Moral Diversity?

By Carlton Johnson

(Excerpt)  … Cultural diversity and Moral diversity are two different constructs. There are many Blacks who are offended by the notion that Gay Rights should be equated with Civil Rights; and that Gay Rights Advocacy should be afforded a legitimate claim to the mantle of the Civil Rights Movement. The politics of Sexual Orientation and the politics of Skin Pigmentation operate on historical, religious, social, ethical, and moral indices that are
fundamentally separate and distinct.

Until the Gay Rights Advocacy has more thoroughly re-constituted the moral fibre of the nation (and world) and re-wired the collective conscience; and re-written the laws in the hearts of humanity (a job which even God has a
hard time accomplishing); until such time as that make-over is complete; no such equivalency can be made between the inalienable rights of a race of people and the suggested inalienable rights of a morally questionable sexual
orientation/preference. The case for the former (Race)–relative to “The Creator”–has been made, and was a long-time coming. The case for the latter (Sexual Orientation/Preference)–relative to “The Creator”–has not been made, on its own merit, and has yet a long way to go. . . .  (See the full reply, below)

But first, some background information I feel is quite pertinent:

.

…

.

Dennis Prager

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution:
Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other (interested readers can see a photograph of the former at select art museums exhibiting the works of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women’s garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman’s disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies.

There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies — parent-child incest and seducing another’s man’s wife have rarely been countenanced — but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the “un-sublimated,” sex drive can lead to.

By and large, it is society, not the individual, that chooses whether homosexuality will be widely practiced. A society’s values, much more than individual tendencies, determine the extent of homosexuality in that society. Thus, we can have great sympathy for the exclusively homosexual individual while strongly opposing social acceptance of homosexuality. In this way we retain both our hearts and our values…

Even if the majority of men became incapable of making love to women, it would still not be normal. Men are designed to make love to women, and vice versa. The eye provides an appropriate analogy: If the majority of the population became blind, blindness would still be abnormal. The eye was designed to see. That is why I choose the third response — that homosexuality is unhealthy. This is said, however, with the understanding that in the psychological arena, “illness” can be a description of one’s values rather than of objective science (which may simply not exist in this area)…

The entire article deserves a good reading:

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution:
Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

.

…

.

Henry Makow, PhD
Let’s Reserve Sex for Marriage

… Gay or straight, we are all becoming homosexual because we cannot achieve the spiritual union or permanent intimacy that we really crave.

Sex is mistaken for love and replaces it, thereby assuming a deceptive importance. We are obsessed with it. Because it cannot satisfy our real need, we continue to up the ante and become kinkier.

——-

Bae Ji-sook (South Korea/2008)
Primary Schoolers’ Sexual Abuse Shocks Nation

Elementary school students being the object of  sexual abuse by their Middle School peers for more than two years in a southeastern city has gripped the nation.  Administrators and teachers are blamed for not preventing such crimes while public concern over children’s easy access to pornography is growing.

On Wednesday, a committee of parents, teachers and women’s rights groups announced that several gang rape cases had taken place in an elementary school in Daegu involving more than 100 underage assaulters and victims since 2006.

.

…

.

Carlton Johnson

Cultural diversity and Moral diversity are

two different constructs…

>(Dennis)
>
>While I am inclined to agree with you that
>the Christian tradition does not welcome practicing
>homosexuals (as opposed to former/repentant homosexuals), and while I agree
>that the recent elevation of an avowed homosexual to the bishopric of New
>Hampshire seems to reflect the Episcopalian church adapting to the culture,
>I am a bit surprised at your opposition to such a move.
>
>If, as we certainly have been led to believe, homosexuality has existed
>throughout time and in virtually all culture, should Christianity shun such
>people unless they disavow their practices? I had taken you as an advocate
>of cultural diversity — but do you draw the line at the active involvement
>of gays in positions of authority in Christian churches? Aren’t there
>Bible-based arguments against the elevation of women to the priesthood?
>Was that move also unacceptable?
>
>Dennis

(Carlton)
Hello Dennis,

Sorry to take so long to respond to your inquiry, here. But I did not want
to run-off any ole off-the-cuff answer to such weighty objections as you
have raised, above.

Rather, in order to answer your very reasonable concerns about my take on
this issue, I would first have to address some of the fundamental
assumptions, themselves, that seem to underlie those very concerns you have
articulated. Let’s see how far I can get in this sitting.

>(Dennis, repeated from above)
While I am inclined to agree with you that the Christian tradition does not
welcome practicing homosexuals (as opposed to former/repentant homosexuals),
and while I agree that the recent elevation of an avowed homosexual to the
bishopric of New Hampshire seems to reflect the Episcopalian church adapting
to the culture, I am a bit surprised at your opposition to such a move.<

(Carlton)
Lets consider, first, what the Christian Tradition does and does not
“welcome”:

The implications of this assumption–”not welcoming”–is (connotatively)
problematic; unless we consider in the same vain that the ‘Christian
tradition’ also does not welcome, ‘practicing’ adulterers who are
heterosexual. Or, could we go on to say, as well, that: the Christian
tradition does not welcome any one who is a ‘practicing’ violator of any of
the Ten Commandments?

Well, to be fair across the board: Yes and No…

The Christian Tradition ‘welcomes’ all of the above ‘practioners;’ but, in
doing so, it makes no provision for negating that very Tradition by which
its very identity is defined.

So I would say that the practicing Homosexual is ‘welcome’… but the
Christian Tradition would ‘traditionally’ expose such ‘practice’ to the
light of a higher standard–by which all those who ‘would’ come must ‘want’
and ‘hope’ to sanctify themselves. Should we, rather, put out the light of
the standard, so that we might live together in darkness, albeit in
peace–in a sub-standard, compromised peace?

>(Dennis, repeated)
If, as we certainly have been led to believe, homosexuality has existed
throughout time and in virtually all culture, should Christianity shun such
people unless they disavow their practices? <

(Carlton)
You have served up a big “If” here… Yes, some would ‘lead us to believe’
but many would not follow, have not followed, that lead: particularly not
buying the implication that: a) because it may have existed (however much or
minimally it may have ‘existed’ outside of the social, ethical, and moral
norm throughout the history of humankind); then: b) we should accept it as a
socially, ethically, and morally sound alternative life-style.

But, if Enlightened Humanity in 2003 were, in effect, conclusively led to
believe in the quite rational, ubiquitous presence of homosexuality
throughout the Ages of Man; then, even so, Christianity, by definition–if
it is to be true to its identity–would still require those seeking the
salvation of the Gospel to disavow adultery and fornication.

Should Christianity shun such people unless they disavow their practices?
Again, as I expressed in the first portion of this reply, Christians would
ideally ‘welcome’ any who would come sincerely seeking salvation. So I
would say Homosexuals should not be shunned, any more than a heterosexual
adulterer. But the Christian is exhorted to go only so far in tolerating
recalcitrance. More tolerance is expected for those who have not accepted
the call… But for those who knowingly accept the call and then seek to
undermine the sanctity of the sacraments through multiplying and justifying
their sins; a stricter accounting is required:

1 Corinthians 5
[9] I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
[10] Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the
covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out
of the world.
[11] But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is
called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer,
or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
[12] For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye
judge them that are within?
[13] But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among
yourselves that wicked person.

Such persons should decide, for themselves, to be faithful to the call, or
not. But if they seek to adulterate the assembly and compromise the
spiritual health of the congregation, then–with prayer and fasting in their
behalf–they should be shunned, apparently.

>(Dennis)
I had taken you as an advocate of cultural diversity — but do you draw the
line at the active involvement of gays in positions of authority in
Christian churches? <

(Carlton)
Cultural diversity and Moral diversity are two different constructs. There
are many Blacks who are offended by the notion that Gay Rights should be
equated with Civil Rights; and that Gay Rights Advocacy should be afforded a
legitimate claim to the mantle of the Civil Rights Movement. The politics
of Sexual Orientation and the politics of Skin Pigmentation operate on
historical, religious, social, ethical, and moral indices that are
fundamentally separate and distinct.

Until the Gay Rights Advocacy has more thoroughly re-constituted the moral
fibre of the nation (and world) and re-wired the collective conscience; and
re-written the laws in the hearts of humanity (a job which even God has a
hard time accomplishing); until such time as that make-over is complete; no
such equivalency can be made between the inalienable rights of a race of
people and the suggested inalienable rights of a morally questionable sexual
orientation/preference. The case for the former (Race)–relative to “The
Creator”–has been made, and was a long-time coming. The case for the
latter (Sexual Orientation/Preference)–relative to “The Creator”–has not
been made, on its own merit, and has yet a long way to go.

And for all my appreciation of the love, warmth, sensitivity, creativity,
and humanity of my friends and family who are taken by that
orientation/preference; I can not say that I wish their agenda God-speed.
For the total success of their agenda would so drastically redefine the
sanctity of Marriage, Love, and Holiness, itself; that the Church and all
divine aspiration, itself, would become obsolete. The final result of so
deep a ‘moral’ restructuring would be the complete obliteration of any
nominal restriction on any sexual taboos or prohibitions. What argument
would then stand against incest, bestiality, or any other such
orientation/preference?

>(Dennis)
Aren’t there Bible-based arguments against the elevation of women to the
priesthood? Was that move also unacceptable?<

(Carlton)
I do believe there are such arguments against women in the priesthood, but
there are also Bible-based examples of women playing pro-active, leading
roles in God’s providence… and in the Church. So Bible-based arguments
are not necessarily the bottom-line for settling this affair. Personally, I
would say that “receiving the call” and “being led by the spirit of God” is
key.

Actually, as a matter custom and traditions, I was more comfortable with
Women ministers in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches than I was with
women in the priesthood of the Episcopal Church. But hey, if they are
called of God, know they are called of God, and go forth led of His
spirit–rather than setting out with only a humanistic agenda of ‘pushing
the envelop–then Amen.

1st Corinthians 12
[27] Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
[28] And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily
prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings,
helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
[29] Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers
of miracles?
[30] Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all
interpret?
[31] But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more
excellent way…

1 Corinthians 14
[1] Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may
prophesy.
[2] For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but
unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh
mysteries.
[3] But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and
exhortation, and comfort.
[4] He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that
prophesieth edifieth the church.

I am not convinced yet, that this Episcopal Bishop is meeting this criteria
of being led of the Spirit of God–nor that he is answering the call of God
or is concerned about such spiritual gifts articulated in Corinthians, here.
Has he made any such claim? (I do not know?) In my own prayers and
soul-searching I get the sense that he is part of the agenda pushing the
envelop. Are you getting a particular reading, from On High?

(Previous Post)
==========================

carltonljohnson@… wrote:

As a son of a Southern Baptist Deacon, and a mother active in the Vestry of
the Episcopal Church (and as a baptized Episcopalian, myself); I find quite
cogent this Southern Baptist reaction to the recent development regarding
Bishop Gene Robinson:  Homosexuality, Racism, and the Eclipse of the Gospel
by Russell D. Moore

===============

.

…

.

Russell D. Moore

Homosexuality, Racism, and
the Eclipse of the Gospel

http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=928

As the Episcopal Church splinters over the question of homosexual
bishops, Episcopalian liberals are telling us that they are the heirs of the
civil rights era of 20th century American history. And they are partly
right. The gay liberation movement in the mainline churches stands firmly in
the tradition of the segregationist churches of the Jim Crow-era South.

The latest skirmish over gay rights in the Episcopal Church has erupted
over the nomination of homosexual Gene Robinson as a bishop. The fractures
were evident in an Aug. 5 debate on NBC’s “Today” show between the
“progressive” bishop of Massachusetts and the “traditionalist” bishop of
South Carolina….

——-

Gene Robinson, the U.S. Espiscopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, speaks at the event, Clergy Call, about the gay-rights movement, in Washington, on Monday, May 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

——-

(Russell D. Moore, continued)  …

The Gospel, as the African churchmen rightly attest, announces that Jesus
of Nazareth has been enthroned as the rightful heir of the cosmos. The
Spirit of Christ declares that racism, bigotry and partiality are grievous
sins against God (James 3:9-10). The same Spirit of Christ declares that
homosexuals can be forgiven and transformed by the Gospel of Christ (1
Corinthians 6:9-11).

The spirit of the age consoled bigots by assuring them that black people
would be better off “with their own kind.” And the spirit of the age now
consoles white liberals that homosexuals really can’t change and don’t need
the message of the Gospel of repentance and faith.

Whether to unrepentant racists or to unrepentant homosexuals, the message
is always the same — “You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4). . . .

Russell D. Moore is assistant professor of Christian theology at Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. He also serves as
executive director of the Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical
Engagement.

Note: This article first appeared at The Henry Institute
(http://www.henryinstitute.org/)

– 2003; The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=928

===========================

 

Peace, Shalom, Assalam Alaikum,

Towards a world full of families of true Filial Piety,
Inheritors of the New Heaven and the New Earth

Carlton, Mihoko, and sons:
Ch’ung-Guk Tadakuni (November 1990) Tad
Jae-Son Saizen (January 1992) Sai
Tae-Seong Taisei (December 1996) Tai