Response Deserves Scrutiny
Letter to the Editor of The Bellevue Gazette, Monday, Feb. 2, 2004
from Pastor Andy Winters, Sr. Pastor of Bellevue Alliance Church
To the Editor:
I have heisted to reply to the ongoing debate on the moral and scriptural issues regarding homosexuality which have appeared in The Bellevue Gazette. I do not wish to demean these servants of the church nor diminish the good things they do. But I feel compelled to respond.
These recent letters to the editor on homosexuality in The Bellevue Gazette identifies the deep theological and ideological division between local church pastors. The Dec. 18, 2003 article by five local pastors titled :Disappointed in column," made statements I believe to be misguided, and morally irresponsible. The authors of this article stated they were disappointed in the Gazette editor for printing a column, which took a strong stance against homosexuality.
The response of these five local clergy deserves scrutiny, especially the statement, which said, "there is power in the printed word which must be carefully and judiciously exercised. People see it in print and think it must be so. Truth can be best served by presenting balanced views of issues that are so divisive."
The hypocrisy of this statement reveals a completely distorted sense of logic and common sense. Of course there is power in the printed word, which is precisely why they attempted to use the same forum to express their views as Pastor Flynn had used to express his perspective. Why would one article deserve judicious oversight and not the other?
Additionally, the statement "that truth can be served by presenting balanced views of issues" is not only not true, but also illogical. For example, I think everyone would agree with me that Hitler was wrong to kill Jews. According to the logic of the five leaders of local churches, they would suggest the media should present a balanced argument, even of Hitler's atrocities. Common sense tells you a balanced view does not present truth, but only both sides of the story.
Obviously, in many instances when divergent opinions are expressed, one side is true and one side is false. Sincerity of belief will not make a belief true or nor one false. Truth stands alone whether I believe it to be true or not.
Which brings us to the crux of the issue. There are deeply divided beliefs on the issue of homosexuality, which again brings me to the text of their letter. Their characterization of God as an open accepting and loving God may reflect their genuine belief, I deeply dispute the veracity of this statement. It may be true in part, but by no means does it reflect the full teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, nor the fuller teachings of Old and New testaments.
"God is Loving" is a true statement, but God is also holy and just. And at times God exercises his wrath in regard to sin. John 3:36. "Whoever believes in the son has eternal life, but whosoever rejects the son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
One other statement that I believe deserves judicious scrutiny is the statement of not wishing to use a "process of dueling scriptures to rebut Mr. Flynn's Biblical references." but instead they prefer to "focus on what Jesus says in the Gospels about the subject." which in their opinion, is nothing.
I think we all can ask these moral leaders of the church exactly what do they mean? It certainly seems to present the opinion that the only scripture which has validity to them is that which is written in our Bibles in red. In other words only those words which Christ himself spoke. If that is the case, these leaders just dismissed about 90 percent of God's written revelation, or left it open to relative interpretation to fit whatever lifestyle we would want to choose.
The duplicity of such statements reduces the very public work that we do as ministers of the Gospel, and the vows which we uphold, the catechisms we teach, the creeds we repeat, and the sermons we proclaim - as subject to a logical level of irrelevancy. The authors themselves quoted they could rebut Pastor Flynn using scripture. In other words, suggesting they could justify the homosexual lifestyle as morally acceptable to God. My challenge to them is to do it. I have yet to see it done!
It is my opinion the only truth these leaders are interested in presenting is the truth according to them. This form of enlightenment theology by these colleagues simply reduces the truth to their personal perspective. That is a personal perspective that is a deep departure from the very foundations of all our churches.
Imagine Luther, whose "Ninety-nine" these declared the authority of scripture over traditions of the church, or John Wesley's who called the church to embrace holiness, randomly dismissing portions of scripture, which do not fit our personal perspectives.
I would prefer that I would not have to be so harsh in responding to this, but I believe is is my duty to defend and uphold and proclaim the whole word of God as a minister of Jesus Christ, and to say with Luther that, "I will not recant."