Granting The Gift Of Grace
Recently, Pastor Jerry Falwell and the members of Thomas Road Baptist Church invited SoulForce to gather with them for a weekend of worship and fellowship. This would not sound so strange, except for the fact that SoulForce is a homosexual rights organization founded by the Rev. Mel White, a former Southern Baptist minister. I have thought about why Falwell, a prominent conservative crusader for social issues and one who is more right-leaning on many of these issues than myself, would so generously invite such a group into his church. Relationship building, with the ultimate goal of evangelism, most probably was on his mind. But I think he was also making a statement to the gay community and to the church at large. Christians are not to hate any class of people. No matter ones sexual orientation, a person is a human being, made in the image of God and of infinitesimal value to Him. God loves Mel White. And indeed, if he is going to consider our message, then he must know that we love him too. Way to go, Jerry, my hat is off to you on this matter.
Last Sunday evening at church we viewed a movie entitled A Man Called Norman. This was the true story about a mentally disabled elderly man, a socially unacceptable outcast of his community, and how God lead a Christian neighbor to build a personal relationship with him. In the process, this neighbor made a true friend as he learned Norman was a kind man, with feelings and worth and something to offer to others.
“Grace” can be defined as a disposition of kindness toward others. When I think of it, a picture of Jesus comes to mind. I know He would treat, with immense gentility, the least of our society. And I believe He would do the same with those who tend to be the least attractive to us, the church: the bum who is looking for a handout, the gay who thinks we hate him, and the disbeliever who may hate us. You may think they do not deserve our grace, but grace is never about getting what you deserve. And while we are at it, what do you and I “deserve” from God?
Matthew 25:40 – read it! Let us be givers of grace to others.
08.27.05 (5:09 pm) [
edit]
posted by:
LeananSidhe (
reply)
post date:
08.27.05 (6:02 pm)
Yeaaa Pastor Dave! I just so enjoy reading some of your views!
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
08.28.05 (2:47 am)
Thanks.
There is a struggle going on here. I want theology to be correct- what you believe is important. And I want love to be evident. And if I have to choose between the 2, I know love is the essential element.
posted by:
preceptlady (
reply)
post date:
08.28.05 (4:40 pm)
Grace..unmerited favor from God the Father.
posted by:
kurtmaddox (
reply)
post date:
08.29.05 (2:41 pm)
hmmm... i wonder if gay american's consider denying them their right to choose the adult marriage partner of their choice, regardless of the gender of their choice, to a "dispensation of kindness toward" them?
"hate" and just being mean are very different things. of course, the ol' *love the sinner* argument is always convenient for christians and muslims alike. here's the fact -- HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN ANY MORE THAN MARRYING SOMEONE WHOSE SPOUSE IS STILL LIVING IS A SIN! Both are forbidden by the Bible! Why isn't anyone lobbying Congress to protect the institution of marriage from adulterers! Jesus rails passionately against divorce and the New Testament condemns divorce more times that you can count.
Here's what gays in America deserve from professed Christians -- GET OUT OF THEIR LIVES AND OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS! GET OUT OF THEIR WAY AND LET THEM MARRY IF THEY CHOOSE TO MARRY!
Now, having said that, if you are Christian who lobbies Congress equally to make it illegal to remarry after divorce as well as to deny gays the right to marry -- then, at least, you aren't a prejudiced hypocrit!
The homosexual people I know are more gracious on a bad day than the Rev. Falwell is on his best day! Having said that -- I do like Jerry. I even attended his beloved Liberty University for a condensed summer session years ago!
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
08.29.05 (3:41 pm)
A few responses:
I know the name "Jerry Falwell" is a lightning rod. Lots of folks despise him. Much about him I do not like.
It seems to me the guy has come a long ways from the old Moral Majority days. I understand he and Mel White have an ongoing and genuine friendship.
What's wrong with "hating the sin but loving the sinner"?
It is a key to being Christlike to be able to love a person even when you do not agree with their moral choices.
By the way, I do not think we should legislate that gays cannot legally marry. I do think it is morally wrong for two people of the same sex to have a sexual relationship, with or without marriage, but such is a religious/moral issue- not a legal issue. Maybe there could be some kind of distinction between a church sanctioned marriage and a secular union. I have no problem with my church or my denomination refusing to conduct a gay wedding. But, seperation of church and state is very important for the health of our country, and of our churches.
posted by:
billyv (
reply)
post date:
09.03.05 (4:37 pm)
Reply to: kurtmaddox
Besides the religious aspect of homo/heterosexual marriage, I wonder if a line needs to be drawn. One man-One woman. If you branch out to allow same sex marriages, then you must allow certain types of polygamy don't you. Let's say a man of resources, like billionare Mark Cuban, wanted to marry two or maybe three more women. Andy they were all consenting adults. Under our current law, he is forbidden. Aren't we impinging on his rights and freedom? Would you be in favor of such a thing? If you were, then, I think you are not being a hypocrite. I think there is more than a religious answer to this issue.
posted by:
kurtmaddox (
reply)
post date:
09.04.05 (5:18 am)
Reply to: billyv
This is a typically silly justification for opressing decent, moral, law-abiding, loving and caring homosexual partners. Since you are such a fan of foolish consistency, which you might already be aware is the hobgoblin of small minds, then I must assume you are in favor of legalizing herion since alchol is legal. After all, what justification is there to disallowing things like smoking pot if you can buy tequilla, a much more harmful substance than pot, on any corner in America?
The mere suggestion that allowing homosexuals to marry is tantamount to opening the gates to polygamy does nothing but expose you for what you really are -- an apologist for prejudice, bigotry, injustice and the political opression of minority rights on the basis of sexual orientation.
Hmmm... who remembers or has read the many rational justifications for segregation? After all, if we allow those black people into our schools then pretty soon they are going to want to marry our sons and daughters or worse.
Why don't you stick to the single issue and give me one single rational justification for denying the right to marry to an otherwise law abiding homosexual couple who live go to work everyday, pay their taxes, ATTEND THEIR CHURCH EVERY SUNDAY TO WORSHIP THEIR GOD, volunteer for the general good of their community (homosexuals volunteer their time and money to charity at much higher rates than heterosexuals), vote and care about being good stewards of their planet and who believe strongly in the American ideals?
So, nice try with the tired old hypocrite trap! I'm a bit more than 3rd chair of the high-school debate team. The slippery-slope argument is a legitimate concern relative to many issues -- just not this one.
The current law is for TWO people wishing to join their lives in the bond of holy matrimony and thereby join themselves in a binding legal relationship as co-equal spouses will have that relationship recognized by the state and will be recognized as such, as it relates to matters governed by the state.
Extending this *recognitioin* (the state can't extend the *right* to marry to a heterosexual any more than it can to a homosexual -- all the state does is *recognize* marriages and then grant them certificate of marriage) to homosexual couples DOES NOT AND CLEARLY DOES NOT create any legal precedent or rational obligation to any other claim upon the government to reconsider redefining marriage outside of the current definition of TWO consenting adult citizens of the United States.
Polygamy is an interesting issue more from a perspective of freedom of religion than for some specious attempt to connect polygamy to the continued oppression of homosexuals in our society. But, it is a seperate issue and has very little in common with the argument for allowing gays to marry other than both would neccessarily involve a debate about what role the state should play in these matters. Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has major issues involving the clear consent of all parties involved. Polygamy has been shown to often involve the most insidious types of religious coercion and has been show to be, at times, a type of quasi-slavery. For sure, there are those who truly wish to be polygamists in order to be faithful to some dictate of their faith. In a country founded on the ideals of personal freedom in matters involving consenting adults (including what God to worship and how to worship your God so long as you aren't interfering with the rights of others), there is a bit of pure intellectual inconsistency around the issue of polygamy. But this type of intellectual inconsistency exists throughout American law in all manner of places. For example, we send 18 year old boys off to horrible conditions to defend the ideals of freedom and yet we will not allow these same young men to legally purchase a 6 pack of beer from the grocery store to enjoy in the privacy of their own home with their wife when they get back from executing the government sanctioned killing required by acts of war. Are you a hypocrite if you support allowing 18 year olds to fight in wars but not to legally purchase alcoholic beverages in the country that sent them to risk their lives to protect us?
We aren't just a Republic. We are also represenative Democracy. I'm fine pursuing having the state recognize homosexual marriage via a compromise such as civil unions so as to give the state a reasonable solution that addresses the concerns of the competing values of its legitimate constituencies. The issue isn't really *if* it will eventually happen but just *when*. I hope not long and will continue to work and vote toward that end as is both my right and responsibility as an American citizen.
In my opinion, just making such an infantile equivocation shows how unthoughtful you are about the reasonable desire of homesexual couples to have equal legal status to heterosexual couples. There are some reasonable arguments which involve protecting the tradition of marriage as it has been practiced for time immemorial. This is why I feel civil unions are a practical political solution.
posted by:
newbie (
reply)
post date:
09.04.05 (12:51 pm)
Reply to: billyv
Billy, meet kurt! He's really a nice guy. He will give you these long, meandering responses that are hard to follow but come to make sense when you study them. Kurt is not necessarily right, but he does challenge you to think, and dig deeply in order to effectively challenge what he has to say.
I've had several interesting interactions with him, and have come out better because of them. And, sometimes he irritates the heck out of me.
I'd like to see your thoughful response.
