The Conversation has begun

The conversation has begun in the September issue of the MB Herald[1] …

“Will you officiate our wedding?”
How one pastor tackles questions about same-sex relationships:

You don’t know them!
Christians and gays with a different story:

This is all leading into the study conference in October, hosted by The Canadian Conference Board of Faith & Life called “Human Sexuality: Honouring God with the body.” The conference is “to help individuals and communities engage in conversation and theological reflection” and will be held on October 16–18, 2013 at River West Christian Church in Edmonton, Alberta.[2]

Only time will tell whether this complicated dialogue[3] process will lead the Mennonite Brethren into the way of the world, or the Word.

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? – Jesus (Matthew 19:4-5)


[3] See: The Power of Dialogue


What does the Bible say about homosexuality?


6 thoughts on “The Conversation has begun

  1. So the first article is a ramble-fest by a “pastor” who doesn’t really get what the phrase “think biblically” means. He never answers his own question (should pastors officiate homosexual weddings?) but subtly implies that pastors should (he met with and counselled the couple…).

    Quoting and bashing cliches isn’t thinking, and asking questions is a rhetorical smokescreen for someone who doesn’t want to admit that they’re not really sure what they think about an issue. Writing an article in a conference magazine is a stupid avenue to try to “make people think”…

    He utterly is drowning in the anti-christian worldview of his culture and doesn’t even begin to think in biblical categories. Notice how me makes a whole lot of declarations about Christianity, God and the teaching of scripture without actually referencing scripture.

    People who shy away from exegetical defenses of ideas do so because those ideas don’t actually come from exegesis. Neufeld couldn’t defend his position for 10 minutes against an articulate defender of scripture…but in the MB Herald, there is no “other side” to any issue.

    The second article is written by a well meaning university student who doesn’t have a basic clue about any sort of complex theological issues (or even basic exegesis), but why would anyone expect a university student at UFV to know much about these issues in the first place? That article is utterly irrelevant to the conversation on this issue.

    Once again, the MB Herald wages war against the church and does its best to spread its liberal agenda. I remember Jesus saying something about this type of deception and a millstone…?!?

  2. Also, I’m tired of the stupid and invalid argument that Neufeld makes in that article, and the argument comes up everywhere.

    Here’s a quote from Neufeld –

    “Many followers of Jesus – both heterosexual and homosexual – engage in sexual behaviours that aren’t subordinate to Christ. Frankly, I’m more concerned about out-of-control heterosexual behaviours among apparently devoted followers of Christ than homosexual behaviours of spiritually seeking people. Pornography and premarital sex are commonplace. Many couples take their relationship for a “test drive” by living together before they consider marriage. And some live together without ever having a serious conversation about marriage (except to say they “aren’t interested”). Perhaps we need to address heterosexual ethics more urgently than questions about homosexuality.”

    The implied argument is “We (speaking of Christians in general) haven’t been doing what we should in area “x”, so if we shouldn’t condemn area “y” (or we’re hypocrites)”. It’s the whole “let he who is sinless cast the first stone” line, but that line doesn’t appear in the Bible anywhere (John 7:53-8:11 isn’t canonical scripture, but that’s a separate issue altogether) and that line of reasoning always ends up with “we cannot rightly condemn ANY sin unless our own lives are sinless”. (Apparently Neufeld doesn’t realize that every single Christian is a constant hypocrite who continually seeks to weed out the hypocrisy in their own lives…)

    There are two MASSIVE non sequiturs in the argument:

    1. John Neufeld is responsible for his church, not the churches of other people in other cities, provinces, or countries. Nobody gives Neufeld credit when other churches do things right, so why does he share in the blame of other churches when they do things wrong? The only way that argument works is if HIS church contains people engaging in sexual behaviours that aren’t subordinate to Christ…which then only means that he needs to clean up his own hypocritical church. The faithfulness or faithlessness of other shepherds means NOTHING, or at least it should mean nothing, to whether or not John Neufeld can speak to the issue of homosexual and heterosexual sin.

    2. (ignoring objection #1) Why does the failures of condemning sin in 1 area mean that we have to now tolerate sin in another area? How in the world does that follow? Why does Neufeld not call the church to return to Christ’s ideal for marriage in the areas of heterosexual relationships as well? He should be saying “Pornography and premarital sex are commonplace…even in our church. People who condemn us as inconsistent hypocrites are actually right. SO, as of today our church is waging war against those sins too, so that we can face the homosexual assault with integrity! And some people live together before they’re married, and we’re also declaring it open season on that sin! We’re fed up with pussy-footing around sensitive issues at the expense of people’s eternal destiny. It’s time to stand firm on the word of God and take back the ground we’ve lost due to our own disobedience to the Lord.”

    It’s absolutely shameful how he says “Perhaps we need to address heterosexual ethics more urgently than questions about homosexuality.”

    Uh, “perhaps”?

    Is he not sure if we need to deal with sin?

    Why does John Neufeld sound more like Abraham Maslow and less like Jesus Christ on the area of sexual sin? He’s a pastor, right?

  3. Pingback: Mennonite Church USA Same Sex Marriage Symposium | Menno-lite

  4. Pingback: Mennonite University Considering Policy Change to Allow Homosexual Faculty | Menno-lite

  5. Pingback: Will Mennonites Make Space to Welcome Sin? | Menno-lite

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s