Gay Army couple says chaplain barred them from marriage retreat
Your thoughts? Should Chaplains have the right to do this to soldiers?
A same-sex couple at Fort Irwin, Calif., says they have been denied participation in an Army marriage enrichment program because of their sexual orientation, even though they are legally married.
As a minister of the Gospel, I preach that same sex relationships are a sin. I am God's messenger. It's His message. Just as I followed the orders of my superiors when I was enlisted, I follow God's orders more so. My allegiance to Christ offends many. It may offend some in this forum. My duty is not to question God, it is to by FAITH, obey Him.
If you were a member of my congregation, I would preach the truth of God's Word to you in love. The same Lord that commissioned me to preach against your lifestyle is the same Lord who gives you the freedom to live contrary to His teaching. You and I both possess free will. You, as I see it, are following your heart. Yet, the Bible teaches that our hearts can deceive us and can be desperately wicked. My heart was desperately wicked, until Jesus Christ became Lord of my heart and soul. It is His will that all men should be saved from their sins - not that we should die in our sins.
Your respect for the Chaplain's right to hold to his conscience is refreshing. Many times when Christians who believe same sex relationships are sinful try to hold a straightforward conversation with others who support it, we are treated as hateful, insane zealots. We are simply holding to our faith, not hating you.
I don't know you. I may never meet you in my lifetime, but one thing I can share with you is that God loves you. That does not mean He condones everything you do - neither does He condone everything I do for that matter. And yet, while God loves you, He wants you to repent and accept the person He created you to be.
What I have learned from God concerning this matter is that the question is not whether or not you were born gay. The issue at hand is SIN. And as far as whether or not your lifestyle is sinful according to the Holy Scriptures - there is no question at all. According to the Bible, unnatural sexual relations is a sin - whether it be man with man; woman with woman; man with animal or even deriving sexual pleasure from self-stimulation rather than from your spouse. Rather than getting into quoting many Scriptures, I would recommend that you prayerfully read Romans 1-2.
What I counsel congregation members is that God has a problem with sin. It doesn't matter what shape, color or form it comes in. Resisting sin is part of bearing my cross. Even if I did have tendencies to desire other women - the Bible declares that it is against the nature of God's creation and sinful, therefore, I must reject the sinful thoughts. Many times we as Christians want to justify our own sins, but we must confess our sins to Jesus because He died so that all our sins would be forgiven. When I reject thoughts of sin, I am obeying the Spirit, and not my flesh.
What keeps me from murdering someone when I am angry with them, surely it is not the law? It is my faith. My sincerely held convictions that agree with God who says "Thou shalt do no murder." Have the thoughts ever come to me, while a Christian, sadly yes. Yet, my character is not defined by my thoughts and fleshly desires, but by my actions. I don't have to obey every thought that comes to mind. I am not a slave to sin! With the help of God, I can and do obey His laws. The Bible actually commands me to resist the Devil, and he will flee from me. My part is to resist. God makes Him flee. It may come to someone's mind to kill themselves, but should they do it? God has given us power over our thoughts. He has given us His Spirit and nature. The very essence of God's nature is Holiness and sinlessness. When we become Christians, we receive the nature of our Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ lives on the inside of us, empowering us to keep God's commandments. Whenever we are in disagreement with His laws by our actions, we are subject to fulfill our sinful lusts. When we practice sin as a lifestyle - the final wages of sin is death.
You may be wondering if I have ever had any same gender loving couples as members of our congregation. YES!!!! I counseled them to forsake their lifestyle of sin. I asked them why did they decide to join the church, knowing that I preached that their lifestyle was a sin. Their response was that even though they knew what I believed, they had never felt such genuine love from a Christian whom disagreed with their lifestyle. For one, they had not attended church since childhood, for the other in over 10 years. Why did I welcome them into God's house? #1-It is God's house, not mine. #2-How can they learn the truth if they could not hear it? #3-How could they hear it without a preacher? And that's where I come in!!!!! Just to preach, not force any one to obey the Word of God. What was the end result you ask? One forsook the lifestyle, while the other continued in it.
In conclusion, I just want to again thank you for opening up to a group of strangers about some very personal matters. I used to sin much before I became a Christian, and as a matter of fact, sometimes I still fall short, yet one thing I have learned is that Jesus came to forgive sinners. He forgave me. He can forgive you. Just ask. If you ever need to talk. I'm here. I'm praying for you.
Does the EO program "belong" to the Commander or to the Army.
Do you think a person who is under ivenstigation for Sexual Assault should be conducting SHARP trianing? How do you think a bunch of people would feel in SHARP training with an individual like that sitting next to them in class?
As the facilitator of that class I personally would not let that person attend, because it is a distraction to everyone else at a minimum. It is not good for that person or that class.
Then I'd talk to the Commander and explain why and if he wanted me to I could give him his own class.
While I don't believe in same sex marriages, I support equality of beliefs. I have seen many comments about the Chaplain being wrong, I feel he followed his belief, now if that is a violation of military policy that is for his superiors to decide not us in this forum. Would most of you ridicule or punish someone who refused to execute an order to punish a soldier for something you didn't feel that they should be punished for, a true leader would not follow that order and would work with the superior who gave it especially if it was in the heat of the moment as most likely this was when the couple applied for the retreat. I don't condone the refusal of letting them attend, but you also have to look at the bigger picture, would the couple attending have made the hetero couples uncomfortable, that needs to be considered as well. The Chaplain in question may have looked at the whole picture besides his beliefs, we need to give him the benefit of the doubt, there may be to the story than we know, we all know the media is famous for half-truths and not full reporting of sides of an issue.
I feel that it is an issue that needs further review from all here and from higher up as well before judgment is passed.
SSG Williams,
I agree with you, but if this is supposed to be a relaxing environment to learn about needs and understanding each other, having the stress of not feeling comfortable is not conducive to the whole event, especially if the sponsorship of the event is not comfortable that will be felt by all the, hetero and homosexual couples alike, then everyone is uncomfortable all around, then nothing is accomplished or taught/learned by anyone at all.
This where common sense and other arrangements or personnel needs to step in and adjust fire as needed.
You seemed determined to vilify this Chaplain without knowing all the facts as I mentioned in previous post, you continue to espouse how wrong and lack of tolerance everyone is showing, but you are just as guilty because you are refusing to show tolerance to what I said about getting all the facts and not relying on media for the total source.
Practice what you have been preaching before you blast the next comment.
SSG Williams,
You are a lost cause, you have a one-track mind and tunnel vision, you refuse to acknowledge any other point of view as being just as correct as your own, I think you are enjoying the arguing more than the true meaning behind all of the discussions, it is one thing to believe strongly in something it is another to repeatedly brow beat every single person who is not of the same thought as you, that is also the same intolerance that you profess, as well as the ignorance as well. You have come close to disrespectfulness to a few of the posters here, and if it was one of your Soldiers having the discussion/argument with you, I feel the circumstances would be quite different. I would suggest that you have your opinion as many other do here and leave it at that and discontinue the almost abusive responses that you have levied at some.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. comes from The Gospel According to St. Matthew. You don't have to agree with a person's lifestyle but at the same time you don't have to be a jerk to them. Even the new Pope has eased the Church's stance on homosexuality. In any deployment, I never cared about the religious beliefs, or orientation of the men in my unit, only that I could count on them if something went wrong. If this incident really did happen the gay couple should have been applauded for seeking to improve their relationship and attempting to be closer to God. <br>
I have served in the military and civilian law enforcement with many homosexual people, and never once did I care about their orientation, rather ONLY that they had my back when stuff got real. And as for cutting them out of retreats and such, much like the good Captain said above, I believe in inclusion of ALL veterans, and NOT the exclusion of even a few for any reason.
And just some food for thought - if you've served and think you went through one enlistment or a career with never having served with someone who is homosexual, you are quite naive.
Or, there may be Christians who interpret scripture differently than you do, or whose traditions interpret scripture differently than you do. It's why denominations exist, and it's why people of faith can rationally disagree.
First, I appreciate your snide attitude. Very becoming of an Officer. It helps to demonstrate my point. Yes, I do contain, between my ears, an extremely vast knowledge of the Bible, denominations, Scriptural interpretations and things related. Thank you for recognizing that in so few words.
Secondly, yes, many DO interpret Scripture differently, thus creating different denominations. These denominations were designed by people who did not want to live according to how the Scriptures were written and intended, but still wanted to live under a form of Christianity. One version of the Bible (printed in the early 20th century) has completely omitted any and all references to homosexuality. Does that suddenly mean that God is okay with it?
A perfect example from the ten commandments:
The original texts read (as translated tot he most accurate English-language version, the KJV):
Exodus 20:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
The Catholic 'interpretation' is that we are not to have "strange" gods, where as the original texts (supported fully in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest known works) say no "other" gods. The interpretation of the Catholic Church allows, then, for praying to Mary and other entities, as they are not "strange".
Remember Martin Luther? He recognized this first. He is the reason Protestantism exists. It is for similar reasons to Catholicism that various denominations exist.
Southern Baptists (not all, but most) believe that 'speaking in tongues' is satanic, while the Scriptures state no less than four times that 'tongues' is a gift from the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals in their core beliefs, do not believe a person is, or can be, born again, UNLESS they speak in tongues, while the Bible clearly states that it is a gift not meant for all people, but given to 'some'.
Continuing from that example, the babbling noises we hear in many churches are not 'tongues' as the Bible describes it. The Bible is clear that 'tongues' is a spiritual gift that enables one to speak words that can be understood by those who do not speak the language the words are spoken in. This can all be found in Acts.
The swine, as a food, has been declared an "abomination" in the Scriptures. Again, referencing Acts, people have 'interpreted' Simon's dream as declaring that 'anything' can be eaten, though on two occasions, Simon declared that the dream made it clear that it was now permitted (ending a ban from God) to teach the gospel to people NOT of Jewish lineage.
So yes, people 'interpret' the Scriptures differently - especially when they do not study them, but take denominational teachings at face-value. I have been involved in Biblical study since 1981. I do have a head full of knowledge on the intricacies of the Book.
Regardless of how people 'interpret' Scriptures, they say what they say.
I stand by my comment, Good Sir. You are free to disagree with ME all day long. I know what the Scriptures say, on this topic, about homosexuality, and how God looks at it as far as what is written in the Bible. Interpretation by man does not change God's mind, opinion or thoughts regarding any subject.
So, as I said, picking bits and pieces of Scripture does not a truth make, but it does help form opinions, and sadly, that is the problem with 'denominations', 'traditions' and 'interpretations'.
That said, my comment was based not around denominational differences or interpretations, but of those trying to throw a single verse around as justification for a specific issue. Perhaps in your wisdom as an officer, you can re-read what I posted and understand what I wrote, and not 'interpret' it to mean what you thought it meant.
Please feel free to carry on a bit more. Please don't take me personally, but if the boot fits, Sir, lace that bitch up and wear it. ;)
See the below link to the SBC's FAQ page:
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp#8
about the Southern Baptist Convention can be found by reviewing
the material posted under the "Faith & Facts" menu
...
As an Officer my gob is to give NCO's what they need to complete a mission. Do you need a Hurt Feelings Report? Cause I can get you one.
You were not being engaged because some were using M-16s and you were using a machine gun! LOL! Your rapid fire is killing 'em! Drive on!
Thanks for the links; they were enlightening. I think I have a new bone to pick with the program. "Faith-based" is exclusionary enough, but "Bible-based" excludes more than 20% of the force doesn't it? Even so - as long as it's explained in advance to the applicants so they're not "blind-sided" by the prosletyzing I think it's fair. I happen to think there should be an alternative for non-christians too. The most elegant solution would be a secular retreat with optional religious activies as a supplement where the non-religious just get time for reflection and bonding. I couldn't get the MOI to open, but the article suggested that the course is already inteded to be primarily secular with faith-based activities both supplemental and optional, the specifics of which to be determined by the unit. Anyway, thanks for pointing me at those articles. We did digress a bit. I think if a couple is legally married it should be entitled to attend a marriage retreat. I also think it desrves to be informed of the nature of the retreat and, as long as the format does not deviate from what is advertized, the duly-informed couple rescinds its right to whine. It is the responsibility of the attendee to sift wheat from chaff and take away what helps them, discarding the rest. If the "rest" is religion, so what? Maybe the theists blow off the secular stuff. Most of the advice is the same anyway isn't it? It's just phrased differently
@MCPO Treants
He will lose his job is he does against the beliefs of his sponsoring denomination.