Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, March 12, 2007
Harry R. Jackson, Jr. :: Townhall.com Columnist
Black Gays Aggressively Enlist in the Culture War
by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



This last week I sat in a historic black American site - Mother Bethel Church in the heart of downtown Philadelphia. In keeping with the city’s tradition of being a cradle of American freedom, the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church was the first black congregation founded in the north. Established in 1793 by Richard Allen, a black minister who eventually became the first bishop of the AME denomination, this facility has stood as a symbol of the black struggle for freedom in both social and religious matters.

Unfortunately, last Saturday it was the site of a debate between liberal black clergy and conservatives concerning the acceptance of gays in the black church.

I felt compelled to raise my voice against the sponsoring group’s attempt to legitimize the gay life style in the black church. It took a little courage for me to attend such an event because of the lack of civility that the gay community often displays. In fact because of my conservative stand, I have been physically threatened with violence on several occasions.

Why would I risk appearing at such an event? The answer is clear in my mind. Such rallies and debate forums consist of both ardent followers and young people whom these folks are attempting to influence. In other words, I had an opportunity to dissuade some of their new converts.

Let me take a moment to give you a historic and sociological perspective of the gay movement in the black church. Most national polls in recent years have shown that blacks are more socially conservative than whites in their personal attitudes about things like same sex marriage than their white counterparts.

Despite these personal convictions, these same black citizens often vote for people that do not share their conservative perspective of the social landscape.

In a similar manner, black churches have often majored on developing an atmosphere of love and acceptance of all individuals. They preach that they serve a God of a second chance. One of the greatest examples of this attitude is Marion Barry’s 1995 winning campaign for Washington, D.C.’s mayoral post.

Barry ran on a saved-by-grace campaign. He won, despite the fact that he had been caught on video tape in the Vista Hotel using cocaine and having an adulterous liaison with a woman. Gays have enjoyed that “second chance” opportunity in black churches. Therefore, a gay appearance or someone’s past life does not stigmatize black church attendees. After all, how can someone reform if there is no dialogue or opportunity for exposure to truth.

Regretfully, gay acceptance doesn’t stop there in many cases. Many of our churches have had a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” approach to gay members of congregations, choirs, and clergy. This means that openly gay behavior has not been condoned, but leaders in churches and denominations have not probed to identify or remove gay people. Often, rumors of gay activity outside of the church are overlooked as long as there are no incidents of solicitation or liaisons at church sponsored events. One minister I know proudly told a few other clergymen confidentially that he had been hired by a new congregation who had already employed a closeted gay music leader. His approach was to have a heart to heart talk in which he warned the man that he would report any problems he observed on church property. He went on to add that what the man did off site was his own business.

In my view, the “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” approach to this problem is the height of hypocrisy. Politics may be the place for compromise and consensus. The Church, on the other hand, should be a place of conviction and truth.

The Bible is clear in its statements against gay sexual activity.

Unfortunately, few churches preach biblical sexuality well. If they did, there would be fewer out-of-wedlock births as well as fewer practicing gays in the black church.

Church leaders must stand against the acceptance of the gay lifestyle because of social ramifications as well. Recent studies concerning same-sex marriage have shown that in Sweden and the Netherlands, where such unions have been allowed, marriage is devalued---resulting in fewer and later marriages. Secondly, they lead to rising out-of-wedlock births akin to the current black community dilemma in the U.S.

In addition to the damage that gay marriage does to the black family structure that is already under stress, legalization of gay marriage has the potential of endangering the next generation. Statistics show that children do better in school and are greater contributors to society when a mother and a father are present in the home.

In conclusion, let me state that the battle concerning same sex marriage and gay rights is just warming up in America. I am not willing just to give into the current cultural idiom which says, “Gay is Okay!” There is too much at stake.

I have compassion for people who live a gay lifestyle. Just like Jesus, I will take every opportunity to love the sinner and hate the sin. What about you?

Will you stand with me in this culture war?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Be the first to read Harry Jackson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

The only way to stop the slide is to
AGGRESIVELY promote traditional marriage.

Star Parker (?) had an article about Blacks polled IN FAVOR of all the conservative social values; traditional marriage, social security reform, and school vouchers to name a few.

YOUR article explains why Blacks have remained mostly silent about this issue. (By the way, thanks for explaining that Barry thing too. Never could understand it. But, second chance makes some sense.)

Little Richard comes to mind
Isn't there an old fable. Something about a man about to be eaten by a lion, he prays to god that the lion be converted to a christian, god converts the lion but the lion pounces on him anyway. The man questions the lion before he's about to be eaten: "but aren't you a Christian". The lion replies "yes, but I'm still a lion"
Perhaps a gay person will always be gay, always have desires in that direction. Perhaps he may be able to controll his desires, Michelangelo supposedly did. Perhaps they will get the best of him. But if a person is making an effort to live a christian life (no gay activity) then why kick him out of the church? Statistics show that gay people who live in the gay community are much more sexualy active and suffer heavier rates of mental illness and drug abuse than those who live on the fringes of or apart from the gay community. If someone is hanging by a thread then why cut it? Is that the christian thing to do?
The pope, Julius II, was aware of the homosexual sensibilities of many of the renaissance artists. Some may have indulged their desires, many did not or did so very rarely and discreetly. Nevertheless, when it came time to execute "sodomites", these men were not considered sodomites. It was the activity that was more important, not the sensiblility. Perhaps some allowances were made for those with extraordinary talent but it appears many of the artists who we would consider "gay" today were not considered so back then based on their lack of sexual activity. They were lions who controlled their appetite.
On the other hand, if a person is living in the thick of the gay lifestyle outside of church then he is not making any effort to "BE" a christian and doesn't belong in the church. He is there as he is merely attracted to the superficial qualities of the religion, not the substance of it.He's just a plain old lion in sheeps clothing. He doesn't belong in the flock.

As an aside in reference to the execution of "sodomites":
Syphilis was rampant in thosee days, the term sodomite is curious-how did people know who was a sodomite? My guess is that if people are the same today as they weere then then the term "sodomite" was used for those who were caught in public places having homosexual sex, places that are and probably were EXTREMELY active. In the face of a rampant syphilis epidemic the rounding up and execution of sodomites does not seem as bad as it does at first glance.Back then people did not think people were exclusively one thing or the other, heterosexual or homosexual. It was a necessary measure for those placing the public health at great risk. Julis II himself had syphilis, as well as malaria.

Here we go again
Mr. Jackson has committed the unpardonable sin of suggesting that homosexuality and Christianity are incompatible.

For that he must be scourged and crucified.

I stand with you Mr. Jackson
Shoulder to shoulder I stand with you.

Bigbelly wrote
"The fact that there are Black Gays is in itself a phenomenon, we can tolerate a Marion Barry but just can't seem to get our arms around Black Gays. Uh! Uh! No! No! No!"

You either missed or ignored the more important point about Barry and the black church... and for that matter any Bible believing church.

Forgive and restore those who repent. Separate from those who won't.

"I keep forgetting Black Gays made themselves Gay,"

Yes. Behavior is a choice. Behavior motivated by strong urges and inclinations is STILL A CHOICE.

Moreover, while one person may have more of a propensity toward one sin or another, all sin is cultivated in our minds. Habitual sins are strongly cultivate. What you think about develops your attitude. Your attitude dictates your actions.

A guy who abuses his wife more than likely starts out with selfish, violent thoughts. When she offends him, he reacts just as he's programmed himself to do... then when his head clears somewhat apologizes and convinces her that he really didn't mean to do it. At the moment, it was passion... but the decisions were made as he harbored thoughts he should have suppressed/changed.

Our sexual impulses come naturally. The attitude we cultivate about sex is a product of our thought lives. A corrupt thought life about sex will produce sin just like a violent thought life produces sin.

"God didn't make them that way according to most preachers I've heard "the other guy" (the Devil) made them that way,"

How many preachers have you heard say this? Satan tempts man. But he has no power to "make" man one way or another. He simply capitalizes on the rebellion each of us already have toward God.

"so whether they go to church or not is irrelevant they are doomed for life according to scriptures,"

The scriptures define God's moral standard. God is just and punishes sin. God is also loving and provided a means of atonement through Christ for the repentant sinner. No. God is not going to change His standard to accommodate homosexuals or adulterers or liars or thiefs or backbiters or the greedy or the unloving...

A church that will tell anyone guilty of any sin that they are "fine" just as they are is doing them great harm. To convince someone of a treatable disease that they aren't even sick... isn't compassion. It is the worst of cruelty. To convince someone that unrepented sin does not put them in danger of God's just wrath is far more cruel and especially coming from a "church".

Bjorn
Where exactly did Jackson "attack" "all gays in all churches"?

Where exactly did he attempt to "force" anyone to do anything?

He exercised his right as a free man and a Christian by voicing his conviction. He has EVERY right to try to convince others that his opinion is the correct one.

BTW, God's standard is His standard. Standing against homosexuality doesn't imply that they aren't concentrating on their own problems as well. In fact, he alluded to the fact that the black church needs to make a stronger stand against sexual sin in general... and mentioned unwed pregnancies.

I can assure you that every church that I've been into that exemplifies the type of fundamentalism/conservatism that liberals react so abruptly to spends much more time on their "own problems" than on homosexuality. Yes, we talk about the culture around us in an attempt to help members negotiate life with love and holiness. No, we don't ignore or avoid issues that we no are in our own churches... at least that is my fairly extensive experience.

In fact from my experience which I suspect is greater than yours, churches who are more lenient on homosexuality and other sexual sins... either don't "attack" their own problems or else lack the credibility to do so effectively. When you start down the road of trading the proclamation of what God declared true for popularity... you lose your effectiveness for God.

Bjorn F
There should be a minimum age requirement for posting on this site. Get a parent to sign permission.

Bjorn challenge
Please cite where the NC Baptist or Jackson said the doors of the church should be closed to homosexuals. I am pretty sure we read the same article. He stated that positions in the church should not be given to openly sinful people who do not repent.

I think what you are attempting to obscure and attack as "prejudice" is the position that says we will not lower God's standard nor affiliate with those who do so. You may not like that position or agree with it. But that doesn't give you the right to mischaracterize the position into some sort of mistreatment of homosexuals.

I pastor probably the most fundamental Baptist church in our community. Homosexuals are welcome as is anyone else. They'll hear God's moral law. They'll hear God's offer of forgiveness and mercy. They'll here that they have to turn from their self-centered, self-willed lifestyle to one in submission to God.

They can attend all they like. They will not be accepted as members much less officers unless they repent any more than a renowned liar, drunk, adulterer, or any other unrepentant, habitual practitioneer of a particular sin would.

We all sin and need forgiveness. When we charaterize ourselves by a particular sin and refuse to repent, we are far from God's gracious forgiveness.

BigBelly
How can you as a black man compare homosexuality to being black? Christianity is very simple. Follow Christ and behave in a way that is pleasing to God. Homosexuality is not pleasing to God so you don't engage in it. Harry does not tell them how to live their lives.
He just tells them that they can't pretend to be Christians. The road to salvation is narrow. There are men and women with homosexual tendencies that love God enough to abandon their sinful ways and live in celibacy. Some of them marry opposite sex person and live productive lives. Why do we allow the world to define ourselves by how we have sex? We are more than that. We are made into God’s image and with Him everything is possible.

Why would Bjorn F bother with
the truth? As a typical lib he isn't interested in it. Do what you want but don't pretend to be who you are not. Even if you are the only one on Earth following the truth you must stick to it. Churches that teach what itching ears want to hear aren't doing their followers any favors. They mislead their followers into false sense of security.

Bjorn
"sjt18
Your moral standard seems to consist mainly about gay bashing and elevating yourself as a better person than any gay person solely because you're heterosexual."

That is a reaction not justified by anything I posted. Where did I bash a homosexual? Where did I elevate myself?

Straight sexual sins are just as wrong and are more prevalent than homosexual sins. Accordingly, we warn more about developing the wrong kinds of sexual appetites in a society where temptation to do just that is popular and pervasive. We teach that pre/extra marital sex is wrong regardless of the form it takes.

I have no hatred toward a person who practices homosexuality. However, I reject and am saddened by that part of their behavior. I have no hatred toward couples who "shack up". I reject and am saddened by that part of their behavior. In neither case is it because I am better than they are because I am certainly not... and may have a past that is significantly worse than many. But God's standard must become my standard. I must reject what He rejects. I must try to emulate His love, grace, and holiness.

"Now, can I live free from your bigotry,"

Surely you can since I am not bigoted toward you or any other person... and you haven't established that I am.

"your beliefs and your religion or should I subject my freedom to belief as I will under the tyranny or your prejudice you call "God"?"

Should or must?

Should you? Yes. Not because I said so but because the God that created and loves you said so.

Must you accept "tyranny"? None has been proposed. You are free to reject the message. You are not necessarily free to reject another's right to espouse it in places where you might hear it.

Gene Touchet
As I said before do what you want but don't call yourself a Christian. Jesus is straightforward when it comes to sex outside of marriage (only allowed between a man and a woman). Have you even read the Bible or only comments about its content?

Stay in the Closet

.....Mr. Jackson ...

.....Call me old fashioned but I believe that sex should be a private matter between consenting adults and confined to the bedroom ...

.....COLOSSUS

New information please, BF
What new information not available 5 or 10 years ago should cause society to consider special treatment of homosexuals now?


Bjorn F-I am trying to be pleasing to
God. Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I am Divorced father of 3 boys (my ex-wife gave me plenty of reasons and I finally had to do it). I have been taking care of them for 4 years now by myself. Not doing much dating-I am very picky about my partner now. No sex outside of marriage. It can be done. As you might have noticed Harry writes about sexuality in general. It's not taught anymore that sex only belongs in marriage. As a Christian I don't see a difference between homosexual sex or straight sex when it's outside of marriage. Sin is sin. You can stop your childish and incoherent rants. As I said before get your parent permission before you post here again. As for my boys I am raising 3 awesome conservatives that will not do drugs, will not sleep around and will contribute to this country greatness. What makes it even more special is that I am an immigrant (naturalized citizen) and I love this country more than you ever will. I made that choice. You have no appreciation for it. You have no idea what it means to love. Most libs seem to be lacking higher feelings. Hate is a poor replacement for it.

I don't understand..
..why Mr. Jackson thinks that being gay is a worse sin than adultery or fornicating outside of marriage or other sins. Aren't all sins equal to his God? Why doesn't he want to throw out all the other sinners in church? Who appointed him the decider of folks' lives that don't go to his church? Gay people certainly haven't negatively affected the Black community so why the disproportionate fear? Is there room in his church for worshipers that think God makes no mistakes? He is too stressed about something that is such a small percentage. It is like having a nervous breakdown for a hangnail while in divorce court; clearly the hangnail isn't the problem to focus on. It is as if Mr Jackson doesn't have equal respect for the church members that have a differing opinion. Must be nice being perfect and totally sinfree..

Bjorn... again
"sjt18
How many unwed mothers you have kivked out of Church?"

None. We tell them it is wrong then we forgive and support them. If they repent, we restore them. We don't make them SS leaders while they are perpetually involved in extramarital sex and conception however.

"How many people who have had sex before marriage you have and how many you have kicked out for that reason? Are you up to your own standard?"

Yes. I think so. There are two standards involved that apply to any sin and sinner. We must stand for God's standard. We must forgive and restore. If someone is involved in premarital sex then they won't be a leader and won't even be allowed to join the church. If they become involved and it is known, there are biblical methods of church discipline that must be employed. A member may be disallowed from serving and full participation if they continue in sin. The door is always open when they repent.

"How many people would be left in your church? Would you be left?"

Not many and no... but what you conveniently attempt to ignore is that forgiveness and reconciliation to the repentant sinner is the other side of the coin. The law is a school master that teaches us about sin. Grace is the means by which those sins are forgiven... and repentance is required for grace to be applied.

"And you can't read. Jackson wants ALL GAYS out of Churches, no compromises."

Please cite that quote. He talks at great length about forgiveness. An openly sinful, unrepentant person shouldn't be "accepted" and allowed to represent the church. That's true and right. That does not close the door if they wish to accept God's standard and acknowledge the sinfulness of their sin.

"And I have read more writings by jackson than you have. But your goal uis the same: to create a society so hostile to gays that they would be forced back into closet."

No. My goal is to tell you and anyone else I can that God hates sin but is willing to forgive you if you repent. Yes. I would love to see everyone repent. No. I don't think "acceptance" of sin helps a sinner toward repentance regardless of what their sin is.

"You both seek to apply your Christian love by hurting gays as much as possible in communities and churches."

Only to the extent you think a guy who body blocks someone out of the path of a speeding bus is "hurting" them as much as possible. It isn't loving to see someone destroying themselves and say nothing to warn them or to convince them. It isn't loving of them or others to teach that they should be "accepted" without qualification.

You don't get to dictate what is acceptable then play the victim when others exercise their right to disagree with you. If you want to do something then at least have the courage to accept the consequence that others may not "accept, approve, and support" you in it. I don't expect that for my religious beliefs and am thoroughly convicted that they are correct. Why should you seek to "force" others to accept homosexuality against their own conscience?

You have a perfectly legitimate right to try to convince others you are correct through the free practice of your rights. You don't have the right to force others to agree or prevent them from exercising their own rights to forcefully and vocally disagree. You don't have the right to trample their association rights either or their right to try to influence a private organization or even gov't in a way consistent with their conscience.

From your posts, it is obvious that you are determined to play the victim. But homosexuals choose their behaviors and sins every bit as much as I do. We are all personally responsible for our own choices and the consequences... to include being rejected and even discriminated against by others.

FTR, I have stated before that I don't think religion should have been mentioned in civil rights law. A Catholic should have a perfect right to employ only Catholics if they like... or any religion except Baptists if they like.

Members et al
"sjt18
You, like Jackson would not allow gays to be members of your Church. Jackson wants this to be a case IN ALL CHURCHES. He says as much."

Yes and I agree with him. I didn't say any different. Here's what you leave out... again.

We wouldn't accept someone living with someone out of wedlock. We wouldn't accept someone who was a known and unrepentant adulterer. Not as voting members. Not as leaders or representatives of our church. Yes. We think all should apply this very biblical AND loving standard. It is not loving to lower standards to allow for sin.

What we would accept is any homosexual who repented... or adulterer... or heterosexual fornicator.

"North Carolina baptists have cut ties to all churches that were gay affirming or approved gays as memebrs"

Absolutely and rightly so. They are to obey God's standard... not YOURS.

"or had gays in congregation without bashing them constantly (like you would)."

Please give an example of how they or I have bashed homosexuals. Homosexuality is a sin that needs repenting of before someone can be accepted into a fellowship of believers. That is pretty much the essence of what I've said... repeatedly.

"Now that one step away from kicking out members who have gay friends."

Oh, so they are guilty because you presume what the next step is?

"Jackson like you, will stop at nothing when it comes to gays."

That's an absurd claim. Nowhere have I indicated anything of the sort and strongly suspect that you can't give a single contextual quote where Jackson has either. You accuse Christians of lying about you then write something so false as this. Classic.

"Jackson is worried because he was beaten in the debate and because someone like John Amaechi presents someone much more loving, intelligent and caring person than Jackson will ever be."

There is no debate. God declares sex outside of marriage sinful to include specifically homosexuality. He makes no provision for legitimizing homosexuality. IOW's, it is wrong regardless of who you think scored more points in a debate. Your subjective opinion about the two men is not worth a great deal since you don't seem to recognize love or caring very well.

Sanctimonious
Since you are being the judge... please cite one ounce of proof of the following:

"Your "nonhatred" does not prevent you from attacking gays, telling lies about us, spreading vicious rumours, demeaning us and our contributions to socity, advocating for denying all legal protections orm us."

"Your "love" is empty."

The love I offer is the gospel that will save your soul if you repent. I have nothing greater to offer.

"Your "nonhatred" shouts for segregation and supremacist ideology."

Yes. God calls for His people to live in the world but not be of the world. Yes. God's standard of morality is supreme regardless of whether you, I, or anyone else accepts it.

Yes... there is no hatred in my heart or words for you or anyone else.


Bjorn
You've been taking SJT18 to task about what you perceive as his lack of tolerance, and yet I see a lack of tolerance in the gays in San Francisco ,for example, of the military, Boy Scouts, and organized religion.

Tiresome
"You have decided that spreading anti-gay hatred is love. There is nothing that can be done with someone who carries such delusions."

The only tiresome delusion is yours of yourself as a victim. You use that idea of you as a victim to rationalize ascribing motives, actions, and attitudes to others that aren't true just as you did in this brief quote.

Please cite where I have spread anti-gay hatred. You can't because I haven't. I have simply told you that what you are trying to legitimize is sinful. That is no more anti-gay hatred than shouting a warning to someone standing in the path of a speeding bus is anti-streetcrosser hatred.

One has the ability to destroy a body. The other has the ability to destroy something much more precious... a soul. It isn't unloving to warn about either.

Amazing
Wow… I can’t believe your ignorance and what a hypocrite most Christians continue to be. You always want to throw out there that the bible clearly states that homosexual sex is a sin. Well it also clearly states in the bible that women who pray without the heads covered is a sin and they should be stoned. I might add that this is in the New Testament as well. I love how you continue to choose what you want to believe in from the bible. You mention in your article about the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy in the churches. “What they do off of church grounds” isn’t heir business!!! So are you willing to kick everyone out of the church for pre-marital sex? I highly doubt it! Might I also add that no one is supposed to pass judgment but God!!! None of you can call yourself Christians…. It’s so sad….

Bjorn question to zzx375

The special treatment:

Lets see, "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Employees of the Federal Government" given the same status as a special emphasis group as the National Coalition of Black Federal Aviation Employees or the National Coalition of Hispanic Federal Employees

I believe that qualifies for special treatment since being part of a special emphasis group can include special consideration on hiring and promoting.


Acceptance of homosexuality
Folks, I am sorry if I offend some by saying this but I must. This is for people who say they were born gay. God is not going to say in His Word don't do something and then make you so that you can't help but do it. There are no loopholes in the Bible, people. Everywhere homosexuality is mentioned it is condemned. Of course we are all sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God. Every human being though has the wonderful choice offered to him or her of repenting of sin and placing faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness and eternal salvation. I urge all to do so. For those who have long practiced any certain lifestyle this will not be easy I know. But God will eventually give us the victory if we are determined and faithful.

Bjorn Bjorn
Quite the contrary to your assertion of the concept being alien to me, I upheld treating people equally for over 30 years. Equal means the same , you know , 1=1. My objection to special emphasis is that in some cases it led to people saying "How did Jody get that job when Leslie was so much more qualified?" The end result is questioning of the selectee's abilities and qualifications, damaging the selection process.

You asked a question, I gave you an answer.
ZZX375 asked you a question, you replied with another question, but no answer.

One answer to your question is that Blacks and Hispanics have been discriminated on the basis of ethnic background.


Bjorn F
It seems to me we have a difference in vocabulary. Whenever I see Mr. F talk about hatred, he seems to be upset that someone says that homosexual acts are wrong. This is why he never answers requests that he show where the hatred was displayed. He believes he has.

The fact that for him the word "tolerance" likely means accepting his view of things enables him to call other intolerant for having different opinions. We would do well to work from the same dictionary. Why don't we all look these words up to find out what they have meant historically. If you insist on using them with new meanings, then try to empty them of their social and emotional baggage.

Disagreeing is not Attacking
Dear Hysterical Gay Commenters,

Please read the article carefully. It does not advocate kicking homosexuals out of the Church. It advocates recognizing as Christians those people who strive to practice a Christian lifestyle. Furthermore, it doesn't viciously attack gays or spew hatred toward gays. It voices disagreement with those who seek to have homosexuality accepted in the Christian church even though Christ voiced an opposition to the practice of homosexuality. Calm down and consider the message instead of attacking the messenger. Then we can have civil discourse. Thank you.

judge not
the challenge i see here in the bishop's column is judgement. who set him up as the moral arbiter for us all? who is he to judge?

as he rails against gays, there are lots of problems in his community that he needs to address now. from unwed pregnancy, AIDS and HIV, unemployment to poor education and high incarceration rates, bishop jackson's community is begging for good hearted folks to mobilize against these problems. instead, bishop jackson has chosen to become obsessed with sex and sexuality. as you can see from his comments, he is really concerned about gay sex acts as sinful as oppposed to a person's innate sexual orientation. i think rational, common sense folks need to start asking about his obsession with gay sex. is it about sin or is it about his own focus what he considers sin? is this about the bible or about his own focus on sex?

if we consider this notion of biblical sexuality, we should note that the patriarchs were polygamous and that within those unions, women had zero rights! women were considered property of their fathers, brothers and/or husbands. this is an historical fact of so called biblical sexuality. is the good bishop advocating that we return to those days of women as property because that is part of bible based sexuality? is he saying that we should start stoning people who cheat on their spouses? what exactly is bible based sexuality? how about the taking of concubines? that was also part of biblical sexual tradition.

as a progressive, forward thinking and heart centered christian, i bristle at the thought of kicking people out of church because of a characteristic they were born with. i shudder to think that we should be kicking people out of church at all. Christ calls us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. he calls us to see God in our neighbors. he calls us to radical love of God and neighbor. as a christian, i will not exclude, denigrate, demoralize or destroy my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. i am called to radically love my neighbor as my Lord has commanded. and i will do it despite the misplaced and seemingly patholigical rantings of an obsessed anti gay preacher. the good bishop needs love, understanding and therapy to overcome his obsession with gay sex and everything gay.

Amen
Amen Mr. Jackson, Amen one and all.

For the People
"Amazing
Wow… I can’t believe your ignorance and what a hypocrite most Christians continue to be. You always want to throw out there that the bible clearly states that homosexual sex is a sin."

It does. And, even if it never specifically cited homosexuality, it would still qualify as fornication since the Bible only provides for marriage between men and women. Marriage is the only means of biblically legitimizing sex.

"Well it also clearly states in the bible that women who pray without the heads covered is a sin and they should be stoned. I might add that this is in the New Testament as well."

Amazing? Ignorant? Please cite where the NT says women should be stoned for this. I'll help you. The single NT passage concerning this for women is in 1 Cor 11.

Now not that I expect you to do so... but contextually, 1 Corinthians is a correction book that has to be interpretted that way. Many things were out of order to include people attempting to show off and draw a following to themselves. The head covering statement doesn't have a cross reference and thus is a minor point with major disagreement.

Some believe it is a veil. Some propose that it means that some of the women in Corinth were shaving their heads in defiance of male leadership. There appears to be some indication of a "feminist" movement at the time where women tried to look and behave like men as a means of asserting their equality.

Few will even claim to KNOW what it meant in context.

The thing it definitely means in context is that humility wasn't being practiced in Corinth and the women's behavior had become disruptively so.

The OT citations of covering one's head, always had to do with shame. It appears that Paul was rebuking the Corinthian women for doing wrong without shame.

"I love how you continue to choose what you want to believe in from the bible."

Actually, you just exemplify a tired old dishonest means of argument. You interpret a passage for us generally devoid of context then cite us for being inconsistent.

"You mention in your article about the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy in the churches. “What they do off of church grounds” isn’t heir business!!! So are you willing to kick everyone out of the church for pre-marital sex? I highly doubt it!"

IF I had an office holder, teacher, or leader who was credibly accused of sexual misconduct, they would be subjected to church discipline. Briefly: Private confrontation, confrontation with a witness, referral to the church leadership, referral the church at large for removal from active membership... at every point during and after, the door to repentance and restoration would be open. But the standard for conduct does not change.

Further, if a member established a reputation for being promiscuous as a heterosexual then they too would be confronted in accordance with Matthew 18, Galatians 6, and other passages. If it were a child/teen then the parents would be spoken to first.

"Might I also add that no one is supposed to pass judgment but God!!!"

God did. He said homosexuality is sin. He qualified what a leader in the church should be and behave like in the epistles to Titus and Timothy. He commanded that the church uphold a standard and treat those who would not repent of gross sin as if they were unbelievers.

"None of you can call yourself Christians…. It’s so sad…."

Being a Christian doesn't mean having no moral standard... or being sinless either. In part, it means recognizing and honoring God's standard and commands.

Being a Christian literally means being Christ like. When he saved the adulterous woman, He didn't say "Go your way and continue doing whatever you want to." He said, "Go your way and sin no more". He saved her, loved her, reconciled her, forgave her, and restored her. HE NEVER COMPROMISED THE FACT THAT ADULTERY IS SIN. We offer the same thing in His name to homosexuals.

I'd Be All For It
There is a hidden danger in the church's handling of gays, and most specifically gay marriage as an issue. The insidious penetration of even the most conservative churches by a form of what I call evangelical feminism is not happening, it HAS happened. From the seemingly trivial like music and worship styles and pastoral man bashing jokes to the more important and damaging propogation of feminist myths and the church's handling of divorce, the imprint of feminism is all over the alter.
When a pastor preaches on homosexuality, do you honestly believe those enthusiastic amens you hear are all spoken by those who love the sinners and hate the sin? When it comes to loving the sinner (the gay person) many people handle it similar to how women will handle that pesky little thing called gossip...they will circumnavigate it by saying "Please pray for so and so"...then proceed to gossip. Similarly they justify nearly overt seething hatred of gays. My point here is not about that however.
My point is to contrast the attitudes towards the sin that manifests in most social pathologies that the church dedicates resources to fix. The church helps people who are depressed, addicted, and other dysfunctions, and the church does great things in that regard. But what if you could address one of the root causes for those rather then just treating the symptoms? I am refering to divorce and a church culture that indeed is conducive to divorce. Think about it. The divorce rate is the same or slightly higher in the church. Women file 80% plus or minus of all divorces (and not for the reasons most will knee jerk and use to explain it away). After divorce is filed in a unilateral way, as in no-fault, one party usually doesnt want it. In that person we often see the above mentioned pathologies manifest, and it is usually in men. Why? Statistically the men more often do not want the divorce. People of either gender who are in pain will usually seek help from friends, networks, and support groups. In secular people, they may or may not have a group of friends, and women are more likely to than men, but the church literally throws itself into the fray offering all kinds of support, a kind of meals on wheels for the divorce initiator, helping to take the immediate pain away from the divorcer, pain that can actually be beneficial as a discouragement to filing in the first place. So, the church helps people divorce.
Now then, how much credibility does a group of people, some of whom overtly, and some subtly dislike, evenm hate gay people, how much credibility do we Christians really have on this matter? I cringe everytime I see exposition about the churches position on gays. I agree, homosexuality is not compatible with the church, and certainly not gay marriage. Meanwhile other lifestyle issues (granted , this is not a solid comparison) such as outright obesity are also tacitly encouraged in the parlors of most churches at "fellowship" meals. But more germain, divorce is facilitated and NEVER preached against in a straightforward way like homosexuality. If a preacher put as much weasel words and qualifiers in his mention of gays as he does in his handling of divorce, it would quickly become unclear if the church opposed gay marriage or not.
Same with divorce.

Judging
"judge not
the challenge i see here in the bishop's column is judgement. who set him up as the moral arbiter for us all? who is he to judge?"

The "judgment" verse in Luke and Matthew are probably the most abused in all of the NT. Neither asserts that sin should be "accepted" as a lifestyle. Both relate to judging from one's own standard instead of God's... sort of like you all are doing when you proclaim us guilty of hating without a cause based on distorted standard of morality.

Anna
None of the problems you mentioned are an excuse not to hold a high standard within the church. Fact is they provide an even greater justification for it.

You don't cure a cold by inviting people to care for you who have the flu, do you?

"person's innate sexual orientation"

There is no proof anywhere that homosexuality is innate... and yes, it is about sin clearly declared.

Christ pretty well corrected the error of the patriarchs when He declared that God had made them man and woman and joined them. God's order was monogamy. Violations of that principle were continual problems throughout the OT. The problems stemmed directly from the polygamy. BTW, Sarai didn't behave like a slave as far as I could tell and it was her suggestion that Abram take Hagar to bear a son for her. Rebecca didn't either. Deborah certainly wasn't. Ruth? No. Uniquely for the time, women could inherit property under certain circumstances under the Law.

You "bristle" that God would dare set a standard you don't agree with because you have an opinion not substantiated by any fact? Even if it were, God gives us commands to suppress many "natural" impulses. People instinctively lie when they are under pressure. Heterosexual desire is natural but may turn into forbidden lust. The desire for a pleasant feeling motivates people to get drunk or high. The instinct to please ourselves leads to lust, envy, jealousy, theft, and even murder. In fact, if you believe that man sins by choice and nature then every sin can be to some extent "natural".

Last time I checked, God didn't ask our permission or approval on His moral standards. He gets to say what is allowed and forbidden, not us. Not even if we think we have "science" behind it.

Talk about picking and choosing what scriptures you'll accept...

Bristle away. The standard doesn't change.

Definitions
When Christians talk of condemning homosexuality, they are talking about condemning homosexual acts, not those that have same-sex attraction. A lot of this debate is confused because of this misunderstanding. Christians condemn the acts of sin, not inclinations or sinners themselves. Condemnation is reserved for God. We pray for those that are afflicted with same-sex attraction. But those who are so afflicted still have a free-will choice on whether to give into that attraction and commit sinful acts. Just as heterosexuals are expected to resits the urges of opposite-sex attraction out of marriage, homosexuals are expected to do the same. We aren't interested in "driving out" those who have same-sex attraction, just those that expect us to change the truths of Christianity in or to make room for acceptance of their acts of sin. It is quite irrational to expect that most Christians are ready to do that.

For those of you who insist on thinking that Christians treat homosexual sin different from other sins, it is just not true. The standards are the same for all types of sin. The difference is that the adulters, fornicators, thieves, murders, etc aren't campaigning to have the rules changed so they can continue to publically practice in their sin. No class of sinner advocates for a special exemption from God's law, except those afflicted with same sex attraction that want to give into their urges.

I pray for you all.

Wilson54
I mostly agree with you. However, I don't discount the possibility that as a result of the fall people are born with a greater propensity to one sin or another. That doesn't mean we have to cultivate and harvest that seed though.

The NT mentions besetting sins. I've had mine to deal with and have nothing but sympathy in that regard for any repentant person trying to overcome a sin that seems to gnaw at their resistance continually.

The answer isn't to redefine God's standard to make sin acceptable which seems to be what people are trying to do with homosexuality. We can't do it for that sin any more than rape, adultery, fornication, murder, envy, drunkeness, or any other sin that might trap someone.

sjt18
Thanks for your well-considered replies.

I appreciate your stand.

Thank you Harry
God has spoken on the topic.
For men and women who fear God and would save their souls, it is not even a subject to debate.
The track record of the homo sexual male is one of aggressive promiscuous sex. Having no scruples about fidelity or responsibility, they view sexuality as a conquest or thrill seeking ride.
It has been a scandal in many churches where gay men secretly position themselves in authority positions with the young adults as coaches or worship leaders, only to 'score' on the young men who look up to these imposters.
It would be absurd to 'legitimize' this behavior with the assumption that the persons involved will suddenly reform their lifestyle practices in gratitude for being 'affirmed'.
While the Church should welcome all to hear the saving message of Jesus Christ, it also has a grave responsibility to protect its vulnerable youth from the predations of gay men, "and women".
Of course, those addicted to this lifestyle will be militant in their demands for 'affirmation', but God has spoken on the topic, and it is no great suprise that men and women are made for pro creation.
The Eastern Orthodox Church speaks of a process going from random thoughts and notions up to the state of addiction (passion).
Most Gay Men and Women are passionately addicted to their behavior. It is no longer a free option but a driving obsession.
Yes, reach out in compassion to these people, but never, never, never affirm the behaviour, which is wrong.

Is a sin a sin?
CGSBIL wrote...."For those of you who insist on thinking that Christians treat homosexual sin different from other sins, it is just not true. The standards are the same for all types of sin. The difference is that the adulters, fornicators, thieves, murders, etc aren't campaigning to have the rules changed so they can continue to publically practice in their sin. No class of sinner advocates for a special exemption from God's law, except those afflicted with same sex attraction that want to give into their urges."

I am sorry but I must disagree. You are correct in that Christianity does not teach that we can treat one sin differently then another, and I cannot know the condition of one mans heart, but I submit that in the dozens of people shouting amen as the preacher talks on homosexuality there are those who never shout amen on different sin topics...its fact and Ive witnessed it in every church to which Ive belonged or visited. There are those in the group who hate the sin and love the sinner, and there are those Christians who, sorry to say, have ill will towrds gay individuals. Oh if we could all be of perfect mind and heart like Christ. The mere fact that so many people shout amen, or that homosexuality is a boutique industry sin within the Christian community is proof some Christians, many Christians, treat it differently than other sins.

SJT18 wrote..
God did. He said homosexuality is sin. He qualified what a leader in the church should be and behave like in the epistles to Titus and Timothy. He commanded that the church uphold a standard and treat those who would not repent of gross sin as if they were unbelievers.

God also said He hates divorce..pretty clear, and He didn't qualify His hatred of it for those divorces with "Biblical Grounds", he hates them all, and when you see how it impacts kids, and often one spouse who didnt want it, you can see why he hates it. We've gone from stigma on divorce, even church discipline in some cases to really not getting too into the theology of divorce with the members, but for awhile we still held church leaders to a standard on it. Now most churches dont even do that. Why? Because a preponderance of people either have been divorced, their parents were divorced, or their neighbors, sisters, brothers, friends, someone is divorced, and we;ve all had to rationalize each of those, even the ones with no Biblical grounds, even ones where one spouse simply dumps the other, so having rationalized the sin for someone (or many people) close to us, or even for ourselves, we no longer feel we have standing to call divorce sin. (Aside: I am not advocating a world w/ no divorce) I submit that if enough people had a gay friend, brother, sister, and had to wrestle with it enough personally, while Christians are never going to see homosexuality as OK, it would become accepted even if tacitly (already happening many places, as in the dont ask dont tell) and we'd have to find another pet sin to get folks dander up. This evolution of reduced standards is bad with homosexuality, and with any sin, including divorce, and until we can speak openly about divorce, we cannot call ourselves right dividers of the Word, we are doubleminded as a body, inconsistent in our passions, and we'll keep losing ground.
Incidentally, I too have a divorce in my past, so I'm not being pious here.


Christianity and Gay Community
My answer to your question, "Will you stand with me?" My answer is an emphatic, "Yes." I agree with you 100 percent. Love the person, yes. Compassion, yes.


The Bible and all that....
This entire conversation is unbelieveable. Why again is homosexuality wrong? If I understand the previous posters, it is because a 3,000 year old barbaric bronze age text has a few lines that condemn this behavior. This sae text endorses slavery, encourages parents to kill thier children if an imaginary voice they believe is God tells them to and countless other forms of barbarism and cruelty.

Thankfully, the human race has long since progressed beyond the rantings of desert nomads millenia ago. We know that human sexuality varies. We know that homosexuality occurs among other species and our conception of human dignity is far above that of the people who wrote these dreadful lines.

Unfortunatley, there are many who still cling to these books. They claim these books were literally written by the creator of the universe. Whether the Bible or the Koran, this delusional believe has led to unspeakable violence and cruelty against women, gays, and anyone who does not share the superstitions of the writer of this piece.

If we are to run our society based on the insanity advised in the Bible, I want to know what your proof is that this book was written by the creator of the universe? It's not enough that you just feel like it is. Why this book, why not the Greek myths? Why isn't Jupiter, or Zeus or Thor your God? Perhaps because none of them exist, yet you continue to cause pain and suffering because of your superstitions.

The world is full of problems, hunger, disease, environmental devastation and war. Why, in this day and age, with all the cruelty, violence and suffering in the world would anyone have the time to worry about two people loving each other?

There is no reason. It's irrational, barbaric, superstitious and just plain mean.

Praise you all...
Did anyone here even stop to consider for a second that you're basing your belief system on a fairy tale? Even the most basic, cursory examination of any religious dogma based upon a divine, omniscient being exposes it as being absolutely ridiculous? You don't have to be a scholar or genius; you just have to stop for a little bit and think. The whole idea is delusional and preposterous, but it is a great way to make the preachers money. Enter the real world, and take responsibility for your own shortcomings instead of counting on the almighty to provide for you. Sheesh!

Not gonna get sucked in
but, these posts refering to the absurdity of scripture etc. are demonstrative of the common fallacy of all forms of "progressive" discourse. In fact there are enough Latin names for the fallacies in these statements to confuse an 18th century Pope's linguistic skills.
It reads like a greased popcycle, tastes sweet, goes down easy, and to the unchalleged palate, it goes down nicely. But you can't just state that something is preposterous, make a tangential remark about the level of study needed to ascertain such (which I suspect cursory describes the depth of study involved in reaching such a conclusion...as well as draw the tired points about barbarism, sacrifice, war, etc. that the other post did)and put your case to rest. If all matters could only be settled by seeking your superior deductive reasoning ability then we'd be in a fine shape I guess.

A central tenet of the Bible is that we take responsibility for our shortcomings, yet you present that as an alternative to Christianity...how obviously uninformed. The world and reality stretch far greater distances than the confines of your mind, thankfully.

Yes.. but...
A central tenent of the Bible may be that we take responsibility for our shortcomings. Fine. That doesn't make that book any more relevant to what these shortcoming might be than any other ancient text. There are many other books that advocate personal responibility. This particular book says homosexuality is wrong. So then you say it is wrong because this book says it's wrong. I'm sorry, but that is just not enough. It's not enough when the adherants of this philosophy would impose these beliefs on an entire nation because they believe a certain book is the infallible word of the creator of the universe.

Fortunately, the psychopatic hatered of same sexuality is dying out in this country. Polls consistently show higher acceptance of Gays among younger age groups. The debate about whether it is a choice to be gay is nearing it's end as well. The weight of scientific evidence says it's not a choice.

Still, many gay teens are terrorized by people who share the beliefs of the posters on this page. Some of these teens commit suicide or endure psychological damage because of the abuse and the shameful messages they get from religious zelots. These kids are hurting noone. It seems to me that the ones who need to take personal responsibility for their actions are those who spread fairy tales as truth.

Think about it. So there is a being who created the entire universe, and he monitors everyone's thoughts and he is so insecure that if you don't worship him, he will comndemn you to a fiery place forever. Furthermore, if you sleep with the wrong people he has to punish you as well.

It's lunacy, yet we are supposed to "respect" this as someone elses "faith". Well, this "faith" is hurting too many people. We wouldn't accept that kind of reasoning in medicine or science, but somehow when it comes to the nature of the universe and what idiotic superstitions are to be forced on people, somebody's "faith" is supposed to be enough. It's not.


tough love
If you know a land mine is in the road ahead, it is not any sign of kindess and mercy to smile and wave as the next car drives by.
The good book has spoken.
Our duty is to WARN the sinner to repent and seek a way of deliverance.
Many people in addiction do not want to stop because, the 'pleasures of sin' are very real..... for a season.
The statistics don't lie and believe me, the record of disease, drunkeness, violence, depression in the so called 'gay' community is epidemic.
It is no happy love fest and fun filled vacation.
If you really care about these people you owe it to them to give an accurate diagnosis.
What doctor would be worth a plug nickle if He gave all of his patients a clean bill of health.
Yeh, sure, you're doing fine. No need to stop smoking, no need to lose weight, no need to take that lump out by surgery.
Don't worry, be happy.
That is what cultural diversity preaches, and it is an abominable lie.

if concerned about gay 'marriage' agenda
Please see the article on today's TH about the Cyndi Lauper "True Colors" tour to 15 cities in June, and the post I placed there about Tim Gill.

Tim Gill is to the radical gay agenda/movement what George Soros is to the MoveOn.org/Liberal group of politicians.

Cast Out and Lose Out
This says it all:

"Unfortunately, few churches preach biblical sexuality well. If they did, there would be fewer out-of-wedlock births as well as fewer practicing gays in the black church."

Jackson knows what he is up against. He's correct when he argues that out-of-wedlock births would be reduced if we properly focused on irresponsible heterosexual behavior. He's also correct in saying that preaching against gay behavior would weed out the gays who openly disagree. But let's be clear, preaching against gays is likely to have no impact on the number of practicing gays in the black community.

I've never understood how society benefits by pushing people out of the church because of a disagreement on one issue.

Gay people feel strongly that they are right because they feel it inside them. (Just as heterosexuals feel the rightness of their sexual orientation inside of them - they don't need the Bible to tell them this.) Sure, you can argue that what gays feel is from the devil and what heterosexuals feel is from the Lord, but let there be no mistake that it feels the same. That is why a person being rejected for being gay by his or her own church is absolutely devastating. They simply don't see it as a judgement on their behavior. It feels like a personal rejection. So instead of pushing them away for not agreeing on this point, as Jackson demands, why not keep them inside the church? Surely a homosexual orientation does not nullify the goodness of a person. Casting them out is like saying that they are useless to the community and they have nothing to offer. Does Jackson think that a gay person could not teach him a thing or two about being a good Christian? Apparently.

Jackson's unforgiving ignorance
Michael C, above makes a good point.
Look at all these anti gay posts...the Bible, whatever is always going to say the same thing.
But we are not always going to be the same ignorant and violently reactive masses, now are we?
Jackson: homosexuality TRANSCENDS ALL cultures, religions, languages, colors, family structures and economic strata.
Yet, who else will MISNAME it a 'lifestyle choice'?
Blood donation and organ transplants are as taboo in religions, and one could say risky...but those opposed to it cannot tell the rest of us not to accept such things.
Our worth as human beings is still discussed here on strictly gender roles and the expectations (and size) of our sexual parts?
Hearts and minds don't matter?
There is no mistaking the bigotry here of low expectations when it comes to gay people.
What one can't be TALENTED, and gay?
Compassionate and gay?
A devoted parent and teacher...and gay?
A GENIUS...and gay?

What...all these gifts are marked 'heterosexual only'?
Heterosexuality isn't a virtue, neither is fecundity and fertility.
These are states of human condition.
And all you claiming sound aspects of moral clarity...
You better know who is really doing harm and in what way and who bears the brunt of it simply because they are less and number, not because they are wrong.
Your hands have a thumb and finger opposing each other, but you don't expect your thumb to act like fingers and your hand would be less strong and skilled without it.
Consider that our lives together, gay and not gay...are the parts to a greater whole, to never be separated from each other.
It's not occuring to you anti gay folks that the endurance and indigenous relationship gay and not gay have had throughout human history has DEFIED puny attempts to break that bond by mere mortals.
Why not consider the hand of God on it, look to the good potential in your gay brothers, sisters, sons and daughters as folks as gifted or flawd as heteros are an call it even?
Homosexuality isn't life threatening, or even hurtful to anyone like a medical disease or an assault from a human being.
A morally intelligent person would know the difference.
And know too, that we're not the same, gay or not, black or not, female or not.
But the hatred is determindly the same, and God will want to know why since the results are the same.
Unnecessary compromise and hurt to a talented segment of the entire human population since the beginning.
It's a LIE, that heteros deserve some divine dominion over gay people...they don't.
Just as white never deserved it over black, or men over women.
But there is always someone who wants that dominance, and will brutally take it-and they don't care who gets hurt.
And in this instance, because straight folks aren't getting it that the world can't and doesn't revolve around ONLY their existence, EVERYONE is getting hurt.
After all, what great wonderful good has been done for society as a whole by keeping gay folks down, or in fear?
And what great moral good is achieved by fear and ignorance?





Yes-If afraid of gays see TriciaCT Post
Tricia wants to tell you that people think differently than she does and that they - gasp - are willing to spend money on that cause. Oh, my!

Wonder What Happened After Sodom?
Seems as if this is never analyzed in most "Christian" churches. Is incest permissible in certain "situations" according to Scripture?



Genesis 19:30-38 (KJV)


30And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

37And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.




Gay Sinners
Amazing

Gays wanting to be in church. NO WAY IF YOUR GAY.

Yet of you are a phlander, or an adulter. Yep getting divorced and remaried makes you one....Youa re welcome with open arms while you continue to LIVE IN SIN...


Christ is rolling in his grave....

That's Rich
"Recent studies concerning same-sex marriage have shown that in Sweden and the Netherlands, where such unions have been allowed, marriage is devalued---resulting in fewer and later marriages. Secondly, they lead to rising out-of-wedlock births akin to the current black community dilemma in the U.S."

Amazing how much mind control 2% of the population has over the remaining 98%. Gay people must be super-persuasive.

I don't mind people opposing gay marriage on religious grounds. I don't mind them saying that we should stick to tradition. Heck, I don't mind them saying that they just don't like it. But when people start trying to shovel the nonsense that gay marriage is killing the Dutch, that's where I draw the line.

Out-of-wedlock births happen between two heterosexuals who are not married. Allowing gay people to marry does not change anything about that equation.

Hear me now, if I argue that gay teenagers suffer from depression at a higher rate than their non-gay counterparts and I say that this depression is the direct result of negative attitudes toward gays, people like Jackson will say that I'm just being silly. He'd say that I'm blaming society for the gay person's problems. But then this is a man who is pushing the monumentally absurd notion that recognizing a relationship between two members of a group that makes up less than 2% of society can indirectly cause the rest of the 98% to start cranking out babies without being married. I've said it once and I'll say it again: There are a lot of "conservatives" who don't think very highly of their fans at Townhall.com.

The traditional family is indeed in big trouble. When heterosexuals get it together, then we can focus on kicking gays out of church.

It Is Obvious...
...that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity. Any honest analysis of Christian theology shows that homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Scriptures as well as the entire history of Christian ethical thought.

Another obvious point....
It's also obvious that the black community has bigger fish to fry.

A peculiar link on King David
I wonder if this has any bearing on the topic. As I started to read it, it gave me some pause. What are the reactions to some inferences about King David and Saul's son Jonathan?

http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/relationships.htm

Reason, re: "Cast Out and Lose Out"
Rev. Jackson (and others mentioned) are not advocating "pushing people out of the church because of a disagreement on one issue." I ACTUALLY READ the ENTIRE COLUMN, and he did not say of gays that churches should
"cast them out" or that he believes "they are useless to the community and they have nothing to offer." BUT, homosexuals have no "right" to REWRITE the doctrines of a religion, and expect to hold leadership positions in a Church which teaches that homosexual BEHAVIOR is a sin.

You say, "They simply don't see it as a judgement on their behavior. It feels like a personal rejection." Does an alcoholic or drug addict "feel" "a personal rejection" when he or she is told that the addictive behavior is wrong? Maybe so, but it is usually a problem of perception rather than the intent of the persons giving the message.

this isn't about being Christian
We are HUMAN beings first, and citizens second...being a Christian is a chosen lifestyle and has no place dictating the terms regarding a SINGLE human characteristic as a moral standard.
Especially when adulterers, the divorced...the incarcerated are free to marry once or again and again and again.
This isn't about being Christian, this is about recognizing that not all human being ARE Christian and living with it, and recognizing that not ALL people are heterosexual and there is no moral or immoral basis in being gay, it's a characteristic on the same coin as heterosexuality.
When another human being betrays or assaults another human being, or someone is addicted to substances, all these have specific definable RESULTS that are hurtful.
In NO WAY does homosexuality come close to any of these categories, and at no time, in any case...is anyone who suffers from anything banned from being allowed to marry someone JUST LIKE THEM.
Gays are incompatible with marrying STRAIGHT people, but not incompatible with each other.

So if you want to argue compatibility, gay people are compatible with EVERYTHING-because of the reasons I just mentioned.
Transcendence through all other human conditions and structures.

Quit hiding behind 'the Bible' and look at the real world.
I am a black woman, and I'm heterosexual and I know I didn't choose it and neither did every other heterosexual in the world.
So making the accusation (with no evidence or substance) that gay people do, is prejudicial, of not ridiculous.
Mores the point, there is no HETEROSEXUALITY gene, no HOMOSEXUALITY gene, so with no genetic anomalies...that makes gay folks and non gay folks, BOTH genetically normal.

And since I was a little girl, and asked the minister who baptized me why no WOMEN wrote the Gospels, or Scripture, and were never running things like men, I didn't believe the Bible anyway, it made no sense that ONLY MEN were touched by God or received anything from him, except a baby for sacrifice.

So, I can find the Bible highly suspect, and every man who has run the church SINCE.
I'm a citizen first, and THAT is what we ALL have to live as.
So the freedom to marry, to be recognized as a fully citizen with the ability to care for a significant other and children in marriage, serve your country in uniform...or play the bassoon-isn't about being Christian.

If you have needs and responsibilities that can only be met by marriage, then all you have to consider is that gay people are no different that way.
It's not right that we all feast with the families we choose and make our gay and lesbian watch as they starve for the same.
That's unkind, and breaks the most basic rule of compassionate societies, and that is simply to treat one as you'd want to be treated as well.

STEALTH CAMPAIGN was my point, Reason--
"Reason" posted:

"Yes-If afraid of gays see TriciaCT Post
Tricia wants to tell you that people think differently than she does and that they - gasp - are willing to spend money on that cause. Oh, my!"

Firstly, I am in NO Way "afraid of gays."

I simply believe that people should become informed as to the underhanded and 'dirty' tactics that people like Tim Gill use to promote their "agenda."

Tim Gill did not simply donate "more than $15 million to advance gay causes across the U.S." He organized a group of RICH GAY philanthropists to specifically TARGET politicians in MANY IN-STATE races that these gay activists DID NOT LIVE IN. They targeted FOR DEFEAT those state legislators, such as Danny Carroll in Iowa, who sponsored marriage protection initiatives. Get it??? They did not simply donate TO those who agree with the "gay agenda," but donated to the OPPONENTS of anyone who has acted to protect traditional marriage, whether or not such opponents expressed support for the gay agenda. As Gill put it, that gave them a chance to "punish the wicked."

To those supporters of homosexuality
out there, why do you equate speaking out against homosexuality as being gay-bashers/gay hatred? The author doesn't say they should be thrown out but they shouldn't being allowed gay activism in the church. No Christians I know believe divorce, sex outside of marriage, etc. are good things and they don't PROMOTE them. If a homosexual goes to church knowing that homosexuality is sinful and prays for deliverance, that is one thing. However, we know all too well that most homosexuals tend to be activists for the acceptance of their own deviancy.

News flash....
We're all sinners....

Our gay and lesbian friends' sin is no more or less sin than yours and mine.

A bit of logic and concern
The only thing about this article that rather concerns me, and what I've seen to be prevalent in society itself, is the whole concept of the "black church." Given that there is one Body of Christ, how does the "black church" differ from the Church as a whole? Yes, I'm white, but when I talk about going to church, I don't say I'm going to "white church." Are there blacks and whites at the church I go to? Certainly. But why is that concept at all extraordinary? As Christians, we need to be careful about tossing race into the mix, because, again, we're all one Body. Calling the "black church" such because it's black and considering it to be special for it, or applauding a black man or woman when they ascend to a higher position in the church, still smacks to me of "anything you can do I can do, too", when that assertion should be more than obvious. It feels like blacks are trying to play catch-up in a foot race that should, for all intents and purposes, have been canceled long ago. After all, they're human and, again, one Body. Separating the races because they have differing tastes in the styles of the sermons and music is one thing. Separating them because of the difference in race itself is dangerous ground.

Now onto the topic at hand: homosexuality. Let's establish that God would not make someone to be gay, nor would he ordain homosexuality as a trait he established in humans.

First, let's agree that the Bible speaks against homosexuality.

First, the Old Testament:
Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Then, the New Testament:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Okay, so homosexuality is obviously bad in the eyes of God. Does God sin? 'Course not.

Psalm 11:7 "... for the Lord is righteous."

He's right in everything he does, says, thinks, etc. He's perfect. How about mankind?

Genesis 1:27 (New International Version)
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

We are created in the image of God. Were we created in sin? Nope.

Ecclesiastes 7:29 (New International Version)
29 This only have I found: God made mankind upright...

So when God created mankind, man was clean from sin, under which category homosexuality falls. Could God have swayed mankind in that direction or pulled him that way? Nope.

James 1:13-14 (NIV)
13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.

Essentially, homosexuality cannot be from God. He made mankind upright, which means that we were created clean and free from such things. Above, I quote only half of the Ecclesiastes 7:29 verse. To print it in full...

Ecclesiastes 7:29 (New International Version)
29 This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."

It's our choice. Note that the decision to feel homosexual urges might not be a choice, but the path through your life that pushes you towards it is littered with your choices. Once there, is the temptation unbearable?

1 Corinthians 10:13 (New International)
13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

Nope. God's promised to provide a way out. So the guilt for a homosexual lifestyle rests squarely the heads of its participants. Note that here I'm not addressing psychology or what society says. I'm merely trying to answer the argument that God could've made homosexuals to BE homosexual. Does He love 'em? Of course. Did He make them that way? No. That would be the sin nature that Christ came to save everyone from.

An article worth consideration
While I consider myself a conservative on this topic and don't want the Church turned into La Cage a Faux, I do think this article about the relationship between King David and Jonathan is well written and worth comment.
I've often wondered what was going on there, and, considering the general state of affairs in King David's life, would it be so far fetched to assume what is so very strongly suggested?

http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/relationships.htm

Love the Sinner, hate the Sin.
Amen brother. I wish more christians would have the same convictions you have. We could make a real difference in society instead of having a "lets keep the seculars at bay and not lose any more ground" mentality.

Speak Truth
Mr Jackson I stand in agreement with you, Not on our watch!! I thank GOD for the awesome revelation HE has given you and the purity of heart. Keep the good fight of faith!!

Black Gays Aggressively Enlist
Thank Bishop Harry Jackson for writing this article and taking a stand for righteousness.I agree with what you are doing and for being that mouthpiece of truth. Open rebuke is better than secret love. Continue sounding the alarm because because America's future is at stake.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.