Re: Comment to Dean Ohlman:

William T. Yates (
Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:35:53 -0700

I pick Schmidt option #2. What is wrong with that? Why must we
continually seek more and more options? Is it because we do not like the
ones we are given? The question is not whether we like the options, but
whether they are the true options, whether the Christ-like option is
--Bill Yates

John W. Burgeson wrote:
> Dean writes, in part: "Churches that open their doors to homosexuals by
> declaring
> their sinful behavior not sinful are practicing anti-evangelism.
> They nullify the Gospel. In essence, churches like the
> Metropolitan Community Church for practicing gays and
> lesbians become a comfort station on the road to hell. What an
> awful thing to do to those who need salvation that comes only
> through confession an"
> If the Schmidt thesis is right, then your argument has at least partial
> validity.
> If the Helmaniak thesis is right, the argument is painfully wrong.
> Scenario. A person in your church, known to you, godly, a Christian who affirms
> a relationship with the Christ on many occasions, saved, baptised, all the
> usual things, tells you one day she has formed a relationship with another
> woman and that they expect it to be one of lifetime committment.
> Under theSchmidt thesis, there appear to be two options available:
> 1. She is terribly mistaken and in need of salvation.
> 2. She is terribly mistaken but her salvation is not, on this account, in
> question.
> Under the Helmaniak thesis, other options are available.
> I have no problem with a person asserting "all gay acts are immoral" if they
> clearly assert that as their opinion. But if they assert that as "fact," without
> advancing some argument(s) in its favor, it seems out of place.
> Have you ever visited a Metropolitan church? Or any church that accepts gays
> without telling them they must change? I have. Real people. You & I are going to
> get to know them quite well in the next 10,000 years or so.
> Peace
> Burgy


--Bill Yates --