Out the Door

My Speech Against Amendment One

I’ve been thinking about the speech I hope to have the opportunity to give at Annual Conference in opposition to Amendment One.  Here it is:

We as United Methodist desire our congregations to be a place of openness and inclusivity.  However, this amendment carries with it some real dangers to the life of the church.

Imagine this scene:  A man comes into worship one day and sits down in the back.  He continues to come and gets involved in an adult Sunday school class.  Before long you discover that the reason that he has been attending your church is because he’s been to about every other church in town and has never gotten along anywhere.  It also becomes apparent that he is outspoken in his bigotry.  He thinks all homosexuals, Jews, and Muslims are going to straight hell and he’s not afraid to say so.

One day he comes to the pastor and says he wants to join the church.  The pastor knowing a little about his past experiences in other churches and his bigoted beliefs questions him, asking if he understands that United Methodists believe that Christ has open the church to people of all ages, nations, and races.  He replies that he has read the membership vows in the hymnal and believes that he can reply in the affirmative to all the questions.

It is very obvious to the pastor that this man doesn’t really understand our vows.  She also knows that in all likelihood he will eventually cause problems for the congregation.  But what is she to do.  He says he wants to join the church and is willing to affirm our vows.  Because of the change brought about by this amendment, she has no grounds on which to postpone or deny him this privilege. 

One of the definitions of a pastor is shepherd.  A good shepherd protects the flock for predators.  I know from experience, and I’ll wager that most of you also know, that there are predators out there who are capable of doing great harm to the church.  This amendment completely strips all pastors of the God-given responsibility to watch over His flock.  We must not allow that to happen, please vote no.

The Ongoing Attack Against Orthodox Christians in America

I have been accused in the past by some of my readers of overstating my case.  And I will admit I have pushed the envelop at times.  But if I have it is only because I want people to wake up to what's happening around them. 

I've been reading through the book of Jeremiah.  Yesterday I read these words:

They (the prophets & priest) have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying "Peace, peace," when there is no peace.  Jeremiah 6:14

Orthodox Christians are under attack in this country, while many are crying, "Peace, peace," as if everything is okay.  Once the religious liberty of orthodox Christians is stripped away, can the onslaught against all people of faith, regardless of their faith, be far behind?

No doubt some people will think that I'm being fanatical in my warnings, however look at what is already taking place.  These aren't hypothetical situations, these are real court cases where the religious liberty of individuals and groups have been denied.  The following stories have been produced by the National Public Radio, which certainly isn't a bastion of conservative thinking.

Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. This Methodist group told the women they could not “marry” in any building used for religious purposes. The Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle—that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman—was at stake.  The women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government. But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did. It revoked their tax exemption—a move that cost them $20,000.

Then there’s the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But that wasn’t good enough. The woman sued. The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors’ religious beliefs didn’t give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.

In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly and got out of the business.

In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her—a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings. But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway—even though New York has no same-sex “marriage” law.

In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony—and sued the photographer when she declined.

An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them. 

All the above examples involve the loss of religious freedom because the individuals or groups held an orthodox Biblical worldview.  So you see why I'm concerned when people bury their heads in the sand about the attack on the free practice of religion and ignore the warnings that are proclaimed.  The priests and prophets of Jeremiah's day didn't listen and the Israelites paid a terrible price. 

I fear we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg of persecution which will come upon people of faith in our nation.  The only hope I see is if people of faith, Jews, Muslims, orthodox and progressive Christians come together and say, "Individuals must have the freedom to practice their religion even if we don't agree with their beliefs.  For when one person or group is denied the right to practice their faith as they see fit, then we all stand the chance of  losing our right to practice our religion."

NT: breakpoint.org

Christian America? Not Happening

Andrew Thompson has a great response to the recent Newsweek article about the demise of Christianity in America.  It is a must read.

While the Newsweek article riled a lot of conservative Christians.  Thompson's article should raise that hackles on a lot of liberal Christians.  Here's what he says that I think is at the heart of his commentary.

For his part, (John) Yoder is deeply skeptical of the project of Christianizing America. He argues in The Original Revolution that the attempt to turn the larger society Christian by ‘Christianizing’ laws and institutions is actually a sign of unfaithfulness. Such an attempt indicates a belief that “what God is really doing He is doing through the framework of society as a whole and not in the Christian community.” 

Instead, Yoder wants to Christianize the church by emphasizing that following Jesus and following the nation (any nation) are two different things. It’s a point that needs making in a culture where people have long assumed that the church and the society are pretty much synonymous. 

What comes naturally to a Mennonite is not such a popular position to take in the mainline church, of course. But Yoder’s right. After all, where in the New Testament does it say that the body of Christ can ever be society writ large? 

Christians can and should fight to preserve both law and social custom that we understand to fit with a Christian worldview. But we also shouldn’t think the goal of Christian discipleship is to baptize the culture. 

Jesus is not using America to save the world. He’s using the church, which is his true body. 

Some would counter that such a view is narrowly sectarian, but that is only because they don’t have much faith in the church as God’s true vehicle for salvation. (emphasis mine)

Too many Christians are looking to the government to solve the problems of poverty, healthcare, and education, to name a few.  The government has usurped the Church's rightful place in dealing with these issues.  This is true in part because it has been easier for the Church to let the government deal with these difficult issues.  The Church in America has been way to willing to hand over the reins of the works of righteousness and justice to the government.  This is a relatively new development.  Still one can see the remnants of the Church's active role in dealing with society's woes.  Many of the greatest universities in America were founded by Christians in order to develop new generations of Christian leaders.  Many of the greatest hospitals and nursing care facilities were founded by Christians who felt the need to provide medical care to those in need.  Many of the greatest charitible organizations came into being because Christians heard God's call to care for the orphan, the widow and the poor.  Sadly, Americans, including many Christian Americans now look more to the government to provide these services rather than the Church. 

I find no where among Jesus' teaching where the government is mandated to care for the poor, the sick, and those who are oppressed.  I find many places where the Church is commanded to do these things.

Thompson rightly says in closing:

Jesus did not reconcile the world to himself by conquering Rome. The call he gave was not to powerful aristocrats to build a new Roman Senate. It was instead a call to humble fishermen, to build a church. 

For us who want to obey him by following his example in mission and ministry, empty claims about a ‘Christian America’ are irrelevant.  Supremely relevant, though, is our discipleship. And that discipleship will surely be more faithful as we worry less about the Christian identity of America and more about the Christian fidelity of the church.

Amen to that!

House Democrats approve special protection for child molesters

I realize that this headline sounds too outlandish to be true.  Sadly, it is not.  The U.S. House of Representatives voted 249 to 175 mostly along party lines to add the words "sexual orientation" to a list of extra-protected groups under federal hate crime laws.  Pedophilia (child molestation) is just one of the paraphilias the American Psychiatric Association defines as a "sexual orientation."  The American Family Association delineates 30 of the 547 paraphilias or "sexual orientations"as defined by the APA.  Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582

During debate in the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa (YouTube), offered this very simple amendment: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."

It was rejected.

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert's response (YouTube) in committee clarified what that means:

If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, [and] she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.

And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse). … It could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them – they've committed a misdemeanor; you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.

When the bill came before the House, again Rep. King (YouTube)tried to make is colleagues understand exactly what they were enacting.  He pointed out that they were about to give extra-protected status to 547 different orientations.

Then, shockingly, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., agreed and admitted that this bill will protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or "Paraphilias" listed by the APA.  Here's what Hastings said on the House floor (YouTube):

This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'Philias' and fetishes and 'isms' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.

Apparently, Rep. Hastings and the vast majority of his fellow Democrats, as well as a handful of Republicans have absolutely no problem with sexual deviants, including child molesters and exhibitionists, getting an elevated level of protection.  I wonder if they would have voted the same way if one of their children or their spouse had fallen victim to one of these deviants?  I doubt it.  So why don't they offer the same protection to the rest of us.