|
From David Fitch's blog:
Thoughts? Here are mine. If you following the ensuing conversations in these posts (I read the second one but not the first one) it seems to me that this question would all be pretty much solved if he would actually respond to his own enquiry! These kinds of conversations seem fine when pomo-christians (for lack of a better term) are "talking amoungst themselves." Cool. I hold to what Stanley Grenz referred to as the "welcoming but not affirming" position. Not necessarily as outlined as DF has done here as there are nuances to that position. However, as said, this is good conversation when WE are talking amoungst OURSELVES. But what is David's point? Does he want to get those who are in the welcoming but not affirming position to jump on board with his welcoming but transforming position (he doesn't seem all that clear to me, especially in the ensuing conversation, that gays can actually be transform)?
The bottom line it seems is that everyone is not going to jump on your side (David's side or the opposing side) of this question. Thus, why not allow those churches that hold to each of the positions (welcoming and affirming, welcoming but not affirming and welcoming and mutually transforming) to exist in their own communities with their own consciences about these things? Essentially, we live in a pluralistic culture (and democratic for the most part) in which many different denominations and teachings and beliefs are held within a variety of communities at any point in time. So what's the big deal? I don't get it. Am I missing something here?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
|