Swinging the Other Way
Looks like the rightward-swing is in full swing.
I considered myself "Episcopalian" and attended an Episcopal church for a little over a year. I kept attending for a couple of months after the Reverend Canon V. Gene Robinson was confirmed as a bishop. Unfortunately, it didn't sit well with me, and in late September of 2003 I stopped attending the Episcopal Church. I now consider myself an "Anglican in exile."
I was especially surprised in mid-October when this story broke, particularly because England (the seat of the Anglican church) is a lot more socially liberal (well, let's face it, liberal in all aspects) than the United States. I completely agree with the Anglican Church's demand for an apology from the U.S. church leaders. Why? Well, there are several scriptures that are appropriate to quote.
Leviticus 20:13:
Romans 1:24-32:
Revelation 3:16:
This issue is a crucial one to the modern church. As I have demonstrated by these scriptural references, the Bible is very specific about homosexuality. The Bible presents itself as the word of God, and the basis for all spiritual instruction. One must make the choice to accept or reject the teachings and validity of the Bible. If one rejects the Bible, they are not obligated to follow the moral laws it contains. If one accepts the Bible, they are obligated to "take it on faith," as it were, and follow what the Bible says.
What about clergy? Hear me now and believe me later: if you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that it contains God's moral and spiritual guidance for mankind, you don't have any business being a member of the Christian clergy. Furthermore... Why would you want to be? I'm not Muslim, I don't believe what the Koran has to say, so why would I want to be an Imam? I'm don't believe in voodoo or animism, so why would I want to be a shaman? Clergy should hold themselves to a higher standard than their parishioners.
The fact that there are not only clergymen, but bishops and other high-ranking church officials who condone homosexuality is a travesty. Contrary to popular belief, there is no biblical basis for such a position.
This is not to say that I'm "homophobic", condemn, or hate homosexuals. I don't. Because I get my moral guidance from the Bible, I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also belief that I do things that are sinful; but I regret doing those things, and I ask forgiveness of my sins from God. I don't try to force the church to accept my sins. The church should accept all people who wish to find salvation, and encourage them to overcome their sins.
I can only hope that this latest decision from the Methodists, and the October action from the Anglicans, represents a return to Bible-based, moral leadership in today's church. I'm fed up with the increasing trend of selling out to "progressive" pressure from popular culture. It's threatening to tear more than one denomination apart, all for the sake of getting middle of the road converts and appearing "tolerant." It's time it stopped.
PUGHTOWN, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Last week's defrocking of a United Methodist Church pastor who broke church law by living openly with her lesbian partner was a victory for the denomination's conservative wing. But more broadly, did it signify a decisive turn for the denomination?
Conservatives hope so. The church-trial verdict shows "we will not surrender to the popular culture on matters of sexual ethics." That's the contention of Mark Tooley, the Methodist specialist at the conservative Institute on Religion and Democracy.
Liberals, however, saw the result against the Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud of Philadelphia as a case of the UMC "shamefully" caving in to "cultural prejudice" against gays and lesbians.
I considered myself "Episcopalian" and attended an Episcopal church for a little over a year. I kept attending for a couple of months after the Reverend Canon V. Gene Robinson was confirmed as a bishop. Unfortunately, it didn't sit well with me, and in late September of 2003 I stopped attending the Episcopal Church. I now consider myself an "Anglican in exile."
I was especially surprised in mid-October when this story broke, particularly because England (the seat of the Anglican church) is a lot more socially liberal (well, let's face it, liberal in all aspects) than the United States. I completely agree with the Anglican Church's demand for an apology from the U.S. church leaders. Why? Well, there are several scriptures that are appropriate to quote.
Leviticus 20:13:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Romans 1:24-32:
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Revelation 3:16:
So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
This issue is a crucial one to the modern church. As I have demonstrated by these scriptural references, the Bible is very specific about homosexuality. The Bible presents itself as the word of God, and the basis for all spiritual instruction. One must make the choice to accept or reject the teachings and validity of the Bible. If one rejects the Bible, they are not obligated to follow the moral laws it contains. If one accepts the Bible, they are obligated to "take it on faith," as it were, and follow what the Bible says.
What about clergy? Hear me now and believe me later: if you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that it contains God's moral and spiritual guidance for mankind, you don't have any business being a member of the Christian clergy. Furthermore... Why would you want to be? I'm not Muslim, I don't believe what the Koran has to say, so why would I want to be an Imam? I'm don't believe in voodoo or animism, so why would I want to be a shaman? Clergy should hold themselves to a higher standard than their parishioners.
The fact that there are not only clergymen, but bishops and other high-ranking church officials who condone homosexuality is a travesty. Contrary to popular belief, there is no biblical basis for such a position.
This is not to say that I'm "homophobic", condemn, or hate homosexuals. I don't. Because I get my moral guidance from the Bible, I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also belief that I do things that are sinful; but I regret doing those things, and I ask forgiveness of my sins from God. I don't try to force the church to accept my sins. The church should accept all people who wish to find salvation, and encourage them to overcome their sins.
I can only hope that this latest decision from the Methodists, and the October action from the Anglicans, represents a return to Bible-based, moral leadership in today's church. I'm fed up with the increasing trend of selling out to "progressive" pressure from popular culture. It's threatening to tear more than one denomination apart, all for the sake of getting middle of the road converts and appearing "tolerant." It's time it stopped.
2 Comments:
Then why can't he just start his own church that doesn't use the Bible? It doesn't make any sense to belong to a church that uses the Bible as its foundation, and yet disbelieve what the Bible has to say. Any attempt to "reconstruct" the church from the inside in order to engineer it with so-called "tolerant" and "compassionate" values demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of Christian theology and ethics. It's also disingenuous, deceitful, and intolerant of traditional Christian views.
If someone doesn't agree with the things that the Bible says, they should found their own religion instead of trying to change an existing institution. Disagree with the Bible? Don't use it. It's as simple as that.
Why can't he start his own church? Because this is some kind of power thing with these people and I sometimes think former Catholics are the worst; having been unable to cram their will down the pope's throat, they get lots of consolation from being able to mangle ECUSA. Perhaps a baaaaad strain of 60's peter pan syndrome too...
Post a Comment
<< Home