My response to the gay bishop story: no comment

The Macon Telegraph ^ | 08/08/2003 | Bill Ferguson

[Ed Straker]

Posted on Fri, Aug. 08, 2003

My response to the gay bishop story: no comment

As I sit down to write this week's column, one of the biggest and most compelling stories in the news is the election of the first openly gay bishop by the Episcopal Church of the USA. Minutes after the decision became final, the airwaves were choked with "experts" praising or decrying the controversial appointment and forecasting its effect on the Episcopal Church and society in general.

It wasn't hard to predict what opinions these commentators would hold or what arguments they would present to support their caseÐyou simply needed to know which ideological camp the commentator pitched his tent in.

Conservative, traditionalist thinkers predictably railed against the decision, citing biblical passages that condemn homosexual behavior to ridicule the appointment of an openly gay man to such a lofty position of responsibility within a Christian church. They lumped this decision in with the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws in Texas as evidence that the homosexual agenda is gradually turning America into a latter day Sodom and Gomorrah. One could almost smell the brimstone.

Progressive, liberal types countered by making the point that there are a number of restrictions in the Bible that even most conservative Christians selectively ignore.

Most Christians don't worship on the Sabbath day specified in the Old Testament (Saturday) for example, and they don't follow the dietary and clothing restrictions laid out there either. These liberal thinkers contend that everyone interprets scripture through a certain prism, and some of those prisms allow gay people to be good Christians and, perhaps, officers in a church.

So go the arguments and counter arguments, and they will go on for some time. At least one social critic has refused to join the fray however, despite the seductiveness of this juicy topic. That would be me.

I've been writing this column for a long time and I've covered many subjects. I've learned that religion is the third rail when it comes to opinion columns. If you touch it, you should be prepared for a very uncomfortable response.

It seems like every time I express an opinion that is critical of some religious viewpoint, I find that quite a few people who read this column are armchair theologians, and the ones who disagree with me often feel the need to offer stern correction.

A few weeks ago, for example, I suggested that Pat Robertson was being a little presumptuous in expecting God to help him with his plan to remake the Supreme Court to be more to his political liking, and I got the predictable responses. A number of people had messages from God specifically for me, and God apparently wasn't in a very good mood that week. In some cases the messages were nearly incomprehensible, but I got the impression that the man upstairs was not at all pleased.

So I am bowing out of this one. I have an opinion, and I think it is a strong and well thought out one, but I'm keeping it to myself. The sad truth is that, for now, I've lost my nerve when it comes to religious topics. The Episcopalians and their many advisers can sort this one out without my help. I'm going to watch the merry-go-round spin this time, but I'm not going to get on it. I'm still a little woozy from my last ride.

Bill Ferguson lives in Centerville. He can be reached by e-mail at ferg column@hotmail.com

[smith288]

I sense a bit of Gay Bishop support in this article...but it could just be me.

[anniegetyourgun]

There is so much in this article that reveals the author's ignorance of the historic Christian faith. He doesn't even know enough to be embarrassed by his stupid article.

[RockandRollResurrection]

He doesn't seem to say anything about "historic Christian faith." Unless you take onjection to the comment about most Christians selectively ignoring Biblical restrictions, in which case, look around you!

[newgeezer]

Aw, c'mon, Bill. Some of us are hanging on your every word, and really, really value your opinion on this and every subject.

[Ed Straker]

But he is entertaining:

Pat Robertson must think God really is a conservative

[I still care]

But God IS a conservative!!!

Ecclesiastes 10:2
"A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left."

:)

[Ed Straker]

I have a bumper sticker that says 'Everyone knows God is a Republican'.

[over3Owithabrain]

Too bad this "important" commentator doesn't draw the same conclusion on every subject.

[anniegetyourgun]

While I would agree that all are sinners, this guy suggests that eating pork or worshipping on Sunday are baseless. Worse, that they are equivalent to fornication. He (like so many homosexuality pushers) exhibits a clear lack inability to rightly divide the Word of God.

[RockandRollResurrection]

So how is fornication different to eating pork in the eyes of God? Both are prohibited. As far as I know, there is not a "Top 40" of sins ranking them in order of nastiness. What makes you feel you are doing "rightly" by reading into the Bible things that aren't there? Sin is sin. Apart from the Ten Commandments there is no such ranking of varying degrees of sinfulness. I'm wondering, which version of the Bible you have read. Casey Kasem's translation?

[anniegetyourgun]

I don't want to play the "here let me put you back under the old covenant/law" game. Sorry.

[LiteKeeper]

So I am bowing out of this one. I have an opinion, and I think it is a strong and well thought out one, but I'm keeping it to myself.

Too late...this article speaks volumes. Too bad he is not a Christian, and thus doesn't understand the Bible or the Church.

[RockandRollResurrection]

I don't know what is supposed to mean other than, "I have no way to refute what you said so I'll slink away defeated."

I asked a specific question which you could not answer. What you "want" to "play" doesn't enter into it. Maybe you should lurk awhile and learn the definition of "debate" before you impulsively throw yourself into these things.

[anniegetyourgun]

Since I've been around FR (a bit longer than you), I've not had any problem with debate. However, I really don't have time for a class in hermeneutics today. And if you don't know the basis for Sunday Sabbath in Christendom, or freedom in Christ to eat pork, etc., we've too far to go to get there. However, I can now see why you might think the author of this article is biblically literate and/or thinks he understand the historic Christian faith.

[Cyber Liberty]

So how is fornication different to eating pork in the eyes of God? Both are prohibited.

My copy of the 10 commandments mentions adultery, but doesn't have anything in there about eating pork.

I guess you must have gotten the new, improved, Ted Turner "suggestions" version.

[Cyber Liberty]

This even older codger agrees with you, annie.

[RockandRollResurrection]

My quibble is not with Sunday sabbath or eating pork (though I love to point this out to people who say "There are no contradictions!" or "God never changes his mind!" Au contaire). My quibble is with saying that one type of sin is worse than another when there is no Biblical basis for it.

So, who are we to believe? Christ or his father? One says one thing about pork, the other the opposite. Or does Christ have the power to "revoke" old laws that his dad made? Really, just curious.

[anniegetyourgun]

1. The Father and the Son are one.

2. He doesn't and hasn't changed. God gave the commandments as a mirror - in order to teach us that we can't keep them, and how much we therefore need a Savior. Other OT law was a prescription for daily living in those times and under those circumstances, and in light of the enemies of the nation Israel. Other laws (related to the sacrifice) are intended to point to the final sacrifice: the spotless Lamb who would be slain for propitiation of our sin.

3. Christ came to fulfill the law. In other words, believers in the Son are free to serve the Master in spirit and in truth. Not in own strength, because we had nothing to do with our salvation....other than to trust in His free gift of it. (See Galatians for more.)

There are no contradictions, only apparent contradictions for which you have not learned the truth. His Word is Truth.

[anniegetyourgun]

BTW, I don't disagree that there aren't "degrees" of sin, as all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. However, some sins have more serious consequences in this life. (Sexual sin, is one of those the Word delineates as such.)