From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 09:43:41 EDT
I cannot make the Bible say that homosexuality is not sinful. However, I
will not attend a church that does not welcome sinners. We all sin and come
short of the glory of God. In our own church, they would not be allowed to
become members while actively living in sin. However, they would most
certainly be welcome. God alone convicts. Faith cometh by hearing the word
of God. The most damning passage on homosexuality, in my opinion, in the
Bible is the one in Roman and it nails everyone for something and ends with
Romans 2:1 and the commandment to not judge. The church SHOULD set up
standards for members and certainly for officials. These standards should be
based on the Bible. However, the church should shun no one, NO ONE, who is
there in all sincerity - except where there is an issue of safety to the
members.
Visit the prisoners for in doing so you have done it unto me.
I'm sorry I don't have time to look up all my references. I'm fairly sure
you recognize them all anyway. Jesus sat at dinner with the sinners. I
imagine you know that not only was this against Jewish tradition but sharing
salt was a broader commitment throughout the region than anything we would
associate with eating a meal. And what was Jesus' reply when criticized? Who
needs a physician?
Faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Walter Hicks
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:13 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: A response to Burgy
Burgy has asked that we
consider his web pages in the
area of gay and lesbian
relationships. I have
attempted to do so below.
1.)
http://www.mlp.org/resources/Dissenting.htm
In this sermon, rev. Harold
Porter criticizes the General
assembly of the Presbyterian
Church as follows:
This document lists passages
from both the Old and New
Testaments that describe same
sex behaviour as sinful,
concluding that “the New
Testament declares all
homosexual practice
incompatible with Christian
faith and life.” And,
finally, seeking to offer
definitive guidance, later
hardening into ecclesiastical
law, the Assembly said
unequivocally “unrepentant
homosexual practice does not
accord with the requirements
for ordination.”
While Porter than criticizes
this position with lofty
phases, I cannot see any
Biblical refutation of the
above statement within the
document. I am certain than
those who support the gay,
etc. lifestyle would like to
have the Bible not say the
things that it does, but the
words are there and do not
disappear..
2.)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com/gay1.htm
In this discussion, Burgy
presents his position as
generally favouring the view
that loving gay and lesbian
lifestyles (the actions, not
the inclination) are not
sinful. His primary reference
is a book by the Catholic
Theologian Daniel Helminiak.
As in the above, this author
is taking a stand in
opposition to his own church.
I notice that he has a
foreword by Spong. (That says
a lot.)
Knowing nothing about
Helminiak, I did a web search
about him. I’ll just note here
that Alamo Square Press
published his book. A Goggle
search indicates that this is
an organization that
dominantly publishes gay and
lesbian literature. It is not
a Christian publishing house.
Also from Googol, there is an
article by the ACLU on
http://archive.aclu.org/about/transcripts/helmin.html
At one point Helminiak
concludes: “I don't know the
Agnostic gospels, there's a
similar story in the Gospel of
Mark the young man runs away
and they get the sheet from
him, so he runs off naked.
Some scholars suggest that the
man was woken from sleep and
came out wearing a sheet which
they slept in in those days.
What was really going on,
again, we don't have the
evidence. I would not want to
suggest that Jesus was or was
not homosexual. We simply
don't know.”
That stuck me as inconsistent
with his contention that
opposition to homosexuality
was a Jewish thing. Jesus
would not have been accepted
if he were homosexual in
actions. I suggest that do
know that he was not.
3.)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com/hmoral.htm
In this section, Burgy
presents the following chart
from a book by Joretta Jordan.
The suggestion is that this is
way we should analyse the
issues.
Level....HO..........HA.......................How
to counsel
1
Unnatural...Evil
Change behaviour.
Both HO and HA are immoral
2 Diseased....Not
justified
Partners have no moral blame
Abstinence is recommended
3
Defective...permissible
HO and HA are morally neutral
"Don't ask, don't tell" policy
4
Imperfect...justified
Do not attempt to influence
HO and HA are morally neutral
5
Natural.....good
HO being natural, HA is OK
Affirm and celebrate the
relationship
I have a real problem with
this in that it does not
include what most evangelicals
would describe as their
position. Namely, that is that
a homosexual inclination is
not evil in itself but that
yielding to that inclination
is sin. That is not to say it
is the worst of sins but just
that it is sin. Similarly,
heterosexual sex outside of
marriage is considered to be
sin also.
4.) Liberals and Conservatives
Burgy, God bless him, is one
of my favourite Liberals.
However, the conclusions are
those drawn by a classic
Liberal and typify what exists
here in my State
(Kennedyland). In the school
systems, sex education is
taught. It used to be
conventional heterosexual
relationships but that is
changing. Now the gay and
lesbian techniques are
penetrating (excuse the word)
the teachings as well. Young
people are given telephone
numbers that they may call to
get information without their
parents knowing. All this is
good clean work in the minds
of a liberal but is a reason
to adopt home teaching, going
to a private Christian school,
or a moving to another State
(in the minds of some
Christians).
I still have a lot of trouble
with the notion of canned
philosophies. A liberal or a
conservative will rarely
consider the data objectively.
Instead, a notion consistent
with that canned philosophy is
arrived at and the search for
corroborating data is
constantly expanded. I would
suggest that this is not a
good way to arrive at the
truth in any matter. It is
especially bad for scientists
who are supposed to objective
pursuers of the truth.
In this situation being
considered, the Bible clearly
labels homosexuality as sinful
and really has to be twisted
to say the contrary. To argue
that a gay couple is
acceptable within the
Christian Church simply sets
aside the Bible as being
outdated in this respect. Why
not just argue thusly and
avoid the slight of hand? At
least then there can be a
sincere debate that might
eliminate the artificiality of
canned philosophies.
-- ===================================Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 09:44:54 EDT