RE: Why is the church always lagging?

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 13:59:56 EDT

The Church is lagging because it lagged Christ first. Note that Scripture condemns homosexuality as sin, there is no lagging here. Remember each and every one of us has at least one sin to account for. We are all sinners! We cannot discriminate because Christ died for all.



        -----Original Message-----
        From: on behalf of Ted Davis
        Sent: Wed 5/12/2004 1:21 PM
        Subject: Re: Why is the church always lagging?


        It's a strong theme in American historical literature that, without
        Christian faith and the churches--both black and white--MLKJrs message about
        civil rights, which was delivered in sermons that secular historians call
        speeches, would simply not have succeeded.

        I don't doubt your personal testimony on this, but let's properly
        contextualize it. My father (e.g.), a very conservative Presbyterian, was
        involved in civil rights marches in Atlantic City in the 1960s. His church
        also included the first black (or at least one of the first, though I think
        honestly the very first) state policeman in NJ. With my father's strong
        support, that man got that position.

        As for voting rights, etc, it might depend very much on which church(es)
        you are speaking about. My great-grandparents, for example, were
        Salvationists. THey ordained women long before most other churches and
        fought for human rights for many people--including those women whose lives
        were destroyed by their husbands' alcoholism, hence their very strong
        prohibitionist support.

        As for "gay marriage," I would agree that as a civil rights issue it *can
        be framed* to resemble other civil rights issues. But so can the right of
        an unborn child to be born. Twenty years ago a colleague at Vanderbilt,
        editor of a leading journal in American history and very liberal himself,
        told me that he found deep similarities between the rhetoric used to support
        antislavery in the mid-19th century and that used to support "the right to
        life" in the 1980s. He was personally quite disturbed by that rhetoric,
        which went against his own position on the issue. But it was there, he was
        honest enough to admit.

        So, let me ask this columnist whether a similarity in framing an issue on
        the basis of civil rights is sufficient to justify overturning Roe v Wade,
        as well as to justify overturning traditional marriage. I'd very much like
        to know the answer to that one.

Received on Wed May 12 14:00:17 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 12 2004 - 14:00:17 EDT