I saw you and the pope kissing outside the well.
May 15th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
So, did you know that an insert to stop SB1000 - (Civil unions bill) -was inserted into the 5-15-05 City Bible church bulletin? It tells the phone #s and emails of all your Oregon senators and reps and to call them immediately to speak against this bill. If you are going to mix politics, church and state…as well as hurt the rights of taxpaying citizens who may not happen to be like you want them to be, perhaps it might be time for churches to step up and pay taxes like the rest of us, and only get exemption for activities that actually are charitable. That would help relieve some of the local tax burdens on counties and communities, and no longer let the lawyers try to find the fine line where churches can walk hand in hand with political endorsements and issues. Otherwise, preach the Gospel and let the people come to hear.
May 16th, 2005 at 8:24 am
But that’s how one of their elders makes all his money. And that elder happens to be a 4 time tithe champion. Besides God’s word clearly states that churches should be involved in all political aspects that can make them more money. I can’t remember the exact verse, but I know it’s found in the fifth gospel. The Gospel of Tithe.
May 16th, 2005 at 11:35 am
I think the Supreme Court has ruled that churches can endorse issues but they can’t endorse candidates.
So, opposing SB 1000 would not forfeit CBC’s tax-exempt status.
That being said: CBC’s involvement with Oregon Family Council definately puts them in danger of losing their tax-exempt status.
May 16th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
You know, I have to say that I think there’s nothing “embarrassing” about anyone arguing over right and wrong. Arguing about ethics is what keeps us thinking about them. Instead, I would contend that it’s not just embarrassing, but shortsighted and downright dangerous to decide that we know what is right and wrong for-sure-forever-forget-about-it. Example A: slavery. Example B: the shape/orbit of the earth. Example C: women’s suffrage/human rights. Lots of people had already made up their minds about what was “right” in each of these situations, and the “conservative” element in each case now is considered to be a laughingstock, an unfortunate error.
How can we be so silly as to think that things won’t change again? These issues aren’t really any different from the issue of homosexuality in general or gay marriage in particular. They may just seem different to us because they were resolved a long time ago. But, people got every bit as (morally) indignant and hot under the collar about these things in their time, and used scripture and traditional doctrine to defend the status quo. But, the world changed. It changed in the face of massive conflict and suffering in each case, but it did change. And now, most of us wouldn’t even consider going back.
I say all this in a tone that is intended to be a bit historical and objective. As a part of the performing arts community and a friend to many wonderful people who have suffered at the hands of the conservative element, I have many personal feelings about this issue as well. But, I think the important thing to consider is not the nitty-gritty of how any one person feels about things, but the larger frame in which those feelings exist. There is room enough for all of us on this big blue marble, and if our free country is truly free, it needs to be free for everyone who is not impinging upon anyone else’s freedom through their behavior. We were right to free the slaves. We were right to give women and non-property holders and non-white men the right to vote and the right to basic freedoms. The world was right to examine scientific evidence and move forward into new knowledge of our existence (though we sure put poor Galileo and Copernicus through a whole lotta hell in the meantime). So, what does that tell us about now?
Just some food for thought.
May 16th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
JC, good points.
SB 1000 is essentially a few Legislators’ attempt to establish provisions that Measure 36 sought to prevent. This raises the issue of Legislation vs. the Initiative process, and which actually should make laws. Having both creates more problems than just one alone would.
The fact that SB 1000 would legally equate homosexuals civil unions with heterosexual marriages leaves me to wonder what would distinguish the two in our state? I think about this whole issue quite a bit…because while I believe homosexuality is immoral, I also believe that someone who has lived with another for years should be authorized to make medical decisions for his/her partner should that be necessary.
All too often Christianity is touted and viewed as Republican, which is extremely unfortunate since it’s not true. The sanctimonious attitude of CBC (and others like it) strengthens this perceived connection and hardens countless to the Gospel and the church.
The provisions for a non-profit’s political activities are kind of complex, but essentially non-profits may only spend a certain % of their resources (i.e., financial & human) on lobbying or endorsing a political candidate. Here is some fairly standard language in bylaws for Oregon non-profit corps:
“No substantial part of the activities of the Corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the Corporation shall not participate in, or intervene (including the publishing or distribution of statements) for any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.” I’m not trying to be a smarty-pants. I do agree that its intimacy with the Oregon Family Council could be problematic for them. Speaking of, check out this hypocrisy on the issue at hand: http://www.basicrights.org/downloads/news/The%20Defense%20of%20Marriage%20Coalition%20on%20Civil%20Unions.pdf
CBC’s political involvement may not quality as “substantial,” but it certainly does endorse candidates (Minnis?!) Regardless, including inserts in bulletins exhorting members to lobby against SB 1000 isn’t surprising, but it’s poor judgment (at best).
May 16th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
P.S. Oregon Family Council (”Education Foundation” are the last two words in its official title, per the IRS) is ALSO a 501(c)(3) organization. Now THAT is interesting (both that it’s supposed to educate and that it’s a federal tax-exempt organization)! I’d wager BIG that a “substantial” portion of its activities are related to influencing legislation, how about you?!
May 17th, 2005 at 4:40 am
Anonymous you know far more than me.
and I didn’t know about the “influence legislation” part.
that’s very intriguing…
May 17th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
I guess that depends upon how you define “influencing legislation.” They would probably say that they have very little direct contact with legislators. Their main communication is with people, encouraging them to contact (and influence) the legislators. The difference escapes me.
May 17th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Yes, it does depend on how you define “influence legislation.” You know that Karen Minnis, speaker of the House, is a member of City Bible, yes? I know for certain that leaders within the church hob-nob with her and that they interact with other Legislators. I do know that anyone who attempts to influence legislation must register as a lobbyist…maybe I’ll look into whether Nashif is registered…
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:54 am
Awesome - Save $50 on a playstation 2…Whoopee!!
Misspelledauctions.com
This is a great site people!