Posted on 07/06/2002 5:06:13 AM PDT by Clive
The Anglican Church of Canada made the news recently when in British Columbia some of its leaders and members approved the idea of gay marriage. With all due respect to the Anglican Church why should we care? It's a little like rearranging the table settings on the Titanic.
The Anglican Church in this country, just like its sister Episcopalian Church in the United States, is dying.
Indeed, the only places where the Anglicans are growing is Africa and within the evangelical wing of the institution.
In Africa, the Anglicans are conservative, or Biblical, on moral and theological issues. They refuse to condone the homosexual lifestyle or support gay marriage. Similarly with the evangelical or biblically orthodox part of the church, now so strong in Britain.
So we have the irony that it is only where the Church is moribund that it is vociferous on issues such as homosexuality.
Yet while these churches have declining and aging congregations, they do still have money: white, middle-class, settled. And sometimes they're a little more than smug. When African bishops en masse objected to any liberal changes on sexuality, some of the reactions from North American leaders bordered on the racist.
It's so wrong. Because the debate has to be based on empathy and love. I had the pleasure of interviewing Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, the first gay men in North American to claim to be married. They are very fine people.
Kind, clever and compassionate. Tough for me, then, to tell them that though I like them and genuinely care for them, I can't call their relationship a marriage.
PLURALISTIC SOCIETY
Thank God that in a pluralistic society they are allowed freedom to be what they wish to be, but I too have that right.
As an evangelical Christian, I would defend them against oppression, abuse and threat. But equally, I will tell them I cannot condone their actions. To their great credit, they accepted this disagreement, knowing, I think, that all three of us had no hatred in our hearts.
They and their colleagues also have arguments, but none that I find convincing. One is that King David had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan - a notion that really doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. Anyone who reads Hebrew will understand that the Bible simply doesn't say this. These men were like brothers, and the fact they had a platonic friendship is emphasized.
In fact, the Jewish people, God's chosen, had a particular rejection of homosexuality. Many pagan cultures of the ancient world, including Greek and Roman, ignored or even partly encouraged it, but the Jews would not tolerate it.
They obeyed God. Homosexuality was condemned throughout Jewish history.
Goodness me, logic cries out to be heard. If David had been homosexual, his friendship with Jonathan would not have been recorded by those who admired him. Nor would he have been revered by people who regarded homosexuality as a repugnant sin.
Another argument is that the prohibition on homosexuality found in the Old Testament is no longer valid, because we don't observe all of the other prohibitions in Leviticus or Deuteronomy. This is a basic misreading and misunderstanding of the Bible. Dietary laws do change, but moral ones do not. The commandments on all forms of sexuality are based not just on various books, but in creation itself.
In others words, we must observe the positive commands in Scripture as well as the negative.
Creation is based on the differences between, and subsequent union of, man and woman. God's plan is quite clear, even if it can be difficult for some to accept. Faith is not always easy, but it is always correct.
If we turn to the New Testament, Paul is explicit on homosexuality, as are many of the other writers. Jesus Himself might not mention homosexuality, but then He doesn't mention many things. He doesn't refer to genocide, for example, but does this mean He had no opinion on it? He does, however, repeatedly stress the moral absolutes of the Old Testament and does condemn sin, while always allowing for forgiveness, after repentance and change.
We are here not to edit the Bible but to follow it. And that even goes for Anglican Bishops. Forgive me, Your Grace.
A timely reminder to all politically correct Bishops, clergymen of all stripes that profess to believe and follow the bible, even the Pope.
Whatever the order, religious hierarchy must not assume they are in a popularity contest, pleasing the people or congregation is not their job. Bishops, archbishops, cardinals, prelates etc. are there to spread the word not change it to suit the people as they are want to do. The Bible is not Politically Correct nor was it ever intended to be.
The crowd has been seeking a political savior since the day it yelled for the release of Barabbas. 2000 years of reading those passages and they still don't get it. Pray for renewal.
Thus it is interesting to find the teaching of this perverted lifestyle entering the gradeschools on the heels of the sorcery of Harry Potter, and no coincidence that Britain is its source.
In Africa, people are dying of AIDS left and right. Of course, it is not as predominantly spread by homosex as it is in developed countries, but my guess is that the WHO might be cooking stats, and/or not sharing ALL of the epidemiological info they have, to comply with their own P.C. culture. At any rate, it makes sense the Africans are not going to condone gay lifestyles, duh. They are watching their countrymen die like flies. It is horrific.
That depends. If a person struggles with issues of homosexuality and agrees with the Biblical teaching that it is indeed a sin, then they shouldn't be banned from the church anymore that a person who has problems with adultery, pornography, lying etc.
But if we are talking about so-called "gay Christians" who profess that homosexual sin is OK with God, and promote gay Christian Theology....which is diametrically opposed to the Church's Biblical view, then they are right for excluding them from the church.
I see no provision for gay marriage or gay ordination, but I see no biblical provision for the kind of hatred that too often characterizes the attitude of many on the theological right toward homosexuals. As I recall the verse reads, 'All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God,' not 'Some are theologically correct and therefore have not fallen short of God's Glory.'
I agree with this 100%.
I am not as certain of this. I know there are those occassions where Paul suggests that someone ought to be excluded from fellowship. Still those situations are probably few and far between and the whole question strikes me as a matter of degree. A person who believes homosexual sin to be OK with God who does not use the Church environment to promote that ideological position, ought to be allowed to participate, while the individual who attemps to proselytize (or worse) for that position would clearly be a candidate for exclusion.
The former person may be persuaded by the example of others while the latter may, indeed, have to be disfellowshipped before they see the error of their ways.
I am not as certain of this. I know there are those occassions where Paul suggests that someone ought to be excluded from fellowship. Still those situations are probably few and far between and the whole question strikes me as a matter of degree.
Paul suggests throwing people out of the church for far less than what I am refering to above...Paul says to throw them out merely for open involvement in immoral behavior.
I'm talking about people who not only openly practice immoral behavior...who not only are unrepentant.... but go so far as a to promote "gay Christian" theology claiming that God Himself sanctions and approves of the immoral behavior.
They identify themselves as "gay Christians". A title which actually attaches a sin to the name of Christ.
Besides Paul, we have Christ Himself rebuking a church in Revelation for tolerating one who teaches and promotes immoral behavior as "ok".
This sounds a lot like the "gay Christian" movement to me.
A person who believes homosexual sin to be OK with God who does not use the Church environment to promote that ideological position, ought to be allowed to participate, while the individual who attemps to proselytize (or worse) for that position would clearly be a candidate for exclusion.
Perhaps I should have been clearer.
I was refering to the "gay Christian" movement, which not only promotes homosexuality but has an entire agenda and gay theology articulated in a large amount of "religious" literature..... which explains away all the scriptures condemning homosexuality, teaches God creates homosexuals and that being gay is something God wants people to celebrate, etc, etc.
This go far beyond what any Christian church should tolerate.
He is also explicit against divorce.
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.