Warren Throckmorton gets to the heart of Sodom and Gomorrah in his latest blog post:
The real sodomite is the arrogant person, the overfed and apathetic person who ignores the poor and others in need. The sexual sins of Sodom are second rate compared to the sins of pride and greed. Ban Sodomy, anyone?
Sodomy, viewed from God’s perspective, is practically the American way. I guess we have been exporting sodomy to Uganda.
You might think Throckmorton is getting liberal. In fact, he is merely being consistent with Scripture (Ezekiel 16:49-50):
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.
Throckmorton suggests conservative Christians should direct their (considerable) anger towards greed, selfishness and indifference, instead of the gays:
The sins of Sodom mark the American church in ways that are very uncomfortable to confront. Defined biblically, I hope we can unite against sodomy. Defined biblically, we have all been sodomites, have we not?
We agree.
Bravo Warren! There’s more to being a Christian then protesting abortion and gay issues …
at least someone is waking up…
Hate to break it to him, but Throckmorton got beat to that bit of revelation a long time ago.
Yeesh… but “greed, selfishness and indifference” aren’t going to destroy marriage, outlaw Christianity and bring down civilisation as we know it nor cause it to rain frogs and locusts and boiling brimstone from an angry god.
Only Teh Gays (c) are going to do that.
Throckmorton is coming in on the back-end of three decades of a vicious, dishonest and religiously-inspired campaign against gay men and women. (Of which, he played his part.) That cannot be easily undone, even if he or anyone else now has a developing sense of just how dangerous is the environment resulting from that campaign.
Dangerous for gay men and women as they are the target. Dangerous for the poor and downtrodden as they are the neglected.
(Nice one Regan!)
I agree that the proof is in their actions and those can’t be brief and for immediate gain, but at what point do we take people seriously and accept that their understanding has changed? Do we risk appearing insincere at some point if we don’t allow for that?
Dave, I’m with you on this. Dr. Throckmorton is a free thinker in evangelicalism and he needs the support of people like us when he and those like him begin to challenge those in their own community with the blatant hypocrisy of their actions and inconsistency in their theology. If we do not reach out to them in an effort to form some sort of dialogue, they may well get drowned out by the legalists and the fundies in their own group. Saul of Tarsus went from persecuting Christians to becoming our greatest theologian. I’m not suggesting the good doctor has done anything of the sort, but simply that people do make mistakes and later realize they were wrong and begin to do the right thing (and, at times, make a huge difference!). If we don’t accept them then Dave is right. WE will be guilty of demanding that they be open-minded, but then refusing to offer them an olive branch when they do. They hypocrite label will then be on us.
I don’t disagree David. You and we both have spent a lot of our time attempting to change the attitudes of individuals. To greater or lesser success. I am glad to see that original post from Throckmorton.
The only point was that even when an individual does change their understanding/attitudes etc, they too will face the entrenched positions familiar to us. I hope that does result in a lot of soul-searching, and a commitment to the future based on that soul-searching. A commitment that is wider and deeper than self-development. (Of which, rooting out greed, selfishness and indifference would be an example.)
Personal change is a (good) start, for them. Societal change is needed, by us. And others.
I know, I know… one step at a time is how the journey will be completed.
Well here’s the thing; Throckmorton may be moderating his views on The Gays, but he still has a problem with integrity when it comes to The Trans.
He allowed J. Michael Bailey to slander a trans advocacy organization on his blog, and even after the head of the organization showed up in the same thread with the quotes to prove Bailey was lying or at the very least talking out of his butt, (about Kenneth Zucker’s position on preventing homosexuality in children), he refused to recant his endorsement of what Bailey said.
http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/05/12/apa-issues-statement-regarding-gid-and-the-dsm-v/
Unfortunately, I see nothing in his behavior or attitudes to suggest that his newfound moderation towards gays isn’t really just about being able to sense which way the wind is beginning to blow.
I agree, grantdale. On a private note, please email me at david@exgaywatch.com when you have a minute. Thanks.
As someone who used to be a supporter of “ex-gay ministries,” I commend Warren for speaking out.
It is a journey that I hope more and more straight people – of all faiths – will embark on. As such, I trust that Warren is likely further along than some here (understandably) give him credit for.
Sometimes the leopard really [i]does[/i] change his/her spots.