Fr Josiah Trenham in Tbilisi: Homofascists not Welcome

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Charles Martel said:
  I'd like to see him take that one up with the Mother of God, who like many gay people was not a breeder.
so let me get this straight. Are you calling the Blessed Virgin Mary, The Queen of Heaven, the Mother of Our Lord, Jesus Christ Himself...."gay"?

That is damn blasphemy! :mad:
Just one final note with my mod hat on:  I got a report (not from you, but someone else) concerning the comparison as blasphemous.  I do not think his intention was to say the Theotokos is gay, but rather is a "non-breeder".  While I agree it is terrible comparison (and the wording is poor), I am not judging this as blasphemy.

So whoever reported as blasphemy, I don't think it is and I'm closing your report.

God bless!

Mina
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Daedelus1138 said:
No, disrespect is not OK... and that's my point.  Fr. Josiah is engaged in a basic disrespect of homosexual persons by labelling the movement for their equality as "homofascist".  It's only fitting that his grandstanding with his ten children and his basic Quiverfull ideology be characterized as one of "breeders".  ...

...
Daedelus1138,

I almost missed this.  With my mod-hat on, I would like to make it clear that it seems to me you were directly calling Fr. Josiah a Quiverfull "breeder".  This borders on ad hominem.  As I repeat again and again in this thread, attack the views, not the person.

Because I mentioned this many times in this thread and you have somewhat of a clean record, I will only start with 5% penalty.

If you would like to appeal this warning, send me a private message.  Do not question or challenge my moderation publicly.  And that goes for any other poster in this thread.

God bless.

Mina
 

FinnJames

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
72
Location
Finland
minasoliman said:
But what I like, and I agree with Mor, is Iconodule's last post, trying to find a way to preach the gospel, or to be consistent with our moral teachings and not concentrate on a few more than others.
Well, good luck with that!
(We all know checking orthodoxchristianity.net while at work is theft, but who wants to be barred from communion for it?)

But to return to the question posed, what's wrong with--when spreading the Gospel of Christ--meeting others in Christian love and treating them with dignity no matter what their sin? Why not explain to them the Church's position but at the same time let them know that the church door is open to them? If we act in that way, when they discover that what they've been doing no longer works for them they will know they have a refuge to turn to. We need to get close enough to plant an idea in others, but the seed has to grow in them. 
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Clemente said:
I get that you want to use this thread to advance a certain progressive, pink agenda, ...
I did not get the same impression of Iconodule as you do.  I think Iconodule is searching (as I am as well) for an alternative to what is perceived as the "fire and brimstone" approach to bring LGBT people to the Church and to repentance.  I hope you can concentrate your discussion on that.
No, he very clearly is pushing a progressive, pink agenda. His problem, which he has stated repeatedly, is the "skewed priorities" of Father Trenham.  Here is what he has said we need to do: 

1. De-emphasise sexual sins.
"And why, perhaps most importantly, are these sexual sins so emphasized, while graver injustices, doing far more damage to society, are ignored or even justified by our clergy?"
2. Emphasise left wing political causes:
What graver injustices do you have in mind?  Should the Church only denounce those sins that are currently politically correct, i.e. racism, materialism, ecological damage to Mother Earth?
You don't think those are far more serious than gay marriage? Again, skewed priorities.
This is just warmed-over Episcopalianism. I understand that there are a number of posters, several of which spend a lot of time in this thread, advancing their view that the Church should not talk about the sin of sodomy and should instead take up a politically correct, left wing political agenda.

This is the great sin of Father Trenham: not that he used the word "fascist" (correctly, in my view), but rather that he didn't fulminate against "graver injustices".

Again, fortunately these views are not reflective of the Church.
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Okay, here's what I want from this discussion.  I do not want a rehash of old arguments.  It is understood that homosexual acts according to the Church teachings a sin.  That is the assumption we have from the very beginning of this thread. But what I like, and I agree with Mor, is Iconodule's last post, trying to find a way to preach the gospel, or to be consistent with our moral teachings and not concentrate on a few more than others.

If we can have a productive discussion like this, I would appreciate it.  But if you're going to one up by offering the same old anecdotes, whether it be pro-homosexuality or anti-homosexuality, it poisons the thread and does not lead anywhere.

Thank you and God bless!
Oh my goodness. This is a completely misleading interpretation of this thread and specifically the arguments of Iconodule.

What was the context of Father Trenham's speech? To show the legislative agenda of the pro-gay lobby at the World Congress of Families, who invited him to speak about this very subject. The World Congress of Families does not meet to discuss income inequality, racism or ecological sins (which, according to Iconodule are the real priorities that the Church should be talking about). No, they talk about families. If you accept an invitation to the World Congress of Families, you do not speak about ecology. Sorry. In fact, you are not being asked to specifically preach the gospel, since it is a multi-faith meeting. Do you recognise this?

So are you suggesting that any Orthodox speaker that is invited to a specific forum needs to mention all possible sins, rather than concentrate on the specific context of that forum?

Great. I look forward to Orthodox speakers denouncing sodomy, fornication, and adultery at the next World Congress on the Environment.
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Daedelus1138 said:
...but its not like the Law itself gives life.
So I discovered that the very commandment that was meant to bring life actually brought death.  For sin, seizing its opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through the commandment put me to death.…
The Law is not what you think it is.  But this is a bigger fish to fry than we can appropriately engage at this juncture.  There are foundational assumptions and falsities at play, and we can't simply treat symptoms and not the underlying disease processes.

It is going to take a lot of time and spiritual effort (probably years) in Grace for you to de-program yourself from the deceptions of Protestantism.  But the first step is getting oneself out of the environment that causes the cancer.  Chemotherapy is unhelpful for someone wallowing in cancer causing carcinogens.   

In our private conversations we can work through Romans and the Gospel to rightly understand the Law and its relationship to / as a Grace.  We cannot fully explore them in this thread.  It is exactly as Saint Peter told us;

He (Saint Paul) writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard not to be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing.
 
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dear Clemente,

I've explained where I want to take this discussion.  You and I can continue to disagree on how to interpret Iconodule (I still don't see what you see), but for me, I am concerned with how to bring the gospel to LGBT people in more concrete practical ways.  I have also given my views in the beginning of this thread as to why I did not specifically appreciate Fr. Josiah's talk in Georgia.

Let's use an analogy.  Let's suppose you have some Jehovah's Witness (JW) folks that knock on your door.  You know your Bible and your theology really well to answer them.  Would you reach out to them and lovingly say how evil their organization is or would you try to lovingly demonstrate some of the flaws of their thinking and allow them to reach the conclusion of how evil their organization is?  Furthermore, how well known are you to the JW community?  Have you been involved very heavily in social activities, such as feeding the poor, visiting the sick, etc?  Or are we folks who live out our busy lives behind a computer screen and feel comfortable about saying what's wrong or right but having no sense of getting involved in the community and share that experience of what was done to effect some change?

My main issue is the stagnancy of repeating what we already know and believe, but not showing any practical outcome of that belief.  Rather than the back and forth in this thread earlier, I want to see the discussion move forward into something more productive.

God bless!
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
minasoliman said:
Dear Clemente,

I've explained where I want to take this discussion.  You and I can continue to disagree on how to interpret Iconodule (I still don't see what you see), but for me, I am concerned with how to bring the gospel to LGBT people in more concrete practical ways.  I have also given my views in the beginning of this thread as to why I did not specifically appreciate Fr. Josiah's talk in Georgia.

Let's use an analogy.  Let's suppose you have some Jehovah's Witness (JW) folks that knock on your door.  You know your Bible and your theology really well to answer them.  Would you reach out to them and lovingly say how evil their organization is or would you try to lovingly demonstrate some of the flaws of their thinking and allow them to reach the conclusion of how evil their organization is?  Furthermore, how well known are you to the JW community?  Have you been involved very heavily in social activities, such as feeding the poor, visiting the sick, etc?  Or are we folks who live out our busy lives behind a computer screen and feel comfortable about saying what's wrong or right but having no sense of getting involved in the community and share that experience of what was done to effect some change?

My main issue is the stagnancy of repeating what we already know and believe, but not showing any practical outcome of that belief.  Rather than the back and forth in this thread earlier, I want to see the discussion move forward into something more productive.

God bless!
Mina,

It might help if you expressed what it means to "bring the gospel to LGBTQ people in more concrete practical ways" and what "something more productive" means and is.

What one sees as "productive or practical" is an excercisein subjectivity in most of these discussions.  It actually tends towards utilitarianism in practice for most who accept LGBTQ.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Onesimus said:
What one sees as "productive or practical" is an excercisein subjectivity in most of these discussions.  It actually tends towards utilitarianism in practice for most who accept LGBTQ.
The Church already practices this "utilitarianism" in the face of contraception, premarital sex, divorce, and confessionally mixed marriages. All of these involve sin or a significant departure from the ideal; all of them are routinely accommodated in our churches.

FinnJames was kind enough to share his own experience here. He is in a civil marriage with another man. He waited until the relationship became a celibate one before entering the church, and was accepted, while still remaining in his relationship with the full knowledge of the clergy. I should note here that FinnJames is not advocating celibacy as a uniform requirement of gay couples, but this is one way of approaching it.

Unfortunately in some circles even this is not enough. I would urge everyone to read this blog post written by a formerly Orthodox woman in a (celibate) relationship with another woman. The whole blog is actually well worth reading.

 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Dear Clemente,

I've explained where I want to take this discussion.  You and I can continue to disagree on how to interpret Iconodule (I still don't see what you see), but for me, I am concerned with how to bring the gospel to LGBT people in more concrete practical ways.  I have also given my views in the beginning of this thread as to why I did not specifically appreciate Fr. Josiah's talk in Georgia.

Let's use an analogy.  Let's suppose you have some Jehovah's Witness (JW) folks that knock on your door.  You know your Bible and your theology really well to answer them.  Would you reach out to them and lovingly say how evil their organization is or would you try to lovingly demonstrate some of the flaws of their thinking and allow them to reach the conclusion of how evil their organization is?  Furthermore, how well known are you to the JW community?  Have you been involved very heavily in social activities, such as feeding the poor, visiting the sick, etc?  Or are we folks who live out our busy lives behind a computer screen and feel comfortable about saying what's wrong or right but having no sense of getting involved in the community and share that experience of what was done to effect some change?

My main issue is the stagnancy of repeating what we already know and believe, but not showing any practical outcome of that belief.  Rather than the back and forth in this thread earlier, I want to see the discussion move forward into something more productive.

God bless!
I understand that you and other posters here are ostensibly concerned with how to reach out to LGBT people. They represent about 3% of the population, so I question whether for many here that is a genuine concern for sharing the gospel  (if so, why not talk about other minority groups such as African Americans), or rather, it is just a politically-correct concern for appearing "tolerant" and not offending anybody (in which case, I think we should recognise that Christianity is always offensive, no matter how we couch it).

But why are you talking about how to evangelise our gay neighbours in this thread?

What you and some other posters here refuse to understand is that context matters, which is why your analogy about JWs falls flat. The subject of this thread was a conference on families in Georgia, not how to evangelise gays at our front doors. Father Trenham was asked to speak about a radical political group, the gay lobby, which is seeking to promulgate an offensive legislative agenda that threatens to circumscribe our freedom of religion. I and a few other posters have pointed this out several times here and have shown in detail how their agenda would curtail our religious liberty. We and Father Trenham are right to denounce that political agenda as "homofascist" because that is precisely what it is.

Context matters.

Would it be wrong to denounce KKK members as "racists" at a Congress on Racial Understanding because I might offend my racist neighbour whom I am trying to evangelise? Would it have been wrong to denounce the evils of Nazism for fear of offending my German neighbour? Was it wrong for Early Christians to denounce Diocletian and his supporters as evil for fear of offending their Roman neighbours? Can you not see that denouncing a radical group intending to impose evil on us through a political process does not preclude evangelising on a personal level those who may have something in common with that group?

There have been a number of truly offensive comments made in this thread about an outstanding and much-loved Orthodox priest who is in good standing with his bishop. He has hours and hours of broadcasts on AFR and Patristic Nectar.org and nobody has produced any evidence that Father Trenham has said anything that is not Orthodox. I find it sad that OC.net is being used for such calumny.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
As for Evangelicals, IIRC that meeting was coorganised with them.

First things first, or sometimes, last as it seems.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Clemente said:
I understand that you and other posters here are ostensibly concerned with how to reach out to LGBT people. They represent about 3% of the population,
So a greater percentage than the 1% of lost sheep that Christ went out in search of.

so I question whether for many here that is a genuine concern for sharing the gospel  (if so, why not talk about other minority groups such as African Americans),
Well, as someone recently said:

Clemente said:
Context matters.
This isn't a thread about African Americans, for one thing. For another, what a truly bizarre comparison.  :eek:

  or rather, it is just a politically-correct concern for appearing "tolerant" and not offending anybody (in which case, I think we should recognise that Christianity is always offensive, no matter how we couch it).
Or rather, whether deservedly or not, rightly or not, this issue is a prevalent one in our society today, and it is important and necessary for the Church to "become all things to all men, so that [we] may by all means save some."
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,146
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Clemente said:
minasoliman said:
Clemente said:
I get that you want to use this thread to advance a certain progressive, pink agenda, ...
I did not get the same impression of Iconodule as you do.  I think Iconodule is searching (as I am as well) for an alternative to what is perceived as the "fire and brimstone" approach to bring LGBT people to the Church and to repentance.  I hope you can concentrate your discussion on that.
No, he very clearly is pushing a progressive, pink agenda. His problem, which he has stated repeatedly, is the "skewed priorities" of Father Trenham.  Here is what he has said we need to do: 

1. De-emphasise sexual sins.
"And why, perhaps most importantly, are these sexual sins so emphasized, while graver injustices, doing far more damage to society, are ignored or even justified by our clergy?"
I think this sort of question can be used to de-emphasise sexual sins (though not necessarily), but that doesn't mean we don't have to answer that question as posed.  You can answer it by answering it or by demonstrating how its presuppositions are wrong, but it's not a bad or illegitimate question.  It's a reasonable question.   

2. Emphasise left wing political causes:
What graver injustices do you have in mind?  Should the Church only denounce those sins that are currently politically correct, i.e. racism, materialism, ecological damage to Mother Earth?


You don't think those are far more serious than gay marriage? Again, skewed priorities.
You called them sins, but when he suggested they're more important than gay marriage, you called them "left wing political causes".  Which is it? 
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
ZealousZeal said:
Clemente said:
I understand that you and other posters here are ostensibly concerned with how to reach out to LGBT people. They represent about 3% of the population,
So a greater percentage than the 1% of lost sheep that Christ went out in search of.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Not directly at Mor, but a convenient post to comment on.
Mor Ephrem said:
Clemente said:
minasoliman said:
Clemente said:
I get that you want to use this thread to advance a certain progressive, pink agenda, ...
I did not get the same impression of Iconodule as you do.  I think Iconodule is searching (as I am as well) for an alternative to what is perceived as the "fire and brimstone" approach to bring LGBT people to the Church and to repentance.  I hope you can concentrate your discussion on that.
No, he very clearly is pushing a progressive, pink agenda. His problem, which he has stated repeatedly, is the "skewed priorities" of Father Trenham.  Here is what he has said we need to do: 

1. De-emphasise sexual sins.
"And why, perhaps most importantly, are these sexual sins so emphasized, while graver injustices, doing far more damage to society, are ignored or even justified by our clergy?"
I think this sort of question can be used to de-emphasise sexual sins (though not necessarily), but that doesn't mean we don't have to answer that question as posed.  You can answer it by answering it or by demonstrating how its presuppositions are wrong, but it's not a bad or illegitimate question.  It's a reasonable question.
 
It's presupposition is unreasonable-and ridiculous.

Take for instance another priest who is often lumped together with Fr. Josiah, Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon. He does regularly preach against the sins of homosexual acts and the demonic agenda of redefining marriage. But certainly not more than he preaches against heterosexual promiscuity, divorce, abortion (for some reason, this seems to get mixed up with sins against the Seventh Commandment instead of the Sixth), and lets his opposition to birth control be known. (That doesn't count his praise for marriage, childbearing and childrearing, etc.). All of the above, however, would not outpace his preaching against murder, gossip, duty to the poor (which I think actually takes up most of his time), economic exploitation (though Iconodule's definition, and most certainly augustine217's, would be at odds with this), religious intolerance, and other things more to the Left's liking-at least more comparable to their lip service.

Iconodule and company, however, wouldn't notice that it seems because THEY emphasize "sexual sins" and bellow because they feel for some reason that their ox is being gored. If they took a selective sample of Fr. Josiah's or Fr. Patrick's sermons for, say, a year, and found out and could show that the priests used 80% or even 50% of their pulpit time on sex (either pro or con), they would have a case. However, it seems that they just heard a note-forget about the rest of the opera-that they don't like because it isn't singing their tune and the priest are refusing to sing off the Left's hymnal.

Mor Ephrem said:
2. Emphasise left wing political causes:
What graver injustices do you have in mind?  Should the Church only denounce those sins that are currently politically correct, i.e. racism, materialism, ecological damage to Mother Earth?


You don't think those are far more serious than gay marriage? Again, skewed priorities.
You called them sins, but when he suggested they're more important than gay marriage, you called them "left wing political causes".  Which is it?
Racists are in retreat (just look at how much the race card is played), the redefiners of marriage are on the march.

The argument that the latter used in IL played up the idea of tourism and gay dollars for wedding, so I'm not sure one can oppose it to materialism.

Climate change hysteria is largely pushed by those who push the pink agenda, so not sure a distinction can be made here either.

I know that Fr. Reardon preaches regularly against racism, materialism, and wanton misuse of the trust God has put in man over the earth, and I've heard Fr. Josiah do the same. However, many don't hear that as it would make the principled opposition to their pet cause too dimensional. Carbboard makes an easier target.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Porter ODoran said:
ZealousZeal said:
Clemente said:
I understand that you and other posters here are ostensibly concerned with how to reach out to LGBT people. They represent about 3% of the population,
So a greater percentage than the 1% of lost sheep that Christ went out in search of.
so He left the 10% to wander off and get lost?

Being black-despite what the Mormons say-is not a sin. And yet they are ignored, to pander to the sin of less than 3% (not all homosexuals are practicing).
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ZealousZeal said:
Clemente said:
I understand that you and other posters here are ostensibly concerned with how to reach out to LGBT people. They represent about 3% of the population,
So a greater percentage than the 1% of lost sheep that Christ went out in search of.

so I question whether for many here that is a genuine concern for sharing the gospel  (if so, why not talk about other minority groups such as African Americans),
Well, as someone recently said:

Clemente said:
Context matters.
This isn't a thread about African Americans, for one thing. For another, what a truly bizarre comparison.  :eek:

  or rather, it is just a politically-correct concern for appearing "tolerant" and not offending anybody (in which case, I think we should recognise that Christianity is always offensive, no matter how we couch it).
Or rather, whether deservedly or not, rightly or not, this issue is a prevalent one in our society today, and it is important and necessary for the Church to "become all things to all men, so that [we] may by all means save some."
by donning "even the garment spotted by the flesh"?
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
2. Emphasise left wing political causes:
What graver injustices do you have in mind?  Should the Church only denounce those sins that are currently politically correct, i.e. racism, materialism, ecological damage to Mother Earth?
You don't think those are far more serious than gay marriage? Again, skewed priorities.
You called them sins, but when he suggested they're more important than gay marriage, you called them "left wing political causes".  Which is it?
That is precisely the point: its both.

For those pushing a progressive agenda, its much more comfortable talking about sins like racism, materialism and ecological damage  (all of which I would rightly call sin as well), because, by doing so, we Christians get kudos from social justice warriors of the political left. Our interest and theirs coincide. Yet when we talk about sexual sins, we are no longer aligned with the popular zeitgeist. So, according to the progressive posters here, our priorities should be to point out sins that gain us popularity outside the Church.

Because then people will like us more.

And we can thus share the gospel with them. After all, it worked so well for the Episcopal Church.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
Onesimus said:
What one sees as "productive or practical" is an excercisein subjectivity in most of these discussions.  It actually tends towards utilitarianism in practice for most who accept LGBTQ.
The Church already practices this "utilitarianism" in the face of contraception, premarital sex, divorce, and confessionally mixed marriages. All of these involve sin or a significant departure from the ideal; all of them are routinely accommodated in our churches.

FinnJames was kind enough to share his own experience here. He is in a civil marriage with another man. He waited until the relationship became a celibate one before entering the church, and was accepted, while still remaining in his relationship with the full knowledge of the clergy. I should note here that FinnJames is not advocating celibacy as a uniform requirement of gay couples, but this is one way of approaching it.

Unfortunately in some circles even this is not enough. I would urge everyone to read this blog post written by a formerly Orthodox woman in a (celibate) relationship with another woman. The whole blog is actually well worth reading.
And, then on August 27 or 28, I honestly don’t remember which, I read the words “the Orthodox Church cannot and will not condone or bless ‘same-sex unions’ of any degree.” That last phrase if huge: of any degree. And no matter how much others have tried to tell me that the statement in question is not talking about people in my situation, I can’t believe that. The other shoe finally dropped, and I couldn’t see a way to continue communing in good conscience. The conscience is a tricky thing. It belongs to us, and only we know what will give us comfort.
The Orthodox Church can only condone and bless different sex unions in one degree-marriage.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Clemente said:
Mor Ephrem said:
2. Emphasise left wing political causes:
What graver injustices do you have in mind?  Should the Church only denounce those sins that are currently politically correct, i.e. racism, materialism, ecological damage to Mother Earth?
You don't think those are far more serious than gay marriage? Again, skewed priorities.
You called them sins, but when he suggested they're more important than gay marriage, you called them "left wing political causes".  Which is it?
That is precisely the point: its both.

For those pushing a progressive agenda, its much more comfortable talking about sins like racism, materialism and ecological damage  (all of which I would rightly call sin as well), because, by doing so, we Christians get kudos from social justice warriors of the political left. Our interest and theirs coincide. Yet when we talk about sexual sins, we are no longer aligned with the popular zeitgeist. So, according to the progressive posters here, our priorities should be to point out sins that gain us popularity outside the Church.

Because then people will like us more.

And we can thus share the gospel with them. After all, it worked so well for the Episcopal Church.
just look at the treatment of the present occupant of the Vatican's throne. As long as he says something that the social justice warriors think they can use in their war propaganda, he gets heaps of praise in the press, etc. But just call abortion a sin just once, and....
 
Top