Are all sins the same? (aka Justin beats an issue to death.)
Posted on August 14th, 2007 by catalyst into the Biblical Parody categoryRecently, a church in Dallas Texas refused to hold a memorial service for a church member's brother, after finding out the brother was gay. The pastor, Gary Simmons, defended his decision this way:
High Point Church opposes homosexuality, and there was no way the church could host a service that appeared to endorse it, Mr. Simons said.
"Can you hold the event and condone the sin and compromise our principles?" he said. "We can't."
While I disagree that homosexuality is a sin, I'm down with letting churches preach what they want. (Unless, of course, they preach about tithing, and then I WILL RELEASE MY UNHOLY WRATH ON ALL INVOLVED!) …but I digress…. anyway, Mr. Simmons goes on to further explain the churches decision…
The issue was not so much that Mr. Sinclair was, from the church's perspective, an unrepentant sinner, he said. It's that it was clear from the photos that his friends and family wanted that part of his life to be a significant part of the service.
The pastor said that he could imagine a similar situation involving a different sin. Perhaps a mother who is a member of the church loses a son who is a thief or murderer, Mr. Simons said. The church would surely volunteer to hold a service, he said.
"But I don't think the mother would submit photos of her son murdering someone," he said. "That's a red light going off."
This, of course, begs the question, "Is homosexuality a victimless sin?"
RSS feed for posts
August 14th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
THE GUY THAT GET’S IT IN THE ASS IS A VICTIM.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:16 am
I think your question is flawed, because you assume that there are sins without victims. I’m not sure how you define it for yourself, but sin at the very least hurts yourself and it’s hard to imagine any scenario where your own sin doesn’t affect others indirectly by changing the person who you are. Different sins have varying impacts upon ourselves and others but to say a sin is victim-less is an oxymoron, in my humble opinion.
You have stated before that you don’t believe homosexuality is a sin. By asking the question you seem to be giving some concession to the idea but giving yourself an “out” by making a provision for it. Seems kinda wishy-washy to me. If you don’t believe it’s a sin, then why ask the question?
The church was consistent with their beliefs, but they were not without compassion. I wish you had quoted this part (below) as well to give a more balanced headline. Most people who will read your blurb will have the obvious knee-jerk reaction towards the church.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:27 am
At memorial services, it is common to overlook a persons transgressions and spend time appreciating the good things they brought to your life. If churches only hosted memorial services for the “non-sinner” then we would all be buried alone in silence. However, if the church felt they were being asked to glorify any sin through the course of the service, they made the right choice.
I have no idea what pictures they were being asked to display or in what other ways his homosexuality would be part of the service. But I’ll take them at their word that they felt like they would be promoting something the Bible unambiguosly condemns. In that case, it is not a difficult decision for me. When forced to choose between offending the family or offending God, the decision should be obvious, if not easy.
It appears they made every effort to be kind by offering to pay for another facility and provide food for the service despite the disagreement. That seems to meet the standard of speaking the truth in love.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Sounds to me like good customer service. But not love.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:49 am
It sounds like love to me; Love for God, His ways, His word.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Cute. But false. If you love God, his ways, and his words, then you would love others as yourself. You would realize you are a greater sinner than everyone else. You would not judge.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Jesus did not “judge” or condemn others, even though He had every right to do so. On the other hand, he made it clear that we should put a sinning lifestyle behind us. I don’t think celebrating memories of a sinful lifestyle would fit His philosophy here. Jesus loved completely, but called out the sin for what it was. He may have been the “friend of sinners” but those sinners became changed lives. Zacchaeus, a crook and a scoundrel, when being changed by Jesus stopped stealing from others and gave back to the poor to show his sincerity in his transformation.
1 John spells it out rather clearly (although I recommend reading the whole book which focuses on the true meaning of what it means to love God and each other):
If someone in a similar situation, for example a heterosexual porn star passed away, would it be right for a church to host the memorial service if they knew that his sinful lifestyle would be remembered and celebrated by his family and friends? Can you imagine photos or videos of his sex industry career being played on the church overhead? Not likely! The church would have every moral and religious right to object and it wouldn’t be seen as a contradiction in their values or be seen as “judging”.
I think those that might take issue with this are those who don’t feel that homosexuality is a sin, which makes this argument just a polarization of opinions, i.e. beating a dead horse. Either it’s a sin or it isn’t. If it is, you can’t condone it (let alone “celebrate” it), regardless of your need to be “accepting” or “non-judgmental”. If you don’t believe it is a sin, then you can do as you wish, but I think it is double-standard to “judge” when others who disagree with you act consistently with their convictions.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:34 am
True. And yet…
I doubt very much that the family was planning on showing a slide show of this man’s sex life. Your analogy seems a bit extreme.
I really don’t think they are “act[ing] consistently with their convictions” but maybe I’m missing something?
From the other marriage discussion: has this church allowed funerals for divorced people?
Please have this same discussion for a man who divorced his wife and re-married. Should they be barred because there might be pictures of this man with his arm around his new wife? Wouldn’t that be the church endorsing divorce?
What about a woman who had children out of wedlock? Shouldn’t her family also be barred because showing pictures of her bastard children and boyfriends would be an endorsement by the church?
I believe this is yet another example where the church had an opportunity to reach this guy’s family and friends and chose instead to make a political statement.
Regardless I guess this horse is truly dead…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
HHmmmm……
So, for argument’s sake, let us assume that homosexuality, that is, homoerotic thoughts and sexual behavior, is a sin. Divorce is a sin. Remarriage is a sin. Premarital sex is a sin.
Ok, so here is Joe. Joe has children out of wedlock, gets married, divorces, and then gets remarried. On Monday Joe asks God to forgive him of his sins - so God wipes away his sins. Now on Monday his sins are forgiven. But on Tuesday he is still remarried - does repenting of his sins mean that he is supposed to turn from them (i.e. leave the ’sinful’ remarriage and either reconcile with his first wife or live a single, celibate life), or has he been fully forgiven and therefoe his situation is no longer sinful and he should then live out his days according to God’s word while staying with his current wife?
But what if Joe was living in a homosexual lifestyle? On Monday Joe asks God to forgive him of his sins, and God does. True repentance requires Joe to turn from his sin and live a single life/heterosexual life while married to a female. Why do we think that Joe#1 is fully forgiven and can go on in his current lifestyle, while Joe#2 must change his lifestyle? Both were sinful before forgiveness from God, and on Tuesday both still live in the same house with the same people.
I know those dumb questions might make grace and mercy sound difficult and complicated - but the homosexual community wants answers from us and from God. Is the above situation hypocritical or not? If not, then why? Does repentance mean different things depending on the situation? Must one person turn from their sinful lifestyle while the other may stay right where they are?
The whole Joe, Monday, Tuesday thing might sound stupid - but it was the quickest way for me to summarize my thoughts.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
That’s insane, literally. You are suggesting that love forbids Christians from critically analyzing information and making judgments based on a knowledge, life experience, and personal values. Even if I wanted to do what you’re asking me to do, it wouldn’t be possible. Our minds exist for the sole purpose of processing information and making judgments on that basis.
These judgments are why most of us would not jump out of an airplane without a parachute or let a known pedophile watch our children. These judgments keep us from cheating on our spouses, listening to boy bands, or drinking the contents of bottles labled “poison”.
Sometimes these judgments require us to reach conclusions about someone else’s behavior, sometimes they do not. But to suggest that the Bible forbids us from making a judgment that forces us to make a conclusion about another’s decisions is not accurate.
I would have no problem with you challenging my judgment, but your assertion that I have no right to make a judgment is ironic because that is, of course, a judgment. It is not possible not to judge people. Once a person has the cognative ability to process information, we are constantly making judgments on that basis. Much information we process does not prompt us to act (my dog just licked himself), while other information prompts us to act (I feel pressure on my bladder), while other information some prompts us to act quickly (my child is about to run into the street). Regardless, our life is a perpetual judgment of poeple and circumstances.
The suggestion that biblical love somehow forbids us to judge another’s actions is also wrong. David opens the Psalms by saying “Blessed are those who walk not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful”. Is that not encouragement to determine who is ungodly, scornful, and actively walking in sin and monitor their influence in our lives accordingly?
Jesus told the woman at the well to “Go and sin no more”. Was he not, in love, making a judgment that she had been sinning? John the Baptist told the masses to “repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand”. Was he not making the judgment that there was something to repent of? Proverbs 5:20 instructs men not to be seduced by the “immoral woman”. Does that not encourage men to analyze the character of the women they form relationships with?
The most loving thing a Christian can do is help someone else reach right relationship with Christ. That cannot be done without a recognition of sin and repentance. To pretend that Christians must talk about Christ without a discussion of sin is wrong. Of course, everything a Christian does should be drenched in the love of Christ, but that does not permit tolerance of everything.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
You both make good points, but allow me to raise a point about the whole divorce/remarriage bit. If someone divorces (a sin) and marries (not a sin), does that require them to sin again by divorcing their new spouse and going back to their previous marriage? Sounds kinda silly to me. My opinion, which is consistent with many churches, is that divorce is bad (or a sin) but that you should remain committed to your current spouse as if they were the only one you had ever married. Yes, divorce was possibly a bad decision, or even perhaps necessary, but you try to live your life moving forward. It’s not sinning to stay in a committed marriage, regardless of your marital history. I think people confuse the verb tense of “sinning” when judging divorce. If someone goes through a divorce, at some point the divorce actually occurs and is finalized, it’s a one-time deal, and it’s not something you do every single day forever or some kind of state of being. It seems unfair to treat certain types of sins this way, but not others. If you steal bread and eat it, an act that you commit in a finite piece of time, and then repent, but can’t possibly return it (not in it’s original state anyway) are you still sinning? Does this prohibit you from baking bread and eating it? But if you are a professional thief, should the church condone it by sponsoring a memorial service for you when you die where other thieves reminisce about what a great thief you were?
While the act of divorce may be considered a sin, remembering or even celebrating the relationship that occurred within marriage is not a sin. Also, to equate bastard children with a sin is akin to blaming the kids for their parents mistakes - I don’t see the logical connection. Yup, their parents committed adultery/fornication, but the kids’ lives are not considered sinful and thus forfeit by God or the church. Let’s not confuse the issue. Again, the sin was a one-time act, and we shouldn’t treat the parents or the kids like they are constantly sinning simply because the children exist.
I think it is safe to say that we can celebrate the lives of people in spite of their forgiven mistakes. To condone or celebrate the unrepentant acts of sin in someone’s life is another story. That’s the fundamental difference here. Let’s not forget that this man was an unrepentant sinner in the eyes of the church, and people wanted to celebrate that fact. The church was willing to do everything they could except to condone sin, and I don’t see that as judgmental or contradictory.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Jesus said, if you marry someone who has been divorced you are committing adultery (Luke 16:18) - so getting married (even if you have never been married) is a sin if the person you are marrying has been divorced. He also said if you get married after being divorced you are committing adultery. If you divorce your spouse, and they get remarried you cause them to commit adultery.
I don’t think the premise of your argument agrees with what Jesus taught.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
What’s up DOC?
I respect your freedom to choose to jump from a plane, sans-parachute or otherwise. I also respect your ability to judge whether or not to drink poison.
I do not, however, respect the way you twisted my words so grotesquely, nor your dodge of the question at hand, RE: why the family of a gay man cannot have a service for their loved one at church that presumably would allow others living in sin (e.g. a man married two or more times).
I tell you the truth: yet again the church in question missed a great opportunity here.
FICM: Craig beat me to it.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
And where did you get your definition of love? Not out of God’s word, obviously.
When you stand before Him at the Judgement you will have to answer for your ‘love’ that did not have the courage to tell sinners the truth about sin and give them an opportunity to flee to the Saviour for forgiveness and Eternal life.
Exodus 32:33
And the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.”
1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you….”
Psalm 69:5
O God, You know my foolishness;And my sins are not hidden from You.
Psalm 90:8
You have set our iniquities before You,Our secret sins in the light of Your countenance
Proverbs 14:9
Fools mock at sin, But among the upright there is favor.
Ezekiel 3:21
Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; also you will have delivered your soul.”
Hebrews 3:13
but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin
James 5:20
let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.
1 John 5:16
If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Although I am not a fan of bible quotes…..
Jeremiah 23:1 The Righteous Branch
1 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. 2 Therefore this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says to the shepherds who tend my people: “Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done,” declares the LORD.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:40 am
John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
Interesting. As I recall, Christ had the “courage” to treat sinners with respect and care (aka Love)…of course, Hungry, you think marriage was put in place to make us all miserable so I see why your thoughts on love are so jaded.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Choosing to ignore the truth, RP doesn’t make it go away.
With your definition of ‘love’, you would let one of your three beautiful children play in the middle of a busy freeway because you wouldn’t want to offend them or deny them any freedoms.
In light of your sometimes warped interpretation of scripture, I can see why you would miss my point. Alas.
Proverbs 14:16
A wise man fears and departs from evil, But a fool rages and is self-confident.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Thank you for all the scripture quotes Hungry. I’m humbled that you would do a word search for such a sinner as me.
However, I have read the bible a few times myself thank you.
After reading the article, all I could think about was this man’s mother and other close family. Anyone who’s lost someone dear to them knows what a painful and heart wrenching experience the whole ordeal is. That a pastor would pull a stunt like this in middle of all that grief… I can only think of one scripture that applies:
Hungry on the Harbor said:
Right back at you darling. I’m going to type really slow so you understand the question I’m asking. So far NO ONE as been able to answer it.
My roommate (Catholic) committed suicide. According to “The church” He’s going to hell. His family had no trouble with holding a service for him. Pictures of his friends and family from that dark time in his life were shown.
A man, married three times died of a heart attack. According to “The Bible” he lived in adultery and in unrepentant sin. All his former wives and kids were there. They all shared stories about their periods of life with him. According to the logic of this article the church therefore endorsed his swinging lifestyle.
My 20 year old cousin, raised christian, died while driving drunk. Drugs were also found in the car. According to “The church” he lived a life of sin. My family had no trouble with holding a service for him.
Pictures of family and friends, (some including people smoking and drinking) as well as the girlfriend he lived with and his daughter they had out of wedlock where shown.
His friends, some of whom had never been in a church other than for weddings, got up and shared humorous stories of times they’d had together including one really funny story involving a pickup truck, a stolen recliner chair, and an enraged squirrel, all while running away from a cop. The pastor gave a 30 minute sermon (on behalf of his mother) to everyone in the room, telling us that the wages of sin is death.
What a strange and horrible thing it would have been if the pastor had said “We can’t endorse this lifestyle, you can’t have his service here.” I don’t know what my aunt would have done.
In all these cases the majority of the people in the room were non-Christians and the pastors had the entire afternoon to spend talking with the unwashed masses, and give great sermons offering people the chance to accept Christ into their hearts.
The QUESTION:
Why was it ok for all these sinners to have “church endorsed” funerals. But not mr. gay man? If you all can’t see the double standard here I don’t know what else to say.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Also, has anyone else noticed that there are plenty of open bar weddings, but almost never an open bar funeral? Yet another contradiction. I want my service to be a Die Hard movie marathon, but with my head superimposed over Bruce Willis.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:47 am
WTFWJD,
Uh…no one can answer your question because there isn’t a good answer. You’ve clearly laid out a double standard in the church. This is a prime example of how pathetic American Churches are and how we, as Christians, apply only the parts of the Bible to our lives that are comfortable.
Excellent comment by the way, and excellent question. You’ve really got me thinking.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:59 am
WTFWJD -
I do not think that there is an answer to your question. Any kind of answer would involve society’s role in scripture interpretation, and our prejudices towards certain groups of people. It was not long ago (and I’m sure it still happens today) that a white preacher would not hold a funeral service for a black man or woman. As a world, we are racist, sexist, homophobic…you name it. Any answer you are looking for is much harder to disclose than you may think - ultimate truth rests in scripture, however we create our personal truths through our experiences, circumstances, education, and culture. It is not right - but it is a reality, and we all do it.
I encourage you to continue your questions in love and respect - give others the same respect that you are demanding for the gay community. We can all learn from each other - isn’t recognizing your errors a part of the learning process? Give others a chance to learn.
I’m sure that I have many hypocritical beliefs that I don’t even know about yet - but when the time comes for me to deal with them, I would hope that fellow believers would not infer that I am stupid.
Personally, I think that High Point Church should have given Mr. Sinclair a respectful service, and taken the opportunity to minister to the gay community and serve them with the love that they deserve just as much as anyone else. But the church has made a mistake, and I pray that God opens their hearts. A compromise could have been reached.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Awww gee guys. Thanks. Sorry if I came across more serious than I actually felt. I am absolutely a hypocrite in more areas than I can count.
Cheers!
August 16th, 2007 at 10:25 am
My comment was not directed at you.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Mine was!
August 16th, 2007 at 10:46 am
I think y’all need to read the article again, because reading comprehension is good! The church didn’t refuse to host the service because the man was gay, they refused to include elements in the service that condoned his gay “activities” (for lack of a better word). They tried to reach a compromise by asking the family to leave out these elements, and the family refused. The church still provided the food and video sans objectionable elements.
In this case, the video may have included the deceased man dressed in drag and walking in a gay pride parade. That’s supposed to be OK for a church to show on their sanctuary overhead because it’s done in compassion and love for the loved one’s surviving family and friends? Or were they right to refuse to show such material?
I still say that if you want to make a fair comparison, then you have to compare this incident with an example that everyone agrees is sin. What if the man had been a NAMBLA member? (Google is your friend.) Would the church be right to refuse to include elements in the service that condone people who desire to practice pedophilia? It’s one thing to show love and compassion to the family and friends of someone who has died, and it’s another to turn a blind eye to unrepentant sin. What would Jesus do? Would accept the family into his home and laugh with them as they told stories about how he tried to molest his young nephew and the neighbor boys? Or would He ask them to refrain from remembering that part of his life and talk about the many other positive memories?
WTFWJD, you include some good examples. But would these comments be appropriate:
“Oh man, that was awesome when Fred blew his brains out! He was such an attention whore!”
“Remember when Dad was banging his secretary and divorced Mom? He was the man!”
“Johnny was such a funny drunk! He made laugh so hard coke came OUT of my nose! hahaha”
I think if a church were to know ahead of time that a video would contain these kinds of inappropriate comments (for a church service), they would ask them to be left out. I think that a family refusing to compromise on such issues puts the church in a corner as to upholding the standards that they preach. Do they show “compassion” by giving people free reign, or is a compromise merely a compromise of their values?
I’m still troubled by the comparisons to divorce. Why Christians seem to draw a special distinction to divorce by making it “living in sin” as opposed to something they did in the past is confusing to me. I think it requires a slanted view of verb tenses in Jesus’ comments on what was intended to be biting sarcasm on the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, not a definitive manual on how to define the degree of sinning on those who get divorced. Anyone who has been a victim of divorce, whether a divorcee, a child, or close family member cannot describe the pain caused by such a terrible thing, and for the church to slap on the Scarlet Letter is just adding insult to injury. I don’t know if those commenting here intended it to support their views or merely to point out the seeming hypocrisy of the church. If the former, shame on you, and if the latter I still think it’s a weak argument.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:47 am
And still none of you have addressed the original question…
:P
August 16th, 2007 at 11:08 am
I did read the article, more than once. When I stated that a compromise could have been reached - that was my very short way of saying that the service could still have been held at the church, while not encouraging and celebrating the homosexual lifestyle. I think that the article clearly shows that there was a huge miscommunication between the church and Mr. Sinclair’s family. It sounds like the miscommunication came largely from the church - but I have only heard one side of the story (this article) so I cannot comment further on the intentions of either party. The church still provided the multimedia presentation at the funeral home, minus the seemingly homosexual scenes. Something just doesn’t quite make sense, and I would not be surprised if there is much more to the story - on both sides.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The argument by WTFWJD and the Reformed Pope is a classic straw man. Create an argument no one is making and then knock it down.
No one in the article or on this blog has suggested it would be wrong to host a funeral for the man because he was gay. What I believe the pastor said was that the family wanted the service conducted in such a way that would glorify his homosexual lifestyle. Whether or not I agree with their conclusion is impossible for me to say because I don’t know all the facts. But assuming that their conclusion was correct, they had no choice other than to graciously decline because the love of Christ forbids presenting homosexuality as anything other than sin..
So, WTFWJD, the difference between all the examples you gave and the one we are discussing is that its highly unlikely the churches felt pressured to present drunk driving, illicit drug use, or adultery in a positive light. This is not a prejudice against a particular class of people. Homosexuality is unique because this particular class of sinner is trying to convince the world their behavior is not sin. Drug addicts, alcoholics, and adulterers don’t hold parades celebrating their sin of choice.
Does this make it a “worse” sin? Of course not. But it does force the church to take harder positions. I believe it does.
Is this a meaningful distinction?
August 17th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Jesus hates me this I know fore High Point Church tells me so!
August 17th, 2007 at 8:06 am
The problem with your argument DOC is that most Christians think that if a homosexual person goes on living their life and isn’t moaning and wailing and spending every spare moment they have trying to “defeat” their gayness and actually has joy in their life and good times, then that must mean they are “celebrating” their homosexuality. I am not saying you think this way, but almost every Christian I know thinks this way.
None of us are ever going to know the nature of the photos in question, but it really doesn’t matter. Even if they were just of him out on the town with a bunch of his friends–people would think that was him celebrating being gay. Because God forbid a gay man to have gay friends (the only other people who have gone through the same shizah he has and can relate and sympathize).
August 17th, 2007 at 8:51 am
I don’t disagree with your comment. There is clearly work to do in making sure we don’t treat others sins more harshly than our own. Homosexuality certainly gets a stronger response than other sins from many/most Christians.
It seems appropriate that we understand that Paul’s command to consider other’s as better than ourselves (Phil 2) applies to everyone, including gay people. The danger arises when our desire to show love and grace causes us to minimize our call to holiness. May we all pray for humility and discernment that our lives will reflect both the mercy and holiness of Christ. If the answers to these questions were easy, we wouldn’t need to ask for wisdom.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I like to try to reduce things to their basic components. And it seems to me that this whole subject is decided on the answer to the question: is it a sin to have a homosexual relationship?
If you make a YES column and a NO column, then you can line up all the arguments under one or the other. And neither side will sway the other because their premises are opposite, unless you can convince someone to change sides.
The church in the story answered the question YES, and then their decisions followed suit. The outcry comes from those who would answer the question NO — and rightly so from their perspective.
It’s a mess. And I hated the uproar that OR measure 36 caused. It made it difficult to demonstrate the character of the Lord without being categorized into one extreme or the other.
grace
August 21st, 2007 at 9:58 am
I don’t know how I ended up on this side of the debate, especially since I really don’t care that much, but I’m stubborn I guess. Please would you allow me to kick this horse a couple more times?
Sincerely no straw man here Doc. Perhaps you personally don’t feel this way, but to say that this isn’t an issue in American churches today is rather disingenuous.
With all due respect, yes they/we do. Google Seattle’s hemp fest (just this last weekend!), or the Fremont parade, or Burning Man, or the Vegas AVN convention, or how about your local towns beer fests, saint patricks day, or how about marde gras? I could go on.
Again: I don’t see how being gay is a worse “sin” than any other sins out there. Especially not one that should preclude ones family from holding a service at their church.
I want to be clear on this though: I believe that every church has a right to set it’s standards and hold to them. In this case (with so few facts to go by) I think that I don’t agree with them, but I’m glad that they can. If that makes sense.
I think I was trying to speak to the larger issue of how the American evangelical type churches deal with “the issue of homosexuality” rather than this exact situation.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:22 am
Agreed anna. Actually until recently my S.O. and I did not agree on this issue at all. She voted for 36, I voted against. She felt that marriage should be “protected”, I felt that in matters concerning insurance, trusts and estates, medical authority, etc. we as an American society should not discriminate.
She showed me news clips of Tim Nashif saying that it wasn’t about civil unions, or denying people who are gay civil rights.
I found a couple with Google:
She felt like Tim was saying exactly how she felt. To be honest that’s also how I felt, but I trust CBC/Tim Nashif about this much –>.”We would be against any measure that takes all the benefits of marriage and then calls it something else. We don’t think Oregonians had that in mind when they passed Measure 36.” - Tim Nashif, Bend Bulletin 4/15 2005
“SB1000 takes everything that marriage is and calls it civil unions.”"
- Tim Nashif, The Statesman Journal 4/17/2005
“First, marriage was never intended as a means to access rights. I believe that degrades the institution. The rights and benefits associated with marriage are a byproduct, designed to recognize and encourage the contribution and strength traditional families make to society.”
- Tim Nashif, Oregonian 4/17/2005
Ironically she now feels stronger than I do about this topic. Perhaps because she felt used by Tim/CBC? I don’t know.
As I type this I’m starting to realize something. Perhaps the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I really don’t like Tim Nashif?
That’s got to be it! I’m just bitter!
August 21st, 2007 at 10:43 am
“With all due respect, yes they/we do. Google Seattle’s hemp fest (just this last weekend!), or the Fremont parade, or Burning Man, or the Vegas AVN convention, or how about your local towns beer fests, saint patricks day, or how about marde gras? I could go on.”
A fair point, and to some degree I stand corrected
But as I observe culture, I see a distinction between the homosexual community and the remainder of these “communities”. The pagans, hempfest folks, and mardi gras celebrants flaunt their behavior because they don’t care that the Christians think its sin. They like their sin and don’t care of you disapprove. There is certainly an element of this within the gay community as well.
However, what I believe separates the gay community from the rest is the insistence, by many, that their behavior is not biblically wrong. They are attempting to try to convince the church and the culture that the God of the Bible is ambivalent about who people have sex with.
I simply don’t see the rest of these groups claiming that God thinks paganism, substance abuse, and group sex is beautiful. They simply don’t care. Since they aren’t asking us to validate their lifestyle, there is no uproar when we don’t.
However, because gay groups are asking the church to validate their lifestyle, the church is forced into difficult situations with them much more frequently. At least thats how I see it.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:47 am
To quote Darth Vader, “The circle is now complete…” haha
Hey, even though I’ve been arguing the church’s rights here, I would agree with you that many IC churches have blatantly misrepresented themselves on issues of gay marriage and civil unions. I still think they missed a golden opportunity to make it a non-issue by allowing ANYONE to get a civil union, and allow marriage to remain a religious institution. But douchebags like Nashif get my ire up when they blatantly lie about the topic to further their agenda and make money off the Holy Crusade Against Gays at the same time.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:57 am
It’s an interesting observation. I gotta wonder though. If the church were to start crusading so actively against another group of people (say the divorcées from the other conversation on this blog) and making it so they couldn’t be in leadership, or in some cases even attend church if the response from those people wouldn’t be similar. meh, who knows?
Thanks for the conversation though.
FICM: Agreed. I’m amazed that the Oregonian or at least Willamette Week didn’t make the connection between Nashif and CBC during all that.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:28 pm
for the record part of my previous post got ate up.
It should have said:
She felt like Tim was saying exactly how she felt. To be honest that’s also how I felt, but I trust CBC/Tim Nashif about this much –>.”We would be against any measure that takes all the benefits of marriage and then calls it something else. We don’t think Oregonians had that in mind when they passed Measure 36.” - Tim Nashif, Bend Bulletin 4/15 2005
SB1000 takes everything that marriage is and calls it civil unions.”
- Tim Nashif, The Statesman Journal 4/17/2005
First, marriage was never intended as a means to access rights. I believe that degrades the institution. The rights and benefits associated with marriage are a byproduct, designed to recognize and encourage the contribution and strength traditional families make to society.
- Tim Nashif, Oregonian 4/17/2005