Posted on 04/09/2015 9:34:44 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
A New York Times columnist and a corporate leader have agreed that Christian churches “must” be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an “ossified” doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.
Frank Bruni wrote that traditional Christianity – whether among evangelicals, Catholics, or Orthodox – provides the greatest resistance to normalizing homosexuality in the United States in a recent column in the New York Times.
“Homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni insisted. “The continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”
Bruni quoted furniture tycoon Mitchell Gold, who has used his millions to found a liberal pressure group Faith in America, writing that Gold believes Christian churches “must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list.'”
“His commandment is worthy — and warranted,” Bruni added.
The column sparked outrage at the notion that a successful businessman and an op-ed writer could induce the Christian Church to ignore a 2,000-year-old dogma.
Noting Bruni's column at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher wrote that he would find a conservative columnist lecturing liberal denominations that they “must” change their moral theology equally “appalling” as an act of imposition.
“But of course nobody on that side seems to have the slightest doubt about their cause, their motives, or their methods. None,” he wrote. “In a holy war, there is no room for doubt.”
A number of mainline Protestant churches have, in effect, taken Gold's advice, condoning – if not celebrating – homosexuality and allowing sexually active homosexuals to be ordained as pastors.
The Episcopal Church saw its membership decline by half-a-million people between 2002 and 2012. After changing its views of homosexuals, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) lost more than 600,000 people – in excess of 12 percent of its total members – in just three years. The first mainline church to allow for homosexual ordination, the United Church of Christ (UCC), lost 350 congregations within three years of its 2004 decision.
But even refraining from calling same-sex relations a sin – or, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “intrinsically disordered” – is not enough for the modern LGBT movement.
“The LGBT militants are not asking to be left alone,” said former Reagan administration adviser Pat Buchanan, a co-founder of The American Conservative. “They are demanding that we accept the morality of homosexuality and same-sex marriages, and manifest that acceptance, under pain of law and sanctions, in our daily lives.”
Buchanan said during an interview with WND.com that orthodox Christian churches must have one response to demands that they alter their teachings to fit the modern zeitgeist: “The answer is no. If it comes to civil disobedience, so be it.”
Buchanan's statement came as a number of prominent evangelical Christian leaders have called for open acts of nonviolent resistance if the Supreme Court forces states to accept homosexual “marriages” this summer.
Sadly this is possible because of other Christians.
Bruni is one of them. Takes it right up the wazzoo,,,,
Additionally, for 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of years, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Every known society and culture has always defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Now a bunch of pervs want to tell us to redefine it to make them feel more normal?
And you’re exactly right, “Christian doctrine is established according to the Word of God.”
so he’s gonna give commands to God now, eh?
gee, I knew the NYTimes thinks its a pretty powerful paper, but really.....bossing God around!?
When God strikes the NYT with the next Giant Lightening Bolt, I just pray He spares the one little part of that propaganda rag that’s worth reading..............the crossword puzzle.
He needs to try that at his local mosque.
“The continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”
“Scattered passages of ancient texts”, also known as the words of the Son of God.
This fascist P.O.S. is providing a valuable reminder of the great persecution that is rapidly coming to Bible-believing Christians in the USA.
I have wondered if the Christian church in the west has become soft and anemic because we have not been persecuted all that much. We have not been required to sacrifice much to follow Jesus. The gold is now full of impurities that a coming persecution may just start to burn off.
If the Supremes really do redefine marriage, SOMEONE in power at the state and local level must simply say NO.
The right of judicial review is an ASSUMED power by the federal courts, and is not written into the Constitution itself. I just wish a governor or judge other than Roy Moore would have the guts to say so and just say no, that the US Supreme Court is NOT the final say on the matter.
Wars have been fought for far less—than being forced into honoring perversion.
Leaving aside God and the Bible for just a minute....
just to let me ask this one short question...
if two guys want to live together, there’s nothing stopping them... and there are anti-discrimination laws to try to help them insofar as public accomodations and employment etc etc are concerned
why do some homosexuals insist we call it a “marriage!?”
(in soe staets they already had equivalent “civil union” licenses that gave the all the same sorts of rights and responsiblities as married couples anyway)
what’s the big deal about calling their civil unions “Marriages”
a lot of traditional folks don’t like the homosexual lifestyle, socalled, but are willing to let them alone...let them live as they wish at home
and a few less people like the states issuing “civil union licenses”
but... far less people approve of calling 2 guys a “married” couple. Its (in part) the use (or misuse) of the word itself.
Why do some homosexuals insist we use that word for them?
To some degree....we are all stuck fighting over a word
what’s their point?
What a bunch of pikers! If they had any cahonies they would insist that Islam do the same. Bunch of cowards.
“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door." Genesis 19:9. So this is the face of homosexual Tolerance? Damnable nonsense.
Put me down for martyrdom if need be.
One word: No.
My church hasn’t become soft or anemic.
I understand your point but I wouldn’t attend or support a church at has become that way. I encourage others to stop supporting heresy churches.
Any church that does this proves they are not Christian.
Most every culture from the start has dealt harshly with homos too.
Of course Mr Tolerant will have pastors arrested if they don’t celebrate homosexuality. Who died and made this clown God?
Pray America is waking
Islam murders there gays. Yet no outrage by liberals,
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.