Welcome to
Davidcharlton.net
|
Welcome to Davidcharlton.net |
|
|
Welcome to Just Getting Some Things Off My Chest I understand the controversial nature of the subject of same-sex marriage and the state and federal marriage amendments, but I remind the viewers of this site that to get to this statement you had to click on the link agreeing to, among other things, the courtesy of contacting me and communicating with me rather than about me. This is certainly not a legally-binding agreement, but I do consider it to be a moral contract. Please understand that I speak only for myself. I do not seek to speak for my church or for any individual. My opinions are mine and mine alone. I have posted my message delivered in both morning services on July 16 of this year. This message was my response to the controversy surrounding my views of the marriage amendments. I am grateful I had the opportunity to explain my views in more detail and was pleased that people were willing to listen to what I said, even if they disagreed with me. You can click on either of the following links to download a copy of the message; it is available as a Word document and in Rich Text Format. July 16, 2006 - Rich Text Format
Thank you for being willing to abide by the terms for this page. My first post in now on this page, and covers the topic of same-sex marriage, and explains why I am opposed to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (remember what you agreed to when you navigated to this page) When the state of Kentucky was preparing to vote on a constitutional amendment affirming that marriage was to be recognized only as one man and one woman, I was asked by many people if I was going to push the matter in our church. I was also contacted by several groups outside of our congregation attempting to enlist me to work for passage of the amendment. I would not agree to do so. I opposed this effort to pass a constitutional amendment in the state of Kentucky and I oppose the effort to amend our national constitution as well. Many people have reacted very negatively to my stance, and I wish to explain my reasons in this space. Why, you may ask, would a pastor be opposed to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? This is an issue I have considered and studied very carefully, and while it is much easier to campaign for this amendment (my stance is adamantly opposed by many members of my congregation), I believe a careful examination of the facts will reveal the folly of this effort. I hope you will read this statement with an open mind and I invite you to contact me with your response. The following are my reasons for opposing this amendment - 1. I believe it is both hypocritical and inconsistent. The amendment, as proposed in the Senate, reads as follows - Section 1. This article may be cited as the 'Marriage Protection Amendment.' Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof by conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. If this amendment is truly about protecting the sanctity of marriage - as its proponents claim - I believe they should use the phrase "the union of a man and a woman for a lifetime." To say that marriage is simply the union of a man and a woman ignores several important points, the first being the tragedy of so many marriages ending in divorce, and the prevalence of divorce in the church. It is remarkably inconsistent to discuss protecting the sanctity of marriage while ignoring the issue of divorce. It is hypocritical to ignore the question of divorce because the Bible mentions divorce in numerous passages while not once referring to same-sex marriage. Secondly, I don't believe that same-sex marriage threatens the institution or sanctity of marriage, but the tremendous number of divorces in the church have damaged not only the institution and the sanctity of marriage but also the witness of the church regarding marriage. I would ask of those who are in favor of this amendment why are you so silent about the issue of divorce in the church? To favor this amendment, I believe, is to turn a hypocritically blind eye to the failure of so many Christian marriages while self-righteously pontificating on the issue of same-sex marriage. The time being spent getting people worked up about this amendment could be much better used in working to strengthen marriages. 2. I do not believe it is Biblical. I am well aware of the passages that speak of homosexuality, so you do not need to quote them to me. But if you insist on quoting passages such as Leviticus 18:22, let me ask this question - what do you do with the rest of the commands in Leviticus? What about 19:19 that says You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together? Or 19:27-28 that says You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord. It amazes me how people can be so literal about one verse while completely ignoring other direct commands of God. I also believe it is not Biblical to use the power of government to impose a particularly sectarian view of marriage upon the American public. You cannot justify this action by anything in the New Testament (the Old Testament being a different case because some of it took place under a theocratic government of ancient Israel). The early church never sought to use the power of government to impose their view of marriage upon the general public. Understandably, they did not have the power to do so, but I also believe it was not a matter they considered. It is simply not Biblical to force a particular religious view upon people by using the power of government and to do so regarding the issue of marriage is to violate the freedom given to all people as a gift from God. 3. I believe all Americans should be granted the same rights. In the eyes of the state, marriage is about the granting of specific rights, including the rights of inheritance and the right to make medical decisions in the event a partner is not able to make their own decisions. All Americans should enjoy the same rights, plain and simple. To deny anyone the rights we enjoy as citizens of this great country is not only unfair, it is un-American. 4. Same sex marriage is not a threat to the institution of marriage. In fact, nothing outside of my marriage is a threat to my marriage. The only threats to my marriage are the stupid things I sometimes do and say. 5. This is politicizing marriage for political gain. There are certainly many people who favor this amendment for religious reasons, but it is also an issue that can score plenty of points for politicians. Some politicians are more than happy to demagogue certain issues - and religious issues seem to be a favorite - in order to curry favor with the voting public. While I am not doubting the sincerity of any particular politician, this issue has the smell of demagoguery and opportunism written all over it. 6. It is an inconsistent method of making public policy. I find it interesting that the proponents of the marriage amendment are willing to make public policy based on certain Biblical passages while ignoring others. If one wants to impose a Biblical view of marriage upon the general public then is it not necessary to then advocate public policy decisions based upon other passages? For instance, what about the words of Jesus in the Sermon On the Mount about loving our enemies? I hear very few people who support the marriage amendment pushing for the words of Jesus to be the foundation for our nation's foreign policy. If we are, as many evangelicals claim, a Christian nation should not the words of Jesus form the foundation of our domestic and foreign policy? To download a copy of this statement click here - Marriage Amendment (Word file) Marriage Amendment (Rich Text Format) _______________________________________________________________
The following post regards an Op-Ed written by Megan Wilkins in the Louisville Courier-Journal. The first letter is a response to her Op-Ed and following that is my letter published by the Courier-Journal on August 8th. Overcame orthodoxy … Where on earth did the author get the idea that "today's feminist movement has been hijacked by radical liberals"? The feminist movement is and always has been a radical liberal movement, based on ideas diametrically opposed to the treatment of women in Jewish, Christian and Muslim theology. You can't "restore Christian morals to feminism" because feminism is a struggle against the patriarchal values inherent in all the world's major religions (with the arguable exception of Hinduism). The history of the feminist movement in America is a history of struggle against Christianity. When Margaret Sanger saw her mother die, worn out after 18 pregnancies and 11 live births, she had the radical idea to oppose legal and religious prohibitions against birth control. Christian preachers praised God when she fled to Europe to avoid prison for teaching women the un-Christian practice of contraception. But Margaret Sanger never stopped fighting, and in 1914 founded the organization that became Planned Parenthood. Those same misogynist Christians were around 50 years later when, in 1965, Planned Parenthood brought the case of Griswold v. Connecticut to the Supreme Court, striking down a law that banned use of contraceptives even by married couples.…. These anti-feminist Christians are still around today. On these very pages, just a few months ago, Southern Seminary president Albert Mohler preached against contraception and deliberate childlessness as un-Christian…. I'm sorry, but your author knows nothing of feminist history, of the persecution of radical liberal suffragettes sent to insane asylums because their demand for the vote was an obvious sign of mental derangement. It's easy to accept the fruits of the feminist movement as well-ensconed principles of American democracy that only the Taliban would oppose. But they were the products of radical thinking, not Christian orthodoxy. Forgetting that is the first step backward. DEBORAH KENT Louisville 40207
To the editor: In response to the letter from Deborah Kent about the feminist movement in America being a struggle against Christianity, it would be more accurate to say the feminist movement is a struggle against particular attitudes and prejudices, which are, unfortunately, expressed by some voices within Christianity as well as other religions. It is not Christianity that is the enemy of feminism or the rights and freedoms of women, but prejudice and ignorance that uses the language of Christianity and other religions to sanction such prejudices and ignorance. It is regrettable that some within the Christian faith – a faith that at its inception rejected the divisions of class, ethnicity, and gender – now use the institutional and political power of the church and the pages of Scripture to justify the subjugation of women. It is important to mention, however, that these voices do not speak for everyone within Christendom. There are many churches and scores of individual Christians who adamantly oppose attempts to infringe upon the rights of women, and the fact that some use religion to oppose these rights is regrettable and should be passionately opposed.
David P. Charlton 2006 Forum Fellow
The next post will be an examination of the Biblical models of marriage (yes, there are several models of marriage in the Bible). |
|
Send mail to
davidcharlton@bellsouth.net with
questions or comments about this web site.
|