1. “Those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:4-5)
Piper uses this verse to say that the pro homosexuals in the church should repent. I think it is saying the opposite. He is calling for Jerusalem to repent, by saying their sin is worse than the siloam people. He is saying that we should look at our own sin, see how it is greater than the sin of the tornado victims, and repent.
2. “The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us. Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction.
a. when has a tornado ever been described as gentle?
b. I really can’t remember, but does God use natural disasters to call the victims of the disaster into repentance? Does that happen anywhere in the bible? I remember him calling people into repentance, then sending the disaster if they didn’t repent. Then other people, like non-victims, were then called to witness the disaster and then repent.
3. “The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) ”
Doesn’t the most obvious reading of this verse seem to say that people who have affairs, or steal anything, or want anything that isn’t theirs, will go to hell? Then if we decided that Paul couldn’t possibly be saying it, we try to read it into context. The problem with this verse is that we seem to read all the other sins into context, except the gay part.
4. I understand the concern about not calling homosexuality a sin. I have a hard time getting around it. But I think the pro homosexual community isn’t making this statement out of context. They are responding to our current and prior culture of judgment toward homosexuality. By saying that they need to face the facts and accept the truth that the bible says homosexuality is wrong is to ignore their context, which I believe is dehumanizing and probably one bad sin, but I can’t seem to have a verse pop into my head. My point is that we have to respond to them in the context that they are responding on, which is one where we have valued the sin of homosexuality over most other sins
5. The bible does seem to make a bigger deal about sexual sins. Remember that one verse about in the body verses out of the body? Important stuff. But that includes all sexual sins, and our treatment of them isn’t the same as how we treat homosexuality. Think of the sin of remarriage after a divorce. God seems to make a HUGE deal about comparing idolatry to adultery. And he seems to really care about divorce and care even more about remarriage. Remarriage isn’t something in the past either. God seems to see it as if it is a continual sin, because you are only married once. Yet our churches are full of 2nd marriages. There are many pastors, and elders, and theologians who are remarried, and yet we aren’t giving sermons on this or splitting churches over it. And make sure you understand my point. I am glad we aren’t. I think those of us who feel committed to proclaim the sin of homosexuality should treat them how we are already treating remarriage. Mainly we ignore it, focus on it when it is a pressing issue in the life of the individual, never claim how great it is from the pulpit and instead see the individual past their sexual past.
Filed under: response |