| Rev. Bruce Frogge Minister First Christian Church of Naples, Florida |
| Bruce on the beach in Naples |
Pastor Bruce Frogge
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Bruce at First Christian Church in Lincoln, NE Age 6 or 7 |
| Bruce & Mickey Together Again Bruce is running the Disney Half-Marathan on January 10, 2009, to raise funds for the MS Society. If you would like to help, click on the picture: |
| Zach's Soccer Practice |
A Pastor Ponders Amendment 2
Anything entitled “Marriage Amendment” would
appear to be a slam dunk for most pastors, and
my tendency in assuming the best might have
left me voting in favor of this amendment. But
that is not the case for some very important
reasons.
We live in a time when the relationship between
religion and politics is quite perplexing, and it
often leaves people with selective memory and
a troubling theology. For those of us who are
Christian, we have forgotten how many of our
denominations once existed in a marginal
status over and against the State’s form of
Christianity. Amidst persecution, the leaders of
these fledgling traditions pleaded with
government rulers to refrain from forcing or
compelling any individual to a specific
understanding of faith or doctrine. They simply
desired an environment where religion or no
religion could be freely practiced. As some faith
traditions have moved from the realm of
marginal status, they have gained selective
memory. Amendment 2 is another attempt by
some people of faith to impose their view of
religion on all of us through the power and the
force of government. Our nation holds as one
of its great values the freedom for all faith
communities to express themselves without the
State endorsing or legislating one side.
What I find even more troubling is the potential
danger to Christianity itself in efforts such as
Amendment 2. As I read scripture, I find only
one organizing body to have been blessed with
the task of sharing the message of Christ. Of
course, that organizing body was and is the
church. In today’s world we have more
churches, denominations and traditions than
one can count. Each of these religious bodies
has a different take on the central value of the
Christian message, yet the only tools the
church was given to express this central value
were proclamation and example. These tools
are powerful and transformative, yet always
leave room for choice…an essential
component of faith. Any other approach to
Christianity, including using legal means to
impose the opinion of one Christian group
upon others, has the potential to unravel the
very fabric of Christianity. It might be different if
we were talking about a church trying to change
the law so an oppressed group within our
nation might be granted more rights. But in the
case of Amendment 2, it is one segment of
Christianity attempting to restrict the rights of
individuals. This is not about agreeing or
disagreeing with gay or straight couples having
rights outside of wedlock, but how one
Christian group chooses to impose its narrow
and exclusive opinion on that topic.
To me, this Amendment is a sad example of
how Christianity has failed itself. When one
group’s ability to share its unique take on the
message through proclamation or example is
ineffectual, it begins to seek options that erode
the notion of faith. In doing so, the church
sacrifices its very identity. To my Christian
friends, we have many opinions on what is
considered moral and just. When society as a
whole does not accept your specific take on
Christianity, don’t turn to the government to do
what you could not. Instead, look first to see if
your proclamation and example match. So
often the problem is there…not in the State or
Federal Constitutions.
Rev. Bruce Frogge
Anything entitled “Marriage Amendment” would
appear to be a slam dunk for most pastors, and
my tendency in assuming the best might have
left me voting in favor of this amendment. But
that is not the case for some very important
reasons.
We live in a time when the relationship between
religion and politics is quite perplexing, and it
often leaves people with selective memory and
a troubling theology. For those of us who are
Christian, we have forgotten how many of our
denominations once existed in a marginal
status over and against the State’s form of
Christianity. Amidst persecution, the leaders of
these fledgling traditions pleaded with
government rulers to refrain from forcing or
compelling any individual to a specific
understanding of faith or doctrine. They simply
desired an environment where religion or no
religion could be freely practiced. As some faith
traditions have moved from the realm of
marginal status, they have gained selective
memory. Amendment 2 is another attempt by
some people of faith to impose their view of
religion on all of us through the power and the
force of government. Our nation holds as one
of its great values the freedom for all faith
communities to express themselves without the
State endorsing or legislating one side.
What I find even more troubling is the potential
danger to Christianity itself in efforts such as
Amendment 2. As I read scripture, I find only
one organizing body to have been blessed with
the task of sharing the message of Christ. Of
course, that organizing body was and is the
church. In today’s world we have more
churches, denominations and traditions than
one can count. Each of these religious bodies
has a different take on the central value of the
Christian message, yet the only tools the
church was given to express this central value
were proclamation and example. These tools
are powerful and transformative, yet always
leave room for choice…an essential
component of faith. Any other approach to
Christianity, including using legal means to
impose the opinion of one Christian group
upon others, has the potential to unravel the
very fabric of Christianity. It might be different if
we were talking about a church trying to change
the law so an oppressed group within our
nation might be granted more rights. But in the
case of Amendment 2, it is one segment of
Christianity attempting to restrict the rights of
individuals. This is not about agreeing or
disagreeing with gay or straight couples having
rights outside of wedlock, but how one
Christian group chooses to impose its narrow
and exclusive opinion on that topic.
To me, this Amendment is a sad example of
how Christianity has failed itself. When one
group’s ability to share its unique take on the
message through proclamation or example is
ineffectual, it begins to seek options that erode
the notion of faith. In doing so, the church
sacrifices its very identity. To my Christian
friends, we have many opinions on what is
considered moral and just. When society as a
whole does not accept your specific take on
Christianity, don’t turn to the government to do
what you could not. Instead, look first to see if
your proclamation and example match. So
often the problem is there…not in the State or
Federal Constitutions.
Rev. Bruce Frogge