Montana:

Thank you for your kind words and blessing.

As I may have noted, I do not support the majority of the mainstream, organized, hierarchical churches, either Catholic or Protestant.  Certainly there are some good ones, some good priests/ministers, some good Christian folk attending them.  But the majority of these churches are (as Keith Green so brilliantly put it) “asleep in the Light.” They are either overzealous and focused on “religion” rather than “faith” (e.g., the so-called “Chistian Right” and other rabid fundamentalists) or are overly focused on social ministries etc. - which are fine, and certainly have their place, but not at the expense of a relationship with God and Christ.

Yet despite the above, I actually consider myself an “evangelical minister.” And though I remain an “independent” minister (i.e., I am not affiliated with any particular church or denomination), I do attend a “home church” in my neighborhood, which has two wonderful co-ministers and a lovely group of Christians with whom I fellowship.

I doubt I will ever return to the mainstream church, which I actually only attended for a few years.  (A fairly good Methodist Church with a very good pastor, but one which was, as noted above, overly focused on its social ministry.)

In this regard, I will continue to “preach” what I am led to believe is the most important aspect of Christianity: Christ’s ministry of love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice, truth.

Peace.

To Maani,
Fair enough. I respect your comment and response!
Will you ever go back to the evangelical church, or any other? I don’t think you should give up!
God bless you Maani!

Montana:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.  Let me try to respond as briefly as possible.

Re the RCC, although they could probably be even more “open-minded” and “sensitive” than they are on certain issues (AIDS, contraception, etc.), I was not suggesting that they “encourage hatred” in any way.  Forgive me if I left that impression.

Re the gay community, there are certainly many who do not act responsibly - and some who even act highly irresponsibly.  I do not condone the type of “flaunting” that some of them do, so I agree with you there.  Even if there were NOT “children around,” some of their approaches are, as you suggest, demeaning, self-centered, foolish and/or dangerous.

Re abortion, I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice.  (This is the actual position of 75% of Americans polled.) What this means is that I consider abortion wrong, but I do not believe it is the place of the “state” to “legislate morality.” I believe that abortion - and any “penalty or punishment therefor” - is between a woman and whatever God she believes in (if any). Certainly, Christians have the right - as does everyone else - to make use of their first amendments rights to free speech, free press and free assembly in order to make their position known.  However, I do not believe they have the right either to “coerce” legislation in this regard, or, obviously, to engage in harassment, intimidation or violence.

Re stem cell research, I remain on the fence here, so I will not comment.

Finally, I agree with you that many people do not believe that “anything they do is a sin” (even if we replace the word “sin” with “moral wrong").  There seems little question that society in general (particularly Western society) has become more hedonistic, with an “anything goes” mentality.  Clearly this is not true of everyone, or perhaps even most.  But it is true of enough people to make it an issue.

Peace.

To Maani,
I agree with you on this case and I admire your compassion to try and resolve other issues going on around the world. However, with all due respect, I think that the church ( at least catholic church) is only trying to TREAT the situation between abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, stemcell research ect. with respect. I don’t think that they are being judgemental toward them and I don’t think they are incouraging hatred toward such people who do such things. What they are simply trying to do is get the message out there that these things are wrong as opposed to the PRIDE PARADE! I don’t think it is anything to be proud of, and as for all these homosexual men and women prancing around in their underwear and wearing all kinds of provocative clothing, there are children around. Trying to get respect for themselves as people is one thing, but I think that the way they are going about doing things is not only wrong, but demeaning and selfcentered, foolish and could also be dangerous.Did you know that there have been more murders of unborn children in Canada and US alone than all the deaths during the holocaust? How can anyone not oppose this? Some put it to question in terms of a woman’s right to control her own body. That would be valid enough in the realm of smoking, diet, liposuction, or sex - but abortion? Abortion means controlling someone else’s body! I don’t even want to get on the topic of euthanasia or things like stemcell research, however I support Presedent Bush’s stand against stemcell research, which is probably the only thing I ever agreed with Bush on. I think that your right on the money though about putting an effort into other issues aswell like homelessness, poverty, genicide ( in other parts of the world), and so on, but those other issues are also indeed important issues that need to be addressed and opposed and I don’t think that by opposing what is immoral or the spread of any sin is conflicting with the message of Christ. But I think we must find a less condensending way of doing so. By letting others know that certain things are a sin, we are not showing hatred but indeed love. Would you buy a child cigarettes because he likes to smoke? I hope not! But by refusing, would you be showing him a sign of love and care, or Jesus want me to show love by do the child that favor and support his habbit?
The problem these days are that no one wants to believe that anything they do is a sin anymore and society stands up with them on that issue discuising it with HUMAN RIGHTS to do what you want! Where is the love in that?

All:

As a left-center evangelical minister, I applaud both Rev. Hunter’s decision and all of your responses.  I had almost expected most responses to be anti-Christian (if not virulently so), so your reasoned, measured comments are not only on point, but welcome.

The Christian Coalition has focused on four issues at the exclusion of all others: abortion, homosexuality (including gay marriage), evolution (including intelligent design) and stem cell research.  As others have noted, muc more critical issues - poverty, war, violence, homelessness, hunger, etc. - apparently have no place in their agenda.  How sad.

I do want both to correct and add to JFB’s post.

Actually, in addition to Genesis 19 and 2 Peter 2, the two most powerful comments on homosexuality are in Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:24-27, where Paul offers the strongest words against homosexuality in the entire Scripture.

That said, MJ31 is on the right track when he calls the gay issue “something that the Christian Right just doesn’t understand.”

The main precepts of Jesus’ ministry were love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice, truth.  Thus, WHATEVER interpretation a Christian may have of homosexuality, there is no question that we are called to love ALL people equally, without ridicule, disdain, judgment or condemnation - and particularly without hatred or violence.

In this regard, there is a difference between loving someone unconditionally and condoning their behavior(s).  Despite what revisionists may believe, Jesus did not CONDONE the behaviors He seemed to either ignore or treat otherwise.  For example, in the famous incident with the adultress about to be stoned ("He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone"), He is not condoning her behavior; indeed, He tells her, “Go, and sin no more.” Hardly a license to continue her behavior.

What He DOES do is love, protect and comfort her in a situation which He felt was wrong because her accusers were following the “letter of the law” (which permitted them to stone her for her crime) and not the “spirit of the law” (by which ALL of them were “convicted").

Unless and until the Christian Right “gets a grip” on what Jesus was actually about, they will continue to take Scripture out of context to support narrow, unloving, unforgiving and ultimately un-Christian viewpoints.

Peace to all.

Jesus is not quoted in the Bible as condemning homosexuality. But Peter, whom he asked to feed his lambs and shepherd his sheep, condemns homosexuality in II Peter 2. Homosexuality is also condemned in Genesis 19. Other than the one reference in the New Testament and the one in the Old Testament, I know of no other reference to homosexuality. I have only read 3 different translations of the Bible and I invite others to cite any relevant passages. Different translations of the Bible condemn homosexuality more explicitly than others, but none that I know of suggest that we should harm homosexuals. It is not considered harmful to require celibacy of heterosexuals, so it should not be considered harmful to require celibacy of homosexuals.

It’s a shame that a member of the Christian Right has ideas that are those of Jesus and issues that concern the aiding of fellow human beings.  It seems that the gay issue is something the Christian Right just doesn’t understand.  I find thats interesting, since no where in the New Testement does Jesus mention or condemn Homosexuality...No Where.  He mentions poverty, war, prostution, and a Bible full of other issues, but gays ain’t an issue.  Check it out; I know of what I speak. Oh, by the way, in the same passage of the Old Testement concerning Homosexuality, it also mentions the eating of catfish and sassing ones parents are major sins also.  Soooo, which of these is the most sinful?  Could be those Right Wingers are picking and choosing. ‘Cause y’all, if you believe one, you must believe all.  So, if you’re out fishing and catch a catfish, better throw it back cause the fires of Hell await!!

Yup! There’s no room in the Christian Fundamentalism philosophy for notions that Jesus is reported in the Bible to have held important.

There’s no place on the far right religious wing for anyone with the insight and vision to understand that time and effort is far better spent in wrestling with issues of poverty and the environment than in fretting about the few non-heterosexuals who wish to be a couple, or those women who do not wish to have a child.

There’s no place in fundamentalist Christian leadership for BRAINS or COMPASSION or REASON or LOGIC or CHANGE or ENLIGHTENMENT or UNDERSTANDING.

If I were a Christian, I’d SUE frauds like Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, Buchanan, Hill and so many others, for DEFAMATION OF THE CHARACTER AND SPIRIT OF CHRIST and for ruining with their lies and hateful ignorance whatever potential value Christianity might have been to society.

Even Jimmy Carter, a devout Christian, has cut ties and distanced himself from these fundamentalist charlatans. It seems some “believers” still have some semblance of balance and rational thinking ability left. Too bad there are so few.

Well gee, it sure has taken a long time. But apparently a significant number of evangelicals are finally beginning to notice that the people who supposedly represent them don’t actually care about anything Jesus would have cared about.

I actually think that Rev. Joel Hunter deserves kudoes for at least attempting to get the Christian Coalition to focus on issues other than abortion and gay marriage.  The fact that they are apparently refusing to do so speaks volumes for where their priorities truly lie—and this may perhaps lie at the heart of why Rev. Hunter resigned.

There’s no question that both the Old and New Testament speak of homosexuality in a negative fashion—but they contain many more references to the importance of having compassion for the less fortunate than they do to homosexuality. The Religious Right is happy—nay, eager—to go on at great length with regard to homosexuality but they seem to have been absymally silent in recent years with regard to the issues of hunger, poverty, and homelessness.  In fact, if anything, the Religious Right seems more inclined these days to criticize and condemn rather than comfort and assist people in crisis. Is this a genuine reflection of true Christian attitudes? Of course it isn’t.

And with regard to the environment, since the Religious Right believes that God created our world, doesn’t it seem to make sense that we might want to take good care of it so that we might demonstrate our gratitude and appreciation for such a wonderful gift? If we show no concern for the environment and/or insist on continuing a status quo which slowly damages our planet, are we not in a sense showing ingratitude—or worse, contempt—for what God created?

The fact that the Christian Coalition apparently sees no need to pay attention to either of these issues belies their claim that they are trying to uphold Christian values. By focusing on the issues of abortion and homosexuality to the exclusion of all else, all the Christian Coalition is proving is that their true goal is to enforce their own Puritanical and pseudo-Christian version of morality on America as a whole. This is not only contrary to the principles on which this country was founded—especially the First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion—but is also a betrayal of the principles of Jesus. Jesus invited and encouraged people to follow Him—He never bullied, threatened, browbeat, or forced them into doing so. He always honored and respected the rights of other people to make decisions for themselves and choose their own paths—even the wrong ones—and He always saw the person rather than the behavior first.