Comments on: Answering Veith On Gay Lead in Public Discourse: A Lukan-Pauline Primer

By: Frank Turk

Frank Turk — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:21:46 +0000

I don't think the problem is being a critic or being opposed to this public move toward a more liberal view of human sexuality: the problem is understanding the terms of engagement. God has already established the terms of engagement: Christ died on a cross for the sins of the ungodly. The problem "we" have (those of us who have received the Gospel and want others to receive it as well) is that we really forget that without Christ, we're just like these people we're shaking our heads or our fists or our Bibles at. The terms of engagement are /sacrifice/ and /forgiveness/, not the will to power. If we were doing that, I thing we'd at least be doing the right thing. Whether God is willing that many here today be saved is in His hands.

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:38:33 +0000

If you think Orthodox and Roman Catholic folks preach and follow a false gospel, and you sign the statement, you're selling out to power.

As for the protesting, it's stupid. What's the point? Read your own statement: some Christians are struggling quietly with homosexuality while these bozos are entangled in a hate/love affair with the halls of power. Get over what you think is persecution, roll up your sleeves, and help everyone made in God's image.

By: David

David — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:34:28 +0000

Veith's question is framed in such a way that it's easy to answer: critics in general have a difficult time coming across well.

More substantively, I think most of us Christians have succumbed to a victim mentality -- being conformed to the image of our ever-eager-to-play-the-victim world, rather than being transformed by the renewing of our minds.

By: Curtis DeBraux

Curtis DeBraux — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:43:12 +0000

It seems to me that the question should be asked... What was the purpose of the protest by the Christians? Was it to effect a change in a law that is believed to be immoral or to effect a change in the hearts of the gay rights protesters who agree with the immoral law? Sadly I think it was the former. They had the wrong weapons - Addressing half the problem from the wrong direction. Men make laws, fallen men make fallen laws. Using the worlds tactics to bring about change does not avail us much. They know there own battlefield. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal and the wisdom that we should be using will catch them in thier own craftiness - Or do we percieve God too weak?

By: Josh S

Josh S — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:13:44 +0000

Seems pretty obvious to me — the Christian protesters are saying that certain people are abominations to God. That isn't a message of love. The gay protesters are preaching tolerance and inclusion.

Of course one will come off as negative and the other as positive.

By: EWR

EWR — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:03:23 +0000

Veith runs a great blog - but many who comment there tend to get things going in a less than helpful direction. Veith has posed a very interesting question. It seems to me that these conservative evangelical ministers are not very effective communicators in the realm of public protest. And I don't know if they really could be. Public protest in the format carried out by these evangelics is usually about "Activism" and "Taking a Stand" - goals that are not very easily partnered with thoughtful analysis and argumentation. The ministers described here seem to be torn between what I perceive to be a poor motive (the deliberate testing of a law) and a better motive (speaking the truth in love). Now I know that we are only reading one journalist's account - but it seems that whether they are appealing to Scripture to make their argument (a puzzling choice seeing as how most active homosexuals do not share traditional evangelical views of the authority of the Bible) or appealing more broadly to General Revelation (in this case human history: "AIDS could have been avoided . . .") the language and argumentation (if you can even call it that) is quite sloppy. But that's how "Protests" are conducted. The language and forms of protest are best suited for "truth claims" that are relatively "self-evident". I use the quotation marks around these words on purpose. The message of the evangelicals does not translate well in this format - the message of the Gay Rights crowd most definitely does. These Protests are not about who has the truth - they are about who can shout the loudest. And people will like the guy who shouts with a smile and rainbow flag more than they will like the angry guy who shouts with a scowl and a Bible in his hand. Which is the more simple message to proclaim? The fact that in spite of societal shifts, in spite of our common desire to be tolerant of all people, in spite of everything we see on TV and in the movies - the homosexual lifestyle is inherently sinful and will lead to severe consequences for individuals and the culture at large? Or the message of the Gay Rights crowd: "Hey - we are people too and our love is legit"?