Rudy is going to Regent next week to try to win over the religious right(eous). And they're concerned about his divorces.
Rudolph Giuliani will court religious conservatives for his presidential campaign when he speaks Tuesday at a Christian university founded by televangelist Pat Robertson.
But Giuliani's talk at Robertson's Regent University comes as several evangelical leaders work feverishly to find an alternative to the front-running former New York mayor, as well as to Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who together lead the field seeking the 2008 Republican nomination.
"We're actively shopping," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
As many RK readers know, The Council for National Policy, that secretive group of powerful conservative leaders, failed to reach consensus in February on a GOP candidate to support.
Weyrich, Perkins and other conservatives say they've measured Giuliani and don't like what they see. They're uneasy with his politics because he supports abortion rights, gun control and civil unions between same-sex couples.
They also question his personal morality because he's been married three times and divorced twice. His divorce from his second wife, Donna Hanover, was particularly messy.
"On the character issue, I can't vote for Giuliani or Newt Gingrich, who's also been married three times," said Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Three spouses is one too many for most evangelicals."
THREE SPOUSES IS ONE TOO MANY FOR MOST EVANGELICALS
Huh? Okay, putting on my church lady dress here, with my Bible references at hand. I like to use http://www.biblegate... because it's easy to navigate. So what did Jesus say about D-I-V-O-R-C-E?
No way, Jesus said. Unless someone is screwing around on the other mate.
Matthew Chapter 5:
31 It was said also, [under Mosaic law] Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.
Same: Matthew 19:9; Mark 10: 11-12
Biblical scholars are pretty much agreed that this is an authentic statement from Jesus; it comes from perhaps his most famous sermon. Pretty clear, no?
But many Christian denominations (whistle softly) look the other way. Catholics don't, of course, though they grant annulments if you ask really nicely.
HOMOSEXUALITY
The Christian who opposes homosexuality has a little tougher problem using scripture. Jesus said nothing on the subject. Nada. Zilch. Paul did (though there is controversy about the translations of what he said.) http://www.religious... (Note to anyone who wants to debate the scriptural interpretations - there's a decent essay at the above link on the debate and it is not worth getting into.)
Now isn't that interesting? What Jesus said on divorce is clear, but many Christian look the other way. Many of these same people insist the Bible is clear about homosexuality. Okay. Like Alberto Gonzales, who belongs to one of the breakaway Episcopal churches (and which are repelled by homosexuality).
Gonzales. Has. Been. Divorced.
From Wikipedia: "He has been married twice: he and his first wife, Diane Clemens, divorced in 1985; he and his second wife, Rebecca Turner Gonzales, have three sons."
But here's something else interesting that Jesus said. People who oppose homosexuality on a moral basis usually argue it is a lifestyle choice. They realize the moral, ethical difficulties in casting sinful aspersions as to someone who was born that way.
The Bible is an endlessly fascinating document. As I was reading the divorce sections, I came across this statement by Jesus. His followers were worried bout the divorce bit and suggested, maybe it is better not to marry. Hit it, Matthew. (Chapter 19)
10 The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.
11 But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Wait, back up there a second. Did Jesus just say that as to eunuchs, asexual people, some are born that way? Now isn't that interesting.
Did Jesus believe some people's sexual orientation came at birth? Was he just referring to people who had deformed organs? It doesn't seem that way -- because he seems to talk about asexuality in a spiritual sense. Do you think he was talking about the obvious? You know, that some people are the way they are sexually right from birth or from a very young age?
Next month's sermon - who was that naked young man in the garden on the night Jesus was betrayed? (Really. No one ever talks about it.)
There is now a growing scholarly consensus among evangelicals *** that Jesus and Paul would have rejected no-fault divorce and that they would have permitted a wronged partner to initiate a divorce based on the Old Testament grounds of adultery or neglect.
http://churchman.blo... And Chilton was writing about a similar article in the Wall Street Journal (available only to subscribers, but Chilton quotes extensively).
I knew of neither article; but it's clear this will be an emerging political/religious topic as Rudy G. attempts to walk the minefields at Regent and beyond.
"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
So Paul puts in the same category thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers with those who commit sexual transgressions. Why are these other transgression, that prevent our entry into the kingdom of heaven, ignored?
Simple: most heterosexual Christians will never perform homosexual acts, by definition. It is not an issue because they have no inclination towards it. So it is easy to be self-righteous about it.
However, many of they do have an inclination towards greed, slander, and swindling at some point in their lives. And let's not forget those who lean towards adultery and alcoholism.
And honestly, greed, slander, and swindling happens a lot more often in our society that homosexuality, and, unlike homosexuality, greed, slander and swindling have a negative impact in our society.
It is just easier to judge others than to judge one's own life. And Jesus was very clear about the validity of doing this:
"3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
And remember there is legitimate controversy on whether Paul was referring to homosexuality at all. Here's one viewpoint:
Using a Protestant English translation of the Bible, they [conservative Christians] believe that the validity of the two anti-homosexual "clobber" passages in Leviticus has been verified by passages in Paul's Epistles. The NIV and KJV of the Bible clearly condemn homosexual behavior at 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28 in the Christian Scriptures. These translations generally interpret the Greek words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" as referring to homosexuals. We can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior. Down through the years, Christians have interpreted these words as referring to people of lacking a high moral standing, or to masturbators, or to men who sexually abuse boys, or to boys who are the victims of sexual abuse. Interpreting these passages as referring to sexually active homosexuals is simply the latest in a long series of attempts to make sense out of obscure words. The precise meaning is unknown.http://www.religious...
I've read this same view expressed in scholarly works, so it is not just some off-the-wall blog comment.
And there's a parallel to your point about homosexuality (if that's the proper definition) being lumped in a class with other transgressions in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, same sex relations are said to be an "abomination." The following are also abominations:
Leviticus 11:10" "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you."So, don't eat any lobsters -- tis an abomination.
Leviticus 11:41" "And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten."
Deuteronomy 17:1" "You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God a bull or sheep which has any blemish or defect, for that is an abomination to the LORD your God."
Deuteronomy 22:5" "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God."
This would include a woman wearing jeans or slacks.
Oh, and if you've sown a field with mixed seed, that's a no no under Leviticus 19:19. And wearing clothes of mixed fabric. I'd say that couple on the lawn is in severe danger of the smite button, if one follows the entire moral code of the Bible.
