Comments on: Evangelicals & Gay Rights in Ireland: Evangelical Alliance’s Surprise Support for Civil Partnerships Bill

By: Nick Park

Nick Park — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:31:53 +0000

As a Pentecostal pastor and denominational leader in Ireland, I applaud the EAI stance. And I think Gladys is correct in seeing an anabaptist-type desire to celebrate pluralism and freedom. In the past evangelicals in Ireland have suffered discrimination at the hands of governments that favoured Catholicism. We know what it feels like to have others impose their religious beliefs on you. Our faith thrives best in a society where there is freedom for all of us to practice and propagate our faith without anyone imposing their values on the rest of us like the Taliban.
I believe homosexual acts to be sinful, but I recognise that Muslims see eating pork as being sinful. I have no more right to use the law to impose my beliefs, than do Muslims have the right to pass laws forbidding me from eating a bacon sandwich. Therefore, the best option for me and the Muslims is for us to support a secular democratic society where Muslims, evangelicals like me, and homosexuals have the same rights as each other. In such a society we also have the right to spread our beliefs by peaceful means, such as preaching, discussion and personal testimony.
In a secular pluralistic society we all have the right to share our beliefs on a level playing field. Surely only the insecure want a playing-field that is slanted in their favour? If we really believe we have the truth, then what is there to fear?

By: Gladys Ganiel

Gladys Ganiel — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:43:32 +0000

Tim and Wesley, Thanks for your comments on this thread, it’s much appreciated and I think you articulated positions from opposite ends of the spectrum quite well.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:51:37 +0000

Sorry for the spelling mistakes. Need to use a spellchecker!

By: Wesley

Wesley — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:23:41 +0000

Thank you Tim food for thought but Often when quoting scripture we can end up misquoting or at worst manipulated it to mean anything we wish. In this case the “Law” that you speak about loving our neighbour is only part of a single command which is primarily made up of two directives.

We are not only to “love our neighbour as ourselves”, but firstly we are to “Love the Lord our God” our primary requirement is therefore to Love God first, and your neighbour second. So what are the implications? Well firstly Loving God is not a sentiment nor is loving your neighbour, it requires, in regard to God; an obedience and a following after what he ordains. If this is an agreed position (which the majority of theologians are agreed upon) then to negate to tell others (according to God’s decrees) where they have deviated from His prescribed way to live, is not truly loving our neighbour as ourselves.

If we love ourselves then we acknowledge what God has decreed in His word as beneficial to our lives, so then it’s logical by use of the “Law” or command, to apply the letter of it toward our neighbour who we are in fear of them transgressing what God has designed for their good also!

In conclusion: we can’t exercise the latter part of the command without carrying out the first, and if we truly carry out the first then the latter must follow as a desire to lovely communicate what God’s good design is for our neighbour.and if we think the command to Love God is nonsence they why use the latter part to build an argumet for doing good to anyone!

By: Tim Moore

Tim Moore — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:57:18 +0000

Wesley: To answer your question above on “who’s law?”, my answer would simply be the commandment to love one’s neighbour. To me (and it’s only one perspective), granting same sex partners the right to register their partnership is a moral imperative, not just a question of rights.

Personally, I would prefer full legal civl marriage for both same- and mixed-sex couples, with the option for religious organisations to perform them under their auspices: I hope this is the next stage.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:52:32 +0000

Tim I think there is great mileage in your statement as it seeks to encourage our collective stand against prejudice and discrimination. Yet as the saying goes “treason is just a matter of dates” we need to define to whom we have allegiance when we speak in terms of discrimination and prejudice. To who’s law? On the subject matter of the equal rights contained in the bill, if law exists (law of the land) that same sex unions are lawful, it is only logical that you have to give them equal rights. But the question arises are they the same? The decision-making on this bill is not one of morality but of legitimate rights to entitlement under the understanding that same sex unions are the same as those of marriage. We may seek parity under the law (the land) but a more fundamental question in relation to the church and the Law it is under is, can it justify giving sanction to that parity when it remains against (to a large degree) the idea of same sex union.

By: Tim Moore

Tim Moore — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:22:11 +0000

I am very happy at the EAI’s position on the legislation currently going through the Dail, and I hope it will encourage more LGBT and affirming evangelical Christians to stand up to prejudice and discrimination.

From this thread, what is apparent is how recent scandals have not only damaged the moral authority of the Roman Catholic church, which the scandals have mainly centred around, but it is becoming apparent that Protestant churches also have not been able to claim the moral upper hand they once attempted to claim for themselves.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:55:11 +0000

“The EAI Statement was significantly influenced by the current perception in Ireland” (direct quote from former post). Maybe I misread the post Sean made, but the above statement seems clear in that a significant part of the E.A.I Statement is based on the current perception in Ireland. I would ask for some clarification therefore as to whose perception, people in general or that of the church? (This will have a bearing on my former statement) If EAI is simply the conduit through which “the church” voices it’s opinion, then that is fine, but if EAI is seeking to give some direction and lead to the churches in making this statement, then I think it lacks an “evangelical” stand point. They are in danger of falling between two chairs, and left holding the baby. I appreciate the difficulty in crafting a statement that falls within the truth of God’s word and the letter of the law (government/European/Irish or other) but if the statement is representative of Churches then EAI must clarify it’s sources for that and not base it on perceptions, Churches’ or other. Thank you for your replies just seeking to make a Contribution.

By: Gladys Ganiel

Gladys Ganiel — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:03:21 +0000

Thanks Sean and Patrick — your comments give me some assurance I have represented the EAI position correctly.

Wesley, I don’t think Sean is saying the churches should be led by the ‘perception’ of the churches that is out there. I think Sean is merely stating what the perception is. Coincidentally, Philip’s comment confirms that ‘perception’, the perception that the churches have been rather self-serving and hypocritical.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:18:43 +0000

Sean Thanks for your comments but do you not think that we are living in a political and religious vacuum in regard to good leadership. There are no “I have a dream” type people who inspire “truth laden” direction. “Man does what seems right in his own eyes…” I see that in your comment you refer to “perception” of what the church is thinking! A dangerous source if you ask me surly evangelicals should be lead by the truth of God’s word making it a standard rather than the perception out there!!