Rick Warren has finally condemned the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda. Previously he said, “It is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.” Since he has connections and weight with the pastors who are supporting this bill, Warren has been pretty much universally condemned for not saying something about it.
I think he realized how much it was hurting his image, so he’s finally condemned it. It’s written in the style of an epistle, like Paul used in the Bible. That’s kind of weird. But regardless, it’s good it’s finally said something.
While we can never deny or water down what God’s Word clearly teaches about sexuality, at the same time the church must stand to protect the dignity of all individuals – as Jesus did and commanded all of us to do.
Let me be clear that God’s Word states that all sex outside of marriage is not what God intends. Jesus reaffirmed what Moses wrote that marriage is intended to be between one man and one woman committed to each other for life. Jesus also taught us that the greatest commandment is to love our neighbors as ourselves. Since God created all, and Jesus suffered and died for all, then we are to treat all with respect. The Great Commandment has been the centerpiece of my life and ministry for over 35 years.
[T]he potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring the death penalty in some cases. If I am reading the proposed bill correctly, this law would also imprison anyone convicted of homosexual practice.
Second, the law would force pastors to report their pastoral conversations with homosexuals to authorities…. [Warren gives more reasons]
For these reasons, I urge you, the pastors of Uganda, to speak out against the proposed law.
It’s strange that a “moral leader” needed to be pressured into condemning something like this, but at least he did it. Hopefully some of those crazy pastors will listen to him.
Funny, in my discussions with my fundie friend, he has always maintained that all of God’s commandments are equally important. “Thou shall not kill” is just as important as “men should not lay with other men”.
Is the pastor actually saying that one of God’s commandments actually trumps the others? Is the pastor actually saying that to follow one of God’s commandments, you maybe actually breaking others? I thought willingly and knowingly breaking God’s commandments, any of them, is your express ticket to Hell.
“Let me be clear that God’s Word states that all sex outside of marriage is not what God intends. Jesus reaffirmed what Moses wrote that marriage is intended to be between one man and one woman committed to each other for life.” I don’t remember this part of the scriptures. Moses seems to have had at least two wives, the patriarchs had multiples, the great kings David and Solomon – whew – I’m running out of fingers and toes. And not just wives, but concubines as well. Of course there is also the David and Jonathan thing. Whereas Jesus advocated abandoning wife and children in order to follow him.
re: Agentsmith – in 1984 the Interlocuter reveals to Winston Smith that there are so many laws that you cannot obey some without breaking others. Then when you are caught, and Big Brother in his benevolence grants you clemency, you will be grateful to Big Brother. Maybe Orwell had read the bible before he wrote his book.
Hmmm. Might be more convincing if he wasn’t only saying it to save his own worthless hide.
It’s written in the style of an epistle, like Paul used in the Bible
That weirded me out when I read it. It’s also strange that he calls it an “encyclical.” I think he’s bought into too much of the evangelical hype around him.
I think he realized how much it was hurting his image, so he’s finally condemned it.
I think you’re probably correct there, but I also think that his condemnation of the legislation is 100% sincere. I know that others will disagree with that statement, but I think it’s pretty tough make a case on the contrary. Rick Warren may be a lot of things, but he’s not Fred Phelps.
No, you’re right, he’s not. But he also is against equal rights for gays, so he’s not terribly enlightened, either.
I think we sometimes underestimate the human mind’s capacity to produce mixed motivations. The idea that there is a homunculus in the brain orchestrating consistency is no longer valid. Hypocrisy persists, most likely, because motivation is not a united “single sourced” process. This fragmentation is one among many good reasons to use skeptical tools. All the more so when a person is likely to be in a position where several high value roles conflict. Warren is strongly motivated to protect both literalistic biblical hermeneutics and high profile prestige. His waffling on this potential Ugandan pogrom is the odious result.
Christians often talk about humility. How can these know-it-alls ever be considered humble? This man’s issuing of an epistle like document after first refusing to condemn the putrid Ugandan legislation demonstrates heartbreaking arrogance.
Most telling is the mistrust many of these know-it-alls show toward the best humility forcing process ever developed: scientific methodology. The same process that demonstrates the utter ubiquity of homosexuality.
“I think you’re probably correct there, but I also think that his condemnation of the legislation is 100% sincere.”
Even given that, being 100% sincere with the phrasing he uses doesn’t impress me much. “This bill should be rejected, because it is wrong to kill people,” no equivocation, would have impressed me. Not a roundabout thing about how being gay is bad, but killing gay people would be disrespectful, so that would break other laws.
I’m not sure about it being an “un-christian” law, but it’s certainly a very biblical law.
Funny how that works.
This is exactly what I thought.
Moses say that… where, exactly? I also don’t remember Jesus saying anything about marriage = XY + XX, but I could be wrong…
an implicit argument could be made for xy+xx from the passage where he is speaking the issue of divorce. Mark 10:1-12
So I found myself in a church the other day with a few minutes to kill so was flicking through a bible.
Check out Matthew 18:19-11. (I didn’t copy it down so this may be incorrect…)
It refers to men marrying, and goes on to mention that there are many reasons why men do not marry. Either because god made them that way, man made them that way, or they have to serve go and/or country.
Christians are more than happy to infer pretty much whatever they want to from the bible so this says to me that some men don’t get married because god made them gay.
Pretty cut and dried. Get behind me Satan!
I think you’re referring to the passage on eunuchs, right?
But eunuchs are not just men who are not married — they are men who have had their testicles removed.
I don’t know what version of the bible you are reading, but the Good News Bible makes no mention of eunuchs. Of course each bible seems to have different interpretations, maybe another reason why it shouldn’t be trusted?
” and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”
So… Jesus was proposing a solution for priests child molesters? They got it wrong, it wasn’t celibate, it was castration!!!
Just wondering in general here,but where in particular,and are their multiple passages that refer to it,is sex out of wedlock wrong? Historically at least,from my understanding, once you are betrothed/engaged to a man or woman sex is fine and dandy specifically among the Jewish people(and this was also eventually carried forward to Christians during the low,middle,and high ‘middle ages’ from roughly at least 900 to 1700 AD). Consider if you will that both faiths(not going to even attempt to parse the various sects or offshoots of either) had a imperative to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ as well as having doctrinarian problems with divorce, this time period,the betrothal/engagement often served as a proving ground for the impending marriage as to weather or not these two could get along once the wedding happened and to find out if both were actually fertile(granted that this period was not always treated this way,but it was the original point of the betrothal/engagement..leaving out financial issues), it is also most likely the reason for annulments coming into being as thinking on marriage developed.
I also really wish everything Paul wrote/said was tossed from the bible wholesale his input is probably the most ridiculously misagonistic passages within the bible,he even suggested that laying with a women was sinful and should be avoided it almost seems he wanted the whole faith which he created mostly,not Christ or the original apostles, but Paul(who is really the basis for the church and Christianity more so than anything else) wanted/hoped/expected there would be only one generation after himself before the end of the world…..yet he dominates the thinking of all Christians. He is the first fundementalist and the one they all tie themselves to via their thoughts and actions.