I just had this conversation with someone whom I dearly love. It's hard to have this type of disagreement.
Response from earlier comment...
People sin because they're longing for something missing. That something is God. The AFA group has no love, just the ability to be constantly offended. If you're offended that gay guys blew each other in public, fine, but your outrage won't draw them to Jesus. Love will and always does. I don't see a Jesus offended by sin. I see a Jesus who loves people right where they are. AFA wants to purify sinners before they're saved so that they don't have to experience anything naughty. Christians need to be willing to walk into sin, ignore it and love people all the way to Jesus. He can change people. We can't.
My response
I agree with most everything you said except one *small* piece. I do think your assessment of the AFA wanting to clean people up first is pretty accurate. Of course, I still think that you're jumping ahead to the AFA before acknowledging that there was a huge event with some pretty offensive behavior and the mainstream media just gave it a total pass - which as I recall was my primary point.
OK. 2 small pieces... 1st is more my opinion
Regarding outrage due to inappropriate public behavior - I would think that it shouldn't make a difference if you're a Christian or not for people to to agree that public blow jobs (gay, straight or any other way) are not socially acceptable behavior. I can't tell you the outrage I would feel if I saw someone behaving like that in public in front of any of my four young girls - and my willingness to take them to task verbally and/or physically and/or legally for such base, crude and objectionable behavior.
That being said... 2nd... my actual point of disagreement:
"I don't see a Jesus offended by sin." Really? Jesus is holy. He is completely offended by sin. He died on a cross to save us from that sin. Jesus HATES sin. Yes, he loves the people where they are ("while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"). And yes, he purifies us. But I think scripturally, he's quite offended by sin.
Now, my complete editorial...
You've been pretty vitriolic in your attack on the AFA. While I agree with you that they aren't a perfect organization and I've mentioned that I've expressed that to them - you're so busy attacking them that you're excusing the outrageous behavior that just took place because "the AFA is mean." Well, the AFA may be mean. They may be legalistic. They may miss the mark - just like all of us that need a savior do. But at least they are trying to be a conscientious voice encouraging other sinners saved by grace (otherwise known as Christians) to speak up for the gospel and all that "gospel" means. That's pretty different than the group at Folsom Street that was encouraging people to come out and put on display their primarily promiscuous and masochistic sexual lifestyle.
Just my .02
Like I said, I love this person dearly. It was hard for me to have this conversation because I really do respect the person. We have had many great and intellectually and spiritually stimulating conversations. The person is right about Jesus waking in and loving people where they are. The person is right about "Christians" always trying to clean up people's naughty behavior. The person is right that LOVE is what draws us to the Lord. But I think that as much as part of what they were saying is right, the person was missing the real point of what I was saying (see previous post). And, I guess I just didn't want them to miss the forest for the trees.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Very interesting and insightful post.
I believe part of the confusion here involves the rights of the individual verses the rights of the group.
Yes, indivuduals have the right to copulate, but what about the rights of the viewing public? I'm ignoring the normal laws against public nudity/indecincy.
A friend and I were walking from BART (local transit) to The SF Opera House, on our way to, where else? an opera. It was Gay Pride Day.
For the six block treck I was treated to what I considered a disgusting visual and audible presentation of base human lust. I feel my rights were violated. But since I have standaards, I guess my rights don't count.
A homeless woman sued New York City because they committed her to a hospital when she was soiling herself in her own waste. The court settled in favor of her RIGHT to live on the street in her feces and vomit. What about the rights of the passers by?
Eventually, I hope something like group moality comes back into vogue. Even my atheist friends are offended at naughty behavior. So, God isn't the linch pin of this dialogue.
Think about the rights of the group the next time you stroll past a eurine soaked doorway and breathe in the scents wafting by.
Post a Comment