Homosexuality vs. Christianity, Contintued...

Homosexuality vs. Christianity, Continued...

Below is a dialogue between Andrew Street and a college student of Olivet Nazarene University concerning Rev. Flip Benham's article, Homosexuality vs. Christianity.

The black text is the student's original message and the blue text is Andrew's.

You're going to think I'm a heretical heathen, but in truth what I am appalled by is not Jerry Falwell, but this e-mail. Let me explain.
Good idea. (OK, I promise this will get better)

First of all, let me make it very clear that I believe homosexuality is wrong.
You're off to a great start!

I don't know if people are born that way or not--it doesn't matter to me. Regardless, their behavior is still their choice, and they are responsible for abstaining from the sin of homosexuality.
Ok, we are getting to the good stuff. Actually, this should matter, but this isn't the place to get into it. Remind me again sometime.

Homosexuality is NOT like race--people have no choice about their race, and race does not involve behavior. I also believe that God "cures" people of homosexuality--that He takes away those desires in some people. On the other hand, I believe that some people struggle with it their whole lives as a temptation. I still think it is wrong for anyone to engage in homosexual behaviors or to allow such thoughts to dwell in their minds.
Good, good, right on!

However, with displays like are discussed in this e-mail, people often are NOT showing these people love. I'm not saying this one didn't--I wasn't there. But I think the church doesn't understand what Jerry Falwell has said all along--homosexuality is wrong (He still says that publicly even after the summit, and I don't think the other preacher came away without knowing that Falwell feels that way. I think Falwell probably went a lot further towards "converting" people like that than any of them out picketing because he stood firm but in love.) but that the church needs to love the sinner and hate the sin.
I don't really see a standing firm. If he would have stood his ground, I would have expected to see these poor sodomites (homosexuals) repent.¹ The reason for the "summit" was to work out a peaceful mix of Christianity and sodomy. This seems to give credibility to them saying we (Christians) are a bunch of bigoted, unjust hate-mongers. Giving these people love is telling them the wonderful message that Christ died for the sin that they are in and wants them to be free. You cannot be a Christian and a sodomite at the same time.

Jesus didn't stone the woman caught in adultery. He didn't push any tracts in her face, and he didn't preach at her. Instead, he loved her. At the same time, he didn't condone her sin, and told her to "go and sin no more."
Precisely, He confronted her sin, telling her that He loved her and told her in that love to stop it.

We aren't doing anyone any favors by getting in the face of homosexuals. We need to understand where they are coming from--to love them where they are as Christ does. But we do need to tell them, in love, that their behavior is wrong--not as a condemnation, but as a freeing thing to them, and the only way we can do that, the only way we have a right to do that, is in love. If we tell them in love that this is wrong and that there is healing and hope in Jesus, I think more of them would listen--I think they WANT to listen. But I think it is no wonder that most homosexuals go to the kinds of churches they do. I don't think it is simply because their desires are validated, I think they go there because they find acceptance, not condemnation, as opposed to most churches.
First of all, understand that there are basically two types of sodomites. Those that go to "church" and those that don't. You have to approach each differently. The non-"church" go-ers would typically be atheistic and must be approached not necessarily that Jesus loves them (because Jesus is just a popular historical figure - the supernatural doesn't exist). But that there really is a God and that God (who is one and the same with Jesus) loves them, died for them in their sin and is ready to accept them if they are willing to live as He stated in His book. As for the "church" go-ers. I would think it safe to say that they really consider themselves Christian. They are being blinded by Satan's men like Mike Piazza into staying in their sin and trying to accommodate it with Christianity. Yes, as always confront them in and with the love of Christ, but you MUST CONFRONT THEM! Falwell didn't take on a confrontation, he took on a defense. In essence, he said "Look, we really aren't that bad! Please don't look down on us!" This is NOT the gospel of Christ. God never said that life as a Christian would be easy, He just said it would be rewarded.

And I think Jerry Falwell's attempt to "build bridges" was wonderful.
Even though what I'm about to cite is out of a passage dealing with marriage, it is a recurring theme throughout Scripture that Paul states lucidly: "For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" 1 Corinthians 6:14b. This has been on my mind since I've started getting into this email. The attempt to build bridges is quite un-Scriptural.² We have nothing with these people until they abandon their sin and come to Christ. When they are ready, we are always available and being out at their "church" shows them that.

Maybe the media has misconstrued it, but since when don't they do that to everything anyway? The violence perpetrated by "Christians" against abortion doctors and homosexuals and those of other races and anything else across the world is absolutely horrible.
For the record: No one the pro-"life" movement condones this. Operation Rescue clearly and flatly condemns this. The only people that condone this are really less than 5% of those in the movement. (The actual number is probably lower, but I'm leaving myself room for error because I don't know the actual statistic.) Therefore, even the very mention of "pro-life violence" is getting me to a place that is starting to tick me off. It's not just you, so don't panic. It is a common mind set that is popular with Christians that are lazy and don't want to come in conflict with the world. (No, I'm not saying that you're one of them - just that in this email, your completely wrong)

Christians should not be proud of being some of the most narrow minded, dogmatic people in the world.
We need to have a discussion on the meaning of "narrow minded" and "dogmatic". When you reply, define that for me and then tell me if these sodomites, both "church" go-ers and non, are "narrow minded" and "dogmatic" and then tell me what Jesus was while in the New Testament and is now.

Please understand, again, that I believe in absolute truth. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I believe Jesus is the only way to God. I believe that these preachers and "homosexual Christians" are seriously deluded and are leading lives that will lead them to death, physically and spiritually. HOWEVER, I don't think we do any good at all by picketing with gruesome pictures and Scriptures shoving tracts in people's faces. We are only an annoyance to people. And partly that's because they don't like our message, but partly it's because we are a pain in the butt.
I think it wise to actually see the confrontation before calling those who do what Christ asks "A pain in the butt". I know from previous experience with Operation Rescue and Flip Benham that our confrontations to sin are very peaceful and loving. Yes, there are God haters, but you are an annoyance to them no matter what you do outside of your house and church for Christ.

Why don't we try becoming friends with these people, finding out who they really are. They are people, not just homosexuals. Maybe then we can talk to them and they will listen because it's not some high and mighty lofty looking down at them and spouting about how wrong they are and handing them some impersonal tract that tells them about Jesus.
Handing "impersonal tracts" is the least that happens with OR. Again, we are willing to engage in conversation in a loving manner. One thing that you need to realize is that our time is short. Befriending people does take time. I'm all for it, but waiting until we are good friends to shed the light of the Gospel may not be a possibility. Another thing, you, we are not going to be able to befriend all or even a small percentage of these people until they come to Christ. It is a mathematical impossibility.

Another thing, where will homosexuals hear about God if not in the churches? People who are alcoholics are allowed in our churches. Child molesters are allowed in our churches--smokers, bulimics, etc., etc. But I think there is a big difference in a homosexual, or several, attending a church, and the pastor being homosexual. I don't think homosexuals nor anyone else not right with God should be in leadership in the church, but the church is meant to be filled with "sinners." We're all sinners. How can we point a finger at this particular group and shun them? No wonder they want nothing to do with us!
In the Falwell case, they weren't going to church to hear about God, and no matter how much God may have been preached, it fell on deaf ears.³ They were going to make a statement. In the MCC case, they aren't hearing about God. They are being fed a hideous lie straight from Satan's dwelling. Moreover, who said anything about "shunning" them. We recognize that if it wasn't for God's grace, we would be a sorrowful mess ourselves. We aren't shunning them, but telling them that what they have isn't life, but merciless death. We want to be able to call them brothers and sisters.

I'm sorry, Andrew. Like I said, you'll think I'm a heretical heathen. But I get riled up about things like this.
I think it better to call it misinterpreted Christianity. I don' t doubt your relationship with Christ. Just that because of the "live right, sit tight" mentality that is prevalent in the Church, you, like so many others, have been misguided.

Maybe with Anna it's women's rights--with me it's the insensitive, impersonal, ineffective, detached dogmatism of today's church.
Quite frankly, I see little dogmatism in today's Church. But the "insensitive, impersonal, ineffective, detached" dogmatism is not what you have found in the email that sparked this conversation.

E-mail me back and tell me how awful I am. :) Hope you don't hate me. :) Jana
There is your email. Again, I don't think you're awful, just mislead.

The following are the notes that have been brought to my (Andrew's) attention that needed to be ironed out as they can be misinterpreted.

¹It needs to be said that the statement just made would, unless under rare outpourings of the Holy Spirit, be an overstatement.

²It has been brought to my attention that the statement "The attempt to build bridges is quite un-Scriptural" may be misconstrued to say that we should never have anything to do with the sodomites. What was intended to be implied was that we should not compromise the Gospel of Christ to help relations between our camp and another. Nevertheless, we should be reaching out to them with the full, uncompromising Gospel and be ready to take them in as brothers when, and only when they repent.

³Again, this may have been an overstatement. As noted, these sodomites came to church not to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but to make a statement. They did that very, very well. I'm not willing to say that this statement means absolutely everyone and I don't believe any of these people were touched in any way whatsoever. The statement was a more-than-probable generalization, not a pronouncement for each individual person. From a subsequent conversation with Rev. Benham, I don't see any reason to believe that anyone sodomite or not received Spiritual help, but I'm not going to be pessimistic and state that none of them were touched.