It’s perhaps inappropriate to ascribe motivations to people, but certainly it’s not inappropriate to say that Jimmy Swaggart doesn’t seem particuarly Christian in this proclamation:
During the program, a rambling sermon by Swaggart who is trying to rehabilitate himself after an arrest for soliciting a prostitute, the televangelist turned to the subject of gay marriage.
According to a transcript of the program, Swaggart said: “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.”
The remarks were met with applause from his congregation.
The program was taped at Swaggart’s ministry in New Orleans where voters Saturday agreed to amend the Louisiana constitution to bar same-sex marriage.
It is certainly Mr Swaggart’s privilege to consider gay marriage stupid (just as I consider a number of things “stupid” that others think are correct). It’s sort of ignorant for Swaggart to somehow judge that it’s idiotic just because he never found himself attracted to men. I’ve never seen a raw tomato that looked gustatorially attractive to me, but that doesn’t mean I think folks are idiotic for wanting to eat them. Still, there’s no accounting for tastes …
But assuming Swaggart’s final comments are recorded accurately, I can’t imagine Christ suggesting that someone who looks at you lustfully deserves killing (and deserves prevarication toward God about it).
I don’t agree with the complaint brought in Canada for the broadcast of the sermon (it’s better for folks to hear Swaggart making a jerk of himself than to suppress that speech). Though don’t get me started on Louisana’s new constitutional amendment.
But regardless of all that, Swaggart’s statements are not what I see Christianity as representing, and I certainly, as a Christian, condemn them in no uncertain terms.
(via Volokh)
Hmmm…since god thinks that Gay people need to be stoned to death, I don’t think that there is all that much of a reason for Mr. Swaggart to have to lie about it.
Really It’s the lie that is the crime here.
Well, in some ways, the lie part *is* the most shocking — whether it’s meant to be am actual lie, or is a nudge-and-a-wink to God.
Yes, Swaggart can probably find some scriputural backing for his statements. I disagree with those particular interpretations or current applicability of that scripture.
Just out of curiosity, what is the justification for shit-canning Leviticus? Certainly a lot of the goofy stuff there has been discarded by mainstream Christianity for a long, long time. The dietary stuff, in particular.
I’m not sure I follow the question. If you’re asking why I don’t consider most of the Levitican (etc.) laws to be particularly valid or binding on Christians today, I feel they represent in most cases tribal customs that were elevated to divinely-provided laws; to whatever extent they were valid was removed (theologically speaking) by Christ, who taught (as Paul would have it) that it is by faith and grace we are saved, not by obedience to the law (that law which is clearly still valid results from that grace and faith, not the other way around).
Thus, dietary laws, laws about ritual uncleanliness of women and men, and (IMO) laws regarding homosexual conduct are not what we should be concerned with following, unless we can demonstrate how they extend from, for example, the Greatest Commandments, or the teachings of Jesus.
If you’re asking me why some Christians feel that the injunction against homosexuality in Leviticus is valid, but similarly framed laws on mixing of fabrics, keeping of festivals, or who has to marry whom, are not — I haven’t the foggiest. (That Paul seems to reinforce some of those laws may be part of it, but, then, I don’t think of Paul as speaking infallably, either.)
I meant not just you but mainline Christianity in general. (I think of you and Margie and Episcopalians in general as part of ‘mainline’ Christianity, a broad spectrum with you guys at the thoughtful end.) Maybe the Pauline passage you mentioned is the usual justification for reviling homosexuals, since Leviticus isn’t too popular. The Swaggart types, so far as I can tell, pick and choose what they like, or what they think will raise revenue, and damn the context.
Glad to hear we’re on the “thoughtful” end — and certainly Episcopalians do encompass the spectrum.
(I should actually say “spectra” — thoughtful/reflexive is probably a separate spectrum than conservative/liberal, or traditionalist/progressive, or whatever. I.e, there are plenty of kneejerk liberals, and thoughtful conservatves. But I digress.)
I suspect that Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality is indeed a goodly part of what legitimizes the OT passages on the subject; had he not weighed in on the subject, it would be a lot harder for folks to pick and choose those particular passages to retain vs. all the other stuff from those books that’s been dropped by contemporary Christianity (even of the most conservative ilk).
Swaggart and others like him aren’t even worth the effort speaking about imho. Excpet to post a DANGER! sign pointing their way.
I happned upon your site and like what I have been discovering here.
Nice site!