Flunder (right) advocates for same-sex marriage. (Image source: YouTube)
© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
TheBlaze posted a story earlier this week about a Christian college that invited a lesbian pastor to speak at an event.
Some called it controversial to invite Bishop Yvette Flunder of the City of Refuge United Church of Christ in Oakland, California, to speak at American Baptist College in Nashville, Tennessee, as part of a lecture series.
Flunder (right) advocates for same-sex marriage. (Image source: YouTube)
Yet staff members defended the decision. School president Forrest Harris said it is “sad that people use religion and idolatry of the Bible to demoralize same-gender-loving people.”
“When people say [the Bible] is synonymous with God and the truth,” he said. “We can’t be guided and dictated by a first-century worldview.”
Here’s what some readers of TheBlaze had to say about the issue:
Gonzo“When people say [the Bible] is synonymous with God and the truth,” he said. “We can’t be guided and dictated by a first-century worldview.”
Au contraire, Forrest. We can and should be guided by that first-century worldview, because it’s God’s worldview and that’s the only one that counts…if you ARE a Christian that is.
It’s time for the Baptists to replace this school’s leadership with people who still believe in the divinity of Christ.
“sad that people use religion and idolatry of the Bible to demoralize same-gender-loving people.”
It has always been my understanding that the Bible keeps us from idolatry. But then, he probably hasn’t studied his Bible in some time, which is why he takes the positions he does.
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”—Hebrews 4:12
He’s not a Christian. Christians believe and adhere to the Bible. We can disagree about what the certain parts of the Bible say, which is why there are so many different Christian denominations. But to actually reject the Bible is to reject historical and modern Christianity.
They should probably campaign to drop the Christian name and affiliations from their associations if they’re so outdated.
I think this sexual deviant should be allowed to have her say, though. Universities should be a place to have such debates and challenge ideas. The controversy comes from the president of a religious college insulting the traditions and foundations of the institution in which they’re in charge of in an exceptionally bigoted way.
Had he expressed his support for her speech in a context of the exchange of ideas and freedom of speech, I’d agree with him.
Speech should be met with speech, not censorship.
“When people say [the Bible] is synonymous with God and the truth,” he said. “We can’t be guided and dictated by a first-century worldview.”
God’s moral code was established before the first man and woman set foot on this earth. He commanded the man to leave his parents and marry a woman. He then commanded them to multiply. Moral and natural laws were established before this world came into being.
How uninspired can one be to think that this law has only been around for the last 2,000 years? Based on his logic, his god is not the same yesterday, today and forever. His god is influenced by society. His god changes to accommodate his conscience.
These people are trying to change God to their image instead of changing themselves to HIS!
“When people say [the Bible] is synonymous with God and the truth,” he said. “We can’t be guided and dictated by a first-century worldview.”
Translation: We want to make Jesus irrelevant because our desires trump his truth.
This guy’s right to bring the speaker in — people need to be exposed to opposite viewpoints to solidify their own. It’s not an attack on our faith to let her speak and decide if we disagree.
On the other hand, I’m divided on his statements about the Bible.
1. The Bible is no more a first-century viewpoint than the Constitution is an 18th-century document. Both distill the timeless and universal principles upon which their respective spheres of subject matter rely (morality in the case of the Bible, limited government and liberty in the case of the Constitution). He fundamentally misunderstands what the Bible IS, if he thinks its core principles need an “update.”
2. There ARE Christians out there who seem to view the Bible as a physical object or as a collection of writings more important than their own lives’ expressions of the Bible’s principles. In the name of keeping with a verse or two they don’t really understand, they ignore the interplay those verses have with the broader principles of truth, justice, and mercy. Some Christians call the Bible infallible, contradicting the words of its prophets, almost all of whom complained about their inadequacy to express God’s Word.
I don’t care who they decide to have speak at the college. The students can choose NOT to attend if they wish. However, claiming that attitudes toward deviant sexual behaviors such as homosexuality are “first- century” is nothing more than their attempt to marginalize thousands of years of human experience and the word of God that they pretend to uphold.
Any religious institution that counters the teachings of God is putting itself on the list for extinction.
So Mr. Harris, which aspects of this “first-century worldview” should we subscribe to and who should decide that for us? I mean, if you suggest this aspect is “out-of-date,” then what other aspects are out of date? Is there really sin, Satan, hell, heaven, right/wrong, Jesus, God? I mean those things just seem so “first-century.” Mr. Harris, you are an embarrassment to the God you claim to serve!
“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.”—Romans 16:17-18
Is it wrong for a lesbian or any gay person to speak in a religious environment? Jesus certainly never said it was. He did not deny those shunned by society a voice to speak. In fact, Jesus spent much time conversing and breaking bread with those deemed “inappropriate” in society’s eyes. He didn’t shut them down because they were shunned, did he? I think this is what Forrest was talking about when he said we shouldn’t be guided by first-century thinking.
—
Follow Dave Urbanski (@DaveVUrbanski) on Twitter
Want to leave a tip?
We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?
