Indiana GOP Threaten Clergy With Jail Time For Performing LGBT Marriages

Here is some news that should make those who cherish religious freedom nervous:

In what appears to be a rather massive violation of the freedom of religion, the Republican party in Indiana appears to have amended the state criminal code to either make it a crime, or confirm that it remain a crime, for clergy to conduct weddings for gay couples.

While it is not widely known, numerous mainstream American religions permit gay nuptials. The faiths include reform Judaism, Evangelical Lutherans, Episcopalians, and the United Church of Christ, among others.

Yep, the Indiana GOP has decided that they will tell religious groups in their state what they can and cannot do in their own places of worship.

This is a massive violation of the 1st amendment, and the principle of freedom of religion. If a religious group wants to perform a religious act marrying two men or women, that should be no business for anyone but that place of worship. This is government meddling where it doesn't need to be. No matter what your opinion on gay marriage, it should make you nervous as a person of faith that the Indiana Republican legislature feels that they have the authority to do this kind of thing.

This is the distinction I feel a lot of conservatives fail to make on the issue of gay marriage: what a church does or doesn't do is their own business. Just because gay marriage may be legal in a state doesn't mean anyone will force your church to perform gay marriages. Nor should a church be prevented from performing gay marriages if they so choose.

Don't expect this to hold up in a court. And don't be surprised if we don't see more of this kind of thing as the push for gay rights becomes closer and closer to a done deal.

Morality vs. Theology: Some Thoughts on Rev. Frank Schaefer and Gay Marriage in the UMC

Question: how do you think the church should act in the world if the goal is to follow Jesus' command to love others as God loves us? What does this look like in action?

You know what it doesn't look like? This:

United Methodist church officials defrocked a pastor from central Pennsylvania on Thursday who violated religious doctrine by officiating his son's gay wedding, and he later said he was shocked by their decision, calling his involvement in the wedding an "act of love."

Rev. Frank Schafer, in 2007, traveled to Massachusetts from his home in Pennsylvania to marry his gay son and his partner. This was no problem until this year, when a congregant at his church found out and informed the East Pennsylvania Annual Conference. Who decided that Rev. Schaefer should no longer be a Methodist minister. Despite the fact that the Revered was out of state at a private ceremony, and was following the moral dictates of his own heart.

I posted an article the other day on Facebook about Phil Robertson. This point is made in that article that I absolutely think sums up Rev. Schaefer's case:

When faced with the choice between being theologically correct…as if this is even possible…and being morally responsible, I’ll go with morally responsible every time. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and theologian during World War II. He firmly held the theological position of nonviolence. He believed that complete pacifism was theologically correct. And yet, in the midst of the war, he conspired to assassinate Adolf Hitler; to kill a fellow man. Why? Because in light of what he saw happening to the Jews around him by the Nazis, he felt that it would be morally irresponsible not to. Between the assassination of Hitler and nonviolence, he felt the greater sin would be nonviolence.

I love that first line. "When faced with the choice between being theologically correct and being morally responsible, I'll go with morally responsible every time." If, as a Christian, we feel called to accept the LGBT community, and to affirm their life and their love, then we are morally obligated to do so. To do anything less would to be morally compromised and untrue to ourselves.

The other part of this story that really jumps out at me is this quote from Rev. Schaefer:

"So many of them came to me and they shook my hand and some hugged me, and so many of them had tears in their eyes," Schaefer said. "They said, 'We really don't want to do this, you know that, don't you?'"

Tony Campolo, in his book Red Letter Christians, tells the story of a young man from an Anabaptist Peace church during the Vietnam War who is brought before a court for refusing military service. He explains before the judge his moral opposition to warfare, and why, as a pacifist, he cannot perform military service. The judge listens sympathetically and tells the young man he understands his concerns and sympathizes, but he has no alternative to sentencing him. The young man looks at him and says, "You do have choice, Judge! You can resign!" Maybe the Board of Ordination should read this story. Maybe then they could help the church move towards the Kingdom, rather than away from it.

For more information on the gay rights movement within the UMC, I strongly suggest you check out Reconciling Ministries. It's a great resource, and on the forefront of the future of the Methodist church.

Today's Good News About Gay Marriage

Lost in all the debate today over Phil Robertson's comments is this wonderful news:

The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously affirmed on Thursday the right of same-sex partners to marry in the state, reasoning that the “protections and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally” to them and to opposite-sex couples.

Hallejuah!

How Should Christians Approach Homosexuality?

I want to expand on my earlier post about Phil Robertson, and more specifically, about how to think about homosexuality as a Christian. I personally believe very strongly that homosexuality it not a sin, and that the church should rejoice in two people who want to live monogamous, committed lives with another. This is a view grounded in how I view Scripture and my own use of logic and reason.

Let's think this through. Let's looks at the claim, as many LGBT people argue, that homosexuality is not a choice, but something one is born into. As Christians, we should take a loving and trusting view of others, and so if our LGBT brothers and sisters say it is just the way they are made, we have a duty to take their words at face value. So, assuming that is not a choice, thata they are born that way, then to call it a sin is to claim that God inherently created that person in sin. But as Christians, we don't believe God created sin, right? Sin is in fact a by product of our free will and choices. It inherently contradicts the nature of God to say he created someone wrapped in sin.

But if you still believe it is sin, then think about this. Nobody disagrees we should welcome our LGBT friends into Christ. And we should encourage them to have an honest and healthy communion with God through reflection and prayer. So, if an LGBT person is having a honest relationship with God, and is living a live they feel is completely consistent with their faith, including being homosexual, then who are we to judge? God is the only one to judge them, and the only one they have to answer to. If, as you say, homosexuality is a sin, then lets leave it to God to work with them. Because the fact is, being gay presents no outward harm to you or I, and thus really is none of our business. As Pope Francis has said recently, "If a person is gay, and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?"

Instead, as Christians, we should be welcoming and loving and inclusive to all people, regardless of anything at all. And public comments like Mr. Robertson's do not do that. His comments alienate and spread hate and disgust towards human beings. That is not the example Christ taught us to live.

There are many, many verses in the Bible, both New and Old Testament, that can be used to place rules on life. Not all of them make sense in today's cultural and societal context. Head coverings for women, prohibition of eating shell fish, stoning of adulterers, ritual shunning of the mentally handicapped: all of these things are said very explicitly in the Bible, and none of them we live by today, because they are inherently impractical, ridiculous, and were put in place for a radically different time and culture. The verse regarding homosexuality should be viewed the same way. It has more to do with a Roman cultural habit of having homosexual relations with prepubescent boys, as a way of "mentoring" them. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has to do with in-hospitality, rather than homosexuality, by Jesus' own admission. The Bible, and the verses thrown out by many to condemn homosexuality, need to be read and understood in their proper context. And, as always, everything should be evaluated through the words and actions of Jesus Christ.

For a more thorough exegesis of the Biblical passages concerning homosexuality, check out this article from Would Jesus Discriminate? It's really enlightening, and makes a really key central point to this argument: the word translated as "homosexual" in 1 Corinthians 6, is in fact a word that we aren't exactly sure what the proper translation is. Interesting that the arguments against homosexuality are based on an uninterpreted word.

Phil Roberstson, Homosexuality, and the Christian Example

I have a confession to make: I am a Duck Dynasty fanatic. I love the show. I have a t-shirt. Although I know they are very, very different from me and my world outlook-politically, religiously, culturally-I think they are wonderful people. While I know they subscribe to a much more conservative form of Christianity than me, they seem sincere about their faith, and they love people.

So I'm very, very disappointed to see the comments from Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the family, on homosexuality.

Now, let me preface this by saying that I never had any doubt in my mind that they had traditional views on gay marriage and the gay lifestyle. No matter my strong disagreement, I never had any illusions about the Robertson's, and anybody who is acting shocked is being intellectually dishonest.

The problem here is the disgusting and unnecessarily graphic rhetoric on display here. This is the exact thing that turns so many non-Christians off about our faith. The Robertson's, as high profile Christians with a very public platform, have a elevated duty to present our faith in it's truest sense, no matter their personal feelings about homosexuality. Christianity is about love and acceptance of others, regardless of their perceived "sin." (Note that I DO NOT believe homosexuality is a sin; I am merely making a point for those who do.)

I know the Robertson's do much good work compelled by their faith. But all of that work becomes obscured when one of them makes this kind of hateful comment. It's disappointing, to say the least. And it's not how we should practice our faith in the world.

Here's how I approach this issue. While I believe homosexuality is not a choice, the idea of choice is beside the point. We need to ask two questions. One, does a person's homosexuality cause an outward harm to other people, or society as a whole? Really, is a monogamous, loving relationship between two men more damaging than multiple divorcees? And two, if a homosexual has a honest relationship with God and lives life as true to that relationship and where it leads them as possible, then who are we to judge? Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, if that person is communing with God and leading a Christ-centered life, then whatever internal choices they make are between them and God.

It's disappointing to see this from such an outspoken Christian, and does a real disservice to spreading message of love that Jesus preached to us.