Tuesday, September 4, 2012
We've Moved!
We're now blogging on our church website (and I'm not sure how to delete this blog!) so if you want to keep up, please visit www.parkroadbaptist.org/blog/. Thanks!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
A Few Thoughts about Health Care
Even as I type, the Supreme Court is discussing the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (derided as “Obamacare”) and whether or not the United State’s most extensive foray into national coverage is constitutionally defensible. This is a fascinating happening – the High Court spending an unprecedented amount of time deliberating on an issue of critical import to a sitting U.S. President (his accomplishments, his future…) in an election year. You could hardly write a better storyline! But there’s more than the intrigue of a complex partisan politics. The “more” is the actual politics, which is to say, the people (“politics,” from “polis” = “people”).
In all of our nation’s difficult issues, from gay rights to gun rights, from immigration to war to health care, “the people” get lost in the shuffle. We argue partisanship, mostly fighting for votes, and the politics (the actual people) get lost in the dust. So it is with the great healthcare debate.
The basic issue the health of America’s people. 50 million Americans are now estimated to have no coverage. Imagine how you would feel. Our family rarely uses a dime of our insurance, thank God for good health, but I’m not sure I could sleep without it (mostly concerned for my children). The issue isn’t who’s going to pay for it. The issue is people. The health of people is the issue. Don’t we care? Shouldn’t we care – especially about the “last and the least”? We’ll get to the money in a minute – but the issue is people.
“In the days ahead, we will be called upon often to take the age-old moral test of a society – the test which measures how we treat those in the dawn of life – the children; those in the twilight of life – the elderly; and those in the shadow of life – the sick, the needy, and the differently-abled” (www.faithfulreform.org). The age-old moral test. Though we are the most prosperous nation in human history, in so many ways the most successful and advanced, I’m not sure the U.S. is passing the moral test. Are we? Over one percent of our total population is now in prison, and 50 million (15%) are not protected from crippling catastrophe, because they have no health insurance – mostly because they cannot afford it, and many of these are among the “last and the least” in our society (who could also least afford it, should a tragedy strike).
The argument is made by some that health care is a privilege – not a right – and I could not agree more! The sad thing for me is that we live in a country which has the ability and the means to provide this privilege to all – we just don’t have the compassion or the moral conviction to do so. (Even if the Supreme Court leaves the law in tact, we’re far from embracing universal care.)
Now, if you need a financial incentive, and it seems that we do, for everything (does it always have to be about the money?), let’s be reminded that we actually do have “universal coverage” in this country. Thank God we are at least compassionate enough to turn no one away from the Emergency Room. But what that means is that we’re paying ER prices to treat lots of un-insured cases of the common cold. What a bargain. The idea of universal coverage was actually a conservative proposal – because it made more sense, financially, to provide coverage to all, since the taxpayers were going to end up paying the bill (for all) anyway
If you’re Republican and fuming over my words, please don’t. Nothing I write is about partisan politics. Read David Brooks’ excellent Op Ed in today’s Observer. The conservative commentator says “universal coverage” is very valid – he just doesn’t like the way we’re going about it. Now, that’s the argument – not whether the richest nation in the world can care for our citizens, just how is the most effective way for us to do so. The bottom line for people of Christian faith is that we ought to have the moral compunction and Christ’s compassion (who healed the sick) to WANT to do so. The issue is people.
For my part, I hope “Obamacare” stays – and I will pray for Republicans and Democrats (and even Ron Paul!) that our leaders will learn to work together – and work out the best way for us to take of the “least of these” around us. It’s about people.
In all of our nation’s difficult issues, from gay rights to gun rights, from immigration to war to health care, “the people” get lost in the shuffle. We argue partisanship, mostly fighting for votes, and the politics (the actual people) get lost in the dust. So it is with the great healthcare debate.
The basic issue the health of America’s people. 50 million Americans are now estimated to have no coverage. Imagine how you would feel. Our family rarely uses a dime of our insurance, thank God for good health, but I’m not sure I could sleep without it (mostly concerned for my children). The issue isn’t who’s going to pay for it. The issue is people. The health of people is the issue. Don’t we care? Shouldn’t we care – especially about the “last and the least”? We’ll get to the money in a minute – but the issue is people.
“In the days ahead, we will be called upon often to take the age-old moral test of a society – the test which measures how we treat those in the dawn of life – the children; those in the twilight of life – the elderly; and those in the shadow of life – the sick, the needy, and the differently-abled” (www.faithfulreform.org). The age-old moral test. Though we are the most prosperous nation in human history, in so many ways the most successful and advanced, I’m not sure the U.S. is passing the moral test. Are we? Over one percent of our total population is now in prison, and 50 million (15%) are not protected from crippling catastrophe, because they have no health insurance – mostly because they cannot afford it, and many of these are among the “last and the least” in our society (who could also least afford it, should a tragedy strike).
The argument is made by some that health care is a privilege – not a right – and I could not agree more! The sad thing for me is that we live in a country which has the ability and the means to provide this privilege to all – we just don’t have the compassion or the moral conviction to do so. (Even if the Supreme Court leaves the law in tact, we’re far from embracing universal care.)
Now, if you need a financial incentive, and it seems that we do, for everything (does it always have to be about the money?), let’s be reminded that we actually do have “universal coverage” in this country. Thank God we are at least compassionate enough to turn no one away from the Emergency Room. But what that means is that we’re paying ER prices to treat lots of un-insured cases of the common cold. What a bargain. The idea of universal coverage was actually a conservative proposal – because it made more sense, financially, to provide coverage to all, since the taxpayers were going to end up paying the bill (for all) anyway
If you’re Republican and fuming over my words, please don’t. Nothing I write is about partisan politics. Read David Brooks’ excellent Op Ed in today’s Observer. The conservative commentator says “universal coverage” is very valid – he just doesn’t like the way we’re going about it. Now, that’s the argument – not whether the richest nation in the world can care for our citizens, just how is the most effective way for us to do so. The bottom line for people of Christian faith is that we ought to have the moral compunction and Christ’s compassion (who healed the sick) to WANT to do so. The issue is people.
For my part, I hope “Obamacare” stays – and I will pray for Republicans and Democrats (and even Ron Paul!) that our leaders will learn to work together – and work out the best way for us to take of the “least of these” around us. It’s about people.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Why Rachel Should Stay in Church
Lately Amy has been reading the work of author and blogger Rachel Held Evans. In a recent post, she gave the 15 reasons she left the church. I wanted to respond to Rachel -- because there are TOO MANY people who leave for these reasons. And I want to say to you all, -- Oh, "Rachel"... come to PRBC, please! We are NOT the church you left, and we are here just for people like you.
Here are her 15 reasons, and my responses:
1. I left the church because I’m better at planning Bible studies than baby showers...but they only wanted me to plan baby showers.
This IS a temptation of the Church, Rachel, to ask you to be more involved in social events than in actually being the Church -- but to be honest, the Church has often turned to these kinds of tactics, because people say they want to "know the Bible," but they aren't willing to actually READY the Bible (much less study it!) We'd love to have you come start a Bible study for us. We'll leave the baby showers to the experts.
2. I left the church because when we talked about sin, we mostly talked about sex.
I think Amy and I have preached exacly one sermon about sex in 11 years... and the only sin mentioned is that we appreciate sex too little and understand it only as a physical act, and not the spiritual experience it should be. (No, no anti-abortion rallies here, and no anti-gay marriage messages from our pulpit.)
3. I left the church because my questions were seen as liabilities.
Someone once asked a rabbi a deep question of faith, and was impatient when the rabbi didn't give an immediate answer. They pressed him, and he finally responded, "That question is way too good for an answer!" Now that's the Church. Come join us. I promise you, your questions (all of them), will be affirmed. (Though you may not get any answers!)
4. I left the church because sometimes it felt like a cult, or a country club, and I wasn’t sure which was worse.
I'm not sure if PRBC feels like a Country Club or not. Sometimes I do worry that the closeness and fellowship this community feels sends an insider/outsider message... it's worth pondering. But cult... no way.
5. I left the church because I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that humans share a common ancestor with apes, which I was told was incompatible with my faith.
Our sermons on the topic actually affirm a FOURTEEN and a half billion year project, which has randomly produced human beings, who randomly develop self-consciousness, and (maybe not-so-randomly) sense the presence of the Divine. Amazing. And, by the way, thanks be to God for Curious George (what a great first cousin!)
6. I left the church because sometimes I doubt, and church can be the worst place to doubt.
The Roman Catholic theologian, Hans Kung, has said that there is more faith in honest doubt than in any unthinking recital of the creed. Or, as one father said, "Lord, I believe... help thou my unbelief" (Mark 9.24). Welcome home, Rachel!
7. I left the church because I didn’t want to be anyone’s “project.”
I don't quite understand this one, but Park Road Baptist Church affirms the inherent worth of all people, inherently. I guess we're all projects... but God's projects, and in community together.
8. I left the church because it was often assumed that everyone in the congregation voted for Republicans.
This is one of the tragedies of the evangelical church -- the comical belief that the complete will of the God of the Universe could actually be contained in one of America's (so obviously sinful) political parties! Welcome to PRBC... where Democrats and Republicans, Independents and a few Libertarians -- all get to complain from time to time that the sermons are "too political"!
9. I left the church because I felt like I was the only one troubled by stories of violence and misogyny and genocide found in the Bible, and I was tired of people telling me not to worry about it because “God’s ways are higher than our ways.”
God's ways ARE higher than our ways. And this has what to do with being concerned about a text that has become sacred even with its inherent prejudices? The Bible says, "Iron sharpens iron," and Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, but I say to you..." Scripture interprets scripture, and if we keep listening, God will continue to bring "yet more light" to that sacred word.
10. I left the church because of my own selfishness and pride.
Thanks for being honest about your sinfulness. You'd be in good company with us.
11. I left the church because I knew I would never see a woman behind the pulpit, at least not in the congregation in which I grew up.
Rachel, let me introduce you to Rev. Amy Jacks Dean, "Pastor #1"! Like most of the best preachers I know... she's a WOMAN.
12. I left the church because I wanted to help people in my community without feeling pressure to convert them to Christianity.
And let me introduce you to Dr. Maria Hanlin, who directs Mecklenburg Ministries, Charlotte's interfaith organization, whose office is on our campus. Many days, you're as likely to run into a woman in a hijab at PRBC, as a Baptist. (As I said, "Yet more light..." to that sacred word!)
13. I left the church because I had learned more from Oprah about addressing poverty and injustice than I had learned from 25 years of Sunday school.
Yes, the Church has focused entirely too much on "saving souls" -- and though we are hardly doing all we need to be, PRBCs vision focuses our mission as a "social gospel." Did I say we could use someone to spend the night with our homeless guests at our next Family Promise rotation? Call the church office to sign up (704-523-5717).
14. I left the church because there are days when I’m not sure I believe in God, and no one told me that “dark nights of the soul” can be part of the faith experience.
If Mother Teresa can doubt... I think your questions are safe. "Help, thou my unbelief..." Just this past Wednesday night, our discussion centered around Brian McLaren's season of "perplexity" (Nake Spirituality) -- and we spoke specifically, and at length, of that "dark night of the soul." Did I say, welcome home!?
15. I left the church because one day, they put signs out in the church lawn that said “Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman: Vote Yes on Prop 1,” and I knew the moment I saw them that I never wanted to come back.Please see my three blog posts just prior to this one, and join us Sunday, as we join with 30 other Charlotte churches in expressing our concern for NC's movement to adopt a so-called "marriage amendment," defining marriage between "one man and one woman" as "the only legally recognized" union in the state.
***
If anyone knows Rachel, please send her an email inviting her to Park Road Baptist Church. She may not find it the community of faith she is looking for -- but she won't leave it for the same reasons she left "the church."
And, there are WAY TOO MANY RACHELS in the world. And way too many in Charlotte.
So, to any of you who may be reading... PLEASE give me a call. I'll be glad to give you 15 reasons to stay in the Church! (PRBC is at 3900 Park Road if you just want to see for yourself.)
Here are her 15 reasons, and my responses:
1. I left the church because I’m better at planning Bible studies than baby showers...but they only wanted me to plan baby showers.
This IS a temptation of the Church, Rachel, to ask you to be more involved in social events than in actually being the Church -- but to be honest, the Church has often turned to these kinds of tactics, because people say they want to "know the Bible," but they aren't willing to actually READY the Bible (much less study it!) We'd love to have you come start a Bible study for us. We'll leave the baby showers to the experts.
2. I left the church because when we talked about sin, we mostly talked about sex.
I think Amy and I have preached exacly one sermon about sex in 11 years... and the only sin mentioned is that we appreciate sex too little and understand it only as a physical act, and not the spiritual experience it should be. (No, no anti-abortion rallies here, and no anti-gay marriage messages from our pulpit.)
3. I left the church because my questions were seen as liabilities.
Someone once asked a rabbi a deep question of faith, and was impatient when the rabbi didn't give an immediate answer. They pressed him, and he finally responded, "That question is way too good for an answer!" Now that's the Church. Come join us. I promise you, your questions (all of them), will be affirmed. (Though you may not get any answers!)
4. I left the church because sometimes it felt like a cult, or a country club, and I wasn’t sure which was worse.
I'm not sure if PRBC feels like a Country Club or not. Sometimes I do worry that the closeness and fellowship this community feels sends an insider/outsider message... it's worth pondering. But cult... no way.
5. I left the church because I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that humans share a common ancestor with apes, which I was told was incompatible with my faith.
Our sermons on the topic actually affirm a FOURTEEN and a half billion year project, which has randomly produced human beings, who randomly develop self-consciousness, and (maybe not-so-randomly) sense the presence of the Divine. Amazing. And, by the way, thanks be to God for Curious George (what a great first cousin!)
6. I left the church because sometimes I doubt, and church can be the worst place to doubt.
The Roman Catholic theologian, Hans Kung, has said that there is more faith in honest doubt than in any unthinking recital of the creed. Or, as one father said, "Lord, I believe... help thou my unbelief" (Mark 9.24). Welcome home, Rachel!
7. I left the church because I didn’t want to be anyone’s “project.”
I don't quite understand this one, but Park Road Baptist Church affirms the inherent worth of all people, inherently. I guess we're all projects... but God's projects, and in community together.
8. I left the church because it was often assumed that everyone in the congregation voted for Republicans.
This is one of the tragedies of the evangelical church -- the comical belief that the complete will of the God of the Universe could actually be contained in one of America's (so obviously sinful) political parties! Welcome to PRBC... where Democrats and Republicans, Independents and a few Libertarians -- all get to complain from time to time that the sermons are "too political"!
9. I left the church because I felt like I was the only one troubled by stories of violence and misogyny and genocide found in the Bible, and I was tired of people telling me not to worry about it because “God’s ways are higher than our ways.”
God's ways ARE higher than our ways. And this has what to do with being concerned about a text that has become sacred even with its inherent prejudices? The Bible says, "Iron sharpens iron," and Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, but I say to you..." Scripture interprets scripture, and if we keep listening, God will continue to bring "yet more light" to that sacred word.
10. I left the church because of my own selfishness and pride.
Thanks for being honest about your sinfulness. You'd be in good company with us.
11. I left the church because I knew I would never see a woman behind the pulpit, at least not in the congregation in which I grew up.
Rachel, let me introduce you to Rev. Amy Jacks Dean, "Pastor #1"! Like most of the best preachers I know... she's a WOMAN.
12. I left the church because I wanted to help people in my community without feeling pressure to convert them to Christianity.
And let me introduce you to Dr. Maria Hanlin, who directs Mecklenburg Ministries, Charlotte's interfaith organization, whose office is on our campus. Many days, you're as likely to run into a woman in a hijab at PRBC, as a Baptist. (As I said, "Yet more light..." to that sacred word!)
13. I left the church because I had learned more from Oprah about addressing poverty and injustice than I had learned from 25 years of Sunday school.
Yes, the Church has focused entirely too much on "saving souls" -- and though we are hardly doing all we need to be, PRBCs vision focuses our mission as a "social gospel." Did I say we could use someone to spend the night with our homeless guests at our next Family Promise rotation? Call the church office to sign up (704-523-5717).
14. I left the church because there are days when I’m not sure I believe in God, and no one told me that “dark nights of the soul” can be part of the faith experience.
If Mother Teresa can doubt... I think your questions are safe. "Help, thou my unbelief..." Just this past Wednesday night, our discussion centered around Brian McLaren's season of "perplexity" (Nake Spirituality) -- and we spoke specifically, and at length, of that "dark night of the soul." Did I say, welcome home!?
15. I left the church because one day, they put signs out in the church lawn that said “Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman: Vote Yes on Prop 1,” and I knew the moment I saw them that I never wanted to come back.Please see my three blog posts just prior to this one, and join us Sunday, as we join with 30 other Charlotte churches in expressing our concern for NC's movement to adopt a so-called "marriage amendment," defining marriage between "one man and one woman" as "the only legally recognized" union in the state.
***
If anyone knows Rachel, please send her an email inviting her to Park Road Baptist Church. She may not find it the community of faith she is looking for -- but she won't leave it for the same reasons she left "the church."
And, there are WAY TOO MANY RACHELS in the world. And way too many in Charlotte.
So, to any of you who may be reading... PLEASE give me a call. I'll be glad to give you 15 reasons to stay in the Church! (PRBC is at 3900 Park Road if you just want to see for yourself.)
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
A Baptist Response - Part 3
***
WHEREAS, The Marriage Amendment will also prevent granting a legal status to or legal recognition of marriage substitutes, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions.
RESPONSE:
One of the concerns of opponents of the amendment is that it restricts basic rights –and not only the rights of homosexuals. According to the amendment’s wording cohabitating heterosexuals would also be denied legal status, which might result in the denial of partner/spousal benefits for insurance, or the transfer of benefits in death. In several settings I have heard proponents of the amendment vigorously deny that such actions will occur. They simply insist that the amendment will NOT be interpreted in this way. So I find it humorous that NC Baptists take the exact opposite tact. Not only might the amendment deny status – it should, in fact, do so! They see this as one of the strengths of the amendment! And this seems to me a sad admission of the Church – having lost the battle discouraging/prohibiting cohabitation, the Church now turns to the State, hoping the state will legislate a morality that the church cannot attain through the personal commitment and conviction of its members.
***
WHEREAS, marriage being a man-woman institution structured for procreation is a universal social reality regardless of religious affiliation, Christian citizens defending marriage in secular law are defending what is best for everyone and not merely what we prefer for ourselves.
RESPONSE:
Procreation seems intrinsic to NC Baptists' definition of marriage. It simply should be acknowledged that neither is marriage required for procreation nor procreation required for marriage. I have no issue with the defense of marriage. We should defend and promote and protect and celebrate marriage. But an amendment to a state constitution to define what constitutes marriage cannot and will not do this. The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate makes them no different in this regard from the many Christian heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children.
IN CONCLUSION:
The resolution from the NC Baptist State Convention lacks convincing logic, and it contains language that alienates and offends any who fall outside the statistical “norm” (such as heterosexual Christian couples who cannot have children). Should the amendment pass, while changing nothing regarding gay marriage in the state, it will potentially jeopardize the safety and security of children, and will create an atmosphere which will foster the persecution of homosexual persons.
Since Southern Baptists are still fighting against women’s roles in church and society it should surprise no one that they also oppose an inclusive view of the homosexual’s role in church and society. But time, and the slow march of truth, will not retreat for Christians who hold these views. I appreciate the strength of Southern Baptists’ conviction, their dedication to their views – but a cursory view of human history should be enough to convince them of the fallacy of clinging to a past which was once understood as divinely instituted. To sound that drum again, the subjugation of women and the oppression of blacks are just two of the recent, sad examples of the Church defending as “ordained of God” a view that the progression of time and truth proved erroneous. I intend to be part of a Church that is inspired by God’s always-progressive Spirit, a Spirit that is forward-moving and forward-looking – ever open to new light that God will continue to reveal to us and through us. Defeating the so-called “marriage amendment” would signify a movement in this direction.
WHEREAS, The Marriage Amendment will also prevent granting a legal status to or legal recognition of marriage substitutes, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions.
RESPONSE:
One of the concerns of opponents of the amendment is that it restricts basic rights –and not only the rights of homosexuals. According to the amendment’s wording cohabitating heterosexuals would also be denied legal status, which might result in the denial of partner/spousal benefits for insurance, or the transfer of benefits in death. In several settings I have heard proponents of the amendment vigorously deny that such actions will occur. They simply insist that the amendment will NOT be interpreted in this way. So I find it humorous that NC Baptists take the exact opposite tact. Not only might the amendment deny status – it should, in fact, do so! They see this as one of the strengths of the amendment! And this seems to me a sad admission of the Church – having lost the battle discouraging/prohibiting cohabitation, the Church now turns to the State, hoping the state will legislate a morality that the church cannot attain through the personal commitment and conviction of its members.
***
WHEREAS, marriage being a man-woman institution structured for procreation is a universal social reality regardless of religious affiliation, Christian citizens defending marriage in secular law are defending what is best for everyone and not merely what we prefer for ourselves.
RESPONSE:
Procreation seems intrinsic to NC Baptists' definition of marriage. It simply should be acknowledged that neither is marriage required for procreation nor procreation required for marriage. I have no issue with the defense of marriage. We should defend and promote and protect and celebrate marriage. But an amendment to a state constitution to define what constitutes marriage cannot and will not do this. The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate makes them no different in this regard from the many Christian heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children.
IN CONCLUSION:
The resolution from the NC Baptist State Convention lacks convincing logic, and it contains language that alienates and offends any who fall outside the statistical “norm” (such as heterosexual Christian couples who cannot have children). Should the amendment pass, while changing nothing regarding gay marriage in the state, it will potentially jeopardize the safety and security of children, and will create an atmosphere which will foster the persecution of homosexual persons.
Since Southern Baptists are still fighting against women’s roles in church and society it should surprise no one that they also oppose an inclusive view of the homosexual’s role in church and society. But time, and the slow march of truth, will not retreat for Christians who hold these views. I appreciate the strength of Southern Baptists’ conviction, their dedication to their views – but a cursory view of human history should be enough to convince them of the fallacy of clinging to a past which was once understood as divinely instituted. To sound that drum again, the subjugation of women and the oppression of blacks are just two of the recent, sad examples of the Church defending as “ordained of God” a view that the progression of time and truth proved erroneous. I intend to be part of a Church that is inspired by God’s always-progressive Spirit, a Spirit that is forward-moving and forward-looking – ever open to new light that God will continue to reveal to us and through us. Defeating the so-called “marriage amendment” would signify a movement in this direction.
A Baptist Response - Part 2
***
WHEREAS, Protecting marriage as the union between one man and one woman is critically important to preserving the family, our children, the repopulation and economic viability of North Carolina, and North Carolina’s reputation as one of the best states in the nation in which to work and live; and
RESPONSE:
It is unclear to me how any definition of marriage can “preserve the family” and “our children.” At this level the amendment is simply dishonest, and I believe those who support it know that. In a recent dialogue concerning the amendment, a Southern Baptist minister quoted statistics regarding divorce, admitting that the statistics show little difference to marriages in and out of religious homes. I asked him how he expected that statistic to improve if the amendment passed. With no hesitation he replied, “Oh… I don’t expect the amendment will change the rate of divorce much, if any.” When I pointed out that this admission effectively gutted his argument (since the protection of the family is essentially the reason to defend the amendment) he could not respond. Purely from the standpoint of logic the amendment makes no sense. Regardless your feelings about homosexuality or “marriage substitutes” there is NOTHING that can happen within anyone else’s home, or within their bedroom, that could have ANY effect on my marriage. A comedian noted this failure of logic, quipping, “The Church hardly needs to worry about homosexuals destroying their marriages – heterosexuals are doing that all by themselves!”
If its proponents were truly interested to defending, protecting, or strengthening marriage, the amendment might seek to outlaw divorce, or make it legally punishable to have an extramarital affair. Those actions would have much more affect on the state of marriage in the state of NC than the proposed amendment.
The indication that the purpose of marriage is “repopulation” is an insult to couples who choose not to bear children, not to mention an added burden of guilt and shame to those who cannot. (I believe children benefit most when raised by loving parents – though marriage is hardly a requirement for “repopulating” the state!)
The argument for or against economic viability is being hotly contested, though it should be acknowledged than a number of business organizations and some of North Carolina’s largest corporations have expressed concern that approving the amendment will harm the business climate of the state. Perhaps it says enough to simply quote Bill James, County Commissioner in Mecklenburg County. Referring to homosexuals James said, “We don’t want them here!” Or, when seeking to answer the question of economic viability, perhaps we should just use common sense and imagine the perspective of a homosexual individual or couple (perhaps a couple legally married in one of the states that now allows gay marriage) considering moving to a state which legally denies their partnership. Would you move to NC?
***
WHEREAS, While current North Carolina statutory law does not recognize so-called same sex marriage, our marriage statue could be overtuned or redefined by a liberal, activist judge or future legislatures; and
WHEREAS, Courts and legislatures have actually forced other states to legalize same sex marriage contrary to the will of the people; and
WHEREAS, Same-sex couples have already begun to apply for marriage licenses in North Carolina in order to contest our marriage statures; and
RESPONSE:
This “Chicken Little” logic has no place in any thoughtful discussion. Some judge in some future might, in fact, make some decision, and it might affect homosexuals… or heterosexuals… men or women… etc… And if the amendment passes, some judge might make a decision to release prisoners of domestic violence because their crime against an ex-partner can no longer be defined as domestic – since that relationship, by law, no longer meets the requirement of a legally recognized union. (This is not a Chicken Little scenario. This actually happened in the state of Ohio, after passing a similar amendment.) Legislating people’s fears is a dangerous precedent.
National polls consistently show that attitudes toward homosexuality are continuing to change – decidedly in the direction of accepting and affirming homosexuals. Recent polls in North Carolina Polls have shown a majority of citizens expressing open views of homosexuals, and favoring some form of legal recognition for homosexual partnerships. So, isn’t the action of the amendment essentially what the backers are arguing against? (i.e. a legal action that goes against the will of the majority?)
Same-sex marriage is now legal in eight states and the District of Columbia. It is inevitable that states will be required to recognize these already legal relationships, when married partners cross state lines. The arc of progress has never reversed course, and it will not do so in regards to the majority view on homosexuality. The treatment of African Americans and women are only the most recent examples of such progress. In one era the subjugation or oppression of these groups was considered God-ordained and, therefore, was ensconced into law. But what American Christian today would deny a woman’s right to vote, or deny that African-Americans are fully human, not just fully American?
***
WHEREAS, The Marriage Amendment will recognize the pre-existing institution of marriage by making it part of the North Carolina Constitution, placing it beyond the power of a court or future legislatures to redefine or overturn; and
RESPONSE:
Again, why is the State needed to intervene in a Church matter? Our forebears, who established Baptist principles unwavering in religious freedom and church/state separation, would find this movement fundamentally counter to their convictions.
WHEREAS, Protecting marriage as the union between one man and one woman is critically important to preserving the family, our children, the repopulation and economic viability of North Carolina, and North Carolina’s reputation as one of the best states in the nation in which to work and live; and
RESPONSE:
It is unclear to me how any definition of marriage can “preserve the family” and “our children.” At this level the amendment is simply dishonest, and I believe those who support it know that. In a recent dialogue concerning the amendment, a Southern Baptist minister quoted statistics regarding divorce, admitting that the statistics show little difference to marriages in and out of religious homes. I asked him how he expected that statistic to improve if the amendment passed. With no hesitation he replied, “Oh… I don’t expect the amendment will change the rate of divorce much, if any.” When I pointed out that this admission effectively gutted his argument (since the protection of the family is essentially the reason to defend the amendment) he could not respond. Purely from the standpoint of logic the amendment makes no sense. Regardless your feelings about homosexuality or “marriage substitutes” there is NOTHING that can happen within anyone else’s home, or within their bedroom, that could have ANY effect on my marriage. A comedian noted this failure of logic, quipping, “The Church hardly needs to worry about homosexuals destroying their marriages – heterosexuals are doing that all by themselves!”
If its proponents were truly interested to defending, protecting, or strengthening marriage, the amendment might seek to outlaw divorce, or make it legally punishable to have an extramarital affair. Those actions would have much more affect on the state of marriage in the state of NC than the proposed amendment.
The indication that the purpose of marriage is “repopulation” is an insult to couples who choose not to bear children, not to mention an added burden of guilt and shame to those who cannot. (I believe children benefit most when raised by loving parents – though marriage is hardly a requirement for “repopulating” the state!)
The argument for or against economic viability is being hotly contested, though it should be acknowledged than a number of business organizations and some of North Carolina’s largest corporations have expressed concern that approving the amendment will harm the business climate of the state. Perhaps it says enough to simply quote Bill James, County Commissioner in Mecklenburg County. Referring to homosexuals James said, “We don’t want them here!” Or, when seeking to answer the question of economic viability, perhaps we should just use common sense and imagine the perspective of a homosexual individual or couple (perhaps a couple legally married in one of the states that now allows gay marriage) considering moving to a state which legally denies their partnership. Would you move to NC?
***
WHEREAS, While current North Carolina statutory law does not recognize so-called same sex marriage, our marriage statue could be overtuned or redefined by a liberal, activist judge or future legislatures; and
WHEREAS, Courts and legislatures have actually forced other states to legalize same sex marriage contrary to the will of the people; and
WHEREAS, Same-sex couples have already begun to apply for marriage licenses in North Carolina in order to contest our marriage statures; and
RESPONSE:
This “Chicken Little” logic has no place in any thoughtful discussion. Some judge in some future might, in fact, make some decision, and it might affect homosexuals… or heterosexuals… men or women… etc… And if the amendment passes, some judge might make a decision to release prisoners of domestic violence because their crime against an ex-partner can no longer be defined as domestic – since that relationship, by law, no longer meets the requirement of a legally recognized union. (This is not a Chicken Little scenario. This actually happened in the state of Ohio, after passing a similar amendment.) Legislating people’s fears is a dangerous precedent.
National polls consistently show that attitudes toward homosexuality are continuing to change – decidedly in the direction of accepting and affirming homosexuals. Recent polls in North Carolina Polls have shown a majority of citizens expressing open views of homosexuals, and favoring some form of legal recognition for homosexual partnerships. So, isn’t the action of the amendment essentially what the backers are arguing against? (i.e. a legal action that goes against the will of the majority?)
Same-sex marriage is now legal in eight states and the District of Columbia. It is inevitable that states will be required to recognize these already legal relationships, when married partners cross state lines. The arc of progress has never reversed course, and it will not do so in regards to the majority view on homosexuality. The treatment of African Americans and women are only the most recent examples of such progress. In one era the subjugation or oppression of these groups was considered God-ordained and, therefore, was ensconced into law. But what American Christian today would deny a woman’s right to vote, or deny that African-Americans are fully human, not just fully American?
***
WHEREAS, The Marriage Amendment will recognize the pre-existing institution of marriage by making it part of the North Carolina Constitution, placing it beyond the power of a court or future legislatures to redefine or overturn; and
RESPONSE:
Again, why is the State needed to intervene in a Church matter? Our forebears, who established Baptist principles unwavering in religious freedom and church/state separation, would find this movement fundamentally counter to their convictions.
A Baptist Response to a Baptist Resolution
In 2011 fall convocation of the NC Baptist State Convention, a resolution was passed in support of the so-called "marriage amendment" to the NC State Constitution. I have written a rather lengthy response to this resolution. I will include my entire response, but since it is so lengthy, I will break it into three separate blog posts.
A Baptist Response to a
Resolution Supporting the Proposed “Marriage Amendment”
to the North Carolina State Constitution
Russ Dean, January, 2012
The full text of a resolution, approved by messengers in the annual meeting of the Baptist State Convention of NC (fall of 2011), is printed below. I have no particular grievance with the BSC of NC. I am choosing to respond to their resolution only because it provides a venue to voice all of my concerns about the amendment.
My opposition to the amendment is not based on its impact relative to homosexuality. The treatment of homosexuals, however, especially should the amendment carry, is a serious concern, so I will respond as appropriate to statements in the resolution which denigrate homosexuals. My overriding concern is simply the way the amendment is framed and the overarching logic being used to support its passage. My responses will highlight the faulty logic and the non-sequiturs that are often employed in a “biblical justification” for marriage and against homosexuality. (My comments are interspersed between each “whereas” of the resolution.)
***
WHEREAS, In the first primary election of 2012, North Carolina will hold a statewide referendum on a proposed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that recognizes marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
RESPONSE
Though it is preferable that the referendum on the amendment not be tied to the presidential election in the fall of 2012, it is not to be denied that the action of the NC Baptist convention is explicitly political, and the work of the NC legislature explicitly manipulative of religion for political purpose. Baptists should always decry the abuse of religion for political purpose and the dependence on politics for religious purpose.
An issue of key importance, and a critical concern of the opponents of the amendment, is the wording of the amendment – which does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman. The wording of the amendment goes much beyond a defining of marriage when it says “[the amendment is] to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state” (emphasis added). The concern should be self-evident, but will be explicitly stated, below.
***
WHEREAS From the beginning, the Bible established the basis for sexuality by declaring that human being are created in God’s image as “male and female” (Genesis 1.26-27); and
RESPONSE:
Yes. God created them male and female – but what does this have to do with homosexuality, heterosexuality, marriage, or other “marriage substitutes”? Homosexual people are male or female just as heterosexuals are. Homosexuality does not deny the gender base of the creation narrative. Females are made in the image of God, as are males, whether married or single, homosexual or heterosexual.
***
WHEREAS Marriage originated from God, established in the order of creation to be a permanent union of one man with one woman (Genesis 12.28 and 2.24); and God ordained that “a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2.24); and marriage is therefore first and foremost a divine institution (Matthew 19.6) and is only recognized as a cultural and civil institution having a pre-existing definition; and
WHEREAS, Jesus reaffirmed the origin of marriage in the order of creation and declared marriage to be a sacred, monogamous, and life-long institution joining one man with one woman (Matthew 19.4-6); and
WHEREAS, Marriage between a husband and a wife is the beautiful allegory of Christ’s union with his bride, the church (Ephesians 5.25-32), and the sacredness of it must be protected; and
RESPONSE:
There should be no doubt that marriage is sacred. There should be no doubt that the Bible affirms that when a man chooses to be married, he clings to his wife in a mystical union beautifully imaged as “one flesh.” But what does “a permanent union” mean? Many Christians have come to recognize that divorce is an unfortunate fact of life, regardless the religious commitment of those who enter marriage. Most marriages (as the statistics now show) end in divorce. To base an understanding of marriage on such a woodenly-literal interpretation is to implicate the majority of Christian marriages in a condemning fashion. This part of the resolution upholds a view of marriage that is pristine – and while ideals are important for us – the failure to recognize the reality of marriage in its current context compounds the heartbreak of a failed relationship by adding to it the judgment of God. I make this point to show that the resolution fails to recognize the state of marriage in its current context. (Anyone who might object, claiming the timelessness of God’s truth, need only be reminded that not so long ago in the state of NC there was hardly a Christian to be found who did not believe slavery was an institution ordained of God, and ensconced in the timelessness of God’s Truth, i.e., in the literal words of scripture.)
The resolution shows little recognition that the Bible hardly endorses “marriage” as envisioned by NC Baptists. The nuclear family was hardly the norm in biblical context, and we are hard-pressed to find in the Bible a marriage which follows that definition (one mother, one father, and children born to these parents). To cite only two examples, polygamy was the norm in much of the ancient world, and “levirate marriage” was a common practice (taking the widow of a deceased brother as one’s wife – regardless how many other wives a man had). I believe in the nuclear family, and I support traditional marriage (“traditional” by our definition!), but it is unfair to the text to impose on the biblical text the imagery and cultural understandings of the 21st century Western world.
While the Bible clearly endorses the relationship between a man and a woman, there is nothing in Genesis 2.24, on its face, to indicate the marriage of “one man to one woman” is the only relationship which God might support. In other words, the text does not say the man shall cling only to this one wife. In a culture supporting polygamy, for example, this text might very well have been used to indicate God’s support for each wife the man takes (with the man and each wife becoming “one flesh.”) And, while the text does not mention homosexual relationships, again, strictly on its face, there is nothing in the text to deny such a relationship either. While there are biblical texts that speak directly to the homosexual relationship, this one does not. That “a man shall… cling to his wife” does not, in and of itself, necessarily exclude other relationships.
Finally, the resolution is correct to assert that marriage is “first and foremost a divine institution,” and to recognize this “pre-existing definition.” Why, then, does the Church need the protection of the State for a divinely sanctioned institution? The Church does not ask the State to define baptism, nor seek governmental assistance in determining whom we can and cannot admit into membership or ordain to ministry or bury. The Church does not need the government’s intervention – or its interference – in ecclesial matters. Sacred marriage is clearly in the purview of the Church to define and defend.
A Baptist Response to a
Resolution Supporting the Proposed “Marriage Amendment”
to the North Carolina State Constitution
Russ Dean, January, 2012
The full text of a resolution, approved by messengers in the annual meeting of the Baptist State Convention of NC (fall of 2011), is printed below. I have no particular grievance with the BSC of NC. I am choosing to respond to their resolution only because it provides a venue to voice all of my concerns about the amendment.
My opposition to the amendment is not based on its impact relative to homosexuality. The treatment of homosexuals, however, especially should the amendment carry, is a serious concern, so I will respond as appropriate to statements in the resolution which denigrate homosexuals. My overriding concern is simply the way the amendment is framed and the overarching logic being used to support its passage. My responses will highlight the faulty logic and the non-sequiturs that are often employed in a “biblical justification” for marriage and against homosexuality. (My comments are interspersed between each “whereas” of the resolution.)
***
WHEREAS, In the first primary election of 2012, North Carolina will hold a statewide referendum on a proposed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that recognizes marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
RESPONSE
Though it is preferable that the referendum on the amendment not be tied to the presidential election in the fall of 2012, it is not to be denied that the action of the NC Baptist convention is explicitly political, and the work of the NC legislature explicitly manipulative of religion for political purpose. Baptists should always decry the abuse of religion for political purpose and the dependence on politics for religious purpose.
An issue of key importance, and a critical concern of the opponents of the amendment, is the wording of the amendment – which does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman. The wording of the amendment goes much beyond a defining of marriage when it says “[the amendment is] to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state” (emphasis added). The concern should be self-evident, but will be explicitly stated, below.
***
WHEREAS From the beginning, the Bible established the basis for sexuality by declaring that human being are created in God’s image as “male and female” (Genesis 1.26-27); and
RESPONSE:
Yes. God created them male and female – but what does this have to do with homosexuality, heterosexuality, marriage, or other “marriage substitutes”? Homosexual people are male or female just as heterosexuals are. Homosexuality does not deny the gender base of the creation narrative. Females are made in the image of God, as are males, whether married or single, homosexual or heterosexual.
***
WHEREAS Marriage originated from God, established in the order of creation to be a permanent union of one man with one woman (Genesis 12.28 and 2.24); and God ordained that “a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2.24); and marriage is therefore first and foremost a divine institution (Matthew 19.6) and is only recognized as a cultural and civil institution having a pre-existing definition; and
WHEREAS, Jesus reaffirmed the origin of marriage in the order of creation and declared marriage to be a sacred, monogamous, and life-long institution joining one man with one woman (Matthew 19.4-6); and
WHEREAS, Marriage between a husband and a wife is the beautiful allegory of Christ’s union with his bride, the church (Ephesians 5.25-32), and the sacredness of it must be protected; and
RESPONSE:
There should be no doubt that marriage is sacred. There should be no doubt that the Bible affirms that when a man chooses to be married, he clings to his wife in a mystical union beautifully imaged as “one flesh.” But what does “a permanent union” mean? Many Christians have come to recognize that divorce is an unfortunate fact of life, regardless the religious commitment of those who enter marriage. Most marriages (as the statistics now show) end in divorce. To base an understanding of marriage on such a woodenly-literal interpretation is to implicate the majority of Christian marriages in a condemning fashion. This part of the resolution upholds a view of marriage that is pristine – and while ideals are important for us – the failure to recognize the reality of marriage in its current context compounds the heartbreak of a failed relationship by adding to it the judgment of God. I make this point to show that the resolution fails to recognize the state of marriage in its current context. (Anyone who might object, claiming the timelessness of God’s truth, need only be reminded that not so long ago in the state of NC there was hardly a Christian to be found who did not believe slavery was an institution ordained of God, and ensconced in the timelessness of God’s Truth, i.e., in the literal words of scripture.)
The resolution shows little recognition that the Bible hardly endorses “marriage” as envisioned by NC Baptists. The nuclear family was hardly the norm in biblical context, and we are hard-pressed to find in the Bible a marriage which follows that definition (one mother, one father, and children born to these parents). To cite only two examples, polygamy was the norm in much of the ancient world, and “levirate marriage” was a common practice (taking the widow of a deceased brother as one’s wife – regardless how many other wives a man had). I believe in the nuclear family, and I support traditional marriage (“traditional” by our definition!), but it is unfair to the text to impose on the biblical text the imagery and cultural understandings of the 21st century Western world.
While the Bible clearly endorses the relationship between a man and a woman, there is nothing in Genesis 2.24, on its face, to indicate the marriage of “one man to one woman” is the only relationship which God might support. In other words, the text does not say the man shall cling only to this one wife. In a culture supporting polygamy, for example, this text might very well have been used to indicate God’s support for each wife the man takes (with the man and each wife becoming “one flesh.”) And, while the text does not mention homosexual relationships, again, strictly on its face, there is nothing in the text to deny such a relationship either. While there are biblical texts that speak directly to the homosexual relationship, this one does not. That “a man shall… cling to his wife” does not, in and of itself, necessarily exclude other relationships.
Finally, the resolution is correct to assert that marriage is “first and foremost a divine institution,” and to recognize this “pre-existing definition.” Why, then, does the Church need the protection of the State for a divinely sanctioned institution? The Church does not ask the State to define baptism, nor seek governmental assistance in determining whom we can and cannot admit into membership or ordain to ministry or bury. The Church does not need the government’s intervention – or its interference – in ecclesial matters. Sacred marriage is clearly in the purview of the Church to define and defend.
Friday, January 13, 2012
More on the Lowe's Muslim Issue
I have spent the morning answering several more letters regarding the Lowe's issue. I thought I'd post this reponse, to "John." He wrote, accusing me of ignoring all the violence and rape and murder of Muslims around the world and, strangely, of failing to express "concern at the cointnued assualts on the simple expression of 'Merry Chrstmas.'" (Where did that come from?) Here's my response...
Dear “John,”
I am sorry that I am just now responding to your letter of December 20. Christmas is a busy season for us, and I am just now digging out. Despite the condescending tone of your letter, it was a Merry Christmas, and I trust yours was as well. I wished many Merry Christmases this season, as I do every season.
I have read and re-read your letter, and I don’t honestly know how to respond, yet I appreciate you taking the time to write and wanted to respond in kind. Respectful discourse is a key to our society’s success, and I trust you will receive my letter in that spirit.
Many in the religious community were concerned about the decision by Lowes – because it was perceived as an act that discriminated against one religious community in this country, or because it was perceived that they were pressured to act by one religious group, speaking out against another. The officials at Lowes greeted our delegation respectfully, and we dialogued openly for more than an hour. It was the kind of civil discourse that is woefully missing from our public life – and when it was over both the religious leaders and the Lowe’s officials celebrated the discourse as a success. In that hour the officials at Lowe’s reiterated their support of American Muslims, and people of all faiths, and no faith. Their statement and defense of diversity is quite vigorous and a core value of their corporation. In fact, Lowe’s knew that the show, “All American Muslim,” was part of the advertising block they had purchased – and they saw no need to block it, because they support the Muslim community in this country. It was only after listening to the social media “chatter” which came to surround the show that they made an advertising decision (not a religious or ethical one) to pull their advertising. The officials admitted to us that their response to the rising controversy had been handled “clumsily” (this was their language). They admitted that they had allowed the small group in Florida to claim a religious victory in pressuring Lowe’s to pull their advertising. So, Lowe’s admitted that their handling of the issue allowed it to become a perceived act of religious intolerance. Over and over they defended their values statements, their belief in religious toleration, their support of American Muslims, and adherents of all other faiths.
You do not know me, John, so you have no right to accuse me as you have. I have not ignored the abuses of Islam around the world, as you suggest. I am quite aware of these issues. But neither have I ignored the countless atrocities committed in the name of Christ in the last 2,000 years. Unfortunately, no religion is free from the idolatry of violence. So I am acutely aware, and deeply concerned about religious violence in this world – regardless the perpetrator, and regardless the victim – and I am deeply concerned about the hostility between religions, which I believe only increases the tensions, and inevitably leads to more violence. It was for this reason, and because I am a Baptist, that I chose to speak with Lowes about our concerns.
Baptists were founded as a protest to the tyranny of State Religion. Roger Williams, the first Baptist in American, was exiled to Providence, Rhode Island, because of his unyielding insistence that “papists, Jews, and Turks” be allowed to worship as the saw fit. This dissenter’s voice was not popular in 1639, and the voices of religious tolerance are still not accepted. (As I have been reminded so keenly in the last few weeks!) Roger Williams did not agree with all of the tenets of the Turks (Muslims), nor of the Native Americans, who practice animism, nor of the atheists, who practiced not at all – but he was convinced in the urgency of “liberty of conscience” – that only religion affirmed, free of coercion, could be true. Out of that conviction he willingly defended even those whose religions were in degrees of opposition to his own. In that regard I am Baptist to the core, and will continue to defend the rights of Americans to practice the religion of their choosing , or no religion at all – and without coercion, and without violence, and without the discriminatory condescension that so many cast on the religion of another.
Finally, you say that the separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the constitution, yet the very first amendment to the constitution ensconces this separation – in both the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause.” The Bill of Rights became law in 1791, the work of most of the same founding fathers who created our beloved Constitution, which had become law only four years earlier. Just as the second amendment is “gospel truth” for so many in this country (and I support second amendment rights), the first amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of religion for all in this great land (which sounds pretty Baptist to me!), is a core principle of this nation.
Believing that this nation was founded to be free from state tyranny over religion, and believing that the nation was founded on the value of pluralism – an openness to people of every creed and culture (“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”), I will continue in my defense of religious liberty.
It is too late to wish you a Merry Christmas, but in a spirit of religious conviction and of liberty of conscience…
Grace and Peace,
Russ
Dear “John,”
I am sorry that I am just now responding to your letter of December 20. Christmas is a busy season for us, and I am just now digging out. Despite the condescending tone of your letter, it was a Merry Christmas, and I trust yours was as well. I wished many Merry Christmases this season, as I do every season.
I have read and re-read your letter, and I don’t honestly know how to respond, yet I appreciate you taking the time to write and wanted to respond in kind. Respectful discourse is a key to our society’s success, and I trust you will receive my letter in that spirit.
Many in the religious community were concerned about the decision by Lowes – because it was perceived as an act that discriminated against one religious community in this country, or because it was perceived that they were pressured to act by one religious group, speaking out against another. The officials at Lowes greeted our delegation respectfully, and we dialogued openly for more than an hour. It was the kind of civil discourse that is woefully missing from our public life – and when it was over both the religious leaders and the Lowe’s officials celebrated the discourse as a success. In that hour the officials at Lowe’s reiterated their support of American Muslims, and people of all faiths, and no faith. Their statement and defense of diversity is quite vigorous and a core value of their corporation. In fact, Lowe’s knew that the show, “All American Muslim,” was part of the advertising block they had purchased – and they saw no need to block it, because they support the Muslim community in this country. It was only after listening to the social media “chatter” which came to surround the show that they made an advertising decision (not a religious or ethical one) to pull their advertising. The officials admitted to us that their response to the rising controversy had been handled “clumsily” (this was their language). They admitted that they had allowed the small group in Florida to claim a religious victory in pressuring Lowe’s to pull their advertising. So, Lowe’s admitted that their handling of the issue allowed it to become a perceived act of religious intolerance. Over and over they defended their values statements, their belief in religious toleration, their support of American Muslims, and adherents of all other faiths.
You do not know me, John, so you have no right to accuse me as you have. I have not ignored the abuses of Islam around the world, as you suggest. I am quite aware of these issues. But neither have I ignored the countless atrocities committed in the name of Christ in the last 2,000 years. Unfortunately, no religion is free from the idolatry of violence. So I am acutely aware, and deeply concerned about religious violence in this world – regardless the perpetrator, and regardless the victim – and I am deeply concerned about the hostility between religions, which I believe only increases the tensions, and inevitably leads to more violence. It was for this reason, and because I am a Baptist, that I chose to speak with Lowes about our concerns.
Baptists were founded as a protest to the tyranny of State Religion. Roger Williams, the first Baptist in American, was exiled to Providence, Rhode Island, because of his unyielding insistence that “papists, Jews, and Turks” be allowed to worship as the saw fit. This dissenter’s voice was not popular in 1639, and the voices of religious tolerance are still not accepted. (As I have been reminded so keenly in the last few weeks!) Roger Williams did not agree with all of the tenets of the Turks (Muslims), nor of the Native Americans, who practice animism, nor of the atheists, who practiced not at all – but he was convinced in the urgency of “liberty of conscience” – that only religion affirmed, free of coercion, could be true. Out of that conviction he willingly defended even those whose religions were in degrees of opposition to his own. In that regard I am Baptist to the core, and will continue to defend the rights of Americans to practice the religion of their choosing , or no religion at all – and without coercion, and without violence, and without the discriminatory condescension that so many cast on the religion of another.
Finally, you say that the separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the constitution, yet the very first amendment to the constitution ensconces this separation – in both the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause.” The Bill of Rights became law in 1791, the work of most of the same founding fathers who created our beloved Constitution, which had become law only four years earlier. Just as the second amendment is “gospel truth” for so many in this country (and I support second amendment rights), the first amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of religion for all in this great land (which sounds pretty Baptist to me!), is a core principle of this nation.
Believing that this nation was founded to be free from state tyranny over religion, and believing that the nation was founded on the value of pluralism – an openness to people of every creed and culture (“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”), I will continue in my defense of religious liberty.
It is too late to wish you a Merry Christmas, but in a spirit of religious conviction and of liberty of conscience…
Grace and Peace,
Russ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
