In my introductory posting, I said that I would give you background in areas where I could contribute information not readily found in the mainstream media. As a pastor, I have made it a point to understand all sides of the issue concerning what roles practicing homosexuals should play in the Church.
This debate has been making headlines for quite some time, and this emotional issue has divided denominations and individual congregations. The consecration of Gene Robinson (who is a practicing homosexual in a long-term relationship with a man) as an Episcopal bishop has caused serious splits within the worldwide Anglican Communion, for example. The issue of gay “marriage” and whether gays should be ordained are also being debated within various denominations of the Church.
My goal is to inform you of where each side in this debate is coming from. I will be discussing this topic from the religious point of view, that is, how believers on each side of the debate justify their views from a Scriptural, moral, or ethical point of view. I will not be discussing the many other aspects of this complex issue, nor will I express my own opinions. My purpose is to give you background as to the thinking behind each side’s position. You can then make your own decision as to where you stand.
Of course I will be speaking in generalities, because there is a continuum from the extreme on one end of the spectrum to the extreme on the other end. I will use the terms “traditionalist” and “non-traditionalist” to describe the opposing viewpoints (for lack of better terms). Again, I’m not trying to affirm or justify any particular perspective, but just inform you of each side’s thinking as to how they arrived at their respective positions on the subject.
There has been so much name-calling and misunderstanding that I would like to provide at least some clarification. You may not agree with one side or the other, but I believe it is important to have a grasp of how each side is thinking. I’ll start with the “traditionalist” viewpoint in a future posting, and then in a later posting after that I’ll elaborate on the “non-traditionalist” viewpoint.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Doing God's Work
I read something recently that says:
“It is impossible to love Christ without loving others, and it is impossible to love others without moving nearer to Christ.”
So if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, commit to moving nearer to Christ by serving others. And also commit to praying for guidance as to what we, both as individuals and as a church, should be doing for God’s kingdom. After Jesus had ascended into heaven, two angels appeared to the disciples and said to them in effect: “Stop staring and get busy.” So let’s take that advice – let’s not be bystanders but active participants in the work of the Kingdom.
“It is impossible to love Christ without loving others, and it is impossible to love others without moving nearer to Christ.”
So if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, commit to moving nearer to Christ by serving others. And also commit to praying for guidance as to what we, both as individuals and as a church, should be doing for God’s kingdom. After Jesus had ascended into heaven, two angels appeared to the disciples and said to them in effect: “Stop staring and get busy.” So let’s take that advice – let’s not be bystanders but active participants in the work of the Kingdom.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Cheers to Vassar Hospital
Vassar Brothers Medical Center in Poughkeepsie instituted a program called “Clinical Pastoral Education” (CPE). I was privileged to be in the first class going through this intensive program, which is nationally accredited. I would like to commend Dr. Aronzon and staff for their forward-looking understanding that healing not only involves the physical, but also the emotional and spiritual. This unit of CPE started in early October, and ended at the end of April. There will be another unit offered in the fall.
CPE chaplain interns are considered interfaith chaplains, which means we minister to people of all faiths, or no faith. We are there to visit, offer emotional support, and to pray with patients and families if they so desire. Patients, their families, and the staff were appreciative of the support we chaplain interns gave them. Vassar’s CPE program is the only one in the Mid-Hudson Valley. The nearest other ones are at Westchester Medical Center and Albany. I believe initiating this program speaks volumes about the care that VBMC gives (but then, I’m prejudiced, since I’ve had the privilege of observing their care first hand).
Cheers also to Rev. John Simon, Director of Pastoral Care at VBMC, who worked hard to bring this program to Vassar, and whose organizational skills made this initial unit a success. Rev. Trudi Hirsch deserves much credit as well. She was brought in by the hospital to be the CPE supervisor, and her experience and professionalism was much appreciated by we interns.
CPE chaplain interns are considered interfaith chaplains, which means we minister to people of all faiths, or no faith. We are there to visit, offer emotional support, and to pray with patients and families if they so desire. Patients, their families, and the staff were appreciative of the support we chaplain interns gave them. Vassar’s CPE program is the only one in the Mid-Hudson Valley. The nearest other ones are at Westchester Medical Center and Albany. I believe initiating this program speaks volumes about the care that VBMC gives (but then, I’m prejudiced, since I’ve had the privilege of observing their care first hand).
Cheers also to Rev. John Simon, Director of Pastoral Care at VBMC, who worked hard to bring this program to Vassar, and whose organizational skills made this initial unit a success. Rev. Trudi Hirsch deserves much credit as well. She was brought in by the hospital to be the CPE supervisor, and her experience and professionalism was much appreciated by we interns.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Shock Jock Part II
I recently read that the disgraced shock jock Don Imus is suing his former employer, CBS, for breach of contract. Apparently there is a clause in his contract that says he is supposed to be irreverent and controversial, among other things (Poughkeepsie Journal, May 4, 2007). It appears that Imus was fulfilling his contractual obligations, and got fired for doing what he was supposed to be doing.
Now I have absolutely no sympathy for Imus, but I also have no sympathy or respect for CBS, who encouraged such disgusting behavior on the part of Imus. He was a money-maker for CBS, which makes me seriously question the taste of millions of listeners who tuned in regularly. If nobody tuned in, Imus would have been quickly off the air. As I said in an earlier posting, Imus catered to our baser instincts, and it is a sad commentary on the American people.
In that earlier posting, I complained that while Imus’ coarse insults got him rightfully fired, Rosie gets away with all sorts of similar verbal abuse against those with whom she disagrees. As I was writing that blog, I didn’t realize that Rosie was in the process of leaving “The View” for which I am grateful. Another bigoted loudmouth off the air. Maybe we’re making some progress
Now I have absolutely no sympathy for Imus, but I also have no sympathy or respect for CBS, who encouraged such disgusting behavior on the part of Imus. He was a money-maker for CBS, which makes me seriously question the taste of millions of listeners who tuned in regularly. If nobody tuned in, Imus would have been quickly off the air. As I said in an earlier posting, Imus catered to our baser instincts, and it is a sad commentary on the American people.
In that earlier posting, I complained that while Imus’ coarse insults got him rightfully fired, Rosie gets away with all sorts of similar verbal abuse against those with whom she disagrees. As I was writing that blog, I didn’t realize that Rosie was in the process of leaving “The View” for which I am grateful. Another bigoted loudmouth off the air. Maybe we’re making some progress
War and Peace: Part III: Further Considerations on Iraq
In addition to the moral and ethical considerations mentioned earlier about Iraq, there are very practical reasons why we shouldn’t “cut and run” as many politicians (and much of the American public, if polls are to be believed) want to do. If we abandon Iraq, we then will have absolutely no credibility in the world. We will be viewed as a “paper tiger” (to use the Chinese communist phrase from earlier days) and will have lost any clout we might have had in world affairs. We would be viewed as spineless weaklings, starting fights we don’t have the will to complete. It would be a foreign policy disaster. The unfortunate effect of being viewed as a paper tiger is that we will be fair game for any and all terrorists, and US citizens will be at tremendous risk, both at home and abroad. A government that allows that to happen to its citizens is irresponsible in my opinion.
We not only destabilized Iraq by our invasion, but we are also at risk of destabilizing the whole region. If we cut and run, we will leave behind a power vacuum in Iraq and the whole Middle East. With the US out of the picture, a fully-blown multi-party war will then erupt in that unfortunate country, with Iran, Al-Qaida, probably Syria, and others fighting to take control. Such a conflict will jeopardize moderate states in the region (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan, and Turkey), not to mention our oil supply. You think the price of gas is high now? Just wait and see what happens if the whole region blows up. We have to stay, for our own good, the good of the region, and ultimately the good of the world.
Lastly, even when Iraq stabilizes, as it eventually will if we see it through, we will have to maintain a significant military presence in the area for the foreseeable future. We kept a significant military presence in Europe since World War II, and that kept the Soviets at bay. We have had a presence in South Korea for over 50 years, and kept the North from doing something foolish (so far). Because the Middle East is so vital to us (mainly oil, but also Israel) and we want to protect the moderate states in the region, we will have to keep at least one carrier group in the gulf and a significant land-based presence. Such a presence will make Iran think twice before doing something foolish, one would hope. Right now, I think Iran is a bigger risk than any other country or terrorist group.
Much as I hate to see our troops dying in Iraq, I firmly believe we have to see this through for the reasons mentioned above. Not only Iraq’s but also our future depends on it. Rather than bailing out, we have to devise better strategies to protect our troops, reduce terrorist incidents, train the Iraqi forces, and win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis so they will turn in suspected terrorists or tell the authorities when they see an explosive device being assembled by a roadside or put into a car. Once these terrorists realize we aren’t leaving, that we have the will to see this through and we aren’t crawling home with our tail between our legs, the bombings will become less frequent and we will prevail. Let’s just pray that fewer and fewer American lives are lost in the months and years ahead, and that our leaders will have wisdom in their decision-making, thinking strategically, not just short-term.
We not only destabilized Iraq by our invasion, but we are also at risk of destabilizing the whole region. If we cut and run, we will leave behind a power vacuum in Iraq and the whole Middle East. With the US out of the picture, a fully-blown multi-party war will then erupt in that unfortunate country, with Iran, Al-Qaida, probably Syria, and others fighting to take control. Such a conflict will jeopardize moderate states in the region (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan, and Turkey), not to mention our oil supply. You think the price of gas is high now? Just wait and see what happens if the whole region blows up. We have to stay, for our own good, the good of the region, and ultimately the good of the world.
Lastly, even when Iraq stabilizes, as it eventually will if we see it through, we will have to maintain a significant military presence in the area for the foreseeable future. We kept a significant military presence in Europe since World War II, and that kept the Soviets at bay. We have had a presence in South Korea for over 50 years, and kept the North from doing something foolish (so far). Because the Middle East is so vital to us (mainly oil, but also Israel) and we want to protect the moderate states in the region, we will have to keep at least one carrier group in the gulf and a significant land-based presence. Such a presence will make Iran think twice before doing something foolish, one would hope. Right now, I think Iran is a bigger risk than any other country or terrorist group.
Much as I hate to see our troops dying in Iraq, I firmly believe we have to see this through for the reasons mentioned above. Not only Iraq’s but also our future depends on it. Rather than bailing out, we have to devise better strategies to protect our troops, reduce terrorist incidents, train the Iraqi forces, and win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis so they will turn in suspected terrorists or tell the authorities when they see an explosive device being assembled by a roadside or put into a car. Once these terrorists realize we aren’t leaving, that we have the will to see this through and we aren’t crawling home with our tail between our legs, the bombings will become less frequent and we will prevail. Let’s just pray that fewer and fewer American lives are lost in the months and years ahead, and that our leaders will have wisdom in their decision-making, thinking strategically, not just short-term.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
War and Peace: Part II: The Question of Iraq
I don’t consider myself an expert on Iraq, but I do have some thoughts on the subject. I don’t plan to discuss whether or not we should be there, or how we got into this mess in the first place (George Tenet’s new book may help to answer some of those kinds of questions). Instead, I want to share some thoughts on the reality on the ground, and what consequences our actions now might have for the future. I also want to explore the subject of our possible actions in Iraq from a moral and ethical point of view, something that I feel is missing among all the rhetoric. Bear in mind that I am firmly against war, unless absolutely necessary to protect our citizens from a clear and present danger. I was in the Army during the Viet Nam era, and came very close to going over there. Despite my aversion to war, I firmly believe that once we are in a war, we have to see it through, distasteful as it may be.
The fact is, we destabilized Iraq by our invasion. Terrible as Saddam was, he kept the country from dividing into factions. I believe Saddam could have been contained, and didn’t have to be eliminated. Now Humpty Dumpty is broken, and all of Bush’s horses and all of Bush’s men, can’s put Humpty together again (so far).
If we pull out troops before the nation is stabilized, we will have done something immoral and unethical to the people of Iraq who have already suffered enough with Saddam and now the instability precipitated by the United States.
Too bad, you might say. They are doing it to themselves. The fact is, most of the terrorist acts are caused, as I understand it, by outside sources. Iran’s proxies are the Shiite terrorists, and Al-Qaida’s proxies are the Sunni terrorists (bin Laden is a Sunni). Most of the terrorist acts are done by a relatively few people, most of whom are not Iraqi, and most of whom are under the control of Iran, Al Qaida, and other groups. Most Iraqis want to get on with their lives and live in peace, free of the tyranny of Saddam and free of the anarchy that currently exists. Contrary to what some are saying, this is not a civil war. It is a policy of attrition by way of terrorism, influenced by non-Iraqis as mentioned above. To abandon the people of Iraq to a potentially terrible future would be a horrific injustice. More on this in a future blog.
The fact is, we destabilized Iraq by our invasion. Terrible as Saddam was, he kept the country from dividing into factions. I believe Saddam could have been contained, and didn’t have to be eliminated. Now Humpty Dumpty is broken, and all of Bush’s horses and all of Bush’s men, can’s put Humpty together again (so far).
If we pull out troops before the nation is stabilized, we will have done something immoral and unethical to the people of Iraq who have already suffered enough with Saddam and now the instability precipitated by the United States.
Too bad, you might say. They are doing it to themselves. The fact is, most of the terrorist acts are caused, as I understand it, by outside sources. Iran’s proxies are the Shiite terrorists, and Al-Qaida’s proxies are the Sunni terrorists (bin Laden is a Sunni). Most of the terrorist acts are done by a relatively few people, most of whom are not Iraqi, and most of whom are under the control of Iran, Al Qaida, and other groups. Most Iraqis want to get on with their lives and live in peace, free of the tyranny of Saddam and free of the anarchy that currently exists. Contrary to what some are saying, this is not a civil war. It is a policy of attrition by way of terrorism, influenced by non-Iraqis as mentioned above. To abandon the people of Iraq to a potentially terrible future would be a horrific injustice. More on this in a future blog.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The Movie “Amazing Grace”
I saw the movie “Amazing Grace” recently, and I highly recommend it to you. It is the story of William Wilberforce, who, as a member of the British Parliament, almost single-handedly convinced Parliament to abolish the British slave trade. It took many years to accomplish, but he did it. This movie is his story. It is a very well done movie, and is something you can take the kid to. It is still playing in the area, or you can rent it when it comes out on DVD.
Below is a review of the movie from World Magazine if you would like to know more about the movie:
As an agnostic, director Michael Apted likes studying people of faith. That interest lured him to direct “Amazing Grace” (PG for thematic material involving slavers and some mild language), a film about 19th-century abolitionist William Wilberforce. What he found was an intriguing, almost paradoxical historical figure, both devout Christian and shrewd politician.
Portraying this “brilliant balance,” Apted told WORLD, was difficult. “You don’t want to dim his faith, nor do you want to make him look politically naïve.”
Apted had Wilberforce’s words and historical record to keep them on track. They scoured his writings and speeches, as well as the work of Wilberforce biographers. The result is a beautifully lyrical story, in which Wilberforce’s faith is the gently guiding motor. They are mindful of the fact that few Americans have even heard of Wilberforce, 4 percent, to be exact.
Apted’s goal was to make “a heroic story about politics,” he said. The film’s opening (Feb. 23), mostly in independent theaters, coincides with the day Wilberforce finally succeeded in pushing an abolition bill through Parliament, with an overwhelming vote in the House of Commons in 1807.
The film follows Wilberforce (Ioan Gruffudd) over the 20 years it took to achieve this “great object.” Following his conversion, he grappled with how to serve God and remain a politician. “We humbly suggest that you can do both,” one abolitionist remarked, as Wilberforce first learns of slavery’s horrors.
The film also does well to explain Wilberforce by powerfully portraying his closest friends and guides, including witty Barbara Spooner (Romola Garai), whom Wilberforce marries, and John Newton (played by Albert Finney).
Finney’s moving Newton matures alongside Wilberforce, even as he encourages his protegé’s fight. First fearful of his “20,000 ghosts”—the slaves Newton once transported— he eventually exorcises them by making a historical record of his murderous old work. Along the way he remembers two things: “I’m a great sinner and Christ is a great Savior.” So summarizes the film: Great grace makes great men. Whether Christian or not, viewers will find a rich, inspiring narrative of an effective man of faith. And that makes an amazing story. © World Magazine, Feb. 24, 2007, Vol. 22, No. 7
Below is a review of the movie from World Magazine if you would like to know more about the movie:
As an agnostic, director Michael Apted likes studying people of faith. That interest lured him to direct “Amazing Grace” (PG for thematic material involving slavers and some mild language), a film about 19th-century abolitionist William Wilberforce. What he found was an intriguing, almost paradoxical historical figure, both devout Christian and shrewd politician.
Portraying this “brilliant balance,” Apted told WORLD, was difficult. “You don’t want to dim his faith, nor do you want to make him look politically naïve.”
Apted had Wilberforce’s words and historical record to keep them on track. They scoured his writings and speeches, as well as the work of Wilberforce biographers. The result is a beautifully lyrical story, in which Wilberforce’s faith is the gently guiding motor. They are mindful of the fact that few Americans have even heard of Wilberforce, 4 percent, to be exact.
Apted’s goal was to make “a heroic story about politics,” he said. The film’s opening (Feb. 23), mostly in independent theaters, coincides with the day Wilberforce finally succeeded in pushing an abolition bill through Parliament, with an overwhelming vote in the House of Commons in 1807.
The film follows Wilberforce (Ioan Gruffudd) over the 20 years it took to achieve this “great object.” Following his conversion, he grappled with how to serve God and remain a politician. “We humbly suggest that you can do both,” one abolitionist remarked, as Wilberforce first learns of slavery’s horrors.
The film also does well to explain Wilberforce by powerfully portraying his closest friends and guides, including witty Barbara Spooner (Romola Garai), whom Wilberforce marries, and John Newton (played by Albert Finney).
Finney’s moving Newton matures alongside Wilberforce, even as he encourages his protegé’s fight. First fearful of his “20,000 ghosts”—the slaves Newton once transported— he eventually exorcises them by making a historical record of his murderous old work. Along the way he remembers two things: “I’m a great sinner and Christ is a great Savior.” So summarizes the film: Great grace makes great men. Whether Christian or not, viewers will find a rich, inspiring narrative of an effective man of faith. And that makes an amazing story. © World Magazine, Feb. 24, 2007, Vol. 22, No. 7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)