In the days following President Obama’s less-than-shocking announcement of his support for same sex marriage, some discussion has centered on the president’s faith based justification of his position.
The President explained:
[Michele and I] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.
This oversimplification of Christianity demonstrates a popular trend in American culture, which says: “Christianity is all well and good, so long as it ignores those old fashioned sexual ethics, and only compels us to be nice to others.” The near universality of the Golden Rule among the world’s religions makes its emphasis especially popular among universalists and fans of “interfaith” cooperation.
But when you get right down to it, this ‘golden rule is the only rule’ approach to the Christian faith is self-centered and relativistic. It essentially means that all moral choices flow from my own personal view of right and wrong, and what I want for myself. This brand of Christianity cites “love your neighbor as yourself,” (Matthew 7:12) frequently – but forgets that when asked, “what is the greatest commandment?” Jesus answered: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37).
To love the Lord above all else, with all that you are means to submit your will to his. It means our idea of what is right must be subordinate to the laws established by God and upheld by traditional Church teachings throughout history.
Comment by Walker V on May 14, 2012 at 9:45 pm
I find it interesting that “laws established by God” are so carefully cherry-picked by the self-appointed right-wing morality police. If you are going to toss around “God’s laws” concerning homosexuality, you owe it to your faith to include God’s “laws” regarding divorce (stoning is the punishment, OK) – and all the other ridiculous “laws” governing everything from when women can be seen in public (between cycles only) to how to sacrifice an animal. It shows a profound disrespect for the Bible to take it so literally that it becomes little more than a manual for buffoonery. The only law I know that mattered to Jesus was love. It’s pretty hard to face THAT one and alienate your brothers and sisters at the same time. This business of “God loves the sinner and hates the sin” is about as logical as “I love my wife – I just don’t like being married to her…” and using that argument as grounds for sleeping around. Someday I would like for a psychologist to call out all of the dysfunctional attributes that people have pinned on God… Jesus would hardly recognize Him…
Comment by Vader on May 16, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Walker V, your understanding of the Bible is unsound (Quelle surprise.)
The Old Testament explicitly permits divorce. It was the loving Jesus of the New Testament who condemned it as something Moses introduced because of the hardness of the human heart, but which is contrary to God’s intentions.
Jesus did not mention stoning as a punishment for it.
Comment by Walker V on May 20, 2012 at 5:19 pm
You’re correct – I was thinking of adultery (Deut. 22), one of the most common REASONS for modern-day divorce… The point is the same – to remain a slave to the letter of the law was the subject of much of Jesus’ teaching, either directly or indirectly (was the sabbath made for man or man for the sabbath, or something to that effect…) – The Church is simply incorrect on this issue, just as it was with slavery, civil rights, HIV-AIDS, and a dozen other backward, militant positions it took in the name of God over the years… Usually such positions resulted in destructive behavior (the Crusades, burnings at the stake, burning of books, the destruction of art, witch trials… and in the case of the Methodists – the lovely racist “workaround” known as the central conference – the record is hardly commendable, and the IRD and the Republican right seems hell-bent on keeping the tradition alive.