Main
Site Map

Letters To The Editor

True Education or Evolutionary Theories?

Hope For The Alcoholic and Homosexual

Can God Change the Homosexual?

Homosexual Defense Exposed

Civil Sodomy Laws and Scripture

Homosexuality Codemned Even Without the Term

Keeping the Facts Straight about Sodomy

No Room for Homosexuality

Love the Homosexual and All Sinners

Other Life in the Universe?

God Has Not Changed His Mind about Homosexuality

Highway Speeding

Homosexual Ordination Misses the Point

Does Scripture Really Teach Submission

Legal Vs. Moral

Elvis Not Outstanding

Christians are Not Pharisees

Homosexuals in the denominations

Women (A Second Response)

A Needed Balance on Women

Prayers for Jews

Baptists and Womanly Submission

David Koresh

Homosexuals Can Change

Christians Armed with Guns?

Shadowlands and C.S. Lewis

Women's Inferiority?

Labor Unionism

Tolerance or Intolerance?

God and Homosexuality

Jewish Christians?

Creation Compromises

 

 


HOMOSEXUAL  MISUNDERSTANDING

Mitchell Swaim’s criticism (“Straight dining?,” Aug. 29, 2003) of my earlier letter on homosexuality shows the problem of misreading, misquoting, as well as abbreviated newspaper letters.

My earlier letter pointed out four of the main problems that sincere Episcopalians have because of the installation of V. Gene Robinson, their new homosexual bishop.  One of the points was that God forbids the Christian to have fellowship with or even eat with a fellow-Christian who is an unrepentant fornicator or homosexual (1 Corinthians 5:10-13).  Swaim thought that this was unreasonable or ridiculous.

Consider this first: In my shortened letter it may not have been clear that I was actually citing the Word of God itself and not offering my opinion.  Second, Swaim applies this instruction to ANY homosexual that a Christian may find eating in a restaurant.  No, this teaching only applies to a true Christian who chooses to sin and refuses to repent.  The Christian may eat with sodomites and other sinners in society as a whole.  The Lord’s instruction pertains to fellow-Christians regarding “Christian fellowship,” as I stated.  Third, Swaim assumes that God’s directive to not eat with or have other fellowship with unrepentant “Christian” homosexual fornicators conflicts with His command for us to love our neighbor.  On the contrary, all of God’s instructions express His love for us, our love for Him, and our love for others.  The same God who tells us to love others is the God who hates homosexual fornication.

Would I eat a meal with the sodomite bishop?  I may—since it is clear that the bishop is of the world and not a fellow-Christian.

The Episcopal paradox remains: What will the sincere member do with a denomination that has endorsed a bishop guilty of sodomy and fornication, sins that God condemns?

Richard Hollerman

(Star-Telegram)