Thomas Alderman

SYMPOSIUM ON AMERICAN SLAVERY

Introduction

It has been fifteen years since Jack Davidson, then pastor at Cascade Presbyterian Church (Presbyterian Church in America) in Eugene, Oregon, Robert Iltis, Professor of Communications at Oregon State University, and I presented our Symposium on American Slavery. The papers which we read publicly were formerly available at the original Joshua Letter web site, and with this post are available again.

The nation continues, of course, to struggle with the topics of race and the former condition of Negro servitude, as it must. The Civil War is not as long past as we may wish to think. Racism is very persistent in American society, as evidenced by consistent patterns of discrimination in our justice system and in our housing policies. This concerns the church not only because we are American citizens, but also because the church has a prophetic role to play in society by bringing a biblical critique to bear upon injustice. What’s more, the Gospel mission itself depends in part upon the demonstration that the biblical view of man provides the only philosophically adequate basis for opposing racism. It is the doctrine of the creation of man in the image of a personal God which alone justifies our recognition of one another’s inherent value and dignity.

This doctrine of creation may be placed in doubt by claims that the Bible approves of slavery. One such claim was made by Steve Wilkins and Douglas Wilson, the former a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), in their book entitled, Southern Slavery, As it Was. (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1996.) This book was the precipitating factor for the Symposium. Dr. Davidson felt compelled to provide a refutation, and he invited contributions by Dr. Iltis and me.

Since then, Dr. Davidson was awarded his doctorate by the University of Wales for his dissertation on Eli Caruthers, the North Carolina antebellum Presbyterian pastor who authored an unpublished manuscript offering “a scripturally based alternative to the nineteenth-century hermeneutics supporting slavery.” (Publication of the dissertation is pending elsewhere.) Also since then, in 2011 Douglas Wilson published an interview (https://vimeo.com/25338963) in which he makes it plain enough that his views have not changed.

Beyond that, the scriptures themselves are not without difficulty on this question. Exodus 21:16 states that “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.” (NIV) That would seem to preclude categorically any attempt at a biblical defense of the American form of slavery. The mere fact that Exodus 21:16 addresses the culpability of only the kidnaper himself would not absolve a purchaser of the victim, since if kidnaping for profit is a crime, then purchasing the victim would make one an accessory.

Moses did countenance other forms of slavery, however. Leviticus 25:39-54 provides for Jews and non-Jews to sell themselves. Jews who sold themselves were to be treated as hired workers, not slaves, and were to be released at the Jubilee, which occurred every 50^th year. Non-Jews, however, “You can bequeath . . . to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” Lev. 25:46.

Does that mean Jews were permitted to be ruthless with their non-Jewish slaves? It does seem that if that had been the case, no one would have sold himself. More to the point is Leviticus 19:33, which provides:

When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

The enslaving of foes conquered in war was also practiced both in biblical times and in Africa in the 18^th and 19^th Centuries; but the Bible nowhere sanctions the practice.

We hope that those who read the following essays will find them useful and encouraging.

THE ESSAYS

Wrong About the History of Southern Slavery: A Response to Steve Wilkins and Douglas Wilson’s History of Slavery

by Rev. Jack Davidson

Wrong About the Bible : A Response to Steve Wilkins and Douglas Wilson’s Doctrine of Slavery

by Rev. Jack Davidson

Peculiar History in Slavery As It Was

by Robert S. Iltis

The Fraudulent Legal History of Sourthern Slavery, As It Was

by Thomas O. Alderman

Slavery and the American Constitution

by Thomas O. Alderman

More Exciting Findings Show Earth’s Uniqueness

The Search for Extraterrestrial Life continues. You’ve all heard of the “habitable zone” – the narrow range of distances from the host star at which a planet will have liquid water, an essential condition for life? Well actually it would seem scientists have identified at least eight habitable zones in which a planet must reside in order to harbor advanced life. Treat yourself to this.

Excellent Illustration of Fine-Tuning of the Earth

Here is a link to another blogger’s commentary on the very recent discovery of Kepler 452b, an “extrasolar” planet orbiting a nearby star, illustrating very intelligibly why so much fine-tuning is necessary in order for any planet to be habitable for life, especially complex life:

http://rtbsydneychapter.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/is-kepler-452b-really-earth-20-bigger.html

Anthony and I are members of what Reasons to Believe calls its “apologetics community.” I took a training course and was granted admission to their bulletin board in which approx. 250 scientists and lay people from many backgrounds from all over the world participate. (It looks like Anthony is in Australia!) Generally I can get several knowledgeable answers to most technical questions in a day or two.

The original article appears above the line; Anthony’s comments are below. Enjoy!

What is Homosexuality? A Survey of the Scholarly Literature

Neither public policy nor church policy with regard to same-sex attraction (SSA) should be formed in ignorance of the essential nature of homosexuality as reflected in the best scientific evidence available. The Survey was first posted June 26, 2015, the day the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Obergefel v. Hodges. Click here to read the February 27, 2016 update.

The Definition of “Religion”

Defining “Religion” within the Meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

For constitutional purposes–and whenever we speak of religion and the public schools, we cannot avoid speaking in terms of the Constitution–the United States Supreme Court has favored a functional definition of religion in deciding what sorts of beliefs qualify for protection under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. An older line of cases emphasized the transcendent nature of the beliefs in question: belief systems based on the existence of a Supreme Being were treated as religious; others were not. But the modern approach to defining religion for constitutional purposes is to emphasize the role which beliefs play in the life of the individual.

Thus in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), the Court, interpreting the intent of Congress in granting a religious exemption from military service, held that religion includes beliefs which occupy “a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God.” 380 U.S. at 176 (emphasis added). In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied in part upon a statement by the Ecumenical Council:

Men expect from the various religions answers to the riddles of the human condition: What is man? What is the meaning and purpose of our lives? What is the moral good and what is sin? What are death, judgment, and retribution after death? (380 U.S. at 182)

Subsequent lower court cases have followed the Supreme Court’s lead. In Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (1979), the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the teaching of the Science of Creative Intelligence (Transcendental Meditation) in public schools was unconstitutional. Judge Adams, concurring, discussed the history of constitutional doctrine on this question in the following way:

It seems unavoidable, from Seeger, Welsh and Torcaso, that the Theistic formulation presumed to be applicable in the late nineteenth century cases is no longer sustainable. Under the modern view, “religion” is not confined to the relationship of man with his Creator, either as a matter of law or as a matter of theology. Even theologians of traditionally recognized faiths have moved away from a strictly Theistic approach in explaining their own religions. Such movement, when coupled with the growth in the United States of many Eastern and non-traditional belief systems, suggests that the older, limited definition would deny “religious” identification to faiths now adhered to by millions of Americans. The Court’s more recent cases reject such a result. (592 F.2d at 207)

The case of Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), to which Judge Adams referred, contains a dictum recognizing that there are “religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God [including] Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. . . .” 367 U.S. at 495, footnote 11. In Grove v. Mead School District No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528, 1534 (1985), the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals stated that “Secular humanism may be a religion,” citing Rhode Island Federation of Teachers v. Norbert, 630 F.2d 850, 854 (First Circuit 1980).¹

Judge Adams concluded that in the modern approach toward defining “religion” for constitutional purposes, the most important criterion is the nature of the ideas in question. If they relate to “ultimate” questions of life such as “the meaning of life and death, man’s role in the universe, the proper moral code of right and wrong . . . , they should be treated as religious.” 592 F.2d at 208. See also Africa v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025 (First Circuit 1981); and Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F.2d 929 (Fourth Circuit 1986).

The Oregon Court of Appeals has followed suit in the case of Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Or App 203 (1982). Said the Court, “We find that, while beliefs relating to the existence of, and man’s relationship to, a God are certainly religious, belief in a traditional, or any, `god’ is not a prerequisite to a finding that a belief is religious,” citing Torcaso v. Watkins, and Malnak v. Yogi, both supra, among other cases. 57 Or App at 240.

The functional definition of religion is not only the better rule for constitutional purposes, but also is more consistent with democratic ideas of fairness and equality. What one believes about the ultimate nature of things profoundly affects his or her temporal values, and temporal values determine one’s political orientation. When only theistic belief systems are recognized as religious, there is a tendency to exclude only those viewpoints from the public dialogue, while other viewpoints that are just as religious but which happen to be non-theistic are given free rein, because their religious nature is not understood. This places people whose belief systems entail the existence of a Supreme Being at an unfair disadvantage in the exercise of their rights to participate in the democratic process, and to address the great policy questions of their day. A pluralistic society cannot allow such an imbalance.

It is of great importance to understand the major world-views in order to maintain a balanced pluralism and to ensure that our educational processes reflect this balance. Space does not permit a detailed examination of all of the world-views outlined above. However, the fact that the influence of New Age philosophy is both widespread and little understood indicates the need for a more in-depth consideration of the New Age world-view. This world-view has made an impact upon public policy and in education. The amorphous character and continual flux of the New Age world-view make it difficult to grasp, and it is, therefore, critically important to make the effort to delineate the essential features of this movement.

———

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).

United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965);

Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1979).

Rhode Island Federation of Teachers v. Norbert, 630 F.2d 850, 854 (1^st Cir. 1980).

Africa v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025 (1^st Cir. 1981).

Grove v. Mead School District No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528, 1534 (9^th Cir. 1985).

Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F.2d 929 (4^th Cir. 1986).

Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Or App 203 (1982). Said the Court, “We find that, while beliefs relating to the existence of, and man’s relationship to, a God are certainly religious, belief in a traditional, or any, `god’ is not a prerequisite to a finding that a belief is religious,” citing Torcaso v. Watkins, and Malnak v. Yogi, both supra, among other cases. 57 Or App at 240.

David Brooks and the meaning of life

Today in the New York Times Online, columnist David Brooks invited readers to post essays on the formation of good character. I posted the following.

Does believing the Gospel produce good character? If so, how?

I believe it does, but not in the way most people, even most Christians perhaps, might suppose.

It’s not by personal effort, that much is clear; for the Bible teaches that salvation is a gift of grace, received with the empty hands of faith.

The truth of the Gospel, when it is believed, produces a complete reorientation of the mind and will, just by virtue of its being true and by its being believed to be true. Whereas the unbeliever is uncertain whether there is meaning or purpose to the cosmos or to his or her life, the believer now realizes not only that there is tremendous meaning to life, but that we now have the freedom to embody that meaning in everything we do.

The Gospel shows us that our longing for truth, justice, and peace are destined to be fulfilled, and that by being truthful, just, and kind we are participating already in that wonderful Age to come. It shows us that there is no act of kindness which goes unnoticed by the One who loved us and gave Himself for us.

“What Can I Do?”

Today I received an e-mail from a reader asking, “What can I do?” And I responded:

Will,

I’m not ready to say the battle is lost. I prefer to emphasize the fact that we have the victory and really cannot lose.

However, we will lose (although here I am not even talking about the political contest) if our response is merely a repeat of “the Christian Right” of the 1980s and 1990s. How do we avoid that?

First, pray.

Next, remember that the battle is not ours, but God’s. Gays’ quarrel is not with us – it is with God and His Word. Let them wrestle with Him and with their own consciences.

Next, when we address the question of homosexuality, always lead with God’s love and grace and His offer of forgiveness in His wonderful son Jesus. Emphasize that we are all sinners. There was a good article about this in Sunday’s NY Times Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/why-evangelicals-should-love-the-pope.html.

Remember that religious freedom includes the non-establishment of religion as well as the right to the free exercise of religion. That means that it is never enough to quote the Bible in a debate about public policy. If the government were to adopt a policy based solely on scripture, it would constitute an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Furthermore, in very practical terms, religious appeals are of no use if we hope to persuade those who do not already understand that the Bible is God’s Word; and of course that is the task. If we venture into policy advocacy at all, we must be prepared with non-religious grounds for our point of view.

Next, inform yourself. This is something I have not yet completed by any means, but I am working on it. It’s my view that homosexuality is very poorly understood scientifically, but that if it were understood, the biblical view would be vindicated. This would merely be a corollary of the “Two Books” model, would it not? Our understanding of nature is aided by our understanding of the Bible, and vice versa. So we should make sure we are familiar with the scientific literature that does exist, try to form some understanding of what research still needs to be done, and advocate for the funding of that research.

Finally, pray.

Tom

Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom

I. Love is Foremost.

The action of the Indiana legislature in adopting a religious freedom restoration bill has provoked a maelstrom of invective against Christians. If you only read your local newspaper, you may not appreciate the extent of it.

In this atmosphere it is crucial for us to remember that we are within the protection of God most high. We must also remember that God loves gays (see April 1 post). He calls us to pray for our enemies and to rejoice when we are persecuted:

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Matt 5: 11-12.

II. We Must Address the World’s Incomprehension of our Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage.

That said, something must be done to attempt to resolve the incomprehension with which we are met when we decline to be involved in gay weddings, for that incomprehension could do a great deal of damage to our communities.

A. Marriage is Sacred.

New York Times columnist David Brooks writes that there are many humane people who hold to the traditional view of marriage, and that they should be treated with respect and gentle persuasion – to which one Times reader responds,

How can anyone who is deeply humane define marriage in a way that excludes so many humans? If you are deeply humane, you should be able to fully embrace a belief system that includes heterosexual definitions of marriage while also welcoming those participating in same-sex marriages into your businesses and circle of friends.

Please listen carefully: I do welcome gays into my business and circle of friends. Many in wedding services vocations do the same, such as Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Gresham, Oregon bakers who face penalties in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for declining to bake a wedding cake for two brides. They are happy to sell their breads and cakes to gays – except their wedding cakes. They treat their customers the same, except when it entails their own involvement in something to which they are conscientiously opposed.

Part of the misunderstanding stems from the fact that, depending on the circumstances of each particular case, involvement in the ceremony is a matter of degree. Since making a cake entails relatively minor involvement, it may not be the best example. Let’s sharpen the issue, by considering a slightly different scenario that entails deeper involvement: the wedding singer. She does not merely produce a physical object and send it to the chapel: she must go to the chapel personally and use her voice and her art to sing lyrics celebrating homosexual love. Depending on what kind of person she is, forcing her to do this could be a human rights atrocity of the first degree. If she is a devout Christian, then for her the institution of marriage is provided to us by God as a microcosm of the relationship between the Son of God and His Church, which the Bible describes as the Bride of Christ. (Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church, chapter 5, verses 22-33; Revelation 21:9.) The Bible predicts that when Christ returns we will all be changed into His likeness: that is, all the shame and impediments of sin will fall away and we will be free to love as He loves, and there will be a great Wedding Feast (Revelation 19:9). Not only is marriage sacred, but it represents the Christian’s deepest longings to be with her savior in a relationship of complete purity. To think that the Christian wedding singer – or a Christian baker, for that matter – could think of marriage as anything else is delusional.

B. The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God.

The second key to understanding this question is to realize that the reason gay marriage remains a problem for many branches of the church is that for us, the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, which does not change. As the Lord Jesus Himself stated, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35. We could not change our views about same-sex marriage, even if we wanted to.

And of course we don’t want to. There are many things about the Bible which are hard to accept, even for Christians, and many which are simply difficult to understand. But we have excellent reasons for believing that the Bible – yes, in its entirety – is the inspired Word of God, and hence that it is the means chosen by God to reveal His offer of forgiveness to men through the atoning work of His Son, who died to set us free from the guilt and power of sin. If what the Bible says about any one topic, such as homosexuality, is unreliable, then we cannot know that what it says about another topic, such as forgiveness, is not also unreliable. Thus without this high view of the scriptures as the very Word of God – all of it – there is no way to know whether the message about God’s forgiveness of sin is reliable or not. To ask us to throw out the parts you don’t like is to ask us to jeopardize our very salvation. It isn’t going to happen – not ever. Christians in the First Century went to their deaths rejoicing for this message of God’s forgiveness. If necessary, we will do the same.

Thus, those who counsel patience while we struggle with this issue, predicting that we will eventually get on board, are kidding themselves. We are not struggling with the question of gay marriage. We know what we believe about it, because the scriptures are clear. But to advocates of forced participation in same-sex marriage, we say: We are also not struggling with you. You are struggling with God.

C. Religious Liberty Matters.

The final key to understanding is to realize that those who advocate forcing Christians to participate in gay weddings are demonstrating deplorable ignorance about the nature of religious liberty.

Religious liberty is a human right. Indeed, it is the source of human rights; for all human rights depend on a religious view of what it means to be human.

The view that humans are inherently valuable is rooted in the Bible – and nowhere else. If you think you know of another source of human rights, please instruct us. You cannot do it. The Bible teaches that we have value and dignity inherently by virtue of who we are as humans: namely, beings who have been created in the image of God.

This is a religious view not merely because it derives from a religious text; it is also religious because it poses an answer to an inherently religious question: does it mean anything to be human, and if so, what does it mean? It is a well-settled legal doctrine in American constitutional jurisprudence, that it is not whether one’s answer to such a question is theistic or not, or even whether your answer is affirmative or not, which makes it religious. It is the question itself which is religious. Therefore, any and every answer to this question is itself religious and therefore has protection under the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.¹

The Declaration of Independence expresses a weaker form of this same doctrine: “All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This idea, more than any other, has been the glory and strength of America for almost 250 years.

The Indiana legislature realizes that forced participation in same-sex weddings threatens religious liberty and enacts a bill to protect religious belief and expression. But then, because of political pressure and economic duress (a boycott is not a reasoned argument: it is a form of compulsion), it reconsiders, for the love of money and power, and realizes instead that religious belief and practice deserve protection unless it is a belief or practice concerning homosexuality, in which case they do not deserve protection.

We must pause to clarify something which is capable of causing a lot of confusion: according to my research, which admittedly has not been exhaustive, twenty-one states prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation²; many of those state anti-discrimination laws have religious exemptions, but generally those exemptions apply only to religious organizations, and they only cover employment; they do not apply to individuals, and they do not provide exemptions for anyone engaged in the providing of public accommodations. Twenty states have religious freedom restoration acts³ (“RFRA’s”), which are general in application and can be invoked to effect exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for individuals and businesses in the providing of public accommodations.⁴ However (and this is important), the list of states prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not the same as the list of states which have adopted RFRA’s. Of the 21 states which prohibit such discrimination, only three – Connecticut, New Mexico, and Rhode Island – have adopted RFRA’s. Thus, in 18 states – not including Indiana, very interestingly – citizens providing wedding services may be compelled to participate in gay weddings regardless of their religious objections. In those states, you are not permitted to believe that homosexuality is a sin; or if you do, you are not permitted to act in accordance with that belief; or if you do act in accordance with it, you may be fined, you may be publically humiliated, and you may be forced out of your chosen vocation.

Observe that the bill as originally adopted essentially would have restored the former US Supreme Court doctrine in such matters (as do the federal RFRA and the 20 state RFRA’s): an otherwise neutral public policy must not place a substantial burden on religious belief or practice unless the government shows both that the policy protects a compelling governmental interest and that the policy adopts the least intrusive means for protecting that interest. Thus the original bill did not by its terms permit any type of discrimination: it merely recognized that forced participation in gay weddings has the potential of impairing legitimate expressions of religion and that the courts must have the authority to determine whether it does that, and if it does, whether the impairment is so serious as to justify exempting the religious claimant from such forced participation or not.

It is distinctly possible that some courts, if they had the opportunity, would rule against bakers, but in favor of singers. They are different cases. Again, to emphasize the point: the original act did not by itself authorize any form of discrimination, but merely recognized that citizens should have the opportunity to offer proof that under the particular facts of their situation, the burden to religious expression justifies asking the brides or grooms to obtain their wedding services from another merchant.

But as amended, the bill makes it the policy of the State of Indiana that where homosexuality is concerned, any burden on religious belief or practice is permissible. In Oregon, and 17 other states, in the case of same-sex marriage, anyone offering goods or services which are used in gay wedding ceremonies must participate regardless of their religious beliefs and regardless of the severity of the burden on their religious expression, or they will be punished.

III. Should We be Expected to Keep Our Religion OUT of the Marketplace?

No.

Of the arguments in favor of forcing citizens to participate in same-sex marriage, perhaps the one most frequently made is that such a requirement is an appropriate legal condition for engaging in commerce. That is simply incorrect. The US Supreme Court has rejected that notion. As it stated in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,

In Braunfeld [v. Brown], 366 U. S. 599 [(1961)], we entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants, and the Court never even hinted that this objective precluded their claims. As the Court explained in a later case, the “exercise of religion” involves “not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts” that are “engaged in for religious reasons.” [Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v.] Smith, 494 U. S. 872 877 [(1990)]. Business practices that are compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within that definition. Thus, a law that “operates so as to make the practice of . . . religious beliefs more expensive” in the context of business activities imposes a burden on the exercise of religion. Braunfeld, supra, at 605; see United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, 257 (1982) (recognizing that “compulsory participation in the social security system interferes with [Amish employers’] free exercise rights”).

. . . While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well. [Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., slip opinion, 27-29 (US, 2014).]

Thus the Court in Hobby Lobby stated that enforcement of the requirement of the Affordable Care Act that employers provide health care insurance coverage for abortifacient contraceptives was a violation of federal RFRA because such enforcement “would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation. RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome.” (Slip opinion, 52.)

Right now, that is the direction which events are taking.

IV. An Appeal to Our Fellow Citizens.

The conversation to date has been dominated by advocates of same-sex marriage, about 80% of whom dismiss religion-based claims of exemption as signs of bigotry. Another 10% dismiss them as signs of ignorance. Such pronouncements have the effect of excluding Christians from the conversation, and I respectfully submit that this is a perilous course. If we begin the punishment of religious believers who for religious reasons cannot participate in gay weddings without affording them so much as a day in court, the consequences are unpredictable. What we know is that no one can readily accept a policy in the forming of which they had no voice, and no one can easily accept punishment without the right to a hearing. Therefore we should stop insulting one another. We should begin respectfully listening to one another, and engage in a common effort to discover a common basis on which we can live together in peace.

ENDNOTES

¹Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1979); Rhode Island Federation of Teachers v. Norbert, 630 F.2d 850, 854 (1^st Cir. 1980); Africa v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025 (1^st Cir. 1981); Grove v. Mead School District No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528, 1534 (9^th Cir. 1985); Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F.2d 929 (4^th Cir. 1986). In Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Or App 203 (1982), the Court said, “We find that, while beliefs relating to the existence of, and man’s relationship to, a God are certainly religious, belief in a traditional, or any, `god’ is not a prerequisite to a finding that a belief is religious,” citing Torcaso v. Watkins, and Malnak v. Yogi, both supra, among other cases. 57 Or App at 240.

²https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map.

³http://rfraperils.com/states/.

⁴Additionally, the courts in eleven other states have adopted similar standards by judicial decision. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-intolerance-1427760183.

God Loves Gays!

A few hours ago I posted an exchange of comments on a New York Times Online article about gay marriage. In doing so, I violated my own guideline about such conversations, namely: on this subject (religion and homosexuality), misunderstanding is difficult to avoid; therefore, we must always lead with the Good News about God’s love for gays and lesbians. I didn’t do that, so I pulled the post. Please allow me to start over.

God loves homosexuals. Jesus His Son gave His life for them, just as much as for anyone. Christians are called to serve others – gays and lesbians as much as any – because He taught us that to serve them is to serve Him.

But we also cannot lose sight of the reason it was necessary for Christ to die for us: to atone for our sin. One of the conditions of God’s forgiveness is that we recognize our need for it. Homosexuals are also no different in this respect: we all need God’s forgiveness.

In spite of what some say, Christians are not as a class a self-righteous bunch. That is not to deny that there are plenty of hypocrites in the church – Christians are just as susceptible to that vice as anyone. One of our cardinal doctrines, after all, is that all sin (Romans 3:23). But Christians are not as a class any more hypocritical than anyone else. The difference between Christian hypocrites and other hypocrites, you see, is that, by definition, we Christian hypocrites realize we are hypocrites: that is why we are Christians: we have recognized our sin, we have renounced it, we have relied upon Christ’s payment of the penalty for it, and we come to Him for cleansing and for reconciliation to God. What this means is that as a class, we Christians are less hypocritical than we were.

We Christians believe – for excellent reasons – that the Bible is the Word of God, and binding on us. We couldn’t change it if we wanted to. Indeed, I think that in many instances we would like to change it. We might even like to change what it says about homosexuality – frankly, it’s not a fun topic for us, and I’m sure many of us would prefer to just ignore it. That is becoming less and less an option, however.

So when Moses and Paul unambiguously identify homosexuality as a sin, that pretty much resolves the question in the minds of most Christians. We cannot deny what the Word of God says. Furthermore, it would be wrong to pretend that the Bible is less than clear about this, because if some parts of the Bible are unreliable, then it would be impossible to know which parts are not unreliable, and hence, there would be no way to know that there is any forgiveness of sins. We would therefore be unable to say to gays and lesbians what we must say to everyone: believe in the Lord Jesus and you will have God’s forgiveness.

The Scientific Case for God; and, more evidence for design in nature

Here are two recent articles from Reasons to Believe that I think you will find helpful and encouraging! Enjoy!

http://www.reasons.org/articles/does-science-make-the-case-for-god-or-not-part-1-of-2

http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-we-keep-our-eyes-on-target