A UNC Christian a capella group’s decision this past weekend to ask one of its members who publicly embraced homosexuality to step down has created quite the firestorm. As many of those involved in this controversy go to our church, I have been asked my view on what happened, so here are some thoughts to consider:*
1. There really was no way for the group to remain faithful in conscience to Jesus and not ask the offending member to step down. These Christians believe (as do I) that the Bible considers, in no uncertain terms, homosexuality to be a sin. The Bible is clear on the fact that believers are to separate themselves (in fellowship and ministry, though not in life) from those in open, unrepentant sin (1 Cor 5:1-13). So this group had to make a choice between obeying the Jesus whose Lordship they proclaimed or pleasing the community they lived in. They had either to offend their culture or offend Jesus. In my view, they chose correctly. Even if you disagree with their views on homosexuality, you have to respect their acting in accordance with conscience. If we believe the Bible is clear on this issue (which I believe it is: to consider Jesus’ view on homosexuality, click here), how can we do otherwise? If Christians are first and foremost known as a people under the Lordship of Jesus, what kind of message does it send when they turn a blind eye to a teammate who speaks in His name while openly defying Him? If they ignore this issue, which other sins should they tolerate? Should they ignore a teammate openly espousing exploitation, adultery, dishonesty, or racism?
2. The point is not homosexuality; the point is the Lordship of Jesus. All sin is rebellion against God. In that sense, homosexuality is not fundamentally different than lying, greed, or gluttony. Rejection of authority is rejection regardless of the issue at hand, and for that reason the sins that I am prone to commit are no less heinous in God’s eyes than homosexuality. So the group would have to have this same posture to a member in an openly immoral heterosexual relationship or that advocated cheating in school. It would be blatant hypocrisy to proclaim with our mouths that Jesus is Lord but then embrace, even celebrate, the things put Jesus on the cross. This is not to say that Christians are closed to the outside world; after all, Jesus was Himself the friend of sinners. The Scripture is clear, however, that it is when someone claims Jesus as Lord, and then defies His authority, that we must separate ourselves from them. Anything less would make a mockery of His cross.
3. A decision like this does not imply that the members view themselves as sinless. Christian fellowship is, by definition, a group of redeemed sinners who still struggle with the power of sin in their lives. (As Luther loved to say, simultaneously “declared righteous” in Christ and “sinfully weak” in our flesh.) We have lots of people in leadership in our church who are struggling with selfishness and lusts of various kinds, including me, as well as many who are struggling with homosexuality. The problem was not that the member struggled with homosexuality; the problem was that he was no longer submissive to Jesus on this issue. Jesus receives broken sinners. I know, He received me. The ones He turns away are those who insist on being Lord in His place.
4. Our stance on this issue may be one of the most important tests of faithfulness in our generation. As the Reformer, Martin Luther, said, the courage of the soldier is tested in how well he stands at the place where the battle is the hottest, not in how brave we posture ourselves where the battle is no longer being fought. It takes very little courage to decry the evils of racism, the exploitation of women, the greed of Wall Street, or the abuses of power in our culture. Almost anyone would say “Amen” to that. Our faithfulness to Jesus is tested in whether we maintain His decrees in things our culture finds the most unpopular. It took courage for Martin Luther King to stand against the status quo in the 1960′s; it takes that same courage to stand against the status quo today.
5. We cannot pick and choose which parts of Jesus to which we surrender. To follow Jesus means total surrender to His Lordship. He must rule in all dimensions of our lives. His teachings on homosexuality may offend us today; but His teachings on the evils of slavery and love for our enemies offended previous generations. If we will not let Jesus offend us, we will never know Him. How can we ever know Him for who He is if we come to Him with our minds made up on what He’s allowed to say? Either Jesus is Lord and gets to make the rules, or we are Lord and get to correct His lapses in judgment.
6. This is not a political statement about the place of homosexuals in society. This has only to do with whether the member can lead in a group united under the Lordship of Jesus. Christians are more than willing to live side by side with and befriend homosexual people in a free society, respecting their rights and freedoms. But are we not also entitled to follow our consciences in who we align ourselves with, as we believe God would have us do? The irony is that those who are calling for the “disbarring” of Psalm 100 are demonstrating the same intolerance they deplore in others. They are insisting that everyone conform to their view that sexual orientation is an amoral issue. If a vegan-club council member suddenly develops a love for bacon, is the vegan club out of line in asking said council member to step aside?
7. Jesus saves sinners. Christians speak as those who have been rescued from sin’s captivity and condemnation by Jesus. When we understand this we speak with deep humility and without a drop of hostility or triumphalism. We are not waging a war versus homosexuals; Jesus fought and won a war against sin and death and our behalf and we now testify to His victory. Jesus lived the life we all should have lived but didn’t, and died the death we were condemned to die. He now offers salvation to all who will believe and receive: to the religious and irreligious, to the homosexual and straight; to you, and to me. All who call upon His name, in surrender and faith, will be saved.
8. Sexual ethics are not the center of Christianity. The gospel is. If Jesus’ teaching (or my explanation) on this really bothers you, punt it for a while. Jesus’ central message was not instructing us in a political platform, but saving us from ourselves. Study Jesus; and, if you conclude, as I have, that He is Lord, then you can and should surrender to Him in all things He teaches, whether you agree with Him or not. So take time to consider that first, and don’t be segued by secondary issues. Sexual mores were not the center of Jesus’ message, and so they are not the center of our ministry, either. The cross and crown of Jesus are the center. Start with His cross, undertaken for you, and then move your way out to the less important matters. Jesus of Nazareth welcomed into His presence all manner of people struggling to figure out who He is, and we welcome you to our church, as well.
Stand true, Psalm 100. Generations of believers who’ve stood in the face of fire stand with you.
*(I should note that I was not privy to their decision nor consulted with them in any capacity–so the following are my thoughts, from a distance, and mine alone, and as I know very few of the details, I cannot speak to how things were carried out specifically.)
J.D.
We must keep centered on the gospel. Thanks for this clear response to this ever-increasing cultural challenge!
So thankful that strong leaders are supporting this precious group. My heart breaks for them yet I am so encouraged by their faith and strength. Much can be learned from these godly students.
I am a Christian and I agree with the above. But let me ask you this. A church is on a mission to spread the love and Word of Christ. A church welcomes anyone and everyone to come together, where ever they may be in their walk in life…a church just asks people to come to Christ, in anyway they can. Would a church ever stand in front of the congregation before mass and say to its people “If you do not agree with ANY of the things we are saying, we have to ask you to leave now. This is a church, we only want those who have completely surrendered every aspect of their life. If you have not fully committed to following Christ in every aspect of your daily life, you can’t sit in our chairs, you can’t sing praises to God with our chorus, we don’t want you to ‘represent’ our Church because your beliefs aern’t the same as ours.” The bottom line is psalm 100 is a singing group. They get together occasionally and sing songs – some about God and some not to religious tunes. If the ‘rules’ of the group only allow those who have completely surrendered all aspects of their life to Christ, then I would dare say none of its members deserve to be in the group. Even though I am a Christian, there are areas of my life I am struggling with. I have my doubts. I have my fears. I fall short of what the Bible commands me to do. There are still questions I am seeking answers to. I change my mind on many things as I learn more. I learn, and I pray, and I question. And yes, I am still a Christian and I try to live everyday to serve God. Can any human really love God completely, irrevocably, 100% all the time and live each moment free of offending Christ? We are sinners. And we are fallen. And Psalm 100 just told another Christian that he wasn’t “Christian enough” to praise God in their singing group. I would think anyone who has the courage to stand in front of other people – especially on a campus that is so resistant to religion – and praise the Creator of the world should be able to do so if that is on his heart.
Sorry, Pastor JD, but you’re wrong about this. Psalm 100 is an ecumenical, interdenominational organization committed to unity in the gospel, liberty in non-essentials. I’m an alumnus of this group — We allow people regardless of their denominational affiliation, and a large number of Christian denominations teach that gay and lesbian people may be a leaders in ministry and have ethical, Christ-centered relationships. Psalm is not a Southern Baptist organization, or a Campus Crusade organization, and regardless of it’s current majority, should not be. A particular opinion about the sinfulness of homosexuality is not a core doctrine relating to the gospel… and though your opinion on the scriptural interpretation is important, and your own denomination’s ecclesiological choice is to reject gay and lesbian people from leadership, many other denominations interpret this differently. And so (historically) we Psalm 100 members permit a broad interpretation when it comes to these issues. We don’t exclude Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Lutherans, and Presbyterians.
Psalm 100 historically bridged political and social issues by having a broad spectrum of Christians involved. We were expected to be able to disagree lovingly, like the larger church must (and, often fails to do. How well have Southern Baptists and ELCA people talked about this issue?) Now, because of their decision, they will be praised by people with a particular political and social opinion, like you, and condemned and shunned by others. Psalm will turn from a broad Christian organization into one that applies theological tests to people to make sure they are of certain denominations and teachings. This was never our goal.
Now, because of praise like yours, Psalm is becoming just one more place where the universal Church is disconnected. Shame on you for playing a part in this.
Thanks for posting this J.D. On a campus of 18-22 year olds, it is good to hear someone older and wiser take a stance. However, as my pastor, I wish you would not have spoken for the entire church on this issue. The Bible’s position of homosexuality is very clear- but not its position on this specific situation at UNC. I have chosen to attend Summit based on the boldness and love that is clear in your sermons- but I am sad to say that I am upset by your choice to write on this issue.
I have countless conversations about this situation in the past two days- all from my fellow students who say that after this episode- they would never even consider attending a Psalm 100 concert. This is sad to me, since their mission is to bring the gospel to a campus that needs Jesus. Regardless of whether their decision was right or wrong, the handling of this situation has set the ministry of every Christian on this campus back many steps.
While I certainly do not wish to contend with any of your religious views, I do feel that I must make something clear with regard to your sentiments that Psalm 100 and its supporters are being discriminated against in a way that is ironic. I will be the first to admit that both sides of this debate have their extremists and name-callers. However, I believe that your views and my views represent something far-elevated from the petty bickering that you see in the comments of the many Daily Tarheel articles written on this topic and that we are capable of discussing this matter in a civil manner.
As such, I want to reiterate that I have no intention of disputing your many claims. I just want to make clear the motivating philosophy of those of us who oppose the actions of Psalm 100. Simply put, we believe that homosexuality is no more a choice than one’s race or gender. From this basic assumption, we believe that our school’s discrimination policy has been violated as a student has lost the ability to be a part of group on the basis of a personal characteristic. While we recognize that Psalm 100 has come out to say that he was removed from the group on the basis of his beliefs changing and thus coming into conflict with the group’s governing beliefs, we believe that his beliefs changed on the basis of his being a homosexual. In other words, we believe that a person cannot be reasonably expected to agree to a set of beliefs that are direct contention with their identity, so to oust a homosexual member on the basis of changing their beliefs to better suit their inherent personal characteristics is in disagreement with our school’s policies.
At this point, I hear your proposed counterargument that for Psalm 100 to allow him to stay in the group would be asking them to do what was unreasonable for him, i.e. expecting them to agree to our beliefs in contention with their identity. I respect this point. However, we believe that a crucial difference lies in these situations: the matter of choice. We believe that a person cannot choose their sexuality; they cannot control whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. We also believe that a person can choose their religious beliefs. In this way, our school sides with the student over the group as the group can still reasonably maintain its beliefs without acting on them while the student cannot be reasonably expected to not act on his own personal characteristic.
Again, I understand that many of these points comes into contention with your religious views, particularly on the matters of choice. However, as our school’s present policies stand, a group may not act in a way that prevents a student from joining on the basis of their sexuality. Within this realm though, a group may have beliefs that say homosexuality is an abominable sin. I think this point is where you see this irony, along with example about the vegans and the bacon lover. Again, though, the bacon lover (so far as I know) has a choice in their views on bacon, while the homosexual does not.
Finally, our school does not seek to destroy Psalm 100, only to ask them to either amend their rules or lose funding and sponsorship. As a diverse and liberal school that values inclusiveness, we want a group like Psalm 100 to exist to give us as wide an array of views and perspectives as possible. I mean Psalm 100 has gone without trouble until it crossed the line from simply having these beliefs to acting upon them in a way that was discriminatory. However, if their actions lead to the silencing or discrimination of others, then they cannot be allowed to use the funding of our students or the reputation of our school.
Anyway, I thank you for your thoughtful presentation of your views and hope that my views may give you some insight into the thinking of your opposition. Have a good day.
- You wrote: “There really was no way for the group to remain faithful in conscience to Jesus and not ask the offending member to step down.”
But Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality, at least not in my Bible.
– You wrote: “Should they ignore a teammate openly espousing exploitation, adultery, dishonesty, or racism?”
Of course not. Those all involve intentionally harming other human beings without their permission. They are all regarded as sin by Jesus and by the Apostles in post-Christ Scripture. I’m not aware of any time Jesus or the Apostles spoke or wrote of homosexuality as being a sin.
– You wrote: “As the Reformer, Martin Luther, said, the courage of the soldier is tested in how well he stands at the place where the battle is the hottest…”
Martin Luther also believed that that 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemned “masturbators”; that is the verse modern socially conservative Christians have re-translated to “homosexuals” so that they can say the Bible clearly calls “homosexuality” a sin. Unfortunately, they have produced quite a few of the modern translations. In the history of the Church the word there has variously been translated as “male prostitutes” (who sleep with men or women), “loose men” (who sleep around with either men or women), masturbators (as Martin Luther believed), and “abusers of themselves with mankind,” which itself could really mean anything.
The only other verse modern conservatives can say even references homosexuality is Romans 1. And the context just doesn’t fit their translation there; it speaks of homosexuality in the context of the historical idol worship / orgy / murder cults. Those who say that passage condemns homosexuality have made the same error as those who say Genesis 38 condemns “birth control.” They rip a passage out of context in order to make it match their modern social agenda.
– You wrote: “Stand true, Psalm 100. The Church of the past 2000 years stands with you.”
Actually, Psalm 100, the only people standing with you are a bunch of social conservatives of recent historical birth who have spread their propaganda throughout conservative circles of God’s church in the last one-hundred years or so. Be very careful here. The rest of us believers would be happy to accept a homosexual as a brother or sister in God’s service.
The reality of the situation is this: sometimes the Scriptures are unclear. In such cases we must set Christ’s final prayer for unity in His Body above our own social and political beliefs.
Thank you J.D.
I agree with the points you have mentioned above. Funnily enough, I gave some of the same reasons when debating the issue with a close friend of mine.
The fine distinction made when deciding to kick out a member who did not hold the same beliefs as Psalm 100 was decided upon not because he had sin in his life (because if that were the case, no one could be a part of the group) but because the lifestyle he chose to openly live and support is a direct disobayance of God and refusal to live by His standards. Any other lifestyle a member chose to live that was blatantly outside of God’s will without remorse, should be treated the same.
My prayers are with the members of the group who have have chosen to stand in an extreme time of conflict.
James Reeder – I’d like to offer another perspective you may not have considered. I’m a Christian guy who finds himself attracted to both sexes, through no choice of my own. I also believe that the only appropriate context for sexual behavior is marriage between a man and a woman. In fact, I’m in a leadership position of a campus organization with a written policy that explicitly condemns homosexual behavior, and the leadership (and much of the membership) of the group know about my orientation and haven’t taken any action against me. In fact, they’ve all been rather supportive. So my sexuality hasn’t gotten in the way of full participation, despite a policy much like that of Psalm 100.
In the context of the Christian gospel, I actually have found it quite reasonable to accept that homosexual practice is outside of God’s will, even though through no choice of my own I do find myself attracted to my own sex and tempted to have kinds of relationships that I believe I shouldn’t. Wesley Hill offers an excellent explanation of why in his wonderful book _Washed and Waiting_ – he explains things far better than I could hope to do in a blog comment.
Dealing with this stuff personally definitely motivates a person to study, but not everyone comes to the same conclusion. In general, I’ve studied a lot of the types of arguments that people like Darryl bring up, but intellectual honesty has not allowed me to accept those arguments when I’ve studied both sides. Being that I am attracted to women, which makes some things a lot easier for me, I find them most appealing when relating to close friends who are only attracted to their own sex, and for whom holy living seems to mean celibacy. Listening to them talk about the difficulty of coming home to an empty house, or wanting someone to share life with, really does make me want to just be able to say that homosexual practice is OK. But the testimony of Scripture indicates otherwise. For instance, although Jesus never directly addresses homosexuality, he grounds his prohibition on divorce on the twoness of the sexes. The whole view of sexuality is based on larger themes of symbolism of Christ and the Church, or perhaps of the Trinity, rather than a simple notion of consensual love. So, I believe that God has something different in mind for people attracted to their own sex – some form of community other than a romantic partnership, except in those seemingly uncommon cases where genuine opposite-sex attraction exists or develops.
I’ll also point out that I’m not full of shame or self-loathing. I know what being ashamed of your sexual feelings is like – that’s how I lived for years. But I’ve managed to overcome that shame without changing my views on sexual ethics, by better understanding God’s grace and the fact that my particular temptations don’t set me apart from the rest of humanity – all humans are born with a sinful nature. Some of the other people I know who have same-sex feelings and share my convictions are also rather healthy emotionally, even while living with the difficulties of singleness. I also certainly know people who are still dealing with a lot of shame and junk like that – my focus in dealing with them is more about trying to overcome shame by having a better view of God’s grace, rather than trying to change their orientation (which rarely happens) or anything like that.
So when it comes to Psalm 100, I’m fairly convinced that they were within their rights (not in violation of the non-discrimination policy), although people here have made good points about why their decision may not have been the most wise, given the ecumenical nature of Psalm 100. I’m not sure where I stand on that, but I do know that I’ll keep attending Psalm 100 concerts.
I respect your views and wish only to add my voice, calmly, to this discussion. My problem with this issue is not that Psalm 100 asserted it’s beliefs. I completely agree that integrity requires firmly standing by ones code, whatever that may be. I do, however, take issue with the choice to apply this particular biblical rule and not others. I hope that I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge Psalm 100 has not expelled any members for eating pork or shellfish, an act also decried in the bible (Leviticus 11:9-12). Does this group believe that a woman unable to cry for help during a rape should receive the death penalty? (Deuteronomy 22:23-34) There are countless other examples with which I’m sure the Pastor is familiar. You say that Christians are not in the position to interpret what is clearly explained in the bible. Unless the very same individuals who decry homosexuality for this reason are doing their best to exemplify EVERY biblical commandment, this must be seen as discriminatory. As I doubt very much that Psalm 100 is monitoring its members breakfasts, they should not be receiving university funding.
It’s been mentioned a couple of times, but Jesus did not address the issue of homosexuality. He did talk about marriage once. So technically we aren’t using Jesus word.
I can’t wait for the headline, “Christian group stands by friend in group in spite of his failings”
While kicking out a member who is openly gay may be in line with Biblical teaching it is CLEARLY not in line with UNC’s non-discrimination policy, which states that’s official student groups may not discriminate based on the basis of sexual orientation.
As Psalm 100 is registered as a student group which receives University funding they have violated University policy. Receiving money and privileges (such as the ability to reserve meeting spaces, hold university sponsored events, etc) without actually adhering to the terms and conditions at which these things are given to you is THEFT. How can a group which claims to be led by Biblical principles take funding and not abide by the terms for which it is given?
Therefore, if Psalm 100 wishes to abide by Biblical standards it should forfeit its status as a student group, give up its University funding and operate as an independent organization. Otherwise, they are in Clear violation of Biblical Morality.
recent UNC grad – the question with regards to the non-discrimination policy is what we mean by “sexual orientation.” I’ve always understood it to refer to the unchosen part – who a person is sexually attracted to. Only if it refers instead to the relationships a person chooses to enter based on their unchosen feelings would there be a violation of the non-discrimination policy.
I offered myself earlier as an example of a non-heterosexual who was allowed to have a leadership position in a group with a policy similar to Psalm 100, because my beliefs about the matter (and subsequent behavior choices) align with the group’s policy.
not sure if someone has already said this, but this action was taken by a group affiliated with a PUBLIC university which receives federal and state funding, as well as funds paid for collectively by every other student on that campus. so YES, it is very much a political statement as well as a religious one – it says that you can excommunicate someone based on their sexuality, and the US constitution will still protect you because Jesus loves america (or something like that). you should revise that passage.
Also, you should clarify just what happened here – i’m seeing some comments by people who are assuming that the student was off having sex with guys, etc, and that is not the background of this story. you should not leave things up to the imagination of a modern christian culture that loves to talk *around* the topic of sex way more than *about* it.
Thank you for all your comments. I really am grateful for those of you who are seeking to think soberly and open-mindedly about this. Thank you for how you challenge me. Unfortunately I do not have time to respond to all of them, but I have read them.
Several of you have made the challenge that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. The link highlighting the words “on this issue” under point 1 takes you to a blog where we explore that question. Here it is again: http://www.jdgreear.com/my_weblog/2011/01/is-homosexuality-a-sin-2.html
He may never have used the word, but he most certainly did talk about homosexuality. He never used the words “corporate fraud,” “gang rape,” “child molestation,” or “bestiality” either, but He gave us the moral and ethical framework to be certain about how He felt about that. To explore what He said further, follow that link.
Darryl, I am unaware of any significant church father or group of Christians in the first 1960 years of the church who advocated the acceptability of homosexuality.
Paul,
Inferring that this post is designed to instill “homophobia” in the readers is at best a faulty understanding of the author’s argument and at worst an attempt to slander Christians. Nowhere is there disrespectful or hateful langauge towards those who feel same-sex attraction. You do have a point that homophobia is cultural, and I think that the author would agree with you. But to dismiss this post as homophobia-inducing propoganda is not rational.
James Reeder, thank you for your reasoned comments, and your desire to think clearly about this. You are a good testament to your school.
Please note that I did not offer comment on what the University would choose to do in terms of their $152 and the official status they bestow. Christians have a long history of not being recognized by secular governments, and my intent was not to counsel UNC one way or the other on this. I am not an expert on their laws, procedures, or precedents.
I do have two thoughts for you, though:
1. You build you argument on the premise that homosexuality is not a choice. That, in some ways, is a key premise in this question. It is a religious, anthropological viewpoint. Why does your view on this (that homosexuality is not a choice and is amoral) get to be enshrined into law and forced onto other campus groups? Why not allow variance in this? The homosexual groups on campus can believe it’s not a choice, why not allow Christians the freedom to believe the opposite? Why would you legitimate one viewpoint through official recognition and withhold it from others who disagree? Fundamentalism of any variety is still fundamentalism. It seems like this should be a place where real liberty of conscience should be allowed and the secular governments (in this case, the University) should not rule one way or the other on it.
2. Even if we conceded that it’s not a choice, why does that remove this from considerations of morality? I saw a study by a UVA professor the other day that showed, pretty convincingly, that the propensity to rape is genetic. The gene that causes some guys to exploit girls to propagate their genes seems to be more ingrained into some guys than others. IF that could be proven, would that make rape an amoral issue? Of course not. Whether or something has genetic roots does not bear decisively on its morality.
Christians believe that we are “born” with desires that are sinful. I seem to have been born with an unusual propensity to selfishness and greed. That doesn’t make those things right, or that I should surrender to those urges. No one taught my kids to shove each other and steal each other’s toys. They seem to have “born” that way, having gotten those traits from their mother (joke). The point is that morality goes beyond how we’re born to what is right and wrong in the view of the Creator.
Jesus taught we are all “born” sinners, so we have to be born again. His power in us recreates our desires so they are like God’s desires: full of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness and self-control. (Gal 5:16-24).
Hope this helps in the conversation. Thanks again for your thoughts.
I see no relevant arguments here. Exclusion is exclusion. You have the right as a human to call bullshit on any single tenet in any faith you may be a part of; Use your freedom, be rational, don’t be assholes.
You are hateful people. And you have a lot of hangups about sex.
If what Seth @ 15 says is correct -and it ought to be given some weight given his psalm100 alumni status – the group may have violated their own charter. What’s your take on that JD?
Missing from your response is any sort of humility in your faith or even the practical concession that there are many different Christian denominations with differing beliefs and that everyone of these cannot be correct and that it might even be possible that your denomination may be in theological error. If one recognizes this, how can one call the young man unrepentant if he has come to a theological conclusion that homosexuality is not sinful. protestations to the contrary, Jesus does not provide definitive guidance on this issue. You believe in your answer regarding placing his teachings within the ambit of the law, but there are other answers. Other reasonable answers. Other passages at which to look for guidance. On how many levels what God speaking in Peter’s dream? At least two, but have you considered there may be more. And have you considered that God’s message in that dream is broader than about eating turtles, broader than extending the word and love of God to Gentiles?
Are you the apostle here or the Philistine? Are you the Levite or the Samaritan?
Alanmt, I realize this is a difficult stance. It is certainly possible to be wrong, and for that reason we should always speak with humility.
Does that mean that we can never know, or stand on, ANYTHING? What if one of our pastors came to the conclusion, after careful study, that polygamy was a biblically permissible lifestyle? Or that Jesus loves Gentiles and hates Jews? Or that Jesus Christ was not really God?
I would challenge you that you yourself have a number of things that you stand on, even if others disagree with you, though the reasoning you used above will not allow it. Based on your paragraph, being certain of anything that is in dispute is arrogation. Is that true? Why are you so sure I’m wrong about this? Are you certain I’m wrong?
I would say that humility does not stand at odds by being certain about certain things. Some issues are of such importance and are sufficiently clear, we believe, in the Bible to warrant a clear stand. We do believe homosexuality is one of those. Others are either sufficiently unclear, or are of relative unimportance, that while we may have a firm conviction about them, we hold them with an open hand.
You may disagree that it is of such importance or clarity, but we have to leave one another to our conscience and to God, even if we can’t unite together in ministry.
Thank all of you for your comments. I am going to close them as I think this debate has run its course. I have taken down the vast majority of them, but tried to leave up enough that captured both the positive and negative sentiment.
“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” 1 Timothy 1:15