Posted on 05/26/2015 7:06:25 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Some of our deepest challenges as believers involve dealing with the sins of others, particularly those whom we love. Whether it is a relative struggling with addiction, a best friend unfaithful to his spouse, or a loved one embracing sexual perversion we often feel caught between our genuine love for the sinner and our genuine revulsion at the sin. The bromide Hate the sin, love the sinner, while at least infused with a touch of wisdom, doesnt typically answer all the hard questions.
When confronted with tough moral calls its often wise to slow down and define our terms. First, lets consider what it means to attend a wedding. Attending a wedding is not at all like attending a concert, or going to a movie. First, when we attend a wedding we are endorsing it. There is a reason for the publishing of the bans- that part of marriage ceremony wherein the officiant asks for reasons the two should not be married. If we hold our peace we are in fact affirming the legitimacy of the wedding. Secondly, when we attend a wedding we are there to serve as witnesses of the vows. We are a legal party to the proceedings, with a call to see that the vows are kept. Is that something Christians should be doing?
It is true enough that there are plenty of reasons why Christians are called to object to some heterosexual marriages. Those unbiblically divorced are not in fact free to marry, and Christians should not attend such weddings either, for the same reasons. The argument isnt that both parties are sinners, and therefore we shouldnt go. All those who marry are sinners. The question is, is the wedding itself biblical?
Which brings us to our second term, wedding. One could argue that my original question is moot for the simple reason that there is no such thing as homosexual weddings. You can no more witness a homosexual wedding than you could draw a square circle. Weddings are between men and women. That said, those participating in these events believe they are participating in a wedding. Our attendance, no matter how well intentioned, encourages them in their delusion. Which is one key reason why they so object to our not attending their weddings, or our not beautifying them with cakes and flowers. If we wont admit that the naked emperor is dressed to the nines, the state will be called and we will be ruined.
Homosexuality is at one and the same time like other sins and unlike other sins. It is like other sins in that it is forgivable, and a sin for which Jesus died. After all, such once were we (I Corinthians 6:9-11). While the behavior is rightly revolting, those caught up in it bear Gods image and are not beyond the reach of grace. It is unlike some sins, however, for two reasons. First, it is gross and heinous sin. The folly that all sins are equal has done great damage in the church and in the world. All sins are cosmic rebellion and are due the eternal wrath of God. But that doesnt mean they are equal. Second, unlike most other sins, this is a sin that its practitioners insist is no sin at all. Greed is wicked, but we dont have parades celebrating it. This is a sin that in our day glories in its shame. Do we really want to join in that glory by attending their weddings?
I know it is difficult. I know it is painful and can divide families. I know it makes us look to the world like bigots and haters. But that, friends, is a shame we truly can glory in, for He promises us blessing (Matthew 5:10-12). This doesnt, of course, mean we abandon homosexuals, or have nothing to do with them. Jesus often met sinners where they were. But He always called them to come to Him. He calls us to do the same.
Yep. That is what Fools on the left don’t get. They will be subject to the same judgement that homosexuals will be which won’t be a good thing. Romans 1:31-32
A small gift? Perhaps you were not wanting to be rude, but you - in effect - condoned that travesty and gave credibility to it.
You were wrong in sending a gift. A complete ignoral of the whole thing would have been correct.
Last couple of paragraphs from the article (Just Christians - On Homosexuality & Christian Identity by S. M. Hutchens) at this link:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=26-04-003-e
Well worth reading and puts it all in perspective.
*******************************************************
There is no “homosexual voice within the Church,” for the homosexual’s conversion entails a choiceThis, or Thatthe sin, or the Faith. He cannot have both, nor can the Church in any way accommodate the sin from which he has been cleansed. It is wholly and actively and vehemently against it as a destroyer of the souls it has been called to save. It labors among the saints only in the accomplishment of what has already been done in Christ: cleansing, sanctification, and justification in the Name of the Lord.
Its message to those who, in abandonment of hope, define themselves by some sin, and present themselves as though they, as so defined, should have a place in the Church, is and only can be that of complete rejection. With respect to loving the sinner and hating the sin, which it indeed is called to do, what can it say to those who, in contempt of the saints who have fled their sins, declare their persons to be inseparable from the sin, identifying themselves with itand then blame the Church for hating them as persons? It can only say to them that all perversion of what it is to be human has been destroyed in and by Christ, who makes those who love him straight and whole after his own image. To some, this is the promise of life; to others, who have bound themselves to that which is to be destroyed, it is the intolerable threat of destruction.
No Satisfaction
What do these latter have to speak to, much less teach or admonish, the Church upon? They have no voice among us. Christian authorities need to stop thinking and writing as though the categories of homosexual and Christian can be joinedas though the Church could tolerate or accommodate, or speak gently of, much less bless or sanctify, anything peculiar to the garment stained by the flesh that those who come to Christ throw off in their baptism.
In that baptism we become penitents, and as such divided from our sins. St. Paul tells us here that no penitent is to be named by, identified by, what he has abjured. Those injured people who have put on Christ have put on, in him, life, hope, healing of their diseases, and resurrection of their bodies in the image and likeness of the one who has saved them.
The Church never can and never will give satisfactionand the homosexualist knows it, for he knows the words against him are ineradicableto the declared and impenitent homosexual, the person who, through an act of the vermiculate will, has identified his person with a sin, whether he demands acceptance of his sin through “love,” or vindication through identification of his perceived enemies as bigots. Whether he presents himself as an object of love or indignation, what he demands in either case is acceptance not of the person, but of the sin-bound and sin-defined person. He demands the declaration of spiritual authority that there is nothing objectively disordered about this binding of man to sin, and assurance that this monstrous amalgam can indeed enter the kingdom of heaven. This can never happen among Christians until they abandon Christianity, which is at war with every sin, and whose indelible constitution places all perversions of the perfect man at the muzzle of its canons.
I don’t think that would be appropriate... :)
“As a Christian, would you attend a gay ‘wedding’?”
“are you f’n kidding me? f’ no!”
Nope... don’t think that would be appropriate...
No again to another post of this stupid question and repost. Enough the answer will always be no.
Should muslims attend homosexual weddings?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.