Somethings never change. Two beautiful days of spring warmth have returned to rain and cold. I am limping from another ankle injury and its Monday. So let’s get on with the excitement….
Marrying Prostitutes
Yesterday I preached on the book of Hosea, one of my favorite Old Testament books. The title of my sermon was, “What if God wanted you to marry a prostitute?” The book of Hosea is at the same time heartbreaking and wonderfully encouraging. Listening to God talk about his feelings of betrayal from Israel’s unfaithfulness is not easy. Hearing Hosea name his children, massacre, not loved, and disowned is haunting. Realizing how often I am unfaithful to my Lord leaves me speechless. And yet there is such hope in God sending Hosea back to his wife Gomer to redeem her and to purchase her back and to restore her as his wife. I love this book and its beautiful balance of God’s discipline and mercy.
What really struck me, preaching through it for the first time, however, was the calling of Hosea. God called Hosea to marry a promiscuous woman, and he told him upfront. There are a lot of things God calls us to in life that we don’t fully understand or know the difficulty of until we are in them. But here Hosea gets told upfront about what he will face. I am not sure if that makes the calling harder or easier. I am sure, however, that we have the same calling. We are called to marry prostitutes, to love and forgive those who will betray us and be unfaithful to us. That is no easy calling, and I am sure it isn’t easy for God either.
News that isn’t New
A new study shows that a lot of kids are addicted to video games. Not surprisingly video game addiction and ADD have a high corollary. I am sure obesity is in there as well.
The hottest thing to ever hit the internet? Of course it is a 47 year old Scottish singer.
Interesting article on the use of brain stimulants and the growing culture that is experimenting on their effects. Adderal or Ridlin anyone?
It will be Lebron and Kobe in the NBA Finals. There is no question of this fact.
Anyone notice that the Yankees really stink? Anyone else feel like doing a little dance of joy with me over their discomfort and lack of mojo in their new home?
When a Win Isn’t a Win
During this last election when the state of California voted down Gay Marriage it seemed as if the issue might finally be defeated. Instead, it seems as if that is the last victory gay marriage opponents might ever see. There is a palpable shifting taking place in our country regarding gay marriage. When Iowa is on board with it, you get the feeling the battle really isn’t a battle anymore.
In ten years or 15 years will Gay Marriage even be a conversation starter in our country? It may for conservative Christians, but everyone else seems to be moving to a place where it is a foregone conclusion.
The question is, “How will the church respond if gay marriage is widely legalized?” I am sure that there will be conservative strongholds, especially within the South, where gay marriage won’t be legalized for a long time if ever, but for churches in areas where it is already legalized or soon to be so, how will they respond? Will the divide between the church and culture in those areas continue to enlarge? Will more churches change their stances on homosexuality to try and stay relevant? Will we see a pulling away from culture by churches as they try to maintain their moral standards?
I don’t think the church will win this battle in our culture, which isn’t to say we shouldn’t fight it, but it is probably time for us to ask questions for how it will change things when the battle is over. If gay marriage wins the day what then shall we do?
April 20, 2009 at 9:14 am
“If gay marriage wins the day what then shall we do?”
Nothing will change.
Some churches will continue to denounce gays and gay marriages. Others will not.
And that’s all.
Allowing gay marriage does not take away your right to disagree with it. The same is true of anything in Christian doctrine that isn’t illegal in American law.
April 20, 2009 at 11:25 am
I don’t necessarily think it will change for the church in regards to theology, my question is more about praxis.
In North America, most churches have no experience ministering in a culture where homosexuality is not just accepted, but normalized through the institution of marriage. I am curious as to how a change in our environment such as this will affect the church in its attempts to bring the Gospel. How will churches reach out to and minster to homosexual families in our communities.
I am sure there are churches in specific areas of the country, such as San Francisco, maybe LA, some NE cities, that are already at this crossroads. It would be interesting to see what they are doing.
April 20, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“How will churches reach out to and minster to homosexual families in our communities.”
That depends entirely on whether or not the homosexual families want to be ministered to. I would imagine many won’t. And those that do are already involved with churches that aren’t against homosexuality.
April 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm
You are probably right. There will most likely be more churches that accept homosexual marriage and condone a homosexual lifestyle, and families that want to be participate in a faith community will probably just go to those churches.
April 20, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Hey Greg,
If it goes according to the cultural trend in Canada, and elsewhere, which I assume that it will, then the Bible and sermons containing language that defines homosexuality as a sin will become “hate speech”.
The homosexual lobby has not been content with having their own churches that sanction homosexual marriages and practice…They want every church to sanction it.
How would we then minister? By giving the Gospel to folks who desperately need it, I hope. Would you be willing to go to prison to preach the entire Counsel of God?
Here is a Bible Church in San Francisco:
http://www.sfbible.org/a05.html
I am betting that they would share how to minister the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the midst of such a culture.
Regards,
April 20, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Glad you had fun with Hosea and his wife, Greg.
As for gay marriage, Paul beat me to it, though I think we might draw different conclusions. I was going to suggest that you look to churches in countries and cultures where gay marriage has already been legalized. Canada, Sweden, etc.
A Canadian friend from an online forum said that no church or pastor in Canada has had any legal action taken against them for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality. She thinks the danger of it is largely a myth being promoted by conservatives here in the USA.
It will certainly make things more interesting, that’s for sure. I wonder if it might be similar to the way we minister to unmarried-but-living-together heterosexual couples today. Though in those cases, we seem to hold onto the hope that if we can just get them married, then they’ll be OK.
April 20, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Sweden passed a constitutional amendment during 2002 which included sexual orientation among a list of groups protected from being targeted by “unfavorable speech.” The law protects persons of all sexual orientations equally: heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals. In practice, it will probably only be used to criminalize verbal attacks on homosexuals and those bisexuals who engage in same-sex behavior.
On 2004-JUN-29, a Pentecostal pastor was convicted of directing hate speech against homosexuals during a 2003-JUL-20 sermon in his church. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail by a district court. An appeals court overturned his conviction. However, the prosecutor has appealed the case to the Supreme Court and has asked that the pastor be given a sentence of six months. The Supreme Court heard the case in 2006-NOV and is expected to issue its ruling in 2006.
Many in the conservative Christian community in North America were alarmed at this development. They feared that a similar threat might materialize against their personal freedom to cite their beliefs that homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation are sinful and immoral.
horizontal rule
2002-MAY: Swedish Parliament gives initial approval to bill:
Sweden’s parliament, the Riksdag, narrowly passed, on its first reading, a bill which would criminalize “hate speech” which targeted individuals or groups who fall into certain protected classes. 56% of the members voted in favor of the bill. It was initially motivated because of problems of hate speech by neo-Nazis against racial and/or religious minorities. Sentences could result in two years in jail. However, hate speech would also be criminalized under this law if it were directed against people because of their sexual orientation. This was generally reported in the conservative Christian media as “criminalizing ‘hate speech’ against homosexuals.” 1 While this is correct, it is only part of the story. In fact, the bill does not mention homosexuals, only sexual orientation. It would protect heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. However, it would probably be only used to protect gays, lesbians and bisexuals in practice, because hate speech against the dominant sexual orientation — heterosexuals — is rare.
Unlike the 2004 hate propaganda law in Canada, commonly referred to as C-250, it offers no exclusions for religiously motivated hate speech. The Swedish bill specifically criminalizes hate speech in “church sermons.”
(Religious Tolerance website)
April 20, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith
June 9th, 2008 by Pete Vere
In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.
The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”
The activist subsequently filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission — a quasi-judicial body that investigates alleged discrimination within the Canadian province. The government tribunal published its decision [http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf] on May 30.
While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’.
The tribunal also ordered Boisson to provide the complainant with a written apology for his letter to the editor. This last requirement threatens civil liberties in Canada, said Ezra Levant, a Jewish-Canadian author and lawyer. Levant, himself the target of an Alberta Human Rights Commission investigation, is facing the possibility the state may order him to apologize as well.
“Ed Stelmach’s ‘conservative’ government now believes that if it can’t convince a Christian pastor that he’s wrong, it will just order him to condemn himself?” Levant wrote on his blog. “Other than tribunals in Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China, where is this Orwellian ‘order’ considered to be justice?”
“This is like a Third World jail-house confession — where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt,” Levant wrote. “We don’t even ‘order’ murderers to apologize to their victims’ families. Because we know that a forced apology is meaningless. But not if your point is to degrade Christian pastors.”
In essence, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is ordering to the minister to renounce his Christian faith, since his opposition to homosexuality is based upon the Judeo-Christian Bible. The case against Pastor Boisson has been watched closely by practicing Catholics in the country, especially as news spreads about the current Canadian Human Rights Commission investigation into Fr. de Valk reported on in this space last Wednesday. The Basilian priest and publisher of Catholic Insight magazine stands accused of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals for having publicly defended the Church’s traditional definition of marriage. Some of the allegedly hateful statements are quotations from the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Fr. de Valk told Catholic Exchange.
Although Catholic moral teaching is generally more nuanced in its criticism of homosexuality, evangelicals and fundamentalist Protestants often appear to be used as test cases for the government commissions before targeting Catholics. Thus many Catholics fear the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal will attempt to use the Boisson case to muzzle Fr. de Valk from expressing the Church’s traditional moral teaching, delivering a further blow to religious liberty and freedom of conscience in Canada.
© Copyright 2009 Catholic Exchange
Pete Vere is a canon lawyer, Catholic journalist, and professor of canon law and catechesis at Catholic Distance University (CDU.edu). Since earning his license in canon law in the year 2000, he has written extensively on Church law, new religious movements, and the Catholic Church — including volumes one and two of Surprised by Canon Law. My work has appeared in the Washington Times, CE, Zenit, Wanderer,and Canon Law Society of America Advisory Opinions.
April 21, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Paul, do you have any updates on either of these cases? The one in Sweden sounds like it’s from 3 years ago, and the Canada one is nearly a year old now. I’d be interested in the results, if you know them.
I’m sure that in those countries, just as in ours, it takes a while to figure out where exactly the lines are to be drawn. For example, it’s taken quite a few years (and a few lawsuits) to establish where the lines should be with regard to prayer in public schools here in the USA, but now there seems to be a general agreement, legally anyway, about where those lines are.
April 21, 2009 at 8:25 am
I’m reading a book for class that all but articulates that the culture should dictate how we proclaim the message of the cross. The author doesn’t come out and say that, but it certainly seems as the message that comes about. I don’t think gay marriage or marriage itself is an issue of government. Why should government be in the business of granting marriage certificates in the first place? I don’t see where it is the responsibility of government to make sure that when I get married next month that I have the proper license from the State of Tennessee.
Marriage is a religious issue. It has always been a religious issue. That being said, how do we handle the homosexual marriage? I do not support homosexual marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. But, I believe businesses and private organizations should be able to give private benefits to homosexual couples.
How we minister to homosexuals? I think that is up to each individual church to decide. We can’t treat them any different than we would anyone else. They are loved by God. But, in our love and ministry to homosexuals never should the proclamation of God’s Holy Word be compromised in the process.
April 21, 2009 at 8:48 am
Thanks for the great comments guys.
Paul, thanks for the interesting articles about Canada and Sweden. I wonder if that could actually be an issue in our country? It is funny but thinking about some of the absolute crazy issues that have expanded and been debated in regards to Free Speech, it may be an issue like pornography that actually protects the church going in the other direction. Something to be mindful of and to watch for, regardless.
The biggest struggle in all of this is probably that the compromising of the church in regards to SSM will likely mean that most churches will never be able to effectively share the gospel with homosexual couples. There will most likely be a proliferation of churches that fully embrace SSM and simply render the voices of other churches moot.
April 21, 2009 at 10:11 am
Hey Greg,
“I wonder if that could actually be an issue in our country?”
Actually, it is happening…to fellow Nazarenes even (friends in New Mexico – by the way, they lost before the New Mexico Human Rights Division and are appealing):
The case of a Christian photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony”, was heard before the New Mexico Human Rights Division on Monday, reports John Jalsevac, LifeSiteNews.com.
A same-sex couple asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband of Elane Photography, to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that the two women wanted to hold. Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.
The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination.
The Alliance Defense fund (ADF), a legal alliance that is dedicated to defending and protecting religious freedom, sanctity of life, marriage, and family, is currently defending Elane Photography.
“On Monday we defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with,” ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, told LifeSiteNews in an interview today. “That’s a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elaine photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony – that marriage can be defined as two women or two men.”
In their complaint the homosexual couple has sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney’s fees.
“Depending on how far up the ladder this goes of appeal that could be a lot of money,” said Lorence. “Hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Lorence said that the ADF is framing its case in a similar fashion to the 1995 Supreme Court “Hurley” Case. “In the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade case the US Supreme Court said that the State of Massachusetts could not punish a privately run parade because it refused to allow a homosexual advocacy group in to carry banners and signs in the parade. They said that would be compelled speech, ordering the parade organizers to help promote a message they do not want to promote. To apply the discrimination law that way violates freedom of speech. We are making a similar kind of argument in this case.”
Lorence said that this current case is demonstrative of a “tremendous threat” facing those with traditional views on marriage and family.
“I think that this is a tremendous threat to First Amendment rights. Those who are advocating for same-sex marriage and for rights based upon sexual orientation keep arguing, ‘We are not going to apply these against churches. We are going to protect people’s right of conscience. We are all about diversity and pluralism.’”
But, in practice, says Lorence, “Business owners with traditional views or church owners with traditional definitions of marriage are now vulnerable for lawsuits under these nondiscrimination laws. There are 20 states that have these laws where they ban sexual orientation discrimination. Most of the major cities in the United States also have these kinds of ordinances. So these are a big threat, as the federal government debates whether to make this a blanket nationwide law.
“We see that these [non-discrimination laws] are not rectifying some unjust discrimination, but being used to punish those who speak out in favor of traditional marriage and sexual restraint,” he concluded.
Lorence said that the ADF is “cautiously optimistic that the commission will do the right thing.” If the New Mexico Commission, however, decides against Elane Photography, Lorence said that the ADF would appeal the decision all the way up to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
April 21, 2009 at 10:20 am
Greg,
“It is funny but thinking about some of the absolute crazy issues that have expanded and been debated in regards to Free Speech, it may be an issue like pornography that actually protects the church going in the other direction.”
How ironic would it be for the outcome of Falwell v. Flynt to become a protector of the Church’s First Amendment rights?
Regards,
April 21, 2009 at 10:32 am
I read about that New Mexico case before and was really surprised by it. We will have to see how it turns out. Legally there it seems there is no standing for the suit, it would go against so much that has been fought for in our country, but then how would that be different than a lot of what else is taking place right now.
I could see there being an issue if the photographer was part of a large consortium of photographers who were working to make sure no Same Sex Couple could be photographed, but how can they force an individual to endorse something they don’t believe in? Astounding.
April 21, 2009 at 10:41 am
The company has a First Amendment right to conduct their beliefs in a way it desires. A private business not wanting to do business with a same-sex couple would seemingly fall under the legal jurisdiction of the Boys Scout case from a few years ago. However, if the business fails to win the case, I could see this going to the Supreme Court in one way or the other.
It would have severe legal ramifications if the State of New Mexico would win. One, it would force business owners to deny their own values and beliefs in the operation of their business as a legal ramification. That could harm businesses such as In-and-Out Burger and Chik-Fil-A that have made their names based on not just good food, but also their values as a business.
It could also make an impact in the churches and to pastors whom would not perform same-sex marriages. You would have the government saying yes, which would be a violation of church and state I believe.
Where the photography business would be in violation of law is if it would not photograph based on racial discrimination. That would be a severe penalty to the company. There is no discrimination in the case of the photographer.
I hope that justice will win out and the Constitution is enforced. But this is … wow. Woke me up from my slumber of finals, I will say that.
April 21, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Shannon, I’m pretty sure that in many states an employer or housing provider would be unable to discriminate based on sexual orientation. But that’s because things like employment and housing are considered basic human rights. Having your photo taken by a particular company, on the other hand… not so much.