Midweek Meditation: "On Homosexuality" (Hot Potato #2)

(Word Publishing, 1998)

TITLE: 20 Hot Potatoes Christians are Afraid to Touch (Paperback) - Common
PUBLISHER: Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1998, (240 pages).

"I am not asking that Christian people gloss over biblical teachings or ignore their conviction that homosexual acts are sin. I am not asking that we make a case to justify homosexual behavior. I am simply reminding Christian people that we are supposed to love people - even those people who offend us. I am calling on Christians to reach out and show kindness and affection toward their homosexual neighbors. If we Christians cannot love these neighbors as we love ourselves, then we are violating the command of Jesus (Matt 19:19) and ought to cease calling ourselves His followers. Loving people is more than trying to generate some mushy sentimental emotions. Loving is a commitment to treating people as Jesus would treat them if He were in our places." (Tony Campolo, "Does Christianity Have Any Good News For  Homosexuals?" p109)

"It is very important that all of us distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. Homosexual orientation is an inclination to desire sexual intimacy with members of the same sex. Homosexual behavior is 'making love' or seeking sexual gratification through physical interaction with members of the same sex. The first is desire. The second is action. The first is temptation. The second is yielding to temptation." (110)

"Please remember that I do think that homosexual behavior is contrary to the will of God. But I do not think the Scripture should be made to speak in ways which are not in accord with how it was intended to speak in order to make my case. It is too easy for any of us out of intense emotion to use Scripture in inexact ways to affirm what we believe to be right or to condemn what we believe to be wrong. While there is no doubt in my mind that homosexual behavior has always been unacceptable to Christians, I find it interesting to note that the New Testament does not give as much space or attention to this sin as it does to others, such as neglect of the poor or lack of love for others. Actually, Jesus never alludes to homosexuality in His teachings. The fact that homosexuality has become such an overriding concern for many contemporary preachers may be more a reflection of the homophobia of the church than it is the result of the emphasis of Scripture." (115)

Midweek Meditation: "Answering the Challenge of AIDS" (Hot Potato #1)

(Word Publishing, 1998)

Two thousand years ago, when Jesus was physically present among us, He reached out to lepers. He touched the untouchables. He showed special compassion toward those who had been treated in such a cruel manner by the people around them. His willingness to lovingly lay hands on those who society deemed unclean should set an example for all of us who sing, "I Would Be Like Jesus."

There are some notable examples of Christians who have heeded the challenge which the victims of AIDS have posed for us all. In San Diego, there is a lovely Christian woman who has organized her church friends to start a hospice for those who are dying of AIDS. Realizing that AIDS victims need special love and care which may not readily be available, she has gotten together both the material and the human resources to provide a place where AIDS patients can live out their last days in the context of Christian love. What better way to witness for Christ than to touch the untouchables and to care for those whom the world rejects? What better opportunity to tell the story of God's salvation through Jesus Christ than as good Samaritans?

I believe the AIDS epidemic has provided Christians with a unique opportunity. We have always claimed to "hate the sin and love the sinner" - here is our chance to show them that we love them. By setting up hospices and serving the thousands who are expected to die as a consequence of this disease, we can demonstrate that we are people who love not only in word, but also in deed - which is what true love always does. (Tony Campolo, "How Do We Answer the Challenge of AIDS?" p17)

BookPastor >> "What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality?" (Kevin DeYoung)

This review was first published at Panorama of a Book Saint on April 20th, 2015.

conrade

---

TITLE: What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?
AUTHOR: Kevin DeYoung
PUBLISHER: Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers, 2015, (160 pages).

Many people claim that the Bible speaks specifically about homosexuality by simply quoting the few popular verses. Not many offer to begin by asking the fundamental question, "What does the Bible really teach about everything?" This is what author and pastor, Kevin DeYoung did. He goes back to the beginning of creation, the Fall, the land, the temple, the coming Messiah, and the expectant future of a new heaven and new earth. He points out that the Bible is not about God giving us a lecture about homosexuality. Rather, it is learning to see what the Bible really focus on before we even talk about homosexuality. Having said that, he makes this statement about the book, that it is a "Christian book, with a narrow focus, defending a traditional view of marriage." In other words, DeYoung is writing from a Christian point of view. He is exploring the way the Bible verses talk about homosexuality. It is about defending the traditional view of marriage as between a man and a woman. Aware of the contentious subject, he addresses three groups of potential readers. The first group is the already convinced where he aims to remind them to argue respectfully and appropriately. This means learning to recognize one's sinfulness and imperfections too. The second group are the skeptics or contentious, where he hopes will argue strictly on biblical grounds rather than on charged up emotions. The third group are the confused or those who just do not know how to respond.

BookPastor >> "Counter Culture" (David Platt)

This review was first published at Panorama of a Book Saint on March 18th, 2015.

conrade

---

TITLE: Counter Culture: A Compassionate Call to Counter Culture in a World of Poverty, Same-Sex Marriage, Racism, Sex Slavery, Immigration, Abortion, Persecution, Orphans and Pornography
AUTHOR: David Platt
PUBLISHER: Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2015, (288 pages).

We are living in a culture where popular opinion speaks louder than truth. So says pastor and author of this new book about countering the cultural forces and principalities of today. Without guidance, many Christians are unwittingly letting their silence be a sign of weakness that they are indifferent to the major social issues of today. In fact, Platt takes to task those Christians who are lopsided in their lobbying, shouting on some issues but ignoring other equally if not more important matters. Sometimes, when Christians are being slammed by non-Christians for taking a biblical stand, the rest of the Christian community remain largely silent for fear of being slammed as well. In preferring to take a nonchalant posture, one asks where then is Christian conviction? Where is the courage to speak up? Where is the compassion to work through those victims of social injustice?

The nine issues highlighted are poverty, same-sex marriage, racism, sex slavery, immigration, persecution, abortion, orphans, and pornography. On Poverty, Platt was shocked to see the seriousness of cholera, and other debilitating diseases that the poor were unable to get treatment due to the lack of money. Contrast that with the wealthy part of the world that seems to turn a blind eye to the needs of the poor. The gospel is clear. We are called to do our part to distribute and share the wealth we have with those in need, and not to hoard it for our own consumption. For God, through Jesus has been extravagant in his time and care for the poor and needy. Why are we not following Christ's example? We are then called to live simply, give sacrificially, help constructively, and invest eternally. On Abortion, we need to avoid seeing it as a political issue but a biblical one. For life is sacred. Platt calls abortion a modern holocaust where 42 million unborn babies are terminated each year. He claims that abortion is an "affront to God's sole and sovereign authority" as Creator. Who gives man the right to kill? How can we terminate the creation of God in such a manner? Who gives us the right to determine which baby to live and which to die? He tackles some popular objections like free choice, privacy, and selfish motives.

BookPastor >> "Spiritual Friendship" (Wesley Hill)

This review was first published at Panorama of a Book Saint.

conrade

---

TITLE: Spiritual Friendship: Finding Love in the Church as a Celibate Gay Christian
AUTHOR: Wesley Hill
PUBLISHER: Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2015, (160 pages).

Must all relationships be sexual in one way or another? Is there a place for celibacy in the modern debate over homosexuality? Can there be genuine friendships without any sexual connotations?More importantly, is there a place for friendship in spite of one's sexual orientation? According to Wesley Hill who is celibate and also gay, the answer is yes. In this book about spiritual friendship, Hill attempts to show us that friendship is "the freest, the least constrained, the least fixed and determined, of all human loves" and "entirely voluntary, uncoerced, and unencumbered by any sense of duty or debt."  He believes that friendship must stand alone and above all kinds of opinions or prejudices. He sees Simon bearing Jesus' cross as "an icon of friendship." He separates the idea of sexual attraction from the development of true spiritual friendship. Having done that, he moves toward distilling the essence of spiritual friendship based on acceptance, grace, and love. Hill believes that the gospel says "No" to same-sex relationships but "Yes" to spiritual friendship that is not necessarily sexual in any way. This sets him on a path to finding out love as a celibate and spiritual friendship without sexual implications.

"Five Myths of Gay Marriage"

Today, I received an email about an impending court decision tomorrow in California for two cases on gay marriage. Many people will already know how courts, religious groups, and many communities around the world are grappling with both the pros and cons of gay marriage. As the issues are complex and wide-ranging, we often need to be reminded how myths can cloud reality. Pastor Rick McDaniel of Richmond Community Church in Richmond, VA has recently written about "Five Myths of Gay Marriage." In this article, I will briefly summarize what McDaniel has said. I will then give some of my comments on that.

Myth #1 - "Anyone Against Gay Marriage is Homophobic"

RM: "This message is completely false and highly offensive to people of faith."

I agree that this statement is false. It is highly unfair to put an equal sign to say that anyone who disagree with gay marriage is a gay-hater, or homophobic person. Such an equation only reflects a simplistic mindset bent on creating unnecessary tensions. Just because a person dislikes bananas does not mean he hates bananas. In the same light, just because I love coffee does not mean I hate tea.  Having said that, I think we need to recognize that there are "some" who are truly homophobic. Do not let this group taint the entire rest of the public. We need to stand up against people who simply have a personal vendetta against people who have expressed a sexual orientation against same-sex couples. While we can disagree on matters of marital policies, we can still agree that all of us are human beings trying to have a place in this world.

Myth #2 - "It is About Marriage Equality"

RM: "Homosexuals should have all the civil rights that allow them to be in a relationship with another person. They should not be discriminated against and should be treated equally as other groups. But that is not the same thing as being married. Redefining marriage from its historic, traditional understanding is a wholly different enterprise."

Indeed, marriage is a word not to be taken lightly. I have previously argued for a change in terminology, so that we do not confuse the term from the associated rights and privileges. In other words, gays wanting the rights and privileges of marriage should instead use a different word altogether for their unions. Those arguing for traditional marriage have a point here when it comes to preserving the understanding of marriage through the centuries. Can you imagine twisting the word "mother" or "father" to be something else other than our parents? Remove the word "marriage" and call it "civil union" or whatever. For the term "gay marriage" can make a mockery out of what marriage is all about. Those who argue that supporters of traditional marriage stay out of the turf of gay couples seeking civil unions, remember that by using "marriage" in their civil unions, they are already stepping into the turf of traditional marriages. 

Myth #3 - "The Majority of the People are For It"

RM: "What people may say in a poll is different than when they walk into a private booth to cast their vote."

I think we need to be aware that there are groups out there who are trying to influence public opinions. To be fair, I think both groups are guilty of trying to shape public opinion in their favour. I do not pretend not to. I believe in traditional marriage, and I still think the published statistics are more biased than anything.  My suggestion, do not try to generalize. In an age of the Internet, it is very easy to find information. It is even easier to find information that we WANT to find. 

Myth #4 - "It Won't Lead to Other Types of Marriages"

RM: "If you redefine marriage you open a huge door to other types of marriage. It is absurd to argue that people will marry their dog or horse but other marriage arguments can be made."

I am not too sure about this myth, but I concede that there is a possibility. This myth is not as strong, probably because gay marriage matters are still relatively new. So, the jury is still out there with regards to how pervasive a gay marriage will lead to. Again, that does not mean it will never happen. 

Myth #5 - "It is Just Another Kind of Family"

RM: "Only a marriage between a man and a woman can create a child. No same sex relationship can ever procreate."

I am not sure I can agree completely with this. What about adoption? What about surrogate parents? McDaniel's 5th myth is probably the weakest of the five. I know where he is coming from. In order for a child, you need a male and a female before the couple can procreate. However, we live in a society now where many children are born out of wedlock, and some couples do not even want to get married in the first place. What about couples who have fertility issues and cannot conceive?

In summary, I think Pastor Rick McDaniel has made some really good points against any court decision for gay marriage. That said, we must remember that one can win a battle and still lose the war. We need to learn to see beyond the courts toward the basic human longings to connect and to participate in life. While I may disagree with the whole idea of gay marriage, I am sympathetic to the predicament and injustice experienced by same sex couples. For example, I oppose the violence and abuses that some of them have suffered. I am angry at the way some of them have been taunted by some members of the public, or given unfair treatment or vicious labels that degrade them. Whether gay or straight, male or female, or whatever sexual orientation, they are still people of flesh and blood. I think the basic common denominator is our position as basic human beings. Speaking out against the idea of gay marriage does not make one a homophobic. Likewise, speaking for the rights of gay marriage does not make one a gay or gay lover. For to do so either way, makes one way too black and white for an increasingly grey looking world. I love apples, but please do not call me a tomato.

conrade

Two Articles on Homosexuality

If you frequent social media, you will be familiar with this. Hardly a day goes by without some people or some organization somewhere making a statement or two about homosexuality, gay matters, same-sex marriage, and so on. Today is no different. I like to share two articles. The first is a response by the Evangelical Alliance to Steve Chalke's recent statements about him supporting same-sex marriage. The second is written by a respected environmentalist and faith writer, Wendell Berry. I read  Chalke's article and how he forms a "way of grappling with it and, through prayerful reflection, seeking to take it seriously" the biblical teaching on homosexuality. His conclusion is the familiar four-letter word: "LOVE." You can read Steve Clifford's rebuttal here. He argues basically against Chalke's flawed understanding of inclusivity. Essentially, being inclusive does not necessarily mean we MUST accept the gay position on homosexuality.

1) Article #1 - Evangelical Alliance Response to Steve Chalke
In response, the first article is a 2012 report on "Biblical and Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality" published by the Evangelical Alliance in the UK. The full report is available for free for a limited time here. It brings together some of the traditional assertions of faith with regards to Christianity, the Bible, sexuality, and faith.

My Thoughts: Chalke's earnest desire to bring some closure to the event is already destined to fail. In fact, he is doing to homosexuality what Rob Bell has done for Hell in Love Wins. The track taken by Rob Bell is to find a way to seriously grapple with the cruelty of hell that led him to dilute the reality of hell. Likewise, Chalke in trying to make peace with the homosexuality perspective has put himself on the wrong side of compromise. There is a way to love without compromising our own convictions with regards to traditional marriage. Chalke's way is love with compromise. That said, I think it is not a good idea to force anybody's hand as learning to grapple takes time. Perhaps, there is some position more acceptable to all sometime in the future. For the moment, refrain from condemning anyone.

The article by the Evangelical Alliance (UK) is a helpful document for leaders to understand and to revisit what the central tenets of traditional faith say. What it is trying to do is to walk a fine balance with the attitude of "welcoming but not affirming" gay marriage. There are some useful tips in it.

2) Article #2 - Wendell Berry's Statement on Gay Marriage

I came across another writeup today, this time by Wendell Berry, a Kentucky farmer, whose article, "Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer" has some people accusing him of being anti-technology. His article on gay marriage risks himself being accused of supporting homosexuality. Wendell Berry admits that he rarely comments on this matter. He argues not on the basis of whether same-sex marriage per se is wrong but that denying same-sex couples their rights is in itself wrong. Moreover, Berry argues that there are other matters more serious than homosexual deviations. What he is particularly indignant about is that there are some quarters that try to marginalize various groups simply on the basis of homosexual status. He calls, "condemnation by category is the lowest form of hatred."

My Thoughts: Thinking of Wendell Berry's article on gay marriage, I think he has a point that argues for 'rights' and not whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It is the fight for a freedom of choice that he is harping on. In other words, no one must take the moral high ground to enforce people to believe what they do not want to believe. That is what freedom of religion and freedom of expression is all about. I concur, but I want also to add that this freedom must apply to all. Evangelicals have the right to defend and to uphold traditional marriage, even as gay activists insist upon their rights to some same-sex unions.

I look forward to the day when believers on Christ can speak their convictions without being labeled haters of some groups, bigots of some beliefs, or intolerants of various kinds. Those who believe in free speech must respect that. For example, when a person says he believes in traditional marriage, that does not necessarily mean he hates the rest. The same needs to be applied the other way too, that when a homosexual couple asserts their rights to gay marriage, those who oppose this position must not condemn them for their choices. It is a democracy after all. Do not play God. You can state your convictions. You can argue passionately for it. You can also disagree with the homosexual position. That does not mean you can call them names, condemn them, or brand them devilish. Only God has the right and authority to call anyone anything and anyhow.


conrade

Don't Call it Marriage

As the US presidential elections approaches, the fight is increasingly between the incumbent Democrat, Barack Obama, and the Republican representative, Mitt Romney. Both candidates have stirred up controversies of various sorts, of which the most talked-about is their statements on faith matters. Romney's status as a Mormon has brought about arguments for and against the candidacy. Evangelicals from different camps have shared varying opinions about whether Romney is able to represent their religious interests effectively. Now, Obama has jumped into the pot of controversy. This time it is same-sex marriage. Making a statement after the North Carolina ban on same-sex marriage, Obama plays into the sentiments of the same-sex marriage proponents, and very likely to win the votes of this influential group of people, reportedly about 50% of the electoral vote. I am not sure about the numbers, but to me, it is clear that Obama's open support for same-sex marriage is more about votes and less about religious convictions.

I know of friends who are staunchly behind Obama's stand. They are mindful of the ways the LGBT sector have been marginalized through discriminative actions. They are also speaking out to uphold their understanding of democracy where everyone has the right to choose and to adopt whatever lifestyle choices made. In the words of the former Canadian Prime Minister, they will chime with the same melody, that the state is not to pry into matters of the bedroom.

“The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” (Pierre Elliott Trudeau)

Simply put, political decisions are to be de-linked from morality issues. After all, policies of the state affect everyone, while morality matters are more subjective.

I also know of friends who find Obama's stance unbelievable, and lament at the downward spiral of a once great American state that uphold good family values based on basic Christian beliefs. At the crux of the matter is the word "marriage." I believe that the LGBT group is mainly asking for equal rights to be extended to them. It is about the privileges of marriage that they are seeking. It is also about allowing them to choose whatever sexual orientation they want.

How then do we solve the impasse? I believe that as long as the word marriage is wrangled out of its traditional understanding, there will always be controversies. If that is the case, why not keep the marriage word reserved as between a man and a woman? For same-sex couples, choose another word altogether, and then get the state to sanction the word for them. 

I am not here to attack anybody's right to do this or to do that, to argue for or against same-sex matters. I am here to state again marriage (as a word) is between a man and a woman. Those who are same-sex, please do not use the word marriage. Call it legal union, shared relationship, or whatever, so that you can get whatever rights/benefits you want. The reason why same-sex couples are using the word marriage to describe same-sex union is simply because there is no other word so far for them to obtain similar benefits. Why don't we all agree to reserve the legal union between a man and a woman as marriage, while those who are same-sex, go choose to use another word altogether? Once the semantics are dealt with, we can all learn to live and let live without having to dig up this issue every time some leader make an opinion. Regardless of what opinion, it always tend to be divisive.

Here is a list of links that affirms the marriage as between a man and a woman. Credit to Eric Teetsel, executive director of the Manhattan Declaration.

===================

1) What is Marriage?

by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

2) Why I'm Optimistic About Natural Marriage

by Andrew Walker

http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/why-im-optimistic-about-natural-marriage/

3) Why Is Marriage Important? (video)

by John Piper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd3AmKexugM

4) Who Needs Marriage?

by Chuck Colson

http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/colson-files/17606-who-needs-marriage

5) Marriage in Society: The Generation Clash (pps. 47-57)

by Matthew Lee Anderson

http://issuu.com/thecity/docs/thecitywinter2009/47?mode=embed&layout=http://skin.issuu.com/v/light/layout.xml&showFlipBtn=true

6) What Would Bonhoeffer Do?

by Eric Metaxas

http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/call-response/15129-metaxas-what-would-bonhoeffer-do

7) Dennis Prager Debates Perez Hilton on Same-Sex Marriage (Warning: YouTube contains objectionable content)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

8) Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage

by Matthew J. Franck

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/religion-reason-and-same-sex-marriage

9) A Marriage in Full

by Gary A. Anderson

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/04/003-a-marriage-in-full-3

10) On Marriage and the Moral Limits of Human Sexuality

by Metropolitan Jonah

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/metropolitan-jonah-on-marriage-and-the-moral-limits-of-human-sexuality/

Eric Teetsel

Executive Director, Manhattan Declaration

===================


Again, keep marriage clear as legally between a man and a woman. For same sex unions, choose another word altogether. Otherwise, this issue will continue to divide families, societies, and even nations.

conrade

Who is Intolerant Now?

Last weekend, the largest Anglican Church in Canada moved from their decade old location at Nanton Avenue in Vancouver, BC. After taking care of a beautiful cathedral, investing hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours to maintain the place, and polishing the furniture prior to the handover, on Sunday September 25th, they left nearly everything behind. From a place they used to own, they rented another church for Sunday use. From an office within the Church, they rented an office that is off-site from the rented property. From having a permanent location, they now have to worship in a temporary place, completely under the gracious hospitality of their hosts.  This is St John's Vancouver Anglican Church @Oakridge, formerly known as St John's Shaughnessy Anglican Church @Nanton.

It is sad to see this believed Church of God having to move its massive numbers to another location. It is impossible for me to even imagine that any new congregation that gathers in their old place will be filled like before. More likely, the new Church occupying the old Shaughnessy premises will resemble a nice Church shell on the outside, but few people on the inside. Honestly, I do feel upset over the turn of events where majority does not rule. Even though SJV is a larger Church, the law has to stand. This is especially when the laws in Canada are increasingly more supportive homosexuality rights, in an environment that sees a rise in aggressiveness from the gay proponents. There is no level playing field. Regardless of what the law says, in practice, there is shifting playing field that favours the homosexual rights.

Straight vs Gay: Uneven Playing Field

Just think about it. Let me use 'straight' vs 'gay' terminology as an example. A 'straight' is someone who generally supports traditional marriage of one-man-one-woman, and does not support homosexuality teachings. A 'gay' is someone who supports same sex marriages and same sex rights as any marital couple. Suppose a 'gay' is to openly disagree with a 'straight,' the argument will be deemed an exercise of 'freedom of speech.' Suppose a 'straight' is to disagree openly with a 'gay,' the argument will be deemed 'homophobic.'

Why is it 'freedom of speech' when gays disagree, and 'homophobic' when straights disagree? Is that then a level playing field?  I am beginning to wonder who is more intolerant? I am also beginning to see that there are more similarities than differences in terms of human nature. Different in expressions. Similar in human nature. Different in arguments. Similar in sinfulness.

Just take one example. Recently, it was reported that one Cisco employee was fired from his job because of his personal beliefs that run counter to homosexual beliefs. According to the article, Frank Turek was fired when a gay manager did research about Turek online, and upon seeing that Turek is a passionate believer of traditional marriage and family values, complained to Human Resources. In

“I was fired as a vendor by Cisco for my conservative beliefs about sex and marriage even though my beliefs were never expressed on the job,” said Turek, a periodic columnist for the conservative paper Townhall. (quoted from article here)

Heterophobia on the Rise?

If that is true, I think we have seen a change of tide. Homophobic behaviour is no longer the issue. Hetero-phobic is rearing its ugly head. Any demonstration for traditional values will be met by a DOUBLY more aggressive opposite force. Any disagreement by straights will likely be countered by a trigger happy press. It is no longer a level playing field. Activists for homosexual rights are up in arms to bring homosexual laws to include other cities. Take the Burnaby School Board for example. They have recently approved an anti-homophobia law in schools. While it tries to prevent a recurrence of a sad case when a gay boy was killed by some gay-haters back in 2001, it is opening a can of worms for the future.

What if such a law fuels a hate for people who disagree with homosexual laws? What if it suppresses free speech by straights? How do the authorities distinguish between free speech expression and hate? The policy only muddles it even more. Those who cry 'intolerant' are themselves practitioners of the very intolerance they are seeking to prevent. Another scenario is this. What about a straight person being killed by a group of gay men? Will the same Burnaby School Board approve an "anti-anti-homophobia" law? Using the same argument from BSB about preventing the next person from being killed or bullied, may I remind them that they are to stand up for ALL persons, not just highlighting the rights of one group, namely the homosexuals. They represent ALL parties. Unfortunately, their behaviour makes me suspect they are not.

Tolerance Must Operate Both Ways

Through the years, the conservative camp has stood up actively against homosexuality, arguing for a return to traditional values. Along the way, mistakes have been committed. Hurtful words have been used. Misunderstandings arise when some passionate individuals make statements that are misguided. For that, I believe such people owe the homosexual community an apology. James Emery White in his very thoughtful 6-part series on homosexuality begins with exactly this stance. He admits there is 'irrational fear.' He affirms all people regardless of sexual orientation, that God loves them. He speaks to the homosexual public that because they matter to God, they also matter to the Church. In other words, there is more love that needs to be communicated by all parties rather than hateful speeches. It begins with God. It continues with acknowledging one another. It proceeds with listening well.

Whenever there is a fight, involved parties get hurt. Certain kinds of fights tend to inflict deeper wounds. The proverbs teach us:

"The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit." (Proverbs 15:4)

I think the homosexual camp are dangerously on the borderline of practicing 'deceitful tongue' when they parade their rights over everybody's equal rights. Some has already spilled over, like the Cisco example.

May there be more conversation and understanding among all parties. This requires tolerance from all. It will be tragic if people focus more on asserting their rights, rather than living out responsibly in their respective communities. Those who believe that homosexuals have rights, ought to equally believe that those who disagree also have their rights. Any progress in any community building will come only when people starts to work on their responsibilities instead of picketing for rights and more rights.


conrade