America’s Young Theologian concludes that it is (or at least was on Jan 18-20) “morally superior to be American than Christian.” That conclusion is based on the observation that Americanism brought together disparate wings of the church in a way that Christianity hasn’t to date.
This unity is claimed because Rick Warren and Gene Robinson both prayed at the inaugural events of President Obama. But this conclusion is based on the assumptions that (1) both Warren and Robinson are, in fact, Christians, and (2) that there are no reasons for Christians should separate themselves from one another.
1) Robinson prayed to “the god of our many understandings.” I don’t think that’s the Christian God. The God of the Bible is very exclusive. He is not the God of our many understandings, but only of his own revelation. Anyone who prays to such a man-made god is committing some serious idolatry and very likely is not a Christian. His understanding of God seems to be seriously flawed.
2) Even if Robinson actually does have saving faith in the God of Scripture, he should be disciplined by the Church (I’m using this word in the sense of the body of true believers present in the world today) for living an ungodly and rebellious lifestyle of homosexuality, and should in no way be allowed to represent the Church to the world. The Church should unite around the person and work of Jesus Christ, but Scripture is clear that we are to put out of fellowship those who live such perverse lives without repentance.
Sometimes division is a good thing for the purity of the whole, and the salvation of the few.
No, being an American is in no way superior to being a Christian. Especially not in a moral sense. Not if your standard of right and wrong is based on biblical truth.
Thanks for your disagreement. Of course, I was being provocative and I’m not even sure I agree with my post at face value. Really, I was using it as a way to comment on the state of the worldwide Anglican communion and more particularly the ECUSA. Since you come from a more conservative denomination, it’s not surprising to me that you read scripture the way that you do. It should be clear that divisions over homosexuality are divisions over how to read the Bible, not whether or not a position is based upon ‘biblical truth.’ The assumption that the Bible is clear and on your side is convenient but hardly charitable.
However, the point I was trying to make was that while my church tries to come to terms with varying views of human sexuality, church unity should remain a more substantive concern. Even if–as I’m sure you assume–the Bible were clear about the unacceptability of homosexuality, still I would posit schism as a greater evil. You say, “Sometimes division is a good thing for the purity of the whole, and the salvation of the few.” Agreed…and only sometimes. I would tend to respond with: “Sometimes division corrupts the witness of the whole, while misguidedly trying to save a few.” I might agree with your statement if we were talking about something that was more central to Christian belief, say, the deity of Jesus Christ (an issue that was supposedly decisive at the formation of PCA). Homosexuality, even if it could be conclusively be determined sinful, is not such a central issue.
Regardless, I appreciate the disagreement. Thanks for the visit.