Archive for the ‘Homosexuality’ Category

Here it is:

I watched Larry King Live on Friday night and was pretty disappointed with just about everything I was hearing, even from “Evangelicals” Ted Haggard and Bob Botsford. Here’s a summary of what disappointed me:

  1. Jen Knapp – She is obviously still conflicted from her body language. It was unclear if she actually viewed her behavior as sinful, but justified within a framework of “we’re all sinners” or if she actually thought her lifestyle was commendable within a Biblical framework. She sounded unsure about Scriptural warrant as she repeatedly said that the Bible was written in Greek and subject to various interpretations. She didn’t make a case for her lifestyle from Scripture other than to say that there are some who understand the text in a way that would permit homosexual behavior. I was also disappointed with the privatization of the faith in her references, “My faith”, “My journey”, etc.
  2. Larry King – He was obviously bent on viewing her lifestyle as something that she is inclined towards. He even reasoned that if God is all-powerful, then our inclinations must be consistent with His will. Bob Botsford had a great opportunity to respond to this faulty epistemology, but he failed to connect with this soft toss (more on that later). King was picking and choosing from the Judeo-Christian worldview to validate certain actions, while condemning others…yet another opportunity for Botsford to respond too.
  3. Ted Haggard – He kept reaffirming that God is love and the Bible is all about having a personal relationship with Jesus. He even said that since Knapp and Botsford are on their separate journeys, and that they are equally saved by grace, they should not be criticizing one another. With Haggard also privatizing the faith, he was essentially an unwitting ally to Knapp in the conversation. This over-privatizing of the faith explains why Haggard felt that he was mishandled by his church’s board and the Foursquare denomination when his own mis-discretions became public. He apparently thought that church discipline was “unloving” and incompatible with love towards those in sin. If Ted Haggard thought he was “saved” during his escapades, then he must feel himself in a bind to denunciate Jen Knapp’s actions so long as she professes to be a Christian. He is making a category error in the role of Church discipline in connection with assurance of salvation. His ecclesiology seems pretty whack, doesn’t even sound like he would discipline Jen Knapp. Weird stuff.
  4. Bob Botsford – He is an Evangelical pastor who had a Bible with him, but seemed very uncomfortable to be there and very ill-prepared in the apologetics of pulling down strongholds. He is a learned man, based on his website, but seems as if he has never been trained in epistemology and critiquing post-modern thought and moral relativity. It is great to quote the Bible over and over again, but at some point you need to be able to show the inconsistency and foolishness of the opposition by denying them many of their presuppositions that guide their thoughts and questions. He failed to do that. He should have asked Jen Knapp and Larry King if they have any sexual ethics and what such is based on. He should have asked them if they supported pedophiles, incestuous intercourse, bestiality, and rape. If they said no to any of those scenarios, they should have been asked to give a defense for what authority their denunciations are based on. They would have been revealed as inconsistent and morally bankrupt, as the real hypocrites in the discussion. He had so many opportunities to challenge the uncertain exegesis of Jen Knapp, the selective epistemology of Larry King, and the doubletalk of Ted Haggard, but failed. I was screaming for Al Mohler, Greg Koukl, or even John MacArthur to show up on set and make a respectable defense of the Evangelical faith, but such was not the case.

In closing, this was painful to watch. I do pray for Jen Knapp and have many of her songs on my Ipod. The only plus I take from the show was that she was very conflicted within and she was hardly honest when she said that she is happier than she has ever been. That is absolutely not true. I pray that she would turn in repentance before she is totally given over by God to her obstinate heart.

As reported in the NY Times:

Catholic Charities To Withdraw Services Over Same-Sex Marriage

The fight over a proposed same-sex marriage law here heated up this week as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said that if the law passed, the church would cut its social service programs that help residents with adoption, homelessness and health care. Under the bill, which has the mayor’s support and is expected to pass next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform same-sex weddings or make space available for them. But officials from the archdiocese said they feared the law might require them to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples. As a result, they said, the archdiocese would have to abandon its contracts with the city if the law passed. The church’s social services arm, known as Catholic Charities, serves 68,000 local residents, including about a third of the city’s homeless people, who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church, city officials said.  The New York Times, 11/12/09

I want to say that this is a sad day and that the repercussions of these “equal protection” laws are going to drive away millions of dollars that flow through these ministries.

Also, as I understand it, if the Senate health care bill doesn’t include the Stupak amendment and president Obama breaks yet another promise of not funding abortion by signing it into law, then Catholic hospitals will be in a tough bind. If they extend services to those under the Gov’t plan, they would be bound to extend abortion services. Hopefully the bill keeps the amendment and a conscious clause is contained within that will allow certain doctors and hospitals to extend care to folks in the Gov’t plan, but refer abortion services to another hospital or doctor that is willing to perform them. We shall see, but the trend is not good.

In an interview with”Details” magazine, actor Ian McKellen admitted to ripping pages out of the Bible whenever he gets a chance (link).

Details: Is it true that when you stay at hotels you tear out the Bible page that condemns homosexuality?

Ian McKellen: I do, absolutely. I’m not proudly defacing the book, but it’s a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible. And I’m not really the first: I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages — Leviticus 18:22 — that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom.

I would say that Scripture must be piercing his heart if he feels the need to rip out pages from the Bible to feel at ease. It cut him first before he responded in like-manner. He can cut up the Bible all he wants, but it is alive and active and not subdued by such rebellious folly.

Gene Robinson Quote

Posted: November 12, 2009 by Rick Hogaboam in Christ & Culture, Ethics, Heresy, Homosexuality

Was listening to NPR today and heard part of an interview with Episcopal Gene Robinson, who happens to be openly gay and in a relationship with another man. He was previously married to a woman and had two children with his former wife. Anyhow, this quote is not exact, but the best my memory can recall.

I’m encouraged that Christians are reading the sacred text in a new way. They are realizing that the text is not saying what it appears to be saying.

When the interviewer asked him what he does with certain Scriptures that clearly prohibit homosexual behavior, Robinson replied that he would be glad to answer such questions privately during the break. What a coward. Should we really be encouraged that people are reading the Bible in a new way where what it seems to be saying is no longer what it is actually saying?