Sometime in the past year, I took a stance to be “non-political.” This essentially means that while I do have views and opinions, I have decided to put aside partisan politics for the sake of relating to people. The whole system is growing more and more ridiculous by the day and I do not want to miss out on having a relationship with someone simply because we favor different political parties.
That being said, I just found out about the controversy surrounding a well-known Atlanta pastor, and I would like to make a few comments. If you aren’t following the situation, consider yourself one of the lucky ones. In short, Obama selects pastor to pray at inauguration. Liberal watchdog group finds out that said pastor made statement TWENTY years ago that they view as anti-gay marriage. Side note: Why is it automatically labeled “anti-gay marriage” rather than “pro-heterosexual marriage?” While I won’t go into what exactly was said, I believe that this pastor has just as much a right to his own opinions as anyone else.
I do not consider these political statements. They are, if anything, statements of logic and common sense – or lack thereof in American politics.
I find it quite ironic that Louie Giglio was rejected to pray at the inauguration because he “doesn’t reflect the administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance.” What I would like to know is how rejecting Giglio for his beliefs follows said vision of inclusion and acceptance? It appears that this administration only “includes and accepts” people when it benefits them politically. True inclusion and acceptance would welcome the homosexuals AND Pastor Giglio to stand side-by-side on Inauguration Day. I am dumbfounded by the lack of simple logic here. Unless, of course, this is not truly about inclusion and acceptance at all, but rather being political correctness and catering to a few at the expense of alienating the masses.
At the same time, I am grieved that the Church has more often than not come across as “hating” the homosexual community. This has got to change. I wonder what would happen if we focused less on condemning the sin and more on intentionally loving the homosexuals? You can love someone without agreeing with them or supporting their lifestyle/actions. Let’s be honest – if everyone had to be just like us in order for us to love them, we probably would not love anyone but ourselves. And another side note – Why are we so eager to condemn homosexuality? What about the other sins? What about the ones WE actually struggle with? I find it very interesting when Christians are eager to talk about the sins everyone else struggles with, while conveniently remaining silent about their own. Especially since the same book teaches us about both.
I love healthy discussions and thoughts about the issues, but at the same time I urge anyone who considers themselves a follower of Jesus to give thought to how they respond to this situation. There are many on the “outside” who already think that we are angry and full of hate, and when we lash out we only reinforce that. We must be very careful not to “react.” I believe that most things that are done out of reaction prove to be hollow and unstable in the end. Perhaps we should take Jesus as our example, as He was silent in the face of his accusers while on trial unjustly.
Isn’t it ironic that I conclude these thoughts with a statement on how we should be like Jesus, silent in the face of our accusers? I guess none of us get it right after all.