Into the Wardrobe

As soon as I saw the word "Episcopal" and the title "New York Times", I knew immediately what was in the article by (former) Senator Danforth...

... and I was not disappointed. The very term "Moderate" has political overtones, and I was somewhat amused that Danforth denegrated the efforts in politics of "conservative Christians" and then turned right around in his article and stumped for his own side of several political issues, under the banner of "Moderate Christian"...

And just HOW the myth of "separation of Church and State" has risen to cult status in this country is beyond me... The closest thing to it is a statement in the Bill of Rights about there not being any "state religion"...

While Danforth is correct in his round-about way of saying that we should not manipulate the laws of the State to force God on people, he uses the "lay down your weapons" plea in the article to then (in my reading of it) soften the Divine disgust over things like Homosexuality, Euthenasia, and Abortion.

He's right: Love God and Love your Neighbor ARE indeed the central themes of Christianity; but when you're loving GOD, you (by definition) are also hating the things He hates.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with having enough COURAGE to stand up and say, humbly, "I'm sorry, but Homosex is an abomination to God". I'm not sure why a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman would, quote, "humiliate" homosexuals (their sexual practices should be doing that already), but I do agree that something like that is a silly practice of Constitutional law...

The only trouble with "Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin" is that most sinful human beings (such as myself) are, naturally, terrible at the first part and great at the second... but that doesn't make the second therefore "wrong" or ill-advised... We just need to do BOTH, and in that order... I don't see the value in assigning the term "Moderate" to Christians who see a real need to get that right...

gskern, you need go to a Christian homosexual website and read their arguments.

I don't want to turn this into a debate (there is probably another thread for this here somewhere), but I would just respectfully assert that the Bible is utterly and completely crystal clear -- from Genesis through Revelation -- that Homosex is contrary to the will of God.

And I'm just not interested in what "modern", so-called "textual critics", and others who bend black-and-white into "shades of grey", have to say... If that makes me "intolerant", then so be it. I'd rather side with the clear mandates of Scripture than to risk having "itching ears", as we're warned...

I'm a common man, not very intelligent, so the repeated use of "high view of Scripture" is really lost on me...

When God destroyed Sodom -- which featured Homosexuality as the reigning "lifestyle" -- I take that seriously. When Paul tells us that the "wrath of God" is coming against those who indulge in the "shameful lusts" of homosex (referred to in the same passage as "perversion"... Romans 1), I take that seriously, too. AND, when both of these writings -- separated by thousands of years and coming from different writers -- seem to be saying the same thing about homosex, in the context of a Book which is supposed to be our primary guide on how to love God with all our hearts and souls and minds, I accept it as Truth.

We both know you can make the Bible "say" whatever you please; perhaps the plain truth is the right truth.

Hi magpie:

Thanks for that clarification. I would be somewhat amused to ever hear anybody say "... and coming from a LOW view of Scripture..." Perhaps I'm assuming too much, but one would think the people in these discussions *already* give Scripture the "primary" place in their theology... Disagreements generally stem from conflicting interpretations of the Scriptures... hence my comment about "itching ears" (i.e., making the Bible "say" what we want it to say...)

And I am open to hearing what anyone has to say; it's just that I've had my fill of writers, speakers, professors, ministers, editors, etc., who claim to understand the Bible so much better because of vaunted "modern" interpretations, or research, or the like... Do we think that The Deceiver is going to outright call his ways-and-means things like "deceptions of the devil" or "severely misconstrued biblical interpretation"?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "intellectual honesty"; it has to do with having the courage to continue to hold forth what was clear in the minds and hearts of the Saints of the faith since God created mankind... if our modern "enlightenment" tarnishes that clarity even a little bit, perhaps we're not so "enlightened" as we think...

Ezekiel 16:49
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

If I may be so bold, these are the sins of many in the church, especially amongst those who most fervently imagine they love God, believe the Bible and have sound theology (just like the Pharisees before them.)

Of course, I also hope I love God, believe the Bible and have sound theology.