Pastor Mike's Corner

Here is the op I wrote as printed in the Pantagraph.
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/07/31/opinion/letters/doc48912d1fa80f6236471609.txt

You will also find a list of responses to the op. The paper allows people to comment online. It's a great way to keep the freedom of expression going. I would like to see the CU paper do the same.

PG Wrote:

Mike, I hope you are aware of the recent events of a gunman taking the lives of Christians in a Unitarian church in Tennessee. He expressed his hatred of gays and the "liberal movement." Such gay-bashing and violence stems from hearing the word of God misconstrued from pulpits, from right-wing talk radio, from the Blackwater/James Dobson nationalists and militarists, and from Christian conservatives who denounce gay people from the pulpit. I've heard your sermon on it, Mike. And the unnecessary war in Iraq goes on as well, promoted by someone who professes to be Christian... Christ continues to be crucified day after day in the way his message is carried out in the world. Anyway, carry on. Add charity to your message. Add tolerance and love. Renounce the old reliance upon naming enemies of those who disagree with you or lead other lives.

Thanks for you comments PG.
Pastor Mike

Over the past couple of months I've been working on a visitation/outreach program that will help guide us in our mission to minister to this community. The church recently adopted this program as its official visitation program--it's called "The Harvesters." The primary mission of the harvesters is to reach the local community of Farmer City and the surrounding communities for Jesus Christ by sending out workers who will personally invite, personally minister, and to be a witness for Jesus Christ and His gospel.

The purpose is five fold:
· To be obedient to the Great Commission
· To Provide FBC with a committed group of harvesters
· To train our men and women in evangelism and ministry
· To minister to our local communities
· To grow the body of believers here at FBC both spiritually and numerically

Now begins the first (and continuous) phase of this new ministry. In Matthew 9: 36—38 we read: When (Jesus) saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.

I ask the church to covet with me to begin and continue to pray for harvesters, for them to be sent by God, and for those whom He sends them to. Prayer is an effective and sometimes overlooked and untapped power source. James 4: 2b states, "You do not have, because you do not ask God." Let us begin this ministry of reaching the lost by basking this new work in prayer. With God's power and blessing it will grow.In Christ,
Pastor Mike

PG wrote:

Kevin, forget trying to argue your point with these people. Of course you are right and logical. There is no way these people will engage with you on a level playing field. They will fall back on Bible verses (mistranslated and misconstrued, at best)and engaging them in "discussion" only encourages them. Their minds will never be changed. Be proud and self-accepting of yourself and your partner. For goodness sake, this pastor quotes Rush Limbaugh! And then he and his followers get upset for being perceived as haters. Limbaugh has made his millions selling hate. People love to hate, to have enemies. Gay people are an easy target. Just live your life. And be blessed when you are persecuted for standing up for the right.

PG,

Your rhetoric skills are beyond imagine. You win. I'm no match for someone who can use an ad hominem as effective as you. And, for now on I will quote great thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche: Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.

Does my ability to quote old Friedrich make me an atheist?

Thanks for your comments,
Pastor mike

p.s., next time read my argument before you argue against me. I didnt quote the Bible. I gave an argument for marriage, not an argument against homosexuality.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece


Interesting article. They steal Rush L.'s labeling of Obama as a Messiah like figure. They report on his recent trip with embellishments as if he were the Christ and it is written in King James "version-ease." Check it out.

To be perfectly honest with you, I dont see the Republican guy winning. Two reasons. First, Obama does draw the crowds. Second, a life long and truly dedicated Republican like myself (Came to the Republicans first as a Marine) couldnt care less about our own guy. He just doesnt inspire me.

I dont hate Obama and wont buy into hateful rhetoric from our side. I wont be voting for Obama because he is far off liberal. My side will lose because all its got is to demonize him. It didnt work against Bush, it wont work against Obama.

All I can do is pray that the next president candiate that is offered truly holds my values. Both of these guys fall short.

Letter to the editor: http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/07/23/opinion/letters/doc4886bf5b5942b247850456.txt

My reply:

Charles Beamon July 23 letter is the epitome of hypocrisy with a smidgen of ignorance. In it he states that believing the Bible, “a book written by man 2,000 years ago” in what it states about God and the afterlife” is “both naïve and arrogant.” He asserts that religion does nothing but breed fear and the solution is to shed the dogma of religion and come together for “the common cause of an advanced way of thinking.”

First off, the Bible was finished approximately 2000 years ago, not written. Second, the Bible claims that it is directly from God and not from man. If this is the case, then by all means it can “explain God and the afterlife” even though great thinkers like Mr. Beamon can’t comprehend it because of how small the earth is. Finally, it’s very hypocritical to call on the followers of Christ to abandon their dogmatic way of thinking and join Mr. Beamon with his dogmatic, and very humanistic, way of thinking. All he’s doing is offering up his own version of “truth” and saying that it is a superior way of thinking. He hasn’t solved the problem; he’s added to it.

I would also suggest that it would be rather naïve to follow Mr Beamon. After all, Christ claimed to be the “Truth” and Mr. Beamon struggles with some of the basic truths.

Kevin posted:

Hi Mike,You say: "The funny thing, or ironic thing, is that if I’m right, and of course you don’t think so, is that by you winning your rights, you help tear down the very thing you seek."The very thing I seek is to be treated equal. By being allowed to be treated equal, are you saying that I tear down the idea of equality? You see, I believe in marriage. Straight and gay. My marriage does not tear down the institution of marriage. We have different views of what the 'institution of marriage' is. If you want to improve the institution of marriage (your version), then you need to make sure that divorce is illegal. Or you need to make sure that a marriage produces children--all of them. You say that comparing people of different color to allowing gays and lesbians to marry is like comparing apples and oranges. But people complained that allowing people of different colors to marry will ruin the institution of marriage. They also used the Bible to back up their beliefs. This sounds like the same apple or the same orange to me...

Kevin,

Sorry brother, I haven’t quoted the scriptures yet…and I’m quite sure if I did, you would reject it as absolutely true today. You have two points and one sub point, I will address them separately.

On you seeking equality. I do believe you do have the same rights that I do. You have the right to get married. You don’t, however, as of yet, nation wide have the additional “right” to marry an individual of the same sex anymore then I have the “right” to marry three women who I really do love and who really do love me. If we give one group the “right,” can we argue that the other group is wrong. If we cant, does not the institution fall away. This is my whole argument.

I understand that you and I have a different view on what the institution of marriage is. I believe that it is absolute and the only institution that survived the fall of man. I don’t argue that point because, lets face it…see my first sentence.

Your sub point on divorce. I agree with you. Divorce on demand is one of the first straws on the camel’s proverbial back. Actually, turn-key children were the first straw…. So, again, I agree: Divorce is tearing down the institution. But you must understand that this part of my argument (minus the scripture references no doubt). The argument is this: The institution of marriage is under attack. Gay marriage is but one attack on the walls that make up this institution. Marriage will continue to be attacked until it is no longer an institution. Eventually, the institution that is paramount in creating citizens for this society will self destruct and society will follow suit.

Finally, on to comparing the struggle of interracial marriage to gay marriage and the use of biblical texts to support their arguments. I don’t see how the pastors, laypeople, or otherwise Christian could make a logical argument using the scriptures that barrs interracial marriage. You can make an argument that one shouldn’t marry outside one’s religious beliefs from the scriptures…but not different races. I submit that those past religious leaders were misapplying biblical texts for their own internal beliefs. This is called an isogesis of the scriptures and it is a sin. The scriptures were right; their beliefs were wrong.

Now for your point to be valid, I must be misapplying what’s in the Word to justify my own evil thoughts. I could be doing just that. I must say that I try to read through the Bible every 60 days. It may be the case that I’ve missed the scripture that would justify your point and it may be the case that I’ve misread the scriptures that state homosexuality is a sin. I don’t think so, but its definitely an area I can reflect on. Until then I must go with my gut: the behavior is deemed inappropriate by the One who created the institution of marriage.

Thanks again,
pastor mike

Kevin wrote:

I find it interesting that you would say "It's fallacious to say that his rights are being denied. He has the right to get married, just within the parameters." How is that any different from those who refused to allow blacks and whites to marry before those unelected judges made it o.k.? I could easily say that those people could get married and that it had to be within parameters. Your marriage is not affected by my marriage. Period. You can't show how my marriage hurts yours. If you can, I would like to hear about it. The only possible danger to your marriage is you and your wife.

Kevin,

You’re comparing apples to oranges my friend. The struggle that black Americans had was due to their pigmentation; the struggle that you have is due to a behavior. Of course you can argue that your desires are based on biology. In which I will submit that my desire for multiple partners is based on biology.

My argument wasn’t for or against one’s sexual desires; my argument was supporting the institution of marriage. With each person and or group demanding their “rights” the institution crumbles. It is this institution that produces healthy members of society. When we no longer regard it as important, when tear down the walls so to speak, children will grow up in a less then healthy environment (in no way am I arguing that against individual cases of same sex partnerships and the way they raise their kids). With each generation of less then healthy members, we fall into further degradation.

No, you wont hurt my relationship with your union. You’re union, however, is another attack on the institution itself. The funny thing, or ironic thing, is that if I’m right, and of course you don’t think so, is that by you winning your rights, you help tear down the very thing you seek.

Thanks for you post bro.

In Christ,
mike

As published:
Just 40 years ago, preachers railed against interracial marriage in the same way that ministers today, like Farmer City Pastor Michael Jenkins in his July 16 letter, warn against same-sex partnerships. They preach fear and prejudice, using selective interpretations of the Bible.
That people like Richard Hayes, who wrote a July 11 letter, and his partner of 40 years pursue equality and fairness for their life together, in spite of such hate and opposition, is an inspiration. My wife and I have been married for 28 years. We find hope, encouragement and renewal in his example and in all of those who fight the odds to persist together in love.
P GREGORY SPRINGER
Urbana

Nate Bowns responds:

I would like to comment on a claim that was made in P GREGORY SPRINGER'S July 22nd letter, "Gay marriage foes appeal to prejudice". You state that Farmer City Pastor Michael Jenkins preaches fear and prejudice, using selective interpretations of the Bible. I would like to know how you can tell what a person preaches from one letter written in the News-Gazette, in which Pastor Jenkins used no scripture reference at all? Second, I would like to know which selective interpretations of the Bible you are referring to? I have 9 translations of the Bible in my home, none of which make the claim that homosexuality is OK. If you know of a translation that does say homosexuality is fine, please let me know. But I would have to conclude that yours would also be a selective interpretation.
Pastor Jenkins did nothing more that answer a challenge put forth by Richard L Hayes. Which, in my opinion, he did very well.
I would like to put forth a challenge to you. Can you actually argue your case, without calling Christians hateful, prejudice, or intolerant? Please for just once try to plead you case with logic, instead of name calling.
Nathan Bowns
Farmer City

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/letters/2008/07/22/gay_marriage_foes_appeal_to_prejudice

As Printed:
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/letters/2008/07/16/healthy_marriage_means_healthy_society

RICHARD L. HAYES wrote the following and posted it to the OP page at the News Gazette:

I would like to respond to Amber Nibling's June 20 letter. I accept her word that she is a Christian and not intolerant. I am pleased there is a discussion about non-heterosexual unions. It is my hope we can sit down and discuss this and other social issues without harsh words or emotion for far too often such subjects are difficult to accept and for some repugnant. And they turn to words that have little to do with the topic at hand.
In order for two people to come together and become a family, a certificate is issued by the state through its agents. This certificate gives permission to the couple to marry and therefore enter a legal agreement covering their marriage. Many of these deal with daily life, health, financial and death issues. In essence you belong legally to each other and no one else.
So this discussion is about the certificate to marry, not about how a particular belief system defines marriage.
With that I pose these questions to anyone who feels it is OK to deny some citizens equality in their relationships. How does my love for another man for 40 years and my desire for fairness and equity in my relationship through a legal, acceptable civil union affect you, your marriage, your church community or society? Why is it right to deny people legal relationship equity just because it is not your definition of normal?
Please do not pick and use quotes from the Bible. I am looking for well thought-out reasons why I should not have the same rights as you do.
Here's the Link: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/letters/2008/07/11/how_do_civil_unions_harm_marriage

And now my reply sent to the News Gazette July 12, 2008:

On July 11th, Richard L. Hayes asked how legalizing same sex marriage is going to affect “other people, their marriages…or society.” He asked for a reason why he shouldn’t have the same “rights….” He did stipulate that only arguments minus scripture references will be accepted—apparently Bible quoting and good reasoning are antithetical.

I’ll take his challenge.

It’s fallacious to say that his rights are being denied. He has the right to get married, just within the parameters. It’s within the institution of marriage where children are born, raised, and then sent into society. Successful transition from womb to society results in a healthy society; unsuccessful transition eventually breaks down a society. If you tear down the institution, you destroy society.

The institution of marriage has been under assault for a long time. We’ve made divorce easy; pregnancy outside marriage just a thing; single parent homes are the norm. Now, unelected officials are forcing their morality on us. Where does it end? Polygamy? After all, some men were “born” with this desire to mate with more then one woman and who are we to “deny people legal relationship equity…because it’s not (our) definition of normal.” Remove the parameters, it’s no longer an institution, and the roof comes down.

G.K. Chesterton said that we should never tear down a wall unless we understand why it’s there. Unfortunately, Mr. Hayes, and society refuses to listen to the One who created the institution—to its own self-destruction.

One of the passages that I had the privilege of sharing at the funeral services of Avery Henderson is 1 Thessalonians 4: 13—14. It states, “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.”

This is so true. As a body of believers we do mourn the passing of our brother in Christ. We will miss him dearly. But, at the same time we must celebrate. Avery Henderson is home with the Lord!

Hope is the assurance of the things that are to come. We know that we will be with Christ for all of eternity. We know this to be true because the one who promised it demonstrated with power. The grave had no hold on Jesus. It will not have a hold on Avery. And it will not have a hold on us.

I would like to thank the church for its wonderful ministry to the Henderson family in their time of need. I would encourage each one to continue to minister to them during this time of mourning.

God bless,
Pastor Mike