John W. Burgeson wrote:
> Dean writes, in part: "Churches that open their doors to homosexuals by
> 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
> 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
> 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.
--Bill Yates --firstname.lastname@example.org --email@example.com --firstname.lastname@example.org --http://www.vcnet.com/wtyates/wtyates.html