So, the subpoena requires several pastors to turn over all "speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO[1], the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession." Wow! Not merely speeches and presentations. Sermons as well. Not simply about the topic (HERO) or the mayor, but the concepts of homosexuality and gender identity. Not only sermons prepared by the pastor, but those in his possession. Very, very broad.
So, I'd want to be sure to include Jonathan Edwards's Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. I'd be sure to put copies of Bible texts like Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and Romans 1 ... oh, probably everything from verse 18 through the end of the chapter. Now that should all be included in "speeches, presentations, or sermons" on the topic of "homosexuality" and "gender identification" that the pastor has delivered, approved, or has in his possession. You know, Charles Spurgeon has some good stuff about Sodom and Gomorrah that most decent pastors should have in their possession as well.
The good news, of course, is that the city attorneys are no longer seeking sermons. There, all fixed, right? Just "presentations and speeches" now. Because that's much better. Although trying to define the difference between "speeches and presentations" and "sermons" seems fairly impossible when Dictionary.com defines "sermon" as "any serious speech, discourse, or exhortation, especially on a moral issue." So I'm still going to recommend that they be sure to pass on all those "speeches and presentations" from Scripture and from historic preachers. Maybe include the Romans Road? I don't know ... if you look at it right, this could be more of an opportunity than a problem. It certainly is for God.
________
[1] HERO: Houston Equal Rights Ordinance
8 comments:
You neglected some key pieces to the story:
1. The subpoenas were in response to a suit brought by the parties of which these pastors pledged part of. In other words, the city was on *defense*, not *offense*, and maybe it was overzealous overreaching, but still, part of "discovery", as is the procedure in cases like these.
2. When did sharing a sermon, in essence sharing the good news with others, become "unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious"?
3. When did 1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" become "Lawyer up, and call those asking the questions Big Brother bullies and the Inquisition"?
4. When was the State holding up its promise not to charge you taxes as long as you relinquish your right to speak on political issues ever a separation of church and state? Churches have always been controlled by the state. The church can have the same rights as citizens to free speech as soon as they start paying taxes like real citizens do.
5. When did taking a stand for your faith become about shamefully hiding what you do and overruling the mandates of Jeremiah 29: 4-10?
Let's see ... looking, looking, looking ... nope! I don't see one time that I suggested anything about "unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious" or even that they shouldn't comply. Now, the pastors did not file the suit nor were they named in it, but I think I said that they ought to comply ... with everything they have related to the topic. And I have pointed out in multiple comments (not here, to others in multiple other places) the 501(c)3 rules that prohibit free speech to churches who take the 501(c)3 tax exemption. (That free speech is inhibited is not a question. That they do it of their own volition makes it "legal". That they do it at all is a question to me.)
I think I am actually a bit of an anomaly in the "right wing whacko" realm because I tend to think that Christians should expect persecution, not get on their high horse and fight back, and that obeying the law is required. But the fact is that the subpoena that demanded everything related to "homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession" cannot be construed as a question of IRS restrictions or anything but a question of limiting religious speech. Like I said, I expect it. But that doesn't make it defensible under the First Amendment.
I think I am actually a bit of an anomaly in the "right wing whacko" realm because I tend to think that Christians should expect persecution, not get on their high horse and fight back, and that obeying the law is required.
See, this is what I'm talking about.
You just framed a defensive motion of discovery of getting the words in sermons (which mostly public -- what's the point if not, if it not about the "good news") as persecution, the same thing as being fed to lions for not renouncing Jesus.
Really? Seriously?
Well, I've argued in the past that what we're seeing today is not "persecution" when compared to, say, what Christians in Iran are seeing, sure, but if I use the biblical standard, it was Jesus who said, "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me." (Matt 5:10-11). So by Jesus's standard modern American society's view of biblical Christianity would qualify. But, no, I didn't say this was persecution. I simply used "Christians should expect persecution" as an example of how I differ from a lot of others who seem to think it's more important to fight it.
Now, the fact that you assumed the worst of what I said says something about your assumptions about me, doesn't it?
…if I use the biblical standard, it was Jesus who said, "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me." (Matt 5:10-11). So by Jesus's standard modern American society's view of biblical Christianity would qualify.
Another attempt here, but no doubt, we're speaking past each other, but I think you have it flipped around -- I agree that by "Jesus standard", modern American society would qualify, but not in the way you deem -- more in its failure to "love one another". And on that same standard, most of the church today that tags themselves "biblical", also fail by that same standard and look more like the Pharisees than Jesus.
I suppose it all boils down to those who see the church as a field hospital caring for wounded souls vs. a firewall against the moral corruption of the age. I believe any serious study and meditation on Jesus gospel affirms the former against the latter.
Well, now, that's interesting. I suppose "a field hospital caring for wounded souls" would indeed be your version, but it isn't mine nor is it a firewall against moral corruption. (Note, by the way, that you are not abrogating the firewall concept. You are denying the moral corruption.) Christianity isn't a means to make bad people good; it's the way to make dead people alive. Having said that, I agree that we are not a firewall against moral corruption.
Both Jesus and Paul addressed moral corruption in their day. They didn't, as you appear to suggest, ignore it. But they addressed it to point to the problem. If the aim was the Gospel--the good news--then the need is to point out the bad news in order for the good news to be good. "Don't worry; whatever you're doing is likely okay (as long as it's not being a narrow-minded, biblical Christian-type)" will likely be "aid for wounded souls", but it won't point to any need for a Savior. But if we point to the problem--violations of God's standard--then the Gospel becomes important. Indeed, failing to point to that problem cannot be deemed "love", like you seem to think.
Two points compelled by this discussion:
--Persecution is a matter of degrees. One needn't be martyred in order to be legitimately persecuted. This action by Parker is indeed a degree of persecution as I understand the story, which, admittedly, might not be thorough.
--IRS rules regarding political speech by clergy in the context of religious services or functions is the result of political persecution compelled by sermons addressing perceived shortcomings of a particular political party or its members. Paying taxes in order to speak freely on public policy issues or anything political is contrary to the spirit and intent of the 1st Amendment and is a law that should be stricken.
Marshall Art,
On the IRS point, I agree that the law should be stricken. Are you willing to say that the tax exemption for churches (etc.) ought to be also?
Post a Comment