I find it rather appalling that you might be looking forward to the destruction of homosexuals. That kind of “future-hoping” (focused more on a poorly-evidenced “rapture” and less on the merging of heaven and earth and the renewal of life everlasting (in the eschatological sense) is heinously unchristian and thoroughly selfish. Who would Jesus hate?

And we MUST repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for as much as you don’t like it, the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of those who identify as homosexuals (even if they are not sexually active) would willingly serve this country in the military. Their sexual orientation is a completely illegitimate discriminator, just as it is for any other government service position. Denying them the ability to self-identify by threatening them with expulsion is not only unconstitutional, but unchristian. For the record, I am not in favor of the ordination of partnered homosexuals (as any sexual activity outside of marriage, as defined by the Church, is fornication), but fully support civil partnerships being recognized by the state. It is of no business of the government what adult men and women do in their bedrooms (unless it involves children or violence).

If “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” needs to remain (for whatever illogical and immoral reasons), it needs to be for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. That way we wouldn’t have any issue at all – sexuality is not allowed to be discussed. That might take care of the pornography, rape and misogyny problems that are more rampant in the military than any homosexual activity.

I wonder if a more productive discussion about the military concerns Christian participation in combat positions; finding justification for killing after the cross and resurrection is quite difficult to do.

Abortion, as it should be understood (medical necessity), is not wrong or bad – thinking that it’s somehow okay to risk the life of both mother and child because terminating ANY pregnancy is “morally wrong” needs to go out the window. Medical procedures exist for a reason. Telling a near-death mother that she’s not allowed to terminate her pregnancy and save her life, but must almost certainly lose her own life and the life of her unborn child is a tragic side-effect of the current right-wing push to end all abortion. That would be akin to telling someone with cancer that they shouldn’t receive treatment because God gave them the gift of their hair and it’s illegal to lose their hair. It’s a much different situation, to be sure, but let’s not toss a medical necessity out in order to stave off the murdering of innocents (which elective abortion certainly is).

Why not reclassify ourselves, as Christians, as “choose life”. We acknowledge that there is a choice to be made for those who find themselves with unplanned pregnancies, but, in EVERY case (death penalty, abortion, war, etc.) we should be advocating for LIFE instead of death. We somehow find it acceptable to recognize war as a necessity (which it’s not), or the death penalty as just (which it most CERTAINLY is not), yet are stuck on the abortion issue (and rightly so). Let’s advocate for an end to war, an end to elective abortion, and an end to the death penalty.

Let’s cast off the chains of partisan phrases like “pro-life” and recommit ourselves to calling out the injustices around us that lead to death, urging everyone to choose life. For the unborn and for the terrorist.

Ours is a radical love.

I agree that we can do better. I tried to make that point with regard to our churches’ view of children as well. We might not be as pro-life as we think we are, at times.

Good word!

Trevin