Rev. Bruce McDaniel stated in his July 13th letter to the editor, defending acceptance of actively homosexual Christians that “I choose to stand with my courageous GLBT brothers and sisters who have chosen Jesus' way of love, even in the face of hate and persecution. I will take my chances on being judged, ultimately, by how I loved in this life.” The problem with this philosophy is that, according to St. Paul, Homosexuality is an unnatural tendency which results in penalty.
Rom. 1:24-27 “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
So if the bible is to be taken as truth, then allowing our Christian brothers and sisters to continue in sexual sin is harmful to their body and soul. This is not an act of love, but an act of ambivalence. If our brother was addicted to Heroin would we not do everything in our power to help him break that addiction? Yes, as Christians, we should certainly accept anyone regardless of their past sins. However, if no change occurs in that person’s life, due to their conversion, of what value is their ‘salvation’?
5 comments:
I like the term ambivalence here. I know that many christians who are proponents of homosexuallity as a normal expression of humanity aren't ambivalent (though I do think they are misguided), but nevertheless, the predominant call to live and let live and the call for "tolerance" is really a call for ambivalence. We are called to love and let live and that's not always going to be pretty.
I do think though that even the conservative evangelical church here falls short, failing to welcome homosexuals into the church. It's important that we stand against it, but its also important that we are approachable. This is something I myself am not the best at (though it's not really an issue with homosexuality in particular).
What do you mean, Rob, called to love and let live? What about voting for gay marriage? Is that part of "letting others live" the way they wish?
I don't think we ARE called to redefine marriage in the name of love.
I just read that letter to the editor today opposing Pastor merrin's letter which I didn't see.
It's one thing to welcome homosexuals to our churches --as people in the pews. Another to support their idea of "gay rights" which will throw out ALL definitions of marriage. Polygamy, group marriage (many men with many women), incest between consenting adults, --the age barriers will slip -- Marriage law will be one huge mess. And homosexuals will sue any adoption agency that gives preference to heterosexuals. Gay marriage will, by legal sanction, deprive children of a mother or a father. Divorce does that, but we don't celebrate divorce and call it ideal for kids; it's sometimes a necessary evil for children. But homosexual marriage will destroy our legal and ideological concept of marriage as it has been known for thousands of years for the good of society.
What I'm confused about, Rob, is that you say we are called to love and let live as ambivalence. Are you saying the church is called to ambivalence? to the unpretty result of loving and letting live? Society, of course, is calling for "tolerance" as "love and let live."
I see that many Christians ARE ambivalent --meaning "I see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil --I don't want to think about it --because to do so is to seem uncompassionate and give the church a bad rep."
I do think the gays are winning the propaganda war in many blog forums where Bible-believers are out-numbered --even though a majority of americans have taken a stand to define marriage as between a man and woman. Will the young people tip the balance the other way because of the media targeting their age group for their immoral messages --and the church doing so little to counterract without seeming hateful, intolerant.
What I'm confused about, Rob, is that you say we are called to love and let live as ambivalence.
Nooo. I did not say that. I said the opposite.
Post a Comment