Well Wednesday came and went, and my forecast of my own thoughts was about right. I enjoyed it, but i wondered if it was really achieving anything. Here are some random thoughts:
Maybe this is what Christians should do
In America in 2012, no one is going to come at you with a knife, or a gun, or a brick, just because you're on the way to church. But the faith once for all time delivered will be mocked, and we should expect it to be. It was ever thus. Maybe this is the best way to stand together. 'If you don't like the Biblical philosophy that drives a certain restaurant, we're all going to eat there.' It wasn't violent, or angry, it was good. Maybe this is what we should be doing.
It's good to be for things
Christians are so often known for what we're against, it's good to be known for what we're in favour of. Biblical marriage and tasty chicken! But seriously, we must keep holding out our faith as that which brings life and liberty, not that which takes it away. Wednesday was at least a step towards that.
I did enjoy it
We saw people from our church, other churches, old friends, new friends with their kids. People were clearly having a good time. One of the traces of the Gospel in our hearts is that we're all designed to be part of something bigger than ourselves, and this was one such something.
It's not going to change anything
Is Rahm Emmanuel going to say 'hundreds of thousands of people in the Bible belt ate at chick-fil-a? We must build one!' Of course not. This is where we are now. The freedom to exercise one's faith is slowly being eroded. The idea that what we do on Sunday should impact our lives on Monday to Saturday will get more and more unpopular. So i think we have to take these stands.
I'm still not sure it's a Gospel issue
But maybe it is.
What about the question of whether what you do on Sunday should affect what other people do on all days of the week? Id really be interested on your perspective on why Christian values are important to non-Christians and those who disagree with you- that's something I'm struggling to understand in the current religion-centred debates.
ReplyDeleteThe first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, not just the freedom of belief. This suggest that whatever religion you hold to, it will effect the way you live your whole life.
ReplyDeleteThis is clearly the case with Dan Cathy, whose faith means that he believes that marriage to be between one man and one women. Now, aside from the fact that there is nothing homophobic or bigoted about that statement, the issue becomes whether it is right for a mayor to prohibit a business because he disagrees with the beliefs of that business's president.
The reason so many CFAs were packced yesterday is because clearly many people believe it's not...
So you're supporting Dan Cathy's individual right to believe and express what he wants, and to not have his company punished for that provided that they don't discriminate (which they don't).
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not sure that the issue of gay marriage can be easily sidstepped. CFA day was considered by many to be a protest against gay marriage - whether that was actually the case is negotiable, but you must have been fully aware of that when you attended.
Gay marriage is a different issue where I am because a form of gay marriage is legal here - a gay couple have all of the rights of a married couple. But in the majority of the states, where they have none whatsoever? I would very much like to hear your point of view. Should they try to suppress who they are and who they love, or simply be content with loving each other, and live with the fact that the state does not consider their relationship appropriate because it conflicts with other peoples' religious views, and so they are unable to act as partners in official matters? It's difficult to understand the Christian perspective on this - homosexuality exists and there's no denying that there are homosexual couples who love one another as dearly as heterosexual couples do. Do those in support of "biblical families" deny that those couples could possibly love one another, say that their love is sinful, or simply say that because the Bible appears to forbid it, the couple must deny it to themselves? If you don't think any of these, do you understand how those who do are able to justify it to themselves? As before, I'm struggling to understand the point of view.
I understand if you'd rather not reply, as it could seem that I'm just trying to draw you into an argument, but I'd honestly value your perspective.
*too much editing - I deleted the second sentence by accident. It was "That seems reasonable" (fairly key!).
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's up to the government of any state or nation to define marriage. Marriage is not a civil ceremony, like getting a driver's licence, it's a commitment before God. No government has a mandate to define marriage.
ReplyDeleteI also don't believe that attraction and monogamy alone make a marriage. Marriage exists to reflect (however imperfectly) Christ's relationship with His bride, marriage exists for procreation, both those definition reveal homosexual marriage to be a misnomer.
I think Jesus is better than homosexuality. Just like Jesus is better than pornography, or alcoholism, or theft, or pride. The Church at large must communicate that they are 'for' homosexuals. Jesus was 'for' the woman at the well in John 4, but He still told her to go and sin no more.
You do raise a very sticky point tho, was CFA Day an anti gay thing? I think only if you define being in favour of A as being 'phobic' of 'not A.' Christians must tolerate homosexuality in the right sense of the word. That is, 'you're wrong, but you have the right to exist and propagate your views.' Real tolerance presupposed disagreement, not the absence of something called truth. Would that the liberal left showed the same tolerance to the Church!
So people in civil unions because they're atheists, people of any religion other than your own - they're not married either? I think you would upset a lot of people if you tried to enshrine that in law, and I think it's very sad that you don't think that people can love without Jesus being involved. I'm not sure how you can possibly demand tolerance for Christianity but reject tolerance for non-Christians. Thank you for discussing this with me, though - I appreciate you taking the time to frame your point of view so thoughtfully even if I disagree with your conclusion.
ReplyDeleteExplain to me what tolerance is? Apparently we mean different things when we use that word. Again, tolerance means 'you have the right to exist, but i think you're wrong.' It does not mean 'you're right, i'm right, we're all right.' This appears to be your definition.
ReplyDeleteWhere have i 'rejected tolerance for non-Christians?' Unless you regard tolerance as the absence of something called truth, i simply haven't. I also don't 'demand' tolerance for Christians, i actually expect less and less tolerance for Christian belief and practice.
I didn't say that 'non-Christian's aren't married' did I? I said that marriage is a religious, particularly, a Christian institution.
I'm enjoying our conversation, but please read what i've written!
In the USA, the issue of gay marriage is homosexual couples requesting the right to exist legally. They're requesting the right to be allowed to be by their partners' bedsides in hospital and the right to not be split up by deportation just because one of them isn't female. Anyone denying that is not tolerant - by voting against the right of gay couples to be legally recognized, they're voting against gay couples' right to exist. That's not saying "You have the right to exist, but I think you're wrong" - it's saying "I think you're wrong, but as long as you don't presume to think that you deserve the same rights to exist as a heterosexual couple, I'll let you continue to be wrong".
ReplyDeleteMarriage is not, and has never been, an exclusively Christian institution. Certainly it is something that does exist within Christianity, but it exists within the vast majority of other cultures as well - there's certainly no monopoly there, just as Christianity has no monopoly on morality. I understand that to you, your marriage is about Jesus, and wouldn't hesitate to accept that even though I'm an atheist - you have a right to your own beliefs - but surely you're not saying that you believe that all marriage is about Jesus? Mine most certainly isn't, and never will be, and I would be extremely offended if someone said that it was.
I suppose there's no reason for you not to pity homosexuals, but I'm surprised that a religion that is supposed to be all about love rejects it so harshly. I'm sure that you know how offensive it is comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, theft and pornography - I can only pity you that you think that it's a reasonable comparison to make.
I've really struggled to write this without offensive content, and I'm sorry if you are offended. It seems to me that you are justifying hiding your contempt for other people's actions behind religion, but then turning around and preaching love. But then, I don't understand belief in God either, so I suppose we're off to a non-starter in communication on that front.
Not offended at all, but there are clearly several differences in our world view that make it impossible for us to be at anything other than an impasse.
ReplyDelete1) Letting someone continue to disagree with you is the very essence of tolerance. I'll remind you that it was city powers trying to keep Christian organisations out, not Christians trying to keep homosexual organisations out. Your definition of tolerance seems to be everyone agreeing about everything. Tolerance assumes disagreement.
2) If the God of the Bible was not a Trinity, there would be no marriage as we know it.
If the God of the Bible had not created Adam and Eve, there would be no marriage as we know it.
If Christian ideals had not pervaded the western world there would be no marriage as we know it. I invite you to look at what marriage looks like in countries with no Christian influence and tell me what you think.
3) Re your last para. Again, please understand what tolerance actually means. Disagreement and contempt are not synonyms. I can disagree with someone and not hold them in contempt, something that it seems Rahm Emmanuel, for example, can not do. I have no contempt for homosexuals.
Christ loved sinners, the outcasts, and those on the fringes of society. He loved them so much He told them to go and sin no more. True love, real love, does not say 'i am ok, you're ok, we're all ok.' Love says Jesus is better. Love says, come to Him all who are burdened and weary, love says lay down your weapons and find perfect joy and peace in Christ.