…There are arguments for why traditional views of sexual morality should be rejected \u201d\u201d utilitarian arguments, phenomenological arguments, arguments from cultural progress, and so forth. But decades ago I discovered that the theological arguments in favor of a complete reversal of Christian condemnations of homosexual acts involve eviscerating the Christian faith.<\/p>\n
Consider this: Unbelievers have been marginalized by the Church. But wait, Jesus reaches out to the marginalized. Therefore, so should we, not to transform them, but to affirm them in their unbelief. To do so will require some changes, not the least of which is any requirement of belief for membership in the church.<\/p>\n
You might think this is absurd, but beginning in the 1990s, the argument for inclusion precipitated a movement among Episcopal Church progressives to reject the requirement of baptism for participation in the Eucharist. After all, such a requirement \u201cexcludes,\u201d\u009d while Jesus\u2019 love \u201cincludes.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n
Closely related are invidious contrasts between Jewish \u201clegalism\u201d\u009d and Jesus\u2019 universal embrace, contrasts Campolo hints at in his posting. By this way of thinking, any principle, any rule, any judgment (or at least the ones a progressive does not like) are categorized as Pharisaical. End game: authoritative doctrine, even the canon of scripture, must be condemned as \u201clegalistic.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n