Recently I came across a post from someone I think very highly of and it caused me to ponder and respond. My response was not so much to him, or the post alone but to the content of the video he posted, so listening to the video below will bring understanding to the discussion that follows. Here is the post:
Happy coming out day to my LGTBQ friends. I love you all. Sorry for all the crap Christians (of whom I am one) have thrown at you because they are too scared to love. I hope that some day we'll all fully understand the answer to the question, "who is my neighbor?". 💖
Happy coming out day to my LGTBQ friends. I love you all. Sorry for all the crap Christians (of whom I am one) have thrown at you because they are too scared to love. I hope that some day we'll all fully understand the answer to the question, "who is my neighbor?". 💖
Click this picture or link below to see video.
found online at https://www.facebook.com/CNNReplay/videos/407480936623107/
Responder 1, Those folks are not Christians. If you can not
follow his second commandment, then you are not a follower of his. "Love
your neighbor as yourself." #thegoldenrule
Responder 2, A new commandment I give to you, that you love
one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. John 13:34
Me to Poster, In the video I find Mayor Pete's encouragement to avoid self-centered attitudes in marriage and to display kindness and benevolence toward others very commendable. These values truly are a part of the Christian faith as described in the texts of the Bible.
But his jump to progressive ideals, specifically, same-sex marriage, in this case are not a part of Christian tradition, Christian practice or Christian teaching. These values are taken directly from the affirmations of the Humanist Manifesto III as quoted below.
Unknowingly most of us have been inundated with theses values, most often unaware of their source, as they were being taught in our schools.
But his jump to progressive ideals, specifically, same-sex marriage, in this case are not a part of Christian tradition, Christian practice or Christian teaching. These values are taken directly from the affirmations of the Humanist Manifesto III as quoted below.
Unknowingly most of us have been inundated with theses values, most often unaware of their source, as they were being taught in our schools.
According to the American Humanist Association
"Humanism" is a progressive philosophy of life (Hence the term Progressive) that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."
quote source: https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto3/
As with other faiths, Humanist affirmations serve to create a
unity of direction and purpose. The Affirmation below from Humanist Manifesto
II states a need to change ethics and reshape religious views of morality. See quote below.
"Some humanists believe we should reinterpret
traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the
current situation...."We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical
teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in
common. But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that
deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and
responsibilities. Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but, as
often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full
potentialities.... Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather
than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than
courage...
Me to Poster, In our multicultural experiment called America, Humanist perspectives have been
helpful. They have served as cultural homogenizers. Historically they have accentuated cultural harmonies and lessened cultural differences. Traditionally they present a secular-semi-libertarian perspective,
providing guidelines of tolerance between various sects in America . But when
institutionalized these beliefs have taken on a religious orthodoxy of their
own. Like other religious movements, they have seized predominance in social and
political power displacing many of the traditional teachings of Christianity and other
religious cultures.
As America
has moved away from her founding Christian traditions and our
history has been reinterpreted through this "New Humanist Lens," it
is easy to ignore or even deny the facts of our historical culture and past.
It is deceptive for Mayor Pete's to syncretize Christian
teachings with Humanist doctrine without saying so. And if he is unaware, I
truly fear for our future religious liberties as he seems to be committed to
placing boundaries on traditional religious expression in accordance with his Humanist Ideals.
Since his, "Tradition," is more a Mixture of
select Christian values modified to fit a Humanist framework, he should be bold
enough to accurately say so.
Responder 3 to Me, The scriptures do not give
equal weight to the idea that homosexuality is sin and love your neighbor. One
of these is mentioned in a handful of verses, most of them in the old
testament, while the other is a primary theme of the entire Bible.
Me to Responder 3, I am only presenting the
sources. I was alert and present during this time of social change. Simply a
witness. The choice in allegiance is up to each of us to make according to our
own conscience. I have no stones to cast. Each person's decision on how to live
their life, or what teachings they will follow is entirely their choice. Their
actions are completely up to them according to their conscience, not mine.
My
job is to be a witness, not a judge. I also believe that their decision will
either move them toward or away from communion with God, but without His Grace
we are separated regardless of our efforts. I also believe that there is only
one Mediator, Christ Jesus who sacrificed himself for our redemption.
The following video presents an encouragement for Christ professing believers to connect with and accept the humanity of all persons regardless of their sexual attraction or struggles with experiencing comfort in their gender presentation.
The following video presents an encouragement for Christ professing believers to connect with and accept the humanity of all persons regardless of their sexual attraction or struggles with experiencing comfort in their gender presentation.
I also think
it is reasonable to assume that Mayor Pete beliefs are similar to mine. I am not
questioning his Christian belief. When he says that feels closer to God while
resisting the temptation to be self-centered. I believe him, and I share his
view that God is bigger than our understanding although I don't think it is
possible to, "make God bigger," than He already is.
My critique is that Mayor Pete is mixing sources as though both teaching are the same. They are not the same. The Progressive Ideals championed in the texts of Humanism are not the teaching of Christianity.
My critique is that Mayor Pete is mixing sources as though both teaching are the same. They are not the same. The Progressive Ideals championed in the texts of Humanism are not the teaching of Christianity.
Original Poster to Me, I appreciate you
and you are entitled to feel the way you do. I also appreciate that you were
magnanimous enough to recognize at least some of the video as a Christian
perspective.
That said, your post is a great example of the insecurity
and fear I mentioned in my post. So many Christians seem to need to defend God.
Why? I posted a video and stated that the church has not shown love to the
LGTBQ community. Your response is not one of love but of defensive action. You
wrote a post representing "Christianity" and basically reiterated the
"sorry but homosexuality is an abomination and anyone who says something
else is not Christian" argument. I have many responses to that. Before I
say anything else, I want to point the fact of this reaction out. As long as
Christians "circle the wagons" they will not love like Christ calls
them to. It is not possible for us to do that, which is the whole point of what
I posted.
1. I have heard the "Humanists are
taking over our culture" from my parents many times. I am concerned that you equate
"human rights", which I see described in the quotes you have given,
with humanism. Do you feel religion/Christianity should "deny humans an
appreciation of their full potentiality or responsibility"? I don't. To
agree with the humanist perspective does not make one a humanist.
2. I don't think it is deceptive of Mayor Pete to describe
his experience as a Christian... Just like I am not a pagan when I say I
"feel close to God when I am in nature". It seems to me that you are
threatened by the possibility that his gay marriage could be used by God to
enrich his Christian faith. He explicitly stated that this is his personal
view/experience... What is deceptive about sharing your experience?
3. I think the question "what is Christian?" Is
much more complicated than you represent here. I think the answer to that
question with reference to culture has consistently changed since the time of
Christ. People read things differently... Specifically people choose to focus
more/less on aspects of Christianity that are important to them. Here is
another "Christian perspective" that was offered in the last year. Do
you think that it is more or less Christian than that of Pete?
Tennessee Pastor Who Is Also a Detective Calls for L.G.B.T. People to Be Executed
It's certainly more biblical... And less humanist... But
something tells me you don't support this view. So where do you fall between
the two perspectives? And do you represent "Christianity" in your
perspective because you read your Bible more? Pray more? Etc?
The silent
acceptance of doctrines as I just posted while arguing against the very idea
that a Gay guys perspective can be called Christian communicates a LOT about
the state of the conservative Christian Church... And that state is NOT one of
love toward those who are LGTBQ.
Me to Original Poster, I appreciate your compassion! As I stated earlier my focus in writing is to unravel the sources of
these beliefs, not the person.
I have been very alert and present during the fundamental
social changes of the last two decades. During this time I have witnessed a
huge shift of allegiance.
Each person's choice of allegiance is personal according to
their own conscience. How others will live and what teachings they will follow
is up to them in accordance with their conscience, not mine. I am simply to be
a witness of God's work in my life, not act as the judge of others.
I also believe that each person's decision will either move
them toward or away from communion with God, and that without His Grace we are
separated regardless of all of our efforts. Christianity teaches that there is
only one Mediator, Christ Jesus who sacrificed himself for our redemption. I
think it is reasonable to assume that Mayor Pete believes similarly and I know
that you do. I am not questioning anyone's Christian belief.
When he says that feels closer to God while resisting the
temptation to be self-centered. I believe him, and I share his view that God is
bigger than our understanding although I don't think it is possible to,
"make God bigger," than He already is.
My critique is to his sloppiness in allegiance. I become
concerned when we mix our beliefs either knowingly or unknowingly. In Recovery
unknowingly is called denial. All teachings are not equal in weight. They are
not the same, and the teachings of Humanism do not outweigh the teachings of
Christianity for believers.
I have no problem with considering the Progressive Ideals
championed in the texts of Humanism if they are (not) presented as the tenants
of Christianity. Frankly among the candidates I appreciate Mayor Pete's courage
to expose himself as a believer and in stating he participates in a walk of
faith.
As we embrace these particular tenants of Humanism however,
we close the door of encouragement and communion with many. In our
"Pride," We discount the plight and aspirations of those who do not
embrace same sex temptation. These people are not unlike others who struggle
with premarital sexual temptation or pornographic temptation or a myriad of
other temptations now considered harmless under Humanism. We close the door by
discounting the hopes of believers who have chosen to commit themselves to
living chaste or even celibate lives in thought word and deed in obedience to
Christ.
To single out the gay community as being beyond
redemption is evil and wrong, and to neglect to stand in confidence and faith
with these individuals who choose Biblical obedience is also wrong. Supporting
same sex attracted people in overcoming feelings of shame and isolation to
identify realistic hope is a loving act that should not be discounted.
Accompanying them in their walk as they take up their cross,
and we take up ours, in mutual obedience is the light and easy burden that we
share. This burden is far too heavy for any of us to carry alone, but in His
strength it is easy. It is our crown.
as compared with...
Me to Original Poster, PS... According to
statistics, the vast majority non LGBTQ young people and adults who profess
Christianity follow similar tenants of Humanist teaching in their cohabitation
and sexual practice before marriage and between marriages, so my criticism is not
specifically with the LGBTQ community at all. It is with the dishonesty in Western Humanist-Christian teaching.
Original Poster to Me, I appreciate your
desire to preserve Christian beliefs in our changing culture. I may just be
closer to that culture than you and so I am less inclined to feel it asks for
too much. But I have thought through this stuff a lot and what I am saying (I
think) is bigger than defining "sexual sin"... And fitting it into
place with other rooms. In fact, I don't think that debate about homosexuality
as sin is possible without first stepping back and thinking about what it means
to have a "biblical" or "Christian" perspective. I see
those things differently than years ago so when we talk about them I think we
are sometimes talking about to different things.
To all my captive audience members, sorry if you don't want
to hear this conversation! I'm sure you can block it... Though I don't know
how!
I am gonna talk about change in culture and it's affect on
the Bible. In doing so, I'll say much more that can be picked apart and
criticised (unlike my earlier more general statements) Oh, well... And it will
be with reference to abortion because:
1. It is the first place you went with reference to Pete's
"marginalized people", posting a video of an abortion survivor.
2. It is something I have been struggling with a lot since Alabama .
3. It is an example of people's reading of the Bible getting
less humanist over time so it may resonate with you.
The only reference to abortion in the Bible is in Exodus
21... And the fetus doesn't get human rights. Unlike most "biblical
values" we (many modern conservative states) are MORE conservative than
the actual Bible on this subject. How is that possible? Again, it is cultural
shift and context.
Many early Jews believed that babies were golems... People
made of mud that life would be breathed into upon birth. That is how Adam was
created as well. In fact, the word "Golem" is used to describe a
fetus is the passage just after David says "you knit me together in my
mother's womb". Then, a baby would become a living human when they were
born and God " breathed life into them"... So as soon as they took
their first breath the were considered living people. Many Jews and Christians
still follow this tradition.
Enter Greek civilization: They believed differently about
conception... Some even arguing that life began at ejaculation... Just look at
the story of the Greek gods. That is, in my opinion, why we have accounts of
babies in the womb who are sentient... Like John the Baptist leaping in his
mothers womb... Such stories would make no sense in the old testament. But
cultural change had occured and Christianity changed with it... Such as
Catholic teachings on contraception.
Race forward to the present. We now know that fetuses feel
sensations and respond to stimuli. We can record their heartbeats and do
surgery in-womb. I am tempted to get into the politics of the pro-life stance
but that detracts from my point... And here it is:
Which view of the unborn is biblical? The Hebrew? The Greek?
The Conservative American? I mean, with science having progressed, can we
really reinterpreted the meaning of "fearfully and wonderfully made"
when the original meaning was God creating a husk into which He would later
breathe life.
And here the real kicker: If we can reinterpreted scripture
based on culture and current scientific discoveries with reference to the
unborn, why can't we do the same for other things... Say homosexuality?
These are my thoughts... They are personal and imperfect and
as concise as I could make them. Just to clarify my point is that cultural
shift has ALWAYS changed scripture and how it is read. It is scary to consider
the repercussions: for the most part, no one is allowed to say "that
changes the bible"... Instead, they realize that their culture and their
perspective do not lay claim to the Bible... So they have to listen to those
they may disagree with.
This is a frustrating and uncertain perspective that I
struggle with, but that feels more like God than a lot of thing have for quite
a while.That's all.
Me to Original Poster, I appreciate your openness, I didn't realize
there were so many edits. As you know, I am a noticer. In Ezekiel Chapter 3 it talks about a Watchman.
Ezekiel was a commissioned watchman, but the principle of the watchman is not specific to
a person.
We all have a responsibility to notice and inform. Florence
Nightingale founded nursing when she noticed patients getting sicker after
unsanitary surgeries and challenged her culture. We are all to be responsible
with the things we notice.
Among noticers, I am also a ponderer, a researcher
and a communicator. I appreciate that fact that you are too. Your clear
response has broadened my understanding of how it can be reasonable to hold
differing opinions. Especially as it has
changed so much through history, but I just can't help noticing... they all cannot
be correct, so...
On the original theme of coming out, I, mostly because of my
exposure to Recovery, have been present at many more coming out and away from an alternate lifestyle
celebrations than celebrations of embracing an alternate lifestyle.
At these celebrations, the statements are also positive about the change they have experienced. Much like the statements made by Mayor Pete. But these are celebrations of support for the person. People are not. "a cause." Therefore, supporting, "Who," in who is making
the choice, is far more important than the political opinions of our culture.
I only hope that as a culture we will be able to
respect the rights of individuals regardless of their choices and offer the variety of types of support they request.
The following is a discussion and a playist on the topic of choosing to come out. Since
many people are concerned about coercive practices and coercive laws, this freedom of choosing can be very controversial.
In my presentation on the playlist in the link below, I attempted to present information from multiple perspectives. Click youtube.com (LINK BELOW) not Screen-Capture Image that follows.
No comments:
Post a Comment