He is separating his people from those who are not his people. I have been writing about this. It's sloppy Christianity couched in terms of unity and ecumenicalism. The only true ecumenicalism is those who are his, who revere his name above the opinions of men, those who will cling to Jesus before the name that is on their church door.
As a fundamental full Bible Believing (Genesis to Maps) pentecostal (I don't know how else to define myself) I find myself in more spiritual unity with Conservative Catholics, Conservative Anglicans, Conservative (not confessional) Lutherans and of course many other very conservative groups in evangelical and pentecostal circles than I do with most so called evangelical and mainline churches. They have drifted somewhere I will not go.
The Conservative Bible Believing Christians from these groups seem to gravitate to the same voices I do. We are hearing God speak thru his servants. To hear a Catholic Priest confirm the word of the Lord from Bob Jones is a wonder to behold. It seems like we are all coming into a convergence that is a miracle. Maybe it is because we are so hated by the world and by compromising evangelicals.
Everyone seems to be a theologian now. Particularly the left. They seem to be ready to "Instruct" the rest of us miscreant Christians who actually READ and BELIEVE the Bible cover to cover. Even if it's amusing, for those of you who want to actually reach your culture, being like them is not the way to do it. Stand for something. Rise up. Wake up.
For evidence of this look at the comments from this post about Rick Warren:
In an interview tonight on Dateline NBC, Ann Curry asks Rick Warren if he is homophobic. He laughs a little obnoxiously in response, which seems to tick Ann off. She then asks him if he would change his position on homosexuality if science were to find it was "natural." He responded with this: "No, and the reason why is because we all have biological predispositions. I’m naturally incline to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn’t mean its the right thing to do." As NB notes, check out Ann’s facials in immediate response to this answer.
Of course the "Theological Left" immediately resorts to the three Sunday school classes they ever attended at the insistence of their parents and the 4 posts on religion they ever read on the internet to give these kinds of "Insights" (my responses in RED):
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That leaves out Rick Warren. Lust is a sin, so Rick Warren is a sinner.
YEP, so are you buddy. We all are. So, let the stone casting begin, read on.The problem with this answer is that Warren seems to be confusing the issue of promiscuity, with one’s sexual orientation.
The Bible, of course, prohibits sexual promiscuity–for anybody. The law nowadays does not; whether or not this is a good thing, consenting adults in the United States are generally permitted to do whatever they like in bed. The exceptions to this resolve around things like prostitution and incest; neither of which are controversies at the moment, and neither of which have to do with sexual orientation.
However, Warren nonetheless has an “outlet” for his natural dispositions–while his faith prohibits him from playing the field; he can find a woman, marry her, and have a fulfilling relationship with her, including sexually.
His interpretation of his faith, however, denies that choice to gays and lesbians–for them, it seems, the only two permissible choices are either a) celibacy, or b) a straight marriage, which may well be unfulfilling to the gay person, and manifestly unfair to his/her spouse.
As a “biblical answer”, Ericka, many people will not wish to accept it–starting with those who are not Christians. The Qu’ran prohibits the consumption of pork and alcohol; do I care? No, as I am not a Muslim, I am not bound by its strictures. And I would object to any attempt to legislate sharia into our civil law.
Warren is, of course, entitled to his opinions; and I much prefer him to crass bigots and frauds like Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell; but “the bible says so” is almost never a good argument in the sphere of secular politics.
The Bible says so, IS a good argument. And I imagine you developed an opinion about Falwell from having watched him all those many years....NOT. And, about NATURAL DISPOSITIONS. They do NOT include sodomy. That is imposed or learned. But that's just my opinion,,,,, and the BIBLE. IF you are going to instruct regarding theology, it might be good to read and understand the original document.
he’s entitled to choose to believe what he does. the problem comes in when he attempts to shove his lifestyle choice down everyone elses throats, and seeks to codify his lifestyle choices into law.
OH, I see, like the homosexual lobby doesn't SHOVE THEIR LIFESTYLE down my throat. Schools, cities, laws all falling in FAVOR of homosex. Stove calling kettle black.“It’s a simple biblical answer that opponents cannot seem to accept.”
No, it’s not a simple Biblical answer. Picking out isolated verses about “sodomy” - what’s the Hebrew word for ’sodomy’? Greek? How were those words understood in millenia past? - is not a “simple answer.” If a couple odd lines from Leviticus and Paul are a simple answer, then I’m going to have to start keeping my wife and daughter in a tent in the backyard for a few days every month. Because that’s what the Bible says I have to do.
OK, Bibleboy. Why don't you actually study the word. There are a couple dozen strong and clear oppositions to the homosexual lifestyle. But that doesn't matter to you. You have no idea what you are talking about in your reference to the tent.
Rick Warren just does not get it. He is ignorant. A person who is born with an homosexual sexual orientation has just as much a right to marry their same sex partner as heterosexuals have the right to marry.
Sorry, getting IT is asking me to embrace, accept, celebrate and applaud your rebellious open SIN. Not going there and neither should Rick Warren. There is so much wrong with your premise I'll just leave it there.
Why is someone so ignorant re: sexual orientation going to be playing such a high profile role at the inauguration of the President that I fought so had to get elected?
I respect and honor President Elect Obama even more....
Oh, and one other thing, Am I supposed to agree with your assessment of his being ignorant? Nope didn't think so.
I’m not sure why Christians allow themselves to get tangled up in this stuff. We are simply never going to convince the non-believers of the world that restraint has it’s own virtue.
They see restraint only in pragmatic terms, how can there be a meaningful meeting of the minds on this?
This is most likely written by some inclusionist new evangelical that thinks to reach the world we have to be just like them. WOW. That's what this post is all about.
Warren suggests that gay people must “restrain themselves” far above and beyond what straight people must do. If he were denouncing bathhouse culture, I’d have little objection to what he has to say; there are valid reasons to dislike widespread promiscuity.
But he seems to think that the sexual choices available to gays, should be the same as the choices available to straights: Celibacy, or heterosexual marriage. The former is a big sacrifice for anyone to make–outside the priesthood, I don’t know of any adults who are celibate by choice (I know so-called “asexuals” exist; I’ve just never met one). The latter is not acceptable either–anymoreso than you would accept the suggestion that you should have a same-sex relationship. (I’m assuming, of course, that you are straight and have no desires for such).
If the objection is to sexual promiscuity, then gay marriage is an excellent antidote.
But with Warren, and others, the objection is to homosexuality itself.
YES! Sin is Sin, even if you codify it thru marriage. If you want to live in sin, open rebellion, in my face sin, and you want to take it to court to get a civil contract, that's what laws are for. If not, don't try to make what you do seem good or nice. It's not.
But what is sex for?
Pleasure?
Or only for reproduction?
The dystopian sociatey portrayed George Orwell’s 1984 took the latter position, despite having no use for any sort of religion apart from worship of the State itself. The act of lovemaking was feuphemistically called “doing one’s duty to the State”, if my recollection is correct. Much of Catholic theology seems to have reached a similar conclusion–that sex is an innately evil act that is sometimes mitigated by the need of mankind to reproduce.
Other orthodox religious traditions, including other Abrahamic religions, take a different view; holding essentially that married couples can do whatever they want to in bed, for whatever reason they like. Both Hinduism and Islam, which often demand more from their adherents in the name of propriety than does Christianity, make no attempt to restrict the bedroom of the married couple. And even among Christians, as you note, the notion that sex is only for copulation is widely disputed.
In a framework where sex is only intended for copulation, then lots of things, including homosexual sex, can be denounced as evil. But outside that framework–the case becomes far weaker.
At any rate, it is one thing to preach, to advise, to encourage the faithful. It is another to make commands of others, especially when those others may not share the same moral code as you to begin with.
I agree that you do NOT share the same moral code. I won't preach to you. But, the writers and comments on this blog have preached to the believers in the church and sadly some of them have now bought the lie. They are called New Evangelicals. Exposure is needed. I'm doing my part.
No comments:
Post a Comment