On a recent television broadcast, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart exposed his murderous rage against gay men:
I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.
Naturally when I heard that I was shocked. As hard as I tried I just could not wrap my mind around what I was reading. I just couldn’t believe it was true. Jimmy Swaggart still has a television program?
I wish I could say I was as surprised by the hateful remark as I was by the fact that Swaggart is still on the air. Unfortunately, that type of statement is rather common for him. Not long ago he advocated taking “every single Muslim student in every college in this nation and ship them back to where they came from." (Apparently, Swaggart is unaware that some “Muslim students” come from places such as Iowa and Arizona rather than Syria or Pakistan.)
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called on Christian leaders to denounce the comments as has Eugene Volkh who adds:
But it seems to me that decent Christians ought to condemn this defender of murder, who publicly says that he'd violate the Ten Commandments when someone "looks at [him]" the wrong way, while purporting to preach God's word and lead Christian congregations. Tell us, at least, that this supposed Christian — who was once one of the nation's leading evangelists, until he was tripped up by another of the Commandments — doesn't speak for you.
I wish I could honestly say that Swaggart doesn’t speak for all Christians. But the fact remains that violence against gays and lesbians is all too common and much of it is done by those who would claim to be followers of Christ. Hatred and loathing of homosexuals is not rooted in Christian belief. Yet there are many people who would use the Bible’s condemnation of same-gender sex to justify such repugnant attitudes.
While Christians should denounce such outrageous statements, we have a duty to do much more than just issue the generic pious condemnations. We should be taking as strong a stance against violence against homosexuals as we do against same-sex marriage. Our actions should show that such enmity toward gays and lesbians goes against all that we believe. We must make it clear that such un-Biblical attitudes have no place in our community. Above all else, though, Christians must show love toward others. We must love our neighbor, even when they engage in behavior that we reject. And we must also love our enemies – even when they take the form of televangelists.
(Hat tip: Instapundit)
Related: Catholic blogger Rob Vischer thinks that the hesitation to condemn loose cannons like Swaggart may be due to the nature of the evangelical Christian movement.
Amen, Joe. I hadn't heard about these comments until I read your post (and I'm as shocked as you that Swaggart is still on the air). I'm not sure I agree with Volokh's characterization of Swaggart as "once one of the nation's leading evangelists." At least in my mainline denomination upbringing, I always considered him "on the fringe" in a way that, say, Billy Graham was not.
I have the feeling that Swaggart may be batting for both teams. It just seems these types of situations end in that type of irony.
Don't forget the part where everyone clapped after Swaggart.
But he doesn't look that tough, I bet I could take him.
Ditto. Some of us Christians out here believe that double-mindedness is still something God hates.
Joe: But the fact remains that violence against gays and lesbians is all too common and much of it is done by those who would claim to be followers of Christ.
Swaggert's statement is unquestionably stupid and not representative of the teachings of Christ. I am curious, however, what statistics you have to support the statement above. I question it primarily because it seems that this would be guaranteed headline news whenever it occurred yet I can't recall hearing about any such incidents recently or with any kind of frequency.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, btw. Because of the unnatural aspect of homosexual behavior it is all too easy to feel as though it is in a more severe category of sin than lust, idolatry, gluttony, pride and all the others with which most, if not all, of us are all too comfortable. While our stance on the issues facing our culture should be resolute we must ever be examining our eyes for daily deposits of lumber.
This issue is important enough, that I will take five minutes from looking for a Russian wife on the Internet to chime in here.
It is riotous and decidedly un-Christian comments such as the one Joe has referenced here that paints ALL Christians as bigots and hateful. What's more, it is our moral imperative as Christians to denounce it, immediately, before it brings further shame upon the Church, which has been called to be a light unto the world.
I will monitor this thread very closely, and respond accordingly. As of now, Tatiana awaits.
Here is the short of it: The man should be expelled from the Church, have what ever ordination and degrees he has revoked, and go through a trial for heresy. It might seem extreme to some, but he painted the target on his own hind end and is fully deserving of it.
Addendum: Hope the search for the wife goes well. Plenty of beautiful Russian women and you might even end up with one who has an advanced degree of some kind. Seems like you can't swing a former KGB agent over there without hitting a janitor who has a maters degree.
Right on. It's sad that we have to say that murdering gays is wrong, but I guess that's the point we're at. Here's my take on homosexuality and the church.
I find the universal condemnation of Swaggart to be rather hypocritical. He isn't saying anything that isn't in Leviticus. It's an honest expression of the sentiment found in the Bible. You are blaming the messenger instead of finding fault with the message itself. While it's nice and I do appreciate that some Christians are perhaps reconsidering their persecution of gay and lesbian people, it comes after a few thousand years of rather nasty behavior on the part of said Christians. Since the Bible itself has always been the justification for this abject cruelty, can you perhaps see why it and Christianity have little moral authority as far as gay and lesbian people are concerned? It's like asking Jewish people to trust Nazi's and take up reading Mein Kampf. They might forgive a Nazi, but trust them? Never.
Patrick:
Your comment suggests to me that you believe Judaeo/Christianity is unique among religions in its prohibition of homosexuality. I'm sure it's badly composed. I know you don't believe that, as you would be a dribbling idiot if you did. I also know that you don't believe that persecution of homosexuals has anything to do with Christianity or Christ's message, because your short post is too lucid to have been produced by someone that stupid.
So, Patrick, the point is that throughout history people fom many religions and various backgrounds have persecuted homosexuals. However egregious that behavior may have been, however ignorant it is and was, it has nothing to do with Christianity.
Patrick, the basic fact is that many heterosexuals - for whatever reason - find homosexual sexual practices disgusting. And there are a lot of people out there, including but not limited to those who profess to follow Christian theology, whose idea of fun is to beat the living hell out of people they find disgusting or weird. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. And you know it is the truth.
Patrick,
I find the universal condemnation of Swaggart to be rather hypocritical. He
isn't saying anything that isn't in Leviticus.
Well, yes, actually, he is. The passage in Leviticus is referring to the law code of a theocracy while Swaggart is advocating murder.
Since the Bible itself has always been the justification for this abject cruelty, can you perhaps see why it and Christianity have little moral authority as far as gay and lesbian people are concerned? It's like asking Jewish people to trust Nazi's and take up reading Mein Kampf. They might forgive a Nazi, but trust them? Never.
It’s rather ironic that you draw an analogy between a Jewish text and Nazism. Your criticism is rather misplaced. Judaism, not Christianity, is the religion that you should have a problem with. While Christians respect the Mosaic Law, it is not a set of regulations that is directly applicable to our religion. The Law was for the theocratic state of Israel, not for the Church. It required the absolute adherence to all its stipulations and not just those that are cherry-picked to focus on people who would engage in homosexual activity. There is no Christian who has not violated some aspect of the Mosaic Law and would be deserving of death. That is why we needed a Savior.
While some have obviously twisted the passage to justify violence, it has no basis in Christian teaching and so it is inaccurate to claim that Christians are being inherently hypocritical. Maybe you should lodge your complaint with Orthodox Judaism instead.
Does anyone still take Jimmy Swaggert seriously? I figured he peaked years ago.
Agreed Joe. The lack of condemnation for remarks that clearly are against the teachings of Jesus Christ hurts our abilty to make principles arguments for traditional marriage.
Jimmy Swaggart speaks for Jesus in this matter like Osama Bin Laden speaks for all Muslims, or Lewis Farakhan properly represents all African Americans.
Do not confuse venom with proper conviction, nor use it to dismiss the Bible's view of sin - all sin (hetrosexual promiscuity or other).
soundslike swaggart is in denialthe most homo-phobic often are wondering what they have been missing.
i find the muslim comment much more disturbing because that is where the pulse of a lot of conservatives are, christian or not.
Well, yes, actually, he is. The passage in Leviticus is referring to the law code of a theocracy while Swaggart is advocating murder.
Which is why non-Christians find the notion of a Christian theocracy in this or any country troubling. Just look at the language of the Constitution Party for a direct manifestation of this principle in the political thought of the religious right.
I'm glad that you highlighted this abhorrant remark. I'm saddened that the audience actually applauded that language. What did the religious right expect would happen when they villify gay people so consistently and with such distortion? Most anti-gay conservative Christians are happy enough to just deny gay people the right to housing, employment, hospital visitation and inheritence rights. Jimmy wanted to take it to the next level and advocate out and out murder, and sadly his congregation whole heartedly agreed.
Jimmy's comments aren't isolated though. You can turn on any number of televangilists or right wing Christian commentators and get a very similar, yet much more heavily coded message, any day of the week. As I said, what did you think was going to happen when you continually pound home a message that homosexuals want to "convert your children" into gay people or that gay people want to "destroy your family" or that gay people want to suppress the practice of religion from our society?
The largest Jewish movement in this country, Reform, welcomes gays and lesbians in all aspects of it's movement as well as working for same sex unions and non discrimination in the greater society.
The largest Protestant movement in this country, the Southern Baptists are working overtime in "stopping the gay agenda"..it may be the most important and central claim they put forth on their news sites and their advocacy work.
Some mainline protestant folks have sought to include gay and lesbians but they just get heresy trials, deposed from ministries, and in the case of the Episcopal Church the potential of being kicked out of their greater communion. So given this: I'm probably going to trust Judaism over Protestantism on this issue.
David wrote above: "Here is the short of it: The man should be expelled from the Church, have what ever ordination and degrees he has revoked, and go through a trial for heresy. It might seem extreme to some, but he painted the target on his own hind end and is fully deserving of it."
I agree; but he *was* expelled from the (Assemblies of God) church, back in the late '80s, after he was caught in adultery (in the very act!). He set up his own church, and as far as I know, that's how things stand today. (When I see him on TV, I notice how many empty seats he has IN VIEW OF THE CAMERA! A good sign.)
If I may, that Swaggart episode, coming hard on the heels of the Jim-and-Tammy fiasco, was a "come to Jesus" moment for me -- well, I was already with Jesus; it was, I guess, a "Come (back)to Peter" moment: I came to see the "invisible church" ecclesiology as totally unworkable and I couldn't believe it was Christ's will at all. For me, the only way I could find was back to my Catholic roots.
My point being that people like Swaggart, and that whole wretched crowd on TBN (did they buy out The Nashville Network?) exposes the problem in Evangelicalism of authority and the integrity of "church." I think I'm not the first one to raise this point...
Septimus
Joe, very nicely put, especially in your last comment. I agree that homosexuality is wrong but sometimes I think we (as Christians) put too much emphasis on its wrongness.
Example: Across the street from me live two lesbians. There was also a hetero couple who cohabitated for a time. (Irrelevant to the story but it explains the 'was': they did eventually marry and are now divorced.)
Both couples were living in sin and there really is not much distinction between the two, except that one could rectify the situation with a wedding. I think the trick is to maintain a firm line against the offense without vilifying the offenders. The church seems to do much better at this with adultery than with gays/lesbians.
Perhaps this is partly because homosexuality can be revolting to those who do not practice it. And perhaps the militant 'in your face' style of homosexuality provokes a counter militant response, which may end up being detrimental to the church and her mission to spread the love of Jesus to the world.
I agree with Mr. Mod and I recognize Joe Carter for bringing this to the attention of the forum.
When you vilify an 'out-group', your message is going to reach some more than others and there is always going to be a portion of your target audience who takes it way over the top. The risk is that when you create dislike, you take a chance on some people hearing the message as encouraging hatred. When you teach intolerance, you take the chance some folks will learn thuggery. The result can be a tragic case of blowback.
R. J. Riggins articulated this danger well in the piece titled "Welcome to the Ghetto". The article concerns Creationism and pseudoscience in general. But it applies to this discussion as well and there is a subtle insight into Swaggert’s recommendation of violence which I’m sure Riggins’ never foresaw in detail; but predicted in principle. It’s well worth read.
Riggins' writes: The street gang that recruits new members always runs a risk: they are drawing to themselves, and may be helping create, vicious sociopaths. Those are not stable, dependable allies, and are about as dangerous to each other as they are to the hated outsiders.
Read the rest at http://www.holysmoke.org/ghetto.htm
oe,
This is an example of why Christians in general disapprove of one-man popes, and one-man Nicene councils. Apparently the passages in the Bible which strongly condemn homosexuality as an abomination to the LORD, point out that if they do not repent, they will be sent to Hell, and where God commands the civil goverments (not private citizens) to execute them, are part of the Bible you have decided isn't really canon.
To not feel strong disgust and loathing towards homosexuality is to be morally sick. To feel strong disgust and loathing towards homosexuality is a sign of a normal human being, believer or not.
SCPanther, homoseuxality -is- described in the Bible as worse than most sins, because it is against nature, the result of the arsenokoitoi hardening themselves against every prick of conscience to the point where God turns them over to this so that they might be shocked enough to repent. They have "thrown off all restraint" It is a blasphemy against Christ and His relationship with the Church. Yes, all sin is sin, and all sin merits eternal suffering, but most sins are not against nature, and most sins are not outright blasphemies. Homosexuals, like everyone else, need Christ. The fact that they are still alive suggests that God hasn't given up on them yet. But we are to communicate the Gospel to them "fearing even the clothing contaminated by unclean flesh" -- Jude, IIRC.
Kevin, I'm curious to see how you are going to go about denouncing God and St. Paul on a moral basis.
Mind you, Swaggart doesn't impress me as a sound thinker or stable man.
David, or possibly, those who defrocked J. Gresham Machen and their modern ilk are those who really should be the ones defrocked and excommunicated.
Patrick, Leviticus, Romans, and so on do not give the authority to execute homosexual offenders to private citizens. That duty is laid upon the civil governors. A private citizen doing so would be at the least, denying the accused due process.
Joe, the moral law is not just 'a law code for a theocracy' it reflects God's very character, and anyone who thinks that they know right and wrong better than God is in a very serious spiritual condition.
DS, I am -very- surprised, and saddened that Swaggart still has a following. FWIW.
Septimus, D. James Kennedy, at least, is an orthodox Protestant, preaching in constant pain. I don't that there is anyone else on that network who isn't a Nicolaitan or an Arian or Nestorian heretic.
I suppose for this defense of God's honor and what He has written will get me condemned as a non-Christian, unloving, hateful, and even the old profoundly weak and stupid logical fallacy/canard that if you are against something you are of it.
But all such accusations would be falsehoods and lies.
Puzzled,
Patrick, Leviticus, Romans, and so on do not give the authority to execute homosexual offenders to private citizens. That duty is laid upon the civil governors. A private citizen doing so would be at the least, denying the accused due process.
Are you advocating that the government start executing gay people? If not, are you creating moral rationalizations for a government executing gay people if the government's laws were to adhere to Biblical law? I'm not speaking facetiously. I've never seen a more disturbing post in this forum.
Punisher
The result of what you propose and Swaggert promised are the same: dead gay folks. I'm glad your for due process in the theocracy you envision, but can't say I derive much comfort from it.
And along those lines, here is the relevant part of the preamble to the Constitution Party platform:
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
...
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations...
The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.