Carl Trueman continues to wonder about the advisability of singling out homosexuality in the Church of Scotland.  “Apparently, this man left his wife and children to pursue his homosexual relationship. If true, he is an adulterer. That he is a gay adulterer compounds the issue but does not define it. Again, like a one string banjo, I hit the same note: if the church is to avoid simply looking (and, frankly, being) homophobic, then it cannot afford to single out homosexuality as the key sin above all sins, while turning a blind eye to other matters. ”
Phil Ryken wonders about the wisdom of Carl’s wondering.  Among the reasons he gives, Ryken worries about the effects of a defeat in Scotland for churches elsewhere. “I also believe that a defeat on this issue in the Church of Scotland inevitably weakens the hand of other churches in other countries that will seek in coming years to defend biblical standards of sexuality from a secular political onslaught. Only today the Associated Press is reporting that growing support for gay unions is changing the political landscape in America. I expect that in time this change will lead to hardship and persecution for Christian churches and schools across America. Thus it is important for evangelicals to stand together on homosexuality and everything else associated with a consistently biblical ethic for human sexuality.”
Not to take sides, but isn’t it plausible that by singling out homosexuality, rather than going after various heterosexual sins in a public way, churches are inviting the kind of reaction that Ryken fears? In other words, doesn’t Trueman have a point about homophobia?
Then again, if the church were not resonsible for the nation, but only for communicant and non-communicant members, she wouldn’t need petitions to justify her convictions. Can you imagine Paul passing around a petition in Asia Minor? Can you imagine transporting those palimpsests? Can you imagine telling the difference among all those X’s?
Old Life 
What exactly is the distinction between homophobia and taking a particularly heinous sin seriously as the Bible does?
The whole thing just seems so bizarre. The mainline is just…I mean, Trueman’s right, it’s silly to make a big deal out of this when so many other things have gone unnoticed, but shouldn’t we be at least relieved that finally, at long last, perhaps those lulled-to-sleep “conservatives” in the mainline seem to be waking up a little bit? Shouldn’t we be glad that they’re FINALLY picking a battle, that they’re finally willing to die on some hill, any hill?
Yeah, they should have died on a thousand other hills before this one, granted, but anything that makes people disillusioned with the mainline can’t be all bad.
LikeLike
EE, liberals in the mainline were always alert to moral issues. Why they thought Jesus a very fine teacher of ethics. Remember, it was the liberals who backed Prohibition as much as the fundamentalists. So the problem may be that the liberals have a middle-class morality that they read into the Bible, rather than one that puts homosexuality in a broader context of human sexuality and fidelity.
LikeLike
Aha. Thanks.
LikeLike
EE
I think the problem with the vehemently anti-gay crowd can be summed up with your comment “particularly heinous sin”. All sin is heinous to God. It is only to us sinners that one sin is worse than another, usually one that we ourselves are not tempted to indulge in.
LikeLike
Of course, if we think that the Church bears some resemblance to OT Israel (anyone?), it would also make sense to see the mainline as experiencing a Judges moment:
The one flaw in Truman’s piece is that he does not know (and neither does anyone else) whether the average mainliner is having an “aha!” moment of repentance or a moment of simple disgust at an offense to his peculiar sensibilities.
I’ll bet some of both.
JRC
LikeLike
Behold the Westminster Larger Catechism:
Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
A. All transgressions of the law are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.
Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?
A. Sins receive their aggravations,
1. From the persons offending; if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many.
3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, willfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
4. From circumstances of time, and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.
Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?
A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.
LikeLike
How does this settle the matter? It looks like blasphemy and idolatry could be worse than homosexuality. If so, why are Protestants so friendly with Mormons and Roman Catholics?
LikeLike