Congratulations to celibate same-sex attracted man, Matt Moore, for writing the most popular Op-Ed on the Christian Post in 2015. The stats reveal that readers have a healthy appetite for reading material about homosexuality.
Wouldnt it be nice if we could all live happily ever after. Or in the language of the left, if we could all exercise our full rights.
But the reality is, in a community, different people want different things. And sometimes, what one person wants, will impinge upon what someone else doesnt want. Some people deny this reality, with vacuous advice such as
“Dont like abortions? Dont get one. Dont like guns? Dont own one.”
Which sounds kinda meaningful, until it’s your only grandchild that’s being aborted, or it’s your business that is held up by someone else with a gun, and you realise that what others do, still affects you.
And so it is with the issue of homosexuality. When debating whether gay marriage should be legal, many a gay activist was heard to claim that new forms of marriage have no bearing on other marriages. But scratch deep enough, and you find that even gay people have said that’s not true.
Within the United Methodist Church, is a group called Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN). RMN work for the “full inclusion” of GLBT people in the United Methodist Church. A number of their members emphasise that “all” are welcome at RMN services. But does “all” really mean all? Is it possible to please all?
The answer is no. It’s not possible to please all. If you have been around for a few decades, you might remember the days gone by when gay activists called for “tolerance”. But few these days are satisfied with tolerance. As we can see above, RMN calls for “full inclusion”. Use of the word ‘full’ is very intentional. It intentionally means inclusion in every way. In the same way that the gay community refused to accept civil unions as an alternative to marriage, full inclusion means that GLBT people should not accept any alternative to being eligible to undertake any role in a Christian setting, that a straight person might undertake. And implicit within that is the notion that there is nothing sinful or unchristian about homosexuality.
So where does that leave the Christian who understands the Bible to say that a man should not lay sexually with another man (Leviticus 18) and that lusting after the same sex rather than the opposite sex, is unnatural and that homosexual sex is shameful (Romans 1)? Can that Christian debate that, or even raise the point, in a RMN setting? Probably not. Such discussion would be exclusionary and unwelcoming for homosexuals. Mere discussion of this would violate notions of “full inclusion” and would leave them feeling “unsafe”. And so you see that full inclusion of GLBT people, implies lack of inclusion of the full Gospel, and a silencing of certain points of view. People like the Pope or the Biblical St Paul, if he were around, would be silenced … at best.
“Surely not”, you might say. “Surely ‘inclusion’ means inclusion for all”, you might say. “Surely ‘all’ means all”, you might say. Well, lets examine the evidence. An article on Slate relates the perspective of a UMC lesbian named Barclay, stating –
Barclay can’t ascribe to a form of unity that means “that I can sit next to somebody who thinks that I’m going to hell or that I have some psychological problem because I’m gay. They might be able to sit down and have a conversation with me and table that, but I can’t say that I can feel respected.”
Barclay feels unable to be in unity with someone who regards homosexuality as sinful.
In 2015, RMN co-sponsored a conference named Gather at the River. At that conference, traditional views on sexuality were reportedly labelled by one minister as being “dangerous”. That minister elaborated that “The Spirit is showing us what once was revered as ancient truth has become uncouth and untenable.” Yes, untenable and dangerous. Would views that are regarded as untenable and dangerous, get a fair hearing?
In the secular world, GLBT “equality” increasingly requires that others go along with the flow. The GLBT flow, that is. Failure to do so often results in penalties, loss of employment, and exclusion for those who disagree. There is little reason to think that “full inclusion” will mean anything different in the long term.
Ive just realised I havent posted about this previously. Id better get on it!
The intellectual elite tend to love to preach diversity. But interestingly, they dont practise what they preach –
Some gay apologists like to claim that Christians who believe that homosexual relations are sinful, are simply prejudiced people who read anti-gay sentiments into the Bible rather than letting the Bible speak for itself. Those who know the Bible well, know that such a claim is ridiculous. Those who know the Bible well, know that the Bible presents heterosexual relations as the only affirmed model of romantic relationship, and that it rejects other models as being highly sinful.
But it’s not easy to convince those who promote the “homophobic prejudice” accusation. It would be nice if they just read the Bible from cover to cover. But many are unwilling to do that. And if you quote to them the sections of the Bible that refer to homosexual relations as sinful, they will often tell you that you are using a mistranslation, even if you are using one of the most popular translations.
But there are ways of fairly quickly showing those who promote the “homophobic prejudice” accusation, the error of their ways. A key to doing so, I suggest, is to provide examples of those who do not oppose gay relations, but whom still acknowledge that the Bible does. People like former professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, Dr. Daniel Kirk as illustrated here –
7 minutes into the above video, of 2015, Kirk says;
… in fact in the large contours of that discussion, Professor Gagnon and I essentially agree. We agree that the Bible speaks with one voice in the Old Testament and NewTestament in the places where it speaks about same-sex relations, it condemns those relations as inappropriate for the people of God.
Yet 25 minutes into the video, he refers to himself as having become “affirming”, if you know what I mean, clarifying further at 35 minutes. Kirk has shown that he is aware of contemporary debate on the issue.
The secular media shy away from religion. Or Christianity at least. Turn on your TV and watch a sitcom. Are any of the characters distinctly Christian? Probably none. Read your city newspaper. Are the issues framed in terms of religious outlook? Is religion even mentioned or referenced? Rarely. Millions of people are involved in religious activity and dialogue each week, but from what you see in the media, you would think religion is exceedingly rare.
But guess what! The media will report on religious issues sometimes. If it’s politically correct, of course. They are happy to report (as they should) on cases of priests molesting children. They love to report on Christian scandals, such as large-scale misappropriation of funds. Yep, the secular media are most likely to report on Christianity, when there is something negative to focus on.
And it seems to me that increasingly, Christians with a chip on their shoulder, are playing right into this situation. Yep, unhappy Christians now seem to approach the news media with sob stories, seeking a way to broadcast their maligning of their religion. I dont know if my perception is blinkered by the times in which we live, but it seems to me that the trend began with the PR machine commonly known as The Reformation Project. In the last few years, the organisation of gay apologists has brokered interviews and reports with numerous media outlets across the USA, in which they seek to advance the argument that the Christian church has historically been wrong to regard homosexual relations as inherently sinful, and that this has been “damaging” to gay people.
And are others now jumping on this bandwagon? Recently, Tim Rymel, who has social connections to The Reformation Project, likewise maligned his religion in the secular media. In an online article titled An Open Letter To My Evangelical Friends (a title eerily similar to the infamous Letter to My Congregation), this gay man and former “Christian minister”, shared with a secular audience –
I believed the Bible was the inerrant Word of God and that all anyone needed was to repent, ask Jesus into their hearts and surrender to God. Like so many others, though, that theology became a prison for me. It eventually decimated my family, not because we weren’t “doing it right,” but because we weren’t living authentically and being who we were meant to be.
I believe we’re all called to be exactly who we are meant to be. That’s when we love the best.
So, with all due respect, please stop telling me who I should be, what I should be and how I should be doing it.
Sounds a bit like revenge of the unchristians, to me.
The following is a classic screenshot from facebook, that I found there today. In his first (ie lower) post, this ‘pastor’ writes of how he “intensely” studied gay theology in an effort to accept his own gay inclinations. No mention of him seeking a balanced perspective by reading those who critique gay theology though. The implication is, that he absorbed one side of an argument, and stuck with that. Later in the day, he writes another post, about the need to receive complete knowledge of God’s will! But how are you supposed to obtain complete knowledge of God’s will, if you only absorb the arguments of those who disagree with God’s will? He should have studied both sides of the debate. Honestly, it’s enough to render you speechless.
I notice also, that hundreds of people ‘liked’ his post about adhering to his sexual orientation. But only a comparative handful ‘liked’ his comments about finding God’s will.
The irony in this is that many gay Christians claim that it’s the conservative Christians who only believe what they want to believe!