ucmpage.gif (9365 bytes)


Commentary


Social Rhetoric vs. Supernatural God

by Wayne Mayfield


Upon reading the July 30, 2004 published words of Bishop Jung I became appalled by his complete lack of definitions, terms, and the abuse of issues. So, perhaps we should examine the intellect first of Bishop Jung and his misuse of terminology.

First, what is culture. Culture is different than lifestyle. Homo-sexuality is a lifestyle. Culture is born out of a regional, national, and ethnic of man. It is not chosen practices. If this were so, then each nation would practice either homo-sexuality or heterosexual activities as a whole, not as a minority.

Second is religion. Religion is a practice of those who choose. Unlike where we are born or the language we speak, religion is a personal choice. India, for example, did not have a common goal to be Buddhist and therefore find practices to meet their belief as a nation. Instead, people made a choice, freely, to either accept or deny the practice where they don’t have a choice as to the country or linage of their birth. This is first grade knowledge. Otherwise missionaries would be trying to change cultures, not practices.

Community is the last term needed to be set right for Bishop Jung. Community is a group within a culture, whether a city, or region, or part of town, or even an area rural or dense in population. Community can, and usually does, have diversity. Being civilized means anybody can be my neighbor. It does not mean I necessarily want them in my house. Community has a common goal, individual preservation of life while accepting, though not condoning, certain activities. We call this, rightfully, community response, not community religion.

To be nice, I will, for the moment, assume (halfheartedly) that Bishop Jung was speaking as a person of community, though not as a Christian. This scares me. If I am not a real Christian in the community, then I’m not morally a Christian either. If this is Jung, then we have a severe problem in the Methodist movement as we do with Sprague. They have re-invented terms to their liking, not to the word’s true nature. So, would they both please send me a dictionary of the new language they speak?

It appalled me, deeply, for Bishop Jung to say that since people of diverse sexual activities are in the community they add something to the salad mix of our community which people enjoy. While he did not say the church, he did imply that perhaps they would add to the salad of cultural diversity in the church. Is that like saying we need homosexuals to have variety? That’s what was going on in the Corinthian church, a whole lot of sexual variety. In that time, religion was most definitely considered somewhat cultural. But not going to the pagan temples didn’t remove them from the community or the country or the city. Who would know anyway.

What did draw people to the temple of Diana, or whatever fertility god or goddess, was the sexual practices that allowed incest, free sex, and orgies. That was the diversity that even allowed homosexual practices. What did God say through Paul about these things. “Let it not be heard of about you.” No sexual diversity. The issue would have been a good one, when no daughters or women were around for Cain and Able, had there been a lovers spat and Cain killed him. But, this is not the case. Even they knew better! So, somehow, so distant from the Garden, we are so much more something we can do it when a killer wasn’t going to be caught dead doing these things.

Inclusive-ness is about those who believe and have repented and “turned around.” Not the other way around. Even John Wesley put the non-believers in the front row until they had an awakening. He kept the spoiled salad parts from the good salad. Homosexuality becomes a culture to Bishop Jung, and so if they be a culture, aren’t they accountable as cultures when they are errant? But, he is not even considering this point in his statement of inclusive-ness. This is what the war in Iraq is about, accountability in a culture, not a religion, and the return of community that is responsive as a community. The people are being given a chance to be included in the definition of their community participation, not which religion. We can not confuse this issue. So, homosexuals must be, if they are a culture, held accountable for their Social position based on morals of the Christian, not the Christian Society.

We are not a social group or club for people to join. We are the givers of truth that morally should bring reason and sanity to the social community around us. It doesn’t matter the ethnics (which is culture) of homosexuality (which is social) for it to be wrong. Whether decent we are from can not make the practice of the choice any better or any worse. The practice alone is enough. Race of man does not figure in. Christianity is not culture, it is, of itself community. Not a fraternity, a family. Two men can not be family by any stretch of the imagination except the family of mankind. No big deal, we are all of that family! Family is the foundation of community. Period.

Social rhetoric of Greek philosophers couldn’t reason away the truth of a Supernatural God in their wild sexual practices in the early church. Nor the other diverse sexual practices of the time. Too much of God’s supernatural truth in the face of human failure. Part of the problem now, most of the liberals are trying to take a social preference and turn it into a spiritual right based on their human-ness, not the supernatural truth of God.

To further add injury to the insult of Jung’s ignorance, he says he is about justice and mercy. Yet, in the same speech he claims unity exceeds God’s judgment. Only for the believer who has “turned around” (repented) does mercy come, and that after the heart and reason of judgment condemns him. Practicing homosexuality in the church is not repentance, nor is practicing any sexual sin. So, if he is for judgment, let him call homosexuality for what it is - an abomination! Then, when true repentance comes, they will not be homosexuals any more. Pretty simple, really. Or maybe God is weak? Lost the power to save? Like superman and kryptonite?

Mercy is not a right. It is a gift, hence grace. The mercy has to do with we should be dead for our flamboyant sin and actions, rebellious and callous refusal to come in humility to the throne. If Christ died, as God Incarnate, humbly, how did we get better than God? The theology of modern man makes God bow to our uniqueness and specialty, and preferences is like putting manure in a brown bag, purple bag, or red bag - it all stinks! Our society of better to look good than become good that smacks of gnosticism in another bag. Sad, but true.

Unity, in the mouth of God Messiah was prayed and one of the things that will ring true for eternity, “I pray not (this) for the world, for they are not of the world ….. That they be one as we are one …..” thus meaning the things of man so deadly must not be unified to the human creature who is the believer.

I would challenge Bishop Jung to re-learn the common definitions of English, theology, sociology, and apply them to truth, not the social agenda of the day. Liberalism is not liberty! Social Rhetoric which is liberalism can not out weigh the Supernatural of God, creator and savior for liberty. God scores 1, Jung a 0.

Neither is any other religion an equal to the Christian by reason or truth. So, maybe Jung would like to be the Bishop of, say Hindu’s, or maybe the cult of Callie in India, or something (he could be a multiple Bishop then, one of a kind and the first!). In the mean time: score 2 for God and 0 for Jung (or Sprague for that matter!). Any surprises here? Wake up O’ sleeper.

Copyright Protected: Wayne Mayfield, Pastor; Godseed Project, Inc.

Name:  
Email:
  Comments

<Back to News