Dear Friend,
Early morning reading today invigorated my heart through the contemplation of St. John's life of growing in love.
The one theme that constantly runs through John's writings is the theme of LOVE. John sums it all up by telling us that Jesus gave to his followers a "new" commandment, and it was to "love one another." (It was "new" because Jesus added the "love others" line to the Shema of Judaism).
But John's own "story of love" is not completely pretty. It appears that John did not learn very much about love from his biological family. He learned love from Jesus!
As a young man, John was crusty and cranky. The gospels tell the truth of at least three significant "love failures" in the life of St. John:
1. John and his brother James (scholars believe they could have been Jesus' cousins) request: "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory." If love is service, as Jesus explained it, then John fails in love.
2. John's love for others is tested when he doesn't recognize the validity of someone exorcising demons in Jesus' name. John tries to stop the person from doing miracles and reports him to Jesus. Jesus' loving heart would never denounce someone who is breaking down demonic strongholds. He responds to John: "Whoever is not against us is for us." John failed in extending Christ's love to others--in this case, someone who was doing God's work.
3. John hears that some Samaritans refuse hospitality to Jesus "because he was heading for Jerusalem." John's response is: "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" Ouch! This "disciple of love" prays for hell to fall on these people. Jesus explains to his followers that they are not to think of Sodom and Gomorrah, to call for "ash in a flash," (Scot McNight's words) every time they encounter someone who doesn't respond properly! John's love for the Samaritans is tested, and he fails.
How does John grow into the apostle of love? Even though, when tested, he goes belly-up, the love he experiences in his relationship with Jesus eventually transforms John's story from Thunderbolt to an apostle of love. The would-be MVP becomes the anonymous loved one. Then he writes for us a theology of love.
Nothing is more important for the development of love than being loved. We may be taught the importance of love, but to experience it is to know it. John spent plenty of time with Jesus and in the context of this relationship, he comes to know what it is to be loved. John begins to refer to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."
Like John, you and I can grow into "apostles of love." I'll close today's entry with Henri Nouwen's powerful, practical challenge: "Becoming the Beloved means letting the truth of our Belovedness become enfleshed in everything we think, say, or do....As long as 'being the Beloved' is little more than a beautiful thought or a lofty idea that hangs above my life to keep me from becoming depressed, nothing really changes. What is required is to become the Beloved in the commonplaces of my daily existence...."
It is said that, as an old man, all John wanted to talk about was love. His own students were amazed at how loving he was. He would have been the first to remind them "it was not always so."
Your becoming loving friend!
Duff
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Same Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
Dear Friend,
This is shaping up to be a fascinating political year. As you undoubtedly know, for the first time the California Supreme Court recently upheld the legality of gay marriage in that state. Massachusetts was the first state to approve gay marriage.
It deserves repeating that the Bible affirms the value of human sexuality expressed in marriage between a man and a woman. We also uphold the gospel teaching that Christ died for all, and that his love is inclusive. Christ-followers do not hold hostility toward homosexuals, neither do we have a heart to tolerate unfair discrimination, intolerance, or a breach of any of the gospel principles of love to all God's children.
The issue I'm raising is the emerging reality that religious freedom has less legal protection than gay rights. The California Supreme Court held that homosexuals shall enjoy the same legal status as race--protection as a fundamental right. Yet the same court has refused to recognize that religious liberty is a fundamental right and has ruled against religious freedom interests. According to Alan J. Reinach, Esq., a religious liberty attorney, there is now a "legal imbalance" where gay rights receive maximum protection, while religious freedom is granted less protection.
Now that homosexuality is equated with race, we can expect a wide variety of challenges to religious organizations that adhere to traditional Biblical interpretations. The city of Boston required adoption agencies to serve homosexuals, and refused to accomodate the religious objections of Catholic Charities. Although Catholic Charities accounted for most of the adoptions in Boston, it closed its adoption agencies rather than compromise its religious convictions. Thousands of children are now "stuck" in foster care as the city itself has not chosen to provide adoption services to gay couples.
I read that cases have been filed against wedding photographers who refuse to film gay wedding ceremonies. Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption because its policy against interracial dating was inconsistent with public policy. Similar challenges to the tax exempt status of churches and other religious organizations are expected.
This past May, the California Supreme Court heard arguments that two doctors and a medical clinic discriminated against a lesbian couple by denying them artificial insemination services. The doctors argued that they properly referred the patients for services that they could not conscientiously provide. Lawyers for the patients insist that religion not be allowed as a defense.
No matter where you or I come down on any of these issues, the point is that our long-held assumption that religious liberty enjoys a preferred status in the USA as a fundamental constitutional right is no longer necessarily true. In its 1990 peyote decision, the Supreme Court discarded the First Amendment's protection for the free exercise of religion as a "luxury that a well-ordered society can no longer afford." One legal observer noted the court has ruled against religious freedom in every case since that time. For example, in 1995, the Court held that Evelyn Smith's Presbyterian faith was not a good enough reason to refuse to rent one of her four duplex apartments to an unmarried [heterosexual] couple, despite the fact that in her city, Cal State Chico maintained hundreds of housing units exclusively for married couples.
The issue of gay marriage may be resolved this November when Californians have the opportunity to amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. But this will not change the legal status of homosexuality as a fundamental right, given more protection than the right to practice one's faith.
It appears the trend in America is that religious freedom will mean the freedom to hold one's faith in private, but not to practice it publicly.
Let us pray for courage to honor Christ regardless of the cultural and legal environment we may encounter in the days ahead.
With love and hope!
Duff Gorle
This is shaping up to be a fascinating political year. As you undoubtedly know, for the first time the California Supreme Court recently upheld the legality of gay marriage in that state. Massachusetts was the first state to approve gay marriage.
It deserves repeating that the Bible affirms the value of human sexuality expressed in marriage between a man and a woman. We also uphold the gospel teaching that Christ died for all, and that his love is inclusive. Christ-followers do not hold hostility toward homosexuals, neither do we have a heart to tolerate unfair discrimination, intolerance, or a breach of any of the gospel principles of love to all God's children.
The issue I'm raising is the emerging reality that religious freedom has less legal protection than gay rights. The California Supreme Court held that homosexuals shall enjoy the same legal status as race--protection as a fundamental right. Yet the same court has refused to recognize that religious liberty is a fundamental right and has ruled against religious freedom interests. According to Alan J. Reinach, Esq., a religious liberty attorney, there is now a "legal imbalance" where gay rights receive maximum protection, while religious freedom is granted less protection.
Now that homosexuality is equated with race, we can expect a wide variety of challenges to religious organizations that adhere to traditional Biblical interpretations. The city of Boston required adoption agencies to serve homosexuals, and refused to accomodate the religious objections of Catholic Charities. Although Catholic Charities accounted for most of the adoptions in Boston, it closed its adoption agencies rather than compromise its religious convictions. Thousands of children are now "stuck" in foster care as the city itself has not chosen to provide adoption services to gay couples.
I read that cases have been filed against wedding photographers who refuse to film gay wedding ceremonies. Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption because its policy against interracial dating was inconsistent with public policy. Similar challenges to the tax exempt status of churches and other religious organizations are expected.
This past May, the California Supreme Court heard arguments that two doctors and a medical clinic discriminated against a lesbian couple by denying them artificial insemination services. The doctors argued that they properly referred the patients for services that they could not conscientiously provide. Lawyers for the patients insist that religion not be allowed as a defense.
No matter where you or I come down on any of these issues, the point is that our long-held assumption that religious liberty enjoys a preferred status in the USA as a fundamental constitutional right is no longer necessarily true. In its 1990 peyote decision, the Supreme Court discarded the First Amendment's protection for the free exercise of religion as a "luxury that a well-ordered society can no longer afford." One legal observer noted the court has ruled against religious freedom in every case since that time. For example, in 1995, the Court held that Evelyn Smith's Presbyterian faith was not a good enough reason to refuse to rent one of her four duplex apartments to an unmarried [heterosexual] couple, despite the fact that in her city, Cal State Chico maintained hundreds of housing units exclusively for married couples.
The issue of gay marriage may be resolved this November when Californians have the opportunity to amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. But this will not change the legal status of homosexuality as a fundamental right, given more protection than the right to practice one's faith.
It appears the trend in America is that religious freedom will mean the freedom to hold one's faith in private, but not to practice it publicly.
Let us pray for courage to honor Christ regardless of the cultural and legal environment we may encounter in the days ahead.
With love and hope!
Duff Gorle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
