Because the original post is about to slip from the main page of the blog, we here provide a link to the archived post, for those who are looking for it.
Making your web surfing easier since 2005, we remain,
Caustically yours,
SWNID
Update: Rumple has posted a rejoinder here. SWNID is not interested in a blogged debate with Rumple, having already labeled further debate on this issue superfluous. And in this hectic academic season, we haven't the time. As we said, that's Gagnon's job, and he's already done it very well.
We will assert, briefly:
- Rumple has mostly missed or avoided our point--too subtly expressed?--that the gospel compels all disciples to restrain certain impulses, some of them quite powerful, leaving those who experience same-sex attraction in the same boat of discipleship as the rest of us sinners.
- That the ancients might not recognize all the nuances of the modern construct "sexuality" does not ipso facto evacuate the theological significance and ethical relevance of the Bible's condemnation of same-sex relations. The illogic of this move (one that first made its way into publication in the 1970s, we recall) is patent.
- Rumple has freely engaged his right to lace his rejoinder with rhetoric that identifies us and any who would agree with our position as closed minded and any who move toward his as Spirit-led. Acknowledging that we have freely engaged our right to our favored rhetoric of haughty scorn, we nevertheless think that Rumple's rhetoric begs the question egregiously (but predictably).
- Rumple's evaluation of the people of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement is different from ours. He finds them insulated and uninformed on this issue. We find them pretty well informed, certainly at least as informed as most Christians of any denominational or nondenominational identity. And so while the overt condescension that we adopt as the style of this blog is playful and--we hope--mildly amusing to some, we expect that his subtle condescension is sincere and will be off-putting to most.
- This issue isn't about whether people of homosexual orientation should be allowed openly to minister in the church. It's about whether homosexual practice is morally acceptable for any Christian. Rumple obfuscates this point. Homosexuals have properly ministered in the church in every generation--while not acting on their desires and probably with as much "openness" as anyone exercises about his or her most powerful impulses toward actions he or she believes to be wrong.
- We are most hurt by his insinuation that our response was typical of many that he has received. We fancied that it was by far the wittiest. We are humiliated by our apparent banality.
We don't know the details of JBC's handling of his situation; we don't want to know the details. We certainly think that any situation can be handled better than it was. Hindsight and all that.
But from what we've read, we understand that Rumple did not simply conceal his experience of same-sex attraction but his established, ongoing sexual relationship with a person of the same sex. JBC, we assume, prohibits sexual activity outside of monogamous, heterosexual marriage, not the experience of same-sex attraction as such. We also know the administration and faculty of JBC to be, as we said, understanding, patient, humble and loving--exceptionally so, in fact--not to mention much better informed and more thoughtful and reflective than Rumple allows.
So when Rumple insinuates that anyone merely revealing same-sex attraction would be summarily dismissed at JBC, we doubt it. But in any case, that's not what happened with him.
3 comments:
the sticky part about all of this isnt our theology on homosexuality as sin. or its mention of in the bible. its so easy to preach truth when its not staring at you from the eyes of another human being. as ministers of the gospel, its our duty to proclaim truth (for the gospel is the power of God) but what do you do when someone claims wholeheartedly its how they were born? or they need this relationship or they die? or why is fair that i should repress who i am? now i am not asking for answers to these questions, i know them and am confident in my response to them. however, it is just much much more difficult to deal with when you are actually dealing with people. on one hand, i pity this guy and feel compassion for his hurt. and on the other i am annoyed and outraged at his actions because of how fruitless they are.
"Now if only we gentle readers can find a way to convince SWNID to stop campaigning for a candidate who will try to force homosexual values upon an unwilling and mostly secular public. Alas, sometimes the victories are small."
It's not the Christian's job to legislate his or her morality in the political realm. It is however the Christian's responsibility to try their best to live out his or her morality, and work to change the individual who is struggling with habitual sin; whether that sin be homosexuality, pornography, alcohol addiction, gambling, etc... Granting gays the right to marry, or staying with the status quo will not solve the problem. The problem will only be solved when Christians, under the cloak of humility, seek to love the sinner. Throughout the Gospels Jesus takes great strides to avoid sounding political. He does however help the individual conquer sin on his or her own accord. He forgives those who come humbly, asking for the Creator's forgiveness. He says to the sinner "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light", and then gives the commandment to "go and sin no more". This is why I find it silly that we, as evangelicals, sometimes think we can legislate our morality. A morality, mind you, that none of us can live up to. Pushing our values through congress, while neglecting the individual, is a cheap and vulgar display of both grace and power.
"It's not the Christian's job to legislate his or her morality in the political realm. It is however the Christian's responsibility to try their best to live out his or her morality, and work to change the individual who is struggling with habitual sin; whether that sin be homosexuality, pornography, alcohol addiction, gambling, etc... "
Fiona was not suggesting that Rudy legislate his morality(christian or otherwise) in the poltical realm. In fact, her comments point in the opposite direction.
What she is trying to do is enccourage SWNID not to(in his own words) pimp his conservative by supporing a potential presidential candidate who is not a wise chice for conservatives.
Dave is correct when he says that as Christians we are called to show love to sinners. But that does not mean that we do not confront them about their sin; we need to make sure that we do in love though.
Post a Comment