| Homosexuality: blessing or sin? The part of the discussion we never really seem to discuss |
| Written by John McWilliams | ||||||||||||||
| Thursday, 24 February 2011 15:13 | ||||||||||||||
|
A few weeks back, we published an editorial suggesting that the first 10 years of the 21st century could well be dubbed, “The Decade of Disclosure.” With the proliferation of Facebook, YouTube, blogging, instant messaging, etc., we’ve become a whole generation of folks with never an unpublished thought. Not so fast, says John McWilliams. One thought circulating only within a small circle of us really discusses the nature of same-sex intimate relationships. He claims that well-informed LGBT folks are aware that those relations can pose some particular medical dangers – and he’s not talking about AIDS (a disease that can pass between any two sexual partners, along with other non-sexual means). McWilliams, a Presbyterian pastor, has posted a lengthy study on his blog page. It’s not light reading, not for young eyes, nor for the faint of heart. It sounds an alarm, urging his denominational colleagues to consider if it is advisable to give their approval to what might be risky behavior. As he puts it, “I find it speaks volumes that Dr. Goldstone, an openly gay non-Christian and Dr. Diggs, a heterosexual conservative Christian, both highly respected in their fields, agree with regard to the inherent dangers of normal homosexual sexual relations, even between two healthy monogamous men.” Amid his report of this research, McWilliams also decries the fact that “… many Christians simply write off homosexuals in disgust and uncalled for judgment. That is sin of which the church must repent. Nothing could be further from what Christ would have us do than turning our backs on the homosexual community.” He contacted us at the Outlook, asking if we would post this study on our Website. While we have not shied away from controversies, we recognized the sensitive nature of what he had written. We knew this would take the cause deep consternation to some of our most loyal friends and supporters. We chose not to post the article. So John posted it on his own blog page and asked us, in the spirit of open dialogue, for which the Outlook is so well known, simply to offer a link to his blog, on the Amendments Resources page, which carries a wide range of articles pro and con. In that spirit, we have agreed to provide the link here: http://pastorjohn500.blogspot.com/ Your Responses (7)
Tim Thomas
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Lakeland, Florida I find it interesting that reading MLP, CovNet adn TAMFS websites and materials I find no reference at all to "it being all about Sex". If it there please help me find it. What I do read is that people are truely trying to live the faith that was claimed for us during our baptism and then we claimed during the confirmation. We need to be about our fathers business of caring for the least of these and everything else will fall into place. When we do the do's the don'ts won't have time to be a problem. |
Charles Jeffery
said:
|
Burbank, CA Thank you Reverend Williams. It is sad that our leaders do not wish to discuss all aspects of what they wish to approve. We have removed the intellect from discussion to focus solely on desires and that is not a good. We are no longer man that has dominion but are just an animal that does at it desires. I find it rather funny that Ms. Kooi says "as if the only salient thing about being gay is sex." Well, Ms. Kooi, we have allowed people that struggle with same sex attractions to be ministers if they live chaste, celebate lives. That isn't good enough for you. You and your friends want to change the ordination standards so people can be ministers and have whatever sexual relations they care to. It is all about having sex for you and your friends at MLP, Covenant and TAMFS. |
Patricia Slomanski
said:
|
Benson, N. C. I, like Reverend Scates, am shocked that The Outlook would not publish the document written by Reverend McWilliams. I am sure that he knew that it would cause controversy, but nevertheless he was courageous enough to tell the truth about how being a homosexual is hazardous to one's health. It is a shame that The Outlook did not put aside its bias and publish what many of our Brothers and Sisters need to hear. For not to tell them the truth is hurting them, and God has NOT called us to hurt them. Rather, we are to witness to them the truth of God's transforming power over sin. It used to be that we Presbyterians could count on fair and balanced reporting from The Outlook, but since Mr. Haberer served on the PUP Debacle (which opened the door to the removal of G-6 and most likely the exodus of many churches from the denomination when this happens), the reporting has not been the same. I challenge you, Mr. Haberer, to, as my friend, Jeff Winter has said, take your head out of sand and address in your publication the true facts what have not been brought out. The same facts were presented to the United Methodist Church by Dr. James Holsinger. He too was badgered, but like Reverend McWilliams he told the truth. For our leaders and our publications not to tell the truth is harming those who participate in this behavior, our denomination, and our individual churches. To not tell the truth in your publication shows poor judgment on your part as a journalist and as a pastor. When has it ever been inappropriate to tell the truth? When it is not told, others get hurt. That is certainly the case here. |
Ron Scates...Sr. Pastor,Higland Park Church,Dallas
said:
|
Dallas,Texas For 11 years I served as a board member of Regeneration Ministries in Baltimore.....a Christian ministry to and for sexually broken people.....by sexually broken people (into which category I myself most certainly fall).Most of the Regeneration staff were/are Christian homosexual men and women at various places in their desire to bring their lifestyles into conformity with the Word of God and their relationship with Jesus Christ.All believed that hetero- and homo- sexual practice outside the bonds of marriage was neither God's will, nor God's best,for their lives or anyone else's. Being rather naive about homosexual practice,early in my tenure I asked some of the staff (males) to take me into their former world and show me around town as to what is typically going on in the homosexual community.They did so.What I saw both saddened and sickened me.Any thoughts I may have had that the practice of homosexual sex could possibly be God-ordained/blessed quickly vanished."Self-destructive" is the phrase that kept coming to mind as I heard and saw things that broke my heart. When I was a pastor in San Antonio,I regularly counseled six homosexual men--3 Christian,3 non-Christian--all of whom told me the same thing:"Though I march in the pride parades and talk about how glad I am to be homosexual,I really hate this lifestyle,and want out....I feel trapped." One man--one of the non-Christians-- said something to me that I will never forget:"Even though I am not a believer,the Church is the only institution that gives me hope.....because its the only institution in society that has not caved-in to the homosexual pressure......the only institution still willing to tell me the truth...so please promise me that you will do all you can to keep the church telling the truth about this lifestyle." I promised him that I would do so. In college,I was pre-veterinary major,and I went on to earn an M.S. in the area of reproductive physiology (how the plumbing works).I can attest to the reality that everything Mr. McWilliams states in his article is absolutely true from a medical standpoint.That,coupled with the clear teaching of Scripture and the collective moral/theological wisdom of the larger Church,means for me that to truly show love and compassion toward anyone,I must begin and end with the truth......and not just baptize what is not God's best for anyone under a banner of "justice" or some other moniker. I am very disappointed in The Outlook's refusal to print Mr. McWilliam's piece.I have subscribed to The Outlook for over 30 years and never saw it back down from the truth before.So much,I guess,for its being an "independent" journal. |
David Lewicki
said:
|
Decatur, GA I'm stunned that this blog post is referenced by the Outlook. Rev. McWilliams has not displayed any evidence that he has ever talked to anyone who has regular anal sex. Why must we keep talk about gay people, rather than with gay people? It is inexcusable and shameful. Some gay people have anal sex. Many love it and enjoy it--ask them, many will be happy to tell you about it. Still, not all gay couples engage in anal sex and those couples still have fulfilling sex lives. Moreover, current research suggest that 1/3 of of all heterosexual adults regularly participate in anal sex. And many, if not most, do it because they enjoy it. And why would we listen to the specious argument that we can discern what God "designed" based on potential dangers? Why does childbirth cause the death of 1.5% of mothers? Is it not part of God's design? This is just a badly-drawn argument that re-enforces the rampant foolishness and ignorance that lies at the heart of "Christian" opposition to homosexuality. Please. If you think homosexuality is wrong, sit down and have a long conversation with a sexually active gay Christian, so that you know what it is that you are condemning. |
Christine Kooi
said:
|
Baton Rouge, LA Rev. McWilliams's argumentation is absurdly reductionist, as if the only salient thing about being gay is sex. Nor is his argument from extension cords particularly compelling. |
Jeffrey Winter
said:
|
Martha's Vineyard I am glad Rev. McWilliams put together a document that deals with the fallout of homosexual sex. Our leaders have had their collective heads in the sand and have not addressed the obivious health hazzards of gay and lesbian sex....anal sex in particular. I trust more amd more pastors, elders, presbytery executives and GA staff will take a good look at these hazzards and then have the guts to say..."homosexuality is wrong." |
Write a Response
