Skip to main content

A conservative, evangelical Christian calls out his own, and some others who just try to avoid queers

I'm waiting for somebody to discount this one:

The president of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is repudiating statements made by a former convention official regarding President Barack Obama and the recent murder of abortionist George Tiller.

On a recent webcast of his daily radio talk show, Wiley Drake, former second vice-president of the SBC, called last Sunday's murder of Tiller "an answer to prayer." Then during an interview with Alan Colmes on Fox News Radio, Drake said he was praying the same type of "imprecatory prayer" against the president of the United States.

For years, Drake has encouraged the practice of praying words of judgment found throughout the Book of Psalm, back to God, against enemies. But Dr. Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia, and president of the SBC, says Drake's comments are out of line.

"[That's a] terrible statement, [a] very unbiblical statement," Hunt responds. "I'm still encouraged that the [Book of] Proverbs teaches that God has the water in a channel -- and my prayer has always that God would turn hearts."

Hunt also referenced the Book of 1 Timothy, which encourages Christians to pray for those in authority.


Now, I do recognize that Pastor Hunt is still an exceptionally conservative evangelical who "has an incredible ministry to those struggling with same-sex attractions," but--on the other hand--he's still actually engaged in talking to all those semi-dangerous queers and dykes out there, unlike the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, which says all Christians should stay away from gays because they might get to know them, and WTF actually like them or something, like poor old Dick Cheney:

The dynamics of cultural corruption has just been documented by a Gallop poll. It validates exactly what the Bible warns us against. Gallop released the results of a poll that measured views of homosexual marriage.

The polling discovered that one of the most important factors that control a person’s opinion about homosexual marriage was that of association, it even trumps a person’s political ideology.

Gallop reports, “Those who know someone who is gay or lesbian are significantly more supportive of gay marriage than are those of the same political persuasion who do not personally know someone who is gay or lesbian.”

In fact, former Vice President, Dick Cheney, is a perfect example. Cheney is reliably conservative on virtually every issue except homosexual marriage. This is likely as a result of the fact that he is the father of an open, practicing lesbian.


Obviously Dick should have just kicked that evil little plaid-shirt-wearing daughter of his to the curb:

According to Gallop, “While 57% of Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage, Americans who personally know someone who is gay or lesbian are almost evenly divided on the matter, with 49% in favor and 47% opposed. Among those who do not personally know anyone who is gay, 72% oppose legalized gay marriage while just 27% favor it.”

Who you allow into your life, and especially that of your children, really matters. The Apostle Paul said it this way, “Don’t be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals (1 Cor.15:33, NASB).

The natural human tendency is to be deceived in situations when we associate with openly sinful people. Human sentimentality kicks in and biblical thinking is set aside. We rationalize and justify behaviors in people we know more than in people we don’t.


There is a lesson here, and that lesson has to do the with unfortunate tendency we all have of putting people into groups rather than dealing with them as individuals. This includes conservative, evangelical Christians. I doubt I will ever see eye-to-eye [or eye-for-an-eye; sorry, couldn't resist] with Pastor Hunt on most social issues, but I can recognize in him a man who has the moral fiber to call out his own, and who at least intends to engage even with people he doesn't approve of, unlike the sniveling cowardly anonymous CADC which deals in pure and simple prejudice.

Or, if I were to use some terminology suddenly in vogue among some of my friends: no matter how far separated from me in terms of politics or interpretation, I can recognize Pastor Hunt as a Christian; the zealots who write for the CADC are merely Christianists.

Comments

David Murdoch said…
It is true that the bible does have prayers (especially in the psalms) about God punishing the wicked enemies of the righteous, however, it is certainly far preferable to convert those enemies rather than for them to be punished or even killed.

As for the statistics I know homosexual people, and I disagree with gay marriage and think homosexual practice is sinful, and I give them respect and kindness even still.

To clarify, this is what Paul wrote in the quoted letter:

1 Corinthians 5:9-12 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of the world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge.

God Bless,
David said…
Pastor Hunt is correct. We support traditional Christian values including love. Rev. Drake seems to have missed half of the New Testament.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...