Dave, this raises a question on a different subject for me.
What would happen if the Court's reasoning on the need to use the same word for something that is essentially the same were applied to the discussion of ordination and commissioning in the Adventist Church. As one speaker noted at a commissioning service of a woman in my conference, God does not care whether the word begins with an o or a c. Perhaps we have used semantics to get in the way of a true priesthood of all believers.

Bonnie
Gal 3:28 So there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free people, between men and women; you are all one in union with Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 If you belong to Christ, then you are the descendants of Abraham and will receive what God has promised.

We should complete the circle and make the c and o. There is nothing wrong with women ordination. Or is there?

Do we not do that now because of cultural differences with other parts of the world? Is it easier to convert a Muslim to a church that does not have women ordination? Meet them where they are, and then bring them along? OK - we are off topic.

A.W.

I agree with the argument of this column- that the ruling was good. Consenting adults should be able to form whatever arrangements they'd like and such relationships should allow them to get the same protections heterosexual couples have enjoyed in healthcare decisions, inheritance, parenting and more. I don't think we should require people to live according to Christian precepts. Separating church and state notions of things like marriage are not only good for citizens but I think it's good for the church.

This is a good opportunity to ask ourselves what we believe and why. Tradition is a terrible argument for belief. I skimmed our recently published book that you edited along with others. Good work- this conversation needs to move forward within the church.

Thank you!

Johnny, I like what you say:

"I don't think we should require people to live according to Christian precepts."

When watching the protesters they implore those marrying to "repent or you will burn in eternal hell," and similar very religious comments. Is it possible to make an arguments against this that are not based on religion?

I've thought about it and I've decided that our making Christian moral guidelines on appropriate behaviour required by all of our citizens in the USA is different in degree not substance from legal systems like that in Iran.

Christianity Today has an article on malum in se which apparently is a non-religious basis for laws on behaviour.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=55605

questions i have are
1. what laws are _not_ based on universal agreement that act xyz is morally repulsive?
2. are we really saying that we legislate behaviour using an icky scale?

I don't see this as a problem, my separating Christian morals from civil law. I think that a gulf between Christian and secular morality has always existed and Adventists certainly expect the state to begin to act against us and our beliefs. Our eschatology is not one of upward progress- a bettering society and world resembling the kingdom of God more and more as time goes by. We expect the world to degenerate and act against us. That our faith makes us peculiar and counter cultural. Sooner or later we're going to have to start earning that remnant moniker we so enjoy tossing about.

I think Bonnie is right. The California Supreme Court would probably not look with favor on our distinction between ordained and commissioned ministers. It, too, is a verbal distinction that corresponds to little or no substantive or functional diffrence. Good point!

Tony Campolo recently quoted someone as follows: "Democracies are not places where majorities rule but those where minorities are safe. Gays are not safe in the United States today and this should concern those of us who are Christians." These are not his exact words, but they are close.

Despite our other differences, can we not agree with him on this? Our nations should be safe for everyone!

As long as we rely on peresuasion rather than coercion, I don't see why we cannot or should not introduce religious considerations into discussions of public policies.

Let all people make their cases as effectively as they can on the presuppositions--religious and otherwise--they find most persuasive. Convincing others is not the same as coercing them, in my book.

I have no objection to someone saying that none of us should drink milk because doing so upsets the gods providing I have the freedom to agree or disagree and act accordingly.

Again, for me the distinction is not between religion and non-religion but between persuasion and coercion.

Many thanks!

Dave

Dave said- "Again, for me the distinction is not between religion and non-religion but between persuasion and coercion."

I can't help but feel there is an inner tension in your entire comment that I'd like to hear you flesh out. There are some people that believe that their morality is the best morality and that the state should legislate their morality. They want to persuade us to enact coercive "morally right" laws. If almost everyone is persuaded does that make morally-driven legislation right? Isn't that what the California Supreme Court rejected?

The tension I see is that it is inevitable in a democracy for the majority to be persuaded that it is morally right, Christian even, to enact laws which are coercive of vulnerable people.

I'm looking for a broad principle we can use to define our engagement with politics. A principle which explains our support for this ruling and for gay marriage generally. I understand that some do feel that gay marriage is a morally good thing to promote. There is another view. That gay marriage should be supported by Christians because it is an example of oppression of minority rights.

/what does our eschatology have to say to our politics?
//or, why would a teetotaller church oppose blue laws?

Hi Johnny!

Thanks for your response. I think you have pinpointed one of the most difficult questions in Christian social ethics: when, if ever, should disciples of Jesus attempt to use the coercive power of government--which amounts to the power to kill people who don't comply--to impose their views on the whole of society? By "impose," I mean IMPOSE!

This is an especially difficult question in nations like the United States because, in the terminology of the sociology of religion, we have no totally established state church for which the right answer is "always" and very few totally disestablished sects for which the right answer is "never." Instead, we have denominations for which the right answer is "sometimes." But noting this sociological reality only intensifies our question!

One other preliminary observation is that this a question about which our best political philosophers have changed their own minds over the course of their careers. John Rawls at Harvard famously began by insisting that in matters of public policy in places like the United States religious language and appeals should be strictly excluded. In time he eased back a bit from that position, however.

Speaking now as a Christian to other Christians, I offer the following as a start. (1) We should have a very strong presumption against appealing to the coercive power of government. This does not amount to an absolute self-imposed prohibition; however, it does mean that the default position is "no" and that those who argue otherwise bear a very heavy burden of proof.

(2) The coercive power of the state should never be used to enforce religious rites and rituals that have no bearing on others. This is not always an easy determination to make; however, I think it possible to make at the extremes. It is one thing to prohibit either standing or stooping while praying and another to prohibit the sacrifice--slaughter--of children while doing so. The first affects others hardly at all whereas the second does a lot.

(3) The cost/benefit ratio of using the coercive power of the state must be favorable. By this we mean that enforcing the law must not create more problems than not doing so. One reason why I support Roe v. Wade is that I beleive that at this time enforcing practices regarding abortion that would be closer to my vision of Chrisitianity would cause even more human suffering and death. This is an empirical question that must be asked and answered in each particular circumstance.

Maybe this is a start Thanks!

Dave

For those of you that feel that Homosexuality is off limits to the Government, what of those that feel having sex with underage boys is a beautiful thing and there right?

http://www.nambla.org/intro.htm

Is this the next special project here at spectrum?

RDS
Not to my knowledge. I think the present discussion is limited to what our laws and other public policies should allow mutually consenting adults to do in private. As we are seeing, this is a matter about which Christians of integrity and intelligence sometimes disagree.

This is why we need to listen and speak to each other. Many thanks for your contributions to this important discussion!

I do hope that this exchange does not prevent us from conversing about other important issues too.
I am beginning to feel some danger in this regard.

I say this to myself before I say it to anyone else.

Many thanks!

Compared to ordination, which denotes worldwide recognition, commissioning confers local authority. By the same token, same-sex marriage in California may still be regarded elsewhere as nothing more than a locally-authorized domestic partnership.

I like Dave's suggestion to extend the concept of domestic partnership, making it more legally inclusive. Though it's too early to make any definitive statements about the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage in the immigrant population, it appears that those from my ethnic community who might benefit from lifting the ban are not in a hurry to take advantage of it. I may be mistaken, but this is the initial perception of our own ethnic media people. One reason may be cultural, but no one's sure what it is that's causing this seeming inhibition.

Be that as it may, in light of the global responsibility of all Adventist clergy, at least in theory, just wondering if those in line for ordination (such as Alex, Jared, Johnny et al) feel any sense of obligation to also speak, like it or not, in behalf of Adventists around the world.

Unfortunately the laws are frequently written not as to benefit domestic partnerships but to be of particular benefit to Homosexual relationship. Here is Washington States domestic partnership requirements:

"Who can register as domestic partners?
To register as domestic partners, both partners must:

Share a common residence
Both be at least 18 years of age
Not be married to, or in a registered domestic partnership with someone else
Be capable of consenting to the domestic partnership
Not be nearer kin than second cousin
Not be a sibling, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew to the other partner, and
Either be:

Of the same sex, or
At least one partner must be at least 62 years of age.
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/domesticpartnerships/faq.aspx

As poor as our law is at least it was not created by judges who have no business making any laws, activist judges however think that they are the legislature.

Dave,
That is an excellent comment. I want my reply to be equally thoughtful so look for my reply later this weekend.

RDS,
Are you being serious?

Joselito,
Interesting question. Very personal. For my part I'd say yes. Not only rhetorically but practised also. To Adventism and its expectations internally and its mission externally, yes. But who would judge our responsiveness? Your comment feels like the opening for an attack. I at least feel that I'm being bettered and definitely am not perfect in my meeting of "Adventist obligations".

rc

Thanks for this from Washington!

It seems to me that we miss a genuine and great opportunity to foster mutually supportive relationships of all kinds when we limit domestic partnerships to homosexual unions, as Washington apparently does.

If the pertinent homosexual unions are now also to be called marriages, perhaps we can resurrect the idea of domestic patnerships and use it in this far more inclusive way. Anything we can do to foster mutually supportive relationships makes sense to me.

Joselito and Johnny

I'm not sure what you are discussing. Perhaps that's to be expected because of my "social location." Anything further either or both of you can say will be gratefully recieved by me and others.

Thank you!

Dave

Dave,
Re: Joselitos question,

I don't understand the question either. It seems to be leading to a follow up. But I answered what I understood it to ask because it named me specifically.

But yes, I would like to know what the point is.

Thanks!

If words matter, those who support the notion of calling same-sex domestic partnerships a "marriage" before the law must be prepared as pastors of flock to defend their position biblically and theologically. Would Alex, Jared, and Johnny, for example, bless such unions? Or, would this depend on their "social situation" - whether or not they're under the employ of an Adventist local conference?

I was just thinking our code of conduct/ethics for all Adventist clergy is the same everywhere. (Integrity and intellectual honesty would be top of my list.) Our influence, individually and collectively, reaches far beyond our local situations.

Joselito,

I see your point and feel it is valid. If you disagree personally with a denominational "world wide" position and counter it as a pastor, it would not be intellectually honest to cry foul at discipline.

You must first work to change the belief of the church or change churches prior to acting out your individual belief in your local setting.

Take the chance and bear the consequences if you choose to be a martyr.

pat

David, I think your article speaks of societal norms as opposed ot Salvation. That is a good distinction. "Can't we just all get along," after all is about living on earth. Living in heaven will be determined by behavior standards set by God, eh? Not the supreme court of California.

Just a little humor that's desperately needed on this subject.

( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )

'Next.'

'Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.'

'Names?'

'Tim and Jim Jones.'

'Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.'

'Yes, we're brothers.'

'Brothers? You can't get married.'

'Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?'

'Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!'

'Incest?' No, we are not gay.'

'Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?'

'For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects.'

'But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been
denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get
married to a woman.'

'Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want
to marry Jim.'

'And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just
because we are not gay?'

'All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next.'

'Hi. We are here to get married.'

'Names?'

'John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.'

'Who wants to marry whom?'

'We all want to marry each other.'

'But there are four of you!'

'That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane
loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and
me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express
our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.'

'But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.'

'So you're discriminating against bisexuals!'

'No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's
just for couples.'

'Since when are you standing on tradition?'

'Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.'

'Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more
the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution
guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!'

'All right, all right. Next.'

'Hello, I'd like a marriage license.'

'In what names?'

'David Deets.'

'And the other man?'

'That's all. I want to marry myself.'

'Marry yourself? What do you mean?'

'Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry
the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.'

'That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!'

Elaine
This is great! Worth many good laughs!! I hope you post it on the other thread too, Thank you!
Dave

Bravo Elaine! You're absolutely right. We need to lighten up a bit, huh? Thanks for helping with that!

Ha. Ha. Thanks for some real laughs, Elaine. And thanks for your strong defense of fair-minded discussion Dave and Jared.

Joselito,
Interesting. Also interesting is that Jared and Alex ignored the question. I don't see why.

To answer your follow-up, I follow Barth very closely in his views on the role of the theologian within the church. I was in a conversation with some theologians where one said that if there was a dispute in the church concerning theology that a panel of scholars should decide what the correct view was. I would disagree. Theologians occupy an office of the church but are not the church themselves.

The pastor also fullfills an office of the church and is ordained by the church for church work. If a pastor believes that the pastor should bless a same-gender union and the church has made clear such a union should not be blessed the moral thing to do would be to resign and give the blessing rather than bless a union within the church which lies outwith the church in the name of the church or God or the individual pastor.

Inversely, if our denomination chose to bless same gender unions and a pastor felt the pastor should not bless such a union then the pastor should resign rather than not meet the obligations to the church the pastor committed to fulfil.

Or, what sort of blessing could an Adventist pastor possibly give a same-gender couple? There are serious problems with not only ones view of ministry and ordination, but also ones view of what constitutes church. Those are all questions which are separate and distinct from the question of gay marriage in and of itself.

For example does the pastor see the pastor as blessing the couple on behalf of God despite the church? Does that mean the pastor sees said pastors ordination as being from God in addition to, or in spite of, the church?

The unspoken element is our definition of church in the context of this discussion of how one sees ones obligations to the church and its positions on gay marriage. If one believes that church is, using my location as an example, the Loma Linda University church or the South Eastern California Conference or the Pacific Union or the North American Division or the General Conference or the Biblical Research Institute. Or, if your theology allows for it, the invisible and universal church also known as the catholic church. For me that body is the General Conference in session.

Dave,
At this point I'm with you fully. I think the next step in our conversation would be martyrdom. That we should move from how Christians should work positively in developing policies within the state to how a Christian should respond when the state would see a Christian act against his or her beliefs/ conscience.

It's interesting that you mentioned abortion. I agree with your statement on that. I think we're entering good ground here and I think the next question is to ask how the Christian should respond to a coercive environment which restricts his or her moral decision making.

http://sce.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/153

I wrote a post a while ago on open.salon.com which is an "Editors Pick" on pro-life pharmacies which you can read here
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=3052
I've also emailed you a PDF of it in case you can't log-in. It's in beta right now.

I think that the United States is unique in protecting the rights of offensive speech and action. Countries like Sweden for example jail pastors for preaching bigoted sermons against homosexuals.

My response is twofold
1. When is comes to moral legislation the test of rightness in effect is found not through a cost-benefit analysis of favourable outcomes on the whole (which would lead to the tyranny of the majority which our constitution sought to protect us against) but rather in the margins. The morality of a thing is defined not by maximum benefit for most people but by its treatment of minority groups (known by Christians as the least of these). That reasoning is what under-girds my support of the California Supreme Court. (also, the question of truth is distinct from moral effectiveness)
2. We're lucky in America because this nation has protections of speech and conscience unmatched in the world. I've been reading some Agamben this past year and think that if we were in the same place and I could spend more than the hour or so I've spent writing responses on this thread, I would like to dig into his ideas on being and state of exception in light of my earlier comment on Adventist ideas of the remnant with you. Hopefully someone with more time can pick up on this!

Johnny and Joselito,

Sorry, I haven't been following this thread closely enough. Which question did I pass over?

Jared,
Read the question here.

Dave,
As a post script, I think that Adventist eschatology is spot-on for identifying the moral arguments funding the repressive state as coming from wider Christianity. I see Elluls criticism of technology, the city and human reason (particularly in his treatment of the tower of Babel) as making a good contribution in understanding what makes the Christian view distinct from that of the city. And that Agamben's view of exception is an insightful critique which identifies the political shape of the persecuting state.

That is to say, what does gay marriage & the moral vision of the state have to do with the great controversy?

If this is the question in question:

"...in light of the global responsibility of all Adventist clergy, at least in theory, just wondering if those in line for ordination (such as Alex, Jared, Johnny et al) feel any sense of obligation to also speak, like it or not, in behalf of Adventists around the world."

Then my short answer would be no, I don't feel a sense of obligation to speak on behalf of Adventists around the world for the following reasons.

1. They should speak for themselves, not be spoken for by a white, middle-class American male. See also post-colonialism.

2. If by "speaking on behalf of Adventists around the world" we mean "saying what Adventists around the world would say", then pastors are followers of the church, not leaders. My limited understanding of the role of pastor is that pastors help congregants to stretch and grow, to move the congregation forward rather than being bound by the thinking of the congregation.

3. As I said before in my discussion of same-sex marriage, majority consensus does not eqaul right. A clear majority supported slavery in its day. A majority opposed interracial marriage. A majority favored segregation in schools.

Clergy have a responsibility to listen to the voice of the larger community, to make sure that the smallest voices are heard, and to assure that each voice is given due consideration, not only the loudest voices. But just to be clear, the congregants do not speak through the clergy, nor do the clergy speak for the congregants.

Does that answer the question appropriately? Have I misunderstood what the question asked?

"That is to say, what does gay marriage & the moral vision of the state have to do with the great controversy?"

The unique Adventist term has an especial significance to a select few who have adopted and accepted it as their raison d'etre. What does it mean to the great body of Christians? Even within Adventism there are varied positions so to use this term, IMO, is more or less meaningless. For those who measure all contemporary issues with this one concept in mind, it has the ability to blind them to the much more urgent issues we now face in the world.

Good overview of the California court decision. I've been doing some serious thinking about the subject of using the November 2008 ballot initiatives to overturn the Court's decision.

The power that Californians have to change the constitution must be applied with fear and trembling. There are some things the court should decide and that should stay out of the hands of the majority, in my humble opinion.

This is shown by proposed initiatives that made the ballot which would have amended the California Constitution in the past:

One Day Rest in Seven (1914) (Rejected)
Requiring Bible in Schools (1926)
Sunday Closing Law (1930) (Rejected)
Taxing of School Property of Religious and Other Non-Profit Organizations (1958) (Rejected)
Subversive Activities (1962)(Rejected)
Terminal Illness - Assistance with Dying (1991) (Rejected)

I posted something on ReligiousLiberty.TV aobut this at http://www.religiousliberty.tv/2008/06/legal-in-california-your-rights-u...

This is directed to Michael Peabody:

Please help us understand the difference between an amendment to California's Constitution and a Revision. I recently read an op-ed piece describing one of the possibilities were this ballot initiative to receive a majority vote.

Currently, all the polls show that there are more against the initiative than are for it. In the Central Valley where I live, it is no surprise that most are for it.

This is directed to Michael Peabody:

Please help us understand the difference between an amendment to California's Constitution and a Revision. I recently read an op-ed piece describing one of the possibilities were this ballot initiative to receive a majority vote.

Currently, all the polls show that there are more against the initiative than are for it. In the Central Valley where I live, it is no surprise that most are for it.

This is directed to Michael Peabody:

Please help us understand the difference between an amendment to California's Constitution and a Revision. I recently read an op-ed piece describing one of the possibilities were this ballot initiative to receive a majority vote.

Currently, all the polls show that there are more against the initiative than are for it. In the Central Valley where I live, it is no surprise that most are for it.

Hi Johnny!

I don't think I can respond to all of your concerns before spending some time catching up on what you are reading.

I would like to make one request, however. In cases like the ones we are discussing:

NEVER RESIGN! NEVER RESIGN! NEVER RESIGN! NEVER RESIGN! NEVER RESIGN! NEVER RESIGN!

On issues like these, the pastor or theologian is much too close to the situation wisely to decide whether to stay or leave. That's one side of the coin.

The other side of the coin is that throughout your ministry you will encounter many people who will say, "If this is what you think, as a matter of honesty and honor you should resign." Never listen to them. Never.

The community of faith through its established procedures must be given its chance to make its decision in matters like this one. To short- circuit this process in any way is to rob it of one of its most important responsibilities. None of us has a moral right to do this.

No minister ever agrees 100% with what his or her denomination says and no denominational leader expects this. The question is always the same: "Is there enough overlap between the minister's and the denomination's beliefs and practices for them effectively to work together in serving God and humanity?"

This is a question that the community of faith in its due processes should be given a chance to answer. No one else should try.

I realize that this is a big response to a small part of what you wrote. I'll add more as I can.

Thank you, Johnny!

Dave

Michael

Thank you for your comment and for www.religiousliberty.tv. What a splendid new Internet resource! My thanks to you and your colleagues for launching it.

I invite everyone to visit this site. I am impressed!

Dave

Time changes all things. Remember when an SDA pastor could not perform the marriage ceremony for a couple if one was not an SDA? That has surely changed, at least for many pastors. The abuse of Paul's statement, which should surely allow, even encourage ALL Christians could marry, is another "unique" SDA interpretation. Is it still valid today?

Also, do SDA pastors refuse to perform a marriage ceremony where one party has been divorced? Or, must questioning decide who is the "guilty party" (what a denigrating accusation!).

Marriage by cohabitation use to be the norm, until civil unions and religious rites were invented.