Donald Sensing echos some points I made about homosexuality and the church last November. The essense is this (from my earlier post):
Why, then, do many Christians see homosexuality and homosexuals as particularly evil? Theologically, we shouldn't. The real difficulty, however, is that although most of us acknowledge the wrongfulness of our many lies, thefts, and boasts, many people deny the wrongness of homosexuality. Our culture glorifies many types of evil, but individually we mostly agree that greed, slander, gossip, and the rest are bad and that we should not participate in them. However, when it comes to homosexuality, many people argue that it's not wrong at all; and unless we are willing to confess the evil of our actions, God will not forgive us. We must be willing to submit ourselves to God's dictates on right and wrong, and we must be willing to agree with him when he condemns our actions.The problem isn't that homosexual behavior is worse than any other evil, the problem is that people don't want to ackowledge that homosexual behavior is wrong at all. Until we are ready to confess and turn away from our evil actions, God will not forgive us.
Celibate homosexuals are not treataed much better by the church than are practicing homosexuals, so the idea that this is about refusal to repent is simplistic.
I think that gambling in any form is a horrible sin, but unrepentant gamblers are not ostracized the way gays are. Fornicators aren't treated the same way that gays are, either.
As I have written before, I believe that failing to tithe is a sin. Am I supposed to treat those who don't tithe the way others treat gays?
JT: I don't think you can claim to speak for every church. Celebate homosexuals would be treated fine at my church, I expect. We don't have fornicators in leadership positions.
As for gambling, I'm not sure how you count that as a sin, as long as no more money is wasted on it than on other recreational activity.
Anyway, as for the rest, you're falling into the same trap Andrew Sullivan did. Just because no church is perfect doesn't mean that everything should be permitted.
Let's see: Christianity, which exists to help imperfect people become less imperfect, is not allowed to condemn imperfections because it works with imperfect people.
Huh?
Just because we cannot do everything does not mean that we should do nothing; on the contrary, we should do everything we can because there is so much to do. Yes, compassion and acceptance of sinners is not uniformly practiced. I'm working on that myself, and in the church classes I teach. But that does not invalidate the charge that homosexuality is a sin. Celibacy for homosexuals is not the same as repentance, in the same way that failing to steal today is not repentance for theft committed yesterday.
And you are supposed to treat all sinners the same; with compassion, helping them to forsake their sins and come unto Christ. If you treat homosexuals the same way you treat gamblers or non-tithers, then you are just consistent (consistency not neccessarily being a virtue.) Perhaps a gambler or non-tither *should* be treated differently than a homosexual - but I think that depends on what would best bring that person to Christ. Given that people turn to gambling for different reasons than they turn to homosexuality, treating them differently *would* make sense here, wouldn't it? But that almost entirely depends on the individuals involved, both the unredeemed sinner and the penitent one.
But,,, a man can not produce an offspring with another man,, ( or woman + woman) ? whats all the fuzz about ? homosexuality is an anomoly in the eyes of mother nature. this debate has gone far to complex,, its quite simple actually.
and what about Transexuals?
here is a little something for ya all from the exelent movie LIFE OF BRIAN =)
REG:
I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS:
Oh. Right.
REG:
Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN:
Or woman.
REG:
Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN:
Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN:
I want to be one.
REG:
What?
STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It's my right as a man.
JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What's the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
[trumpets]
[clap clap clap]