Quotes & Sayings


We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater

-----

Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write from the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

A Christian Debate About Gay Marriage

It is this author's opinion to support LGBT civil union through state channels and charters so as to allow the legal recognition and entitlement of protection to all individuals under the American Constitution.

It is this author's further opinion to allow for the church, synagogue, and other faith institutions to declare individually whether to recognize, perform, or sanctify LGBT "marriages' within their congregations. Thus making the distinction between a "civil union" that is legally protected as versus a "heterosexual marriage" as commonly understood by the usage of the term.

For further review and discussion please refer to the sidebar under Gay Rights and Marriage.

R.E. Slater
May 16, 2012


A Christian Debate About Gay Marriage
5/16/12by RE Slater
 
Equal Rights for Gay Marriage and How It Affects C...
5/13/12by RE Slater
 
Where Christianity Stands on Welcoming and Affirmi...
5/8/12by RE Slater
 
The Damage We Do When Not Accepting and Loving Gay...
4/3/12by RE Slater
 
Homosexuality: Paul and the Narrative of God's Lov...
1/23/12by RE Slater
 
Tripp Fuller on "Welcoming & Embracing"
11/14/11by RE Slater
 
Things Traditional Christians and Gay Christians C...
11/13/11by RE Slater
 
RE Slater - In Noble Pursuit of Peace
10/18/11by RE Slater
 
A Gay Christian Responds to Christ and Culture
9/25/11by RE Slater
 
Encountering the Monster That I Am
8/17/11by RE Slater
 
New York Approves Gay Marriage
6/28/11by RE Slater
 
Gay Marriage in New York
6/27/11by RE Slater


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A Christian Debate About Gay Marriage
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/current-events/features/29201-a-christian-debate-about-gay-marriage

D.C. Innes & Lisa Sharon Harper
May 15, 2012

Two experts discuss why they do - or don’t - support gay marriage.

This time last week, voters in North Carolina were heading to the polls to weigh in on Amendment One, a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman, effectively shutting the door on same-sex marriage for the state. It passed—with more than 60 percent of the vote.

But you know all of this already, because the nation spent the rest of the week arguing about the outcome in North Carolina. Social media spheres erupted in hot debate. And then the president joined in. Though he'd expressed his support of civil unions, President Obama had long hesitated to make a conclusive statement about the legality of same-sex marriage. But on Wednesday, he became the first sitting president to publicly declare his support.

Amongst Christians, the same-sex marriage debate becomes even more intense, proving divisive in both policy and theology spheres. Even President Obama cited his Christian faith in his decision but acknowledged, "This position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others." So, what does Scripture say about homosexual unions? And what bearing, if any, should Scripture have on the law? On both sides of the issue, believers are striving to determine how their faith should inform their political beliefs.

Today, Christians from either side of the aisle share their views.

A Christian argument against same-sex marriage:
the family is fundamental

D.C. Innes is an associate professor of politics at The King's College in New York City.

Redefining the nature of the family is like trying to restructure the human body. No good can come of it. Underlying every good that we derive from society is the proper understanding and functioning of the family. Where family structure and authority weaken or disintegrate, these goods melt away. That’s why God instituted not just reproduction, but specifically marriage. God gave Eve to Adam to be his wife. She was “suitable” for him. God made no provision—whether in the garden or in Israel or in the church of Christ—for homosexual pairing. None. Indeed, He calls it an abomination (Lev.18:22).

Extending marriage to homosexuals destroys it for everyone. If two men can marry, or two women, what exactly is marriage? Is marriage just close friendship between any two people? Is it the solemnization of any two best friends in a sexual relationship? What’s solemn about that? Is the solemnity in the permanence of it? Surely it is people’s own business how long they want to remain friends and intimate. Why is the state involved? Why is the Church involved? Why are there weddings at all?

Same-sex marriage suggests all of these questions because it is a relationship that, in principle, has nothing to do with the begetting and moral formation of the next generation on which all of life depends. We have weddings as community events because every marriage, God willing, is the community’s lifeline to the future. It’s how we beget and train the next generation. The community has a stake in the permanence and health of the marriage. This is not true of homosexual couples by the very nature of the relationship.

Recognizing the homosexual relationship as a marriage, then, reduces everyone’s marriage to essentially that relationship. Sexual complementarity and childbearing would become optional add-ons, not an essential feature and a natural fulfillment. There would be nothing solemn, therefore, about anyone’s marriage, and no expectation of permanency. The indiscriminate sale of birth control and our easy divorce laws have already taken a heavy toll on our understanding of marriage, though the old ideas persist because of the nature of the union. But equating homosexual “marriage” with heterosexual marriage destroys the basis for those ideas.

It is tempting to bracket the moral question and view same-sex marriage as simply an issue of equal protection of the law. But that begs the question whether a homosexual relationship can, in principle, be a marriage at all.

Of course, nothing justifies personal cruelty toward people who, perhaps through tragic circumstances, are confused in their sexual desires. They are made in the image of God. Like any sinner, they need the love of God’s people if they are going to see the gracious way back to the Father through Christ. But justifying and dignifying sin, and calling something marriage that is not, is no way to love a sinner.

A Christian argument for same-sex marriage:
the end of discrimination

Lisa Sharon Harper is the director of mobilizing at Sojourners.

To be honest, as an evangelical who values the Scripture and justice, this issue has presented me with more biblical, constitutional and just plain practical conundrums than any other political issue. I’m comforted to know I am not alone. But for the purpose of this discussion, I will focus on one thing: same-sex marriage and the question of its legalization in the United States of America—not whether homosexual acts are sin or whether same-sex marriages should be sanctioned by the Church.

Divorce and remarriage after divorce are clearly sin, according to Jesus. Yet no party is rushing to introduce legislation to outlaw divorce. In fact, according to a 2008 study conducted by George Barna, born-again Christians are slightly more likely to have experienced a divorce (32 percent) than atheists and agnostics (30 percent).Thus, even by our own standards, the biblical sinfulness of a private act does not determine whether legislation should be levied to outlaw it.

Given the fact that we live in a pluralistic democracy with a spectrum of experiences and deeply held convictions at play, how then shall we live together?

I agree with Tony Campolo, the prolific evangelical preacher and evangelist who, in 2003, stood in the shadow of the Federal Marriage Amendment and stated in a public debate with his wife, Peggy, a staunch advocate of gay rights, that, “At this particular point, we have to agree on one thing: [gay and lesbian people] are entitled to an end to all forms of discrimination. There should be no legal system that gives rights to heterosexual couples that it does not make available to homosexual couples.”

Are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people human? If they are human, then they, too, are made in the image of God. If they are made in the image of God, then they, too, in Genesis 1 were given free will—the right to exercise liberty over their bodies and their lives. This right applies even when I disagree with the liberties they take. What’s more, the fact that gay and lesbian people are made in the image of God endows them with intrinsic value and the same basic rights and protections afforded to any other human being. To legislate anything less is to set up a society that formally declares a certain class of people as less than human.

The truth is that institutions of marriage and family have been on an ever-changing journey since the founding of our nation. The institution of marriage is not static. It is dynamic—and as a woman, an African-American woman, I say thankfully so.

The Church and society are still splitting over the rightness or wrongness of homosexual acts. But we can know that we are talking about people—people made in the image of God. And as long as we maintain a dehumanizing legal system that gives fundamental rights and protections to some and not to a class of others, our society is in sin.


Excerpted from Left, Right and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics by D.C. Innes and Lisa Sharon Harper, © 2011. Published by Russell Media, www.russell-media.com. Used by permission.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Americans’ Views on Same-Sex Marriage

Published: May 14, 2012


60
17
21%
57
26
16%
33
33
24
22
40
39
22
38%
34
33%
24%
38%
Mar. 2004
May 2012
Aug. 2008
There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship.
Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry.
Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry.
7
2
24
67%
10
7
9
11
62%
Don’t know/No answer
Both equally
What is right
Political reasons
Other/Don’t know
Same-sex marriage
Health care
Federal budget deficit
Economy and jobs
Don’t know/No answer 2%
No effect
Less likely
More likely
Don’t know/No answer 1%
No effect
Less likely
More likely
Does Mitt Romney's opposition to same-sex marriage make you more or less likely to vote for him?
Does President Obama's support of same-sex marriage make you more or less likely to vote for him?
Do you think Barack Obama publicly supported same-sex marriage mostly because he thinks it is right, or mostly for political reasons?
In deciding whom you would like to see elected president this year, which issue will be most important to you?



Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Brian Abasciano’s response to a review of his book on Romans 9-11

Why I'm More Afraid of White Picket Fences Than Gangs


Laura Ziesel
April 16, 2012

I live in a modest apartment in a modest apartment complex in a modest American town. That's one way to say it. Others might say that we live on a rough block in a rough American town. But when they say that, I laugh and judge them. That might sound harsh, but it's the truth. My husband and I have both seen rough neighborhoods, domestic and abroad, and ours is not one of them.
The local park in our "dangerous" neighborhood. Yeah, it's terrifying!
Admittedly, our neighborhood is low on the socio-economic ladder. We do have poverty, single- or absent-parent homes, and some recorded gang activity. Occasionally we see a smash and grab. I'm sure quite a few of my neighbors are illegal immigrants because the police are avoided like the plague. And probably more to the point for many people who make negative observations about our neighborhood, most people who live here are nonWhite and don't speak English at home.
 
We love it. Truly. I could list the reasons why I think my neighbors rock and why this is a home I am proud of, but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about how Christians decide where they should and shouldn't live.
 
In my experience, Christians often make decisions about where they'll reside in the same way nonChristians do. They think about their finances, their desire for space or land or artistry or community, the quality of the education system, their reputation, and their health and safety. I understand this. I've now made five major moves in my life and I see why all of these things are important; these are the natural concerns a person would have when deciding where to live (if they get to decide).
 
But I'm sad that Christians don't often consider more.
 
My husband and I are both in grad school at a Christian university just across the street from where we live. It would make sense that we live where we live. But unfortunately, revelations of our neighborhood of choice have not always been met with, "Oh, why yes, of course you live there." Even from Christians, we often get more of an incredulous response, implicitly and sometimes explicitly saying, "Really? You know how dangerous it is, right?"
 
To be blunt, this makes me irate. On one hand, I become irate because the danger of my neighborhood is so incredibly blown-out-of-proportion that it is comical. But on a deeper level, I become irate because Christians seem to have welcomed the human tendency to flee from discomfort and danger. What if my neighborhood was actually a dangerous place? Should we go somewhere safer?
 
I've written before about The Rise of Christianity and the impact it had on me in college. Perhaps the most vivid image that book left me with had to do with towns that were stricken by the plague during early Christianity. Apparently, once the plague hit a town, healthy residents fled for safety and the towns were left with only the ill and the dead. However, while everyone else was fleeing these plague-stricken towns, Christians were the ones who went toward the danger instead of away from it. They seemed stupid and reckless, but they moved against the flow to care for the sick.
 
To me, the image of Christians moving toward a probable death-sentence while nonChristians fled those towns is one of the single most moving images from my faith. We are people of courage, people who have no fear in sickness or death, people who have hope and want to share it at all costs with the world.
 
Or, we're supposed to be.
 
Even if my neighborhood was truly dangerous, I would hope that my Christian brothers and sisters would be the first to understand my place of residence, or better yet, to move in next to me.
 
Instead, I fear we've decided that where we live should be safe and that we'll only visit rough neighborhoods in groups on service projects or missions trips. We've decided that fleeing from danger is sensible and natural; we've let self-preservation determine our values. We've decided that our children shouldn't ever feel unsafe or uncomfortable, but we've failed to think of the millions of children around the world who know no other alternative. Maybe we sponsor one or two of those children (and that's good!), but we are thankful that we don't have to put ourselves in danger to help them. Our safety is found in our white picket fences and our retirement accounts rather than in the promises of the Maker of the universe.
 
The Maker of the universe, people! Why are we so blind to the influence of our fear?
 
Repeatedly throughout Scripture, God tells his people, "Do not fear... do not fear." But when we sit in a realtor's office to talk about the zip codes we'll look for housing in, are we moving forward in courage or are we shrinking back in fear?
 
As Christians, we should have more than Darwinian survival instincts guiding our decisions about which neighborhood we will be investing our time, money, and resources into. We should be people whose values are shaped by our faith in the Creator God who sent His Son toward the danger instead of away from it. We should be people who move into the neighborhood when everyone else is moving out.
 
 
_________
 
 
 
There are so many additional things to say about this topic...
  • It begs for discussion about the false sense of safety found in many affluent American towns.
  •  
  • It begs for discussion about what it means to move into a neighborhood in need without trying to play the savior.
  •  
  • It begs for discussion about physical poverty versus spiritual poverty, which is found aplenty in Stepford, USA.
  •  
  • It begs for discussion about responsible parenthood and love of our children. I get it, but for now I'm stopping here.
 
 
 
 

Monday, May 14, 2012

Nameless Women of the Bible


Life-Giving Widow
http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/05/11/life-giving-widow/

by J.R. Daniel Kirk
May 11, 2012
Comments

The Freely-Given Life.

On several occasions I’ve reflected on the nameless woman who anoints Jesus in Mark 14. She is unique in that Jesus promises that her deed of burial-preparation / anointing will be told everywhere the gospel is proclaimed.

Why remember her?

It seems that she alone, of all the characters in the story, has held together “anointed one” with “the one who must die.”

Another word of approbation is given to a woman a couple chapters before. She, too, is nameless.

It is the widow who gives her own 2 cents.

Her presence here is double-edged, without a doubt.

The scribes have just been accused of devouring widows houses. Enter the widow. Behold how she has put in her whole livelihood.

Check that.

She has put in her whole life (ὅλον τὸν βίον αὐτῆς).

Why would Jesus draw attention to this one person, of all the people in the gospel, and point to her as an example of discipleship? Why is she the great positive example who puts to shame all the others who are giving to God’s work?

Perhaps because in giving her life she has executed faithfully the sacrifice that Jesus lauds in ch. 8:
After calling the crowd together with his disciples, Jesus said to them, All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross, and follow me. All who want to save their lives will lose them. But all who lose their lives because of me and because of the good news will save them. (Mark 8:34-36, CEB)
She has given her life. She has not clung to it.

Unlike the rich man who cannot part with his wares, and unlike these rich who give from the overflow, she has given all.

Yes, she is consumed by the scribes who devour widows’ houses. But then again, such forces lay behind Jesus’ own cross as well.




The Value of Asking Difficult Questions & Disturbing the Comfortable to Wrestle Afresh


Questions and Answers
http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/05/12/questions-and-answers/

by J.R. Daniel Kirk
May 12, 2012
Comments

AI love writing about theological things for folks who aren’t academic professionals. One of the great benefits of being a New Testament professor is that there are thousands upon thousands of pastors and lay people who are interested in the ideas and capable of having insightful conversations about them.

But I discovered something.

I really only like writing about theological things for normal people when I get to set the rules. When I have to adapt to someone else’s idea of what it means to talk to normal people, I’m not so happy about it.

I should have clued into this a long time ago.

Once I was interviewing for a position at a church. They asked me what sort of curriculum I’d use for Sunday School. My answer was basically: I’ve got a seminary degree and a Ph.D.–I’ll use the Bible and other books people have written and make my own. They weren’t so happy with that.

But to the point for today.
When you are preaching and/or teaching and/or leading folks in your faith community, to what extent do you see your task as providing direction through difficult issues? And to what extent do you see your task as raising questions for them to wrestle with?
This week I was revising something I had put together for a “popular” audience. I was revising it under the direction of the editors / readers whose first comment was this:
Author: Please rewrite the introduction. Think of writing it for Sunday school classes – not to raise questions but to provide orientation.
My first (and enduring) response to this in my heart was: “Please tell me what church you go to, because I do not want to attend such a Sunday school!”

But there’s a both/and here. I know it. In fact, I see one of my most important roles as a professor and writer as one of providing direction for asking the right, difficult questions.

It’s more important for me to raise the issues surrounding who might or might not have written a book of the Bible, and allow you to be disturbed, comforted, or otherwise engaged with the issues as you read.

It’s more important for me to highlight the difficulties entailed in signing off on household codes than to provide an explanation for why a NT writer might have made them all better by introducing Jesus into them.

The direction I can give, the value I can bring to the process, is often to disturb the comfortable and cause us to wrestle afresh with the text. I’m less concerned that people will be troubled by issues and more concerned that they will fail to be troubled by important difficulties that have the power to transform our understanding of what the Bible is and how we faithfully live out the narrative contained there.

Just as I was grumping about having to turn my vintage Kirk piece into tame “Sunday School” material, I saw a friends link to this:




It’s a promo video for a new Sunday-School-like material.

At one point, a person in the video says, “I think Animate will spark conversations for adults because we’re not spoon-feeding them the answers.”

Bingo. Christian education for adults.

Ok, so it’s not one or the other. (Either questions or answers.) But still…

Having laid out my own proclivities (and, knowing that I’m more of a provocateur than answer-giver!), I truly would like to hear from you:
  • When you preach or teach or lead, how do you think through how much direction to give and how much you raise salient, even difficult or impossible questions?
  • When you’re in a group such as a Bible study or Sunday School class, to what extent to you hope the person will be giving direction, and to what extent provoking difficult questions?
  • To what extent do you imagine that it’s the leader’s job to direct you–into difficult / impossible questions?!

I’d love to have good conversation about this.

(And, that Animate series looks great–though don’t ask me what “electric, carbonated space,” is!)



* * * * * * * * * * * * * *



For More on the Animate Series - 

Introducing Animate's "Faith Formation Series"
for Adults, Teens, and Kids by Sparkhouse









Sunday, May 13, 2012

Equal Rights for Gay Marriage and How It Affects Christian Ethos Rightly or Wrongly

“Fundamentalism” of the Left
Very interesting! I had forgotten that Bush advocated that. The one area where you and I may disagree is whether churches and synagogues (etc.) need to see a civil union license before performing a marriage ceremony. I don’t think so. The two things should be disengaged entirely. The government should have no say in what persons churches and synagogues (etc.) marry and churches and synagogues (etc.) should not care about the government’s decisions about civil unions.


Daniel W says:
Perhaps all legal domestic unions between two consenting adults should be called “civil unions” instead of “marriages” at the state and federal levels. What is considered a “marriage” should be left to churches and other religious organizations. Each religious organization should be able to decide which individuals they consider to be married in God’s eyes. Obviously, the state should really have no part in that. On this issue, I prefer the model of some European nations, in which church marriage and state marriages are separate. In France, if an elderly woman would lose her deceased husband’s pension by becoming legally remarried, she can still get remarried before God in a church without going to the courthouse to procure a legal marriage.

rogereolson says:
I have publicly agreed with that and taken a lot of flack for it–including from baptists who would be horrified if the government started deciding which persons are “really” ordained (which was the case in some European countries until recently). I am completely clueless as to the distinction between ordination and marriage when it comes to church and state. Until a century to two centuries ago marriage was always a religious institution. Government only got into the “business” of issuing marriage licenses for the non-religious and to prevent certain persons from being married. We need to take separation of church and state to the next logical level.


Bev Mitchell says:
Roger, You remind us, ”Not long ago I wrote a column advocating civil unions for any two adults. I argued that “marriage,” being a religious institution, should be left to churches, synagogues and other religious organizations. I was vilified by people on both sides of the homosexuality debate. For many gay rights advocates, that’s not enough. For many anti-gay activists that’s too big a concession.”

How did I miss this? You make exactly the right point – thanks for having stated it so boldly, and stick to your guns! We Christians rightly celebrate Christian marriage – a marriage before the Judeo-Christian God which seeks the blessing of that same God. How can non-believers honestly celebrate this kind of marriage? Why would they want to? However, and beyond where you may wish to go, if the word ‘marriage’ has become irreversibly universal (religious, civil, Vegas etc.), so be it. An adjective may well be required and ‘Christian marriage’ should do just fine. Perhaps we should make this small change and get over it!

I know this will sound like giving in to many. However, we already have all kinds of marriages that make no reference whatever to religion of any kind, let alone The Christian kind. There appears to be little outcry about calling them marriages. How, logically, does the gay issue make any difference. Why fuss now after the horse is well out of the barn and headed for the next county?

rogereolson says:
I would prefer to call what the government licenses “civil unions.” I am often inclined to stick to the original meanings of words when it’s too late. :) I suspect we agree on the basic issue. I blogged about it way back near the beginning of this blog and I wrote a column about it in the local newspaper. I received harsh e-mails criticizing me for my suggestion. Even some baptists still want our governments deciding about Christian marriage. My question to them is why they don’t want our governments deciding about valid ordinations, baptisms, etc. “Marriage” is a sacrament (in the broadest sense), not a civil institution. In my opinion, churches and synagogues (etc.) should decide whom to marry without government interference or even knowledge. If the couple wants the protection of a civil union, they can add that.


Bev Mitchell says:
Roger, Yes, we do fundamentally agree. We also share the tendency, even strong desire, to insist on keeping the meaning of a word after the majority have arrived at a quite different meaning, or worse, many meanings. It reminds me of a book I used to own, but can no longer find, entitled “Good English, and Other Lost Causes”. And yes, marriage is a sacrament – that is, what we do, what we say and what we mean, as believers before the Lord are indeed sacramental. The word ‘marriage’ used to summarize these sacramental acts nicely. I am simply concerned that it no longer does – indeed, as you say, it has been stolen from the faithful. But, the theft occurred many moons ago, and, I think, largely without complaint from the ‘owners’.

It would be wonderful if the state would keep its hands off of the Church’s sacraments. But do we also want people of other faiths, with other sacraments to leave our Christian word alone? Is it indeed a solely a Christian word? Is it reasonable to complain loudly now, especially based on one issue that has so many confusing overtones? Is it reasonable to re-claim sole ownership, after all these decades of neglect?

I’m mostly full of questions today, it seems, but here is another that you are far better equipped to answer than many. While marriage is clearly a sacrament for Christians, what is it considered to be, by Muslims for Muslims, by Buddhists for Buddhists, Jews for Jews etc.?

rogereolson says:
To the best of my knowledge all religions have some form of what we call marriage. I have no objection to them performing those ceremonies and observing those institutions. Christians will call ours marriage whatever they call theirs.

Government should offer any two people the opportunity of civil union for specific legal purposes–sharing of property, having the right to visit the other one in hospital and (as assigned by his or her partner) make life and death decisions for him or her, etc., etc. All the rights and privileges of what the government now calls “marriage” would go to civil unions but without any of the religious connotations and without any implications for sex.

Laws against abuse would stand. (For example, adults would not be allowed to enter into civil unions with minors. Parents would still have special rights over their children, etc.) However, any two consenting adults could form a civil union solely (in the government’s eyes) for financial purposes and for purposes of decision making. Everything gay people want when they demand the right to marry would be given them in civil unions. They could call their civil union “marriage” or whatever they want to call it. The government would only issue a civil union license which would permit them to file income tax returns jointly, own property jointly, inherit common property without taxation, etc.

Churches and other religious organizations would decide without government interference who is married (or whatever they call their arrangement that we call a sacrament). For example, a church might decide it will not recognize gay civil unions as true marriages or it might require a civil union license to marry people (or not), etc., etc. A gay couple can become married by finding a church that will perform that ceremony and declare them married (which would only be valid for churches that recognize it as valid). Or they can simply have a civil union and call it marriage, but they could not expect everyone to recognize their civil union as marriage. The two are entirely separate arrangements–one civil and one religious.


Steve Dal says:
Roger, You simply cannot raise any gay issue now without being seen as an ‘anti-gay activist’. The end. Its past discussion now and rational debate over the various aspects of the issue. Even in the ‘church’.

rogereolson says:
Or, I might add, without being seen as a “gay activist” or “pro-gay.” As with abortion, the middle ground is missing and even vilified when you try to work it out.


Rick Frueh says:
For every verse about the sin of homosexual behavior there are twenty about greed and hedonism. The only reason I am against abortion or believe homosexual behavior is sinful is because I was born again. I do find it quite curious that a church full of divorce and adultery finds those sins redemptive-ready, while gay sin provides a wonderful platform to trot out our pristine Biblical credentials. (sarcasm alert) Since I endorse orthodox divorce between a man and a woman, and orthodox adultery between a man and a woman. Perhaps a constitutional amendment supporting that?

rogereolson says: