Sunday, October 19, 2008
California Church Impact with California Council of Churches and gay marriage
Can it really be true that 51 denominations and religious communities in California are represented by an organization whose present focus is the legalization of gay marriage?
On October the sixteenth I wrote about California Church Impact and their voter recommendations that advise a no vote on proposition 8. Proposition 8 is the measure which would once again restore marriage, in California, to the traditional moral understanding that marriage is always between a man and a woman. I was deploring the fact that Sacramento Presbytery has a link to that organization.
But California Impact is simply a part of another organization whose leaders are pushing hard to keep gay marriage legal in California. That organization is the California Council of Churches.
The California Council of Churches shares a web site and office with California Church Impact.
On the web site of the CCC, they state that along with CCI, they “operate a Sacramento-based public policy office representing 51 different denominations and judicatories with over 1.5 million members from the mainstream Protestant and Orthodox Christian communities as well as allies from other faith traditions.”
CCC advocating for the gay community along side CCI, offers a “Marriage Equality Study Guide,” for churches as well as links to other articles advocating for gay marriage and even a celebration piece entitled “California Council of Churches and Church IMPACT Celebrate Supreme Court Marriage Equality Ruling.” They are also one of the founding members of California Faith for Equality.
Churches and Christian organizations alike need to ask the question, “how can it be that the CCC and the CCI represent so many Christians who uphold the authority of the Bible?”
For instance what would the Reformed Church in America, the Greek Orthodox Church, or the African Methodist Episcopal Church say about finding themselves listed on the CCC’s web site as some of the Churches CCC represents?
While Executive Director, Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, and Director of Public Policy, Elizabeth Sholes, may feel that gay marriage is the right policy for the California public they hardly have the right to imply that all of the Churches they supposedly represent agree.
In another posting I will look at the theology the California Council of Churches and the California Church Impact, as represented by its leaders, are using for their policies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I wonder if they asked their general membership if they also wanted to join CCI, or whether they simply decided that an denomination that had membership in CCC was also a member of CCI by default. It is an old trick used by labor unions, manufacturers associations and other umbrella groups.
I think that CCI is somehow just a subsidiary of some sorts of CCC. One of the more interesting facets of CCC is that rarely is anyone else named but Executive Director, Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, and Director of Public Policy, Elizabeth Sholes. The board of Directors is often mentioned but not their names. So one of my questions which I have not found an answer to is who is actually making the decisions?
Honestly it makes a lot of sense: many churches recognize gay marriage, and the change to the constitution is an impediment towards religious freedom, not only plain old discrimination.
Of course while other churches are free to not marry gay couples by the same argument, the fact of the matter is that tax law and medical choices, AND religious FREEDOM are the biggest issues it relates to. Couples want to be able to be loved by their partners, for example having their partners make choices for them should they be unable. There are thousands of tax laws that apply to couples, but not singles.
Very obviously, religious people often have different beliefs. In the same way I would support Mormons in some life-styles not approved of by my more "main-stream" or conservative friends, I also feel it is only fair to extend one's compassion to others not understood by myself.
This last point is how I have come to balance my beliefs with my external reality. While I certainly understand those led away by fear, given the framing of the issues that reigned, none-the-less, I posit that to be surprised that churches defend equality seems, to me, out-of-touch with the community-at-large. Perhaps it simply is your age.
You seem to have an interesting blog discussing interesting issues - how nice. I encourage you to keep struggling with these issues.
With all due respect, the opposition on behalf of the CIC/CCC makes NO sense. There are mechanisms within law (for example, civil unions) which accomplish the same stated goal, that being partnership benefits. In reality that is NOT the reason for this controversy.
The gay community is engaged in social engineering that will further their goal of legitimizing their lifestyle within American society. It is also a further attempt at ultimately restricting churches from discrimination of gays within Church schools, book stores, and administrative offices.
By supporting the opposition to proposition 8 under the guise of protecting the “rights” and “freedoms” of others, clergy and lay-people within the CIC/CCC may ultimately be contributing to restricting their own rights in the future to proclaim any gospel that is in contradiction to “Gay rights”. They could in fact, one day be prosecuted for “hate crimes” merely because they don’t agree with the gay agenda.
While society and religion may have “changed”, the tenants of the Christian faith have not. Being religious is not what the council’s founding fathers (and their original mission statement) sought to focus on when the CIC/CCC was established. Nor did they believe that being “religious” alone guaranteed admission into the kingdom of God.
I find it interesting that the mission statement of the CIC/CCC itself has changed (emphasis on the name Jesus Christ was deleted) from one of focusing on the teachings of Christ to one that seems to focus on righting the world’s wrongs as if accepting His teachings would preclude protection of the weak and the poor.
The church while seeking to help others should set its eyes upon salvation for man-kind through Christ as its primary goal. It was “the great commission” that Christ left us with prior to his assumption. This issue in my opinion, questions the level of courage and conviction that the church (and groups such as the CIC/CCC) is willing to apply in proclaiming the gospel even when it does not support social morays of the day.
As Christians, the Bible calls us to conform our image to that of God’s. When we act contrary to the gospel and embrace that which is identified as sin, we are not conforming ourselves to God’s image but rather our own. We are in essence focusing on becoming like our fellow man instead of the Son of man.
Some denominations included in the CIC/CCC are currently struggling and indeed are fracturing over this very issue. The CIC/CCC should clearly denote whether it is indeed acting on the will of the entire council (regarding this situation) or whether it is a certain number of churches (congregations) and/or CIC/CCC officers who are speaking for the members at large. To do otherwise is being disingenuous to the charter/mission of the CIC/CCC.
Hi TN, interesting point.
"With All Due Respect" is something I wish to address, in a more general way. In our country, with our charter, "due respect" is roughly sketched out in our Bill of Rights, as well as the constitution, of course. This is a bit off topic, but I'm just helping to delineate the lines of inquiry. Furthermore, it is possible for people to be propelled by patriotism, as well as religious world-views, and attempt to synthesize these beliefs.
Actually, the (supposed) very fracturing of opinion within the CIC (if there is one) only re-enforces my argument. While I can respect your opinions about the best direction of "the" (you may read: your) church, the previous poster seems unable to respect mine, or others. This split, expressed in the microcosm of our conversation, reflects exactly what? Religious freedom, a basic right in our country.
Churches can choose not to belong if they wish. I am a healthy happy straight episcopal. "TN" and I - we differ in our world view. Big whoop. Perhaps you are a terrorist, intent on inciting another civil war, based on this issue?
Ultimately it will be up to the courts to decide, just as they had to decide whether or not dismissing gay Boy Scouts means that the Boy Scouts can not operate on public campuses. I believe in my country (I am very patriotic) and thus I believe that the courts can see your reasonable argument that indeed not admitting gay students into the Boy Scouts is simply discrimination, not a hate crime. Thus, they can not operate on a public school campus. Now if members of the BSA wanted to go spray-paint a gay student's car, that might be a separate issue.
It is the courts that decide these issues, not "the" (this time read "your" or "my") church. It happens that CCI has a simple mission: "Helping to create a world that cares for all of its citizens regardless of economic class, ages, gender, race and ethnicity, religious belief, or sexual orientation." (Sign me up!)
I believe that my comment regarding traditional Mormon marriage practices is pertinent, but not addressed. Clearly we as a society do not condone polygamy, but having done much work in SE Asia, I found myself having to grapple with this issue within a very different context: in this case a very traditional Buddhist society. Granted, this could be a "slipper slope": I do not condone marriage before the age of consent, perhaps a nifty hole in my argument for the belligerent. But consent and the freedom of adults are two different things.
This aspect of law, it seems, makes both my liberal and my conservative friends have trouble with my personal view. Obviously in this case, we find that the spirit of freedom is protected (such cases are not actually prosecuted with) but sadly, there is no real legal protection in place. It seems that ultra-traditional Mormons are only "fair-weather friends" to so many.
Interesting to note, I have witnessed polygamy in larger numbers (where men married more than one woman) where the traditional belief existed and the following conditions persisted: AND where men died often early from disease or war, or where there were a huge number of male monks. There seems to be a practical aspect to the practice. Maybe you have never thought about that.
Interesting to imagine, as you seem to suggest, that the churches that embrace gay marriage, are chock full of "the gay", it's "agenda", and dozens and dozens of hidden agents, "socially engineering" the world through creating public policy, haha... Kind of a conspiracy theory, actually, like they have some sort of "gay-bomb".... However, I think if you think honestly and look into it, you will see that such an idea is just silly.
Wow...civil war, terrorism, conspiracies, and the American flag...ha...sorry but I can't help to find it humourus how this topic seems to disentigrate into personal sensibilities.
I appreciate the history lesson of the Bill of Rights, and the constitution, and yes it is off topic, but I’ll respond to the reference and to the patriotic/world-view (even though the two aren’t always compatible).
As for the “religious world-views”, I won’t go there, simply because while being tolerant of my friends’ beliefs and respectful of them as fellow human beings, the Christian faith does not advocate an “all roads lead to heaven” philosophy.
By the way, you don’t know me and vice versa, just so that you know, while you were in SE Asia, I’ve been throughout the Middle East and Europe and have worked/lived with people from the elders/Mullah/Burgermeister levels to heads of state. I’ve worked with non-governmental organizations, international organizations and governmental/military entities. I’ve heard a plethora of idealistic philosophies/religions and I’ve seen reality and the two cannot always be “synthesized” to fix the world’s problems ESPECIALLY if you are looking to man (and his institutions) for answers.
The “supposed” fracturing I referenced deals with the denomination/members within the CIC/CCC not the organization itself and in that regard, it is not supposition, in fact it was a featured bi-line on all news networks just yesterday (i.e. your church is on the verge of loosing a good chunk of churches in Texas…that’s not opinion/conjecture or rumor…that’s fact and its not difficult to verify).
In your reference to “Freedom of religion” as a basic right….you again confuse man’s law with God’s. I will absolutely agree with you or anyone else that everyone in this country is free to worship as they believe. That’s not the issue, the issue is within the body of Christ and how WE as Christians respond to the world. We are not called to the world but to God…that too is not opinion, it’s stated in the Bible. For those that are NOT Christians or those who adhere to Christian philosophy (someone who embraces the ideals but not the Saviour) they should not be expected to hold to the same beliefs as ours and I’ve never indicated otherwise.
I won’t thump my chest over patriotism, after being shot at numerous times I really don’t need to, but I will tell you that I seek to insure that my actions/conduct are guided by the principal of “giving unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”. I also hold fast that when country and my allegiance to God conflict….God wins the coin toss. By the way, I’m a big scout supporter and I agree with your analysis. I also have a gay nephew that knows while I don’t condone or agree with his choice, that doesn’t prevent me from continuing to love him.
Violence against others is wrong…period…but condoning something that is spiritually wrong as being “okay” because society has deemed it so is equally wrong. The courts deal with man…they don’t deal with the church…and while they may decide on the laws of the land, as a Christian I will not depend on them to decide on the laws of God anymore than Paul relied on the Roman senate.
On your reference to the CCI statement...your “sign me up”, attitude misses the mark…if this was a human rights group dedicated to effecting change through law, then that would indeed be a commendable organization, but if the CCC seeks to pursue these goals as a Christian body….its going about it the wrong way. The original council sought to effect change through Christ (giving and helping are the fruits of our relationship with God through Christ), the statement that you recite has taken subjugates the credo of governing our actions through our relationship with Him in deference to focusing on what man (and man-made organizations/groups can do).
For some reason you wanted me to address the Mormon polygamy issue…not sure why, but…first and foremost, today’s CLDS does NOT condone polygamy, but even if they did so what? Like I said, I too have traveled the world helping others and dealing with de-confliction, reconciliation, and reconstruction…you’re still confusing man’s law with God’s. Man’s law crucified Christ…it isn’t and never will be the solution to equality and freedom amongst man-kind, that doesn’t mean we aren’t called to be peace-makers, but it does mean that we need to see the world with it’s limitations.
I won’t continue to address polygamy…that’s waaaayyyy off subject, but I’ll answer the final point regarding the conspiracy theory remark. The last Kinsey report listed one percent of Americans as being gay,…over 70% of television shows and movies include gay characters or addressing gay themes. The acceptance speech of Barrack Obama included a reference to Gay Americans (and no,…I’m not slamming Obama), the Episcopal Church itself is having problems after it elected as its head a practicing gay person…exactly what proof do you need that there is move underway to change the way the American people regard the gay life-style?
When the CCC/CCI (a body of churches who individually are concerned with changing the world through Christ) comes out in opposition of proposition 8 because they feel that the rights of individuals to choose their own sexual orientation as per the constitution isn’t being observed, the question again is…how and WHY did they weigh in on this subject? These churches are supposed to be in favor of God’s definition of morality not man’s.
The group’s stance is even more perplexing when you consider that no one is stopping gays from joining into civil unions and protecting their rights…so what is all the hubbub about?
The answer to the opposition of this proposition is that this issue is a smoke screen for the real issue for gays; to have the traditional institution of marriage, the same institution created by God for man-kind, to recognize them. This is not some theory and the gay community will tell you this. So again I ask, if the rights for gays is not being violated, then WHY is the CIC/CCC getting involved? And I have to agree with the other comment posted earlier…why hasn’t the CIC/CCC delineated whether it’s decision has the support of the entire body or not?
I did answer your first question: if the rights for gays is not being violated... the answer is yes, based on freedom of religion. Your second question only validates my point.
WHAT point? Freedom of religon isn't being debated...the institution of marriage, ordained by God is.
Being gay is a sexual preference, it is a label associated with an activity, it is no more an indicator of someone’s racial or ethnic make-up than left-handed people who play volleyball on weekends and yet the gay community continues to seek minority status in order to gain acceptance of what they do as being legitimate by ALL segments of society. This is the impetus behind this opposition to proposition 8.
This proposition is in no way a "human rights" issue. There is no right being violated, this is a challenge and an attack on an institution with Judeo-Christian roots by a group of people who oppose these beliefs. Marriage ceremonies involve pledging faithfulness and love to each other in the eyes of God. To suggest it be done/recognized by His church in His presence but in opposition to his word makes no sense.
Freedom of religion?! Whose religion? Your allowing the attack of an institution defined by YOUR faith in the name of WHOSE faith? The three major faiths (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) don't recognize the institution outside of the traditional roles of man and woman...so whose faith are we protecting? And if it is outside of our faith and doesn’t involve depriving anyone of the basic rights guaranteed in the constitution then why is a Christian organization joining in the attack?
This latest attempt to re-define marriage gives nothing to the gay community in the way of “rights” that they don't already possess (the ability to leave/claim benefits for their partners), and yet that is the smoke screen that is being used by those that oppose the proposition.
The answer is that the CCC/CIC has wondered off into an area/cause that protects no one's freedom, but attacks an institution that Churches are supposed to be defending and supporting.
It appears that CCC and CCI is joining in the attack in order to be faithful to their charter of being the vanguard of protecting freedom.
Lastly, I’m not sure how you thought you answered the question (“validates”?) of which churches supported and which ones opposed the statement put out by the leadership of the CCC/CIC, but I give up…I don’t expect an answer despite the fact that I know the AME churches (among others within the council) do NOT oppose proposition 8.
I applaud your dedication to fair-play, but I think in this situation that you and the CCC/CIC need to recognize this is a windmill and not a monster.
Well, tn, you do it again... you see prop 8, defining the institution of marriage, is not defining the institution as ordained by God: How could prop 8 do that? It is amending the constitution, a document that defines and guides civic/civil life. This is where you have made a fallacious step in your argument.
I invite groups to leave the CCC, if they really need to, though it makes me sad when people can't see the difference between the defining themselves and defining others. Our common tasks of improving the world is better accomplished with plurality, honestly. I often think it takes weak people to need to strong-arm others into conforming to their "adopted" view. I invite you to become stronger and less threatened by others.
The CCC's Impact charter (see above) is pretty clear. Their voting recommendation simply follows it.
You make a lot of suppositions about what churches are supposed to do and not supposed to do: Have you considered other opinions? Furthermore, as you state:
"Marriage ceremonies involve pledging faithfulness and love to each other in the eyes of God." If this is so, why have any such definition in the state constitution, a civic document?
To clarify:
"To suggest it be done/recognized by His church in His presence but in opposition to his word makes no sense." Well, I am happy you are secure in your faith, just as others are secure in theirs. "His word" and "His presence" means so many different things to different people, though. Simple enough. This is freedom of religion.
Frankly I am defending my faith, my church, I am Christian, one of the big five. (You overlook Buddhism and Hinduism, I can forgive you.) Of course Scientologists, Railians, etc (sp?) get married too, ya know... and divorced... (The true irony will be that many gay people who have gotten married will also come to see it's down side... Not sure what to say about the Railians though ahaha... though they're going to live forever by way of cloning, amirite?)
I am sorry that you can't admit to even a shadow of a doubt about this issue. It really is divisive, and it hurts those around you. I, for one, DO believe that others feel the presence of God, just as in my imperfect life I feel that I am able to witness His grace.
Perhaps my interpretations and in fact very incarnation is not all-knowing and perfect (haha). Kidding aside, I believe that admitting as much makes me a better person, so that I might change when I am wrong. I am asking the same of you. We live in a plural society: even those Christians among us (say, you and me) do not always agree. I believe my points stand.
Let me first say this has been an interesting conversation…though at times it’s drifted too much to the personal side. In attempting to answer your questions/comments lets make sure that we’re clear that this conversation is supposed to be from a Christian standpoint…disagreement with other faiths (if someone doesn’t believe in Christ as the only way to redemption then there is no need to try to dissuade them) or someone who has no faith is unavoidable.
Proposition 8 attempts to address THE major component to the institution of marriage…that being between a man and a woman. You’re right that the proposition does not mention God (“as ordained by God”) but it does uphold one of the major tenants as outlined in scripture and that is the necessary relationship between man and woman.
While special interest groups are certainly free to attack/defend the definition of marriage, the body of Christ should be supporting the word of God rather than opposing it. God made it abundantly clear as to the involvement of man and woman within the bonds of matrimony (that’s not an opinion, I’m only re-stating what you can read in the word of God). But even in the secular sense…the proposition does not affect the constitution in ANY way. Proposition 8 addresses how the state looks at the definition of marriage, it does not prevent same-sex unions, therefore it does not withhold any rights from anyone and does not contradict the constitution.
I sincerely appreciate your attitude for reaching out to others…I could have used you overseas on more than one occasion…ha. I have NO problem in accepting people/beliefs and in fact I can literally claim friends from all over the world that I still maintain a relationship with. But in seeking to understand others, we (the body of Christ) have to take care as to not give the impression that we compromise our own faith. Respecting others and living in peace with them does not mean embracing their beliefs. My faith has not compromised the respect or loyalty shown to me by my friends.
Conviction should not be confused with intolerance and rest assured I’ve never felt “threatened” because I don’t look for acceptance or rejection by man as a validation of who I am. Your question on other opinions is interesting, but I invite you to further read about the history of the early church. Paul often came into contact with other faiths/religions but his compassion for them never out-weighed his conviction.
Yes, I’ve considered other opinions and I will continue to do so, I’m not sure how that question related to your quotation of me concerning marriage. As for the question about the definition being put in past constitutions/documents, that has had no relevance until now, when it has been challenged by a group of people that oppose the original definition. Your reference to my words of "His word" and "His presence" intrigues me and causes me to ask you if you adhere to the philosophy of “all roads lead to heaven” to include those of other faiths?
If you believe that all faiths are relative and that Buddhism, Hinduism, (you forgot Taoism and Shintoism…but what the heck..ha), etc. are acceptable means to obtain eternal life, then there really is nothing further to discuss. You and I can’t agree because while being knowledgeable of the other faiths and respectful of those who adhere to them, I have no desire to embrace them….
Understanding and respecting others has no requirement for agreement or compromise (save to agree to disagree). While you may be sorry for me please don’t be, I’m happily secure in my faith…a faith that doesn’t depend on man but rather on God. It constantly challenges me to improve from within while helping others. Don’t get me wrong, we all experience some doubt during our lifetimes, but I can’t imagine how depressing it would be to consistently have doubts about the foundation of your beliefs (Christ as the doorway to salvation).
As for divisiveness, I have and will continue to, co-exist with those around me, but I will stay committed to the tenants listed in God’s word. As it was written, Christ warned us that he did not come to sew peace within the world but instead to offer eternal life. If it were up to me, I’d let anyone who truly worked for peace and was kind to others into heaven with very little (if any) other conditions….but it’s not up to me. All I can do is reference my conduct to God’s dictates and his guiding Spirit. I’m no more perfect than you are and while I disagree with you, I will (and have), defend your right as an American.
But there is something in this world that is far more perfect than any country and it’s to Him that I owe my ultimate allegiance to. There is a hurting, bleeding world around us that needs Christ, and its answering those needs that should be consuming everyone’s (Christians) concern rather than obsessing over the legitimacy of institutions and whether or not we have offended those around us.
Yea, on a side issue, I did actually consider Taoism, but I don't really place it in the BIG faiths of our world. Important, yes, but not represented by the numbers. However I will absolutely grant you your worldliness, this is not the issue.
Regarding your question:
"Your reference to my words of "His word" and "His presence" intrigues me and causes me to ask you if you adhere to the philosophy of “all roads lead to heaven” to include those of other faiths?"
Importantly, I am stating, relative to the OP, is that there is plurality within Christian faiths. That plurality is not for the constitution to judge. (That, in fact, is the policy/view/position of the CCC.)
I suppose YOU may judge parts of the body of Christ, but honestly, 'The Body' of Christ is diverse: You seem content to judge the 'real' Christians from the 'fake' ones. This might help YOU in ways, but in the end the only true judge is God. Mostly I see that you are confusing the mission of your church with the mission of other churches or the constitution. Separate, and not equal indeed. We all have our priorities.
The separate question of whether or not someone can go to Heaven as a member of a different faith is entirely irrelevant. It is a theological contention, not a civic matter. However differing opinions on this matter within the Christian faith only furthers my point.
I’m not sure what you’re reading into my emails….maybe they’re awakening questions you have inside at your core that you’ve never come to grips with, but I’ve NEVER said that the question of your use of the term “plurality” was supposed to be judged by the constitution.
This email trail started with my contention that a CHRISTIAN based organization has no business coming out in defiance of an issue that includes elements of its own belief system. You used the accusation in an earlier email about a “civil war” , your church is in the middle of a civil war about a related issue. For a CHRISTIAN organization to oppose itself is (staying on a civil war theme) the same as a house divided….and a house divided can’t stand.
If you want to wrap yourself in the flag and take off like Don Quixote, go for it…but for gosh sakes separate your quest from your faith…if you can. Don’t confuse a secular world as to WHAT the CCC stands for by linking it to the CCC. As for the churches within the CCC…this is another indicator that its time to reevaluate membership. If the officers of the group can (as you have accused me earlier of), try to push their ideas on others, without giving any credence to churches that don’t agree…then its time to leave what was once a group devoted to showing the face of Christ but has become a civic organization.
Talk about confused….have you even read the Bible? I don’t chose to judge anybody, but I find it interesting that you seem to be so defensive about the “parts” of the body of Christ. If you mean by diversity, people who are struggling in the faith (grappling with sin in their life), ALL of us do that to some extent, including me.
But if you mean diversity as in not accepting that Christ is the only way to eternal life…that’s not an act of judgment by me…you’ll have to take that up with the big Guy…He’s the one that laid those ground rules. The plan of salvation is not something I invented or one particular denomination created…its clearly defined in the New Testament…again, not MY opinion, I’m only repeating what the Author said.
There are many Christian philosophers/theologians who admire and live their life along the lines of the philosophy of Christ…that’s fine…and that’s their constitutional right…but that doesn’t make them Christians. These folks are welcome to attend ANY church, but walking through a church door, singing a few hymns and throwing money at social programs doesn’t define them as Christians any more than walking into a baseball stadium makes you a professional ball player.
On your point about the fact that God will judge….you’re right…and His plan is not some hidden formula, or some well-kept secret that only a select few know/possess. It doesn’t matter if you read the New Testament in Greek or an English translation, the message is crystal clear, and it has NOTHING to do with my “opinion” or anyone else’s for that matter, I’m only stating what’s in the Book.
As to the question of how I view my church versus the other churches…let me AGAIN make this clear, the organization of the CCC was brought about for churches who held a common view of Christ and united with the goal of doing good within the name of Christ AND His teachings. Again…common goal, that ALL of the members agreed upon…the charter never said the churches had to agree on other issues. But this crusade of the CIC (opposing a key ingredient in the church sponsored ceremony – man/woman) and the supportive stand by the CCC is NOT in keeping with that charter because it is attacking an institution that is recognized within the body of Christ.
Lastly, the one common viewpoint that the CCC originally held was belief in Christ as the ONLY way to salvation, your phrase says it all “The separate question of whether or not someone can go to Heaven as a member of a different faith is entirely irrelevant.” – REALLY? If your church and its denomination and other churches within this organization can’t agree on that….then its DEFINITLY time to dissolve and let the CIC stand alone as a civic activist group.
Your point IS my point…if the CCC backs the CIC in a civic matter that contradicts the Christian faith…then it is no longer relevant. At the LEAST the CCC needs to sever ties with the CIC so that members truly adhere to their charters.
“The separate question of whether or not someone can go to Heaven as a member of a different faith is entirely irrelevant.”
Some Christians may believe one way, some may believe another. I know your view, it's obvious. But in broader terms, it's not up to you, my friend. Nor is it relevant in the voter recommendation: it's pretty clear... the coalition wishes to remain cognizant of it's role in the world. Their recommendation is not to recommend constitutional change. Your theological point is moot, if you follow me. It may be hard for you to admit, given your strict view, but it's true.
"A house divided may not stand." Well, the CCC is a coalition of churches, not the same church with different doors/parishes. You are right, the CCC has "no business coming out in defiance of an issue that includes elements of its own belief system". The CCC's mission states: "In the providence of God, the time has come more fully to manifest the essential oneness of the Christian Churches of America in Jesus Christ as their Divine Lord and Savior, and to promote the spirit of fellowship, service and cooperation among them." This is the stated belief, and the voter recommendation confirms that, in rather eloquent terms, I might add. The CCC's mission statement and belief system is very clear.
Apparently you are a bit butt-hurt (gosh darn it, pardon the expression!) about my facetious comment about civil war, etc... I am still confused how a church such as mine is being warped by the gays, if you will... it is your paranoia, not mine, that I am referring to. Let me address 'Social engineering'.
Let's face it, even my branch of Episcopals are a pretty conservative lot, and we likely have only a tiny bit higher percentage of gay people in our congregation than in the common society (given that they are welcomed in my church, and not welcomed in others, certainly not socially - I know you have a gay nephew, but honestly, some of the hateful things that are said! Phew!). Actually, it is straight people's honoring of partnerships that has created our view, not some sort of gay-people's engineering (whatever that is!).
The CCC recognizes that we live in a pluralistic society and it's rather simple: as you say, this is not a huge issue (not a monster!), and certainly not worthy of a constitutional change.
Once again, voting guides are just that: guides. While correctly, you never said that the question of the term “plurality” was supposed to be judged by the constitution, Prop 8 does. The CCC simply interprets this judgment and 'calls it like it is'... out of the scope of the Church's role. Actually, they are doing exactly what you suggest: "Unit(ing) with the goal of doing good within the name of Christ and His teachings." I think most of us can admit that there have been worthy and not so worthy crusades done in the name of Christ - at the very least, the CCC are picking worthy battles.
The charters are clear: the CCC, the California Faith for Equality, and Impact, all have clear missions. They have been in existence for quite a while, have a track record, and are doing the best work they know how. This is not that unreasonable. The CCC's web-site is very clear. Yes, even churches that may not marry gay people may see the virtue of "allowing" (in quotes because actually the don't see it as their purview) other churches to do so. My question to you is: why is that so hard?
I don’t know what else you read when you read my emails…but why do you go on about “how a church of mine is being warped by gays”? The only thing I’ve directed at “your church” has been the controversy that is causing a rift…if YOU think that is the ONLY reason then so be it….my only reason for linking it to this thread was due to the proposition 8 controversy.
You really need to take a deep breath and calm down…you’re reading WAAAY too much into these emails…”butt-hurt”…wow…what an incredible reach of the English language you have….LOL…I brought up the civil war comment and the terrorism comment because I regarded it as your attempt at humor,…if it wasn’t….wow….you really are thin skinned and defensive…and maybe you have a couple of other issues.
I find it really entertaining when you ignore reality and then pass it off as one of my problems….if you’re confused by how your church is being effected by the…what did you call it…”warped by gays” issue…then you really need to take off the rose colored glasses and read a newspaper occasionally. Do you think your churches in Texas are leaving just because they’re bored?
For the last time….I KNOW it’s not up to me….or you…but that wasn’t the question that started this string of emails. The question was…did the council decide on this, or some of the officers? We all know what the web-site said/says…that’s not the question. I also know (as I’m sure you do) that there is a move underfoot by more than one church/denomination to pull out of an organization that refuses to distance itself from issues left to civic groups.
The CIC can pursue its own agenda and if you want to look to an organization that combines faiths to accomplish social good then that looks like the place it needs to be…but it’s still linked with the CCC. Some of your remarks I’ll overlook as being over-heated due to passion…for example the question of Christianity…I’m guessing/hoping that you don’t really believe that the question of where someone spends an eternity is “irrelevant.”
I will however offer that we totally agree on the CCC definition, in fact your paragraph was perfect…almost…I won’t agree (nor will I debate with you) that one voice won’t make any difference within the coalition. Oh and if you think these questions and concerns are coming from only one church, one person, or one denomination within this coalition, you’re sadly mistaken.
I’m not diving any further into the “paranoia” comment…I find that reference is analogous to “the pot calling the kettle black”, in an earlier email I already said that ALL are welcome into the house of the Lord….and believe it or not I do agree that some folks have badly treated gays and that is certainly not in keeping with what the Christian faith, but HOW we help each other…NOT judge,…but help each other with addressing our sins (ALL sins) is what makes a church (regardless of denomination) and to not attempt to reach out is no different than allowing someone ill to linger on without treatment.
“Actually, it is straight people's honoring of partnerships that has created our view, not some sort of gay-people's engineering (whatever that is!).” – I really thought on how to answer you with this…whether to take the bait and point out the obvious…even YOUR congregation has brought up the term “social engineering”, or the fact that the secular world has used the same term….but I’m not going to go any deeper than that...
The decision your church has made on this and other issues is on record and as I’ve said I’m not here to debate it…there really is no need to given it’s current circumstances. As for your question….”why is that so hard”…I suppose you’re referring to why can’t churches who believe in “honoring of partnerships” be in a coalition with those that hold to scripture, my answer may surprise you….there isn’t any reason they can’t.
The problem occurs when the organization (CCC) speaks as ONE voice for all its members on an issue that should be addressed in a multi-faith or a secular forum and not a Christian based one. That forum needs to be a separate and autonomous CIC. Unless that move is made, churches will begin to tire of the same civic, all-world, all-things focus and one by one leave. Eventually the CCC will either go away entirely or winnow down to one or two denominations.
Well, contrary to your perceptions, I'm not frothing at the mouth... Funny that. Actually, I'm pretty sure you're aware it's just a condescending tactic on your part. I would be surprised if not. It might help you to think that I am... nah... more like meh.
Anyway, your apocalyptic prediction for the CCC remains to be seen! It seems to me that differences honored actually yield stronger bonds.
Now see….was that so bad? You’re right…I did…I couldn’t slap you or throw cold water on you to calm you down so I did the next best thing (by the way, here’s a handkerchief, wipe that stuff off…..ha). You and I look at the worlds problems and we BOTH want to help….the difference is HOW we approach the problems. I’ve seen too much of the world and man to believe in his inherit “goodness” but I DO believe that with God ALL things are possible. I don’t and will never believe that man-made institutions alone will bring peace to mankind.
As for the prediction…I think it is easily avoidable IF we put emphasis on approaching problems in their right perspectives and using the appropriate organization (CCC versus CIC). You believe in honoring differences, I’m a bit more Old Testament and prefer “iron on iron”….I think the ONLY good (idea) metal is one that stands up to the heat of the furnace…(word of God).
But let me share something with you…don’t think that because a Christian doesn’t acknowledge a particular sin as being acceptable in the eyes of God,…means that he/she judges/condemns someone to eternal hell and is un-sympathetic or shuns others….we can deplore the sin, while still praying and interacting with sinners. We ALL struggle (yes…that means me too...ha) with sin…the question is whether or not we and those brothers and sisters around us repent and seek to turn from it. The challenges facing us in our walk is nothing new…read Corinthians and Hebrews for more info on that subject.
The conversations/writings that I have with professed Christians is different than the ones I have with non-believers…frankly, I/we expect MORE from fellow believers in the way of doctrine no matter which denomination we hail from. I can’t expect a non- believer to understand even the basic concept of original sin much less things that we as Christians don’t fully comprehend (i.e. the mystery of the Trinity, or the essence of God…no beginning, no end) so I’m not going engage him or her the same way I will a believer.
If I felt otherwise I wouldn’t have friends/relationships with people from Finland to Bosnia, to Egypt and lands between. I’ve had and will continue to have conversations/dealings with Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, agnostics, and even atheists. And yet during all this time, none of them has complained when I’ve shared my faith or refrained from partaking in activities that I regard as being contradictory to my faith.
We’re called to be salt and light to the world…when we start trying to seek solutions through man first and God second, we become like any other concerned group. That doesn’t mean we don’t help others, but it does mean that we remember the words of the “great commission” and what God has revealed to us as sin.
I’ll close with my suggestion to bringing peace to the CCC/CIC, “render unto Caesar”……let the CCC concentrate on the kingdom of God and let the CIC move off to complete its own mission.
Oh and don’t worry…I don’t expect your agreement…just your understanding.
While I know you look forward to a theocracy, (no, really, don't you?) you may fail to anticipate that many parishes disagree. This is the origin of rubbing your ribs about a revolution. I do appreciate that third paragraph, btw, of the latest, greatest... Good luck with that.
Because levity is the soul of wit, I leave you (at least for now! Wow what fun it's been) with this: http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html
Theocracy...nah...I've have quite literally fought more than one theocracy...but I enjoyed your jab.
Enjoyed the link too...not sure what the BTW, greatest - latest means, I think you meant of the least instead of the latest.
I don't know if I would have used the term revolution, that has rather serious overtones when speaking about an organization, perhaps evolution would be more appropriate. Evolution speaks to change/adapt or perish…and since the group has embraced change once (60s - 70s), its over-due for the next step in it's evolution, the question is whether or not it will.
I think the CCC while it may have a rich past, in the last few years made decisions internally that has contributed to its problems and change will become inevitable.
If not, God's work will proceed without it...His will, will be done with or without bricks and mortar or any collection of organizations.
Good luck to you too...trying to effect lasting change through man's laws should keep you busy for a life-time…and maybe that’s another good argument for breaking the CIC away from the CCC.
If the CIC was an inter-faith organization…and sought to work out the world’s problems through their own (man’s) efforts, you guys could have the Hindu’s take the lead after all…they have several chances (lives) to achieve success…ha…
Post a Comment