Falwell; "Christian Alliance is not Christian"

Father Jake,

Once again I am blessed by your mercy toward our misguided brothers in Christ. But I am moved to address his hypocrisy with firmer words, words that he may better be convicted by:

"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

Prepare for rebuke brother Falwell...

"Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom because judgement without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgement." James 2:12-13

"But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure: then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness" James 3:17-18

And finally, brother Falwell:

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." Matthew 23:13

Mr Falwell, I, for one, count myself blessed as a member of the Christian Alliance for Progress. I also proclaim the name of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. As a baptized, tithing, obedient servant and witness to the Good News of the Lord Jesus Christ, the truth of your hypocrisy has been revealed.

You blaspheme the name of your Savior when you use it as a basis for your hateful and evil blustering. Pray for a pure heart and forgiveness before you are presented with the millstone you have so rightly earned.

Thank you Father Jake...I ask for your forgiveness for my boldness. Please continue your good works.

If Jesus Christ walked the Earth today, He would be villified as a "hippie do-gooder," too.

If one thing has been clarified in the past two decades, it is NOT an Orwellian world that we need fear [although the information-sharing encroachments of the recent past should indeed catch our attention & command our focus for remedy & correction]; rather, it is a FALWELLIAN one that most besets us & historic Christianity. While the limited & delimiting use of the word 'christian' via their redefining is sectarian indeed, it only demands that we "reclaim Christianity" from the imposters who seek exclusivity in their extremity. Their bravado & well-oiled propoganda machines are examples of their HUBRIS, even if their linguistic inabilities cannot include the dictum this moral indictment provides. They are enboldened all the more at this point in time by a dastardly national regime which callously terms them "my people" to be exploited as a wedge in the Iraqi quagmire & other seizures of social agenda. A verbal biblical literalism with prooftexting is their lone tool, which allows them to read everybody else out of the "faith" in their politicizing of sectarianism & funDAMentalism for their private purposes. Although the "argument from silence" has a certain attractiveness, this has backfired to the building & refurbishing of their grassroots media hatemongering. In starting to call the bluff of these bullies, we present & "reclaim Christianity" from those who use it arrogantly for their limited purposes, more political than religious, but religious in-name-only. Kudos to the Christian Alliance for Progress in establishing a framework for meeting-&-beating these unkempt, ahistorical types and, in time, undoing the damage they have done & are doing in the name of the term 'christian' which is limited to proselytizing & prostituting in their misguided, self-appointed us vs. them mentality. There is much more to Christianity than these can ever know!

Even though we look at Mr. Falwell with much displeasure and believe him to be most hypocritical, I think that we need to be sure that, we don't become hypocrites ourselves as we discuss his values. We believe that as Christians, it is not our place to be judgemental. We need to be especially careful not to fall into the same trap as Mr. Falwell and somehow imply that we are somehow more Christian than him. Christianity is about personal faith, not internal consistency of beliefs. When we seek to point out the hypocrisy of Mr. Falwell, we must be careful that we do not do it in a way that tacitly implies he is less of a Christian than you or I.

That does not mean that we should not point out hypocrisy when we see it. It does not mean that we should not oppose him and the Religious Right when they seek to force their interpertation of Christianity on the masses through government regulation and oppression. It just means that we need to remember that we're still Christians, even when we're debating and struggling with other Christians.

I am not a 'follower' of Jerry Falwell; and I don't belong to his organization. Regarding the homosexual lifestyle, though, I do know that the Bible - in the new testament, no less - clearly condemns such practices as sinful. Thus, I feel compelled by compassion for the lost to let them know what the bible says about their practices.

Phrases taken out of context in the bible can be dangerous and misleading - for example, the phrase "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34) is often used to imply that love means unconditional acceptance and tolerance. Jesus' model of love was not so. Jesus loved and cared for all people - saved and unsaved - but he consistently corrected the lost in a loving manner. When he saw the money changers in the temple, he (aggressively) pointed out the sinful nature of their practices.

This model of love is similar to a parent-child relationship. If I see my daughter participating in a dangerous practice (crossing the street without looking, or drugs, or what have you) I will take all the steps I can, regardless of my safety - to protect and correct her behavior - BECAUSE I LOVE HER and I want nothing but the best for her. This is the love that Jesus practiced and expects of us for all people. When I see people practicing a sinful lifestyle - willfully and knowingly defiant of God's clear word - out of love I feel compelled to show them their error.

I do not mock such people, I do not joke about them or degrade them. These are lost souls, a source of despair in my life due to my love for them and desire for them to live a life of blessing and eternal salvation.

The bottom line for me is that I believe that ""All scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16) - focus on the word ALL. If you believe that the bible - from cover to cover - is accurate then you need to examine ALL that the bible says about an issue before coming to a conclusion. The bible is not so simple that one single memory verse can serve as a guideline. If you don't believe that the bible is true from cover to cover, but take certain verses and leave others, then it is a slippery slope you travel down - for what is your guide for deciding God's true word?

What's astonishing in that letter is how he makes a giant leap of logic to brand CAP as non-Christian: "the sole purpose for Jesus' ministry on earth was...the reality that Jesus asserted that salvation could come only through him." Yet he then goes on to "wonder" if the leadership of CAP would agree with this. This is the basis upon which he denies the Christian character of CAP? He doesn't even cite anything to suggest this.

It's the most obvious example of a letter filled with innuendo, rhetorical blustering, and non sequiturs.

And when will the Right give up their persecution complex ("evangelical Christians will continue to be denounced and despised")? How can a fundamentalist maintain this with a straight face - with this president and Congress?

Good work Father Jake.

I wrote more over at my blog. It just utterly amazes me that Falwell believes that he can question the legitimacy of our faith without anything to support it.

And the idea that he speaks for Christians? Just downright scary. I don't know how many people I have talked to that have been turned away from Christianity and Jesus because of the Falwells and the Robertsons of the world.

I am glad that he does not speak for me.

John G. states the following: "Even though we look at Mr. Falwell with much displeasure and believe him to be most hypocritical, I think that we need to be sure that we don't become hypocrites ourselves as we discuss his values. We believe that as Christians, it is not our place to be judgemental. We need to be especially careful not to fall into the same trap as Mr. Falwell and somehow imply that we are somehow more Christian than him. Christianity is about personal faith, not internal consistency of beliefs. When we seek to point out the hypocrisy of Mr. Falwell, we must be careful that we do not do it in a way that tacitly implies he is less of a Christian than you or I."

I appreciate John's sensitivity and loathing to in any way demean the commitment to Christ of anyone. However, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, acts like a duck, chances are it's a duck. I believe it's very important that we credibly explain the Gospel of grace, faith, love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness to all people and show that Jerry Falwell and his ilk do not speak for Christianity.

Otherwise, we merely state that he has his Christian views and we have ours. That is not the case. Indeed, it is a falsification of the case. There is a big difference between being judgmental (consigning someone to heaven or hell) and being discerning!

Christianity is based on love of God, that is, trusting God over and above seen circumstances; loving other people. If a person doesn't do those things, despite assertions to the contrary, it must be proclaimed that he or she, until further notice, is not a Christian and does not represent Christianity.

The public has to be made aware of what the Gospel is, and not be constantly inundated with the false gospel of legalism and perfectionism of the Jerry Falwell's of the world. Otherwise, Christianity will continue to lose its credibility with people, and we will not be the instruments of God to help remove the yokes of bondage on the oppressed, and seek to comfort the afflicted, which are our major duties as Christians.

I believe Dr. Falwell is a great man of God and he has accomplished many great things in Christ name and I am sick and tired of godless, unholy, phonies who say they are Christians but are not.

Well... well... I don't think YOU're a Christian Either Mr. Falwell. Go post your patootey on that one.

Samantha,

I love you too, with the love of Christ.

To Chris,
You said: "it is a slippery slope you travel down" Why do you say that -- is there any proof you have for this? I've heard this kind of thing said many times but I don't recall anyone ever explaining why this would be so, regardless of how literally true the Bible is or isn't.

For instance, if it is vital to believe the Bible from "cover to cover" then I am left wondering how misguided the first few generations of Christians must have been, since they lacked a canonized New Testament (yet they seem to have done OK). Indeed, this logic makes me wonder if Biblicists actually believe that salvation is earned and is not, after all, a matter of God's grace, for if God's love is freely given, why the need to believe in a specific batch of scriptures? Must we pass a theology test for entrance into God's kingdom, or can't we just rely on God's merciful, abundant grace (like the first Christians)?

I think the anger behind Samantha's post says it all. It is that sort of fear that divides, polarizes and drives people away from the teachings of Jesus Christ and towards other paths to God.

Dare I say: With his fear-based, self-righteous message, Falwell sends many people running from Christianity and straight into the very Hell he is trying to save them from.

I do not call myself a Christian these days, for this exact reason. However, this site and people like Spong are changing that.

To follow up on Ringsabre's comment, the idea of a slippery slope is itself dangerous. You cannot dismiss things by saying "its a slippery slope".

But in response to the need to believe in the accuracy of the Bible cover to cover, I believe that this is inaccurate. Chris...do you believe that women must keep their head covered? Or that they are not allowed to speak in church? Do you believe that it is wrong for men to have long hair? All of these things are in the Bible.

It is important to realize that the Bible was written by humans to humans within a specific time frame, and it must be read as such. It needs to be determined if a commandment or instruction was written with a certain cultural or societal background behind it.

I find it very hard to believe that you believe that everything in the Bible is accurate in its literal sense.

And yes...Samantha - I love you too.

To Chris-

You proclaim that people who have not come to the same conclusions about life as you have are "lost souls, a source of despair in my life due to my love for them and desire for them to live a life of blessing and eternal salvation."

So, you share your particular message due to your 'love' for us. The thought of sending us all to Hell causes you 'despair'. I can see why! It sounds horrible. If it were up to me, I would never send anyone to hell. Sounds like you wouldn’t either.

SO WHY WOULD GOD?

By this logic, it seems you are more merciful and loving than the very God you worship. Care to comment?

Thank-you Father Jake, for this post and for all you do to keep us focused on the real ministry of the Gospels.

FP

Chris: You state: "The bottom line for me is that I believe that "All scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16) - focus on the word ALL. If you believe that the bible - from cover to cover - is accurate then you need to examine ALL that the bible says about an issue before coming to a conclusion. The bible is not so simple that one single memory verse can serve as a guideline. If you don't believe that the bible is true from cover to cover, but take certain verses and leave others, then it is a slippery slope you travel down - for what is your guide for deciding God's true word?"

First of all, Scripture as we know it didn't exist in Paul's time. The canon of Scripture wasn't put together until several centuries after Paul.

Secondly, there are many biblical practices that no rational Christian would want to impose on contemporary society, such as viewing as sin the mixing of meat and milk, the eating of shellfish, the wearing of mixed fibers in one's clothes, the stoning to death of adulterers, the stoning to death of those who work on the sabbath, etc.

As the erudite Peter J. Gomes, in his excellent book, The Good Book: Reading the Bible With Mind And Heart, stated: biblical principle must always trump biblical practice. When we read the Bible, we must discern what it says, what it means, the subtext, the context, what we bring to the text, and what we take out of the text.

Much of our "knowledge of God's Word" frequently boils down to our personal prejudices and to the cultural prejudices of the time. For example, marriage was not viewed as a sacrament of the Church until the 13th century, and it has dramatically evolved since biblical times when the woman was expected to serve at the pleasure of her husband, and was expected to marry her deceased husband's brother, whether she wanted to or not, in order for his lineage to continue. Does this biblical practice mean that God condones serial rape?

God, the Bible, and life itself are much more complex than what any of us can understand, particularly via the method of biblical literalism, an approach that actually began as late as 1910.

Moreover, it must always be acknowledged that "love" trumps biblical literalism, as well as our prejudices.

Indeed, Jerry, it is true, that love triumphs literalism. Thank you for the reminder of that. I sense, distressingly, a lack of love for the "lost" that Falwell is concerned about. Instead, his kind of judgmental hysterics only serve to drive away the very ones Christ came to save! I really wish he'd realize that, and instead of folding his arms in self-righteous judgment of progressive Christians, many of whom seek the face of God as earnestly as he does, he would reach out his hand to us, acknowledging our common call to spread the hope of the redemption found in the Cross.

This persecution complex they have is very real. I was unfortunate enough to sit with a Sunday class group in an SBC church and the talk was how 'these' people had forced them to make choices for so long and that it was time for the Christians to fight back.

The christian right has been enormously successful in its indoctrination going by what I've seen in the Assembly of God and the SBC churches.

A real question asked in that class. "Which is the bigger sin, adultery or homosexuality".

Given an environment like this, I think people like you are doing a great job. It is no surprise people like Falwell are reacting. I guess this is cause for encouragement as they seem not to be able to ingore you.

Chris, you ought to read this. http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2005/07/thou_shalt_not_.html

"Regarding the homosexual lifestyle, though, I do know that the Bible - in the new testament, no less - clearly condemns such practices as sinful."

Then you know WRONG, Chris. What's "clear", is that you, like too many conservative Christians, are reading your prejudices (prejudices learned from "the culture of today") *into* the Bible.

Father Jake hit on it by noting "it's all a formula of words to state a uniform belief..." that Falwell and his ilk rest their obsequious power on. To grow up around these people is to feel your gray matter go numb.

The formula of words never rearranged itself to speak out against the treatment of black people down south when I was young. I've never heard anything from the formula of words that inspired me to be more Christ-like.

One's spirit is deadened to equal the status quo, and differences are mocked because of some fear of losing this earthly cult thing the likes of Falwell, Dodson, and Robertson have going.

I just found this website, I really appreciate the Alliance, and all that you stand for. I am especially impressed that Jerry falwell doesn't like the Alliance. You must be the real deal. Thank You.

I had intended to mention earlier Public Theologian's excellent essay found elsewhere on this site, "Me and My Buddy Jerry Falwell."

http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2005/05/me_and_my_buddy.html

Here's a taste;

"My politics are very different from Jerry’s but in addition to agreeing with him that Christians should engage the culture at every level, including the realm of politics, I also am optimistic that the tools yet available to citizens of our society can effect positive change. Decades ago, he and others like him saw that they could shift the direction and tides in American politics and create a world more to their liking. That prospect for change still exists and it is the window of opportunity which we Christian Progressives intend to take full advantage. We believe that there are millions of other like-minded people of faith who share the same sadness about the direction of our society and who are willing to do the work and make the sacrifices necessary to put our nation on a more just and equitable path. We hope that each of you will join with us in the important and crucial effort."

Finally, a Christian site that doesn't shove it's beliefs down someone else's throat!

Jerry Falwell is a loser. He's about as Christian as I am(and I'm methodist!)

As far as homosexuality is concerned, I don't feel there's anything wrong with it. Maybe I'm too accepting, but I don't feel that anyone should be judged, including homosexuals.

Bravo Father Jake!

While it is SO very difficut at times (even for a monk)not to "pass judgement", I try daily to remember that I must not do so, for as someone else already pointed out, to give into that temptation allows us to fall into the same Devil's Playground that Dr. Falwell and the "religious" Right have.

Still, we cannot stand by and just let them make statements such as those made by Dr. Falwell without trying to convince them of the dreadful things they are engaging in when they embrace intolerance and idolatry, as these Conservative Christian groups often do.

The Master's paschal sacrifice on the cross was for the ENTIRE human race, and for them to suggest that only those who agree with their politics may benefit from it is beyond blasphemous. Their "version" of Christianity (which is essentially a type of modern-day Pharisee, complete with grandiose public displays of piousness, which The Master expressly FORBID-- go into your homes, shut the door and pray silently, NOT as the Pharisees do), with its intolerant, almost militant fundamentalist claptrap, turns Jesus' children away from Him, and has been doing so for many years. Jesus had something to say about those who would drive His child away from Him....that it would be better for them if they had a millstone tied around their necks and that they were thrown into the sea.

Someone else posted about their certainty that homosexuality was clearly sinful "according to the Bible", and I think this is a good place to start with the issue of the Idolatrous mind-set of some of Dr. Falwell's followers (most of whom no doubt support the Flag Amendment, an amendment that would make a man-made object "sacred", and basically an object of worship).

Jesus NEVER mentions homosexuality in the gospels, except for a possible reference to marital and divorce questions not applying to "men who are born eunichs" (as a eunich was generally viewed as men who were "unable" to have sexual relations with women). If indeed He was referring to homosexual men in that one single statement, it would appear that He was saying that these men were BORN that way, and the statement was not a condemnation of them, but rather a list of those excluded from the whole marriage/divorce issue.

In any event, it is only in the writings of St. Paul that we find references to homosexuality in the New Testament. St. Paul, a great man of God, was also very human, and a former Pharisee. At times he dug back into his roots as a Pharisee to "add" to Jesus' teachings, and this was one of those occassions. The problem was, he was digging into Levitical Law, and Jesus had made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that Levitical Law was horribly flawed, and that His teachings would replace those (HE is the way, the Truth, and the Life). Jesus made it clear it was wrong to stone people to death (part of Old Testament Law), and when questioned by the Pharisees why His disciples didn't wash their hands in the prescribed fashion before meals (OT Law), said it didn't matter if one was clean on the outside, only if one was clean on the inside. The Pharisees also reproached Him because His disciples were picking grain to eat on the sabbath (OT Law), and Jesus reminded them that King David and his men had eaten of the Temple foods. Additionally, for anyone wanting to follow Levitical Law (which is where this issue ALWAYS stems from), you must remember that, aside from the fact that you are not being a true "Christian" because you are following the Old Laws that Jesus replaced (The Master was HIMSELF the Son and THE WORD of the Living God), you had better remember that you can't pick and choose Levitical Law (ask a rabbi about this one). You must follow all of it, which means that you must follow all of the dietary stuff and bits about wearing certain types of fabric with others, and a host of outdated, rediculous observances.

Also, we must remember that Paul also believed that EVERYONE (not just priests or monks or nuns) who possibly could do so should remain celibate. If you want to pick out those references to homosexuality in St. Paul's letters, and believe in them, you might also want to consider remaining completely celibate for the rest of your life.

And finally, this one concept, which at the very core of Dr. Falwell's movement, is that the Bible (in its entirety no less) is "infallible". What's wrong with that? Well......let's see....ONLY God is infallible, so if you say that a man-made thing, even the Bible, is infallible, then you must needs say that the Bible IS God. Beyond that, the fact that Christians are called to follow The Master, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and ONLY Him and His teachings, and that the Bible could never be "infallible" anyway, because #1 It was not written directly by the Hand of God, but by FALLIBLE human hands, INSPIRED by God, and the Bible has been edited, added to, and gone through numerous translations down through the centuries...Do I honestly need to go on? Saying that the Bible is "infallible" is Idolatry, plain and simple, just as claiming a flag is "sacred" is Idolatry, even plainer and simpler.

What Christians are called to do is embrace Christ's teachings, to "go beyond the righteousness of the Pharisees", as The Master told us in The Sermon on The Mount. And what did the Pharisees do? They "understood The Letter of the Law, but not The Spirit". The Pharisees made a great public showing of their piousness, and condemned all of those who did not adhere strictly to their view of God (a view which was horribly limited and exclusive). And The Master, Our Most Beloved Saviour Jesus Christ, Son and Word of the Living God, replaced that kind of thinking for a NEW and a TRUER understanding and link with God. And ultimately we are called to do the things HE instructed us to do....to feed and clothe the poor, to take care of the sick, NOT to hoard wealth....and above all (the two Greatest Commandments), to love God with all our heart, minds, and souls, but EQUALLY important to love our neighbors as ourselves. On these two great commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets too.

Perhaps, if I may humbly suggest this to our Conservative Christian brothers, it is time you started concentrating on what Jesus told you to do, and not on pursuing a campaign of devision and intolerance, a campaign that will, no doubt, put a smile on The Devil's face, but not on Our Lord's.

Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA

It doesn't matter what Falwell says; it does matter what the Bible, and 2,000 years of Christianity, says: Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, sent to earth by God the Father to die for our sins.

Greg -

"If it were up to me, I would never send anyone to hell. Sounds like you wouldn’t either.

SO WHY WOULD GOD?

By this logic, it seems you are more merciful and loving than the very God you worship. Care to comment?"

I'm sorry, but the logic of this statement from a Christian perspective eludes me. I can agree with you that neither you nor I would want to send anyone to Hell - but the fact remains that Jesus stated "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6); God is eternally merciful, but cannot abide in sin. We are all sinful creatures; Jesus' sacrifice bridges the gap between us and God - only by accepting Christ as our saviour can we enter heaven. You seem to imply that all of us, regardless of whether we are christian or not, will enter heaven because God is so merciful. If that is the case, is Jesus a liar? Or was that statement simply a cultural one, to be reinterpreted by today's standards?

You seem to imply (I may be reading too much into your statement) that it doesn't matter if you ever accept Christ to enter heaven - if that is true then what is the point of evangelism? Do you really believe in your heart that it isn't important to let other people know about Christ?

Ringsabre -

"You said: 'it is a slippery slope you travel down' Why do you say that" The reason I say that is because we are all flawed creatures; I know I can talk myself into believing some things but not others based on my own desires (you should see some of the things I talked myself into as a teenager). In other words, as a sinful person if I want to, for example, sleep with two women at the same time I can surround myself with like-minded people and peruse the bible, dismissing prohibitions against such practice as 'cultural' bias in the bible; after a time I can convince myself that there is nothing wrong with the practice.

"For instance, if it is vital to believe the Bible from 'cover to cover' then I am left wondering how misguided the first few generations of Christians must have been, since they lacked a canonized New Testament" You are right, the first Christians were quite a confused bunch. That was the point of Paul's Epistles - letters of love to early congregations pointing out their errors and correcting where necessary. Some early churches took the position that once saved, sin didn't matter; these people 'got saved' and then began to live a life of selfish indulgence; in direct opposition to what we today would call a 'Christian' lifestyle.

I recall reading something about students of the gospel being able to disprove the CAP. The reality is that Rev. Falwell and his followers aren't students of the gospel at all. A student of the gospel studies, and practices what the gospels says. A student of the gospel knows the many aspects of the gospels, and knows the context in which they were written. Rev. Falwell doesn't do any of this, he simply molds and twists the gospels to his liking and benefit.
The reality is that, all of us need to be true students of the gospel. Too many Americans would rather listen to Falwell than they would read and study the gospels for themselves. What the country needs is a search for understanding, from each individual, but too many people give far rights like Falwell too much clout, and too much room for their faulty interpretations.
I would encourage everyone to study and find out what the gospels are really telling us. Find out what Jesus is really saying. Don't be affraid of academics, use all the resources that are available, and then maybe our problem can be solved.

J. C. -

"'Regarding the homosexual lifestyle, though, I do know that the Bible - in the new testament, no less - clearly condemns such practices as sinful.' Then you know WRONG, Chris. What's 'clear', is that you, like too many conservative Christians, are reading your prejudices (prejudices learned from 'the culture of today') *into* the Bible."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV - new testament, FYI)

I hope we can agree that the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers are practicing a sinful lifestyle; so you claim that homosexuality (in the middle of that list) is the ONE practice that should be labeled 'culturally biased' and not sinful?

Lest you think I am using one particular translation of the bible to cull out the word 'homosexual', that exact word is in this verse in the following translations: NIV, American Standard, Amplified Bible, New Living Translation, English Standard, Contemporary English, New King James, etc.

Can you see why I say that the bible clearly condemns this practice? It's not like this is a list of cultural items - not like it reads 'those who wear red shirts, don't cut their hair, burp in public, and practice homosexuality' - this is smack in the middle of a pretty serious list of harmful practices.

Can you see why I say that the bible clearly condemns this practice?

Chris...Paul also says that women are not allowed to speak in church (and he says speak, not teach). He also says that women should keep their heads covered and men shouldn't have long hair.

As for your 1 Corinthians 6 reference, the word homosexuality did not even exist in the first century.

I agree with Chris and to add on, we have be aware of the context of what Paul was talking about. Not only did he believe that any of these actions including marriage as well were a waste of time (we must remember that Paul was certain that the second coming was right around the corner), but the definitions of these actions had to have been quite different than the current cultural contexts.

Beware the man whose salvation depends on your damnation.

Brother Damien, OCCA:

"And ultimately we are called to do the things HE instructed us to do....to feed and clothe the poor, to take care of the sick, NOT to hoard wealth....and above all (the two Greatest Commandments), to love God with all our heart, minds, and souls, but EQUALLY important to love our neighbors as ourselves. On these two great commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets too."

But wouldn't you agree that salvation is more important then physical needs? Yes, sometimes you lead someone to Christ by providing for their physical needs...but ultimately, eternity and salvation is far more important and should be the top value of the CAP, right?

correction, I guess i am disagreeing with Chris, rather am agreeing with dave, i get confused with the names below the posts

Why are we letting Jerry Falwell and his ilk define the issues of the Christian life? Why are Christians not exercised over such egregious sins as older people frequently having to choose between buying food or medications, the increasing polarization of social classes in the U.S., our invasion of another country based upon false intelligence and lies, etc.?

Why do we let the Jerry Falwell's of the world define "sin" for us, given their obsession with sexuality (that tells us far more about them than it does about anything else)? We have allowed their sexual preoccupation and their need to condemn it for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are financial and political, eclipse the corporate sins that cry out to God for redress.

Unfortunately, Christianity in the minds of many people has become identified with the condemnation of others, particularly those whose sexual orientation is disapproved by self-styled spokespeople for Christianity. Our allowing them to get away with defining themselves as spokespeople for Christianity, and their marginalizing and disparagement of those Christians who seek to remove the bonds of oppression visited upon others, and relieve the suffering of others, has resulted in Christianity losing credibility with increasing numbers of intelligent, sensitive people; making Christianity seem increasingly irrelevant to meeting the needs and aspirations of many people.

Therein lies the true sin!

But wouldn't you agree that salvation is more important then physical needs?

Sure...I can agree that slavation is more important. BUT...let us look at how Jesus go to that point. Jesus first met needs, then told them to sin no more. In Jesus' ministry meeting needs came first, then the salvation.

Chris wrote:"You seem to imply that all of us, regardless of whether we are christian or not, will enter heaven because God is so merciful."

Exactly.

Chris wrote:"If that is the case, is Jesus a liar?"

Nope, just misquoted.

Chris wrote:"Or was that statement simply a cultural one, to be reinterpreted by today's standards?"

EVERY statement is reintepreted by todays standards. You are a product of todays standards. To work outside of those standards is impossible.

Chris wrote: "You seem to imply that it doesn't matter if you ever accept Christ to enter heaven - if that is true then what is the point of evangelism?"

To share the universal and eternal love of God here on earth. And your question perfectly underlines the crux of the issue here: Why do you share the message taught by Jesus? Out of FEAR of retribution or out of LOVE for God? I would sadden me to think that the only reason you cling to the story of Jesus is to sort avoid retribution and sort of 'get off the hook'?

Chris wrote: "Do you really believe in your heart that it isn't important to let other people know about Christ?"

It's important to let another know about LOVE. Which Christ taught. Christ and the history around him is meaningless if it has no personal feeling behind it. I'm sure you'd agree that I could say "Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior" but if I don't feel it in my heart, then it's worthless. It's just a sentence - a bunch of empty words - without the feeling behind it. It's the deeper feeling behind the words that count. And that deeper feeling, in my experience, is best described as LOVE.

So yes I think it's important to let people know about Christ, but that to teach them a simple history lesson is meaningless. It's just a bunch of facts. Anybody can teach that lesson, or say those words, but if there is no deep meaning behind it, then it's worthless. If I may, you seem caught up in the particular story. The particular rhetoric. I've found deeper meaning when I take the words as a guide and move it deeper. Move past the mere words themselves and make it personal connection with God as Jesus taught.

Peace.
greg

Peter,

I think the question continues to be, "How does one achieve salvation?" Certainly we spread The Good News as The Master instructed us to do, but that doesn't relieve us of our other obligations. Jesus very clearly stated that as we feed and clothe the poor, take care of the sick, visit those in prison, etc. SO WE HAVE DONE FOR HIM. I've always loved the book of James, a very short book, but a wonderful one (in my opinion). James (who many theologians believe MAY have been one of the actual "biological" brothers of Jesus), stated it quite beautifully when he preached that, if you do not back up your piety with good works, your Faith is meaningless. Jesus Himself taught us to "store-up" our treasures in Heaven, and how do we do this if we do not FULLY carry out The Master's directives? Jesus Himself taught His disciples that they must take care of His sheep IN EVERY WAY, and on two different occassions fed the multitudes with bread and fish. And upon seeing the poor widow woman give all that she had, but a few pennies, compared to those giving 100 times as much, He said that her gift was the greatest. It saddens me when I look around, for instance, and see so many Christians living extravagant lifestyles, with large bank accounts. What did Jesus say about the rich? Not only was it easier "for a camel to travel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven", but also "woe to the rich, for they have their reward". Christians have been trying to avoid doing what The Master told us to do almost since the beginning of Christianity. Yes, we must go forth and spread The Good News ( a message of God's absolutely EQUAL love for ALL, of the paschal sacrifice of The Master, Our Lord Jesus Christ, which achieved Salvation for the entire Human Race), but we must go forth and back up those words with actions, lest we become Pharisees, wallowing in a false piety, shouting the name of Jesus and dancing around (waving flags), while the poor hunger and the sick die. Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA

I want to thank Chris for his several comments here. Even though we are safely ensconced behind our computer screens, it still takes some courage to speak a contrary message when you're the "visiting team,” so to speak.

I was working on a reply and then I found that others had added to the thread. What I had written though, mirrors Greg remark about FEAR vs LOVE:

There’s the Bible-as-rule-book view: there it is in black & white, rules to obey, like the rules posted in the DMV manual.

Or, there’s the Bible as anthology, the thoughts of various writers over centuries of life, who bring to their writing what naturally comes with anyone's writing: the color and ambiance of the writer's own life experience

Everybody does the exact same thing when reading the Bible —they emphasize certain Bible moments and explain away others—toward the end of their overarching understanding of the character of God. Is God a firm, stern, rule-giving father figure? Then yes we should look to see what the rules might be that we can follow them and feel proud of ourselves and even feel specially blessed (because we are doing what others are not). Or is God a compassionate, gentle, kindly old grandfather figure? Then we can relax, be ourselves and enjoy the goodness of life.

I think ultimately we see God in a way that makes us most comfortable. Even the rigid Fundamentalist I think is comforted by the narrow rigid but close-knit ideology he’s a part of.

Greg -

"Why do you share the message taught by Jesus? Out of FEAR of retribution or out of LOVE for God? I would sadden me to think that the only reason you cling to the story of Jesus is to sort avoid retribution and sort of 'get off the hook'?
"

I sense we are approaching matters from fundamentally opposed viewpoints, and stand little chance of reaching agreement. Per the above quote, you ENTIRELY miss and discount my motivations. I have no fear of retribution, and am not seeking to "get off the hook". It is (as stated in the great commandment) my love for PEOPLE that compels me to share the message of Jesus. I see the lost and mourn for them.

If I were in this (Christianity) only for myself, then I would adopt the attitude shown on Seinfeld, where a 'saved' character was asked by Elaine why he didn't try to save her - his response was that he wasn't the one going to hell, so why should he care?

As for your belief that everyone will enter the kingdon of heaven (saved or not) I don't even know where to begin. You seem to operate by coming to a conclusion based on observation and feeling, and then go to the Bible for justification. My approach is the opposite - I believe that the Bible is God communicating with man, and that the Word MAY just be correct when I am wrong. The bible is a book for guidance; where we should approach with honset questions seeking hard answers. We cannot approach the Bible with an answer in our minds already formed, seeking justification for our desires.

"We cannot approach the Bible with an answer in our minds already formed, seeking justification for our desires."

And yet this is clearly how we all read the Bible, conservatives included.

Otherwise, they'd be sure to make their wives and daughter sit quietly in church (to echo the point Dave was making earlier).

I also echo Brother DAmien by noting again: "...On these two great commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets too." It's as if Jesus himself is explaining why Chris is wrong; that we actually SHOULD approach the Bible with a bias. The bias of those 2 commandments.

Hey Chris,

Following up on your comment about homosexuality. Just reading my bibles, and I found the following in Corinthians:

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

And:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

So, is it sodomites, or effeminates, or homosexuals…? Or does one just interpret that word to fit one’s own political agenda? I’m not gay, but I could be a sodomite. I’ve never been accused of being effeminate but, you know, it could happen. It is a slippery slope when you interpret the bible according to your agenda.

I know that some believe the bible must be taken verbatim – note some of the responses above – but we have to keep in mind that, aside from the fact that the book was written by men, it has also be repeatedly translated by men. We need to be very, very careful when we lay down laws or dictate morality based on precise wordings of ancient, albeit holy, texts. (Maybe we should lock up the effeminate? Or just guys who throw like girls?)

However, I’d like to point out something more important – it is obvious that many of the people offering their input here have vastly different opinions of their faith, and yet here we all are, discussing, debating, offering our two cents. This is precisely the sort of thing men like Falwell can’t stand and are challenged by – active debate over a living, breathing faith. As Tiny Tim said: God bless us every one.

Never mind Falwell. (For the love of Heaven, his name is Fall-Well! Am I the only one who finds that ironic for a preacher?!?) If they’re shooting at you, you must be doing something right.

BC

Thank you Father Jake for this entry. It's certainly brought us back to the real reason for CAP.

I've been reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. Most people probably don't think of Science Fiction as a place to consider religion or politics but its probably the one of the best places in literature.

I found a neat quote as the people of Luna (the moon) try and set up a new government (it's a first person narration in dialect if the text seems strange).

"Must be a yearning deep in the human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. rule, laws- always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of these people said: “Please pass this so that I won’t be able to do something I know I should stop.” Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them “for their own good”- not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it."

Doesn't this quote strike a cord when we consider what the Religious Right is doing today? I'm not saying we should dismantle our legal system or anything like that. But the whole book reminds me of the issues we discuss here.

In this forum we've had much debate concerning many issues but maybe we can agree that pushing for legal barriers stopping people from doing things that don't hurt anyone else the way the religious right has isn't beneficial to anyone.

I went to Falwell's website out of curiosity.

After his letter concerning CAP I found this.

"Are Your Bank Savings Earning Less Than 3%?
Our LUF Annuity Pays Annuity Rates Up To 11.3%!"

Money changers in the temple!

How can so many people be so blind?

Chris,

I hear ya. I think we’re approaching the whole God thing from two different ends of the love-fear spectrum. Since Hell makes no sense to me on a logical, intuitive or any other level, I feel like we’re going to the same place you and I, so I have no agenda here, other than to just say what’s in my heart.

That being said, I will point out what appears to be a slight contradiction though:

You said
“It is my love for PEOPLE that compels me to share the message of Jesus. I see the lost and mourn for them.”

Sounds like a very loving and noble cause to me, and I applaud you for leading with love. However, the question you posed to me earlier would suggest a different motivation, when you asked:
“You seem to imply that it doesn't matter if you ever accept Christ to enter heaven - if that is true then what is the point of evangelism?"

Here you question the whole point of evangelism, if it doesn’t provide a means to enter into Heaven. You see what I mean? As if the LOVING message of Christ is pointless, if it does not earn you a place in heaven. Do you not see that the message of Love Jesus taught is reason enough to spread it? Threats of eternal damnation aside, it is my belief that the eternally loving aspects of Jesus message IS the reason to evangelize, above all else.

But these are all just words we’re trading back and forth. Rhetoric. All our talking is just for fun in the end. It’s just a word/mind game. Ultimately the real experience of knowing and loving God is beyond words, and the mind, it becomes truly personal.

It’s been fun though, and I love a good logical debate, and appreciate your sticking around to ‘enlighten’ us. Without truly questioning our beliefs, they are meaningless. Free will. We both agree on that, I’d guess!

greg

Greg -

I do appreciate you for keeping this debate on friendly terms - but again, I think you are missing my point.

"...the question you posed to me earlier would suggest a different motivation, when you asked:
'You seem to imply that it doesn't matter if you ever accept Christ to enter heaven - if that is true then what is the point of evangelism?'

Here you question the whole point of evangelism, if it doesn’t provide a means to enter into Heaven."

My point in this statement is that I feel compelled to spread the Good News not for MY salvation but to save those who are lost. I feel for those who are lost because I do love them and want them to be saved. I was showing that if all are saved regardless of their religion then my evangelism would simply be an attempt to get those who are not Christian to join my 'team'.

I do agree that most of this is intellectual gamesmanship - but I do fear for your approach to Christianity as 'one of many' routes to heaven; not that I question your salvation at all. I do fear that people you speak with may come away with an impression that you feel that Christianity may be a better way to live,but ultimately has no impact on their eternal life... which leads some people to the 'well, that may work for you' response.

Ringsabre (et al)-

I think the main reason I chose to post on this site is that, much as I can't buy into the entire 'agenda' of the right wing, I can't join in the agenda of this group. I came to this site looking for a group with common feelings, and have found that many of my principles are reflected on this site (Access to health care, peace, environmental stewardship, justice - no death penalty, etc); but this group's stance on equality for Gays and Lesbians (I'm focusing on marriage rights, not workplace/access rights) and abortion run contrary to my beliefs - and the positions of several mainline denominations (Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian Church USA, etc).

I suppose I am looking for a group that follows what those denominations - the bulk of what American Christians belong to - profess.

I do not question your salvation - as previously mentioned, I believe that confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior is all that is necessary; nor do I believe that you can lose your salvation through subsequent sin. If I gave that impression then I apologize.

I suppose I am just disappointed that this group leans so far to the left. I am looking for a group that is more in the middle 'politically' and am disappointed this is not it.

Chris -

I absolutely share your challenges with homosexuality and abortion. The Lord has placed me in a very diverse workplace, surrounded by differing religions, lifestyles and political leanings. My humble perspective is this:

The Lord commissioned me to testify to the Good News of the Lord to the ends of the earth. I am a worthless sinner, no more or less sinful than any other child of God. So, I do what every other authentic Christian is called to do...love everyone.

Since my commission is to testify to God's love and grace, I find it most disturbing when other "Christians" and false teachers place intentional barriers to my attempt to fulfill my commission. Creating division, supporting exclusion, ranking sins and selling indulgences are natural barriers to testifying to the truth and simplicity of God's message. I rail against our modern brood of vipers that disallow God's light to shine.

The terrifying thing is that even idolatry in all it's forms, great and small, is no less a sin that murder in the eyes of God. The brood can argue with, chastise and rebuke the sinner of their choice all they want to, the reality is that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".

I appreciate your concerns about how far CAP leans to the left, but consider the example of John the Baptist and Elijah, both of whom railed righteously against the "mainstream" religions and practices of their time.

The truth of God's saving grace and love should not have to contend with the misguided words of sin-rankers, and indulgence sellers like Falwell. Classic mote-beam complex, he believes that he is sinless and therefore contradicts the very Bible that he is using to drive a wedge between seekers and Christ's love.

Never be afraid to speak the truth of God's faithfulness and love, remember even the disciples were reviled and persecuted by the religious "mainstream" of the time for their leftist leanings...however we know now who was "right".

Prayerfully consider your choice of association, and remember that all of us struggle, but together we can work toward completing our true commission of testifying to God's unconditional love for all.

Your brother in Christ,
TAP

Personally I am rather bemused by this in fighting between two opposing Christian 'sects'. The world might be a better place without Christianity altogether but alas with the dawn of yet another new century this antiquated belief system still permeates the minds of those to afraid to think for themselves. Please don’t reprimand me, this is just my belief and I respect your right to yours

Still, I must commend you on your stance against the lunacy of the Christian Right but fear their strength hasn't just come from ingenious political engineering but rather from a growing constituent base. The liberal Christian denominations are in decline, those of the right have phenomenal growth rates; although one wonders if the numbers did not include Christians joining the fundamentalists from other denominations just how many new converts they are actually making.

However, if these trends are not arrested your noble intentions will amount to naught; no matter how much you draw them into debate. A fanatic doesn't accept facts only the interpretation they impose on the Bible and unfortunately this seems to be ‘pulling the numbers in’. On that note, I wish you all the help in the Universe in the battle for your truth of Jesus.

Chris,
I also am not convinced it's as far left as you might think, at least based on this thread (I admit I am new here). It seems that this was a fairly focussed thread and certainly we might eventually find more variety of views all around.

To me, independence of thought is paramount, and I figure I may therefore come across as a bit liberal one day and a bit conservative the next, and that's how it should be. But then these are just labels. Necessary, it seems, in discourse, but potentially harmful too. I don't want to forget that.

I think its dangerous to assume that just because a denomination officially denounces gays and lesbians, all its members do as well. Denomination's official beliefs can change based on pressure from within. The Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons, and the Baptists are all groups that officially are very harsh on gays and lesbians, but have sizable groups within them that advocate the spiritual rights of gays and lesbians.

While some see this site's position on gays and on abortion as a major stumbling block to joining, there are others who see those positions as a much welcome relief from the current political dialouge. Before this, it was hard to find a progressive Christian site that did not condem gay people, except for sites specifically dedicated to gays and lesbians. How many of us are there that saw that gay and lesbian rights were put into a mission statement as one factor along with poverty and said FINALLY.

To better explain my reasoning for focusing so strongly on abortion and homosexuality, I offer this (admittedly slightly starined logic).

The aforementioned issues simply happen to be current hot-button issues; but you could replace these issues with any other sinful issue and I would recoil the same. Take gambling, excessive drinking, or recreational drug use. I can see any of these issues replacing abortion as a hot-button issue, and use the same arguments you use to show that they are not sinful practices. These practices only affect the individual (provided they don't drink and drive) and so are matters of personal preference. I can easily see advocates for these practices pushing for removing laws curbing these practices - and railing against conservatives for daring to point out that their practices are harmful or sinful. After all, biblical culture may have deemed these practices as immoral, but times have changed.

Further in depth (and a bit personal), I will confess that I am an alcoholic. Haven't had a drink in 10 years, but I know in my heart that my natural reaction is to drink - my body loves alcohol and reacts to it differently than 'normal' people. I take this as a burden - and a touchstone on God's redemptive power, and constantly rely on God and Christians to show me that acting on my natural desires is 'sinful.' I do not rail against religion, claiming that this is how God 'made' me and since it is my natural disposition it must not be sinful.

I do not believe in 'ranking' sin; I do believe that Christians are called ot consistently live a more Christ-like life, and when we stumble we count on mature Christians to help us back to the path.

We all stumble, on a daily basis. We all lift each other up, to better the group. We do not stand in judgement, but at the same time we must recognize sin in ourselves and other christians to correct these practices.

If I constantly lied, or stole, or was disrespectful to others, I would hope that you would lovingly correct me. Not just tolerate me as someone with a different perspective on life.

Again, I realize I won't change opinions in this forum, but by reading and understanding the above statements I hope you will see that my stance isn't based on ranking sins, or judging/condemning people, but is an attempt to recognize that there is a manner set out by God that is the perfect way to live (sinless); we all fall short of that standard; but the standard does not change. The implication by some in this thread is that truth changes, or is different for different people - what God rejects yesterday he may accept tomorrow; by extrapolation it is possible that Jesus' own commandments and commission may not hold true today.

Valerie,

Great posts! I particularly liked the Robert Heinlein quote, being a science-fiction fan from way back.

You brought up the delightful point about there being financial adverts on a religious site. I've seen this before myself, and always have the same queasy feeling when I see it.

It's interesting. Conservative Christians obsess endlessly over abortion rights and the rights of gay people, but how often do they scream from their pulpits about the injustices created by greed in his country? When the Bush administration "tightened" the bankruptcy laws, but did NOTHING to reign in the banks, which are charging outrageous interest rates, driving many of these poor people to bankruptcy in the first place....where was their indignation? The Master preached about the Pharisees, and how they strutted around piously on the one hand, while all the time taking advantage of widows and orphans. The "Religious" Right can get very pious and indignant indeed about their "pet" issues, but where is the concern for the poor people, who are struggling just to survive in this nation? The richest Americans are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and while many Conservative Christians will scream about "welfare cheats", our government hands out somewhere around 150 BILLION dollars a year in Corporate Welfare to Corporate America in the form of subsidies and tax breaks (the Corporations are now paying about 1/4 in taxes relative to what everyone else pays, and what they were paying many years ago). We give these Corporations money to advertize oversees and purchase factory space, and put on fireworks displays and build golf courses.... corporations that, in some cases, make hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and more than a few of which have shut down factories in this country, putting hard-working Americans out of work, so that they could relocate factories to Third World countries, and all in the name of staying "more competitive".

My question is this? WHERE is the righteous indignation of the Falwells and the Robinsons and the Reeds and the Bushes over an issue that I think is pretty important to Our Lord Jesus Christ. WHERE is the outcry from these fundamnentalist churches over issues of affordable Health coverage for all Americans? Of passing Federal Legislation to reign in the banks and credit card companies? To reign in the insurance companies? To HEAVILY fine companies that shut down factories in this country only to open up new ones in Third World countries (where they pay slave wages, and take major advantage of those people, while depriving Americans of those jobs)? WHERE is the concern for the poor and the sick? The Master told us AS YOU DO FOR THESE, SO YOU HAVE DONE FOR ME. How can they obsess over these issues that are prejudice-driven and NOT validly based on The Master's teachings (please scroll up and read my original post concerning the homosexuality debate), and totally IGNORE His ACTUAL directives?

All I know is, for those who get caught up in this new Conservative Christian fervor, who are so concerned about flag desecration and gay marriage, while seeming to have no problems whatsoever simply ignoring "the least" of The Master's children...they need to rememeber what Jesus said about those whose piety was false, and who didn't follow in His example. He said that many pious Christians would die and upon seeing Him on the other side would yell, "Master, Master!", and He would turn to them and say, " I NEVER knew you". Lord Jesus, Sweet Master, if that isn't truly Hell, then what is? Blessings and Peace.

Brother Damien, OCCA

Chris...thanks for you honesty. I appreciate it.

My question is this: you do not think that there should be government sanctioned gay marriage. And you say that all sin is equal. Would you vote for a constitutional ammendment that banned gambling? Or divorce? Or excessive drinking?

1 Corinthians 6.9-10 in German (Luther Bibel):

9Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder. 10noch die Diebe noch die Geizigen noch die Trunkenbolde noch die Lästerer noch die Räuber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.

What is translated as "homosexuals" in some evangelical Christian bibles in English is translated as 'Knabenschänder' or "child molestors" in German. That is a very different group of people than "homosexuals".

============================================

1 Cor 6.9-10 in French (Louis Segond Bible):

9Ne savez-vous pas que les injustes n'hériteront point le royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: ni les impudiques, ni les idolâtres, ni les adultères, 10ni les efféminés, ni les infâmes, ni les voleurs, ni les cupides, ni les ivrognes, ni les outrageux, ni les ravisseurs, n'hériteront le royaume de Dieu.

What is translated as "homosexuals" in some evangelical Christian bibles in English is translated as 'les infâmes' which means "the infamous" in French. 'Les infâmes' doesn't mean homosexual in French, even in slang. "Pede", "pédé", "pédale", "serin", "folle" or "tapette" would be the words used for a gay man.

Why would anti-gay Christians rely on a verse that is translated in so many different ways, and depending on the language one speaks, may never be associated with gay people?

Dan

Well, I for one agree with Mr. Falwell when he says that "it is my sincere pleasure and privilege to be laughed at and scorned because I have chosen to walk with and live out my life in servitude to the Christ of the Bible."

Me too, Mr. Falwell. Me too. Now, send me $5.

I guess I am a simple person. To be honest, I am bit afraid of both sides. Hate is hate is hate. Falwell represents one set of ideas and influences many people. That is dangerous because so many people are afraid to think for themselves. The same can be said for the "left" more liberal Christians too and the anger and hatred keep growing.
Perhaps Christ saw this in the garden and it was the cause for his weeping.

I am pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.
I think it should be every Christian’s goal to seek justice for all people, but I don't think all people have to embrace gay marriage.

I watched 134 children choose to walk up to a paper cross and stick heart shaped stickers on it representing their giving their hearts to Jesus. What does this internal war convey to them?
How do we represent the love of Christ when we can't even love one another?
How do I tell them that Jesus is the truth when so many are saying that it is only their truth that counts?

I am not naive, I know much of this has to do with politics, but has politics to do with Christ?
It is my understanding that Jesus was anti- religion, anti-politics and very willing to engage those thought of as less than desirable by many in his social structure. Yet I see Jesus being dragged back into the forum, which he condemned, over and over by so many Christians.

Do I think the Christian Alliance is what Falwell represents it as? No. Do I think Falwell is what the Christian Alliance represents him to be? No. What I do think is, that both sides are necessary so that the middle line can be found.

I also think it takes great courage to make a stand for what you believe, and I honor that courage. Praise God.

I'm not sure why there's not a link on the home page to this, but you can respond to Jerry Falwell here;

http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.880941/k.343B/Submit_Your_Response_to_Rev_Falwell/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=bnKIIQNtEoG&b=880941&en=mhJOIRNzGiLOITOGLcLHKYPKJiLJJ2MKIfIPL7OQIvH

You can also read some of the angry messages we recieved from Falwell's followers after he sent this e-mail, if you've got the stomache for it.

Let's try to offer less heat and more light in our responses. Maybe talk about the values of Jesus; something sorely lacking in the Falwellian messages.

Father Jake, I think you should research Falwell before you attack, here is the truth about the issue
http://www.falwell.com/?a=news&news=prstubb

Truth,

As a matter of fact, I saw that. That is not the original article, but a response, as you can see by reading it. Even though they say "the article is posted below," it appears nowhere on that page; only the press release in response to all the media. The original article cannot be found on the net; Falwell has buried it, including, it appears, removing it from that page.

Why? Because it was embarrassing. It appeared in a journal of which Falwell is the publisher. His denial is misleading, if not blatantly telling an untruth.

Here's what we know; Falwell's National Liberty Journal (NLJ) issued his "Parents Alert" in February 1999, which claimed that the TV Teletubby "has become a favorite character among gay groups worldwide," and then went on to advise parents to keep their children away from such unhealthy viewing.

The article which Falwell mentions elsewhere that supposedly blasts the AP reporter for this supposed "yellow journalism" was from Brill's Content, which, curiously, also no longer exists. From the excerpts that are still floating around, the defense seems to be that Falwell was not the first to "out" Tinky Winky; that the reference had been made in other news stories.

After looking at a number of sources, I decided that, regardless of how desperately Falwell tries to cvover his tracks, as publisher, if not the author (which we'll now never know if he was or not), he takes the weight of this very silly accusation.

In response to the undoubtedly well-intentioned post from Salivation, it must be acknowledged that as Christians we are called upon to love others and seek to remove yokes of bondage from those who suffer. Such actions are the manifestation of true "love," rather than the sometimes foolish contentions and other types of demonization visited upon others by Jerry Falwell and his ilk.

How many intelligent, sensitive people have been turned away from even considering Christianity as a viable vehicle by which to navigate their ways through life, after listening to him and others who seek to curtail the civil and sacramental rights of those whom they have excluded from full Christian fellowship?

There can be no meeting of the minds when naked prejudice trumps the commandments of the Prince of Peace to love others and not judge anyone! Moreover, this naked prejudice is not without financial, political, and social recompense!

It would be interesting and instructive to know how much money is sent in by Jerry Falwell's and James Dobson's constituents when they receive mailers soliciting contributions to, in essence, fight against "the homosexual agenda."

I don't understand why Evangelicals are quite so hung up on the possibility that a hand full of people might be having sex in a form they don't approve. Somehow I think that, come judgement day, the Lord will be a bit displeased that they spent so much time cleaning a speck from the corner of the room whilst leaving a huge pile of trash in the middle. But of course, that's not for me to say, just the Lord. Which is a problem with the Falwell crowd: they're presuming to take the judging out of the Lord's hands.

But I wanted to follow up on some of the earlier posts regarding the sin list in 1Cor 6. One earlier poster pointed out that in German and French translations (some anyway), words clearly identified with homosexuality did not appear. This is also true in many earlier English translations. Actually, the word homosexual didn't appear in any version of the Bible until 1946.

The word that people currently translate as homosexuals was malakoi in the Greek and has been variously translated as weaklings, lecherous, effeminate, sexual perverts, voluptuous persons, masturbators, "those who participate in homosexuality", sissies, catamites (young boys kept by older men for sex), and male prostitutes. Except for the recent "those who participate in homosexuality", none of the other translations have anything to do with homosexuality unless one wishes to make the false claim that all homosexuals are pederasts. Current jargon might also identify the word effeminate with homosexuals, but such was not always the case. At one time effeminate men were men who spent entirely too much time making themselves look good so that they could be more attractive to women. Another word would be dandy.

Dear All

I'm not sure the bible DOES condemn life long same sex relationships (Larry P's comments show that the issue is ar least debatable. But I DO know the Bible condemns:

1. murder--which jesus defines as being angry with your brother (Matt 5:21)

2. adultery--which jesus defines as looking at a woman with lust in your heart (Matt 5:27)

3. Ignoring the needs of the hungry and powerless and imprisoned (Matt 25)

I don't know any Christians who are free from those violations of God's law, I know I'm not. I'd say that working on those issues is a considerably higher priority than insisting that SECULAR law prevent same-sex unions. I'd feel happier if the general public saw christians as the people who were radically against hate and hunger and oppression than the people who think we are God's soldiers against homosexual.

Keith

All I can say at this point is I'm relieved by the sanity CAP has brought back to my world. So many in the radical right weave their vitriols of hate so tightly with biblical references that the results are deceiving arguments for intolerance and division. I was beginning to think I was crazy or confused for feeling that God is love, peace, justice, and mercy. But I'm not crazy, and I'm definitely not confused. Thanks, Father Jake, for beginning this particular discussion. And peace, everyone, peace.

To the good folks of CAP,

I appriciate Father Jakes article and heartily agree with his sentiments. Falwell's comments are so predictably arrogant. If anyone doesn't have an opinion identical to his own, then he thinks he has proof positive that the person(s) in question isn't a christian.
While, for example, it might be true that Romans 1, 1st Corinthians 6:9, and other scriptures say that God doesn't approve of the gay lifestyle, the scripture never implies that gays are not entitled to decent treatment by our government or to justice in our courts. Moreover, we as christians are never commanded to hate these people. Didn't our Lord die to save them too?
While many of us might not be able to support things like gay marriage and the like, I think it is incumbant upon us as believers to be both gentle and just in our dealings with the gay/lesbian community. I see no reason why Reverend Falwell would consider such an approach "unchristian" (even while you acknowledge the prohabitions or scripture).
Christian Alliance for Progress is composed,no doubt, of believers who might not agree verbatim with all things expressed in the values or issue statements, yet there is a christ-like spirit expressed here which I find very refreshing.
Keep up the good work, Father Jake. I hope to hear more from you in the future. May God bless this organization's efforts to give voice for moderate evangelicals.

Best wishes,

Billy Strain

Kennesaw Georgia

Please Lord, put me close by when Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, Bob Jones III, and the rest of the American Taliban show up for the final.
I want to hear what you have to say about ever knowing 'em.

People would do better to stop throwing Bible verses back and forth. It is a waste of time. The Bible is not the law of any land, any more so than any other religious scripture has the right to be for anywhere else in the world. That is the truth of it. Fundamentalism, by nature, is an easily-used control mechanism. It is a danger to humanity in any form. There are an exceptionally small amount of fundamentalists who practice without violating the fundamental rights of others to exist; they simply cannot help themselves. This is the main reason that the founding fathers mandated a clear separation of church and state- they had done this drill before. Before anyone jumps on that, yes, most of the founders were Christians (a good deal of them Unitarians, by the way, who have a long history of dissent to the point of being burned at the stake for rejecting the Trinity), and yes, they used the word God. That, my friends, was a sensible moral convention, and it did not mean God as seen by any particular person or organization.

The Bible, in its commonly-recognized form, does not represent the entire sphere of christian thought, and God did not write it. God does not write books, or have people ghost write on his behalf. Between the standardization of christianity that occured via the emperor Constantine, and the sheer nature of the texts (translations, excluded sections, unrecognized text such as the gnostic scriptures, and so on), it is not a literal document- it is a living, breathing history, and this does not diminish it. If anything, it enhances it. People like Falwell have been around for a long time. Do a little research on where fundamentalism came from, and you will find some interesting, disturbing information. At one time, there was a piece of me that actually forgave Falwell and his like because I thought they actually believed what they were saying. On the whole, they do not, because their actions serve very obvious agendas, pointing to their deeply entertwined, mutually parasitic relationship with seculars who share their interests. What are these interests? Control, mainly. Money. Power. The ultimate power trip of having control over the lives of others.

In the end, this is not even a battle over theology; making mincemeat of Falwell's position can be easily done, and trust me when I say, brothers and sisters, he knows this. The thing he fears most is knowledge, education. Evil comes from hateful thoughts, not an imaginary entity. Hateful thoughts often come from fear. Fear often comes from ignorance. Ignorant people are easy to influence and control.

America is a pluralistic society. That includes religious pluralism, and the right to an individual religious consciousness.

Blessed Be.

Rich Engle
Unitarian Universalist
(therefore, a target)

Jesus died for ALL! All of us, not just the chosen few who ask him into his heart. Where is this in the Bible?? When Jesus died on the cross, "the curtain was torn in two". Why? In those days, only a few "priests" were allowed to make sacrifices, and this was behind a curtain. When Jesus died, and the curtain torn, the OLD law was dead! The OLD law that said slavery was okay, the OLD law that said a menstruating woman must leave town, etc. So, why do evangelists preach the OLD law of homosexuality, etc. Brainwashing! Easier to preach the things that "most" don't do. Do you hear much preaching on adultery? Nope! You hear an awful lot of preaching on tithing! Hmmmm...money in the coffers! What better way to bring the little, guilt ridden sheep back week after week.
Jesus said it all, the greatest commandment is to love God and your fellow man.

I visited this website for the first time tonight due to a friend's recommendation. I read the values of the alliance and felt I agreed. I started reading blogs and was drawn to this stream because I have often been told I am not Christian. In fact, I was told this so many times that I stopped calling myself Christian decades ago, not only because Christians seemed to habitually exclude me, but because the Moral Majority of the Reagan Era turned me off, and it is only getting worse.

The above conversation illustrates why I stopped calling myself Christian even though I was raised to pray, to love Jesus, and to love my neighbor. In my youth I felt a calling to be a minister. I still consider Jesus a central influence in my life, and I'm offended by that which so many have done and continue to do in his name.

I stopped going to church because I couldn't swallow the whole package. I questioned what I was being told because too often it seemed to contradict my understanding of the spirit of Jesus' message. I got tired of the arguments over the meaning of scripture. I became weary of dogma and the way so many parroted what they were told without seeming to think it through for themselves.

The argument over homosexuality is a perfect example. So, passages in the Bible condemn homosexuality. Do you think there is a gay or lesbian in America that hasn't heard it a million times? It seems to me the best I can do for anyone is to demonstrate love and acceptance. That seems Jesus-like to me.

(That's the point, I suppose. "Jesus-like" and "Christian" seem so often on quite opposite ends of the continuum. Is it blasphemy to see it as a continuum? Aren't you either Christian or not Christian, and there's no in between?)

As a counselor I have listened to the suicidal angst of young men and women who are tortured by the realization that they find themselves aroused by closeness with or images of people of the same gender. The judgement from society, their families, and the Bible only serves to add to the higher than normal suicide rate among gays and lesbians. I feel I am doing the work of Jesus by simply letting them share thoughts and feelings that are truly frightening to them. And those thoughts are frightening specifically because they have been told everything from they'll burn in hell to your friends will abandon you to your classmates will spit on you and beat the crap out of you if they get the chance.

If we truly love God and our fellow man we will do the loving thing and let go of our prejudices and hang-ups about gays and lesbians. Reminding them for the thousandth time that they "won't be saved" is simply rude. Rub it in, why don't ya? After all, do you "decide" who you find sexually attractive? Do you think a 15 year old in this hateful climate "chooses" to be gay?

And why is gay marriage such a threat? Isn't the greatest threat to the institution of marriage the huge percentage of heterosexual couples who can't seem to get it right and choose divorce? I say let others marry regardless of gender and focus on making your own marriage work.

Back to whether or not we are Christian. It depends who you ask. Certainly, Falwell would say I am not Christian. Thank you, Jerry, for excluding me. Many of the above writers would agree with him. After all, I am by no means a fundamentalist; I don't even believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. It was written by numerous men over many years. It possesses great wisdom, certainly. And is Jesus the only son of God? I don't think so. We are all the children of God.

Still, Jesus is in my heart. He has been the most important role model of my life since childhood. Is that fact diminished because the historical Buddha is a close second?

In the end, though, it seems that Jesus was an inviting and accepting kind of guy. Why is it, then, that so many of his followers push me away?

"You're either for us or against us," as our current Christian president likes to say. The problem, particularly with the Christian Right, is that so many of us have been defined as "against us" simply because we're on the fence, not sure, or still thinking it through. Christian moderates and those on the so-called left, please stop making the same mistake.

Lastly, can someone explain to me why I should not believe "Christian soldier" is an oxymoron?

Kev,

This is for you.

Someone in my apartment complex has a bumper sticker that reads something like: "I'm OK with God - it's his fan club I can't stand."

Since I was given a "word of knowledge" in Greek, I've taken a bit to
studying the Bible in the original languages, particularly, the NT in
Greek.

Long before then, I had concluded that in modern terms, Jesus was at least what we'd call a socialist, and opposed to capitalism. So, I've called myself a socialist for some 30 years now.

People who call themselves Christians these days rely a lot on modern
meanings for ancient words. They talk about being a Christian relying on the word "confess". The two Greek words most commonly translated to "confess" in the NT, "homologeo" and "exomologeo", roughly carry the same basic idea that is lost today - they mean "to agree [in thought]", even "to agree fully [in thought]."

How many who now call themselves Christians would really agree with Jesus and/or any of the other authors of the NT? Let's consider that question, not fully, but just on a few relevant points.

Consider the passage at Acts 2:42: "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to _the fellowship_, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. ... All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."

The word 'koinonia', which translates with some difficulty in modern English to "fellowship", means something quite stronger. I would assert that a more accurate translation of 'koinonia' is 'communism'.

Get a Strong's Concordance, and a Webster's dictionary, and read 2:44-45 again, and other passages like it, if you don't trust me to be objective about this. I know it's hard to swallow for a modern American. But for me, the goal is to "agree fully", and nothing else.

Jesus and Paul made bunches of statements to the effect that communism (i.e., benevolent sharing as opposed to selfish possession) and not capitalism (a belief in the sanctity of private ownership of property) is the way of the Kingdom (i.e., government) of God.

Doesn't quite sound like the conservative's America, does it? I would suggest, in passing, that to the extent America is a Great Country, it owes it as much to socialism as to capitalism, but that's a more secular discussion.

This is the working of error. And it is indeed Orwellian, on a secular note (Orwell was a socialist, and his writings were attempts to speak out about the perversion of the language, especially where the idea of socialism was concerned.) The stuff of 2 Thessalonians 2; certainly, evidence of a massive and well-concealed "apostasy" (i.e, divorce of the church from the truth).

Another prime and relevant example. What does the scripture say about when life begins? I think the scripture is unanimous on this point: life begins at first breath. Not at conception - that's the view of atheists, not even of medical science - it begins at first breath.

Genesis 1 makes this point. Ezekiel 38 makes this point. 1 Corinthians 15 makes the same point, explaining how a seed must past through death to come to life (compare to Psalm 139).

In both Greek and Hebrew, the words for "spirit" and "wind" are the same. "Wind" is what breath is. Language is also carried by breath. The ancients saw these as inseparable notions. Their view is still valid, in my opinion. I.e., I fully agree. Trace the word "sentient", for example, and think about what it means, and how it came to mean what it means. I tell people that language is at the intersection of the physical and spiritual realms. The
Holy Spirit told me as much, long before I realized that passages like John 1:1 were making the same point.

When Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus in John 3, he was speaking about this very topic. "The Spirit _breathes_ where He desires, and you hear His voice, but you do not know from where He comes or to where He goes - so it is with everyone who has received birth from the Spirit." (John 3:8)

Most Christians see this passage as being definitive of the notion of
"salvation". It is - indirectly. More directly, it's definitive about when life begins. But I have to tell you, many who call themselves Christian would not agree with Jesus here, if he was suggesting that life and breath are inseparable. If "confess" means "to agree fully", then who are Christians, and who are not?

Jesus also said, "the Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." I think this is more to the point of the abortion debate. Only if the flesh counts not just for something, but for everything, can one conclude that life begins at conception. That's an atheist's view; it can't be the view of a Christian. The spirit exists before conception (Jeremiah 1:5), but is only finally joined with the flesh at first breath, if one believes Jesus and the
scriptures; otherwise, one can argue (as many atheists do) that Jesus either wasn't human or didn't even exist in the first place.

Kev, as strange or foreign as my ideas may be, I can tell you one thing: there has never been a minute in my Christian life when I have been discouraged away from seeking to "agree fully" with Jesus. I believe I have learned not only from the scriptures, but from the Holy Spirit directly.

So, am I not a Christian because I disagree with the "religious right" about most things? I don't think so. To the contrary, I don't believe anymore that it's possible, if Jesus was a communist (in the dictionary sense) to be both a real Christian (in the sense of 'exomologeo') and a Republican.

Why? Because if Republicans share one core belief, it is the inseparable, and truly religious, belief that capitalism is Good and communism is Bad.

That's not "agreeing fully" with Jesus.

In your life, I exhort you to be a real Christian. Don't worry about what the world believes, even others who call themselves Christian. In the apostasy, it will be (indeed, I think it is) the norm that people who want to call themselves Christians would kill Jesus just as quickly as did his detractors in the first century.

It's not those people that you should seek to agree with. They can't and don't define the disposition of your soul.

By the way, the "good news" was not so much about salvation as it was about caring for the poor. Salvation comes from agreeing with Jesus that this is the true ministry of Love and the true work of the Kingdom.

For those of you who think homosexuality is a big spiritual deal - read Romans 1, but don't stop there. Romans 2:1 and thereafter apply to YOU.

When your income depends solely on your ability to sell your version of religion to people, it ceases to be a ministry of love and becomes one of greed. A true man or woman of God becomes ordained and lives on the modest stipend provided by the church which he or she serves. Jesus never intended for men like Falwell to become rich and powerful by pimping Him out for a profit. As a matter of fact, He made it clear that we shouldn't do anything of the like. Falwell is the same man who has his chubby little fingers in every political pie he can reach. He parades himself around in public like a peacock, hoping to be seen on television. He only dislikes organizations like this one because it threatens his livelihood. What would happen to him and his ilk should the people see that true Christians aren't bigoted and judgemental? What would happen to him if Christians stook up and said "No, you're wrong!"

Mr. Falwell is no less a sinner than any one of the groups he speaks out against. He is just better dressed and far more wealthy. If your words inspire hatred, you must accept responsibility for the actions of those who act on that hatred. I don't know how he sleeps at night knowing the hatred he inspires. And, just in case he comes across these posts... People don't despise you because you speak the words of Jesus, Mr. Falwell. To liken yourself to Him in any way is as arrogant as is humanly possible. We stand against you because you are a false teacher, who has gotten rich by pimping out Jesus to line your own pockets. That, sir, is disgusting.

Debbi, thank you for your comments. You are indeed Christian (and from what I can tell, a great person). If only people could give up hatred and prejudices and begin accepting and loving, the world would indeed be a great place.
God bless all of you.

Sorry, I don't agree with you or Mr. Falwell. Between the two views, you all just prove that you can make the 66 books of the bible say whatever you want it to say.

While we all argue over these things, what must the unchurched think about us? I'm certain the perception is not good

To Chris

You wrote: “Again, I realize I won't change opinions in this forum, but by reading and understanding the above statements I hope you will see that my stance isn't based on ranking sins, or judging/condemning people, but is an attempt to recognize that there is a manner set out by God that is the perfect way to live (sinless); we all fall short of that standard; but the standard does not change. The implication by some in this thread is that truth changes, or is different for different people - what God rejects yesterday he may accept tomorrow; by extrapolation it is possible that Jesus' own commandments and commission may not hold true today.”

I really don’t mean this unkindly, but of course your position is about ranking sin. You may not believe that your stance is about judging people, but you contradict this by saying you still have a problem with homosexuality. That’s judgment and condemnation. I do think that you are significantly more sincere and earnest in your examination than most people that advocate that this issue is a dire affliction and I think that given time, you may come to view it differently.
I have never understood why the religious right chose this issue as such a rallying cry in the fight they wage for Christianity when there are so many other issues in the Bible that are considered ‘sins’. I think I got some insight in watching the ‘American President’ today. Michael Douglas, the President, (I’m paraphrasing now) was talking about his nemesis and said that some conservatives weren’t so much interested in solving problems as they were in selling their solutions for the problems by making people afraid of them and then blaming the person/people that caused them. It has been pointed out here many times that homosexuality is just one of many sins outlined in the Bible and yet it (and abortion) is the one that gets the largest part of conservative attention and rhetoric. The religious right is all about creating an atmosphere of fear regarding homosexuality and the homosexual ‘agenda’ and then filling their coffers by selling their program for solving the problem.

Now, I have a question that I have posed to a number of vocal conservatives in the past. I am a gay man, in a long-term committed relationship (25 years). However, due to MS, the physical aspect of the relationship has been absent for many years. What is your assessment based on your Biblical template? Is it the physical act that is troublesome for conservatives or is it the emotional commitment?

YIC,
J H Robbins

In the Bible - it is stated that homosexuality is a sin & that they will not go to heaven- period. I believe it is the Evil Spirits & Demons living in the souls of these men & women & that they have to be cast out as Jesus said to the Apostles. These demons demand obedience & get it everytime without question. They have an Allegience to Satan & serve him well fornicating Sexually with each other. Christ demands a new Mind & Heart to hold HIS Love & said that HE will reside there. The Holy Spirit santifies the people & He, too, remains there. Sin, death, Homosexuality, Lesbianism, Gambling, drugs & drug abuse, alcoholism, rape, murder, Occult pratice, Satanism, Abortion, etc.... & things of that nature are on one side of the fence. Healings, Miracles, Forgiveness, Faith, Love etc... are on the other side. We must choose- who will follow to Heaven or to the Lake of Fire. I have deicded to Follow Eternal Life with Jesus- who Forgave me my sins. It is our decision & we will be Punished or Rewarded by God the Father/Jesus. And that is the BOTTOM LINE.

I find it very strange that anyone could speak for God and be believed. Falwell had no direct experience of/encounter with GOD. His experience was of himself interpreting through himself a creation and a GOD made by Falwell and Tammy. His creative God, unloving and punitive, was chosen to make money for he and Tammy.

All of his message was vain and a violation of GOD's name/character/and loving by GOD for all of GOD's creation, one which allows for blackflies, dearflies, mosqitoes, smallpox, the black death which wiped out a third of mankindgood, but also ) bacteria and viruses, good and bad for us.