A friend sent me this, and I hesitated to post it, but then again, perhaps it will be or interest for discussion.
I believe an appropriate topic for Mere Comments would be the recent controversy surrounding the remarks made by Miss California USA Carrie Prejean at the Miss USA pageant. I mentioned this yesterday in my sermon for the feast of St. George, that the call to stand for truth can happen anywhere, even among a group of half clothed twenty-something girls prancing around at a casino hotel in Las Vegas.
What is interesting is not the fact that there is much disagreement over the issue of same sex marriage or that some did not like her answer (granted, it was not very articulate). What is striking is the virulent, hostile, and vicious way she was attacked for expressing a position that reflects the majority in, of all places, the state of California. Perhaps we are farther along on the post-Christian slide than apparent, or perhaps that is simply the strategy being used to promote the gay agenda.
It is also interesting in the Christian comments of support that everyone seems to take for granted the propriety of Christians participating in such an event in the first place. At one time there would have been concerns over modesty, but given the cultural climate, perhaps it was exactly the place she needed to be and our hierarchy of values needs to be flexible in response to the particular cultural context.
What is interesting is not the fact that there is much disagreement over the issue of same sex marriage or that some did not like her answer (granted, it was not very articulate). What is striking is the virulent, hostile, and vicious way she was attacked for expressing a position that reflects the majority in, of all places, the state of California. Perhaps we are farther along on the post-Christian slide than apparent, or perhaps that is simply the strategy being used to promote the gay agenda.
It is also interesting in the Christian comments of support that everyone seems to take for granted the propriety of Christians participating in such an event in the first place. At one time there would have been concerns over modesty, but given the cultural climate, perhaps it was exactly the place she needed to be and our hierarchy of values needs to be flexible in response to the particular cultural context.
A flexible hierarchy of values? I must disagree. I do not think Christians should be participating in pageants like this, and at any rate what she said wasn't exactly a Christian witness anyway. No mention of God or obedience to his commands, her position was attributed instead to her family upbringing. The vicious response against her does say something about the hostility against those with conservative values, but Miss California was not in any sense a Christian witness that night.
Posted by: Chris Roberts | April 27, 2009 at 01:00 PM
I have to agree with Chris. It is entirely possible to make a convincing argument against gay marriage without ever touching Christian perspectives. Of course, it is impossible to construct a complete argument without said perspectives. Simply because one's point lines up with Christian values does not therefore make it a Christian argument.
Posted by: Sam | April 27, 2009 at 02:08 PM
While Carrie Prejean said nothing explicitly Christian in her answer on the night of the pageant, she did in subsequent interviews allude to the fact that her upbringing taught her to look to the bible (e.g., telling Matt Lauer of MSNBC that answering the gay marriage question was "not about being politically correct" but about "being biblically correct," and saying she had spoken "from my heart, from my beliefs, and for my God.")
We might also remember that the contest judge who became Miss California's chief critic spoke contemptuously of her Christian faith.
Whether immodest attire dilutes the effectiveness of Prejean's witness remains an interesting question. It may also be worth noting that former Sports Illustrated swimsuit model and cover girl Kathy Ireland now speaks publicly against abortion. Her beauty and her past give her welcome pro-life views more of a platform that they might otherwise have had.
Posted by: Patrick | April 28, 2009 at 09:41 AM
Patrick: Shall we sin so that grace might increase? May it never be! God gives the platform, we live for him. Immodisty, past or present, does not increase one's effectiveness for God. Humble service to God is what makes one a useful child.
Posted by: Chris Roberts | April 30, 2009 at 08:44 AM
I wasn't very impressed with her comments (those of Ms. California). She began her answer by allowing that it is a good thing for our country to have "choices" concerning with whom we have sexual relations. That is not the Christian witness.
I grant that she was grilled harshly afterward and the vehemence with which she was disrespetcted was very telling with regards the real desire of the GLBT agenda, but her answer wasn't particularly Christian. It was actually a compromise which is something one might expect from a beauty contest where Christian values are compromised already.
That being said, I don't support her being destroyed like she was and am glad it came back to bite those with venomus tongues.
Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler
Posted by: robert buechler | May 02, 2009 at 01:06 PM
>>I wasn't very impressed with her comments (those of Ms. California). She began her answer by allowing that it is a good thing for our country to have "choices" concerning with whom we have sexual relations. That is not the Christian witness.<<
It's not? To deny the choices is to deny that we make a choice at all; it erases the Fall. Paul writes to the Corinthians that due to their wickedness, God gave up men to their lust for each other. The Christian witness is the individual freedom of persons coupled with the choice to obey the Law of God.
I don't support full "marriage equality" for gays even in the civil sphere (and certainly not in the realm of the holy), for such things aren't marriages. But it's one thing to deny "marriage" and another to deny "choice." In the words of a libertarian acquaintance, "why do society and government need to validate your feelings for them to be of value?"
Posted by: Michael | May 02, 2009 at 02:30 PM
Michael,
My point is that the Christian witness is to grieve that we have a society that "okay's" sexual immorality in all its forms. The Corinthians had choices to make. They seem to have made a choice that incest was a "good" choice for at least one of them. Paul says they should grieve not rejoice in that choice.
The words of Ms. California seemed to celebrate that sexual immorality is a legitimate and good civic choice. It is not someting to be celebrated. That is the point I was making, and one that Ms. California could have made better.
Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler
Posted by: robert buechler | May 02, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Michael writes:
>>> To deny the choices is to deny that we make a choice at all; it erases the Fall. <<<
To overlook or pass over the fact that some choices are good, and some choices are bad, and that the goodness or badness of a choice depends ultimately not upon my feelings or the laws of men but upon Divine Law, embraces the Fall.
>>> The Christian witness is the individual freedom of persons coupled with the choice to obey the Law of God. <<<
Any room here for Christ's love? The work of the Holy Ghost?
>>> But it's one thing to deny "marriage" and another to deny "choice." In the words of a libertarian acquaintance, "why do society and government need to validate your feelings for them to be of value?" <<<
What, no distinction between morality and ethics?
When a society or legal system denies a _pater familias_ the "choice" to kill his son or daughter in order to defend family honor, I'd argue that something more is being done than validating someone's feelings.
Posted by: Benighted Savage | May 03, 2009 at 12:45 AM
I think that this link best characterizes my thoughts on Carrie Prejean:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/02/11086
Posted by: John | May 04, 2009 at 02:08 PM