No! No the church should not. Sorry, sorry. I’m supposed to have more skill in writing these things, more nuance. Let’s go around the houses a bit. Doctrine, it’s a dirty word. Whenever there’s a break within the church caused by a more modern mindset (call it the emergent church or whatever you please,) this word comes into play, and for seeing value in the historic doctrines of the Christian faith you’re going to be an object of ridicule, albeit ridicule isn’t something I’m interested in right now. Doctrines are just beliefs taught by the church, or sets of interconnected beliefs, like the belief that Jesus is the Christ or that God’s loving or that we ourselves should behave lovingly towards others, or the belief that the boundaries of that love are guided by the Spirit in both His inner witness and His word authored by the prophets. God isn’t disinterested in dusty old doctrine, that’s an absurd idea when we realise that doctrines are simply beliefs taught by the church about things and people.
The bigger problem comes about when people within the walls of the church, people who identify as being Christian, begin playfully bashing doctrine for the sake of pushing a novel idea upon the body. In reality the person bashing doctrinal statements is carefully pressing a statement of their own, which leads into today’s article. This one like many is found here https://www.unapologetic.co.uk/christ-as-king, and is titled “A Biblical response to the question of “Should the church affirm gay relationships?”
I’ll share some background to the conversation before adding a teaser at the end of the article. This question, now answered in PDF format, was originally part of a conversation I had with a user over at DWR’s website. Readers will remember donewithreligion for being a very pleasant man, not rude, if he were a meal he wouldn’t have a lot of flavour to him, and maybe that’s part of why I dislike his approach. Think of Christ, if the salt loses its saltiness what’s it good for? Nothing, it’s good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. DWR and his followers ask that the church “accept” homosexuality and same sex relationships, admittedly, I don’t know exactly what that entails, accept seems to be code for support or encourage. I don’t fully understand what these people mean by accept because there’s no explanation given, just an exhortation to accept (to bust out the old style terminology). In the interest of fairness, and because I haven’t read from them in awhile, I’ve read up on some of their newest material to see if they’re still of the same mind, here’s something they shared recently. . .
“If we go to the same church building and accept the same doctrines, you will usually find love and acceptance. I remember when I was in the church system the first thing I would ask someone was where they went to church. If they went to an organization I liked and agreed with, I would pretty much instantly like the person. If they went to a place that was different in their way of worship or interpretation of the bible, then I would immediately be on guard and almost dismiss the thought of getting to know them. This seems to be a pretty common occurrence. It is sad that we put walls up with people who think differently.”
I’m tempted to be derisory about the whole it’s sad comment, but I won’t, instead I’ll share a video I watched while in a church recently, adding how this is the style I feel DWR and his followers are moulding themselves in (a style that many good natured Christians are in). . .
. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Did you listen to the entire thing? You better not have. I recently brought a friend to a church of their choice, an unbelieving friend, and this is what the minister played during service. I was planning to write on it, I’d title the article “Are Wesley’s Wuppets for Muppets?” (look forward to that in the future, God willing). My point is that this is how lots of people in the pews are behaving, and this is the level they want to operate on. “Doctrine makes me sad, let’s just love” again, to insist upon just love is doctrinal.
God wants disciples, mature followers of Jesus, not people who sweetly defend a person’s right to homosexual marriage. I don’t throw around the word heretic a lot, Calvinists kinda ruined the word for me by attacking everyone who isn’t a theistic determinist as heretical, and yet, DWR is writing accept heresy within the church. He cautions us against being “on guard” around people who believe differently, now, being on guard is bad if he means being defensive in social situations, obviously that’s rude and inappropriate and is gonna make everyone feel kinda awkward. Although if he’s meaning let’s not be on guard against false views, and let’s be “accepting”, because you have to be accepting, then that’s clearly an unbiblical demand to make of us. One of Jim’s friendlies added to the mix “I also am firmly of the belief that Jesus, Creator of the Universe, has such a great love for ALL His people regardless of background, religious beliefs, nationalities, gender identities, race, etc, etc.” Firstly, Christians are His people, not everyone else, that’s not to say He doesn’t love people, rather I’m writing when you use the fact that God loves everyone to excuse every view/action you make light of sin, which God never commanded people to do.
Muslims aren’t God’s people, I’m not meaning to pick on them specifically, just using an example that’s near to hand. In point of fact, according to scripture people who deny the Son are involved with the spirit of Antichrist (Muslims deny the Son). Jim, Jem, anyone who backs up that above comment about God loving “His people,” while at the same time classing “His people” as anyone regardless of their beliefs, is in serious error. These people are not saying what the Spirit says, they’re not led by the Spirit of Truth in writing that. Nevertheless, Jim replied “Wow Jem, I wish I could broadcast your reply to the world. It is sad you, or anyone is forced to leave for any reason.”
This is the real shame about the above movement of people, because they’re unable to turn the claims and accusations they make on themselves to test and see if what they’re writing is in harmony with God’s word. Test the spirits. It is sad that people are put out of church, it’s even sadder when people come into the church and attempt to change her from the inside, that’s warfare, that’s barbaric and criminal. Why do certain people make war against my church? I’m not meaning to be extreme here, but many of the unchurched aren’t upset because they were shunned and ultimately put out from church, they’re bitter because they couldn’t force their congregation into conforming to their own views/sins. Jem added “I was locked with blinkers into my religion and hotly defending it and judging others. It was only when I was forced to leave when I came out as gay that I began to remove the blinkers and realize how blind I was. It’s the one thing I can be truly grateful for being gay – that it forced me out of religion and into appreciating the unconditional love of Jesus and the Father in a new way.”
God bless the man for his honesty, and I can write amen, God does love him, but that’s not the same as saying God wants him to be a practising homosexual. Jem was writing “I once was blind but now I see!” as if the spirit of gayness had possessed his body and the scales dropped from his eyes (where’s God in all this, where’s His word?) A man’s desire to be sexually involved with other men doesn’t mean that the church has to give their blessing, they won’t.
I hope nobody misunderstands me here, because I brought a transexual girl to church last year, obviously I told them not to accept communion, but I brought them in, prayed for them, asked that God help them when I fail, so no part of me is in favour of driving people onto the streets. Rather I’m writing this person who I brought into the church was there as a guest, an invited guest, and I told them as I tell every trans person, namely that their sex at birth is a God given thing, and one not to be violate. I don’t try and force the church into “accepting” her as being a part of “His people,” they’re not, not today, maybe someday God willing, but not today. In the same way, Jim and Jem were members, but perhaps at some point in their lives, they should’ve made the grown-up decision and became guests. They went out from us, for they were not of us. Should the church affirm gay marriage? Lots of people say yes, I’m still writing no. . .
A Biblical response on the question of “Should the church affirm gay relationships?”
Be that space legal, educational, media related or even church focused. It’s not sound judgement to pull down fences before knowing why they were erected to begin with, and it’s the celebration of the gay relationship which has, whether people enjoy this or not, been condemned by practically every society thus far. For which I’m meaning to write it’s long been divisive. The Mohaves (native Americans), for example, interchanged the word for homosexual with the word for coward, that’s not to say coward is an accurate characterization of the so-called gay community, rather it’s an evidence that this issue around an extremely small minority (about 2% of the population) has always, in every culture, been a point of disunity. . . [
continue reading. . .https://www.unapologetic.co.uk/christ-as-king]
― T. C. M