Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On Gay Issues, 'Right' Has Stolen Christianity
NY Newsday ^ | August 4, 2003 | Fenton Johnson

Posted on 08/04/2003 8:58:46 AM PDT by presidio9

At its general convention, which began last Thursday in Minneapolis, the Episcopal Church of America has been debating the Diocese of New Hampshire's election of the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop. Opponents of Robinson's election have threatened to leave the global Anglican Communion.

Conservatives are also threatening schism over a resolution endorsing "blessing ceremonies" for same-gender unions. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church last week began an all-out offensive against gay marriages.

The Christian right has so monopolized the terms in these debates that to suggest alternative definitions is - according to conservatives - to place oneself outside the Christian fold. Still, what does it mean to be a Christian? If a Buddhist is someone who follows the teachings of Buddha, then a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. But in the conservatives' free and easy invocation of the label, what teachings are being invoked? When I turn to the Christian Bible to address the question, I find no evidence of the flaxen-haired favorite of the political right.

Instead I find a portrait - remarkably consistent across all accounts - of a renegade anti-establishment proto-feminist communitarian bachelor Jew. Jesus never comes closer to endorsing orthodoxy than the ambiguous "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's," even as he frequently advocates inarguably radical behavior.

I began my return to Bible study with the notion that the liberal left had allowed the term "Christian" to be hijacked. I believed that the word ought properly to describe someone who was more like - well - me. Then I actually reread the Gospels, only to discover that they made me squirm.

The fact is that for the most part I am reluctant to follow Jesus' example. In the comfort of my office, I was willing to contemplate turning the other cheek, but later that same day I tailed a rude driver for blocks, hoping to cut him off exactly as he'd cut me off. I gave up the chase less because I was willing to turn the other cheek than because my ice cream was melting in the back seat. Far from "leaving the dead to bury the dead," I'm writing now from my childhood home, where I've come to help my aged mother in her increasing infirmity.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: episcopal; gay; generalconvention; generobinson; homosexual; queer; religiousleft; schism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: Buggman
"Frankly, if Jesus raised the bar on adultery to include lust, what possible reason is there to assume that He lowered it when it came to homosexual adultery?"

Good point. Those who say that Jesus never opposed homosexuality (or abortion) ignore his statement about upholding the law down to its last "jot or tittle." Jesus never had to explicitly oppose homosexuality because the legitimacy of homosexuality was not an issue in Judaism at that time; it was universally condemned, and Jesus did not oppose the status quo.
21 posted on 08/04/2003 9:40:08 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle (uo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
Antone know where the Bible condones slavery?

"'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." -Leviticus 25:44-46

"Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to. " -Corinthinans 7:20-24

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. " Ephisians 6:5-9

22 posted on 08/04/2003 9:40:42 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Jesus said, "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

A typical ploy by religious quacks to instill a perpetual sense of guilt and shame.

23 posted on 08/04/2003 9:40:57 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
INTREP
24 posted on 08/04/2003 9:44:05 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"The Gospels refer only obliquely to marriage, which in Jesus' time was generally a private transaction arranged between families and individuals."

Such a statement is proof-positive that Fenton Johnson only reads his Bible with a whisk broom if, in fact, he reads it at all.

I guess the prospect of the apocalyptic catastrophy that happened to Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't scare him in the least.

25 posted on 08/04/2003 10:04:30 AM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
LOL...yes always make the first accusation
and accuse your enemies of doing precisely what you are trying to do
Bill Clinton at his finest was a great advocate of this techinique

The Lord spoke volumes at Sodom and Gomorrah exactly how he views such vile behavior
26 posted on 08/04/2003 10:05:54 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
"A typical ploy by religious quacks to instill a perpetual sense of guilt and shame."


The point Jesus was trying to make when he spoke this statement was to put the contemporary religious "right" on notice that they were out of line. Even in this very age the verse can put a religious "right" back into place as they judge homosexual behavior as worse than their own sexual sins.

If you buy in, you buy in all the way. If and when you "get it" you'll understand. My prayer is that you do.

If you don't buy in, that's OK. Jesus did not force anyone's hand, so to speak, and neither should any evangelist. Jesus did not speak to tickle ears, He only spoke the truth.
27 posted on 08/04/2003 10:20:28 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (It's none of your business whether or not I need my guns and ammo.><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
a renegade anti-establishment proto-feminist communitarian bachelor Jew

That has got to be the screweist description of Jesus I have ever read.

And BTW, the 'right' didn't highjack Christianity, everything is spelled out in the Bible.

28 posted on 08/04/2003 10:24:28 AM PDT by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Dem
LOL! Goodun.
29 posted on 08/04/2003 10:33:06 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (It is just plain just that we remove unjust Justices-the survival of America depends on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Hating unneccessary excerpting, I was planning on excerpting the rest of the article and then chewing you out.

However, after reading then entire article, I think your judgement was correct; it's not worth posting the entire thing. One knows what shallow argument the author is going to write before he even writes it. Why waste the bandwidth?

30 posted on 08/04/2003 10:55:20 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
It's in scripture, jlogajan. No need to feel guilty if you aren't doing it yourself.
31 posted on 08/04/2003 10:55:47 AM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD is still in control!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Shame on you for printing facts. I bet you even know the verse in Book of Romans that condemns homosexuality.
32 posted on 08/04/2003 10:58:25 AM PDT by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
Newsday must be excerpted on FR.
33 posted on 08/04/2003 11:03:35 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Excerpting Police strike again. (Thanks for saving us from a lawsuit!)

Gum

34 posted on 08/04/2003 11:06:52 AM PDT by ChewedGum ( http://king-of-fools.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Maybe I missed something. When was Newsday added? Are they one of the subsidiaries or affiliates of the LAT or WP? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want to know.

Here is what is displayed as FR's Policy:

Important Legal Notice:
LAT/WP vs Free Republic Settles

Free Republic has settled the alleged copyright infringement suit brought by The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post and has agreed not to post full text articles from their publications or any of their related subsidiaries and affiliates. Please do not post full text from these sources.

Any full text articles from LAT or WP or subsidiaries or affiliates will be deleted in compliance with this settlement. Click to see a copy of the Amended Final Judgment in this case.


35 posted on 08/04/2003 11:12:55 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Homosexuality presents a greater challenge, since here the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are explicit in their prohibitions.

A passage from the link you kindly provided to Phenton's article. If I read the article correctly, he's conceding the point of the people on the Right whose attitude towards homosexuality he condemns: the Bible itself---Old and New Testaments---prohibit homosexual conduct. In effect, he's not really arguing that the "Right" has "hijacked" Christianity---he's just urging the Left to go try to "hijack" it.

36 posted on 08/04/2003 11:49:14 AM PDT by Map Kernow ("I love the Vixen of Vitriol---Ann Coulter!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
I believe Newsday is owned by the same company that owns the Washington Post.
37 posted on 08/04/2003 12:22:14 PM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Instead I find a portrait - remarkably consistent across all accounts - of a renegade anti-establishment proto-feminist communitarian bachelor Jew. Jesus never comes closer to endorsing orthodoxy than the ambiguous "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's," even as he frequently advocates inarguably radical behavior.

Holy moly! This guy is really asking for it, isn't he?

38 posted on 08/04/2003 12:25:52 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds (All roads lead to reality. That's why I smile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Same article in LA Times. See this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/954851/posts
39 posted on 08/04/2003 12:29:34 PM PDT by Fifth Business
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary
It's in scripture, jlogajan. No need to feel guilty if you aren't doing it yourself.

Of course it is in the "good book." That's the point -- religions are invented to control other people. No better way to control them than to tap into a natural impulse and label it shameful. People can be controlled by shame.

There is a biologically driven impulse to mate. Anybody who buys into feeling shame for those feelings is actually acting against his or her own nature.

There may be good rational reasons not to act on such impulses, but NO ONE should feel shame or guilt over merely feeling them. I don't care what some book of mind control mythology says on the subject.

40 posted on 08/04/2003 12:33:15 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson