A strange bit of reasoning I've seen pop up several times in reference to different popular vices. The most recent of which was part of a conversation where some Christians were urging others to be part of homosexual 'weddings', but I've seen it used in other disputes as well. Here it is:
“Well, we don’t confront [some established sin] when it
occurs in the Church, so it would be hypocritical to confront [the sin
currently being pressed on the Church]”.
In the particular conversation I mentioned above, the argument was "since Christians don't distance themselves from remarriage weddings (which Jesus said -w/possible qualifiers- are adultery), they should not refuse to be part of homosexual 'weddings'."
In the particular conversation I mentioned above, the argument was "since Christians don't distance themselves from remarriage weddings (which Jesus said -w/possible qualifiers- are adultery), they should not refuse to be part of homosexual 'weddings'."
Don’t the people making the argument realize that such a policy is basically a one-way valve allowing all sin to be normalized into the Body of Christ, and for no sin to be expunged?
Doesn’t it make more sense to say that since Scripture speaks against both practices - the established sin and the one they’re lobbying to introduce - we should obey God and curtail *both* sins?
As difficult as it has been, I've intentionally not gone to several divorce-remarriage weddings of people I love because they had not had Scriptural justification for their divorces, and I am convinced from Scripture that it would be false to God and to them to affirm their remarriage with my presence.
No comments:
Post a Comment