Prop 8 Traumatic Stress Disorder

The verdict is in. The California Supreme Court has ruled and the voter’s voice on marriage has been preserved, at least, for the moment. I must confess, though, that while I’m relieved, I’m a bit fatigued. Watching Miss USA contender Carrie Prejean assaulted for stating her views on marriage has been brutal. Hearing actor Sean Penn admonish supporters of the California law, Proposition 8, at this year’s Academy Awards ceremony to “sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes” was ugly.  Reading about how Proposition 8 opponents were circulating Google maps detailing the locations of Proposition 8 supporters’ homes to harass them was insidious.

I’m sure I’m not alone. Many Christians may be hesitant, if not completely resistant, to engage the culture on issues that contradict their values and beliefs the next time around. But we must ask ourselves – as the church, what should our response be? The answer for me comes in looking back at how the early church responded to similar opposition. They were committed to stand for what they knew to be truth, even if it meant the ultimate sacrifice. Many were sent to their death in the jaws of wild beasts in front of a coliseum of eager spectators. Today rather than facing the lions, the church now faces the merciless jaws of litigation. Instead of an audience of robed spectators, there is now a virtual coliseum of media correspondents, magazines and talk shows ready to voice their particular perspective on the events. The attitude against the church is the same but the venue for persecution has been modernized. As a result many churches have gone underground on this issue of homosexuality and are fearful to engage the topic at any level. Some believe there is too much to risk and besides; gay marriage will eventually be federally legalized so why fight it?

But wait a minute. Who is the real victim in this scenario? Is it really the church?

Click here for entire article in Charisma Magazine

A Prayer Too Christian

On Tuesday, after much controversy, Rick Warren gave his invocation for President Obama’s inauguration (for a transcipt of the prayer, click here).  I thought he did an excellent job and delivered it with uncompromised conviction. (I thought the four different references to the name of Jesus was brilliant.)  However, it seems that everyone wasn’t pleased.  There were complaints that he used Jesus’ name and closed with the Lord’s Prayer.  A professor of American religious history at Columbia University who claims to be a friend of Warren says “To lead the nation in saying the Lord’s Prayer, which is so particularly Christian was a mistake.” (click here for reference)

 

Huh?

 

You’ve got to be kidding. 

 

I understand being sensitive and diplomatic in order to respect others from different cultures, religions, and points of view.  I just find it interesting that all religious and socio-political expressions outside of a biblical worldview seem to come under a special protected class in our culture and find safe harbor in the name of diversity.  But when a biblical world-view is presented, it is considered intolerant, prejudiced, and antiquated.  It seems that when it comes to Christianity, everyone wants to use the mute button.  This is a battle I’m afraid so many are all too familiar with. 

 

So I wonder what would have been acceptable for this event.  I know it’s a little campy, but maybe something like this would have been more palatable: 

 

“Our existential one whom we acknowledge as a higher power,

Politically correct be your name,

Your rule at bay,

Our will be done,

On earth, as it is in our personal concept of heaven

Give us this day what we desire,

And forgive those who sin against us

By imposing the oppressive notion of sin

And lead us into opportunities for the gratification of our proclivities and passionate indulgences

For this is our kingdom, power, and glory.  Amen.”

 

 

I think I may try this one out on Sunday morning.  I’ll let you know how it goes.

Bless Us With Anger?

Yesterday at the inaugural welcoming ceremony, Bishop V. Gene Robison offered an invocation for the nation and the president-elect.  The openly-gay bishop is the subject of much controversy and has come to serve as a representative for the inclusion of gay clergy within the church.  In his inaugurate prayer, Robison prays the following:

“Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.”

“Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.”

While there are other issues that I have in his complete prayer (to read Robinson’s entire prayer click here), these two points are the ones that challenge me the most.  For clarity, I will begin by stating that I do not agree with Robison nor do I support the principles and theology he stands for.  I believe that he is misleading so many who are desperately trying to reconcile their faith with their same-sex attractions and he will be held accountable for his actions.  The theology and philosophies he promotes is one of the most critical frontline issues that the church faces today.

His prayer for tolerance confirms what we’ve known to be true all along.  It is not tolerance that is being asked for, but unfettered acceptance.  Of course, I can and will extend the respect that any creation of God should receive.  This is necessary as a mature believer.  However, to ask that I “warmly embrace” a teaching and belief that so counters the truth is unacceptable.  I’m afraid we will not be united on that front so I won’t belabor this point.

But this is what I find most interesting:  “Bless us with anger.”

Really?

While I do not desire to see anyone treated with disrespect, I will not ask the Lord to “bless me with anger.”  I ask that He will guide me and give me discernment and wisdom in the midst of righteous indignation.  (If I am pursuing God’s will and what pleases Him, I won’t need to ask for righteous anger, it will come naturally.)  I will ask for guidance and compassion when I see a gay-identified person (or anyone else) treated with contempt and disrespect.  And, I will also ask for guidance and compassion when I see religious liberties attacked and compromised under the category and agenda of gay rights.

If Gene Robison truly means what he says in his prayer, then I ask how that anger will be received when it finds its expression through those who, based on religious conviction, have been discriminated against and denied their religious freedom.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ gives us several scenarios in which we can be “blessed.”  Too often, we perceive blessings as those things which make us happy.  We cannot pray; “Bless us with these things so that, in the end, we will get what we want and be justified in what we believe to be truth.”  In the Beatitudes, “blessed” does not mean ‘happy’ but rather it describes a state that is achieved when we embrace the responsibilities, qualities, and character of being a citizen of God’s Kingdom.  We will be in a state of being “blessed” when we walk in humility before God and each other; when we passionately pursue righteousness on every level; when we are utterly sincere in our thoughts and motives towards God and there are no idols that contend against Him (pure in heart); and when we constantly acknowledge our spiritual poverty and are dependent only on Him and upon nothing else that we believe will bring us satisfaction and happiness.  We will be “blessed” when we pursue the agenda of God’s Kingdom and no other.

So, I’m afraid that I cannot join Robison in his prayer for anger and discomfort.

I’m still working on that overdue character-study that Jesus assigned a long time ago.