It’s not a link that many have made. But interestingly, the following article claims that when Christians affirm things like same-sex marriage, this adds to Islamic distaste towards Christians in general, and adds to Islamic animosity and violence towards Christians. This point is made towards the end of the article, where in the context of Islamic terrorists and violent jihadists, it states –
… what these [Islamic] converts have often reacted against is the moral corruption of the West … What doesn’t help here is the repeated pronouncements of some church leaders appeasing a secular moral theology and saying for example, that the teaching of the Bible on issues such as marriage doesn’t matter anymore. Such public statements simply convince potential converts that the church is part of the moral corruption of the West and again Islamists exploit this. The Islamist critique of the West in fact very much focuses on its moral corruption.
The full article can be found here –
Liberal Christians tend to say that gay relations are ok. Conservative Christians tend to say that engaging in gay relations is sinful. Can the two sides unite and agree to disagree? I dont think they can, because from a conservative perspective, the Bible seems to disallow it. This article says it well –
I think the title is over-simplified, but I like the following, which is a response to a well-circulated meme –
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?
Some Catholics who stand for the traditional and official position of the Catholic church on homosexuality, have even been told they are unwelcome at services that are run by liberal Catholics. This unwelcoming stance is likely not only happening in Catholic circles.
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.