A Day Of Reckoning Is Upon Us

Will it be “Morning in America”? – or “Mourning in America”?

We face overwhelming international crises [partial list]

* A convulsing, global economic meltdown touches every facet of life
* Global poverty (3 billion) takes an incalculable toll (75 million more added last year)
* Countless additional millions moving into poverty at this moment due to the financial crisis
* Pervasive increase in global hunger (1 billion), with resulting malnutrition and diseases
* Systemic injustice for billions of the poorest, marginalized and oppressed in many nations
* Rampant illiteracy: leads to economic/political disenfranchisement for hundreds of millions
* Increases in natural disasters creates long-term financial, social and psychological impact
* The unrelenting specter of global terrorism; failure to crush Al Quida and Taliban
* The spread of radical, militant, global, Jihadistic, Islamic fundamentalism
* Incalculable toll on lives and treasure of intractable six-year war in Iraq – for many nations
* The expanding war in Afghanistan; generals say it can’t be won militarily
* Nuclear North Korea; potential of nuclear Iran; threat of a destabilized nuclear Pakistan
* Proliferation of nuclear materials; nightmare of nuclear weapons in hands of terrorists
* On-going genocide (millions in Sudan, Congo etc); failure of the world to stop it
* Spiraling Israeli/Palestinian conflict holds threat of major Middle East conflagration
* Political/economic challenges in the rise of China; massive US indebtedness to China
* Energy crisis – made up of economic and environmental crises
* Potentially irreversible, destructive trends in climate changes/global warming
* The global spread of AIDS; emerging epidemics/ pandemics; seen in the decimation of Africa
* Deforestation and desertification of the planet, threatening both climate and human survival
* Population growth magnifying world’s desperate lack of pure water sources for billions
* Burgeoning international markets for all forms of pornography (esp. via internet)
* Global scourge of human trafficking in prostitution (esp. children) and slavery
* Rise in religious persecution, especially against Christians throughout the Majority World
* United Nations and other world bodies prove impotent before many of these global crises
* Diminished respect for and confidence about US leadership in the global geo-political arena
* Gospel crisis: Still nearly 3 billion “unreached people” with no knowledge of Christ

We face additional overwhelming national crises [partial list]

* National financial meltdown, with loss so far of over 2 trillion dollars in Americans’ savings
* A catastrophe due to greed, fraud and arrogance – more of a “crisis of character”; a “moral crisis”
* Unprecedented national deficit (many in both political parties say it is “out of control”)
* Whole states moving into massive debt, some into bankruptcy
* Looming insolvency for social safety nets (such as Medicaid, Social Security)
* Massive personal indebtedness of US citizens – $13,000 average credit card debt
* Beginnings of deep, long-term recession, with falling wages, rise in unemployment
* The sub-prime mortgage crisis with resulting homelessness for millions
* Millions of retirees live in fear of financial freefall and the gutting of retirement resources
* Gradual deflation of the middle class with the significant growth of a genuine “under-class”
* Fifty million Americans live daily in inescapable, disabling poverty
* Over 37 million US citizens go to bed hungry; 11% of households facing daily lack of food
* National health care crisis; over 40 million Americans with no insurance at all
* Growing burden of an aging population, seen in accelerating cases of cancer and dementia
* Neglect and deterioration of infrastructures across the nation (roads, schools, bridges, etc)
* Impact – financial and personal – of increases in disastrous hurricanes, tornados, floods, fires
* Failure of Congress to adequately secure the homeland per 9/11 Commission (ports, borders etc)
* Flood of illegal immigrations, complicating the effort to maintain national security
* Increased threats of paralyzing Internet sabotages, at both government and business levels
* Seemingly unending wars on two fronts – with our military stretched to the “breaking point”
* Major deficiencies and inequalities in American education; falling behind most developed nations
* A divided, ineffective Congress – often under the sway of lobbyists and special interest groups
* Polarization over faith and politics, undermining the social cohesion essential to national survival
* Crisis of leadership throughout society; frequently evidenced in incompetence and corruption
* “Culture wars” – struggles for the existence of absolutes in the face of pluralism and multiculturalism
* An emerging “culture of death” replacing a “culture of life”: abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research
* Moral freefall – seen vividly in the pervasive sexualizing of our culture (esp. pornography)
* Sexual revolution continues, with intercourse experienced at increasingly younger ages
* The rising crusade for gay rights at all levels, demanding a reconstituting of the social contract
* The battle over definition/re-definition and preservation of traditional marriage
* Millions of divorces annually, with its long-term psychological impact on children
* Increase in violence – child abuse; gangs in our streets; gratuitous violence for mass entertainment
* Unrelenting flood of illegal drugs, destroying millions of youth as well as whole communities
* Rapid rise in incarcerations (US has highest rates and the highest numbers in the world)
* Rapid rise nationally of reported cases of depression and suicide
* Growing wide-spread rejection of religion’s right to play a role in the public square
* Vibrant faith undermined by Christians’ own choices to politicize biblical Christianity
* Atheistic scholars and their followers attacking the Christian faith more openly and boldly
* Over 100 million Americans have never darkened a church door; plus influx of world religions

Additional, serious crises inside the church [partial list]

* 80% of US congregations are stagnant or dying in terms of membership
* 80% of youth from evangelical families leave the church after high school
* 80% of pastors are burdened with a spirit of isolation and hopelessness
* 40% of evangelical men wrestle with addiction to pornography
* High profile scandals among leaders discredit us; such as multiple lawsuits for pedophilia
* Millions sitting in our pews on Sunday remain unconverted (50% by one major survey)
* Less that 3% of Christians’ annual incomes are given to the work of Christ
* Some 96% of Christians discovered to be “biblically illiterate” (cf. Barna Research)
* Nearly 67% of evangelicals surveyed believe that Jesus is not the only way to Heaven
* Although 84% believe in absolute standards, 40% mostly rely on their own common sense
* Research indicates most Christians rarely talk to each other about the wonders of Christ
* Significant numbers of believers fear growing in intimacy with Christ (80% by one survey)
* Above all, multitudes of Christians remain captive to the greatest crisis of all. It is a “crisis of Christology”. It is the significant shortfall in how we see, seek, savor, serve, share and speak about God’s Son for ALL that He is. Increasing numbers of spiritual leaders identify this as the seminal crisis for the Church at this hour. But it also comprises the greatest crisis the world is facing whether the world realizes it or not. Every crisis of Christology inside the Church hinders unbelievers outside the Church from discovering their one God-given hope – found in the supremacy of Christ and the blessings of His redeeming Reign.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

APPEAL: Adding up all these crises, clearly a “day of reckoning” is upon us. Therefore, we must pray and prepare for God’s Spirit to use God’s Word to re-convert God’s people back to God’s Son for ALL that He is. We must pray and prepare for a widespread Christ-awakening movement in America, one that mobilizes believers everywhere to serve His glorious reign in the midst of, and for the sake of, all other crises. What other hope do we have? We stand at a crossroads – at a defining moment. Will it be “mourning” for America? … or will there arise a fresh, Christ-exalting “morning” for America? Is it not time for such a nationwide Christ-awakening to become for all of us the ultimate “change we can believe in”?

Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism

At the time the United Church of Christ was formed, the Heidelberg Catechism was the confessional document considered most expressive of the common unity that existed between the Congregationalists and the Evangelical and Reformed churches which would form the UCC. As a result, in 1963 when the catechism was translated afresh into English for its 400th anniversary, the United Church Press published not only the new catechism with scripture proofs from the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible, they also published several related resources including a work titled The Heidelberg Catechism and Commentary. Rev. Andre Pery’s French commentary was translated especially for this project. Obviously we once valued the catechism and invested significantly in disseminating its message.

To be sure, the UCC has recently issued a new edition of the catechism called:The Heidelberg Catechism: A New Translation for the Twenty-first Century. It’s publication sadly does not signal a widespread return to the faith of the Reformation as evidenced by actions by UCC leadership since its publication. The UCC is more known for it’s advocacy and enabling of sexual promiscuity than the Good News of Jesus Christ.

We keep the catechism handy to feign orthodoxy and pay lip service to our history, but neglect the message of our catechism which links us to the historic and universal church of the creeds. The irenic tone of the Heidelberg Catechism should not be mistaken as sanctioning our current path. Ursinus speaks to this fact in the opening of his commentary in the article “What Is The Doctrine Of The Church?”

As we reflect upon the blessings of the past year and consider our calling in the coming year, it is worth revisiting his words and evaluating our lives and ministries in light of them. By Ursinus’ standard – the author of the catechism we have published continually in one form or another since the UCC’s inception – do we still, as a group, classify as a “True Church”? If not, what must our repentance look like?

Note: Any italics below are from the text of the Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism

What Is The Doctrine Of The Church?

The doctrine of the church is the entire and uncorrupted doctrine of the law and the gospel concerning the true God, together with his will, works, and worship; divinely revealed, and comprehended in the writings of the prophets and apostles, and confirmed by many miracles and divine testimonies; through which the Holy Spirit works effectually in the hearts of the elect and gathers from the whole human race an everlasting church, in which God is glorified, both in this, and in the life to come.

This doctrine is the chief and most expressive mark of the true church, which God designs to be visible in the world, and to be separated from the rest of mankind, according to these declarations of scripture: “Keep yourselves from idols.” “Come out from among them, and be ye separate.” “If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your houses, neither bid him God speed.” “Be ye holy, touch no unclean thing, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord. Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues.” (1 John 5:21. 2 Cor. 6:17. 2 John 10. Isa. 52:11. Rev. 18:4)

God wills that his church be separate and distinct from the world, for the following considerations: First, on account of his own glory; for, as he himself will not be joined with idols and devils, so he will not have his truth confounded with falsehood, and his church with her enemies, the children of the devil; but will have them carefully distinguished and separated. It would be reproachful to God to suppose that he would have and acknowledge as his children, such as persecute him; yea, it would be blasphemy to make God the author of false doctrine, and the defender of the wicked; for “what concord has Christ with Beliel.” (2 Cor. 6.14.) Secondly, on account of the consolation and salvation of his people; for it is necessary that the church should be visible in the world, that the elect scattered abroad among the whole human race, may know with what society they ought to unite themselves, and that, being gathered into the church, they may enjoy this sure comfort, that they are members of that family in which God delights, and which has the promises of everlasting life. For it is the will of God that all those who are to be saved, should be gathered into the church in this life. Out of the church there is no salvation.

How the church may be known, and what are the marks by which it may be distinguished from the various sects will be shown when we come to speak regularly upon the subject of the church.  We may, however, here say that there are three marks by which the church is known: Purity of doctrine-the proper use of the sacraments, and obedience to God according to all the parts of this doctrine whether of faith or practice. And if it be here objected, that great vices have often made there appearance in the church, we would reply that these are not defended and adhered to by the church, as by the various sects. Yea, the church is the first to censure and condemn them. Hence, if there are faults in the church, these are disapproved of and removed. As long as this state of things lasts, so long the church remains.

Related Link: Heidelberg Catechism Project

Are such assertions true? Or is Barack Obama’s interpretation of Holy Scripture flawed? Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon, Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary – a mainline seminary of the Presbyterian Church USA a “Formula of Agreement” partner with the UCC – argues for the latter.

Reprinted by permission of Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
gagnon@pts.edu

October 23, 2008

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has written in The Audacity of Hope—a book that perhaps should have been entitled The Audacity of Portraying Myself Messianically as the Herald of Audacious Hope—that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[1] He repeated this line in a campaign appearance in Ohio this past March. He stated that if people find controversial his views on granting the full benefits of marriage to homosexual unions, minus only the name, “then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”[2] These remarks by Obama represent a gross distortion of the witness of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

On Romans 1
First, they misrepresent the text in Romans 1:24-27 against all homosexual practice, a text that belongs to one of the two or three most important books in Scripture, a catalyst for frequent spiritual revivals for the past two millennia. Romans 1:24-27 depicts all homosexual practice as an “indecency” and moral “impurity” that does three things. First, it violates God’s male-female standard for valid sexual relations given in Genesis 1:27 (the text contains strong echoes to Genesis 1:26-27). Second, it violates the obvious evidence in the material structures of creation that male and female, not persons of the same sex, are each other’s sexual counterparts or complements (a particularly obvious example on the plane of human interrelationships of suppressing the truth about God and ourselves accessible in creation and nature). Third, it “dishonors” the sexual integrity of the participants who engage in such activity by imaging themselves as only half their own sex in their attempt to merge with an alleged complement of the same sex. The passage is no more “obscure” than Paul’s comments on idolatry in the preceding passage in Romans 1:19-23 or his comments regarding a case of adult-consensual man-stepmother incest at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5—another instance of prohibited sexual intercourse between persons who are too much alike (here on a familial level, already of the same “flesh”).

On Scripture Generally
Second, Obama’s remarks misrepresent Scripture generally in that they suggest that Paul’s stance on homosexual practice is somehow an oddity within the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a person would be hard-pressed to come up with an example of consensual sexual relations that the witness of Scripture opposes more strongly, consistently, and absolutely. Paul’s remarks were certainly not isolated. Every law, narrative, proverb, poetry, metaphor, teaching, and exhortation in Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite. The creation texts in Genesis 1 and 2 both establish such a prerequisite. Genesis 1:27 integrates the creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair with being made in God’s image, suggesting that same-sex pairing would efface that part of the image of God stamped on the sexual self (as also would adultery and incest, the latter even of an adult-consensual sort). Genesis 2:21-24 portrays a male-female sexual bond as the re-merger of the two complementary sexual halves of an integrated sexual whole. In other words, the sexual “counterpart” or “complement” of a man is a woman (and vice versa), a being both “corresponding to him” and “opposite him” (as the Hebrew word kenegdo infers).

On Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount
Third, Obama’s remarks grossly distort the message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The Sermon on the Mount says nothing at all that intimates either support for homosexual relationships or opposition to the kind of view espoused in Romans 1, a view that would have been held universally by Jews and Christians of the period.

The Sermon as a closing of remaining loopholes in the Law of Moses
Following the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11), Jesus contends that he has not come to abolish any portion of the law and the prophets but rather has come to tighten its demands and close remaining loopholes (5:17-48). Six “antitheses” are put forward, the gist of which is: You use to be able to get away with the following but I say ‘no longer’ (5:21-48). Two of the six antitheses have to do with sex: adultery of the heart (5:27-28), which extends God’s requirement for sexual purity into the interior life, and divorce/remarriage (5:31-32). In between them is a warning by Jesus that if your eye or hand threatens your downfall, remove them, for it is better to go into heaven maimed than to be thrown into hell full-bodied (5:29-30). This last statement—along with Jesus’ strong affirmation of “the law and the prophets”—does not fit well with Obama’s view that applying the adage “hate the sin but love the sinner” to homosexual practice is wrong because “such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”[3]

The two-sexes foundation for Jesus’ view of marital twoness
The remarks against both divorce and marriage to a divorced person are pertinent to the issue of homosexuality. While we permit both in our society it would be invalid to argue from this to acceptance of homosexual unions; first, because Jesus’ remarks implicitly forbade polygamy, which we continue to reject today; and, secondly, because Jesus regarded a male-female prerequisite for marriage (and thus for any sexual union) as foundational for, and hence more important than, the definition of a valid sexual union as a lifelong commitment between two persons.

What we see in Matthew 5:31-32 is only the outcome of a reasoning that is more fully put forward in Matthew 19:3-9 (which parallels Mark 10:2-12). There Jesus bases his view of marital monogamy (the ‘twoness’ of the sexual bond) and marital indissolubility on two Scripture texts: Genesis 1:27 (“male and female [God] made them”) and Genesis 2:24 (“for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh”). The “cleaving” text in Genesis 2:24 is obviously relevant to Jesus’ remarks about marital permanence, even as it presupposes a male-female prerequisite. But of what relevance is the terse quotation that God “made them male and female”? Apparently Jesus extrapolated from God’s creation of two primary sexes that sexual unions should be limited to two persons, whether serially (no divorce) or concurrently (no polygamy). The twoness of the sexes, their binary or dimorphic character, was for Jesus the foundation for limiting sexual unions to two persons. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Jesus to have cited Genesis 1:27 and no basis for limiting marriage to two and only two persons.

Confirmation for this interpretation of Jesus’ remarks can be found among the Essene community at Qumran, the Jewish sect whose opposition to polygamy was closest to Jesus’ views. They rejected “taking two wives in their lives” because “the foundation of creation is ‘male and female he created them’ [Genesis 1:27]” and because “those who entered (Noah’s) ark went in two by two into the ark [Genesis 7:9]” (Damascus Document 4.20-5.1). Once the two primary sexes came together in a sexual union a third party was neither needed nor desirable.

What this means is that Jesus thought the male-female paradigm given by God in creation was the foundation for the twin principles of monogamy and lifelong commitment. The foundation is obviously more important, not less so, than any superstructure predicated on the foundation. Since we don’t permit polygamy today, even between three or more persons with a polysexual orientation in a loving relationship of lifelong commitment, there is even less of a basis for permitting homosexual unions. Once the twoness of the sexes is rejected as a basis for extrapolating a monogamy principle, there is no nature-based or logical reason for limiting the number of persons in a sexual union to two persons at any one time.

Jesus and “born eunuchs”: no sex for them
In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus compared “eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” to “eunuchs who from their mother’s womb were born thus.” The former were people who did not get married, and thus abstained from sexual relations, out of a pragmatic missionary desire to further God’s kingdom (i.e., a single person would have greater freedom of movement and might be more willing to take risks than someone who had a family to worry about). The latter, the “born eunuchs,” were men who did not experience sexual desires for women, whether because they were asexual or, possibly, homosexual. Why does Jesus compare “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” with “born eunuchs”? Answer: Like the “born eunuchs,” the “eunuchs for the kingdom” are not having any sexual relations. If the “born eunuchs” included men attracted only to other men—a reasonable interpretation given the ancient evidence—then Jesus was presuming that men with exclusive homosexual attractions should not be having intercourse with other males. This is consistent with his argument from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 earlier in the same passage (Matthew 19:4-9), where the only link between the two creation texts is the insistence that marriage—and thus all sexual unions since Jesus permitted sexual intercourse only in the context of marriage—be between the two sexes, male and female, man and woman. Those who cannot find sexual satisfaction in such relationships, Jesus believed, were not permitted other forms of sexual relationships, including same-sex sexual activity.

Other indications of Jesus’ embrace of a male-female standard for sexual unions
There are many other arguments to which one can point in order to establish Jesus’ embrace of a male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions. These include:

• Jesus’ retention of the Law of Moses even on relatively minor matters such as tithing, to say nothing of a foundational law in sexual ethics; and his view of the Old Testament as inviolable Scripture, which Scripture was absolutely opposed to man-male intercourse.
• The fact that the man who baptized Jesus, John the Baptist, was beheaded for defending Levitical sex laws in the case of the adult-incestuous union between Herod Antipas and a woman who was both the ex-wife of his half-brother Philip and the daughter of another half-brother. The rejection of homosexual practice in the same two chapters of Leviticus from which the incest laws stem (18 and 20) is the closest analogue to the incest laws inasmuch as both types of law’s reject sex between persons too much alike in embodied structures, whether in terms of kinship or in terms of gender.
• Early Judaism’s univocal opposition to all homosexual practice—no exceptions anywhere within many centuries of the life of Jesus.
• The early church’s united opposition to all homosexual practice. This completes the historical circle and underscores the absurdity of positing a homosexualist Jesus without analogue in his historical context: cut off from his Scripture, from the rest of early Judaism, from the man who baptized him, and from the church that emerged from his teachings.
• Jesus’ saying about the defiling effect of desires for various forms of sexual immoralities (porneiai, Mark 7:21-23), which distinguished matters of relative moral indifference such as food laws from matters of moral significance such as the sexual commands of his Bible and connected Jesus to the general view of what constitutes the worst forms of porneia in early Judaism (same-sex intercourse, incest, bestiality, adultery).
• Jesus’ affirmation of the Decalogue prohibition of adultery, which in early Judaism was treated as a rubric for the major sex laws of the Old Testament, including, prominently, the laws against homosexual practice.
• Jesus’ saying about Sodom which, understood in the light of Second Temple interpretations of Sodom (Matthew 10:14-15, with parallel text in Luke 10:10-12), included an indictment of Sodom for attempting to dishonor the integrity of the visitors’ masculinity by treating them as if they were the sexual counterparts to males.
• Jesus’ saying about not giving what is “holy” to the “dogs” (Matthew 7:6), an apparent allusion to Deuteronomic law (Deuteronomy 23:17-18) and texts in 1-2 Kings that indict figures known as the qedeshim, self-designated “holy ones” identified as “dogs” in Deuteronomy for their attempt to erase their masculinity by serving as the passive-receptive partners in man-male intercourse.
• The fact that Jesus developed a sex ethic that had distinctive features not shared by the love commandment (love for everyone does not translate into having sex with everyone); reached out to tax collectors and sexual sinners while simultaneously intensifying God’s ethical demand in these areas; insisted that the adulterous woman stop sinning lest something worse happen to her (i.e., loss of eternal life; compare John 8:3-11 with John 5:14); appropriated the context of the “love your neighbor” command in Leviticus 19:18 by insisting on reproof as part of a full-orbed view of love (Luke 17:3-4; compare Leviticus 19:17: you shall reprove your neighbor lest you incur guilt for failing to warn him); and defined discipleship to him as taking up one’s cross, denying oneself, and losing one’s life (Mark 8:34-37; Matthew 10:38-39; Luke 14:27; 17:33; John 12:25).

Conclusion
Obama claims that his advocacy for homosexual unions receiving full marriage benefits is in keeping with Jesus’ own views in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. As an assertion about the Jesus of history or even about the living Christ (assuming significant continuity between the two), this claim is preposterous. It is nothing but a fantasy, a figment of Obama’s imagination imposed on the text of the Sermon. The Sermon does speak about loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) and about not judging others over relatively minor matters while ignoring larger problems in one’s own life (7:1-6). However, these themes provide no more support for homosexual unions than they do for loving, committed polyamorous or polygamous unions or for adult-consensual incestuous unions, both of which Jesus obviously opposed. If in the Sermon Jesus warned against men marrying divorced women, even women divorced by their husbands on invalid grounds (i.e., on grounds other than adultery), the idea that Jesus would have opposed “hurting the feelings of gays and lesbians” by not treating such unions as the functional equivalents of a valid marriage represents revisionist history at its worse. Obama’s argument, carried to its logical but absurd conclusion, would force Americans to provide full marital benefits for adult-committed polygamous unions and incestuous unions, since such persons too deserve to have hospital-visitation privileges, health insurance coverage, and all the other benefits of marriage every bit as much (and more so) than homosexual unions.[4]

Obama’s image of Jesus is that of a person who, rather than lovingly calling sinners to repentance so that they might be reclaimed for the kingdom of God that he proclaimed, tells others to stop judging them. This is not the picture of Jesus’ mission to “sinners and tax collectors” in the Gospels. Instead, we find a picture of a Jesus who aggressively reaches out in love to the biggest violators of his ethical demands while simultaneously maintaining that demand; a Jesus who encourages offenders to “go and no longer be sinning” lest something worse happen to them, namely, exclusion from the kingdom of God. Obama does not love more or better than Jesus. That would be carrying a messianic complex a bit too far.

___________________________

Endnotes:

1. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Crown, 2006), 222.

2. Cited in: Michael Foust, “Obama: Sermon on the Mount supports gay civil unions,” Baptist Press, March 3, 2008 (online: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27532); Sarah Pulliam, “Obama Cites Sermon on the Mount for his Support of Civil Unions,” Christianity Today, Mar. 3, 2008 (online: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/obama_cites_ser.html).

3. Audacity of Hope, 222. Obama refers to a woman in a lesbian relationship who was hurt by his not going all the way to endorse “gay marriage”—a silly observation in retrospect since Obama wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which he has called “abhorrent” [see RFFV article at http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/2008/10/18/obama-calls-defense-of-marriage-act-doma-abhorrent-in-letter-to-chicago-gay-newspaper/] and whose main purpose is to prevent “gay marriage” adopted in one state from being foisted on all other states), strongly opposes California’s Proposition 8 (which merely limits the definition of marriage to a “marriage between a man and a woman”), has stated that he “respects” the California Supreme Court decision foisting “gay marriage” on the state, opposes any federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and strongly endorses granting every single marriage benefit to homosexual unions, not to mention every “sexual orientation” special protections law imaginable. To take such positions is obviously to support the foisting of “gay marriage” across the country. The only reason why Obama doesn’t say that he supports “gay marriage” is because it is not a popular position around the country and would make him look like the extremist that he is on homosexual issues. Yet even in his 2006 book he coyly stated that he wants “to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided” (an unwillingness that, at any rate, is nothing more than political expediency, opportunism, and pragmatism) and that his main reason for not coming out for “gay marriage” is that, “in the absence of any meaningful consensus, the heightened focus on marriage [is] a distraction from other attainable measures to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians” (ibid.). Translation: Obama will come out publicly for “gay marriage” just as soon as feels that he can do so without significant harm to his political aspirations, and not a day later. In the meantime, he will do everything possible to advance the ‘cause’ for “gay marriage” without declaring that he is for “gay marriage” itself.

4. The issues of hospital visitations or health insurance coverage are red herrings. Few hospitals today, if any, reject visitations by a limited circle of very close friends. No law has to be passed here affirming homosexual relationships as marriage equivalents. At most a law could be passed entitling a person in a hospital to name any person of their choosing, within a limited number, as someone entitled to full hospital visitations. The insurance coverage issue is invalid because homosexual unions, which are as immoral as adult-committed incestuous unions and more immoral than heterosexual polygamous unions, should have no greater claim than any close friendships between unrelated persons. Obviously it is not fiscally practical to extend insurance coverage to all one’s close friends. It is not violating any principle in the Sermon on the Mount, in spirit or letter, to take such stances.

___________________________

About the author

Robert Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net) is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon, 2001). The views expressed herein are Dr. Gagnon’s own and do not speak for Pittsburgh Theological Seminary as a whole. Gagnon came to PTS in the Fall of 1994 after a one-year position as Visiting Professor of Religion at Middlebury College in Vermont. He has a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. His main fields of interest are Pauline theology and sexual issues in the Bible. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [Society of New Testament Studies]. He is also an ordained elder at a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. In addition to being the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001; 520 pgs.), Gagnon is co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; 125 pgs.); and, as a service to the church, provides a large amount of free material on the web dealing with Scripture and homosexuality. In addition, he has published scholarly articles on biblical studies in Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Novum Testamentum, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Horizons in Biblical Theology, and The Christian Century.

For a partial curriculum vitae of Dr. Gagnon go HERE. To contact Dr. Gagnon send an e-mail to: gagnon@pts.edu or call 412-441-3304, ext. 2205 or 412-362-5610, ext. 2205. If you would like to be included on his mailing list and notified once a month or so regarding new materials on his website, e-mail Dr. Gagnon with the request. To view his superb website, go to www.robgagnon.net.