Bishop John Bryson Chane says:
Mr. Warren has been rightly praised for his efforts to deepen the engagement of evangelical Christians with impoverished Africans. He has been justifiably lauded for putting the AIDS epidemic and global warming on the political agenda of the Christian right. Yet extravagant compassion toward some of God’s people does not justify the repression of others. Jesus came to save all of humankind, and as Archbishop Desmond Tutu has pointed out, “All means all.” But rather than embrace the wisdom of Archbishop Tutu, Mr. Warren has allied himself with men such as Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda who seek to “purify” the Anglican Communion, of which my Church is a member, by driving out gay and lesbian Christians and their supporters.
In choosing Mr. Warren, the president-elect has sent a distressing message internationally as well. In a recent television interview, Mr. Warren voiced his support for the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These bizarre and regrettable remarks come at a time when much of the Muslim world already fears a Christian crusade against Islamic countries. Imagine our justifiable outrage if an Iranian cleric who advocated the assassination of President Bush had been selected to offer prayers when Ahmadinejad was sworn in.
While it is true that the church must embrace gay members, loving the sinner, this should not translate into coercive social policy that forces society to accept homosexuality.
Furthermore as an Episcopalian who has not yet gone to the Anglican side, I am deeply hurt by her public embrace of what should be a love driven outage of sin. Instead Bishop Chane characterizes God’s biblical love as hippie love, a by product of the degenerate culture of bay boomers and inconsistent with biblical love. Jesus did not send us a hippie love message, he stated “I do not come in peace…”. Clearly he knew that discrimination is part of knowing the gospel, and that it will involve pain and growth.
I am disappointed that the Episcopal church continues to underwrite synonymously the concept of Christian love as the foundation for political correctness and multiculturalism. This blurring of the Gospel is politically motivated, and I can’t understand how the top folks in the church are so misguided.
Hopefully when the baby boomer generation resolves to marginality, we will repair these faulty notions into a stronger, God driven society.
Thank you for commenting.
First, I am uncertain how secular policy which allows individual freedom and religious freedom coerces society to accept homosexuality. In other words: If you feel like rejecting homosexuality, big deal — reject it.
Not being Episcopalian, I’m not sure what you mean by “hippie love” and “biblical love.” It’s my impression that the Bible possesses numerous and conflicting definitions of love — covering everything from friendship to holy wars against unorthodox infidels. I welcome some specifics re: your definition of Biblical love. Hopefully those specifics might demonstrate some knowledge of Jewish definitions which served as roots for Christian definitions.
Finally, I find political correctness and multiculturalism among evangelicals as well as liberal Christians. Please explain which form of blurring is of concern. Thanks.
Thanks for the respectful nature of your reply.
Its apparently not enough to simply reject homosexuality. Social policy is forming with the support of liberal church doctrines to criminalize legitimate criticism of homosexuality. This is typified in the hate crimes legislation that will be revisited after January, and the progression to criminalizing the gospel.
My specifics as to biblical love do not have to meet your greater demand for deeper academic distinction. We can agree to disagree on what biblical love means, and I would like this nation of laws to be clear that what you may disagree with regarding this love will not be criminalized. Furthermore, if you believe that the bible can mean anything, than it means nothing.
I would think that any form of blurring of the gospel to meet political ends would be of concern.
Action to stop violent assaults and murders of gay people (as well as Latinos, whites, heterosexuals or anyone else) do not lead to criminalizing the gospel.
Why do characterize gays as primarily being Gay? Why don’t you refer to them simply as Americans and the assault and killing of them wrong? Here is the gramscian tactic of utilizing the victim status, either real or imagined, of a societal subgroup and attacking the hegemony of the dominant culture.
>>Action to stop violent assaults and murders of gay people (as well as Latinos, whites, heterosexuals or anyone else) do not lead to criminalizing the gospel.
Not so true. If in pursuing the wrong means to achieve the desired outcome, free speech may be the casualty. Look at the hate crimes bill looming on the horizon.
R. Gray:
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
We ALWAYS consider 1. motive and 2. effect on society when punishing crime. This is nothing new.
Hate crimes are worse because they aren’t just attacking one victim, they are trying to send a terrorizing message to all people who share a characteristic with that person.
Hate crimes have a larger net negative effect on a greater number of people, and accordingly, they get punished more harshly. It’s not rocket science, you should be able to figure it out.
Furthermore, there are no “legitimate” criticisms of homosexuality. There is just ignorance and bigotry, and shoving your ridiculous religious views down other people’s throats. Sounds like you’re the one trying to act like the victim.
You’re not oppressed. Stop acting like you are.