Is that really the case?
For me the recent furore surrounding the appointment of an openly gay minister in the Church of Scotland showed one thing loud and clear.
This is not a point about whether the guy should be a minister or not, at all. That is a seperate discussion. But reading the article I was concerned by the following quote.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland said it was "delighted" with the result. Spokeswoman Alyson Thomson, said: "The Church of Scotland General Assembly has tonight set out a clear stall - it is a modern church for a modern Scotland.
"The commission is delighted that the church has, as Scott Rennie requested, taken an honest look at itself over the issue of sexuality and decided that the values of fairness, equality, dignity and respect are of more worth than those of ignorance and intolerance. "We are certain that this decision will be welcomed by the majority of Scots and certainly the majority of Queen's Cross parish in Aberdeen who overwhelmingly demonstrated their support for Mr Rennie."
It is interesting that they were called in to pronounce their "blessing" on events. Am I right in thinking that the "moral compass" in this article is an unelected secular government-appointed QUANGO?
Is the traditional evangelical position regarding practicing homosexuality now officially "ignorant and intolerant" in the eyes of government?
7 comments:
Yes.
But then we could ask. with humility, whether 'traditionally' evangelicals have actually been "ignorant and intolerant" of homosexuals.
But that's a different (and more difficult) question.
and the answer would also be, "yes"
I think it would be safer to say that 'some' Evangelicals, rather than the implication that 'all' fall into that category.
Also, surely there is also a difference between homosexuals who are unsaved and homosexuals who are claiming to be Christian and therefore calling their sin 'good', which should of course be condemned.
The unsaved homosexual is no different to any other unsaved sinner in regard to evangelism and reaching out and all that the Bible requires in those areas.
The homosexual who claims to be Christian and that the Bible and God supports their sin and that therefore there is nothing wrong in what they do needs to be stood against in the same way as any other heresy.
which should of course be condemned
*of course*
Yeah, kind of reinforced my point there. Nice use of the word 'heresy' too.
Would you care to be more specific about your disagreement Jongudmund?
And yes "of course", for they are calling sin good and exceptable.
If you don't see the irony in the way you wrote what you wrote in a thread about Christians appearing to be intolerant, I don't think I can really explain it to you.
That all depends on what we are being intolerant about and how we go about it.
Jesus was very intolerant of the Pharisees and their false piety, again (in part) they were claiming to be of God, but displayed the opposite (to put it simply)
Are you accusing the Lord Jesus of wrong behaviour because of His intolerence?
You have completely ignored the reasoning I laid out in my comment above which would seem to imply that you have no good answer to it.
Post a Comment