Much of what is being said here about homosexuality and how Christians ought to behave toward homosexuals may be correct.
But it’s irrelevant.
It is irrelevant because most of the comments presume that the homosexuals in question are repentant or “struggling” with their orientation. Yet, the position of Soulforce and similar pro-homosexual groups is just the opposite. The only struggle that advocates of “marriage” and “civil rights” for homosexuals are interested in is the struggle for approval from society at large — not mere tolerance, but approval.
As Jane aptly pointed out, “compassion is not the same thing as endorsement.” Advocates for state endorsement of homosexuality believe it is not the homosexual, but rather conservative Christians and our institutions who should repent. And, if we don’t, they believe we should be forced by law to fundamentally change who we are. Tolerance of a Christian school, for example, that chooses to have rules against homosexual conduct is not an option. Such policies must be delegitimized:
“He is being asked to leave the university because he is gay,” Dreyer wrote Thursday on the Web site MySpace.com, the same site school officials used to confront Johnson. “Help get the story out there so that all the gays and lesbians at the university will no longer have to live in secrecy, in fear of having their dreams crushed in front of them.”
Within a few hours, friends and students at the small Baptist college in Williamsburg, Ky., were commenting in blogs about Johnson’s expulsion. The buzz grew over the weekend, and by early this week the issue drew reaction from legislators in Frankfort and on gay advocacy organizations’ Web sites nationwide.
* * *
Johnson, who is considering legal action against the university, said students shouldn’t question their faith, but they should question their personal beliefs.
For these advocates, the shame of their taboo behavior must be transferred to the so-called “discrimination” and “bigotry” of anyone who dares to call the behavior sinful.
Whether to welcome those who struggle with same sex attraction isn’t the issue — it’s a straw-man designed to distract people. Honestly! Who argues that repentant homosexuals should be ostracized from church? No one I’ve ever heard. I just don’t see how it is possible for a church to “welcome” people who argue that homosexual behavior is okay. To truly do that would require changing a fundamental teaching about right and wrong that ought not be changed.
How would that be any more acceptable than welcoming people who argue that racist behavior is okay? As I said here, I seriously doubt that those who cooed over the loving, grace-filled way that ACU welcomed Soulforce would similarly delight if the school welcomed a group of Klansmen for a weekend of open dialogue. Nor should they, but what’s the difference?
BACKGROUND: WWJD, Melodrama’s So Much Fun
{ 1 } Comments
Evidently Soulforce members were glad to have the opportunity to visit at ACU, but they see their visit as just the beginning of the discussion. They lament that homosexual behavior is still banned and that students can be expelled, according to their press release following their visit. http://www.soulforce.org/article/776 While civility and welcoming all sinners into our fellowship offers them the chance to learn about Jesus, I can’t help but think of the analogy of the “wolf in the henhouse.” They are quite clear (and unrepentant) that their mission is to work for homosexual behavior to be accepted in the name of “fairness.” Soulforce members were allowed to address assemblies, classes, and visit with individual students over the course of a few days.
I find it interesting that Mike Cope agrees with that, but didn’t think it was appropriate for Ann Coulter to speak at an after-hours, voluntary-attendance program at a university where he doesn’t even teach. Very curious…
And I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt that a group of Klansmen would be welcomed at ACU.
{ 1 } Trackback
[…] The following is a bit of light-hearted, derivative satire. The original work is discussed in a previous post and is available here. This intended to poke-fun at certain attitudes, not to insult particular individuals or mischaracterize anyone’s views. It’s also intended to make a point about both the original subject matter and the “revised” subject matter. […]
Post a Comment