of seeing articles like this in The Christian Post. To summarize the article, the de facto American head of the new CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) felt compelled to issue a letter claiming that the motivation behind their pulling out of the old Anglican communion was not an “anti-gay” move. You may remember these churches are the ones in Virginia, eight in total, that split from the Anglican church last week. One of their sources of friction was the installation of homosexual bishop Robinson over a section of the Episcopal church on the east coast. The international head of this new Episcopal group, bishop Akinola, also felt compelled to issue a disclaimer to the same point.
Last week I made a post in this blog of how I was blocking the Arts & Entertainment channel on our tv because I was sick and tired of having the gay agenda thrown in my face on their channel. I was thoroughly and soundly taken to task by one reader for being homophobic, being responsible for gay’s hard life and a roadblock in their search for understanding and equality and the right to marry and lead a “normal” life.
I know that the gays know that the position of the church is, and always has been that we “hate the sin but love the sinner”. But that’s not what they want to hear. They browbeat the church over any perceived or actual slight to the homosexual community such as disapproving of having a gay bishop or minister or leader of any kind.
They wish to badger the church into acceptance of their lifestyle choice and make it simply another way of living. The problem of parents in the church having gay children is a touchy one. Many parents that wrongly take their children’s adoption of this perversion as a reflection on them and their parenting, are choosing to adopt a position about it that I call “accomodation”. By accepting and defending their children’s lifestyle choice, they are deflecting any guilt that they may feel over that choice. A retired pastor friend of mine claims that this rot from within will eventually bring down the churches that fold to this badgering.
The gays have accomplished their objective of linking. The rejection of gays in leadership positions is equated to rejection of gay people. The disapproval of children’s lifestyle choice is equated to parents rejection of the child.The withholding of leadership positions in the church has nothing to do with the person that is gay. It is the refusal to give the message that this lifestyle choice, which is a sin in the church’s eyes, has been given the honor that comes with the position.
Let’s quit playing semantic games in the church with sin. The church would likewise reject an unrepentant pedophile, an adulterer, a murderer. The church as well, does not claim to take only non-sinners for these positions, but neither will they take people that flaunt their sinful ways in the church’s face. A repentant pedophile would face some civil penalties for their transgressions. If they returned to the church most churches, with the church knowing their previous attraction to children may restrict their access to children (i.e., they would probably not be asked to be a children’s Sunday School teacher). However, they could take the position of elder, or congregation president or some other leadership post. The point being that they would still be accepted and loved by the congregants. This is, by the way, a fact in many churches.
The essential points;
1. You cannot honor that which you consider a sin.
2. Rejection of the sin does NOT mean rejection of the sinner.