Loading ...Assemblies of God denounces Obama, gay marriage
flockwoodThe head of the Assemblies of God, the nation’s largest Pentecostal body,accused President Barack Obama of “twisting Scripture” to defend gay marriage and said the “pro-homosexual, pro-abortion president” is advocating conduct that is “immoral” and “under the judgment of God.”
The church’s statement is reprinted, in its entirety, below:
**AG OPPOSES PRESIDENT OBAMA’S STANCE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
The Assemblies of God, in reaction to President Barack Obama’s
embracing of same-sex marriage, is voicing its dissent and
objection. According to Dr. George O. Wood, general superintendent
of the Assemblies of God, the Assemblies of God is in complete
disagreement with the president’s new position and takes exception
to the president’s taking Scripture out of context to defend his
position.
“The Bible clearly teaches that marriage should be a life-long
commitment between one man and one women,” states Dr. George O.
Wood, general superintendent of the Assemblies of God. “There is no affirmation of homosexual behavior found anywhere in Scripture.
However, the Bible is replete with evidence that homosexual behavior is immoral and comes under the judgment of God.”
The president also referred to the Bible, claiming Christ
sacrificing himself for mankind and the golden rule as reasons for
endorsing same-sex marriage.
“Although it has become popular to quote Scripture grossly out of
context to serve a personal or political agenda, it still doesn’t
change what God’s Word clearly states,” Wood says.
Wood adds that in light of what Scripture says, Christians should
not be surprised by individuals and groups twisting Scripture,
citing, 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
In the Assemblies of God’s official position paper on homosexuality, it states, “We believe, in the light of biblical revelation, that the growing cultural acceptance of homosexual identity and behavior, male and female, is symptomatic of a broader spiritual disorder that threatens the family, the government, and the church.”
The paper also states, “Not only do the Scriptures condemn more
flagrant examples of homosexual violence and promiscuity, they also provide no support for the popular modern idea that loving and committed homosexual relationships between two long-term partners are morally acceptable. Homosexual activities of every kind are contrary to the moral commandments God has given us.”
Wood adds that it’s important for Christians to not underestimate
the implications of a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion president, and
what it means for the church. “In no time in our nation have we ever needed to pray more for our political leaders and this country than we need to today,” Wood says.
For more information about the Assemblies of God position on
homosexuality and other areas, see its website at http://ag.org
and click on “Beliefs.”
–AG News
May 10th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Setting aside the exegesis for a minute–after all, you can defend nearly any stance with selective use of scripture–I will take issue with the political phrases in the good pastor’s comments.
Saying President Obama is “pro-homosexual, pro-abortion” is about like saying that those pasty-white Yankee kids back in the 1950s and 60s were “pro-black supremacy” because they pushed for civil rights for Negros. It’s like saying that the male legislators who granted voting rights to women were effeminate. Heck, it’s like saying that I’m a closet Mormon because I think every person should be free to worship according to his or her conscience, however zany the dogma of their church. I have never met a person who was truly “pro-abortion”, not a single one. Nor have I met any straight person who secretly desired to be homosexual.
In reading the reactions to Obama’s interview, I was pleased to see so many people using the accurate terminology for the movement to permit same-sex marriages. It’s called “Marriage Equality”. As more Americans realize that this is really an issue of freedom, they are going to see that the existing laws banning same-sex marriages and civil unions as arbitrary and simply unfair. Dr. Good and his sympathizers are welcome to force their peculiar religious doctrines on their followers, but it is against our American principles to force them on a free citizenry.
May 12th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Obama had to make a stand on this and he did. Its about all Americans and the inclusions of rights under the constitutiion.
The line between church and state has been drawn!
May 20th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
The NAACP agrees:
“We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.”
Amen.
July 15th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
The issue here is not a question of “rights.” It is an issue of legislated respect. The Mormons, of which I’m one (thanks for the “zany” comment José—beautiful literary touch), are not opposed to gays having all the legal opportunities the rest of us have, we’re just opposed to being forced to call them “married.”
When we Mormons practiced polygamy (back in our really “zany” days), we never asked the government to recognize the extra marriages. We quite fully understood that many would have a real problem with that. Gays should have the freedom to live their lives and not force others to, however tacitly, acknowledge their behavior as moral.
Now moral arguments can be made the other way as well. The Mormons believed that those additional marriages, when specifically approved by God, were perfectly moral and based on Bible examples. Gays are certainly free to make a similar arguement. This is one of those areas where we probably simply need to go with the majority. If most Americans voted to recognize poloygmous marriages, I’m sure the Mormon Church would have appreciated that at the time. As it worked out, much to the relief of most Mormons, we ended the practice more than 120 years ago.
If the majority of Americans want gay marriage legal, we will simply have to accept that, but to be consistant, they would have to legalize pologamy as well, along with all other forms of marriage one might dream up.
July 17th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
In retrospect, with a 50 percent divorce rate, what have the heterosexuals done to marriage!
July 19th, 2012 at 12:10 am
What’s the “divorce” rate among homosexuals, Perplexed? Every gay I know (and I’ve known quite a few) has had multiple partners, and been in and out of relationships, even the religious ones. I don’t think homosexuals are going to “save” marriage, by any means. Their track record, by my experiences, seems to be far worse.
The divorce rate, by the way, is closer to 40% nationally, and slightly less among Mormons. Not to brag or anything. : )
July 19th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
For Obama, gay pride celebrations at the White House are another ploy to get re-elected.
July 29th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
What if we’re missing the message here? Not so much the marriage of like sexes, but the needs these couples have petetioned for. The difference that that established marriage many years ago,was to be fruitful and multiply. The primary function now is protection of marital assets. We’er missing something here and pinpointing it will have to come from the masses and then presented as an alternative. All people should have secure and fulfilling relationships. That leads to others questions. The structure of society needs a think tank that offer suggestions. Once again,how can people get along better? It’s been my observation that the younger generations will promote and change the world in a much better way than our generation has. Their acceptance of one another is much greater than ours which in turn offers cooperation on problem solving. Just out of curiosity, I wonder how prescription drugs and alcohol have altered the thought patterns of our present world. Excuse me for my misspellings, this iPad i
August 12th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
I don’t have that much faith in the younger generation, Perplexed. They’re always more accepting, but are also more ignorant. Sooner or later reality hits, and especially hard in areas concerning morality. It is great to be accepting, but choices have concequences, and often society gets hit with the bill. I certainly don’t want to limit anyone’s freedoms, but when they come demanding the rest of us pay up for their behavior, it gives us some right to set limits. Gays, in my opinion, on the whole have not proven they hold to the same moral principles as the average rest of us. Certainly there are those who do, but I never hear of some gay person finding a one and only “sweetheart” and remaining a couple for 50 years or more, which is the ideal for most of us. An ideal more and more not realized today, sadly. Calling gay couples “married” will be convenient, in some respects, but could open up more consequences than we’re ready to handle. Imagine what society in America would look like today if polygamy had been made legal 120+ years ago!
Again, we are fine with all the legal rights being there, just not the official title. The demand for the title of being married is only to force social acceptance of what many see as degenerate of the ideal. And on the whole they have ample evidence in support of that.
August 16th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Maybe John is hanging around the wrong type of queer. I count three friends on FB who are gay. All have been in longterm monogamous relationships for more than a decade. They have good jobs and pay taxes. One of them served our country honorably in uniform. That’s a better track record than many of my straight buddies. John’s opinion, it seems, is based more on prejudice and ignorance than on real evidence.
But the major problem with John’s argument is that he penalizes an entire class of society for the behavior of a few. If government is to criminalize infractions of “moral principles”–whatever John means by that–then the law should apply to gays and straights alike. Likewise our freedoms and rights should apply to gays and straights alike.
I really don’t understand what are these consequences that we are supposed to fear. The truth, I think, is that many folks like John simply don’t want for gays to have the same legal protections and support in marriage as straight couples. That is not a sufficient reason for unequal treatment under the law.
August 27th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Well, José, as I’ve said before on other posts in the past, I personally don’t care if a gay couple is married and I’ll even call them married and treat them as such if they like. I just won’t force my neighbor to call them that if he does not wish to. When or if the majority of Americans feel the same way as I do, then we can look at broadening the definition of marriage.
One-hundred twenty-plus years ago, my church allowed the practice of polygamy and recognized multiple wives. Most Americans at the time, and of course even now, did not wish to acknowledge such unions. The children of those relationships were considered bastards in all legal issues. My church never sued to make their neighbors recognize such unions, however. They understood most Americans would not understand and that the practice was abhorrent to them. The church eventually discontinued the practice when the Supreme Court upheld laws that specifically outlawed polygamy. I would contend that my church now is being much more understanding by fully recognizing all the legal rights that gays want or have, but just not the title of marriage. It’s a double standard that is being practiced otherwise.
Polygamy was abandoned because the vast majority of Americans simply would not or could not accept it (even when it was explained that it was consensual and previous wives had to agree with any new marriage). The same is happening here. Most Americans are not ready to accept gay relationships as “normal” and I don’t blame them. I don’t see polygamy as “normal” either even though my church once did, and has never officially disavowed it.
It boils down to wanting legislated respect. Whether it is morally right or wrong is not the issue—good arguments can be made both ways—the issue is the forced recognition. If we allow gay marriages against the will of the majority, by the same token we should have allowed polygamy as well.
Please also note: I said “most” gay relationships failed to meet up to the same ideals of heterosexual marriages. I have had several good friends and acquaintances that were gay and with only one exception do they get anywhere close to the ideal. They have multiple partners, short relationships when they have them, and generally have perverse perceptions of sexual matters that go beyond just the same sex attraction. Even the one exception who is in a long-term (hopefully lifetime) relationship has had 4 or 5 intimate relationships in the past, whereas my wife and I were both virgins until our marriage. (shocker, huh?) Some allowance could be made for experimentation due to the conflict gays have with having to discover who they are, and societal influence plays a role in that, and maybe society needs to adjust to that, but it must come from within society first and not my force. What would America look like today if polygamy were forced upon society a century ago? I dare say, with apologies to my church, that it would be downright awful for the most part, with a few exceptions. Likewise with gay marriages, for the most part, again with a few exceptions.
August 27th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Forgot one point, José: What I mean by society footing the bill is all the social programs and “rights” that are demanded to mitigate personal choices. The mania of providing for more and more AIDS research, often at the expense of other research, is one example. This is not just a gay problem, I know, but it is a disease that is probably 99% preventable simply by personal choices. The same would go for polygamy, by the way. If one man sires 32 kids by six wives, he’s going to have some issues providing for them financially and emotionally and then who gets stuck with the bill for all their welfare and therapy in our nanny state? If we as a society are forcing each other to provide these services and research, we as a society must have some say in the choices that lead to these costly consequences.
We tax people for using tanning beds because of the increased risk of health costs to the state. By the same token we should tax non-monogamous relationships for their potential increased costs. Sadly, most of the gays I know of, and many heterosexuals, would go broke.
August 27th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Point #1 – Forced respect
Anyway you look at it, this amounts to controlling the rights of someone else because that’s what you want. At a bare minimum that is arrogance and self-centeredness. When folks make this kind of argument it is rare for them to admit one huge factor, the price being paid by the other side. I won’t make that error. You don’t like the idea of same-sex marriage. It’s against your religion and your moral sensibilities. It embarrasses you and may even make make you physically ill just thinking about it. To which I will reply, I am truly sorry for your discomfort. However, it is wrong to sacrifice the rights of a people to live together with the security and protection of marriage, just because it hurts your feelings. There really isn’t any comparison between the little that you have to give up versus the unwelcome intrusion into the personal lives of others.
There are a lot of sins that can get waved off under the guise of “forced respect”, pretty much any kind of prejudice that existed in the past but is no longer allowed to be law today. I’m sure that there are a number of people who still resent the fact that women and blacks have rights today. It would sure be funny to have one of them try to argue that their personal beliefs superceded the authority of, say, a woman judge or an African-American police officer.
Point #2 – Social costs
You didn’t articulate this one well so I will give it a try: “Same sex marriage will place a burden on the rest of society, either directly in terms of dollars or indirectly in ways like diminished quality of life.” Fair enough?
Then you hint at things (“social programs”) but only really mention one, AIDS. So what you really mean is that we can prevent the spread of AIDS by discouraging same-sex partners from entering into a legal institution based on mutual support and fidelity. To which I will reply, OH REALLY?
Tell me again, what will be the result if same sex marriages are allowed. Will guys shack up with other guys and gals with other gals? Dude, that’s happening today and it’s going to continue in the future regardless of marriage laws. No, here’s what will be the practical result of marriage equality. Same sex couples will be able to have the same legal rights as married couples. Security and protection, it’s as basic and as simple as that.
As for the repeated references to polygamy, I have a request. If you want to make the case that same sex marriage is equivalent to multiple spouse marriage then go ahead and make the case. I’ll be happy to listen with an open mind. But do not just throw it out there without explanation. If you bring it up then you defend it.
One of the interesting things about the marriage equality debate is that a growing number of conservatives understand it as a valid position for those who value freedom and fairness in civil law. There are some high profile names…Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, John Bolton, among others. David Cameron, British Prime Minister and head of the Conservative Party, stated “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative!” Ted Olson, who served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, is a man whose conservative credentials and respect for law cannot be challenged. Yet Olson was one of the lawyers arguing to overturn California’s Proposition 8, the measure which rescinded the state’s marriage equality ruling. In a 2010 Newsweek column Olson eloquently weaves together the fine American principles of community, family values, and justice, concluding “The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.”
August 28th, 2012 at 5:26 am
For me, after much contemplation, it boils down to this. Do my personal opinions supercede my obligation to a fellow human being!
August 28th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
The more I ponder the comparison of same sex marriage to polygamy the less sense it makes. The one similarity is that they have been looked upon as immoral. Even there it’s notable that the trends are mirror images. Polygamy is less tolerated in modern societies today while same sex marriages are unquestionably becoming more acceptable. But John’s argument– if same sex marriage is to be legalized then so should polygamy– is based entirely on foolish consistencies while it shuns any attempt at trying to reason out what restrictions there should be on marriages in the first place. I mean, you could make the same case for banning marriages between people with the same color of eyes and it would make as much sense. In a free society such as ours we should never limit the rights and privileges of citizens on the basis of prejudices and whims and nothing else.
So if polygamy is a useless comparison, are there any marriage laws which can enlighten our understanding of this legal matter? I offer up two.
First, the anti-miscegenation laws. Several states had laws that prohibited two people of different races to marry. The last laws were struck down by a Supreme Court ruling in 1967. Mixing of races was morally offensive to many people. Bible thumpers found that the Good Lord Hisself said that they weren’t allowed. Common sense (and an appreciation for fairness and liberty) prevailed. Now it’s no big deal. If someone thought that inter-racial marriage was going to cause problems because of the mixed-race offspring, please direct your attention to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for a counterexample.
In my mind this is the best analogy to the current laws against same sex marriages. If you agree that the laws based on race were unfair and unacceptable, how would you justify the laws based on sexual orientation? Be specific, if you please.
Second, laws that rigidly link marriage and procreation. What laws, you ask? There are no laws that require a married couple to make babies. Precisely! One of the oft-cited reasons for denying marriage equality is that there is no need for gay couples to marry since they won’t be producing offspring, and EVERYONE agrees that marriage is ALL about childraising. Right? Wrong! Check it out. Any couple can get married in any of these United States even if they have decided not to have children. They might be infertile, they could even be celibate– not that it’s any of your danged business!– and it really doesn’t matter to the county clerk. I see same sex couples in much the same way. They want to get married and live their lives together in bliss until death do they part. That’s good enough. There is no more reason for a government to tell them no than it has to tell any other childless couple.
If you have a better comparison then let’s hear it. But please, put some juice into the reasoning behind it.
August 29th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
I really don’t see your point about polygamy not being comparable to gay marriage, José. I must be pretty stupid or something. If two people mutually agree and desire a third partner in their relationship, than that’s just as much their business as it is a gay couple’s business. Just don’t make it MY business by forcing me to call them married. Whether gay or polygamous.
Concerning inter-racial marriages: Most everyone accepted such unions (though they were uncommon) in America right from the start. Only a few states, still recovering from the moral degradation of slavery, had such laws. Also, those were laws specifically outlawing such marriages. There were no laws (that I’m aware of) that outlawed polygamy until people started practicing it. No polygamous person ever got the government to recognize the second marriage (knowingly) even when there were no laws prohibiting it. Now there are laws specifically prohibiting it. How is that any different than the laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages? I don’t support laws prohibiting gay marriage, but neither do I support those that mandate it. Unless, of course, the government also mandates that we accept all other forms of free-will marriages.
It would be better if the government got out of the marriage business altogether. If people say they are married then we can accept or reject that on our own. No force involved. No one telling us what is moral and what is not.
August 29th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
I’m disappointed at the lack of imagination.
The best objections that I can raise against polygamy are based on practical concerns, not principles or morals. Back in the old days when people didn’t live so long, especially women of child bearing years, it probably didn’t matter so much. In fact there could be an advantage in having a spare wife or two. Today is different. If you think that divorces are messy now just think of what it would be like with a few more spouses and a lot more kids in the mix. Regardless, I would be interested to hear someone make the case either for or against the practice, on its own merits and with some kind of analysis about how it differs from monogamy (because it does).
As for the last paragraph, that’s an idea I have been promoting for some time and I’m awfully glad to have you climb aboard.
August 29th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
There is some really interesting studies on the relative advantages and disadvantages to polygamy. In 19th century Utah it actually brought the per-female birth rate down. The average wife in a polygamous marriage had about half as many children as her average monogamous counterpart. This was because the father always kept separate households for each wife, often miles apart (to avoid the inevitable jealousies, no doubt). Because his visits were less frequent, the chances of him visiting during the woman’s ovulation were greatly reduced, and he wasn’t around to have “relations” more often and be there specifically when the wife would be most receptive to his, umm, advances.
Interestingly, studies show that polygamy is the default norm in primitive, resource-scarce cultures. Certain males were able to provide for and protect more than one wife and survival necessitated such. It is only when means were available, after the agricultural revolution for the most part, that the average man could provide for at least one wife and children did monogamy become the norm. We see that in the Bible all the time in the early years when God’s people were just coming out of barbarianism. The same is true to a much lesser extent in early Mormonism. On the frontier some men were able to provide for more than one wife and children and could “build up the kingdom” more rapidly by producing more children (or so it was thought). But, it was more the rule that second and third wives were widows or not good candidates for traditional marriage (unable to reproduce, etc.) that men were asked by the Church to take them on as another wife. (Mark Twain was once disgusted to hear that Brigham Young had multiple wives until he met the wives. After seeing them, he thought Brother Brigham was the most charitable man to walk the earth since Christ Himself.)
I’m glad we agree on my last paragraph in my previous comment. I think that might solve most of the issues. Incidentally, since there doesn’t seem to be a limit on the length of comments here (something Mr. Lockwood might want to look into) here is a story related to that: I was invited to a co-worker’s wedding and brought my wife. A gay co-worker was also invited and he brought his companion. The groom, however, asked him to bring a woman friend as well to accompany him in the official introductions. I could tell he was really quite upset about that, but since it was his friend’s day he went along with it. It was thought that many in the wedding audience would be uncomfortable with the gay couple being introduced together. I felt really bad for him and his gay partner, but he acknowledged that not everyone is ready for such an arrangement. Gays, through their example can change perceptions, but they must not force it upon others. Likewise we should not force them to go contrary to their will either. Gays need to be more accepted in the social sphere. Then the legal status will be moot.
September 21st, 2012 at 6:15 am
1. This statement teeters on the edge of promoting a political candidate from the pulpit. I hope the IRS is paying attention.
2. My understanding is that polygamist sects (albeit far from the LDS mainstream) use their legally unmarried status to collect food stamps WIC and other benefits. Is this true? Don’t get me wrong, there are days when I wish there was another woman in this house, if only to help with laundry and carpooling.
3. It is helpful to brush up on your history of the Ancient Near East if you really believe the Bible was talking about two guys registering at Macy’s when the word “homosexuality” is used. Promiscuous bisexuality and older men using younger and less powerful men sexually was the norm in the ruling classes. The sexual ethic early Christianity puts forth is radical in its’ treatment of women as human and in claiming that sexual relationships should be just and monogamous.
October 2nd, 2012 at 10:05 am
Madgebaby, concerning your last point, there are many accounts of genuine and equal love between man and woman in the Old Testament and many other ancient writings. The ancient Egyptians had woman pharaohs and there are many accounts of love stories in ancient Indian (East) texts. Christian morals were not “new” in any sense, people know what is right and what is depraved. The early Christians were trying to RESTORE such morals in certain Greek and Roman societies that were corrupt and, thankfully, they were successful to a large extent. Of course, women were treated like cattle in many barbarian societies, but invariably when God chose to introduce Himself to them, women began to be treated better. Jesus always treated women as fully equal.
Concerning your second point: There are offshoots of Mormonism that do use and abuse government assistance. These groups are not only out of the “mainstream” of the LDS Church, they are all completely disavowed and excommunicated (or their parents or grandparents were). They are in no way affiliated with the Mormon Church. The abuse of food stamps is only a symptom of much deeper depravity. (No religion is immune to fanatical, doctrine-twisting, radicals nipping around its heels. We Mormons happen to have a particularly strange kind, of course.)
About your first point: I have no problem with a church endorsing a particular candidate. If they think someone is immoral, so be it. I wonder how Hitler would have fared had the churches stood up to him and called a spade a spade. A certain amount of overlap between politics and religion is inevitable concerning moral issues (or interpretations of morals).
Disclaimer: The Mormon Church does not endorse or “non-endorse” any political candidate. The Church does reserve the right to take a stance on certain moral issues, on rare occasions, but never ties these to any person.