Thursday night, I was driving in my car listening to the Marc Amazon Show on WLW. Phil Burress, of Citizens for Community Values, was Marc’s guest and they were discussing the gay marriage issue. I tried repeatedly to get through on the phone line. (Later, I learned that this conversation took place earlier in the show and was being replayed.) When I got home, I posted on Facebook a comment I would have preferred to make on the radio. It created quite a firestorm. Because there were hundreds of public and private messages on Facebook, I have chosen to respond to all of them in this note.
First, let’s just get this out there. I don’t like CCV and many of the views they represent. It’s one thing for a preacher to stand in a pulpit and encourage his followers to live a moral life and follow certain behavioral guidelines. That is to be expected at church. But CCV exists primarily to influence legislation, using the heavy hand of government to force their religion’s behavioral mores on everyone else. As a Libertarian, I detest Democrats making legislation that perpetuates generational poverty and tries at every turn to circumvent the constitution. But I also detest Republicans, backed by powerful special interests like CCV, attempting to force their brand of morality on the rest of us. I have heard many preachers over the years say that you cannot legislate morality. Well, that is precisely what CCV attempts to do.
Having been inundated with support for Phil Burress, I am convinced that he is well loved by his friends and supporters. He’s is probably a decent guy and is definitely an excellent articulator of CCV’s positions.
However, my initial rancor was caused by Mr. Burress’ misrepresentation of his marriages on WLW. On Saturday, I went back and listed to the podcast to make sure I heard everything correctly. He implied, through a careful choice of words, that his marital failures had come before his life was turned around in the 1980’s. This is true of his first marriage. However, Mr. Burress second divorce occurred while he was in leadership at Citizens for Community Values. (I am almost sure he was President of the organization at the time of the divorce, but could not verify it.) As far as I know, he is currently married to his third wife.
I am divorced. It was a painful process and was quite simply the hardest thing I ever went through. I do not take pleasure in pointing out another man’s problems. My motivation in talking about this issue is simply to point out Phil Burress’ hypocrisy in his orations about “The Defense of Marriage Act” and his lobbying efforts to enact “covenant marriage” laws making it much more difficult for citizens to get a divorce. He wants to make it more difficult for the rest of us to do something that he himself has done twice. This is not widely known and it should be. One cannot set himself up as a moral authority while doing exactly the same thing he wants to prevent others from doing.
On Thursday night, I was shocked to hear Phil Burress depiction of gay Americans. As a supporter of free speech, I wholeheartedly support his right to make such statements. But his ramblings did not line up with the personal experiences of my gay and lesbian friends. I felt a need to come to their defense. My Facebook post was biting and probably a bit cruel. But that’s as close as I’ll come to making an apology. CCV’s views on homosexuality are based in the idea that it is a psychological disorder that can be changed. And this view is what angers me so.
Some of my gay friends have attempted suicide. It is interesting that all of those suicide attempts (and one successful suicide) occurred while or immediately after heavy influence by Christians attempting to “pray away the gay” in one way or another. The suicide of Oral Roberts’ son was a sad result of what happens when a family rejects a gay person on religious grounds.
Homosexuality is a complex thing. I think we are just beginning to understand it. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. However, I know some very loving and caring homosexuals, some of whom are excellent parents. I also know a couple of gay guys who are complete jerks. Gay Americans are a group with a vast diversity of political opinion, occupation, and even religious affiliation. They cannot be pigeon-holed as a homogenic group who all share the same characteristics. Mr. Burress assertion that they were all molested as children is one of the most offensive statements I’ve ever heard on WLW. Opinions like this give rise to violence against gays and discrimination in hiring and employment.
Obviously, I don’t think Phil Burress would ever be violent or encourage violence. But when the less-stable hear that the reason America is in decline is because we tolerate homosexuality, things like the Matthew Shepherd incident occur.
The church’s rigid refusal to come into the 21st Century on this issue is one of the reasons for a mass exodus by 20-40 year olds from religious affiliation. The church is almost always on the wrong side of history on social issues and this one is no exception. Mr. Burress presides over a constituency that is aging. The Republican politicians know this. There is increased uneasiness, especially among younger GOP officials, that their opposition to equality for gay Americans is one day going to be an albatross around their necks.
Phil Burress was right on Thursday. A majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. But CCV will never understand that our constitution protects us from the tyranny of the majority. At one time, a majority of those eligible to vote opposed allowing women to own land or vote. At one time, a majority of Americans opposed civil rights for blacks. At one time, a majority of Americans actually elected Jimmy Carter. Thankfully, we evolve as a society.
I doubt that Phil Burress will experience much social evolution, especially because of the hefty salary he rakes in from his political activities. We don’t know exactly how much Burress makes from CCV, but we do know that it is well north of six figures annually. (I won’t get started on preachers and directors of “non-profits” and their ridiculous salaries. That is another discussion altogether.)
Thankfully, CCV’s arc of influence has peaked. America is moving toward equality for all our citizens, even those who are different.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD
CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD?
What is the meaning of calling on the name of the Lord? Many assume that believing in Jesus and saying a form of a sinner's prayer constitutes, calling on the name of the Lord. The problem with that theory is none of the conversions under the New Covenant support that assumption. Not one time is anyone ever told to believe and say the sinner's prayer in order to be saved.
The apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost quoted the prophet Joel, Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (NKJV)
The apostle Peter preached the first gospel sermon under the New Covenant. Peter did not tell the 3000 converts to believe and say the sinner's prayer.
Peter preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He preached Jesus as both Lord and Christ. When they heard this they asked Peter and the rest of the brethren what they should do?(Acts 2:22-37) Peter told them what to do. Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NKJV)
How did the 3000 on the Day of Pentecost call on the name of the Lord and become saved?
1. They believed that Jesus was both Lord and Christ.
2. They believed that God raised Jesus from the grave.
3. They repented. Repentance is a change of heart. Repentance means to be converted so that God may forgive your sins. Repentance is to make the intellectual commitment to turn from sin and turn toward God. (Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38)
4. They were immersed in water (baptized) so that their sins could be forgiven.
How did the 3000 on the Day of Pentecost not call on the name of the Lord?
1. They did not say a sinner's prayer.
2. Not one person was asked to pray for forgiveness.
3. Not one single man was told to be baptized as a testimony of his faith.
4. No one was told that water baptism was a just an act of obedience.
5. No one was informed they were saved the very minute they believed.
6. Not one person was told that water baptism was not essential for the forgiveness of sins.
7. Not one person was told to be baptized so they could join a denominational church.
Jesus said he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16"16) Jesus did not say he who believes and says a sinner's prayer shall be saved.
YOU ARE INVITED TO READ MY BLOG POSTINGS ___Steve Finnell-a christian view
Posted by Steve Finnell at 9:07 AM No comments:
Post a Comment