Prompted by the recent revival of Uganda’s so-called “Anti-Homosexuality Bill,” Saddleback Church’s Rick Warren has once again sent out his 2009 “encyclical video” (interesting phrase, that) to his fellow pastors in Uganda:
We can never deny or water down what God’s word clearly teaches about sexuality. At the same time, the Church must stand to protect the dignity of all individuals, just as Jesus did and commanded all of us to do. . . . Since God created all, and Jesus suffered and died for all, then we are to treat all with respect.
The bill has long been opposed by Christian groups including the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, Exodus International, and Courage. In a letter to Uganda’s president, Exodus International wrote: ”The Christian church . . . must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out.”
The Family Research Council has been widely accused of supporting the bill because they lobbied against a resolution in the U.S. Congress that would have condemned it. FRC has defended its decision, stating the lobbying aimed merely ”to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.” They further stated, “FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality – nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct.”
There’s much to disagree with in that FRC statement, as its issuers know. One may think homosexual conduct moral. One may think it immoral and still reserve doubts about the practice of reparative therapy to which the statement alludes. In any case, there is no reason to magnify already significant disagreements with libelous claims that American Christians have favored Uganda’s bill. They haven’t, and the suggestion that they have only harms the cause of truth and makes it all the more difficult to speak to one another about our moral disagreements.
December 7th, 2012 | 4:04 pm
Well, some American Christians have favored Uganda’s bill.
Note that this is an area where Christians still kill ‘witches’. Anti-gay rhetoric may spark a response Western Christians don’t anticipate.
December 7th, 2012 | 4:45 pm
Note that this is an area where Christians still kill ‘witches’. Anti-gay rhetoric may spark a response Western Christians don’t anticipate.
What about the anti-Christian rhetoric?>
December 8th, 2012 | 2:07 am
Still not good enough. Go to Uganda in person, use your contacts, denounce Scott Lively and everything he said about Gay people, and lobby hard against the bill. This is the minimum that they should do, since they have often preached anti-Gay nonsense themselves.
December 8th, 2012 | 2:32 am
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/07/christian_right_leader_lauds_homophobic_ugandan_dictator/
December 8th, 2012 | 11:09 am
The FRC has also been making public statements in support of Uganda’s support of ‘Christian morals’ during the debate on the Ugandan bill. The context and timing of the FRC’s statements is very troubling. I also note that the FRC did not condemn the criminal penalties for non-commercial sexual activity between consenting, non-related adults, which is a major area of contention in the bill. I also note that the FRC didn’t propose substitute language when they spent 25,000 bucks to oppose condmenation of the Ugandan Bill. Furthermore, the Ugandan bill also amounts to the total and complete abrogation of freedom of speech, RELIGION (for gay supportive denominations – which exist in Uganda), press, assembly, association (even in private), due process, petition, and speech. The totality of the FRC actions in this area lead me to conclude that they support criminal penalties for being Gay or for advocating for Gay rights.
I would also note that the Catholic Church is on the record in favor of similar legislation through public pronouncements by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria issued in the name of an Archbishop and Bishop, in Nigeria.
The American Family Association’s Bryan Fisher has also made many troubling statements regarding this type of legislation, as well as hosting their former California State Director, Scott Lively, who appears to be supportive of jailing persons for being Gay on their radio program.
December 8th, 2012 | 12:33 pm
As long as ANY Christian church holds up homosexuality as incompatible with Christianity in their own teachings, THAT church, whether deliberately or inadvertently teaches that homosexuals are targets to be devalued and often punished.
December 8th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
Velma, I think that while we there is room for disagreement on the impact of theological distaste for Gay persons…. (btw – I’d agree that the impact of such pronouncements are very negative towards LGBT persons)
I’m more concerned at present with advocacy/sustainance of legislation that uses the power of the state to jail or even execute persons for the “crime” of being Gay or the “crime” of peacefully advocating their cause.
December 8th, 2012 | 5:26 pm
Given the ferocity of the argument against homosexuals from most “conservative” Christians—the Bible passages routinely quoted speak of death as the appropriate penalty—I don’t see how Rick Warren’s statement gives any reason for pulling back.
Since God created all, and Jesus suffered and died for all, then we are to treat all with respect.
Wouldn’t this apply to thieves and murderers, too?
December 9th, 2012 | 12:07 am
Tom: “I also note that the FRC didn’t propose substitute language when they spent 25,000 bucks to oppose condmenation of the Ugandan Bill.”
How do you know the exact minutes of meetings between lobbyists and congress members?
December 9th, 2012 | 12:23 pm
Ray Ingles wrote
“Note that this is an area where Christians still kill ‘witches’.”
Well, yes. Both have traditionally been regarded as “offences against religion.”
That is also why the new Penal Code, proposed by Louis Michel le Peletier, Marquis de Saint-Fargeau (promulgated September 26 – October 6, 1791) abolished, without a debate, the crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft [le blasphème, la sodomie et la sorcellerie]
This abolition was extended throughout most of Europe, whereever the armies of Napoléon gave a code of laws to a continent and restored the concept of citizenship to civilisation.
It took another 200 years for the same principle to be embodied in American jurisprudence.
December 10th, 2012 | 9:07 am
You do realize that the hostility against witch-laws is based on the assumption of the harmlessness of witches. If people really make deals with the devil to gain the power to lay curses on their neighbors then they are commiting treason(presumably the Prince of Darkness is a hostile power; or at least no government will openly admit to him being a friendly power however likely the theory might seem to be). They are also commiting assault and battery(by wishing disease on their neighbors) and destruction of private property(by curdling their neighbors milk).
All this is an amusing thought exercise. The point is that witchcraft laws are an issue about knowledge not a moral issue. If in fact witches were what they were thought to be, then witch trials would by definition be an appropriate response.
Be that as it may, witchcraft trials were only popular during the seventeenth century.
As a side note, it is not clear how the armies of Napoleon “restored the concept of citizenship to civilization.” You do recall that the French believed in using extra-large armies with an insufficient logistics train. Guess how they got their food?
December 10th, 2012 | 9:14 am
Adam Baum –
I’m not aware of any newspapers in Uganda publishing pictures of Christians with the headline, “Hang Them”.
If there’s an anti-Christian problem at all, it seems to be a couple orders of magnitude smaller than the ones facing those accused of being homosexual or witches.
Michael PS – Legal codes in France don’t seem to have a strong relation to those in present-day Uganda. Indeed, in terms of Western influences, Uganda was a British colony, so French legal pronouncements are of, at best, academic interest in this context.
December 10th, 2012 | 10:30 am
Velma,
“As long as ANY Christian church holds up adultery as incompatible with Christianity in their own teachings, THAT church, whether deliberately or inadvertently teaches that adulterers are targets to be devalued and often punished.”
“As long as ANY Christian church holds up dishonesty as incompatible with Christianity in their own teachings, THAT church, whether deliberately or inadvertently teaches that liars are targets to be devalued and often punished.”
“As long as ANY Christian church holds up theft as incompatible with Christianity in their own teachings, THAT church, whether deliberately or inadvertently teaches that thieves are targets to be devalued and often punished.”
“As long as ANY Christian church holds up apostasy as incompatible with Christianity in their own teachings, THAT church, whether deliberately or inadvertently teaches that apostates are targets to be devalued and often punished.”
Do these hold true to you as well or does your statement only apply to homosexuality?
December 17th, 2012 | 3:53 pm
So… what does it mean when Pope Benedict XVI blesses the sponsor of the Ugandan bill?
Too bad few First Things readers will get a chance to respond. Matthew Schmitz, your thoughts?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact