If you have a chance, watch this video from Keith Olbermann a couple nights ago. It's a commentary on last week's passage of Proposition 8 in California, which rescinded the controversial right of same-sex couples to get married. I don't live in California, so I didn't have to vote on the issue and there wasn't much discussion of it around here. [H/T: Greg Garrett]
Obviously, religious voters were the overwhelming force behind its passage (including the higher-than-usual percentage of African-American voters who came to the voting booth to vote for Obama).
I'm interested in your comments/opinion about what Keith says, particularly in viewing it from the perspective of followers of Jesus Christ -- which, I'm guessing, a lot of my readers are. From Levitical law to Paul's teachings, Christian tradition says that same-sex relations are "an abomination." But Jesus didn't ever mention the topic. Jesus said the greatest commandment was loving God and "loving your neighbor as yourself."
Olbermann lays aside his usual vitriole -- he's dead serious about this, and not-at-all snarky, and seems to even get emotional a couple times -- and asks a really provocative question: Do you do what your religion teaches you to do? Or do you do what the founder of your religion teaches you to do?
If you've got 6 minutes, watch the video with an open mind, then give me your feedback. Agree or disagree? How far do we, as followers of Christ, extend the Golden Rule? How much can we (or should we) differentiate between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Christianity?
Here's a transcript of the commentary.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Keith Olbermann and Prop 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
You drew me in on this one old friend!
I have to say that the "red-letter Christian" philosophy being pushed by Tony Campolo and others is way off base.
My belief is based upon Scripture, particularly 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
We as Christians must take the Bible as a whole. This is not Furr's Cafeteria where we pick and choose which parts we want to apply to our lives. It is God's Word with instruction, encouragement, and more for us as His people.
On this particular issue of homosexuality the Bible is clear in both OT and NT that it is a sin. When we start trying to interpret these Scriptures through the lens of our current culture, we are on very dangerous ground.
You know, it's interesting that we never saw the early church try to petition the Roman Government to change its laws or policies - when the accepted practice was to toss unwanted babies off of bridges, the Christians were there to rescue them - and society changed because of that hard work.
P.J. O'Rourke defines politics correctly as unearned influence - it's the one area where a group can exercise control over others without having to pay the "real market" value for that control. For example, if you don't want the new subdivision built that would interfere with your view of the lake, you can either buy the land yourself or you can try to change the zoning laws to prevent anyone else from building there - guess which one is less costly.
Here we have something similar - is it easier for us to use the tool of government to deny something that interferes with our views as opposed to truly demonstrating the love of God for everyone, regardless of their sin of choice?
Which brings us to a bigger question - why THIS sin? Why not the sin of coveting? Why not the sin of heterosexual lust? Could it have much more to do with our own comfort levels than any real commitment to biblical truth?
Finally, I believe this issue is yet another area for Christians to bicker amongst ourselves rather than getting on with the business of loving God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength and loving our neighbors as ourselves.
There's my two cents' worth.
@Ken: I appreciate your take and agree about the harder, more personal work of loving versus the easier, more impersonal work of legislating.
@AndersonTheology: With all respect, I think you oversimplify the issue a bit. You say we can't "pick and choose" the parts we apply to our lives, but I'm guessing you follow God's command in Leviticus 19:18 to love your neighbor, but you ignore God's command not to wear clothes of different fibers, which occurs a verse later in Leviticus 19:19. I haven't seen you in awhile, Chuck, but I doubt your wardrobe is free of poly-cotton blends. Maybe you emphasize Paul's words in Romans 1 against same-sex behavior, but do you also require your wife to cover her head in church? Do you let her cut her hair? (1 Cor 11:5-6)
My point isn't to be snarky, but to admit that I personally pick and choose stuff from the Bible all the time. Everyone does. Otherwise we better get busy stoning adulterers and not cutting our beards and shutting down Beth Moore for teaching men about the Bible.
The point, as you said, is how we view the Bible as a whole. That probably determines which parts we keep and which parts we dismiss as cultural or the "old Law."
The question to ask, then, is: What is the whole message of the Bible? Is it grace? Is it judgment? Is it obedience? What is it?
Good questions all Jason! In particular the final questions about the whole message of the Bible.
I believe it's all of the above...grace, judgment, obedience, and more. When dealing with sin, we can look at Jesus' example with the woman at the well. He loved her, showed her grace, but told her..."go and sin no more."
As to Levitical law of the OT...Jesus Christ brought the New Covenant. After His death on the cross, our way to God the Father is no longer through the law, but through our accepting the free gift of His grace and mercy at salvation.
Then we are "crucified with Christ" and live like Him through His strength. Paraphrase of Galatians 2:20
I would argue the whole bible is about reconciliation - and according to Paul's words (Col. 1:20-22, Eph. 2:16, and especially 2 Corinth 5 18-20), we are talking about complete reconciliation of all things and people to God - and we're called to be agents of that reconciliation. That is hard work, indeed - as any "bomb-thrower" can tell you, it's an awful lot easier to divide people than it is to bring them together.
I've just accepted the fact that I'm eventually going to be reconciled with the people I can't stand to be around, so I'm trying to learn how to love them now (and it's not easy).
Man, Jason, you really keep diving into the thorny issues. ;-)
I'm pretty conflicted on this issue and not entirely sure where I stand, but I frequently come down on the side of not legislating morality.
I'm not sure I have the energy to get into the specifics, but I think Olbermann is overlooking some key perspectives of the opposing viewpoint. He's sidestepping views on morality (that may or may not be right) to make his impassioned speech. He never addresses those concerns, and if you have those concerns they are no small thing.
This is an awful analogy, but just because murder makes a serial killer happy doesn't mean we should allow that spark of happiness to continue. For someone who believes homosexuality is a sin, that's the issue they're struggling with.
I don't think that's as easily overcome as Olbermann makes it out to be.
Another point that's not made is how this will affect children and the generations to come. From what I understand, there are already elementary textbooks in existence, waiting for gay marriage to be legalized, that will teach young children about their sexual freedom to choose. There will be lots of fallout from making a decisions like this - and it is "redefining marriage." Are we going to steal children's innocence away at such a young age? I believe childhood is hard enough without adding sexual confusion into the mix.
Jesus never mentioned (to our knowledge) homosexuality. He did however speak constantly on the subjects of Love, Forgiveness, Grace, Mercy, and how we should treat each other.
Let's say that we all agree that homosexual acts are sinful. Ok fine. So is speeding, overeating, and lust. Yet, no one tried to prevent my wife and I from getting married, even though we are both habitual sinners, and for this I am grateful. No one viewed allowing our marriage to take place as condoning our sinful lifestyles. I wonder, Did any of you guys have that experience? Did anyone speak up during your ceremonies and say "No way! We can't let these two get married, because they're sinners, and that would destroy the sanctity of marriage"?
It's my belief that marriage is an institution created by God as a way of illustrating the relationship between Christ and the church. Therefore, it should be something the church sanctions--not government. The government uses marriage as a way to determine how much to tax you or who's living with whom. So I say the government should stop dictating who is married period--homosexual or heterosexual. In that case, I believe it becomes (politically) a civil rights issue and homosexuals should be given the same rights as heterosexuals. Religiously, though, it's a case of loving your neighbor and I believe Christians should follow in the steps of Christ and love all sinners--not just the people who struggle with the same sins as them.
Disclaimer: I didn't watch the video or read the transcript.
I'm torn on this issue just as much as most of us are. I've been wrestling with the idea if we as Christians should be legislating laws.
Someone made a comment about how the early Christians didn't petition the govt. ..well maybe it's because they had no voice then. they didn't get the privilege to vote like us. And since we DO, we have a responsibility on our shoulders. "For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."
Where does that leave us? Just as judges were appointed to be responsible to judge the people in righteousness, ought we not to do the same? respectively. (obviously were not the supreme court, but we are judges in a certain aspect- thats the cool thing about democracy) I agree with Ken, the Bible is the story of Creation, Fall, and REDEMPTION.
There is a HUGE reason the majority of the African-American community helped pass 8, because they don't see this as a civil rights issue. It's not a civil rights issue. It's an issue of doing our part as Christians to look out for those who "know not what they do."
p.s.
@andersontheology: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" don't justify sin. it doesn't work anywhere in the Scriptures. the question, unfortunately, is: should we allow sin to be "sanctified thru marriage"? that shouldn't even be a question. it's a sad time we live in...but inevitable.
Thanks, everyone, for discussing a controversial topic with honesty and civility. I'm not sure we've come to any conclusions, but I'm glad we can approach the subject with different viewpoints...without yelling at each other. Well done.
This is good Jason. I've generally fell on the side of Prop 8, feeling uneasy about restructuring the institution of marriage (man and woman), although I've been in full support of sharing insurance and having the "rights" of married folks. But Keith poses a good argument here. Love does beget love. And why do we really care? How are we saving God's reputation or endorsing God by taking a stand against the formality of something that just IS. And homosexual love does not create a dissonant society; it's doesn't create negative energy any more than bad marriages or caustic, self-centered relationships. I don't know. I'll have to press myself on this one. Thanks for putting ONE MORE thing on my spiritual drawing board! Sheesh!!
First, I'll say that I did watch this clip and Olberman appeared honest and sincere rather than coming across in his usual tither. Does honesty and sincerity make one more or less right or wrong on any issue though?
Second, Jason you do make a point about Jesus himself not teaching on homosexuality. Look at this in cultural context though - He didn't have to. Jesus spent his time teaching in and around Jerusalem where homosexuality was not an issue due to the Jewish religious rule of the day. Paul, the writer of the majority of the NT, who went to the Gentiles where homosexuality was an issue - primarily in pagan temples - covered this topic multiple times though. Paul also spoke out as much as anyone on heterosexual lust and adultery.
One can also question whether marriage is a right or a privilege? Many people are penalized in some form or fashion by our government/legislative/corporate systems. Widows and widowers can be penalized in their receipt of pensions or health care benefits if they chose to remarry. Do you hear anyone fighting for their right to remarry without consequence? Those who are married without kids are still penalized when paying their taxes, doesn't mean they don't love children. Many single people or marrieds w/o kids pay others share of those with childrens health care benefits in corporations.
For me the real question boils down to this "Would voting for or against Prop 8 demonstrate love in one way or another?" I don't think it does. Our actions displayed in our interactions with individuals demonstrate our love or lack thereof.
The most convincing argument for homosexuality is a sin that I've ever encountered is as follows:
1. Sex outside the boundaries of marriage is clearly sin.
2. From Genesis (the man shall leave his mother and father and ...) to Jesus (the man shall leave ...) to the apostles, teaching on marriage is always in the context of one man and one woman. (Polygamy was practiced but never endorsed)
3. Because of the above 1 and 2, homosexuality as a practice, a lifestyle is inhererently sinful.
Perhaps it can be argued from the above logic that the only way to legitimize this lifestyle is through marriage.
Even if this is true, I submit that codifying this prohibition into law for essentially a secular country is both unloving and inconsistent to the teachings of scripture.
For what we do by advocating such a position is to dismiss our "love the sinner, hate the sin" by our unloving actions. By treating this issue as a life and death issue, we paint ourselves as bigoted and myopic, instead of loving.
It's like that episode of the simpsons, where homer sticks his hand up into a soda machine, grabs a can and tries to extract it. His hand gets stuck, but he won't release the can to pull out his hand. He wants the best of both worlds.
In addition, if we do advocate this prop 8 position, then by virtue of the equality of all sin, we have to make all sins against the law, and essentially become a theocracy. There's nothing more or less sacred about the institution of marriage than other Biblical concepts. For example, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, let's make obesity, gluttony (although I wouldn't be opposed to banning those Texas Corral buffet places), drunkenness, smoking, etc. all against the law.
more interesting thoughts on this topic: http://bluechristian.blogspot.com/2008/11/californias-proposition-8-same-sex.html
Hi Jason,
I live in one of the areas of the us where the homosexual community is - Orlando, FL. I admire ministries like Exodus International who reach out and try to help those who are hurting. I think I read stats that said about 99% of homosexuals were abused only 1 percent felt they were born with it. But enough of the jargon.
Sin is sin is sin but as Paul instructed us it isn't our job to go and beat (which you are NOT doing here) people over the head. We are to love people and allow God to convict these people.
I think we as a society have to be careful not to be too easy on the subject as well because homosexuals are seeking minority status and I say and an American that is completely wrong!
There is a sect of homosexuals known as militants who want to go to churches and push their agenda. I personally feel they are just MAD at GOD and need to reconsile with him.
I pray they find Jesus and work out their own salvation with fear and trembeling.
Equal legal rights for gay Americans will be a done deal in 10-15 years. Christians have typically been on the wrong side of civil rights issues, and this instance just proves the point.
It is good, however, to see the hypocrisy of those who want the government to enforce their religious rules on other Americans -- but don't want their own religious rules enforced against them. How many Christians are lobbying for the government to "protect marriage" by outlawing divorce?
i am a homosexual and have always resented all the baggage religion has heaped upon me and my ilk. things like the prop 8 vote are why i will never become a spiritual person. if becoming spiritual means becoming bigoted and hateful, then i don't want to have anything to do with it.
i was never abused as a child and i count myself fortunate to have had two very loving and caring parents. i can also remember back to grade school when i found myself developing a profound crush on another boy in my third grade class.
who made me that way? where was my guardian angel? if that crush was wrong, then why was it allowed to happen? did loving an other boy make me, a nine year old boy, an abomination? does the simple, very human, act of loving mean that you should be lumped with murders and thieves just because you love someone of the same sex?
why do "christians" always have to look at the world through the prism of their pious noses? how is such conduct any different from that of pharisees and sadducees? jesus likened them to whitewashed tombs full of all sorts of repulsive and unclean things.
to bad "christians" can NEVER remember "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "remove the beam from your OWN eye before attempting to extract the splinter from the eye of another."
"but enough of the jargon."
Post a Comment