Exodus News defends churches that kick out not only homosexuals, but anyone else who treats them with Christian hospitality.

The defense makes repeated reference to “scriptural authority” — yet it contains only one out-of-context reference to the Bible, and no references to the New Testament.

This does not surprise me. Exodus has subscribed to a community within Christianity that believes itself to be repentant of all sins — and therefore, in little need for forgiveness.

This community is viewed with contempt by outsiders who believe its sins — economic, social, spiritual, sexual — are public, blatant, and unapologetic.

Doctrinally impure and perhaps too proud to repent of its sins, the community refuses to walk with other Christians who disagree over what the Bible calls sin, what it does not, and the role of 2,000 years of church history and tradition in moderating the literal modern English meaning of ancient texts.

Exodus’ decision to affiliate with that community remains puzzling, as the community has rendered itself unable to minister effectively to the outside world.

Comments submitted to XGW’s former blog location:

As someone who views Christianity as an attempt to have religion without having ethics, essentially a smash and grab operation, could you expand on this Mike? Thanks, Dale

—Dale • 5/9/03; 11:41:25 PM

Which are you asking me to expand on — the smash and grab, the judgmentalists’ sins, the shallowness of the religious right’s spirituality, where orthodox Christianity stands in comparison to the religious right, progressive Christian ethics?

Mike A. • 5/10/03; 12:55:01 PM

I am wondering just what this ‘community’ you say Exodus has subscribed to is. Am unfamiliar with the terrain and terminology you are using, just what part of conservative Christianity has Exodus aligned itself with. Your description of ‘This community is viewed with contempt by outsiders who believe its sins — economic, social, spiritual, sexual — are public, blatant, and unapologetic.’ leaves me wondering. This does apply to some cC’s but not all. My impression is that this is not a part of cC as much as it is an attitude found in some but not all places within the cC world. Just wondered if the idea that once one has salvation, however acquired, one is free from ethical considerations—Enyart’s teaching—is considered a place or just an attitude. Hope this clears things up. Like the new look Mike. Dale

—Dale • 5/10/03; 5:40:26 PM

Yes, I’m referring to the attitude, rather than a specific (labeled) place within the cC world. I guess I’m experimenting with terminology. I don’t think the entire religious right subscribes to ethics-free salvation, though maybe the attitude is most prevalent there. And I see the attitude in many places beyond the cC world.

Mike A. • 5/11/03; 6:38:09 AM

Categorized in: