When it came my turn to speak, I remembered the following story, told me by members of our African refugee congregation in Rennes, Brittany, France:
During the height of the genocide in Rwanda, a Hutu militia patrol stopped at a village, populated mostly by Hutus but with several Tutsi families as well. “Bring out your Tutsis,” said the militia commander. “We know from others that you have Tutsis living among you.” The Hutu villagers refused. “If you do not give them up, you will die with them.” “How can we give them up?” they asked. “We are one in Christ.”
You can imagine what happened next.
As I told this story, I finished by saying, “There are many here who say, ”˜I am Tutsi, you are Hutu,’ ”˜I am for gays, you are against gays.’ But we must first be one with those martyred sisters and brothers, one in Christ first, or we cannot be his disciples.
No, no, no, Bishop Whalon. Conservatives are not arguing that people with SSA should be killed. That’s the Islamic sharia. Nor is SSA in the same category as being born male, female, Hutu, Tutsi, or Swedish.
If he truly was “for gays”, he would want these PERSONS to be whole and well in Christ, not condemned to wallow in the quicksand of their warped sexuality. The inability to separate the person, whom God loves and we are also called to love, from their sexual proclivity is a major flaw in the “liberal” argument.
[blockquote]“How can we give them up?†they asked. “We are one in Christ.â€
You can imagine what happened next.[/blockquote]
This, of course, is of the essence of Christian love. It is a litmus test– maybe even THE litmus test?– of true Christian teaching and religious practice.
Here in the United States we have widely disparate teaching and religious practices contending in the Church. They are increasingly mutually exclusive. We have to choose.
Which teachings and which practices pass the litmus test above? An honest man must admit: it can be difficult sometimes to say. But we have at least two clues, the first analytical and the second synthetic:
1. Teachings and practices sounding in radical autonomy of the self seem unlikely to yield the fruit described above.
2. The teachings and practices of the Christians in the story apparently [i]do[/i] yield the fruit described above.
Science has not been able to show conclusivly that homosexuality is an inborn or genetic trait. So, it still ranks as a behavior. From what I understand, the APA, (American Psychiatric Assoc.) is revisiting their decision to leave homosexuality out of the diagnosis listing. Until such time as it is conclusivly proven otherwise, that is all it is, behavior. You can not equate that to race, gender, nationality etc. Christians do not hate gays, they have empathy for them and wish them the fullness of God’s grace that comes after repentance, like it does for all sinners. This is called tough love sometimes. To say otherwise makes a mockery of Christianity, which is unfortunately what many liberals do with their all inclusiveness that requires no change or repentance.
[blockquote]From what I understand, the APA, (American Psychiatric Assoc.) is revisiting their decision to leave homosexuality out of the diagnosis listing…[/blockquote]
Where did you hear that??!
I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Bishop Whalon,
Why are you “one in Christ” with us, yet have so little regard for what we consider to be of utmost importance? What is it that you can ignore the counsel of the whole Church to have your way? Is it worth splitting the Church to bless same sex unions?
How can you claim to follow the Incarnate Word and yet ignore what the Church has said about the Word of God written? Why is TECUSA so willful and obstinate about this issue?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#4 . No, science has shown no such thing. Science has searched and searched and been unable to find a genetic marker for homosexuality.
Let us assume SOME is, however, for the sake of argument. It is also true that SOME is not, but is circumstantial, the homosexuality of prisons, the old navies, the native male societies wherein homosexuality is part of indoctrination, and even, I note, the homosexuality of boys who have been brought up by homosexuals, for the date I h ave seen – very limited indeed it is – says that such boys are significantly more likely to engage in homosexual acts. Circumstantial and cultural homosexuality is common enough; what you won’t do is admit it.
You are attempting to argue: It cannot be a sin because I cannot help myself. My will is not free and therefore I should not be punished for the choices. I won’t finish this. This specious argument has been countered often enough here. LM