5.07.2005 | Guess Paul wasn't an early Christian

Montgomery County, Maryland, is probably the most liberal county in a very, very, liberal state. In a front-page story, the hometown Washington Post warns of the invasion of the brain-snatching troglodytes of "the conservative movement" in a dustup over pushing the gay agenda in MoCo's public schools. From the story, the lead paragraph which sets the tone of the defenders of goodness (the gay pushers) against the forces of darkness ("conservatives"):

Maryland's largest school system has become a battleground over what students should be taught about sex and a symbol, some supporters of the new curriculum said, of the increasing influence the conservative movement is hoping to play in public school classrooms.

As with much of what passes for public discourse on elements of the gay agenda, those who believe homosexuality to be sinful are dismissed as bigots. The fact that homosexuality (by which I mean homosexual acts, not homosexual individuals) is a black-letter sin in the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is dismissed as a "myth."

We are also provided with some other relevant extracts from a MoCo teacher's guide (not available online but in today's dead tree edition), which include these pearls:

• Loving people of the same sex is immoral (sinful)...Many religious denominations do not believe this
• Less than half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible
• Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals

Therefore, those who oppose any aspect of the gay agenda are racists who hide behind Scripture to push their bigotry. That's the teacher's guide, and if you think that Montgomery County is, itself a liberal county, just imagine how liberal the techer's unions that control the county's board of education must be. Not to worry. The Washington Post, as ever, takes the side of those pushing the gay agenda. Consider this use of scare quotes from the Post's story:

The opponents contended that discussions about homosexuality were unbalanced because curriculum materials did not include information about the "risks" of such a lifestyle and did not allow "ex-gays" to share their viewpoints.

Now, I don't know about "ex-gays", although there's probably some who, whether or not being gay is hard-wired in their DNA, have given up homosexuality. As for "risks", those who deny that there are solid, and demonstrably high risks involved for gay men are living in the river in Egypt. Let's just say that the overwhelming majority of AIDS deaths have been the result of unprotected gay sex. But the Post calls this "risks," with the usual implication of scare quotes that it just is not true.

As for those religious denominations that don't believe that homosexual acts ("loving people of the same sex") are sinful, well, that's fine. But it's hard to consider any of them Christian if they deny black-letter, plainly worded Scripture such as Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth:(1 Corinthians 6):

9 Do you not know that 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...

As for defending segregation, Baptists and many others have atoned for their sins in this regard. Regardless of Old Testament statements that seem to condone segregation (e.g. Leviticus 19:19), no Christian should have ever denied the very plain statements, also from Paul, that we are all one in Christ Jesus (e.g. Galatians 3:28).

That Christians err, and have sinned in the past, and, will continue to sin in the future, does not mean they are wrong about homosexuality. The key words are "practice homosexuality." It is the homosexual act that is a sin. We all sin. We are all God's creatures, and God loves the homosexual sinner just as He loves the heterosexual sinner.

Just let's not confuse God's love for the person with what God, through Scripture, has told us about sin. he hates it. It's wrong. The "early Christians," who of course included Paul, would almost certainly not agree that homosexuality was a valid "lifestyle." Would they be hostile to homosexuals? Only those who were adamant in defending their sin, and who would not repent. Just as the early Christians would love a thief, but hardly tolerate his continued thievery. And certainly not entertain any notions as to how thievery was just an alternate lifestyle.

| technorati tag | Christianity|