All through January our sermons here at Willowbrook were about the proper way to treat other Christians who try to follow Jesus but do not necessarily share all our beliefs. We continued that discussion into February with how to treat each other, that is the subject Jon had asked me to write about. I would like to say this was a totally unsolicited work, but that is not truly the case, however. What I've loved most about Willowbrook is what Jon likes to call our "multidenominationalism." We have here a "salad bowl" of Catholics and protestants, As well as independents and just about every denomination around. We can do this because what we have in common far outweighs our differences. We read the same Bible, believe in the same Jesus, and love the same God. The only question I have for you to think about today, is just how strong does what we have in common override that in which we disagree? One particular example of what I'm asking is with the issue of music. I know several churches here in the Greater Rochester area that do not believe it is "obedient worship" to use musical instruments during worship services. Would you say they can still go to heaven with this belief? My experience suggests that most of you who would not say yes, would at least say that it's not your place to judge. I personally don't think either of these is a wrong answer. Another example was a recent debate in one bible class over my personal disbelief that the six days of creation were meant to be taken as literal days. Do you think this doubt would keep me out of heaven? If you said yes then I'm glad that it's God that will judge me and not you. Finally, (And here is the big one.) there is a belief among many Christians that homosexuality is not a sin. Is anyone who believes that in danger of perdition's flames? Before I go on I should explain that I do not believe that people who've been taught that homosexuality is a sin should be forced to accept it as an acceptable lifestyle. Nor do I believe that they should lose their rights to lobby for what they believe. That is a mistake which is very common to the less tolerant wing of the gay lobby, which is not shared by most. But in the same breath, I do believe that Christians should not be yelling in to Bull horns on street corners that gays and lesbians are going to hell. Nor do I believe that all Homosexuals and Christians who do not share such hard-line views on homosexuality should be run out of our churches. I think that if anyone on this earth can sit down and discuss our differences like adults it should be Christians. Unfortunately that is not the view of the world I most often see. That having been said, many have found ways to justify going after homosexuals by pointing to selected verses in the Bible. However the case that "Homosexuality is so repugnant" is really not as strong as they claim. Even with Sodom and Gomorrah the most used reference in the Bible. We are never told anywhere in Genesis that these two city/states were destroyed because of homosexuality. What we are told is that Lot and his family were to only righteous people in the area. The reason that some get away with making that claim is because there was a minor homosexual component to the story of Lot and the two visitors. There is in fact an absurdity in using any Old Testament verse to apply to Christians. That is the fact that there are so many laws there, that do not apply to Christians. Take for example Leviticus chapter 19 verse 27: Jews are told to not cut the hair above their ears, nor to trim their beards. (This is why some sects of Jews look so similar to each other) Also there is a whole list of foods that are forbidden in Lev. chapter 11. Like chicken and pork for example. (When was the last time you had a BLT) There are laws about the Sabbath and bathing that many christian do not follow. (Though I think some should) I could go on so much so, that the question then becomes: "Why pick on Homosexuals and not follow all this mess?" Jon recently gave me the most original argument that I've heard in a long time. That anything the Old Testament labeled as "disgusting" to the Jews should not be done by Christians either. Though I applaud his original thinking there are two problems I have with this argument: First is the fact that the Bible does not say this. The second is a look at seafood: According to Lev 11:9-12 the only seafood we're allowed to eat is fish. In fact all other sea creatures are labeled as "disgusting" Would he reject those of us who like lobster with the same zeal? Clearly not. The simple fact is that the first five books of the Old Testament were not written to Christians in such a direct way. They were written to the children of Israel to rid them of their diseases and to make them a more acceptable people to produce Jesus. Using them in this way is dishonest. Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament was actually written to Christians, so these should make for a much stronger argument. But it still has huge problems. Starting with the fact that Jesus and arguably Paul never directly condemned Homosexuality. According almost all scholars the Greek word most commonly used for "Homosexual" in the first century was "Paiderasste." As evidence this is true one can point to the literature that has survived from then. (There is a lot.) Now I'm not saying that the case could not easily be made for it including "Paiderasste" in the list of sins. I'm just saying that it's a weak case. Certainly too weak too base a whole doctrine on. In fact if this doctrine is concrete then why did Jesus or Paul not simply forbid "Paiderasste" outright? Remember those bracelets that said W.W.J.D.? "What Would Jesus Do" We need to start asking ourselves, "What Would Jesus Really Do?" Would he support extremism or would he spread love and forgiveness? Would he gripe about alcohol or would he focus on his priorities? And yes: Would he dump on Homosexuals, or treat them like valuable human beings? Let's see what the Bible says: In John 8:4 a woman that the religious leaders caught in the very act of adultery was brought to Jesus. They all expected him to make an example of her. Instead, of condemning her, he gave the famous rebuke, "Let the one of you who is without sin cast the first stone!" In the story of the good Samaritan a Priest and Levite walk past a stranger who was robed and beaten without offering any help. These two representatives of God weren't just being jerks. They were trying to remain ritually clean as was commanded in the old testament. Leviticus... There are numerous passages in the Bible about Jesus being at parties keeping company with Harlots, prostitutes, and all kinds of other sinners and drinking, often with un-patriotic tax collectors. (Mt 9;10) (Lk 7;36) (Mk 2;13) If you are saying what Jesus drank was not true alcohol then I would ask you why was he accused of being a drunkard in Matthew 11:19Jesus was not uptight or judgmental. He did not teach blind adherence to laws. What he did teach was Love, Mercy, Compassion and as I said Unity. Matt 25 31 40"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be in front of him, and he will separate everyone into two groups, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep in their place of honor the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those sheep, 'You may come. My Father see's you as most fortunate, and now you may take your inheritance: The kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me Food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then they will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we think you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, 'The way I see it, whatever you did for one of the least of my people, you did for me as well.'"
Of course these arguments will not convince you one way or another on the "Homosexuality" subject. That's a place you've got to get to on your own. My point is merely that using the scripture to divide us in this way is missing the whole point of the Gospel. | 
Just have a better chance of getting to finish it if I do it that way.
