Saturday, November 1st, 2014
The Layman Online > Other Religious News and Analysis > A response to Bishop Sano’s ‘Call to Biblical Obedience’– Part Two

A response to Bishop Sano’s ‘Call to Biblical Obedience’– Part Two

pleasingBy Ben Witherington

Another specious presupposition that we often here mentioned in discussions of the issue of gay marriage or gay sexual behavior is the notion that this issue is on the same ethical footing as racial prejudice. It certainly is not. There can be no analogy between prejudice against a person because of their ethnic origins (e.g. anti-Semitism) or their skin color (various sorts of racism), and a criticism of the sexual behavior of the gay and lesbian community. The former has to do with some inherent traits of being, the latter has to do with behavior.

Obviously, God loves us all, but what he does not love is sinful behavior by any of us, and neither should we endorse or encourage such behavior. Such behavior simply alienates us from God, which is precisely why God is not pleased with it. And I might add, Jesus is an equal opportunity critiquer of sexual sin by heterosexuals, as well as by others (see the next post). The fact that we should not single out ‘gay’ sin for some sort of special condemnation is a good and proper insight. All sin however, committed by whomever should be called to account.

We are obviously called to love the sinner but not their sin, whether in this case we are talking about heterosexual or homosexual sinful sexual behavior. The almost total inability to understand the difference between a critique of someone’s behavior and a personal or ad hominem attack on someone’s very being, has led to all sorts of faulty logic.

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2014/03/18/a-response-to-bishop-sanos-call-to-biblical-obedience-part-two/

About the author: External Link

1 comment

  1. Matthew G. Zatkalik says:

    This series of four (4) is completely pertinent to the situation within the PCUSA. At
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2014/03/20/a-response-to-bishop-sanos-call-to-biblical-obedience-part-four/ – in the comment you can find this: “The problem is that it may take the orthodox UMs making the move first. Progressive movements tend to have symbiotic relationships with orthodox/traditional churches and are thus dependent upon them for their funding. The progressives won’t leave because they know that the money will dry up as soon as they do. Orthodox UMs don’t have this problem because, generally speaking, we are confident that we can grow churches with an evangelical theology and practice. Not to mention the fact that the denomination as it stands has a bureaucracy that makes the US government look efficient which, in my opinion, also has to be largely jettisoned. Any separation will likely need to focus coming up with something altogether different than what we have now, no matter who gets to keep the house.” The ‘Gracious Separation Policy’ provides the Progressive Presbyterians with the money, the institutions and the platform through which they establish their apostasy.
    It is time for those who cannot obey our threefold sources of authority (the Bible, the Methodist tradition of holiness, and in particular Wesley’s teaching, and the UM Discipline) at least on this issue to move on…. (from Part 4 of this fine article by Ben Witherington III) For the faithful Presbyterians that’s the Bible, the Reformed Theology and the Confessions. Take up your teachers and teachings and use the closest door and close the door behind you, please.

Leave a comment

Comment form

All fields marked (*) are required