Following the links on the International Weblogger's Day (June 9) lead me to the Innovators for Christ site. While I have yet to discover a post that seems remotely innovative to me, I did discover a post that touches on some of the things Ron Shanks and I have been discussing, dealing with homosexuality (in this case ordination of homosexuals) and recent changes in the USA.
There are two basic principals at the root of this problem.
How and when, did the sin of homosexuality receive amnesty?
- The inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures: You have to believe that what Paul wrote to the Romans in chapter 1 verses 26 and 27 is false. You have to be able to read that and justify unnatural and indecent behavior in your ordained leadership.
- You have to be able to justify unrepentant sinners as qualified to lead believers in a life committed to repentance. I don't think that homosexuality is worse than any other sin. The type of sin is not the issue to me. If Mr. Robinson stood before the church and said "I steal all my food from the grocery store because I love the rush I get from it, and I don't intend to stop". People would be outraged and Robinson would be run out of the church.
This sound very much like what Ron has to say. Very succinctly put. Gets right to the nub of the issue. Even uses the same Bible quotation Ron gave me. If I had more faith in the infallibility of the Bible, I would have to change my mind about the ordination of ministers too.
On the other hand, if Ron is right that I am an Idoliter et al, then I wouldn't be suitable as a minister either. Case-in-point, all humans are sinners so no-one should have amnesty. Therefore, nobody has the right to represent God as a minister.
Except for God's grace.
So why should we single out the Homosexual sinner? Or the one who steals his groceries for that matter?