Thanks for taking the time to respond Dan. As you might expect, I've not been persuaded that gay sex is allowed by scripture, even if "monogamous and committed," but I appreciate the discussion none the less, and especially your commitment that the CRC come to its conclusions on these questions based on scripture as opposed to "personal story" (not that personal story should play zero role in our consideration of the questions).
Your "possible arguments" are similar to those I've read (in books included in A1B's list of recommendeds). I tend to conclude as I have for two dominant reasons:
First, the scriptural references clearly condemn gay sex and provide reasons for the condemnation including the reasons given. Your "possible arguments" dismissing the condemnation also favor the legitimizing of bestiality (the next verse in my reference). Plus I note that the sex during menstruation verse does not characterize that as specifically "bad" for a specific reason, as the verses on gay sex and bestiality do.
Second, I have found no (zero) affirming biblical references related to gay sex, despite the fact that gay sex is a very ancient phenomena, perhaps as ancient as heterosexual sex.
My greatest concern with A1B is their insistence that the CRC must change as they have. Christ's church is not defined merely as the CRC. A1B folk have lots of churches they could join, including some already of their persuasion on these questions. It seems to me that an effort of this sort, from inside an institutional church, is unbiblically decisive and unproductive as to the task of the CRC as an institutional church. A1B efforts smack of a political campaign and their tactics (which I think Dan W reports accurately having seen these tactics first hand myself) are similar to politic tactics.
I'm not saying that Christians should never "be political." They should, but there is "a time and a place" for being political, but the A1B effort within the CRC is, respectfully, neither.
So what if it turns out the AB1 is right? That, e.g., we someday find in the that scripture's translations have been seriously faulty on this question specifically. Then I think, the CRC, and CRCers, will eventually be convinced. But for now, it is mere story, the personal desire on the part of some, that scripture says other than it does, that drives this effort, and I think Dan W reports well on that.
Daniel: I do appreciate your struggle, even if I guess I don't empathize with it (in terms of what scripture says).
But here are a couple of my thoughts about yours.
You seem to suggest that unless a "who is Jesus Christ?" question is invoked by a hermetical/theology difference, there may not be cause to an institutional church to prohibit, or perhapsdivide. I specifically say "institutional" because the discussion is quite different if the question is about the organic ("holy catholic") church.
If what you suggest (as I understand it) is correct, then I'm not sure that the concept of "church discipline" (which is always an institutional church question, not an organic church question) isn't completely lost, at least as to the "life" (as opposed to "faith") issues.
Anyone can make an argument of biblical justification for: viewing pornography, stealing from someone else, polyamory, bestiality, drug abuse, greed, hatred, and many, many other real world, real life behaviors that an "orthodox" perspective would understand to be a "life" problem, just as, e.g., Paul saw and pointed out "life" problems as he dealt with the various churches.
If the CRC becomes the "all one body" that A1B wants, it would not only introduces a new doctrine, not to mention a new hermeneutic, it would also introduce new truths and new teachings to real world CRC congregations and their congregants (real people) about many real world, real life questions. Questions like: what should we teach our children about what a family is?, what mothers are?, what fathers are?, the purposes of sex?, what constraints should we set for dating, for sexual behavior?, is marriage a prerequisite for "living together"?, and much more.
If A1B succeeds, why would not the next generation of A1Bers be one that wants to get rid of A1B's current "monogamous" and "committed" requirements for sexual relationships? Surely, biblical arguments can be made to eliminate those requirements, not? Certainly, people can tell stories of how they suffer because they long to love more than one spouse (etc etc).
If we should be "All One Body," why in the world would Councils not tolerate any form of gender identification, bestiality, polyamory, family definition, and the list goes on. For that matter, if "All One Body" is the goal, why should drunkenness not be be tolerated (wine makes glad the heart don't you know), or meth abuse, or laziness. And if those things are tolerated, why should they not also be taught as "valid options." We aim to be a "liberal society" after all -- don't we?
Adam: You may be correct that CRCers have not sufficiently come alongside those who are gay, or for that matter those who are hetero but single and not of their choosing.
Or you may be incorrect.
It probably depends on which CRCers you are talking about -- because there are lots of them.
But isn't the question you raise a different one than the question at issue here, not to mention one about which there is near unanimity of answer among CRCers. Ok, you think CRCers should more practice what they preach and they should. It's likely that some do, some don't.
But again, that's a different question, isn't it?
There are many kinds of people that CRCers should come alongside of, aren't there, included those who have, by CRC standards gone astray from what Scripture provides for our lives -- in any numbers of wsys?
Isn't the question here whether the institutional CRC should bless the actual going astray? And what the CRC should tell CRC parents to teach their children about a number of questions?
Laura: You say that celibacy is "too much a burden" for LGBT. Two questions.
What about "B" (which I assume is bi-sexual)? What burden is imposed on them by a church that would constrain it's members to marry in heterosexual monogamy or remain delegate?
Second, what do you say to those, and some very much do, that monogamy is too much a constraint (burden) for them? That God made them in such a way that they will only be "fulfilled" by, e.g., open marriage or some variety of polyamory? Why, if you would, would you have the church deny these church members to deny themselves (they have prayed and wrestled too) of ways Of living that they have concluded is right for them?
Thanks for the answers Laura. Let me push back on them a bit.
If the "bi" of bisexual has any meaning, even if less than a 50-50 meaning so to speak, you still claim as your reason that bisexuals should be required to marry heterosexually because they should not have the burden of telling a same sex person which whom they have "fallen in love" that they can reciprocate but have to find a heterosexual person to fall in love with instead. So how is that burden greater than that of a heterosexual person who "falls in love" with someone of the opposite sex but who isn't "eligible," (whether because that person is biologically related, or already married, or hasn't reciprocated in "falling in love," etc). In fact, lots of hetereosexual people "fall in love" but can't act on it (some wanting to marry all their lives but never being able). Assuming the injustice of relative burden is meaningful, I'm not understanding how that injustice is at all unique for bi-sexual people as opposed to some heterosexual people.
As to the "monogamy question," while you may not know of people saying they knew at ages 5, 8 or 10, there may well exist (high schools are full of "two-timers," evidencing those inclinations at early ages), but even if not, there are adult people who declare they have a irresistible desire to marry -- or just have sexually imtimate lives -- with more than one spouse (or partner). And I've seen "Christian married couples" who describe themselves as "needing" an open marriage (not polyamorous but in many respects the same). Isn't is burdensome to all of these people for the church to deny them the polyamorous or open relationship they say they want and need?
I realize you, and perhaps A1B, may just want to talk about some things and not others, but those CRCers who believe scripture speaks rather clearly about prohibiting gay marriage also think it critically important what justification is used by gay marriage advocates. If the, or a, key pro-gay marriage argument is "burden," then we believe there can be no constraint at all on human sexual behavior. To add another example/category, people who have a bestiality fettish (and there are lots of those too even if they might rarely "come out of the closet") are also clearly burdened by cultural/religious constraints against their inclination. The list could go on.
How would you or A1B respond to these concerns? They aren't slippery slope concerns but rather concerns that the gate is swung completely open if the, or a, key argument is about unjust burden.
Laura: Again, I appreciate the replies, but it seems to me you aren't quite meeting my objections.
Your prior response based its argument on the injustice of burden, including in the case of bisexuals who may be simply burdened with the reduction of a numeric field from which they can choose their mates. In your most recent answer you say the burden for LGBTers is different because "I know I would live my life very differently if I lived with the idea that I might meet someone someday, vs being told I never could." Well, bi-sexuals, even those "less than 50/50," might meet a heterosexual mate someday, not? In that way they are no different than heterosexuals, except perhaps numerically. The bottom line is you are confirming you are relying on an "injustice of burden" argument.
And when gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) make an injustice of burden argument, they themselves, not the other side, open the door for comparison to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like, because the injustice of burden argument applies to those who favor those other practices.
In other words, I'm suggesting that gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) need to drop the injustice of burden argument if they don't want to invite the other side to legitimately compare to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like. The comparison is argumentatively appropriate so a posited injustice of burden argument.
To say this another way: You ask, "Why is same sex marriage the issue that 'opens the gate' to all other issues?" The answer is because same sex advocates use arguments that in fact "opens the gate" to all other issues. Again, same sex advocates need to drop arguments like the "burden argument" if they don't want to "open that gate."
To draw that out, if same sex marriage advocates would defend their position based only on scriptural exegesis, then a counter argument that says "what about polyamory, swinging and bestiality" would in fact be argumentatively "out of order." It doesn't mean there wouldn't still be an argument to be had, but the argument would be based on scriptural exegesis, not on relative burden.
I think I understand why same sex marriage advocates might choose to posit a multiplicity of arguments for their position. They probably think it is more effective if you posit more arguments. After all, who knows which arguments will be convincing to whom? But the downside of positing some of those arguments is that the argument in fact "opens the gate."
Hey, if A1B can convince me that gay marriage is consistent with what scripture has to say about marriage, A1B will in fact persuade me to come over to its side on this. But if A1B attempts to convince me that gay marriage should not be prohibited (by the church) because of the injustice of burden thereby imposed on LGBT persons, then I will bring up questions about polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like because those are practices that would also be defended by the "injustice of the burden" argument.
OK Laura, I think our ability to converse about this has come to an end. From my perspective, you want to make an argument based on unjust burden but without then having to defend the logical consequences of that argument, those consequences being that using that argument opens the gates to approving other sexual practices.
I do find it ironic that you conclude that "polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like" are not "part of a person's born identity," and that "born identity" is a pre-requisite for approving non-heterosexual marriage/sex. I suspect the "scientific conclusions" about the genetic predisposition for these other sexual inclinations are right around the corner; and certainly, there are no definitive studies I know of that say they are not.
I also find it puzzling that you repeat the claim that if bisexuals are prohibited from marrying they have been subjected to "forced celibacy." Relatively speaking, they simply aren't, at least if they are "50/50" bisexual. Indeed, if they are, heterosexuals are burdened by the disadvantage because they only have half the options compared to bisexuals.
Thanks for the conversation, even if we have made little progress. I've read quite a number of books and articles attempting to explain why sex sex marriage is consistent with scripture. I'm frankly quite unpersuaded. I was trying to explain, however, how using an additional argument (that of unjust burden) opens the door to responses SSM advocates don't like to deal with. It would seem that SSM advocates will continue to push the unjust burden argument, in which case they will met by the not-inappropriate argument that other sexual practices would also be justified by the unjust burden argument.
All smoking should be prohibited on church property. I haven't seen anyone smoke on my church's property for decades. I'm not sure it's formally banned but it probably doesn't have to be.
Using marijuana for medicinal purposes? Ok, fine, but still no smoking of it, or anything else, on church property. (By way of explanation, smoking invades the airspace of others).
As a side note, the medicinal elements of marijuana can be extracted and separated from those that create the "high." I know this from a highly qualified bio-chemist who had actually done this for family members for quite some time now. It can also be cultivated to diminish it as a "high producing" substance while not diminishing the medicinal effects.
In general, marijuana use as a mind altering substance should be viewed as roughly the same as the use of other substances (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, ritalin, other prescribed medications of all kinds, etc). If council believes a church member is using any substance to recreationally achieve mind alteration, it needs to pay attention to that person. In what way exactly? The answer to that question depends on a thousand or more variables. Human life is complicated.
One more point: from the perspective of US federal law, the sale and use of marijuana is not "legalized." That fact should not be ignored or overlooked.
I have been a practicing attorney in Oregon for nearly 40 years now and count a number of gay persons, practicing and not just in orientation, as my past and present clients. I have, and have had, absolutely no issue with providing them with representation that results in their seeking and gaining justice (and other legal benefit). They know that.
Still, I applaud TWU's honesty and faithfulness in having created a behavior covenant for their students. My own gay clients would not be surprised by my applauding TWU in that regard.
This ruling represents a dangerous loss for Canada. It moves Canada away from political pluralism.
I've read the Sup Ct decision opinions, including the majority opinion, the concurring opinions and the dissenting opinion. Significantly, it was only the dissenters (two justices) who brought up a concern for political pluralism. That only 2 of 7 justices were concerned for political pluralism is a bad indicator for things to come.
TWU would have been, apparently, the only "Christian law school" in Canada (by reports I've read). TWU's inability, because of government disapproval, to provide a legal education grounded in the Christian faith to future Canadian lawyers deprives Canada of that benefit -- and by doing that moves Canada away from political pluralism. Although not addressed by the justices, the logic of the majority in case would also deny TWU the right to include most if not all other elements of its student covenant. After all, why should non-married heterosexuals be denied their "right" to have sex whenever and with whomever they please. Or married heterosexuals? Indeed, why should TWU require a covenant that constrains any off campus behavior? Public universities don't -- what gives TWU the right to constrain students in their off-campus lives? What gives TWU the right to force its faith perspective down the throats of others?
This Canadian Supreme Court decision represents an enforced "privatization" of religious faith. Reformed Christians may quote Kuyper's "not one square inch" claim, but the logic of this Supreme Court decision excludes all square inches, save perhaps that of one's private thoughts, the home or church. This decision says that Kuyper's claim is denied when it comes to most real matters of life. You may be Christian (or Muslim or Hindu, etc) in your own private thoughts, probably in your home and in your church too, but beyond that there is a fence where the faith that its the basis for doing life is prescribed by the government.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for taking the time to respond Dan. As you might expect, I've not been persuaded that gay sex is allowed by scripture, even if "monogamous and committed," but I appreciate the discussion none the less, and especially your commitment that the CRC come to its conclusions on these questions based on scripture as opposed to "personal story" (not that personal story should play zero role in our consideration of the questions).
Your "possible arguments" are similar to those I've read (in books included in A1B's list of recommendeds). I tend to conclude as I have for two dominant reasons:
First, the scriptural references clearly condemn gay sex and provide reasons for the condemnation including the reasons given. Your "possible arguments" dismissing the condemnation also favor the legitimizing of bestiality (the next verse in my reference). Plus I note that the sex during menstruation verse does not characterize that as specifically "bad" for a specific reason, as the verses on gay sex and bestiality do.
Second, I have found no (zero) affirming biblical references related to gay sex, despite the fact that gay sex is a very ancient phenomena, perhaps as ancient as heterosexual sex.
My greatest concern with A1B is their insistence that the CRC must change as they have. Christ's church is not defined merely as the CRC. A1B folk have lots of churches they could join, including some already of their persuasion on these questions. It seems to me that an effort of this sort, from inside an institutional church, is unbiblically decisive and unproductive as to the task of the CRC as an institutional church. A1B efforts smack of a political campaign and their tactics (which I think Dan W reports accurately having seen these tactics first hand myself) are similar to politic tactics.
I'm not saying that Christians should never "be political." They should, but there is "a time and a place" for being political, but the A1B effort within the CRC is, respectfully, neither.
So what if it turns out the AB1 is right? That, e.g., we someday find in the that scripture's translations have been seriously faulty on this question specifically. Then I think, the CRC, and CRCers, will eventually be convinced. But for now, it is mere story, the personal desire on the part of some, that scripture says other than it does, that drives this effort, and I think Dan W reports well on that.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Daniel: I do appreciate your struggle, even if I guess I don't empathize with it (in terms of what scripture says).
But here are a couple of my thoughts about yours.
You seem to suggest that unless a "who is Jesus Christ?" question is invoked by a hermetical/theology difference, there may not be cause to an institutional church to prohibit, or perhapsdivide. I specifically say "institutional" because the discussion is quite different if the question is about the organic ("holy catholic") church.
If what you suggest (as I understand it) is correct, then I'm not sure that the concept of "church discipline" (which is always an institutional church question, not an organic church question) isn't completely lost, at least as to the "life" (as opposed to "faith") issues.
Anyone can make an argument of biblical justification for: viewing pornography, stealing from someone else, polyamory, bestiality, drug abuse, greed, hatred, and many, many other real world, real life behaviors that an "orthodox" perspective would understand to be a "life" problem, just as, e.g., Paul saw and pointed out "life" problems as he dealt with the various churches.
If the CRC becomes the "all one body" that A1B wants, it would not only introduces a new doctrine, not to mention a new hermeneutic, it would also introduce new truths and new teachings to real world CRC congregations and their congregants (real people) about many real world, real life questions. Questions like: what should we teach our children about what a family is?, what mothers are?, what fathers are?, the purposes of sex?, what constraints should we set for dating, for sexual behavior?, is marriage a prerequisite for "living together"?, and much more.
If A1B succeeds, why would not the next generation of A1Bers be one that wants to get rid of A1B's current "monogamous" and "committed" requirements for sexual relationships? Surely, biblical arguments can be made to eliminate those requirements, not? Certainly, people can tell stories of how they suffer because they long to love more than one spouse (etc etc).
If we should be "All One Body," why in the world would Councils not tolerate any form of gender identification, bestiality, polyamory, family definition, and the list goes on. For that matter, if "All One Body" is the goal, why should drunkenness not be be tolerated (wine makes glad the heart don't you know), or meth abuse, or laziness. And if those things are tolerated, why should they not also be taught as "valid options." We aim to be a "liberal society" after all -- don't we?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Adam: You may be correct that CRCers have not sufficiently come alongside those who are gay, or for that matter those who are hetero but single and not of their choosing.
Or you may be incorrect.
It probably depends on which CRCers you are talking about -- because there are lots of them.
But isn't the question you raise a different one than the question at issue here, not to mention one about which there is near unanimity of answer among CRCers. Ok, you think CRCers should more practice what they preach and they should. It's likely that some do, some don't.
But again, that's a different question, isn't it?
There are many kinds of people that CRCers should come alongside of, aren't there, included those who have, by CRC standards gone astray from what Scripture provides for our lives -- in any numbers of wsys?
Isn't the question here whether the institutional CRC should bless the actual going astray? And what the CRC should tell CRC parents to teach their children about a number of questions?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for the link to Dr. Cooper's paper. Was excellent (as I expected it might be). :-)
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Laura: You say that celibacy is "too much a burden" for LGBT. Two questions.
What about "B" (which I assume is bi-sexual)? What burden is imposed on them by a church that would constrain it's members to marry in heterosexual monogamy or remain delegate?
Second, what do you say to those, and some very much do, that monogamy is too much a constraint (burden) for them? That God made them in such a way that they will only be "fulfilled" by, e.g., open marriage or some variety of polyamory? Why, if you would, would you have the church deny these church members to deny themselves (they have prayed and wrestled too) of ways Of living that they have concluded is right for them?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for the answers Laura. Let me push back on them a bit.
If the "bi" of bisexual has any meaning, even if less than a 50-50 meaning so to speak, you still claim as your reason that bisexuals should be required to marry heterosexually because they should not have the burden of telling a same sex person which whom they have "fallen in love" that they can reciprocate but have to find a heterosexual person to fall in love with instead. So how is that burden greater than that of a heterosexual person who "falls in love" with someone of the opposite sex but who isn't "eligible," (whether because that person is biologically related, or already married, or hasn't reciprocated in "falling in love," etc). In fact, lots of hetereosexual people "fall in love" but can't act on it (some wanting to marry all their lives but never being able). Assuming the injustice of relative burden is meaningful, I'm not understanding how that injustice is at all unique for bi-sexual people as opposed to some heterosexual people.
As to the "monogamy question," while you may not know of people saying they knew at ages 5, 8 or 10, there may well exist (high schools are full of "two-timers," evidencing those inclinations at early ages), but even if not, there are adult people who declare they have a irresistible desire to marry -- or just have sexually imtimate lives -- with more than one spouse (or partner). And I've seen "Christian married couples" who describe themselves as "needing" an open marriage (not polyamorous but in many respects the same). Isn't is burdensome to all of these people for the church to deny them the polyamorous or open relationship they say they want and need?
I realize you, and perhaps A1B, may just want to talk about some things and not others, but those CRCers who believe scripture speaks rather clearly about prohibiting gay marriage also think it critically important what justification is used by gay marriage advocates. If the, or a, key pro-gay marriage argument is "burden," then we believe there can be no constraint at all on human sexual behavior. To add another example/category, people who have a bestiality fettish (and there are lots of those too even if they might rarely "come out of the closet") are also clearly burdened by cultural/religious constraints against their inclination. The list could go on.
How would you or A1B respond to these concerns? They aren't slippery slope concerns but rather concerns that the gate is swung completely open if the, or a, key argument is about unjust burden.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Laura: Again, I appreciate the replies, but it seems to me you aren't quite meeting my objections.
Your prior response based its argument on the injustice of burden, including in the case of bisexuals who may be simply burdened with the reduction of a numeric field from which they can choose their mates. In your most recent answer you say the burden for LGBTers is different because "I know I would live my life very differently if I lived with the idea that I might meet someone someday, vs being told I never could." Well, bi-sexuals, even those "less than 50/50," might meet a heterosexual mate someday, not? In that way they are no different than heterosexuals, except perhaps numerically. The bottom line is you are confirming you are relying on an "injustice of burden" argument.
And when gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) make an injustice of burden argument, they themselves, not the other side, open the door for comparison to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like, because the injustice of burden argument applies to those who favor those other practices.
In other words, I'm suggesting that gay marriage advocates (A1B and others) need to drop the injustice of burden argument if they don't want to invite the other side to legitimately compare to polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like. The comparison is argumentatively appropriate so a posited injustice of burden argument.
To say this another way: You ask, "Why is same sex marriage the issue that 'opens the gate' to all other issues?" The answer is because same sex advocates use arguments that in fact "opens the gate" to all other issues. Again, same sex advocates need to drop arguments like the "burden argument" if they don't want to "open that gate."
To draw that out, if same sex marriage advocates would defend their position based only on scriptural exegesis, then a counter argument that says "what about polyamory, swinging and bestiality" would in fact be argumentatively "out of order." It doesn't mean there wouldn't still be an argument to be had, but the argument would be based on scriptural exegesis, not on relative burden.
I think I understand why same sex marriage advocates might choose to posit a multiplicity of arguments for their position. They probably think it is more effective if you posit more arguments. After all, who knows which arguments will be convincing to whom? But the downside of positing some of those arguments is that the argument in fact "opens the gate."
Hey, if A1B can convince me that gay marriage is consistent with what scripture has to say about marriage, A1B will in fact persuade me to come over to its side on this. But if A1B attempts to convince me that gay marriage should not be prohibited (by the church) because of the injustice of burden thereby imposed on LGBT persons, then I will bring up questions about polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like because those are practices that would also be defended by the "injustice of the burden" argument.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks Joseph. The "B" I was referring to was not "Side B" but the "B" in LGBT.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
OK Laura, I think our ability to converse about this has come to an end. From my perspective, you want to make an argument based on unjust burden but without then having to defend the logical consequences of that argument, those consequences being that using that argument opens the gates to approving other sexual practices.
I do find it ironic that you conclude that "polyamory, swinging, bestiality and the like" are not "part of a person's born identity," and that "born identity" is a pre-requisite for approving non-heterosexual marriage/sex. I suspect the "scientific conclusions" about the genetic predisposition for these other sexual inclinations are right around the corner; and certainly, there are no definitive studies I know of that say they are not.
I also find it puzzling that you repeat the claim that if bisexuals are prohibited from marrying they have been subjected to "forced celibacy." Relatively speaking, they simply aren't, at least if they are "50/50" bisexual. Indeed, if they are, heterosexuals are burdened by the disadvantage because they only have half the options compared to bisexuals.
Thanks for the conversation, even if we have made little progress. I've read quite a number of books and articles attempting to explain why sex sex marriage is consistent with scripture. I'm frankly quite unpersuaded. I was trying to explain, however, how using an additional argument (that of unjust burden) opens the door to responses SSM advocates don't like to deal with. It would seem that SSM advocates will continue to push the unjust burden argument, in which case they will met by the not-inappropriate argument that other sexual practices would also be justified by the unjust burden argument.
Posted in: Is Your Church Ready for Legalized Pot?
Ok, I'll bite. :-)
All smoking should be prohibited on church property. I haven't seen anyone smoke on my church's property for decades. I'm not sure it's formally banned but it probably doesn't have to be.
Using marijuana for medicinal purposes? Ok, fine, but still no smoking of it, or anything else, on church property. (By way of explanation, smoking invades the airspace of others).
As a side note, the medicinal elements of marijuana can be extracted and separated from those that create the "high." I know this from a highly qualified bio-chemist who had actually done this for family members for quite some time now. It can also be cultivated to diminish it as a "high producing" substance while not diminishing the medicinal effects.
In general, marijuana use as a mind altering substance should be viewed as roughly the same as the use of other substances (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, ritalin, other prescribed medications of all kinds, etc). If council believes a church member is using any substance to recreationally achieve mind alteration, it needs to pay attention to that person. In what way exactly? The answer to that question depends on a thousand or more variables. Human life is complicated.
One more point: from the perspective of US federal law, the sale and use of marijuana is not "legalized." That fact should not be ignored or overlooked.
Posted in: What Are Some of the Most Undervalued Leadership Traits?
A disinclination, even distaste, for turning their position of leadership into a political pedestal.
Posted in: Trinity Western University and the Supreme Court of Canada
I have been a practicing attorney in Oregon for nearly 40 years now and count a number of gay persons, practicing and not just in orientation, as my past and present clients. I have, and have had, absolutely no issue with providing them with representation that results in their seeking and gaining justice (and other legal benefit). They know that.
Still, I applaud TWU's honesty and faithfulness in having created a behavior covenant for their students. My own gay clients would not be surprised by my applauding TWU in that regard.
This ruling represents a dangerous loss for Canada. It moves Canada away from political pluralism.
I've read the Sup Ct decision opinions, including the majority opinion, the concurring opinions and the dissenting opinion. Significantly, it was only the dissenters (two justices) who brought up a concern for political pluralism. That only 2 of 7 justices were concerned for political pluralism is a bad indicator for things to come.
TWU would have been, apparently, the only "Christian law school" in Canada (by reports I've read). TWU's inability, because of government disapproval, to provide a legal education grounded in the Christian faith to future Canadian lawyers deprives Canada of that benefit -- and by doing that moves Canada away from political pluralism. Although not addressed by the justices, the logic of the majority in case would also deny TWU the right to include most if not all other elements of its student covenant. After all, why should non-married heterosexuals be denied their "right" to have sex whenever and with whomever they please. Or married heterosexuals? Indeed, why should TWU require a covenant that constrains any off campus behavior? Public universities don't -- what gives TWU the right to constrain students in their off-campus lives? What gives TWU the right to force its faith perspective down the throats of others?
This Canadian Supreme Court decision represents an enforced "privatization" of religious faith. Reformed Christians may quote Kuyper's "not one square inch" claim, but the logic of this Supreme Court decision excludes all square inches, save perhaps that of one's private thoughts, the home or church. This decision says that Kuyper's claim is denied when it comes to most real matters of life. You may be Christian (or Muslim or Hindu, etc) in your own private thoughts, probably in your home and in your church too, but beyond that there is a fence where the faith that its the basis for doing life is prescribed by the government.
Canadian Kuyperians have cause to be alarmed.