Thursday, June 16, 2011

Southern Baptists Take a Stand

Talk about chutzpah. Looks like a coalition of homosexual groups decided that they were going to take on the Southern Baptist Convention. They don't like the fact that the SBC thus far stands for biblical truth and orthodox teaching on sexual matters. As you will see from the article, the SBC did not back down. President Bryant Wright (pictured right courtesy of Baptist Press) delivered the message kindly, but plainly.

I'm glad to hear it. All too many people these days are letting themselves be cowed by these groups. That includes politicians as well as an increasing number of so-called Christian denominations, to their everlasting shame.

The SBC struck exactly the right tone. Preach biblical truth concerning sin, yet with love and compassion. This won't be sufficient for militant gays. They say they just want tolerance, but they want more than that. They want acceptance and approval.

That is something that Bible-believing, Bible-preaching churches can never do.

6 comments:

Dungy said...

"Preach biblical truth concerning sin, yet with love and compassion. This won't be sufficient for militant gays. They say they just want tolerance, but they want more than that. They want acceptance and approval."

I suspect "militant gays" would be satisfied with the assurance that they won't "cured" or killed. The "biblical truth concerning sin" with regards to homosexuality also includes an pretty strongly worded imperative to execute those guilty of that sin. Now, a church may choose to ignore the specified punishment while keeping the ideal that homosexuality is wrong, but you can't exactly blame homosexuals for being nervous about it.

Simply put, any Church has the legal right to preach whatever doctrine they like, so long as they don't directly encourage violence. Likewise, an individual has the right to protest that doctrine as intolerant as long as they too do not resort to violence.

Solameanie said...

I think you need to educate yourself on Christian doctrine a bit more. The passages you cite are from the Law of Moses. Christians are not under the Law of Moses. Under the New Testament age of grace, we urge all sinners (no matter what their sin is) to repent and trust in Christ for salvation, and He then enables them to live a righteous life. You will have differing opinions in Christianity on the death penalty. Romans 13 clearly says that the state has the power of the sword to punish evildoers, not the church. The state's responsibility is to punish evildoers. It's the church's job to preach the Gospel, the way out of evildoing.

My personal opinion is that the death penalty should be restricted to premeditated murder and perhaps treason. But I'm not dogmatic.

Another observation. The sodomy laws in the U.S. were government imposed, not church imposed. I personally don't have an issue with sodomy laws as they regulate a behavior. I do not buy the idea that homosexuality qualifies as a "minority" in the same sense that a racial group would be a minority. Ridiculous. Most civilizations throughout human history have been opposed to homosexual behavior, with some exceptions. Not politically correct to say these days, but it's the truth.

Dungy said...

"Most civilizations throughout human history have been opposed to homosexual behavior, with some exceptions."

An interesting point. It's true that, although many cultures have been tolerant of homosexual behavior (Greece and Rome), the practice was still looked down upon as effeminate in males, and disruptive to gender roles in a society.

Considering that those very same societies looked upon slavery as a legitimate social necessity, by your own rationale, would that lend justification to legal support of that institution?

No, of course not. Regardless of what prior forms of civilization thought of slavery, we have decided that it's wrong.

Likewise, whether homosexual behavior should be illegal has nothing to do with whether homosexuals are an according to hoyle minority, in the same sense as a racial group. That's a red herring. Common sense (I.E. Reason that's not rooted in the Iron Age) tells us that private practices between consenting adults are simply not a public matter.

Solameanie said...

Dungy,

My apologies for taking so long to respond to your comment. My life has truly been nuts the past few months with my mother's health, etc.

The issue of slavery in Scripture is interesting, and I'm afraid is often distorted and/or misunderstood. The slavery as practiced in the American South was an abomination, although plantation owners and some pastors tried to justify it through Scripture twisting.

Under the Law of Moses, slavery was typically a temporary state of affairs, generally lasting for a period of seven years. At the end of that time, freedom was to be given to the slave, unless the slave elected to remain with the family, and at that point became known as a "bondservant." In Old Testament times when the people of God governed themselves, the Law regulated but did not idealize slavery. As author Douglas Jacoby points out, American chattel slavery was very different from slavery in the ancient world. Scripture actually had a higher level of human rights compared to much of the ancient world. I would recommend his book, "Your Bible Questions Answered." There is much more that I could say as well on this subject, but time limits me.

Under the New Testament, slavery is not portrayed as a positive, with the Apostle Paul saying plainly that freedom is better. His only admonition to Christians who were slaves was to honor their masters and in so doing, honor Christ. But if they could obtain their freedom, that was so much better.

As to the homosexuality question, I would disagree strongly that my point is a "red herring." My point is that homosexuality is a behavior, not a racial or ethnic group. For the sake of argument, you might well make the case that what happens between consenting adults privately is perhaps defensible. However, today's gay activists are insistent on something way beyond mere tolerance. They want acceptance and approval, and some even want to go as far as forcing Christian groups to hire them or to facilitate child adoptions even if it goes against their faith. That is unacceptable.

Dungy said...

Thanks for the heads up. I don't feel that just because I take the time to comment, I'm therefore owed a response, let alone a prompt response, so there's no need to apologize for that. I am receptive to the courtesy though, thank you.

I understand your situation with your mother, as I had to take some time off from writing this summer to take care of my own mother.

If you like, we can just suspend this mini-debate. Although there's always some benefit to lively and civilized debate, the possible rewards probably don't justify the distraction. I heartily disagree with your positions, but I have no desire to interfere with your personal life, whether directly or indirectly.

Let me know. Either way, I'll probably take some time to consider your response before commenting again.

Dungy said...

Thanks for the heads up. I don't feel that just because I take the time to comment, I'm therefore owed a response, let alone a prompt response, so there's no need to apologize for that. I am receptive to the courtesy though, thank you.

I understand your situation with your mother, as I had to take some time off from writing this summer to take care of my own mother.

If you like, we can just suspend this mini-debate. Although there's always some benefit to lively and civilized debate, the possible rewards probably don't justify the distraction. I heartily disagree with your positions, but I have no desire to interfere with your personal life, whether directly or indirectly.

Let me know. Either way, I'll probably take some time to consider your response before commenting again.