From renew-return-598-lfpeace=lincolnnet.net@returns.egroups.com Sun Dec 5 00:11 CST 1999 Received: from xfg.egroups.com (xfg.egroups.com [207.138.41.178]) by ln1.lincolnnet.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA01075 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 00:11:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from [10.1.2.125] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 1999 01:12:07 -0000 Received: (listserv 1.291); by f7; 05 Dec 1999 01:12:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 4556 invoked from network); 5 Dec 1999 01:11:26 -0000 Received: from tomts2.bellnexxia.net (HELO tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net) (209.226.175.140) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 1999 01:11:26 -0000 Received: from dons ([206.172.207.41]) by tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.07 201-229-116-107) with SMTP id <19991205011124.BZHX29836.tomts2-srv.bellnexxia.net@dons> for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 20:11:24 -0500 X-eGroups-Return: renew-return-598-lfpeace=lincolnnet.net@returns.egroups.com Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-renew@egroups.com From: "Donald Waterhouse" To: "Renew" Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 20:11:39 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bf3ebd$af9ff4e0$29cfacce@dons> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Mailing-List: contact renew-owner@egroups.com X-Mailing-List: renew@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Reply-To: renew@egroups.com Subject: [RENew] Homosexuality is a sin... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 6133 John Hubers wrote: >>Unfortunately, rather than getting better this has gotten worse - and fault can be found on all sides. We have lost the art of Christian civility not only in our society in general, but in the Church, as well. What this has meant in many cases (and I could cite many examples) is that people are afraid to speak their minds, afraid to express doubts, afraid to raise issues for fear not of being critiqued, but of being rejected and accused of being an "unbeliever". The current debate on homosexuality is a case in point. When I raised the issue as a debating point almost immediately my faith was put on trial. When that's the atmosphere in the Church hypocricy is the result, as people end up saying not what they believe, but what they think the dominant group wants them to believe. We become parrots mouthing the right words, but lacking the conviction they deserve. AND >>Somethning is wrong in this picture. That's all I was pointing out - that the Church has to take the lead in civility. As it stands right now we're often lagging far behind. << John: Homosexuality is a sin. Repentance is enjoined as it is with all "sin". What I face is the militancy of the homosexual community and its supporters using quite innovative strategies and also some of the run-of-the-mill kind - coercion, manipulation, division, poor-me, use Scripture out-of-context (very easy to do for both sides of anything), martyr complex. We have to be careful that we don't end up being put in the position of an unwitting parent tested by a child to see if the child can get approval or sympathy for wrongdoing. The testing is to see if there is any weakness or sympathy in either of the parents that can be exploited and used to justify. Unity of cause and standard is essential between both parents to withstand the testing. The homosexual community in testing the Church is finding what? An agreed standard or an inconsistency which works to their good (approval) but divides the church. In my opinion we have to be careful, just like parents with their child, what might be going down here. So I ask myself the question, "does the homosexual desire to be right with God through Christ". Isn't this the question of all questions? Doesn't this provoke the real motive to expose itself? Is the homosexual, like any other sinner, ready to repent, turn to Jesus, or is it simply a worldly regret leading nowhere, a plea for acceptance. (For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. 2 Cor. 7:10). Are they willing to submit to the verdict announced against their behavior and conduct or will they try and legitimize it any way it can be done? I'm used to all kinds of people trying to justify why they shouldn't make changes, are the homosexual community any different? Aren't the parables full of cautions and warnings to be prepared to meet God who will judge what was done in the body (Rom. 2:6-8)? To be prudent, to be prepared, to decide now, to not put off, to not be careless, indifferent, matter-of-factly in the face of the eschatological crisis? To change while there is time - and there is time - today is the day of grace, the day of salvation. To put anything off is potentially disastrous. Isn't there a real crisis where we are exhorted to pluck out eyes and cut of hands - like today? Where's the urgency in our dialogue with the homosexual? Where's the concern for individuals handed over to the wrath of God which is experienced as homosexual conduct? (Romans 1). Without making it appear too black and white, homosexuality is a sin needing to be repented and forsaken of. That's the kindest, most caring utterance we can direct to them. Out of genuine care and concern for their souls we plead with them to forsake and repent. I would say the same to a thief, a murderer, a liar, a self-righteous individual. I say it to myself. Unfortunately, John, and this may be the skeptic in me, I don't see the love nor the will to raise that standard so that the homosexual in all his lostness and disillusionment, sin and rebellion, might be broken by the cross of Christ leading him (her) to repentance. I would say an easy going tolerance of homosexual behavior is not love but indifference and feigned affection. To love is to care, to want to see change, to warn, to plead, to exhort. In the absence of any of that what are we really talking about? In closing. What message are we giving to all kinds of people struggling in sexual areas. If the homosexual can be "accepted", permitted to be a minister of the Word and Sacrament, then why can't a philanderer, a practicing alcoholic, a practicing adulterer, a practicing thief - where does one draw a line, or has the line disappeared completely? I am reminded of a co-worker who admitted that at one period in his life he was considering a homosexual relationship. Being in my company and hearing my opinions, [his struggle unknown to me at the time], and seeing a godly standard raised, got him through that tumultuous period in his life and he was dissuaded from going down that path. He told me later that if I had been weak or he had found a chink in my stand it might have meant all the difference. Therefore, I can only say, let's lift the standard; let's draw the line; let's be uncompromising in our insistence that homosexuality is a sin needing to be repented of, hoping that it will both warn and encourage those who might be struggling in that area. Yours in Christ, Don Waterhouse Gooderham and Highland Grove Reformed Churches. An idea or a theory of God can easily become a substitute for God, impressive to the mind when God, as a living reality is absent from the soul. Abraham J. Heschel ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get the most popular downloads on the Web. Theyıre new! Theyıre hot! They’re FREE! Utilities, drivers, games. It’s all here. http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1613 -- Talk to your group with your own voice! -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=renew&m=1