Must there be winners and

losers?

Picture two armies locked in battle, just as the two parties warring within the church are. One immediate response is the recognition that there will be casualties on both sides. And there are. People get hurt in these conflicts. We might also reflect on the senselessness of war. But is here any way to avoid having winners and losers? Only if some sort of truce is called. But then the big question, in the context of the church’s division, is: What is the status quo? We could have a truce but we need to know if the church does, or does not, condone homosexual acts amongst its leaders and members. It cannot simultaneously both permit and not permit, so which is it? As soon as that is decided, then there are winners and losers. Even a truce will not avoid that in this situation. It may be that a temporary truce can be called while the church finds some other way to resolve the issues. In that case, one would have to assume that the traditional position that has been held by the church for all of its history until very recently and that aligns with the biblical teaching would have to prevail until there is compelling evidence for changing that. Now imagine that one of those armies is the aggressor, attacking a city to which it has no right. Should the inhabitants of the city be able to fight back, to defend themselves? Of course. No one would expect them to lamely hand over their city. Furthermore, those with a sense of justice would back the defenders. The enemy has no right to this city and ought to be repulsed. Even sharing the city would be unjust. Why should the attackers have any of it? Justice requires that the city residents should win. There is no logical argument for the attackers to win. One can understand that some people are motivated to find a solution where there are no winners or losers. Wouldn’t it be great if everybody could be happy? We would all love to see no more casualties. But so far no one has been able to come up with such a solution, or even explain why those who promote sin in the church should win, or be given equal rights. Therefore, the people of the city must keep defending themselves. No one wants to see people “lose” but the integrity of God’s church is at stake. It is therefore important that those promoting sin do lose. We should not feel sentimental about that. The church should not continually compromise so as to keep everybody happy. Put simply, any “solution” that permits homosexual acts makes losers of those who believe that that is wrong and offends God. It would be a serious compromising of biblical morality, and defiance of God. The only “win” for a church is a clear decision reflecting God’s will, revealed in the scriptures. A church bold enough to do what is right might find itself free from the negative consequences of this debate and once again experiencing the blessing of God. Related pages
© 2017 Peter Cheyne
A Christian’s Guide To Homosexuality
Truth In Love
Main sections Main sections

Must there be winners

and losers?

Picture two armies locked in battle, just as the two parties warring within the church are. One immediate response is the recognition that there will be casualties on both sides. And there are. People get hurt in these conflicts. We might also reflect on the senselessness of war. But is here any way to avoid having winners and losers? Only if some sort of truce is called. But then the big question, in the context of the church’s division, is: What is the status quo? We could have a truce but we need to know if the church does, or does not, condone homosexual acts amongst its leaders and members. It cannot simultaneously both permit and not permit, so which is it? As soon as that is decided, then there are winners and losers. Even a truce will not avoid that in this situation. It may be that a temporary truce can be called while the church finds some other way to resolve the issues. In that case, one would have to assume that the traditional position that has been held by the church for all of its history until very recently and that aligns with the biblical teaching would have to prevail until there is compelling evidence for changing that. Now imagine that one of those armies is the aggressor, attacking a city to which it has no right. Should the inhabitants of the city be able to fight back, to defend themselves? Of course. No one would expect them to lamely hand over their city. Furthermore, those with a sense of justice would back the defenders. The enemy has no right to this city and ought to be repulsed. Even sharing the city would be unjust. Why should the attackers have any of it? Justice requires that the city residents should win. There is no logical argument for the attackers to win. One can understand that some people are motivated to find a solution where there are no winners or losers. Wouldn’t it be great if everybody could be happy? We would all love to see no more casualties. But so far no one has been able to come up with such a solution, or even explain why those who promote sin in the church should win, or be given equal rights. Therefore, the people of the city must keep defending themselves. No one wants to see people “lose” but the integrity of God’s church is at stake. It is therefore important that those promoting sin do lose. We should not feel sentimental about that. The church should not continually compromise so as to keep everybody happy. Put simply, any “solution” that permits homosexual acts makes losers of those who believe that that is wrong and offends God. It would be a serious compromising of biblical morality, and defiance of God. The only “win” for a church is a clear decision reflecting God’s will, revealed in the scriptures. A church bold enough to do what is right might find itself free from the negative consequences of this debate and once again experiencing the blessing of God. Related pages
© Peter Cheyne 2017.
A Christian’s Guide To Homosexuality
Truth In Love
Site Menu Site Menu