If repeating a statement over and over again were a guarantee that the statement is true, then I would have to believe that Jim Garlow does not fear gays and liberals. He certainly goes on at length insisting that he has no such fear. But I suspect that the reason Garlow invited liberals to speak at his church was to exploit them for his own purposes. I doubt that he wants his flock to seriously entertain the notion that God might be okay with homosexuality.
Skyline Church, the Rancho San
Diego megachurch known for hosting conservative speakers such as Glenn
Beck and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, was harshly judged this week by a former
Episcopal bishop famed for defending gay marriage, including his own.
The Right Rev. Gene Robinson. Image via Wikimedia CommonsIn a column for The Daily Beast, the Right. Rev. Gene Robinson wrote about attending a Sunday service at Skyline and finding a mood that turned dark.
“In between the uplifting songs, the message is: They’re coming to
get us. One by one, the speakers lay out the parameters of the siege
under which Christians live, attacked by liberal and godless forces on
every side.”
In a piece headlined “Even After Hobby Lobby, the Religious Right is Still Terrified,” Robinson wrote:
Every message, action and gesture seems calculated to
ratchet up the anxiety of those who are listening. And then it’s over.
Just like that.
I honestly don’t know how typical such a service is among
evangelicals, bent on making people fearful, but if you left that
service feeling hopeful, at peace with God, and eager to help the poor
and needy, then you weren’t paying attention.
Now a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, Robinson concluded his 1,100-word column posted Sunday with this:
“Anti-gay sentiment is waning in American society, and with that
forward progress, conservative churches will see a loss of credibility
and a diminished effectiveness of their fear-mongering. That is as it
should be. Neither the church nor the state is served by it.”
On Tuesday, Skyline senior pastor Jim Garlow responded.
Answering a Times of San Diego request for comment, Garlow said: “We
did not know the writer was in the audience on that Sunday morning
service. We did invite him to a Sunday night service.” Here is Garlow’s full response to Robinson, which he termed “my thoughts.”...
Conservative
evangelicals have internalized a besiegement narrative that doesn’t
change even when they win political victories. But fear has no place in a
properly Christian worldview.
There
is nothing intimidating about the building, other than its sheer size
and the many millions of dollars it took to build it. In fact, it is one
of the most welcoming places I’ve ever been. This conservative,
evangelical megachurch, just outside San Diego, is a hive of activity on
a Sunday morning. Upon entering, I’m drawn into the sophisticated café
that makes Starbucks look like a 10-year-old’s sidewalk lemonade stand. I
get my latte and am assured that I am welcome to take it with me to my
seat in the church. I find a seat, which is plush and comfortable, and
sure enough, there’s a cup holder for my coffee.
I am struck by
the starkness of the worship space: no windows, all black, no cross or
stained glass, and not a single sign that this is a place of worship. A
drum trap set is the only thing on the massive stage. It’s hard to tell,
really, when the service starts; it just seems to grow organically,
with additional people coming onto the stage over the course of 15
minutes, everyone dressed in jeans and comfortable clothing. The sense
of expectation grows minute by minute.
The crowd gathering in the
congregation is old and young. Some members are alone, some coupled, and
lots of families, with kids in tow. And virtually all white. Everyone
seems excited to be here. When things actually begin, it is as
professional as any Broadway show, with fantastic music by a small band,
and everyone is singing. Although there is a brief prayer early on, the
service seems oddly devoid of any mention of God, much less Jesus. And
within the first 10 minutes, the head minister announces that the time
has come for what we’ve all been waiting for: the collection, the chance
to give for the work and ministry of this place. And everyone cheers.
That’s right, cheers! Wild applause, enthusiastic delight at the chance
to contribute to the ministry.
If
you left that service feeling hopeful, at peace with God, and eager to
help the poor and needy, then you weren’t paying attention.
But
soon, the mood turns dark. In between the uplifting songs, the message
is: they’re coming to get us. One by one, the speakers lay out the
parameters of the siege under which Christians live, attacked by liberal
and godless forces on every side. An African-American minister from New
York describes a change in policy in New York City to disallow churches
to hold services in public schools, and his message is, “Beware. What’s
happening in New York is headed your way! Get ready!”
The sermon
is delivered by a guest preacher, whose main point seems to be the evils
of feminism and sexual immorality. In the 40-minute “sermon,” there is
hardly a mention of the Divine. “God” shows up about 30 minutes in, and
Jesus is mentioned only once, at the last minute. The senior pastor
delivers an additional message, imploring those present to return that
evening for a debate about homosexuality (the reason I’m there—and to
their credit, both sides are being represented). His explicit message
is, “Come tonight! I cannot prepare you for the onslaught of immorality
and anti-Christian fervor if you don’t come! There is a battle underway
for your souls, and I intend to outfit you for a holy war!” Every
message, action and gesture seems calculated to ratchet up the anxiety
of those who are listening. And then it’s over. Just like that.
I
honestly don’t know how typical such a service is among evangelicals,
bent on making people fearful, but if you left that service feeling
hopeful, at peace with God, and eager to help the poor and needy, then
you weren’t paying attention. It is no wonder to me that many
conservative, Christian people are fearful, and believe that there is a
war on religion (especially Christians) in this country. After all, it
is drummed into them every week...
The Rev. Frank Schaefer, a United Methodist minister, was defrocked after officiating at the wedding of his son Tim.Credit
Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times
Father
and son had always been close, from the moment Tim Schaefer was born,
six weeks premature, with blood poisoning, a weak heart and lungs, and a
doctor who thought he would not make it through the night.
His
father, the Rev. Frank Schaefer, a United Methodist minister, thought
of his eldest son as a miracle child, saved by some combination of
medicine and prayer, saved for something special.
“We
couldn’t even touch him; he was in an incubator, and we had to reach in
with latex gloves through those holes in the sides,” Mr. Schaefer said.
“I begged God to please save his life.”
Their
bond was such that, years later, facing a choice between upholding his
church’s teaching and affirming his son’s sexual orientation, Frank
chose to endanger his own career by officiating at his son’s same-sex
wedding. The actions that followed — a rebellion in his congregation, a
church trial, a defrocking and then, last month, a reinstatement —
have made the Schaefers symbols of the conundrum facing much of
American Christianity: How does religious doctrine on homosexuality
respond to the longings for spirituality and community from congregants
and family members who are gay?...
Chick-fil-A’s president spoke out against gay marriage last week, sparking a huge uproar in the gay community, and now the issue is spilling over to a Colorado bakery.
The owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood refused to bake a wedding cake for a local gay couple and now people are pushing a boycott against the owner.
Shop owner Jack Phillips probably didn’t think he was going to be wading into a civil rights debate a week ago when he told the gay couple that he would not make a cake for their wedding, but that’s exactly what has happened...
A San Francisco federal judge today struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, concluding that it tramples on the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples and that they are entitled to be married throughout the state.
Within minutes of his historic decision, however, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker agreed to put his ruling on hold for at least a few days to consider arguments on whether California should be barred immediately from enforcing Proposition 8, a move that would allow county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples...
The tennis star's legal woes remind us that even gay icons have some growing up to do about same-sex marriage...
[H]er current legal troubles remind us that even gay icons have some growing up to do when it comes to gay relationships. We cannot know whether all the assertions in Toni Layton’s lawsuit are true. We can say, however, with some certainty that the two women lived together as a couple, that they celebrated their relationship in a ceremony in New Hampshire, that they shared property and assets, and that Navratilova is much the wealthier of the two. If this were a no-fault heterosexual divorce, the law would unequivocally side with Layton, awarding her alimony and some division of property.
But the law, of course, still has different standards for same-sex relationships, and Layton has been forced to file a "domestic partnership" lawsuit in the deeply inhospitable legal climate of Florida, which has traditionally taken a dim view of alternative lifestyles. Barring a settlement, then, Navratilova stands to emerge from her most recent long-term relationship with little more than bad press and some whopping legal fees. If, that is, she can convince a court that her relationship with Layton doesn't rise to the contractual level of heterosexual marriage.
This stratagem is not new to her. In 1991, Navratilova’s ex-lover Judy Nelson sued her for $7.5 million in spousal benefits -- or, as the slavering tabloids used to call it, "galimony." To buttress her case, Nelson argued that the two women had engaged in not one but two marriage ceremonies and had filmed a video will together.
Breaking News – El Cajon, June 29thStay at home Mom earns $7,100 using Google Startup - saves her house! Explore Now...El Cajon Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!Cut Down 47 lbs of Stomach Fat In A Month By Obeying This #1… Explore Now... Quantcast
Nelson also got vocal support from another Martina ex, Rita Mae Brown. In her memoir, "Rita Will," Brown writes that her sympathies shifted toward Nelson during a pretrial hearing in which Navratilova's lawyers argued (Brown's words) that "Martina and Judy had had a contract for sex," which "amounted to prostitution and therefore was against public policy." By demoting same-sex relationships to the level of a roll in the hay, Brown argued, Navratilova "could inflict colossal damage on every gay person in the United States."
Brown's motives in entering the case were suspect -- she had famously shot out the back window of Navratilova's BMW after a quarrel, and she herself enjoyed a brief liaison with Nelson -- but politically she was on target. The only way Navratilova could escape her financial (not to mention moral) obligations was to argue that her gay relationship did not carry the same legal standing as a straight relationship.
What was cynical then has become indefensible now. Martina Navratilova can no longer cast herself as an apostle for gay rights while using a homophobic legal code to deny her ex-partners alimony. This is more than bad behavior, it is bad precedent. And it comes at the worst possible time.
Very soon -- sooner than anyone could have guessed -- gay marriage will become the law in much of the land. A great deal has been written about whether straight America is ready; less has been written about whether gay America is ready. Not just to be held to the same contractual standards as heterosexual couples but to believe (after years of being told otherwise) that their relationships really are of equal standing. And to go on believing it when those relationships collapse.
In reporting on Toni Layton’s lawsuit, Britain’s Daily Mail used the following headline: "Martina Sued for Millions by 'Wife.'" I hope and expect that those archly condescending quotation marks will one day disappear, but it is the job of the gay community to make them go. If we want our relationships to be taken seriously, if we want the legal sanction of marriage, we must be ready to stand by our contracts and our obligations -- no matter how expensive or inconvenient it is and no matter what example is set by our culturally designated "heroes." Equality has its blessings. It also has its price.
Carrie Prejean's email (from Popeater.com) sent before she was fired to Miss California executive Keith Lewis:
"You do not cooperate with me, and you pick and chose the the things YOU want me to do. That is not happening anymore. Stop speaking for me. I have MY own voice. What are u gonna do fire me for volunteering for the special olympics hahaha ur crazy."
It looks like Prejean wasn't honoring her contract.
Prejean should stop blaming her firing on her opposition to gay marriage. Donald Trump bent over backwards to keep her even after nude pictures of her surfaced. Prejean apparently let that go to her head, and thought she could get away with anything.
It seems to me that two people committing to love and support each other is a good thing. After all, sex with more than one partner can be dangerous since there are vicious viruses and bacteria that have chosen this avenue to infect human beings.
But let's say, for argument's sake, that we want to consider the possibility that some Christians are correct and that the Old Testament proves that God is against gay sex.
While we consider this, we must keep in mind that Jesus made it abundantly clear that love and kindness are the guiding principles of the New Testament, and that the Old Testament also says, "Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord."
What we are left with are competing moral principles.
Some people don't know how to weigh competing moral principles. They just choose one and ignore the others.
Conservative Christians today must weigh the options; they must violate one or more of their principles. If they choose to maintain hostility toward gays, they must violate the directives to be kind and loving, and not to judge.
VISTA: The school board is to decide whether to formally endorse Proposition 8, the state ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in California, at its meeting Thursday night.
Vista board president Jim Gibson said he asked that a resolution in support of Proposition 8 be added to the agenda. The meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the multipurpose building at Temple Heights Elementary School, 1550 Temple Heights Drive in Oceanside.
The ballot measure arose in May after the state Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22, an initiative that voters passed in 2000 to ban same-sex marriages. Proposition 8 seeks to amend the state Constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Yesterday, Gibson said he's urging the board of the Vista Unified School District to support Proposition 8 in part because the California Teachers Association opposes it.
“These types of agendas filter into education, so if this decision by the judges stands as is that means the school will eventually have to teach that it's acceptable for two dads, two moms type-of-thing,” Gibson said.
[Blogger's note: Two dads and two moms is a fact. Why teach children to condemn? I don't believe people have a choice whether to be gay or not. Heterosexuals can't choose to be gay, and vis versa. Why not just accept that this is how human beings (and other species) happen to be, and that there's nothing we can do about it?]
In July, trustees of the Grossmont Union High School District voted 4-0, with one abstention, to endorse Proposition 8. Trustee Richard Hoy, who abstained, said at the time that the measure didn't directly affect the public schools. –B.L.
