What Would Happen If...?
In 2 Corinthians 12:11 the apostle Paul expresses the personal feeling of foolishness he has over defending his apostleship. The Corinthians, knew, or should have known the things he is saying, but circumstances required him to say them and he feels like a fool to be embroiled in such a discussion. Carrying out the logic of the ABCUSA’s position regarding what the Bible calls sin to its rational conclusion might be deemed foolish in the sense in which Paul was speaking, but it certainly ought to be done, if for no other reason than to call attention to the long term potential of ABC’s rejection of scripture as its norm.
So, if a denomination affirms one behavior the Bible calls sin, isn’t it logical that eventually other movements will come along seeking acceptance of their practice or practices (whether the Bible speaks of them as sinful or not)? What would happen if there were a movement in the denomination to affirm people who were committing adultery, how would VF respond?
“I was born this way,” the wayward husband opines. “I was born needing more intimacy than my wife can give. My wife doesn’t understand me. I still love her and the kids, but I can’t help it that God made me this way? I’m a Christian. I believe in the authority of the Bible, but “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is just proof texting. And, for me, this is not a choice, I was born this way. I’m a real (sexy) man.”
Would our leaders be understanding and progressive, and refuse to condemn such behavior? After all, does ABCUSA want to be poking our noses into other people’s motel rooms? And besides adultery seems to be a significant (and expected) part of today’s modern society (if t.v. is any judge of societal norms). We wouldn’t want the words of the old Book to make us look judgmental, would we? Would our leaders feel that their friendship with the members of the “Endorse Adultery Now” fraternity required them to refuse to pronounce committing adultery a rejection of the Bible’s teaching? Would they recite the following as justification? “I am STILL traditional in matters of human sexuality AND I do not want to be separated from those who in Christian conscience differ from me on the issue of”…adultery…or whatever. Isn’t that soul freedom?
Would General Board advocate continued conversation on human sexuality and married sexual fidelity. Can’t we just put aside the behavior, and rejection of scripture, and work on mission together? Besides, who’s to say someone will not be able to come up with some obscure, or invented, historical facts to show that the adultery of the Bible was something different than the sincere, heartfelt, family values oriented, love driven adultery of the 21st century. Where’s Dan Brown when you need him?
Suppose a new affirmation movement affirmed thievery and the National Ministries endowments were being systematically looted. Or perhaps anti-Semitism, or the idolatry of false religion in some sort of a re-imagining of theology? Where would our Valley Forge leaders be? Would ABCUSA give the same approval to new “Inviting and Approving” groups that they now give the current “Welcoming & Affirming” faction?
Well, you say, that’s ludicrous it would never happen? Ummm, I suppose not…, but then, that’s what many American Baptists used to say before ABCUSA became so sensitive to and accepting of churches who are actually, as we speak, endorsing homosexual behavior.
So, if a denomination affirms one behavior the Bible calls sin, isn’t it logical that eventually other movements will come along seeking acceptance of their practice or practices (whether the Bible speaks of them as sinful or not)? What would happen if there were a movement in the denomination to affirm people who were committing adultery, how would VF respond?
“I was born this way,” the wayward husband opines. “I was born needing more intimacy than my wife can give. My wife doesn’t understand me. I still love her and the kids, but I can’t help it that God made me this way? I’m a Christian. I believe in the authority of the Bible, but “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is just proof texting. And, for me, this is not a choice, I was born this way. I’m a real (sexy) man.”
Would our leaders be understanding and progressive, and refuse to condemn such behavior? After all, does ABCUSA want to be poking our noses into other people’s motel rooms? And besides adultery seems to be a significant (and expected) part of today’s modern society (if t.v. is any judge of societal norms). We wouldn’t want the words of the old Book to make us look judgmental, would we? Would our leaders feel that their friendship with the members of the “Endorse Adultery Now” fraternity required them to refuse to pronounce committing adultery a rejection of the Bible’s teaching? Would they recite the following as justification? “I am STILL traditional in matters of human sexuality AND I do not want to be separated from those who in Christian conscience differ from me on the issue of”…adultery…or whatever. Isn’t that soul freedom?
Would General Board advocate continued conversation on human sexuality and married sexual fidelity. Can’t we just put aside the behavior, and rejection of scripture, and work on mission together? Besides, who’s to say someone will not be able to come up with some obscure, or invented, historical facts to show that the adultery of the Bible was something different than the sincere, heartfelt, family values oriented, love driven adultery of the 21st century. Where’s Dan Brown when you need him?
Suppose a new affirmation movement affirmed thievery and the National Ministries endowments were being systematically looted. Or perhaps anti-Semitism, or the idolatry of false religion in some sort of a re-imagining of theology? Where would our Valley Forge leaders be? Would ABCUSA give the same approval to new “Inviting and Approving” groups that they now give the current “Welcoming & Affirming” faction?
Well, you say, that’s ludicrous it would never happen? Ummm, I suppose not…, but then, that’s what many American Baptists used to say before ABCUSA became so sensitive to and accepting of churches who are actually, as we speak, endorsing homosexual behavior.
posted by St. Louis K at 12:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home