As an Episcopalian, [Bryan] Thompson sees Beloved Son, a group sponsored by Holy Trinity on Folly Road, as reckless and wrong.
“I think what infuriates me most about this is that in no way does this program allow gay and lesbian individuals to celebrate their love for God and their lives together,” he said.
The implication, Thompson and other gays fear, is that they need to be fixed, that they in fact, can be fixed.
At the issue’s base is a familiar question: If you’re gay, are you going to hell?
To Thompson, studying to be a theologian through a program sponsored by the University of the South, the answer is easy: No.
“To me,” he said, “the great tragedy in programs like Beloved Son is that they set God and sexuality as opposing forces.”
The matter is decidedly thornier, particularly for individuals such as the Rev. Peter Mitchell, rector of Holy Trinity and director of Beloved Son. He believes homosexuality to be a sin.
[blockquote]At the issue’s base is a familiar question: If you’re gay, are you going to hell?[/blockquote]
I would agree with Thompson on this question, phrased as it is. Being gay doesn’t mean one is destined to commit the sin of homosexual sodomy, any more than being heterosexual means one is deterministically destined to commit adultery. Yet the commission of either is most definitely a sin and, left unrepented, will doom one’s soul.
“The great tragedy in programs like Beloved Son is that they set God and sexuality as opposing forces.”
Mr. Thompson is wrong. God and sexuality are not opposing forces. God and sin are, however. Is Mr. Thompson familiar with that concept?
Who says Jesus didn’t die for homosexuals too? Jesus saves, all us miserable sinners. I learned just this Sunday that He even ate dinner at a tax collector’s house. Can you imagine?
The opposition of self-identified gays to programs in which they are not forced to participate says a great deal about them, though very little about the programs.
The columnist, Rob Young, needs some direction in his writing about this “subject.”
First, we try to point out that the problem is HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY or BEHAVIOR, [b]NOT[/b] homosexuality.
Second (not quite so important!) he needs to check out the use of the terms “Episcopal” and “Episcopalian.”
A newspaper person should be more thorough if he wants to write opinions–and that’s just what this is.
Moreover, I find it amusing that Barry Thompson and David Williams come off–to me, at least–as “pouting” over the presence of the “Beloved Son” program in their area. They don’t like it to be sure. And as Sir Jonathan Sachs wrote in his article on multiculturalism [url=http://www…]timesonline.co.uk/booksfirst[/url] (I actually picked it up here one day last week!), “Opponents are demonised. Ever-new “isms†are invented to exclude ever more opinions.”
So Thompson and Williams don’t like the present of “Beloved Son” in their community. Instead of simply ignoring it and recognizing that someone else may want it and benefit from it, they call it evil and claim it is hurting their essence. But I note that neither of them is ever FORCED to “endure” attending the program!
[blockquote]At the issue’s base is a familiar question: If you’re gay, are you going to hell?[/blockquote]
The fact is we are all going to hell, unless we accept Jesus as our savior and repent from our sinful behavior, whatever that is. Although we will stumble, as Christians we need to follow God’s commandments. See I John chs. 1 and 2.
[blockquote] It’s viewed as reparative therapy or conversion therapy, methods aimed at changing gay, lesbian and bisexuals’ orientations to heterosexual. [/blockquote]
Where does it say in the bible that you need therapy to overcome a sinful nature? I think they are looking to psychology for the answers. They would do better to look to Jesus. The only way I have found to even start changing my sinful nature is to worship Jesus. Its in worship that the relationship is found. And its in the relationship that our hearts start to change. And when the heart starts changing, the sinful nature starts to change.
One of my biggest mistakes early on the Christian road was to try and change that sinful nature myself and through psychology. You can’t do it yourself…. He must increase, we must decrease.
Lesson 1: Admit you got it wrong.
Lesson 2: Admit you can’t fix it yourself.
It took me a long time to learn those 2 lessons.
But this is precisely here the issue needs to be joined: Is there something inherently wrong with homosexuality or homosexual behavior? If there is, then what precisely is the “wrongness”? If there is not, then it must be called normal. If so called, how can this fit on the distributive curve which defines normality? LM
Larry, God created me with a nature that seems to predispose me toward adultery. Since God makes no mistakes, I cannot find any “wrongness” in what God did. But that is not the end of the story.
God also created me with an ability to choose what my behavior will be. He also graciously revealed his will, in his word, that adultery is wrong in his eyes. Armed with that information, the precise “wrongness” of adulterous behavior is that God has said it is wrong.
In the above, you may take a wide number of issues, including homosexual behavior, and substitute it for the word ‘adultery’, and the statements will still be true.
Normality and distributive curves are irrelevant. The entire population of Canaan was behaving wrongly. In spite of this distributive curve, and because of their behavior, God promised Moses that the land of Canaan would vomit them out.
Why is it wrong? God said so. Simple.
RoyIII, Jesus saves all us miserable sinners who repent and turn to him. As my Bishop, Barry Beisner (not the favorite of conservatives on T19 even though we love him here in N.Cal), preached recently, Zaccheus needed to face the fact that life in Jesus would turn his life upside-down, and among other things require a career change. Shaking down your countrymen for the oppressive empire and for your own pocket is not consistent with following Jesus. Jesus always ate with tax collectors (and other of what we might call notorious sinners). But to follow him, few would be able to continue as they were. Some would say the same for GLBT folks. I don’t know, but use your examples carefully. The modern notion that Jesus was a free-for-all, anything-goes hippie just doesn’t hold water. He was radical, and revolutionary, but not the way many modern folks would think or accept.
9, you misread what I meant, but that’s because I wasn’t clear. I simply meant tht the issue has to be faced directly: Is homosexuality inherently wrong. Now, the Bible is clear about this. You and I are not in disagreement. But the rest of the country, churches and all, are by no means in agreement with you, so the question must be posed as a set of alternatives. If the country decides that homosexuality is not inherently wrong, then it must conclude that it is inside the definition of normal – hence my reference to the distributive curve and the problems therewith.
For my part (once again) I say that homosexuality is a severe handicap, that it clearly is under the federal guideliines for a handicap and that it should be treated (in the civil world) that way. I really don’t see how this can be faulted. But the view of our church remains unaltered, regardless of what other churches or the civil world decides.LM
Larry, thank you for your reply. I agree that our civil and religious answers must be differentiated. We live in a constitutional democracy, where the views of the majority are determinative, and the rights of the minority are protected. If a majority of the civil community decides that same sex unions are a ‘right’ (which it appears the civil community may already have done), then it is obligated to protect that right.
As a democracy, we are moving toward an elevation of the status for ‘civil unions’ to equate it with traditional marriage. Our government has the right (and perhaps even the obligation) to do so. As a religious people, we must distinguish and separate ourselves, with a new focus and emphasis on the true meaning and purpose of [i]Christian[/i] marriage.
The Episcopal (Anglican) church has in its DNA the concept of a ‘state’ or ‘national’ church with its functions comingled with the functions of civil government. We inherited this from Constantine in the third century. Even the word ‘parish’ connotes a civil jurisdiction rather than a Christian congregation.
We will be ready to be first- and second-century Christians when we are ready to admit that we do not live in a Christian nation, and do not expect our members to be ‘normal’. We are inexorably approaching a point in Western culture when one can no longer be both ‘normal’ and Christian.
You are right, we have come to a place where we say either conform to the teachings of Christianity OR conform to the world, but not both/and.
This is a conflict the Church has realized since day one when Peter was thrown before the Sanhedrian and ordered to stop preaching in the name of Jesus. His response:
Who should I obey? God or you?
Or response:
Who should we obey? God or the state? I choose God.
blast.
[b]OUR[/b] response:
Whom should we obey? God or the state?
I choose God.