There is no way! There is no way Bishop Harry Jackson, who courageously led the fight against gay marriage in Washington D.C., realizes just who else is on the sweet-sounding, but sour-smelling Covenant for Civility.
The document is written as if it is to Bible believing Christians. The first paragraph begins with “As Christian pastors and leaders…”
The letter addresses the church: “The church in the United States can offer a message of hope and reconciliation to a nation that is divided by political and cultural differences.”
Then, the lallapalooza–the Covenant of Civility refers to “the unity we have in the Body of Christ.”
But cleverly, many of the signatories are in strong opposition to Biblical Truth. So much for “unity”…unless…this watered down thing is just one more indication of where we are going.
Where is the unity with heretic Brian McLaren, a signatory who rejects both Christ and His Word? McLaren even has a label for Bishop Jackson. He calls Christians who are not shy in opposing the gay agenda “fundasexualists.” He is quite clear about this in his book, A New Kind of Christianity.
Where is Bishop Jackson’s unity with his co-signer, Geoffrey A. Black, General Secretary and President of the United Church for Christ?
As a recent UCC release notes, “The General Synod of the UCC has called [to]” … “repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and create marriage equality for all.”[1] (Bold mine)
Marriage equality for all?
Again, there is nothing wrong with being polite, civil, and so on. That’s in the Bible already. But Bible believeing Christians who have signed this document need to get off it, and quickly.
Are you in Biblical “unity” with pro-homosexual churches and organizations that call themselves “Christian”… are you in “unity” with those who are pro-abortion?
Who is going to step up and bless God? General Superintendent of Assemblies of God George O. Wood moved immediately once he learned the truth. My belief is that Bishop Jackson will do the same.
What about you National Association of Evangelical guys? President Leith Anderson? You’re the first guy on the list. You are signatory numero uno. And Galen Carey? What exactly is your role in all this? W. Todd Bassett? If it helps, here is the passage I think of when I think of the courage of AOG leader Dr. Wood:
For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
(Galatians 1:10)
Man up, you NAE guys. (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
You can’t walk in this thing unless you agree with it. Right? (Amos 3:3)
I repented of homosexual sin. I am glad I didn’t run into some of the folks on this list, who would smiley-face me to hell.
Holy is our God.
Amen.
Endnotes:
1. “UCC leaders applaud presidential order on patient visitation” by Greg Brekke
I have seen this before, but it is not always the case–which does not change the fact that it is sin. Harry Jackson, by the way, never had his name taken off this list, although I personally spoke to him, and he told me he would have it removed. It would be proper if we could love homosexuals enough to view them like other lost people.
I agree. Have you ever noticed how one member of a homosexual couple tends to be the effeminate one and one the masculine one? If it were not a design for marriage to be between one man and one woman, then why does the “couple” have to pattern their relationship like this? Why can’t they just be who they are? Because it is not natural, that is why.
I am not here to state who is going to hell or who is righteous or not. I am here to ask this question: why are homosexuals so bent on calling what they want “marriage”? First, from its origin, marriage does not reflect the model that the homosexual community is presenting—-the same gender being joined as life partners. Second, the concept of “marriage” is a biblical endeavor whose standard is set with the first man and woman.
Marriage is meant to reflect the relationship between GOD and his creation; displaying the love, provision and interaction that He communicates along with man’s role as expected to show gratitude as well as reciprocating love and interaction is only part of what’s to be mirrored. Also, in a marriage, commonly, it is rightfully assumed that a couple will reproduce or “procreate” which furthers this reflection of the marriage mirroring GOD’s dealings with man whereas GOD “creates”. Even in a case where a man and a woman are joined and cannot (whether the problem lies in the man or the woman physically) procreate it at least has the appearance of the possibility of procreation.
The pretentious petition for “same sex marriage” is an attempt to make a mockery of faith and of its essence is to Edge God Out! Marriage holds for mankind a reminder that GOD is a Great Creator, in fact, the Creator of all things. Every time a child is born it is a reminder of the awesomeness of creation. Life is first in the man delivered to the woman for her to carry for a hopeful 9 months. This is why we call GOD a “He”, not because He has gender in His Spirit form but because He “is the first cause of a thing”. A homosexual couple cannot represent this possibility which is why it would be redefining “marriage” to ultimately become something that is not Marriage at all.
It is evident to me that the attempt of the homosexual community is indeed pretentious. I firmly believe that those for “same sex marriage” have set out to “DESTIGMATIZE” homosexuality and are on a quest to normalize its lifestyle. In doing this they are doing to others what they don’t appreciate having done to them; they are disregarding the faith, convictions and a wholesome societal paradigm for a selfish behavioral cause AS homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR and not an ETHNICITY. Though I am not for same sex unions at all, I ask, why not call it something else if these attempts to legalize such unions have no ulterior motives?
We must continue to argue from a faith perspective but we need to become more wise than “blunt”. Simply saying “Adam & Eve and not Adam & Steve” doesn’t cut it anymore.
We must take the position to meanings and definitions.
Marriage by definition means to take two separate and complimenting components and merging or blending them. Testosterone and testosterone don’t merge neither do they compliment one another. A lamp isn’t complimented by a lamp but by a bulb. A plug isn’t complimented by a plug but by a socket outlet. To compliment something is to bring something to the table that the first component does not possess of its own; this is illustrated when you try to connect “north and north” or “south and south” poles of a magnet-it doesn’t work!
If you were covered with necklaces and you added another necklace there would be no complimenting effect. But if you have on a plain black turtleneck sweater and you add something ornamental (something different) then you have complimented the sweater, right?
What the homosexual community is purposing is to change the very “generic” definition of marriage whether from a biblical or none biblical perspective. So then, it cannot [from a terminological standpoint] be consider marriage at all by reason of the noncomplimenting components that are attempted to be joined.
P.S. Let’s stop calling it “Gay” which means Happy and call it as it is “homosexuality”.
Find Article at this link: http://www.nwitimes.com/lifestyles/article_823bcc05-4d11-5377-8331-bc4246448c8b.html
John,
Thanks again for your articles, which I always look forward to reading.
Judgment can’t be far off when churches attempt to sanctify homosexuality through marriage or condone abortion. To tolerate those who preach evil, in the name of civility, is evil itself, and proves to me at least that these people’s faith died long ago. I’m thoroughly convinced such people do not believe in God, let alone the Gospel of Our Lord.
Even though Nietzsche thought he’d dispensed with God and religion, he nonetheless worried for the future of mankind entrusted to such morally feeble minds. Dostoevsky’s famous dictum that if God is dead, everything is permissible, has set in motion abominations he could only have imagined as fiction, like late-term abortions and same-sex marriages. What’s next? Killing off the old and mentally retarded? We’re almost there. Are we supposed to tolerate those who preach such evils in the name of civility as well? There’s no end to it. To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, they have that civility that cowards borrow from fear and attribute to virtue.