Is Kim Davis Inline With The Christian Faith?

[TheCat]

Is there anyone who thinks that she has a legal right to deny marriage licenses to gay couples?

Or, if you are a Christian do you think she is inline with biblical teaching?

Fairly thoughtful answers on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/MetroJacksonville/photos/a.10150706930678979.423567.87755113978/10153629217043979/?type=1&comment_id=10153629452493979&notif_t=photo_comment

[Tacachale]

I don't know or care about her being in line with whatever religious tradition she is. But she's out of line with the law and the Constitution. One of the core functions of the clerk of the courts is to issue marriage licences, and she not only refused to her job, she prevented her subordinates from performing their jobs as well. If she didn't want to issue same-sex marriage licences, she could have quit.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I posted this about a month ago, before all of this Kim Davis stuff came out in the media, and my take on the subject remains the same. 

https://www.youtube.com/v/AyszoO0ubrA?

Saw this little snippet today on the ol' Facebook feed.

It didn't hit me immediately, but after I though about it, I came to the personal conclusion that Dr. Ben Carson is unfit to run for any public office, let alone the presidency, if he has any doubt in his mind that his religious views are above those in the constitution.

This isn't a post to bash religion.  This isn't a post to bash any one man.  I'm simply posting to hear some other point of views.

Thoughts?

[strider]

Since this country was founded with the concept of separation of church and state (though I know the line gets blurred far more than it should), Kim Davis is breaking the law.   If she herself can not separate the legal from the religious, then she needs to either accept what the law is and just have someone else in the department do those licenses or she needs to leave that job.  Her freedom to believe as she wishes to can not and should not effect the rights of others to do the same.

[Adam White]

Since this country was founded with the concept of separation of church and state (though I know the line gets blurred far more than it should), Kim Davis is breaking the law.   If she herself can not separate the legal from the religious, then she needs to either accept what the law is and just have someone else in the department do those licenses or she needs to leave that job.  Her freedom to believe as she wishes to can not and should not effect the rights of others to do the same.

Even if the country wasn't founded on the concept of separation of church and state, she's still breaking the law.

People have compared her to Rosa Parks. I saw a meme that pointed out she wasn't Rosa Parks, but rather the bus driver who had Parks arrested.

[wanderson91]

The most basic facet of the Christian faith is love. Love your neighbor as yourself, love others as God loves you, etc. So no, I don't think she's inline with Christian teachings. If anything, she is showing that she can't love everyone, regardless of other's personal beliefs or lifestyles. If she can't reconcile her faith with her job, which, obviously, she can't, she should resign from her job. If anything, that would have been a way better decision than standing on a pedestal built of hate and bigotry.

[AKIRA]

Although Stephen sees these folks as less christian, to the point of becoming pagan, he is actually speaking from a particularly modern, some what revisionist point of view that moves away from an orthodox understanding, towards an effort to reconcile christian ideals with modern, secular ethics.  In short, you see in this lady something more akin to an "ol' timey" religion, rather than the current "buddy Christ".

[AKIRA]

Your theory is interesting, but is more a debate gotcha than a honest analysis.   

The images you are showing are primarily found from the Pentecostal side of practice... not very common to the other mainstream denominations.  They are more related to the "buddy Christ" idea in that they re-package the Christ image to reflect the strength and perseverance that the Italian painting images lacked.   That sort of ideal got traction around the time of the Promise Keepers when it was an evangelical strategy to show that one can love Christ and be strong.  It makes some sense when you remember popular culture's idealized male in the 80's.  The purpose was not to create a conquering warrior image, but rather to present the idea that Christ was/is gentle, but strong, loving but tough.   
I think the fundamental flaw in your theory is your understanding of the basics of Judaism/Christianity, regarding the purpose of love and the place of charity, which is too greatly affected by your political and personal desires... also by the need for the liberal v/s conservative framework your rhetoric depends on.  Studying scripture through a political/personal lens will lead to a view tilted towards those beliefs, or too utter confusion, which the modern church is greatly struggling with, especially with the Torah, where things appear to be totally ireconcible.   

[Adam White]

Your theory is interesting, but is more a debate gotcha than a honest analysis.   

The images you are showing are primarily found from the Pentecostal side of practice... not very common to the other mainstream denominations.  They are more related to the "buddy Christ" idea in that they re-package the Christ image to reflect the strength and perseverance that the Italian painting images lacked.   That sort of ideal got traction around the time of the Promise Keepers when it was an evangelical strategy to show that one can love Christ and be strong.  It makes some sense when you remember popular culture's idealized male in the 80's.  The purpose was not to create a conquering warrior image, but rather to present the idea that Christ was/is gentle, but strong, loving but tough.   
I think the fundamental flaw in your theory is your understanding of the basics of Judaism/Christianity, regarding the purpose of love and the place of charity, which is too greatly affected by your political and personal desires... also by the need for the liberal v/s conservative framework your rhetoric depends on.  Studying scripture through a political/personal lens will lead to a view tilted towards those beliefs, or too utter confusion, which the modern church is greatly struggling with, especially with the Torah, where things appear to be totally ireconcible.

I think the problem with the question is that there are so many different interpretations of what it means to be "Christian". I am not a believer, so I can only offer so much insight. But I was raised in a very conservative Catholic family and homosexuality was considered "wrong" by both my extended family (with some exceptions) and within the wider communities of the churches I attended. That said, I don't think many of my fellow Catholic parishoners (or members of my family) would've refused to follow the law in a case like this. Also, with some exceptions, American Catholics have had a reputation for being big proponents of social justice - they were more likely to "hate the sin, love the sinner" or whatever. I think a lot of this changed with the abortion rights debate and the rise of the Christian Right (who used the abortion debate to woo Catholics to their side of the aisle). I think the current Pope is charting a course closer to where the American bishops tended to reside (long viewed as being too liberal by the Church in Rome and conservative Catholics).

Anyway - we Catholics would likely view Kim Davis as a Christian, but certainly not the right "kind" of Christian.

[finehoe]

In short, you see in this lady something more akin to an "ol' timey" religion

Not sure there's anything "ol' timey" about divorcing three times and marrying four.