Al wonders why they’ve been so ineffective at “winning/reaching” the homesexual:
Why is it that we have been so ineffective in reaching persons trapped in this particular pattern of sin? The Gospel is for sinners–and for homosexual sinners just as much as for heterosexual sinners. As Paul explained to the Corinthian church, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” [1 Corinthians 5:11].
Is he serious? When your Church (the Southern Baptist Church) spews hatred and bigotry all over televison and opposes every tendency toward tolerance of gays, you expect some lipservice to “love” to actually be believed? Secondly Al, do you really expect that 99.9% of Homosexuals are going to come within a continent of your brand of theology whose sole pupose often seems to be the blocking of all hints at granting any kind of rights to the homosexual, and a deep chasm where social awareness should be, that is rampant in the Religious Right, not to mention actual sociological insight or an ability to step outside ones’ own group, ethicity, social class, and you name it.
When Mohler puts it this way:
We have not even approached that requirement until we are ready to say to homosexuals, “We want you to know the fullness of God’s plan for you, to know the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, to receive the salvation that comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, to know the healing God works in sinners saved by grace, and to join us as fellow disciples of Jesus Christ, living out our obedience and growing in grace together.”
Such were some of you . . . The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin. To the contrary, it is the Body of Christ, made up of sinners transformed by grace. Not one of us deserves to be accepted within the beloved. It is all of grace, and each one of us has come out of sin. We sin if we call homosexuality something other than sin. We also sin if we act as if this sin cannot be forgiven.
one might wonder what that might look like; how it might play out in a “Church wide” policy or agreement; but alas, none of that seems to appear anywhere. And the insistence of the Religious Right that there is no way to accept the Bible and accept homosexuals into the Church, is going to continue to dog them for all of their days. I offer an idea that is totally taboo and thought perpsoterous in the Religous Right: that gays can ne better Christians than the ones who are anti-gay, and OFTEN ARE. You know why? Because it just isn’t that important. It is NOT a “danger to the American family”. Ron Reagan, son of the former president, said on NPR yesterday: “I’m not going to divorce my wife because Bill and Joe got married; that’s absurd”. That line of arguments being questioned by Ron and myself, reminds me of ther music man’s warnings: “That leads to POOL” ……”THAT” being anything that rhymes with it or can be joined in a sentence with it.
I’m not even convinced (one way or the other) that homesexuality is even a sin. Sure Paul is always used in defense of their “anti-gay stance, but was Paul talking about all gays or particular gays in the elite circles of governent in Paul’s day, just as many modern anti-gay eveangelicals arew illing to “contextualize” passages where Paul condemns the practice of women speaking in Church, and assign those passages the role of “speaking to a particular context”, but the same possibility is just not possible in the case where Paul rages against homesexual behaviour. I’m simply not convinced. I am convinced only of this: Even if homesexaulity IS a sin, it is NOT worse than the sin of the “Principalities and Powers” and those who support the “dark deeds” carried out by them (the principalities are the structural evils of our day, to which these same fundamentalist Christians are almost entirely complicit and almost completely blind to the concept that these actions they bless and support are immensely evil and destructive.
Dale, do you have any information that suggests that the liberal/progressive churches are leading to greater numbers of converted homosexuals than other types of churches? Just having a sinner in your midst and telling him his sin is OK isn’t good enough. A habitual sinner should have some serious doubts about whether they have any fellowship with Christ (I John 1:6–7).
I think the truth is that no one seeks God. It doesn’t matter what is that person’s consuming sin. I doubt that conversion rates are that much different between those consumed by homosexuality than those consumed by other sins.
Chris,
Much of the debate is over whether the “Biblical” message is indeed pointing to
homesexuality as a sin itself. I know that you and most “Biblically-centered”
Chrsitians find this unbelievable, but I hear just about every one of the
evangelicals who hold a view of Scripture as “inerrant” totally dismiss the Paul
condemnation of women speaking in Church, although Paul clearly condemned it. They
usually explain it as a “specific reference” to PARTICULAR women who were being a
disturbance. But it is likely, in my estimation, and from what I read in Biblical
background about the Pauline condemnation of homesexuality is that this is a similar
instance of condemnation of CERTAIN HOMOSEXUALS that were a part of the decadent
Greco-Roman ruling class, and that it was THESE (Paul puts it like this: “SUCH will
not inherit the Kingdom of God”….and that list also includes being seduced by
riches…..but we don’t hear anything about “rich people” being excluded from the
Kingdom of God.
In this issue, the “liberal churches” (ie or those “more accomodating or
non-condemning” of homeosexuality) do indeed “convert” homeosexuals, but most
anti-gay Christians do not accept that one can be Christian and gay at the same time.
They assume that the only REAL conversion is also requiring “switching over” to
heterosexuality or remaining celibate.
I remain unconvinced one way or another whether it is a “sin” or a “natural deviation”
, born of many physical/social/psychological factors. But one thing I do know; it is
NOT be treated , asi ti is by most fundamentalist and consservative Christians as
more aggregious than the sin involved when money corrupts. In fact, the sin of
idolatry of money is worse, being linked to numerous “principalities” and “powers”
that result in structural evil and corruption. Structural evil is much more insidious becuase it is backed by the huge media conglomerates who are also run by the same elite who orchestrate the entire thing to their economic advantage. It has, I firmly believe, swept up the Religious Right in thi scountry by a cleverly strategized deception using “religious language and imagery” to suck in the Religious Right, much like the saudis do with Islam in their own country. When “Empire” and “Faith” meet, some pretty corrupt and compromising stuff happens (“compromising” for the faith). It’s been this way all throughout history. If American Christians think we are exempt from that, then we are part of the problem. And we are.
I choose to give the homesexual the benefit of THE doubt (widespread “not knowing” of the causes or “cures”) and of MY DOUBT— that this is not the worst sin of all as it is clearly portrayed to be….and that if they (the gays) are interested in joining trhe struggle against “The principalities and powers”, then do they do far more good for the kingdom than harm done by their “sexual preferences”. If the Religoious Right insists that this , instead, is the “negation” of any “truth” there may be in their faith (the faith of gays) then they are the ultimate in hypocrites, because they are “blessing” and “conferring the approval from God” upon far worse evil. We should take God at his word that “Satan disguises himself asd an angel of light” (BUsh even invokes the image of the Gospel of John where it says ” and the light shines in the darkness”) (That’s a coincidence to my point — I don’t thiknk that his use of “light” automatically qualifies him for the “angel of light” status. JUst the suspicions, born out by numerous witnesses from inside the ranks of government, and from investigators who tell a quite scary history.
Dale
Does the Bible speak to beastiality?
Probably so, Chris, although I don’t keep any of those verses committed to memory. What point do yu desire to make from the answer to that question?
It seems to me, from my study, that God abhors all kinds of sexual deviations. Beastiality recieved the death penalty under the law. This same severe punishment was to be meeted out to homosexuals, those involved in incestuous relationships and adulturers (Leviticus 20:7–24).
I am not trying to say that the penalty of the law under a theocracy applies to today, but God’s character does not change. What was “detestable” to Him then still is today.
Many would claim that adultury and other routes of extra-marital sex are a natural thing. That doesn’t make it Godly. I am naturally a sinner, but I am not to live by that nature.
“…but we don’t hear anything about ‘rich people’ being excluded from the Kingdom of God.”—I think that Jesus had something to say to a certain rich man who was completely under the seduction of his riches in Matthew 19:22–24.
It seems to me, from my study, that God abhors all kinds of sexual deviations. Beastiality recieved the death penalty under the law. This same severe punishment was to be meeted out to homosexuals, those involved in incestuous relationships and adulturers (Leviticus 20:7–24).
I am not trying to say that the penalty of the law under a theocracy applies to today, but God’s character does not change. What was “detestable” to Him then still is today.
Many would claim that adultury and other routes of extra-marital sex are a natural thing. That doesn’t make it Godly. I am naturally a sinner, but I am not to live by that nature.
“…but we don’t hear anything about ‘rich people’ being excluded from the Kingdom of God.”—I think that Jesus had something to say to a certain rich man who was completely under the seduction of his riches in Matthew 19:22–24.
Chris,
YOu misunderstood my meaning on the piece you quoted from me:
“…but we don’t hear anything about ‘rich people’ being excluded from the Kingdom of God.”—I think that Jesus had something to say to a certain rich man who was completely under the seduction of his riches
When I said “you don’t hear about rich people being excluded” I was referring to the way people dont emphasize that story very much.
When I said, “you don’t hear about rich people being excluded,” I was referring to the way people don’t emphasize that story very much.
Maybe. Although I think this exclusion of the rich is just part of the general narrowness of the way that leads to everlasting life and the broad way that leads to destruction. There are many things that one can rely on that prevent them from relying on Christ’s sacrifice for their sin. At least in my church, whenever the topic of salvation is discussed, the most popular “alternates” are mentioned.
Wealth is also discussed under the framework of God’s ownership of everything and our stewardship. A wealthy Christian who is hoarding is not being submissive to God’s ownership and is not being a good steward.
These things aren’t discussed in every sermon, but there are a lot of other things to be taught that are also important.
I was thinking about this series of comments last evening in church. The sermon text was Isaiah 5. Part of the text (Isaiah 5:8–17) speaks to those who were adjoining property and squeezing out the poor without returning the land in the year of jubilee. They had been enjoying their wealth with drunken parties, but they would be cursed with low yields from their crops, and God would humble them until the land was returned to His people.