• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How dare Evangelicals talk about nixing homosexual marriage?

Pah

Uber all member
From an article in Christianity Today Magazine April 2005, an interview with Ron Sider, who is professor of theology, holistic ministry, and public policy at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, talking about his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Baker Books, 2005).

What troubles you the most about evangelicals today?

The heart of the matter is the scandalous failure to live what we preach. The tragedy is that poll after poll by Gallup and Barna show that evangelicals live just like the world. Contrast that with what the New Testament says about what happens when people come to living faith in Christ. There's supposed to be radical transformation in the power of the Holy Spirit. The disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is just, I think, heart-rending.

I'm a deeply committed evangelical. I've been committed to evangelical beliefs and to renewing the evangelical church all of my life. And the stats just break my heart. They make me weep. And somehow we must face that reality and change it.

You have often spoken about evangelical failures in society, for example, in Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. This latest critique covers not only social justice issues but also issues of personal morality. Was that intentional?

I've always been concerned with a whole range of biblical things. My commitment is to be biblically faithful, not to pick out one issue. But a good bit of my writing has dealt with the social issues that have called evangelicals to be more engaged, for example, with questions of poverty here and abroad. But you're right. This book is talking about a range of things that we evangelicals all agree are biblical demands.

Evangelical Christians and born-again Christians get divorced just as often, if not a little more, than the general population. And Barna has discovered that 90 percent of the born-again Christians who are divorced got divorced after they accepted Christ. On sexual promiscuity, we're probably doing a little better than the general population. Josh McDowell has estimated that maybe our evangelical youth are 10 percent better, Lord help us.

So at least it's a measurable difference.


Well it is measurable, although there's not so much hard [data] on that question as with some of the others. John Green, one of the best evangelical pollsters, says that about a third of all evangelicals say that premarital sex is okay. And about 15 percent say that adultery is okay.

Take the issue of racism. A Gallup study discovered that when they asked the question, "Do you object if a black neighbor moves in next door?" the least prejudiced were Catholics and non-evangelicals. The next group, in terms of prejudice, was mainline Protestants. Evangelicals and Southern Baptists were the worst.

Several studies find that physical and sexual abuse in theologically conservative homes is about the same as elsewhere. A large study of the Christian Reformed Church, a member of the nae, discovered that the frequency of physical and sexual abuse in this evangelical denomination was about the same as in the general population. One recent study, though, suggests that evangelical men who attend church regularly are less likely than the general population to commit domestic violence.

Materialism continues to be an incredible scandal. The average church member [from across the denominations] today gives about 2.6 percent of his or her income—a quarter of a tithe—to the church. Evangelicals used to be quite a lot better [in giving] than mainline denominations. But their giving has declined every year for several decades, and they're now getting very close to the norm. The average evangelical giving is about 4.2 percent—about two-fifths of a tithe.

Six percent of the "born-again" people tithe; nine percent of evangelicals do. Our income has gone up fabulously over the last 30-plus years. The average household income now in the U.S. is $42,000-plus. If the average American Christian tithed, we'd have another $143 billion.

In an era in which people holding to traditional values appear to be returning to center stage in politics, your book says that all is not well with our day-to-day choices in the private realm. In effect, you're accusing evangelicals of hypocrisy. Is that a fair conclusion?

I'm not doing that gladly. I'm doing that with tears in my eyes. We have to face the reality. It strikes me as being incredibly tragic and, yes, hypocritical for the evidence to show that precisely at a time when evangelicals have more political power to raise the issue of moral values in this society than they've had in a long time, the hard statistics on their own living show that they don't live what they're talking about. And sure, I'm afraid that's hypocrisy. So we have to set our own house in order before we're going to have either any integrity or any effectiveness in terms of helping the larger society recover wholesome two-parent families.
Seems to be a forest in the eyes of Evangelicals and they focus on the splinter of homosexual marriage. How dare they? How can this drive, this homophobic drive, take center stage in a "defense of the family"?
 

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
Compare evangelical youth to atheistic youth who also participate in some extra-curricular activity. The evangelicals would be eating their livers out.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Flappycat said:
Compare evangelical youth to atheistic youth who also participate in some extra-curricular activity. The evangelicals would be eating their livers out.
I can't quite parse out what your comment is aiming at here. Cannibalism? Please clarify.........
 

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
Engyo said:
I can't quite parse out what your comment is aiming at here. Cannibalism? Please clarify.........
I think it's a spin on an old idiom. Basically, I meant that they'd be in fits of impotent rage and basically act like sore losers. I forget which book I read it in, but the author tended to use it pretty frequently if I remember correctly.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Pah said:
Seems to be a forest in the eyes of Evangelicals and they focus on the splinter of homosexual marriage. How dare they? How can this drive, this homophobic drive, take center stage in a "defense of the family"?


They are desperate - they will aim everything they can at homosexuals...........:rolleyes:
 

Mike182

Flaming Queer
as far as i could read, the article is saying that we need to go back to two-parent families to raise the moral standard of our society

this not only criticises homosexuals, but also criticises single parents, a lot of whom do a fantastic job with their kids under some of the most strenuous of circumstances

not only this, but it shows all two-parent families to be 'better' than all other family types - which is not always the case

and finally, he is basing his entire argument upon statistical evidence - shame on him! statistics are flawwed, his figures on "sexual prowess" are unbelievably flawwed, as this subject by its very nature is often concealed, how did he measure it? we know that the stats on domestic violence are flawwed, as we only record what is reported, and not all of it is reported! and his statisitcs on racist views are unbelievably flawwed, if he didn't ask EVERYONE from the groups he measured, how can he x% of the population think this or this - :banghead3

quite frankly, he has no evidence to back up his unsubstantiated waffel

C_P
 

Pah

Uber all member
corrupt_priest said:
as far as i could read, the article is saying that we need to go back to two-parent families to raise the moral standard of our society

this not only criticises homosexuals, but also criticises single parents, a lot of whom do a fantastic job with their kids under some of the most strenuous of circumstances
Yes, I would agree with that assessment - somewhat. I think it is a common perspective from evangelicals. But he also says that from that unit, there is a lot of immorality.
not only this, but it shows all two-parent families to be 'better' than all other family types - which is not always the case
With this I wholeheartedly agree.

and finally, he is basing his entire argument upon statistical evidence - shame on him! statistics are flawwed, his figures on "sexual prowess" are unbelievably flawwed, as this subject by its very nature is often concealed, how did he measure it? we know that the stats on domestic violence are flawwed, as we only record what is reported, and not all of it is reported! and his statisitcs on racist views are unbelievably flawwed, if he didn't ask EVERYONE from the groups he measured, how can he x% of the population think this or this - :banghead3

quite frankly, he has no evidence to back up his unsubstantiated waffel

C_P
The polling statistics are by renown pollsters. There is always a confidence factor, not always stated, that should put the numbers into perspective and usually it is no more than a 5% range. The polls do not reflect a "reported" reality but one from personal anecdote. The number of ancedotes presented lend credence to the statements that address society. The author is certainly credentialed to speak of public issues

I would prefer that the message and not the messanger nor how he got his message be addressed. If you have anything as substantial as what he relied on, I'd be happy to hear an adverse opinion.
 

The Black Whirlwind

Well-Known Member
um, how does homo marriage factor into this? it seems he is saying that the male/female parental unit is better. I personally think it is, although my mom did a marvelous job of raising me herself, i think it would have been better if my dad was there more.
 

Saw11_2000

Well-Known Member
I've really had it with hearing people outraged about gay marriage.



I know, that 50 years from now, we will look back on this just the way we do about black rights 50 years ago.
 

Saw11_2000

Well-Known Member
Over times, people have strayed further and further from the bible. Things that used to be unthinkable, such as divorce, are now readily accepted.

Over time, regardless of what the Bible says or not, gay marraige will become accepted.
 

scitsofreaky

Active Member
TheJedi said:
i doubt it, unless christians start to cherry-pick their bibles and ignore the gay parts.
LMAO. Um, they are cherry-picking their bibles to ignore everything but the "gay parts," you know all both of them. What about this verse:
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 : "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked man from among you'."
They are already cherry-picking. If they do stop cherry-picking, then I think we will be able to look back at this like we did with civil rights.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
scitsofreaky said:
LMAO. Um, they are cherry-picking their bibles to ignore everything but the "gay parts," you know all both of them. What about this verse: They are already cherry-picking. If they do stop cherry-picking, then I think we will be able to look back at this like we did with civil rights.
I don't think Christians would like to be told they are 'cherry-picking"; at least, not the devout sola scriptura ones.........you might do well to prepare yourself for a few posts on that, my friend.




Saw said:
I know, that 50 years from now, we will look back on this just the way we do about black rights 50 years ago.
- Good one, I do hope you are right; only I hope for the sake of our homosexual friends here on the forum, that it will be so much sooner than that.;)
 

scitsofreaky

Active Member
I don't think Christians would like to be told they are 'cherry-picking"; at least, not the devout sola scriptura ones.........you might do well to prepare yourself for a few posts on that, my friend.
I know, and I am prepared. Any arguement against what I say will be an arguement against scripture, something they cannot do.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
scitsofreaky said:
I know, and I am prepared. Any arguement against what I say will be an arguement against scripture, something they cannot do.
I can argue against scripture all day long. What I do need to accept, though, is that you and many others will not accept such arguments; just as I don't accept Christian scripture as validation of anything in particular.
 

scitsofreaky

Active Member
Engyo said:
I can argue against scripture all day long. What I do need to accept, though, is that you and many others will not accept such arguments; just as I don't accept Christian scripture as validation of anything in particular.
Oh, I can argue against it too. In fact I have. But they, meaning the Christians, cannot. But like you said, there is no point in arguing over its validity. But in this debate, they pick and choose what they want to get the desired results, and the only way to refute this to their satisfaction (if they can ever be satisfied) is with their own beliefs.
 

Ernesto

Member
Saw11_2000 said:
I know, that 50 years from now, we will look back on this just the way we do about black rights 50 years ago.
Yes, does it not worry anyone else here that it took us over 2000 years to legalise gay marriage? Oh, religion does so much good for the world...
 

Saw11_2000

Well-Known Member
Black rights took quote a long time, too.

I think Britain started African slavery sometime mid-millenium. So about 500 years to give them rights?

It's coming.
 
Top