Play Depicting Gays as Victims Staged at Concordia-Chicago, by Pr. Rossow

Columnist Robert Knight has outed Concordia-Chicago’s recent act of “academic freedom,” a staging of The Laramie Project which is a play that according to him depicts gays as victims. We here at BJS don’t buy the academic freedom argument  Concordia President John Johnson used to defend his professors who signed the Bill Ayers petition and we don’t buy it here either. Lutherans are not free. We are slaves of Christ! (Romans 6:15-22) Will President Kieschnick act on the mandate we have given the synodical handbook (see section XI. B. 1., p. 15) and exercise supervision to halt this production?  If his past record is any indication he will not. We asked him to intervene in the Ayers situation and he did not. We asked him to intervene in the gay activist music director situation and he claimed helplessness. He is apparently too busy restructuring the synod so that his office can have more power and control and does not have time to fulfill the first duty we have given to him.

Here is the most instructive quote from the Knight article:

Some church-related entities don’t wait for the government to bully them before ceding moral ground. At Concordia University Chicago, a campus of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which is staunchly Biblical regarding homosexuality, the theater department is showing The Laramie Project, a play about the town of Laramie, Wyoming’s reaction to the murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998. Based on a book by Moises Kaufman, the play fits the narrative of “gays as victims,” which has been their most effective strategy other than the unsubstantiated claim that people are “born gay.”

The play was hatched by the Tectonic Theatre Project, whose managing director, Jeffrey LaHost, claimed that conservative Christians are a hate group and want to murder homosexuals.

At least Mr. Knight still acknowledges us as a staunchly Biblical denomination. If we keep spending time on Blue Ribbon panels to increase synodical power and more time peddling church growth methods that are based on pandering to the culture, Mr. Knight and others may not be able to assert that much longer and it won’t be a shock at all that our Concordias are putting on plays and signing petitions that perpetuate humanism and immorality of the culture.

To read the entire article by Knight click here. (We thank one of our readers for calling this to our attention.)

About Pastor Tim Rossow

Rev. Dr. Timothy Rossow is the Director of Development for Lutherans in Africa. He served Bethany Lutheran Church in Naperville, IL as the Sr. Pastor for 22 years (1994-2016) and was Sr. Pastor of Emmanuel Lutheran in Dearborn, MI prior to that. He is the founder of Brothers of John the Steadfast but handed off the Sr. Editor position to Rev. Joshua Scheer in 2015. He currently resides in Ocean Shores WA with his wife Phyllis. He regularly teaches in Africa. He also paints watercolors, reads philosophy and golfs. He is currently represented in two art galleries in the Pacific Northwest. His M Div is from Concordia, St. Louis and he has an MA in philosophy from St. Louis University and a D Min from Concordia, Fort Wayne.

Comments

Play Depicting Gays as Victims Staged at Concordia-Chicago, by Pr. Rossow — 80 Comments

  1. Dutch,

    Christ chose me in holy baptism. He daily and richly forgives my sins in the Christian church through meditating on his Word, hearing it preached, receiving absolution and the Lord’s Body and Blood. By God’s grace with faith in Christ’s promises, I return to my baptism daily and drown the old Adam with all his evil passions. May God the Father keep me attached to the True Vine. I pray the same for you.

    I’m not sure how that is relevant to whether we should be tolerant of others who commit sinful acts with which we disagree.

  2. Matt, don’t be a pietist, that is for Rome & Greece. You seem to want to speak directly in what you say you believe, to individuals, then do so! We wear big people pants, we can take it, but what you give, you must be willing to be met with!!!
    Most of us here, already do. No, it is NOT FREE SOCIETY, friend. It is…YOU BELONG TO THE LEFT KINGDOM, THAT OF THE WORLD, OR YOU BELONG TO THE RIGHT KINGDOM, THAT WHICH BELONGS TO WHAT YOU CANNOT PROVE, SEE, HEAR OR TOUCH, SUCH IS FAITH IN CHRIST, THE WORLD KNOWS IT NOT AS IT CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT. Left & right kingdoms, to which do you count yourself?

    You need to learn the difference. You spar with the Author of All, what you choose to argue against, using the world as proof. Since He is the Author, you spar with Him. Take this up with Him, not here, not with us.

  3. You’ve lost me. Sorry. I don’t understand how I am being a pietist. We live in a free society (the left hand kingdom). As Christians we are bound by God’s Word. I am not sparring with God on this issue. I HAVE STATED CLEARLY THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. God has NOT commanded that all outward acts of sin must also be illegal. If you believe that then you are the pietist, not me.

  4. [email protected]: “The question is who gets to determine what behaviors are destructive to society.”

    Who indeed. And right there you have it. Your argument is a defense of post-modern subjectivism with regard to the law. So, for now, you would advocate that murder should be outlawed because the majority of us still consider it a taboo, but that sodomy should not be outlawed, because (at least) a very vocal minority of us no longer consider it a taboo.

    But unhitching the tradition of western law from the reality of inalienable absolutes (your argument as stated in 42) is quite the trade-off to ensure that Rome will never again engage in witch-hunts. Yet, here is my suggestion at this point: admit that, as the above posts have claimed, your CU education has inclined you to a liberal philosophy of political law in which justice is contexualized and has a meaning which may change over time. Then, at least, you will be authentic in your argument. (But you will also be proving the semantic thrust of the original post.)

    If it is illegal to beat one’s spouse, then it would make sense for it to be illegal to damage her body in other ways for the sake of one’s own gratification (the sodomy which you seem to advocate as “legal”.) But if it is “legal” to damage one’s spouse for the sake of gratification, then what argument do you have for making it illegal to beat her – especially in the context of “love” “passion” or “sex”? Here is the real conundrum for the new liberalisms view of law. It wants to advocate one while shunning the other. But it will not be able to “have its cake and eat it too” forever. This will come home to roost, and it will result in pain, suffering and death for those from whom the law’s protections have gradually been stolen (such as young men who will be the victims of homosexual relationship, and the women who will follow when we lift that “18 year old” “taboo”).

    I am well aware that this is the where the majority politic is headed in this country. What I do not understand is church institutions who would teach tolerance for this philo-sophistry.

  5. I don’t have a CU education. I teach at a CU (not CU-C) as a history professor and am very well read on politics, theology and history.

    I did not advocate murder or beating one’s spouse. Consenting homosexual relationships are not equal to murder or spousal abuse. That is the fallacy of false equivocation and a reductio ad absurdum in one statement.

    So do you believe that sodomy is not only sin but should be a crime? What about sodomy between a husband and wife? What about gluttony? I would suggest that gluttony is destroying American civilization and society and ruining our economy more quickly than tolerating homosexuals.

    Do you really believe that everything you believe is a sin should be a crime? If I am understanding you correctly, if I do not think sodomy should be a crime I am somehow embracing a “post-modern” understanding of the law. Is that what you are saying?

  6. Matt, your answer is THE answer. In your own post #53. You live in the left hand kingdom. Your “free society” freedom defined by men, for men.

    I, dwell in the right hand kingdom. Freedom, true freedom, w/o price, w/o pre requesit,
    w/o demand. By culture, government, people, or pride. I am TRULY FREE.

    Left hand kingdom, those serfs, dwell in bondage, of many, for the sake of a few.

    Right hand kingdom, live in freedom, for all, bought by One.

    You said you live in left hand kingdom. I live in the right hand. Need I or you say more?

  7. Did you read the entire post? I think it is YOU who are missing the distinctions between kingdoms and the proper understanding of our position in each.

    We live in a free society as citizens of the USA. Do you not agree? We are endowed by our Creator with the rights to life, liberty and property. The U.S. Constitution guarantees those rights from the federal government’s interference, particularly in the 4th and 14th amendments. The states traditionally claimed the rights to regulate other issues, like marriage, sexual behavior, etc. I believe those decisions should take place on a state level and be decided by the people’s representatives. That’s called federalism. However, I do not think sexual acts between consenting adults should be illegal even if I consider them immoral and sinful. If you do think so, that’s fine. We disagree on that issue.

    As Christians by faith we live in the right hand kingdom. We are free from sin and given grace to follow God’s commands and serve our neighbor in love. It does not logically follow that every thing that the Bible teaches is a sin is also a crime in the left-hand kingdom.

    I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

  8. I have been trying off and on to follow this thread, between work, and internet being down, it has been slow going.
    Dutch are you reading what you are typing? Some good points I’ll grant you, but are you really attempting to judge Matt’s being in a state of grace? He has on more that one post stated his belief in the finished work of Christ on his behalf, talked about his Baptism, remembers it daily and trusts in Christ for his salvation. I have many friends and family members with whom I strongly disagree on some of these same issues. But I would NEVER question the validity of their confession based of which side of the political fence they stood. I firmly believe they are wrong, wrong, wrong, and frustating to boot, but it is not mine to question their salvation.

  9. Hey Bubbles,

    I’m with you–if you ever want to get together to see a play with a decent plot, let me know.
    Norm can help you get in touch with me. I’d love to go with you! I really enjoy plays, if they’re not as depressing as turning on the nightly news. 🙂
    The Lyric Opera of Chicago just finished putting on “Faust”. It has a strong Christian theme to it.

    Maybe BJS could sponsor an outing like this sometime? For fellowship! Just a thought….looking forward to the next BJS Conference!

    Incidentally, Concordia–Chicago will be performing a children’s play called “The Emperor’s Disappearing Pants” on February 21st. If it’s for children, I hope it’s appropriate, but the title and Concordia’s reputation make me wonder sometimes….
    http://www.cuchicago.edu/news/story/?sid=728

  10. Reductio ad absurdum? Like, say, equivocating the criminalization of sodomy with the Inquisition? Hmmm…

    What you have clearly advocated is that law and justice are contextualized. I base this not on your view of sodomy (that is the symptom) but on your argument for that view which you have made over the course of this thread, rejecting moral absolutes as the basis of law, and inserting instead the open question “Who gets to say…?”

    My goal is only to get you to admit that this has been the basis of your argument, as well as recognize how such an argument only validates the concerns of the original post about our CU’s and what views might be advocated therein.

    You ask for my position:

    I believe that government exists to punish evil, as our catechism clearly teaches. I believe that evil is readily observable, as our catechism also teaches, and this is due primarily to the harm it causes others. I believe that when the government ceases to function in this way, whatever form it may take, then evil will run rampant in unforeseen ways. The more the government refuses its task of punishing evil, the closer that civilization is to ruin. (We are far down that road!)

    Sodomy was once outlawed in the United States because it is both morally reprehensible and damaging to the sodomite, that is, as we might now call it, “spousal abuse.” While you are free as an American to advocate that “Consenting homosexual relationships are not equal to … spousal abuse,” this has not been the western legal view of the matter until our most tumultuous times. Even within my “emerging adult” lifetime a famous NBA sportscaster lost his job over the outrage of his performance of such “abuse” upon what he believed was a “consenting” woman. Our holy God once did much more than merely outlaw it, and so it still bears the name. Of course, private Christians must leave punishment to the one called to bear the sword, but we as the Church, if we will be faithful to our calling, must at the very least teach that the legalization of such sexual abuse will do anything but benefit society and should hardly be “tolerated” much less “celebrated.”

    Thank you for your time Matt. This thread is really a long way from its start. I do not really desire to publicly debate the merits of sodomy at any length. So, please feel free to consider your rebuttal an end our current dialog.

    —–

    Ironically, from today’s appointed hymn in the Treasury, from the desk of P. Melancthon:

    “As he of old deceived the world, and into sin and death has hurled,
    So now he subtly lies in wait to undermine both Church and state.” LSB 522

  11. Dutch,

    Matt is not a pietist. I am not sure how you are using that term but he is not a pietist. We disagree on how to develop moral law for the left hand kingdom but that does not suggest pietism.

    TR

  12. The only basis for my argument was that everything that is sinful should not necessarily be illegal.
    I suspect you agree with me about that.

    You gave a fairly well reasoned argument for your position.

    Thank you.

  13. Pastor Rossow,
    It is pietism, in it’s way. Postmodernist Pietism. Alchohol, dancing, “abstaining from”, are replaced with “tolerance of” a social cause or liberty of. Adele Sakler, Phyllis Tickle, Rob Bell do it rather well.

    Paul, in Ephesus, didn’t “tolerate” their “free society” to the point he changed his message. When things of the “free society” where the churches were, permeated the churches, isn’t that why the Epistles were written? When anyone, mixes the age w/church, the meanings of the basics take on a different tone or definition and the message changes with it. Including the meaning (intent) of Scripture and the meanings & precepts of the Sacraments. We saw that in August, with the decision made in Minneapolis.

    Matt, I was harsh & spoke in a tone I should have used to you. I am sorry for it.

  14. I went to Concordia RF. It’s become an interesting place to say the least. However, I don’t see the problem with this staging. There is a huge difference between violence and preaching the law. To me, this looks like an opportunity to hold a forum in which homosexuality and the Christian reaction to homosexuals is discussed. A lot of students would turn out, and if someone were there who could articulately the position of Scripture (like Andrew Steinmann) it could be very beneficial for the entire community. Has anyone suggested this? Or would anyone step up to the plate? More than half the students there would be shocked to hear professors speak out from the Biblical position. And if a professor were to defend homosexuality over against God’s clear Word, well then you would have something to write about.

  15. @stub #64
    The Laramie Project is designed to heighten awareness of “bigotry” against those who practice homosexuality. Through enactments of “interviews” with some of those living in Laramie, the purpose of the play (from what I understand in my reading about it, I have never seen it) is to spotlight cultural and religious based prejudices against homosexuals which are supposed to have contributed to the motive of Matthew Shepard’s kilelrs in 1998. So, no, this isn’t simply a play to raise awareness to violence against homosexuals, but it is also about getting beyond “prejudices” against homosexuals and taking on a “live and let live” attitude towards homosexuality. The Holy Scriptures do not take a “live and let live” position with regard to the sin of homosexuality. Showcasing the “Laramie Project” at a Lutheran university only serves to desensitize those students to the seriousness of unrepentant sin and to treat a class of sinners as a special case, it is “OK” to be a homosexual. After all, the spirit of this world wants us to accept the idea that homosexuality is not a sin and should be tolerated. The Laramie project reinforces that idea.

  16. Stub, Jim is right on.

    I would agree with you IF the play was simply designed to facilitate discussion, provoke thought, and be neutral (or close to it). But it’s not – it is propaganda with an axe to grind. The purpose of this play, as Jim points out, is to promote an anti-scriptural view of homosexuality.

    And I doubt that any theology profs showed up to explain the issue from a Biblical perspective after the final curtain, especially since the school invited the suburban Chicago community to attend. The intended audience was more than just the students attending CUC.

    You don’t put on this production for strictly informational purposes. You perform this to make people see things your way. It’s persuasion and indoctrination, not education.

  17. Do we live in a “free” society? I suppose so, but let’s keep the “free” society out of the church. Saint Paul makes that very clear in his letters.

    Revfisk,

    Thank you for bringing in the the 1st use of the law in curbing evil in society. I believe that sums it up on how a christian should operate in the left hand kingdom.

    Matt,

    Do you honesty believe watching granpa stuff himself at the Sunday dinner after church is more dangerous to society than Adam Lambert (of Amercian Idol fame), express his sodomite views to millions at the latest music awards? In the right hand kingdom, all sin has the same consequence. In the left hand kingdom, punishment is based of the severity of the evil committed. In history, this has varied and been abused, but overall, it has been fairly consistant. Just look at the history of societies that have openly approved of sodomy. Would you raise your children there?

    MM

  18. Should consenting homosexual adult relationships be illegal? That is all I asked. I don’t think they should be illegal. Social acceptance and legality are not equal. If you want the government to enforce laws against adult homosexual relationships, that’s ok. We just disagree.

    I have seen clips of Lambert’s performance and that is unrelated to the question. I think many gay people could be offended by his performance. It was lewd and inappropriate, but it’s nothing new from hollywood or the music industry.

    Gluttony is a sin and it is destroying our country’s healthcare system and killing millions of people. Unrepentant gluttons go to hell just like unrepentant homosexuals. Frankly, I don’t think we should [impose laws against gluttony] because it’s not the government’s business what I eat and don’t eat.

    I made VERY CLEAR distinction between what should be legal and what the Christian church calls immoral.

    There are societies today that have very strict laws against sodomy, in fact, they punish its practice with the death penalty: Saudi Arabia and Iran. I would not want my children to live in those societies.

    Roman law allowed for consenting homosexual adult relationships while it condemned raping of younger males by adult males. Even though Paul absolutely condemned homosexual practices, St Paul nor other early Christians argued for legally imposing Christian moral standards on Roman society in general. Christian emperors in the late 4th century imposed the death penalty on male homosexuals.

  19. Matt,

    No one is saying that Christians need to politic for Judeo-Christian laws. Paul did not make that a crusade because it is not the work of the Church. But, if you were to ask Paul, should the laws of the land be in keeping with divine moral law he would answer “Yes, of course, why wouldn’t we want that? That is the law of the universe as God has established it.” So that is why I and others have taken that tack here. The inferior moral laws of the free society should not rule our conservative, confessional Lutheran universities.

    TR

  20. While I have not read the entire string of commentary, I would like to post my perspective on the whole Laramie Project issue. I am a Wyoming native, and was attending college at the time of the Matthew Shepard incident. While no person deserves to be treated as he was, please do not be deceived by what the play or the media would have you believe. Matthew Shepard was not murdered for merely being gay. There were a lot of underhanded dealings that contributed to his death. He was not the victim of a hate crime based on sexual preference, but rather the tragic victim of drug abuse and debauchery. The two criminals who murdered Matthew were not even from Wyoming, and were of questionable character themselves. His case was one that the liberal media spun to champion their cause of gay rights.

    It is unfortunate that Concordia chose to produce a play which was spawned from a tragic murder that had little or nothing do do with the victims sexual preference. I would hope in the future that our seminaries would be more diligent in choosing plays that are consistent with scripture and glorify God, not the sinfulness of man.

  21. IF the purpose of the play is to state that homosexuality is NOT sinful and an approved action for Christians, then we have NO argument.

    If you want to match up the laws of the land with everything that the Bible teaches is immoral then we have a disagreement. If that’s a “postmodern” attitude I’m ok with that. I definitely think it is post-Enlightenment. True tolerance is a wonderful thing.

  22. Matt,

    I am hoping you can answer a simple question. I would prefer an A) or B) answer and then if you wish you can comment on your answer.

    Which government is preferable, A) or B)?

    A) A government that makes laws in keeping with the ten commandments.

    B) A government that makes laws that contradict the ten commandments.

    TR

  23. @Pastor Tim Rossow #72

    Alrighty then… I’ll bite on this one.

    I’ll have a government that imposes on it’s people laws against taking the Lord’s name in vain. That means it’s illegal to shout out as a swear phrase “JESUS CHRIST”, or the ubiquitous “GD”, or any other epithet deemed worthy of punishment, and have it punishable by incarceration or fine, with a three strikes law attached resulting in life imprisonment or death.

    I’ll have a government that mandates church attendance, in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and failure to commune shall be punishable by incarceration or fine, with a three strikes law attached resulting in life imprisonment or death.

    I’ll have a government that imposes penalties on thought behaviors, such as desiring what is my neighbor’s (Wife, house, children, goods, and the like), punishable by incarceration or fine, with a three strikes law attached resulting in life imprisonment or death.

    I’ll have a government that imposes restriction on speech for the purpose of slander, libel, or false testimony in any venue, forum or public discourse, punishable by incarceration or fine, with a three strikes law attached resulting in life imprisonment or death…

    I don’t think it’s good to set up a false dichotomy and ask people to make that choice. I see that happening over and over again on this thread and many others like it.

    With apologies in advance.

    Matthew

  24. Matthew,

    Those are good clarifying points. I have not claimed that we have laws that are in keeping with the ceremonial (liturgical) law of the OT but the moral law. Thus your point about attending communion is not to the issue.

    Should the second commandment be left hand kingdom law? Why yes of course, any civil society should make it a crime to curse the creator of the universe or use His name in vain. It only stands to reason. Why would you want a society that allows the cursing of the One who created all things? A society that allows such is a society of fools.

    Am I holding my breathe waiting for this to happen? No. Ever since Western culture bought into the Enlightenment notion of freedom, that freedom has been on a rampage covering over our sin (see I Peter 2:16).

    I was once where you were – thinking that the principle of freedom trumped even basic civic religious common sense but it ought not to. That is an invention of sin. Don’t get me wrong, I do not think the church should be lobbying for these things. The church’s job is to preach the Gospel. But as a reasonable citizen who understands that freedom is not the end all, I realize that it is reasonable and healthy to have a culture that respects God.

    TR

  25. Pastor Rossow said “I was once where you were – thinking that the principle of freedom trumped even basic civic religious common sense but it ought not to.”

    Hold up sir. I am not where you used to be at all. I know that when people are given their freedom, people ABUSE their freedom. However, I am going to say that telling a people who do not hold to my religion that they must obey laws that reflect my religion, they will grow bitter and hateful towards me and my religion. This is historical. In fact, it’s not only about religion, but about cultural norms as well. Therefore, using THE ten commandments as the basis for our laws is a bad idea. Using universal law and plain reason as our arguments for laws will be more effective since it appeals to the law that is already written on the hearts of everyone.

    What I would like to propose is for us to stop assuming that being part of the “left hand kingdom” means that we have to accept that kingdom as strictly the only kingdom we’re a part of. I submit that we are nation; a Christian nation that exists IN the United States, and as such should be rightly governing OUR nation… In this case, if a university carries a Christian title, they should uphold the name “Christian” and not be wandering in the weeds by putting on plays that have no rebuttal. In other words, I wouldn’t mind “The Laramie Project” being put on, IF there were a play that properly presented the facts about the Shepherd case. In this way, I AM for free speech because when people have what they believe are legitimate grievances (whether presented in a stage play, newspaper, or on the news) we should listen and then present an appropriate rebuttal.

    However, when a “Christian” Group, university, etc, is going take a liberal stance in this and present only one side, or a muddled set of facts, this also should be addressed sternly.

    Concerning the Laramie project in general… I find it interesting that this isn’t a documentary, on film, since it would have been relatively easy to go to the town and interview people about their feelings and thoughts. This is PROPAGANDA (Oh, there’s that word), wherein individual actors will attempt to ply their personal affections through words written explicitly to impact the feelings and sensibilities of the audience. This is no different that what happened at the Nuremberg Rallies. Yes, you read me correctly. Present an audience with a kind of people they can hate (Hicks, Rubes, and anyone who wont get on the liberal agenda), and THEY WILL HATE!

    My 40 cents. Sorry, I don’t make change.

  26. That’s a ridiculously simple paradigm. I do NOT believe it is the government’s responsibility to enforce personal morality in regard to consenting adult sexual relations. I also do NOT believe government should enforce the 1st commandment. Do you?

    So when do you plan to petition your legislature for the anti-gluttony laws? Or do you not believe gluttony is a sin?

  27. Pancake,

    You are missing the point. Morality is not a matter of religion! The Lord’s Supper, the sacrifical rites of the temple, etc, are religious matters. Forbidding murder, forbidding sexual immorality that violates the way we were created, forbidding theft, etc. are not religious matters but moral matters.

    You apparently are not OK with asserting in public discourse that all that we see around us was created by an intelligient designer and that there are certain inviolable morals that are a part of the very nature of the cosmos.

    You have been duped by a godless culture of freedom to think that talk about the divine is for private and parochial religious discourse only and is not intelectully responsible and is not allowed in the public square.

    I used to be there too but over time have come to realize with folks like Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Des Cartes, etc. that discussion in the public square is not only allowable and fruitful but to ban it is downright silly and illogical.

    TR

  28. How interesting. Matt & Matthew Pancake, choose to post on this archived post, and have yet to post on the active thread of Pastor Rossow’s We Need More Cowboys…w/ Tye.
    It is interesting, that someone who was there, lived there, knew more than us here, you won’t post for. Trepidation there, but boldness here. How very odd.

  29. Which government is preferable, A) or B)?
    A) A government that makes laws in keeping with the ten commandments.
    B) A government that makes laws that contradict the ten commandments.

    Is it not possible to answer A) and still hold to the general idea that the Left-Hand Kingdom should not intrude upon the Right-Hand Kingdom (and vice versa)? I must ask those who are “in favor” of A) this question: Why do you insist that the 6th Commandment be “enforced” (literally enforced) by the left hand kingdom, but not the 1st Commandment? That is, why should sodomy (by gays OR married couples) be punishable by law while Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are allowed to preach their false doctrine freely?

    To put it plainly: Why should the Left Hand Kingdom enforce the 6th Commandment but not the 1st Commandment?

    If (hetero-or-homsexual) sodomy should be outlawed, why should the door-to-door “witnessing” of any crazy cult NOT be outlawed? Why do you bring the power of the left-hand sword to enforce the 6th Comandment, but not the 1st Commandment?

    In short, I must say this: Those of you who isist that gay sex must be outlawed are not yet “cooking and brewing” the two kingdoms together, but you have certainly set out all the ingredients and warmed up the stove!

    Either enforce the 10 Commandments–all of them–or don’t.

  30. Paul thought that morality is a matter of Christian regeneration and that no godless men could live a life worthy of the calling of the Holy Spirit. We can’t fight a losing battle against the immorality of the world. All any single Christian can do is be accountable for his/her actions and hope that other Christians are willing to be held accountable for their actions or risk excluding themselves from the Body. If we lose that then it won’t matter what the world says about homosexuality, gluttony, adultery, stealing, cheating, etc. How can we judge the testimony of the actions of others if we can’t even hold ourselves accountable for the testimony of our OWN actions. There’s a lot of judgment going on in our denomination and not a lot of accountability. Judgment is easy for any human. Accountability is only possible among Christians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.