I read this post written by Trevor Wax over at his blog 'Kingdom People', and thought it was worth sharing.
It's entitled, 'How I Wish The Homosexual Debate Would Go'.
It's entitled, 'How I Wish The Homosexual Debate Would Go'.
Just once, I’d like to see a TV interview go more like this:
Host: You are a Christian pastor, and you say you believe the Bible, which means you are supposed to love all people.
Pastor: That’s right.
Host: But it appears to me that you and your church take a rather unloving position when it comes to gay people. Are homosexuals welcome to come to your church?
Pastor: Of course. We believe that the gospel is a message relevant for every person on the planet, and we want everyone to hear the gospel and find salvation in Jesus Christ. So at our church, our arms are outstretched to people from every background, every race, every ethnicity and culture. We’re a place for all kinds of sinners and people with all kinds of problems.
Host: But you said there, “We’re a place for sinners.” So you do believe that homosexuality is sinful, right?
Pastor: Yes, I do.
Host: So how do you reconcile the command to love all people with a position on homosexuality that some would say is radically intolerant?
Pastor: (smiling) If you think my position on homosexuality is radical, just wait until you hear what else I believe! I believe that a teenage guy and girl who have sex in the backseat of a pick-up are sinning. The unmarried heterosexual couple living down the street from me is sinning. In fact, any sexual activity that takes place outside of the marriage covenant between a husband and wife is sinful. What’s more, Jesus takes this sexual ethic a step further and goes to the heart of the matter. That means that any time I even lust after someone else, I am sinning. Jesus’ radical view of sexuality shows all of us up as sexual sinners, and that’s why He came to die. Jesus died to save lustful, homo-and heterosexual sinners and transform our hearts and minds and behavior. Because He died for me, I owe Him my all. And as a follower of Jesus, I’m bound to what He says about sex and morality.
Host: But Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality outright, did He?
Pastor: He didn’t have to. He went to the heart issue and intensified the commands against immoral behavior in the Old Testament. So Jesus doesn’t just condemn adultery, for example, as does one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus condemns even the lust that leads to adultery, all with the purpose of offering us transformed hearts that begin beating in step with His radical demands.
Read the whole thing HERE
This sort of message really needs to get out there. However, it's not enough. There's sin on the one hand, and then the radical transformation in Christ on the other. That radical transformation gives sinners of all sorts the strength to resist temptation.
ReplyDelete"Problems with Mixed-Race Marriages and Relationships"
ReplyDeletehttp://sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html
Anne,
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point? You seem to be trying to make some sort of equivalence argument without making it. Spit it out, girl!
The issue, as expressed in the above post is even more fundamental than the Pastor having an opportunity to express their opinion about a range of sins.
ReplyDeleteThe great divide between the traditional christian view and the progressive view is the issue of defining what is sin in the first place.
If you list sins like:
* Adultery
* Sex outside of marriage
* Contraception
* Objectifying women in thought
* Pornography
* Prostitution
* Homosexual relationships
* Sex with 13 year olds (providing the other is a similar age)
* Masturbation
* Abortion
You will find progressives in disagreement that these are sins.
None of those are deemed sins!
(Adultery can be, but increasingly it is excused)
Think about it.
So, taking the issue on homosexual relations (note the addition of the word "relations") being considered a sin in Christian dogma, then there can be no reconciliation or agreement with the gay lobby, because they demand nothing less than society's full endorsement of such relationships.
To the point it is illegal to even say otherwise. (Do I need to link to examples?).
Thus, the best accommodation between the Christian position and the gay lobby position would be a toleration of each others views, and perhaps polite respect, as each try to convince the other of their position.
I believe the Christian position in generally advanced in a fairly tolerant and inclusive way, but the fundamental divide will remain between the position of "sin" and "not sin"
Ultimately, the militant gay will continue to push this issue until it is not only illegal to offer a differing opinion, it will become state policy to promote homosexual lifestyles and homosexual relationships as a normal thing for the entire population, not a very small percentage. We see this level of social engineering happening now, and it will increase because the avenue of using "rights" to advance the political agenda diminishes as those "rights" look more and more like authoritarian and fascist acts of legislation.
So my take on the post is that the Pastor offers a better explanation of a total view of the Christian idea that sex is a pleasure only to be enjoyed as the fruit of a sacramental marriage, and all other avenues are temptations that weaken our path to saintliness - where all people are loved as people and not used to sate lusts.
In that sense, it's easier to understand this is not meant as a direct attack on homosexual relations, it is a part of a bigger idea.
That position though, in today's society, is increasingly seen as far too purist and even unnatural!
Celibacy is certainly characterized as unnatural, perhaps in the same way homosexuality once was.
Peeling back the onion, Christianity is a key driver to the foundation of the individual - which our society is based on.
Except for the Christian, the individual is there to serve and to sacrifice. To the modernist, the individual is there to gratify.
To the modernist, family and society are options for the individual to interact with on their terms.
The divide grows.