The Civil Union Bill (Jan Mostert se pleidooi teen wettiging van homoseksuele huwelike)

Die volgende is ’n pleidooi aan die regering deur Jan Mostert om nie homoseksuele huwelike te wettig nie. Dit terwyl die NG Kerk se amptelike parlemenêre verteenwoordigers, Ben du Toit en Kobus Gerber juis die teenoorgestelde gedoen het (kyk NGK vra SA parlement dat homoseksuele huwelike gewettig word (Okt 2006)).

________________________________________________

The Civil Union Bill

A presentation by The Rev Jan H Mostert VDM on 17 October 2006

“The Manse”

Dutch Reformed Church,

Church Square, Philadelphia, 7304

PO Box 1, Philadelphia, 7304

Republic of South Africa

Tel and Fax: +27 (0) 21 972 1791

Cell +27(0) 82 339 8677

e-mail: jmosvdm@lantic.net

1. Introduction: My ministry is in the Dutch Reformed Church in the little village of Philadelphia, off the N7 about half-way between the N1 and Malmesbury, where I have served the congregation for the past thirteen years. My first time to really become aware of the issue of homosexuality, was during the meeting of our church’s regional Synod in 1995. Approximately in 1997 I started to serve on the Synod’s Committee for Doctrine and Actual Affairs. I soon realised that the issue of homosexuality had the potential to bring about a rift, not only in our denomination, but in churches all over the world. On top of that the matter of the authority of the Word of God was now at stake. So I started to read intensely about the issue and experienced the growing confusion and uncertainty about it in the church. Various sessions of the regional and the General Synod have spent a lot of time in considering this matter. A very serious debate have developed and fellow believers seem to be deeply divided. A colleague and friend of mine was invited to join an inter-church group that goes by the name “Defend Marriage” and when he and others from the group were not able to attend this hearing, I was asked to attend and, if possible, make a presentation. I wish to thank you sincerely for the opportunity.
2. I have to confess to you that this occasion is quite tremendous to me and has put me in a state of awe and wonderment. For here I am in the company of people who have been entrusted with power and authority over the peoples of our belovedChristians believe that there is no authority except from God (Romans 13:1–6) and Christ Jesus Himself said to Pilate, the Roman Governor, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” (John 19:11).In 1 Timothy 2:2 Christians are admonished to pray “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life.” Thus Christians pray for kings and other people in authority, but we do not pray to the king, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, once so aptly put it. And Christians submit to these authorities, except when actions are demanded that would bring us into conflict with the will of the Almighty.
3. Many years ago, Enoch Sontonga wrote the beautiful words that became a favourite hymn in thousands ofToday it is our national anthem: “Nkosi sikekeli Africa…”. Lord, bless Africa, that is our solemn prayer.
4. When I have to evaluate this Bill, I cannot do it better than in the words of Robert A J Gagnon, who wrote in 2001: “there is clear, strong, and credible evidence that the Bible unequivocally defines same-sex intercourse as sin” and “ther exist no valid hermeneutical arguments, derived from either general principles of biblical interpretation or contemporary scientific knowledge and experience, for overriding the Bible’s authority on thisIn sum, the Bible presents the anatomical, sexual, and procreative complementarity of male and female as clear and convincing proof of God’s will for sexual unions.” (In The Bible and homosexual practice: texts and hermeneutics, Nashville, Abingdon Press, p 37). Or, in the words of the famous Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, (in his Church Dogmatics, III/4, § 54.1 on Man and Woman, p 166 in the middle of the previous century). (See Appendix A).
5. Of course I am quite aware with Gagnon of the risk that one takes when you put up your argument likeAlso I am conscious of the labels that I will attract, such as homophobic, intolerant, exclusive and resistant to diversity or being uncritical in the use of Scripture.
6. It has already been mentioned that one should carefully distinguish between the homosexual person and homosexualWe also have to see the difference between the demand for pastoral concern and ethical proscription of conduct.
7. It is often said that love will solve allChrist, however, loved the world, but He did not tolerate sin. One would do well to go and read 2 Corinthians 7:8 – 10 and Leviticus 19:17 – 18 in this regard. The so called Golden Rule should not be construed to mean that to love is to tolerate and accept. True love rejoices with the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6).
8. In the light of the above, Christians could never accept that the constitution is the supreme authority in any, and especially in ourTherefore, in as far as the proposed Bill, that have been drawn up at the injunction of the Constitutional Court, transgresses the clear commandments of the Almighty, it imperils the future of our country and all its peoples, not only those who insist that their indulgence be legalised. The insistence that church and state should be kept separate may only be maintained for as long as we realise that the Almighty will not be mocked.
9. If we were to read Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, we would realise that the principles there still holds today for all who would consider themselves HisDepending on if and how we obey His will and commands, there will be blessings or punishment. It is my sincere conviction that our obstinacy in this regard have already resulted in the deterioration of the moral fibre of our land. What does a better life for all or the common good for the most people mean, when we daily call down the just wrath of the Almighty.
10. Therefore I plead with the committee to not send this Bill to parliament for approval and to urge both parliament and the constitutional court to reconsider every single article thereof that might make it impossible for peace and justice to embrace and that will eave us with no hope in eternity.

I thank you for the opportunity.