Gay Bishops, Racism...Same Argument?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by TomVols, Aug 7, 2003.

  1. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    The folly of racism, then;
    of sexual liberation, now
    By Russell D. Moore


    LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--As the Episcopal Church splinters over the
    question of homosexual bishops, Episcopalian liberals are telling us
    that they are the heirs of the civil rights era of 20th century
    American history. And they are partly right. The gay liberation
    movement in the mainline churches stands firmly in the tradition of the
    segregationist churches of the Jim Crow-era South.

    The latest skirmish over gay rights in the Episcopal Church has erupted
    over the nomination of homosexual Gene Robinson as a bishop. The
    fractures were evident in an Aug. 5 debate on NBC's "Today" show
    between the "progressive" bishop of Massachusetts and the
    "traditionalist" bishop of South Carolina.

    Defending Robinson's appointment, the Massachusetts bishop argued for
    the autonomy of the liberals to do as they pleased. The bishop of South
    Carolina noted that the homosexual agenda was driving out of the church
    those communions who still hold to the Scripture as final authority,
    namely the Episcopal churches in Africa and Asia. Isn't it odd, the
    anti-gay ordination clergyman noted, that the bishop of Massachusetts
    appeals to "states rights" while the bishop of South Carolina is the
    internationalist?

    As Southern Baptists, we've seen all of this before.

    During the heated debates over integration in the 1950s and 1960s, many
    of our churches were ignorant of just how captive they were to a
    culture of racial oppression.

    Untold numbers of pastors preached the truth of the universal offer of
    the Gospel, even while they refused to witness to black families right
    down the street. Scores of biblically literate laypeople organized to
    send missions money to plant churches in Africa, even as they shrunk
    back from inviting African Americans to join their congregation. Sunday
    School teachers led children in singing "Jesus Loves the Little
    Children" without ever questioning what that theology had to do with
    their cultural notions that Jesus loved white people best of all. Who
    knows how many churches proclaimed the love of Christ while saying
    nothing about the sin of refusing to confront a racist culture with the
    Gospel of Christ? When a few courageous voices challenged the
    inconsistency of all this, they were shouted down by well-organized
    interest groups such as the White Citizens Councils.

    Now, the venue has changed, but the issues have not.

    The Episcopal hierarchy faces a culture that is just as entrenched in
    the ideology of the sexual revolution as the Jim Crow South was
    entrenched in the ideology of white supremacy.

    While the Scripture speaks clearly to the issues involved, the church
    is manipulated by the well-organized pressure groups of the status quo.
    Upper-crust Episcopalian liberals -- like retired Bishop John Shelby
    Spong -- dismiss the biblical arguments of African churchmen because,
    after all, in Spong's words: "They've moved out of animism into a very
    superstitious kind of Christianity. They've yet to face the
    intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we've had to
    face in the developing world. That's just not on their radar screen."

    The Gospel, as the African churchmen rightly attest, announces that
    Jesus of Nazareth has been enthroned as the rightful heir of the
    cosmos. The Spirit of Christ declares that racism, bigotry and
    partiality are grievous sins against God (James 3:9-10). The same
    Spirit of Christ declares that homosexuals can be forgiven and
    transformed by the Gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

    The spirit of the age consoled bigots by assuring them that black
    people would be better off "with their own kind." And the spirit of the
    age now consoles white liberals that homosexuals really can't change
    and don't need the message of the Gospel of repentance and faith.

    Whether to unrepentant racists or to unrepentant homosexuals, the
    message is always the same -- "You will not surely die" (Genesis 3:4).

    Thus, some Baptist pastors once mistakenly thought they could preach
    the Gospel and still stand in the church-house door blocking out people
    for whom Christ died from joining the fellowship. And now some
    Episcopal bishops mistakenly think they can administer the sacraments
    and stand in the church-house door blocking out people for whom Christ
    died from experiencing the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

    White supremacist pastors had the full endorsement of the Amos and Andy
    culture. Sexual libertarian bishops have the full endorsement of the
    "Will and Grace" culture.

    But, in the face of both, the Spirit still says to the churches: "For
    God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that
    whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"
    (John 3:16).

    That means the churches of Jesus Christ must stand against the white
    sheets of the Ku Klux Klan and against the rainbow flags of the Gay
    Liberation Front, because both represent the cultural captivity of the
    church. And they both stand in the way of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    --30--
    Russell D. Moore is assistant professor of Christian theology at
    Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. He also serves
    as executive director of the Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical
    Engagement. Moore's commentaries can be read at the Henry Institute
    website, www.henryinstitute.org.
     
  2. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Being black, white or hispanic is not a sin. It is not a choice. Being homosexual is both.

    This is a lame argument! Racism is WRONG! Any church that doesn't welcome all their brothers and sisters in Christ is wrong. Accepting sin, endorsing sin, ordaining an open sinner is an abomination.

    Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!

    Diane
     
  3. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are we back to being allowed to discuss this stuff?

    Joshua
     
  4. Iakobos

    Iakobos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    We just had VBS last week, and I led an adult study based on Ravi Zacharias' "Jesus Among Other Gods." Zacharias addressed this issue by stating the following (my paraphrase):

    Race is sacred. Sex is sacred. You should not violate someone's race, and should not violate sex. How then can we hold one to be sacred, while we de-sanctify the other? A Christian supporting racial equality, but opposed to homosexuality is holding both opinions based on the same argument: the sanctity of both. It is not a hypocritical view.

    I thought it was a good explanation; I hope I expressed his thoughts in my paraphrase well.
     
  5. Elnora

    Elnora
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    8,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one who repents should be blocked from the church. But we can't repent of being black or white or any color in between. We can't repent of being ugly of retarted or poor. We can repent of our sins though and if we do we should all be welcome.
     
  6. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    310
    Considering that this is a rehash of previous argments and debates on this forum, I am going to institute a two (2) page limit on this thread (and only this thread). As the actions of the Episcopalians are in the news, they are worthy of comment. So, let's try to confine ourselves to the story of the day.
     
  7. Elnora

    Elnora
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    8,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is one race only, human. We are all created in the image of God. We cannot repent of how we look We can repent of sexual sin.

    Matthew: 6:27. Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? Luke 12:25. And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?
    26. If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?

    Sex is sacred in the context God allows. Marriage. Husband and wife. God created woman for the man. Nowhere does the bible say he created man for man. or woman for woman. That is the difference.
    Gen: 21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    22. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
    23. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    A husband and wife become one flesh. Likening it to Christ and his bride. That is what makes it sacred.
     
  8. Iakobos

    Iakobos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appreciate the post, Elnora; I hope you realize our views on this issue are the same.

    My post was made to reinforce the idea that racism and opposition to homosexuality are not born of the same vein, regardless of what some folks would have you believe today.

    Now, on the issue of how we minister to certain members of society is where I might differ with some of you folks. But I will not highjack this thread for that discussion.
     
  9. HeavenlyGal32

    HeavenlyGal32
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/val32.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are suppose to take a stand on sin. Hate the sin not the sinner. Standing against sin doesnt make us racist.

    Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Judges19: 22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
    23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
    24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
     
  10. Elnora

    Elnora
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    8,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've yet to meet a homosexual who chose to be that way. Why would anyone intentionally put themselves through that much heartache? </font>[/QUOTE]We all put ourselves through much heartache when we disobey God. Do you think when one become a drunkard it wasn't fun in the beginning? Until the consequences catch up.

    James 1: 14. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

    Does he say continue in our sin?, no we are to forsake it.

    15. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

    Sin is pleasurable for awhile the bible says. We are enticed and partake, then it ensnares us and we are slaves to it. Then it isn't pleasurable when the consequences start to come upon us. We are all born with a sin nature through Adam. That is why Christ gave his life to pay for our sins and redeem us from the bondage of sin.

    If a Homosexual repents, Jesus sets that person free from the bondage of sin. He become a new creature in Christ. This applies to all of our sin. When we are born again, we put off the old man and put on the new.
     
  11. Elnora

    Elnora
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    8,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    We should approach them as any other who is seperated for God. Share the gospel of grace and if they become born again welcome them into the body of Christ, no?
     
  12. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    But we are not talking about bondage or transitory pleasures here. We're talking about love and lifetime commitments, and all of the beautiful, life-enriching experiences that come from sharing your life intimately with another person.

    In a time when sex was a way to express one's property rights and homosexuality was associated with ritual prostitution; a prohibition against it might make sense. It does not make sense in this context.

    The article attempt to reverse the traditional civil rights argument about homosexuality, but it doesn't fly. In a worldview that we no longer hold, it was acceptable to own people and to denigrate them because of their ethnicity. The Bible was used to defend that worldview. The same is true now of sexual orientation.

    It's not a complex argument.

    Joshua
     
  13. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Nevermind.
     
  14. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    One difference though. The Bible speaks against homosexuality. Again we are back to the same old argument about those of us who believe the Bible for what it says, and those of us who do not because it doesn't fit our own philosophy.

    Rev. Joshua, I suppose you also believe that a man and a woman can be unmarried, living together, and still not be in sin. After all, if they are committed to one another, that's what counts right? That is hogwash and you CAN NOT and WILL NOT EVER prove your point through use of the Bible.

    I wish the Apostle Paul was here today to write a letter to you and others like you showing the err of your ways.

    In regards to the comparison of racism to anti-homosexualism, you are way off base. The Bible never says that slavery is okay. It says that the servants should obey their masters, but it never tells anyone to go out and buy more slaves. That was the basis for the argument in favor of slavery in the US.

    This current issue is completely different. The Bible expressly forbids homosexuality and the practice thereof. But, of course, like so many of today's "reverends" you are only for love, peace, and harmony, while the Bible never tells us to retain peace at the cost of scriptural authority. I really feel sorry for you.

    Of course, then again, I really can't blame you. It is an affect of sin that is the reason you can't understand the scriptures, that is until the day God finally reveals their truths to you. If and when that day comes for you, I will be the first one to shake your hand. But, until that day comes, I can not stress enough how grievously wrong you are. :(

    Prayerfully,

    Bro. James
     
  15. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Oh Joshua, oh Joshua......

    Diane
     
  16. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Diane,

    I'm very serious here. All of the "bondage" rhetoric makes sense until you actually start ministering alongside GLBT Christians. Then all of the harsh comments about the inherent evils of homosexuality stop making sense.

    Joshua
     
  17. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Yes I have. I use the Bible as my 'test' criteria. What part of 'thou shalt not' do you not get?

    Diane
     
  18. Elnora

    Elnora
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    8,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rev. Joshua you said:

    But we are not talking about bondage or transitory pleasures here. We're talking about love and lifetime commitments, and all of the beautiful, life-enriching experiences that come from sharing your life intimately with another
    person.

    Actually we are, talking about pleasure in sin. God did not create a man for a man or woman for woman. All through the bible you see man & woman, husband & wife. Christ & his bride. Nowhere can you find in scripture where a lifelong commitment is allowed in same sex.

    In a time when sex was a way to express one's property rights and homosexuality was associated with ritual prostitution; a prohibition against it might make sense. It does not make sense in this context.

    God's purpose for sex was not to show ones property rights. That is what man may have done. Sex in the marriage bed is undefiled. He defines that between man & woman.
    Again there is not one scripture that supports that notion. He never said sex between two "committed lovers". Where in God's word does it say no ritual prostitution allowed, but homosexual sex is allowed if you aren't a temple prostitue? Not one scripture.



    The article attempt to reverse the traditional civil rights argument about homosexuality, but it doesn't fly. In a worldview that we no longer hold, it was acceptable to own people and to denigrate them because of their ethnicity. The Bible was used to defend that worldview. The same is true now of sexual orientation.

    God created mankind (Human) ie. Man, Wo-Man, remember woman came from man, in his image. The slave masters used the argument that blacks weren't fully human, justifying themselves. I suspect their underlying reason to justify slavery was greed. So to soothe their conscience they had to (in their minds) justify it. As you are in trying to justifying same sex sin.

    It isn't about civil rights.I don't believe we should "own" homosexuals either, you are comparing apples to oranges here.



    It's not a complex argument,
    Joshua

    Your right in that it is not a complex argument. It is pretty simple. Again, you cannot support from scripture a relationship based on committment, that allows for condoning sin. You certainly cannot from scripture, show where God ever allowed same sex anything, let alone commitment. He calls it unnatural and an abomination. I know you are not handicapped mentally, you are deceived Joshua.
     
  19. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    310
    As noted in my post on the first page, this thread has a special two page limit. We are interested in shedding light not heat on this forum. So, on that note, this thread is closed fortwith.
     

Share This Page

Loading...