I came across this interesting article about the whole Miss California thing that happened at the Miss USA pageant this past weekend. If you've been living under a rock, then here's a quick recap.
Celebrity blogger/sleazebag Perez Hilton was one of the judges at this years Miss USA Beauty Pageant. During the question period, Perez asked Miss California Carrie Prejean about same-sex marriage, to which she responded that she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. It was a bullshit cheap-shot question that may have been the reason she didn't win.
From Y!'s gossip site, OMG:
'During the show, Perez asked Carrie, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?'
'Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman,' Carrie said to a mix of boos and applause. 'No offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.'
In response to those remarks, Miss California 2003, Nicole Lamarche, minister at Cotuit Federated Church in Cotuit, Mass. had something to say that I find kind of interesting.
“As a pastor and a former Miss California, I am often asked to interpret what the Word of God has to say on a particular subject,” Rev. Lamarche says. “I am quite confident that God prefers that we human beings stick to speaking for ourselves. And yet there are occasions when God’s Word is used as a weapon, and I feel compelled to speak.
“In the past few days, much has been made of the words of Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean. She stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. I write not in response to her opinion, but rather about her comments that followed: that the Bible condones her words. She said, “It's not about being politically correct, it's about being biblically correct.” While this sentiment is shared by many who seek to condemn gay people and gay marriage, citing pieces of the Bible to further one’s own prejudice fails to meet the Bible on its own terms.
“Most people seeking to condemn gay people point to the Book of Leviticus, where we read that men lying with men is an abomination. However, we rarely hear of other verses found in the book of Leviticus that are equally challenging. For example, Leviticus also tells us that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination. And that a person should not wear material woven of two kinds of material—an impossible mandate for a pageant contestant!
“In Paul’s letter to the community in Corinth we read, ‘For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church….’ And yet these words have not prevented Christian denominations from ordaining women, such as myself. Sadly, the Bible has been used to further prejudice throughout history. We have used it to permit ourselves to enslave people; to conquer and kill; and to denigrate the earth.
“The truth is that it is difficult to know for sure the intentions of the biblical authors, but we do know something about God. Those of us who know God through Jesus of Nazareth know that he went to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were labeled as outcasts. He spent time with children, prostitutes, and lepers, all of whom were labeled as outside of the grasp of the Holy. As we continue to seek God’s vision for us as a nation grounded in a love for justice, I pray that we might move closer to the cause of grace.”
Now what she is saying could easily picked apart theologically, but it is the message that I found I liked.
What do you think?
Welcome!
A Christian is a Christian, be they right, left, evangelical, emergent or conservative. If you believe that Christ died for your sins and is the Son of God, then His Will will work through you and the rest will come naturally. And isn't that all that really matters in the end? These are just my views from where I sit wherever it is in the spectrum of Christianity that I am. I wrote a little blurb here explaining a little more.
Live Traffic Feed
Twitter Updates
Labels
- abortion
- adam and eve
- bible study
- bibledude.net
- book review
- catholic
- commenting
- creation
- emerging
- evangelism
- fear
- geez
- god is bigger
- grammar
- group blogging
- homosexuality
- ideas
- Intro to Bib. Lit.
- lent
- love
- marriage
- ministry
- misrepresentation
- opposing views
- Phyllis Tickle
- protestant
- questions
- Sacraments
- sacrifice
- School
- servolution
- spiritual leadership
- the beginning
- The Great Emergence
- theology
- thought experiments
- tracts
- WoW
4 comments:
I completely agree with the 03' Miss CA idea....it's ridiculous for "Christians" to pick and chose what they want to condemn and ignore. I think it does kind of invalidate the whole point.
Any reasonable Christian will have difficulty quoting Leviticus to condemn any sort of behaviour. When I thought about getting a tattoo people quoted Lev 19:28, "Do not put tattoo markings for the dead on your body" at first I was going to respond "I'm not putting tattoo markings for the dead on my body, I want to put a Celtic cross on my body", then I read the previous verse "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard" and thought, these people are stupid and hypocritical.
Nathan, there's more to it than just what you posted there. Of course, one should not ever take a text out of context. Reading before the verse, after the verse, consulting commentaries, and referencing other scripture is absoultly imperative to get the full meaning of the message. Your argument is correct, but not based on the 'sillyness' of the before and after, but based on whom the passage was referring to. For one to tattoo themselves in the time the text was written was to associate oneself with pagans. It is a purification rite the hebrews (and shebrews ha ha) - *ahem*
that set them apart as being marked (or unmarked!) by God as his chosen. does that represent anything today? not on your life. Does it associate you with any particular pagan? Not unless you get a tattoo that says 'hells angels' on your back it doesn't. THAT's the argument that should be used, and never one that belittles the scripture.
Now. Onto Chris's post. I believe truthfully that when we say 'I'm going to the market to pick up some fruit' someone would assume 'oh, he's going to pick up either some banannas, oranges, apples, grapes, etc'. Do I have to explicitly say 'apples and banannas' or will 'fruit' do just fine?
A normal human being who isn't out to nit pick would say 'of course, fruit as a word will suffice'.
Andrew, what's your point?
When Jesus and Paul speak of 'sexual immorality', they speak in generalizations. Remember whom they are speaking to - does everyday commonplace conversation say 'YOU MUST ESTABLISH YOUR GENERALIZATIONS!' heavens' no! This isn't an essay, nor is it a lecture on grammar. This is an everyday conversation to get people to understand what is right and wrong.
Jesus and Paul, then, when they use the words 'Sexual immorality', are referring to Leviticus. The people of the time already know what 'apples and banannas' (sins within immorality) are, so why beat a dead camel (tee hee) - and say 'Sexual immorality'?
From numbers to Revelation, it was a very common term and was not misunderstood. So why, in today's society, do we insist on explicit proof on an intrinsic value? Understand the context, and you shall find your answer. 'Fruit' means apples and banannas, just as 'sexual immorality' means the gay-dar is going off.
Regarding the ordination of women - I have another whole argument for that which I really would like not to get into on this becuase this post is already getting too long. Perhaps if chris wants to get into it, I will.
-Andrew
@C Lo exactly, so it makes sense that a woman minister wouldn't be against homosexuality, as women aren't allowed to be ministers...or are they? (that's good for another post)
I wasn't quite ready to get into the whole gay marriage mess, but this situation was perfect for this site.
I think Nathan is on the right line with his comments, but as Andrew states there is also more too it then that. The Leviticus laws have essentially been thrown out with the coming and going of Jesus. That is not to say that the new covenant abolishes all of those things, as some are still brought up in the New Testament, like sexual immorality.
From a biblical perspective, homosexuality is wrong, I won't deny that. The bible also states that all sins are equal in the eyes of God. So whether we are talking rape, murder, lying, stealing, homosexuality, sex before marriage (though that is a whole other topic I'll get into one of these day), or adultery. Even as Christians, we all sin. We sin everyday. It isn't always an accident either. Oops, I lied. Oops, I lusted after that cute barista in Starbucks. Christians sin everyday, yet they are quick to point out that homosexuality is a choice that people make everyday. They are choosing to sin everyday. Okay, so what if they are? You are choosing to sin also. I just don't buy the argument that because they are choosing it, they are going to hell. We are all fucked up people here. We all screw up, and continue to screw up. We don't admit to half the shit we do, yet we are quick to judge others, it drives me nuts.
There are so many stupid arguments out there. And this isn't something I've put much thought or research into so I don't want to get too deep into it.
For me, it comes down to semantics. Actually, it doesn't really, because I really don't see the problem with the whole thing. But from a Christian stand-point, make something exactly the same as a marriage except call it something different. Marriage is a religious thing that God made for a man and a woman, that is clear. So call it something different with all the same perks, privileges, rights, and responsibilities.
I would like to go into this a little deeper at some point though, as it is an issue of major contention.
Post a Comment