Compromising on Gays?
I'm going to disclaim this post up front by saying that I am not, nor have I ever been, "anti-gay". I happen to have known and gotten on well with several gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual individuals. My objection comes from the way that homosexuality is being handled within the church, as I feel that the church should have different codes of conduct than regular society. At any rate, here's a story that Josh Schroeder might be interested in... And you might be, too.
This is a harsh position to take, but the solution to this dilemma is excommunication. How do I know? I'm an Anglican living in America. Unfamiliar with the situation with the Worldwide Anglican Communion? Here's some background; there are also several other posts from February that you can find by going to the February archive page and searching for the word "Anglican".
Basically, the Anglican church (that's the Church of England to those of you who are unfamiliar with Protestant denominations) is somewhat liberal to begin with, incorporating many different kinds of Christians, and placing less emphasis on dogma and more emphasis on communion, fellowship, and the like. The Episcopal Church, which is the American branch of the Worldwide Anglican Communion (established when the Colonists broke with the Crown), made the decision during the Summer of 2003 to ordain Gene Robinson as a bishop; Robinson is openly gay. In addition, the Canadian arm of the Worldwide Anglican Communion made the decision recently (in 2004, I believe) to perform homosexual weddings. As you'll read in that "background" link, these decisions by the American and Canadian churches have essentially led the world leadership of the Worldwide Anglican Communion to put the North American churches on notice. Basically, if the two branches don't reverse themselves by the time the next world Anglican conference rolls around in 2008, they'll be marginalized and removed from the Worldwide Anglican Communion.
The Episcopal Church has already fractured in recent years over the Episcopal Church's increasing "progressive" agenda.. Here are a couple of of American splinter groups that existed before Robinson was ordained.
Anglican Mission in America
The Reformed Episcopal Church
Basically, the Lutheran Church has two options. Their first option is to preserve their orthodoxy, identity, and heritage, and lose parishes and parishioners who don't care enough about their faith to follow what the Bible says. In Revelation chapter 3, Jesus says:
If a person is not willing to make sacrifices in their own life and deny their impulses as the Bible directs them, then I contend that they do not qualify as a Christian. Christians of all stripes stumble and make mistakes, but they do so in the process of making an effort to live the life described in the Bible.
Take me as an example. I'm twenty-three, and there are loose women and opportunities for copious sexual conduct all over the place on a public college campus, one of which has been my stomping ground for the last five years. I would love to be up to my neck in tight little freshman party girls. I haven't done that; I've been at least somewhat selective in choosing who to date, and I have restricted my conduct. Have I had opportunities to have sex? Absolutely. Have I done it? No, because the Bible tells me not to do it. What, then, does the Bible say about homosexuality? Let's start with the Old Testament...
... And, just to head off the folks who will make the logical (and legitimate) argument that not every rule in the Old Testament applies under the New Covenant, let's move on to the New Testament.
There you have it. That's what the Bible says about homosexuality. Therefore, if one claims to be a Christian, and if Christians believe in the veracity of the Bible, then people must take the Bible at face value, and for what it says it is. This goes double for clergy and the church heirarchy, whose duty it is to uphold the teachings of the Bible in their lives and in their teachings to the laity.
The Lutheran Church's second option is to lose membership in the form of parishes and parishioners who are faithful to God's word. The Episcopal Church has hemorrhaged faithful, orthodox members over their asinine, anti-Biblical push toward the so-called "progressive" agenda. If the Lutheran Church doesn't nip this issue in the bud, quickly and decisively, they will go the way of the Episcopal Church, becoming a marginalized, liberal social club full of partisans who distort the good news in the Bible in an effort to push their unrelated social program.
There you have it, folks. The Lutherans can follow the example of the Roman Catholic Church, which actually gains membership through its determined effort to uphold orthodoxy, even though its unyielding position leads the fairweather faithful to look elsewhere for a pat on the back; or they can follow the example of the Episcopal Church, which is hemorrhaging members through its complete inability to show any doctrinal backbone. They can't have it both ways.
ORLANDO, Fla. — National delegates from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America took up contentious proposals Friday on ordaining partnered gays and ministering to same-sex couples, after voting that deep disagreement over homosexuality should not divide their denomination.
The measures — the product of three years' work by a special church task force — are meant as a compromise that will satisfy both those who support gay clergy and those who regard gay sex as sinful. The proposals would uphold Lutheran restrictions on gays and lesbians who are not celibate, while allowing congregations and bishops to make exceptions in some cases without risking disciplinary action.
However many of the more than 1,000 delegates have complained that the measures are confusing and their implications unclear; debate was expected to last for hours. In contrast, the unity resolution was approved quickly and overwhelmingly, on an 851-127 vote.
"Our job is not to judge one another, our job is to love one another," said Patrick Monroe of the Central/Southern Illinois Synod, speaking in favor of unity. "This motion allows us to move forward in that way, not just with sexual issues but with all issues."
This is a harsh position to take, but the solution to this dilemma is excommunication. How do I know? I'm an Anglican living in America. Unfamiliar with the situation with the Worldwide Anglican Communion? Here's some background; there are also several other posts from February that you can find by going to the February archive page and searching for the word "Anglican".
Basically, the Anglican church (that's the Church of England to those of you who are unfamiliar with Protestant denominations) is somewhat liberal to begin with, incorporating many different kinds of Christians, and placing less emphasis on dogma and more emphasis on communion, fellowship, and the like. The Episcopal Church, which is the American branch of the Worldwide Anglican Communion (established when the Colonists broke with the Crown), made the decision during the Summer of 2003 to ordain Gene Robinson as a bishop; Robinson is openly gay. In addition, the Canadian arm of the Worldwide Anglican Communion made the decision recently (in 2004, I believe) to perform homosexual weddings. As you'll read in that "background" link, these decisions by the American and Canadian churches have essentially led the world leadership of the Worldwide Anglican Communion to put the North American churches on notice. Basically, if the two branches don't reverse themselves by the time the next world Anglican conference rolls around in 2008, they'll be marginalized and removed from the Worldwide Anglican Communion.
The Episcopal Church has already fractured in recent years over the Episcopal Church's increasing "progressive" agenda.. Here are a couple of of American splinter groups that existed before Robinson was ordained.
Basically, the Lutheran Church has two options. Their first option is to preserve their orthodoxy, identity, and heritage, and lose parishes and parishioners who don't care enough about their faith to follow what the Bible says. In Revelation chapter 3, Jesus says:
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
- Revelation 3:15-17
If a person is not willing to make sacrifices in their own life and deny their impulses as the Bible directs them, then I contend that they do not qualify as a Christian. Christians of all stripes stumble and make mistakes, but they do so in the process of making an effort to live the life described in the Bible.
Take me as an example. I'm twenty-three, and there are loose women and opportunities for copious sexual conduct all over the place on a public college campus, one of which has been my stomping ground for the last five years. I would love to be up to my neck in tight little freshman party girls. I haven't done that; I've been at least somewhat selective in choosing who to date, and I have restricted my conduct. Have I had opportunities to have sex? Absolutely. Have I done it? No, because the Bible tells me not to do it. What, then, does the Bible say about homosexuality? Let's start with the Old Testament...
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
- Leviticus 18:22
... And, just to head off the folks who will make the logical (and legitimate) argument that not every rule in the Old Testament applies under the New Covenant, let's move on to the New Testament.
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.
- Romans 1:26-27
There you have it. That's what the Bible says about homosexuality. Therefore, if one claims to be a Christian, and if Christians believe in the veracity of the Bible, then people must take the Bible at face value, and for what it says it is. This goes double for clergy and the church heirarchy, whose duty it is to uphold the teachings of the Bible in their lives and in their teachings to the laity.
The Lutheran Church's second option is to lose membership in the form of parishes and parishioners who are faithful to God's word. The Episcopal Church has hemorrhaged faithful, orthodox members over their asinine, anti-Biblical push toward the so-called "progressive" agenda. If the Lutheran Church doesn't nip this issue in the bud, quickly and decisively, they will go the way of the Episcopal Church, becoming a marginalized, liberal social club full of partisans who distort the good news in the Bible in an effort to push their unrelated social program.
There you have it, folks. The Lutherans can follow the example of the Roman Catholic Church, which actually gains membership through its determined effort to uphold orthodoxy, even though its unyielding position leads the fairweather faithful to look elsewhere for a pat on the back; or they can follow the example of the Episcopal Church, which is hemorrhaging members through its complete inability to show any doctrinal backbone. They can't have it both ways.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home