Matt Lockett was kind enough to engage me on his blog regarding the comments I took so hard from his Sunday morning presentation to a church in my community.
You can read that exchange here.
Matt Lockett has traveled (is traveling?) around South Dakota rallying state pastors to support the abortion ban legislation. He has hosted at least one conference call between US Senator Sam Brownback (KS) and pastors from this state.
He travels for God, the Justice House Of Prayer and Bound4LIFE.
Previous MinusCar posts on this topic are here and here and less so here.
12 comments:
My response to his post:
First, I'd like to commend you, Matt, for encouraging the church to adopt. This is a great mission and one I'd highly encourage - there are so many children out there who need parents, I'd say that this sort of action is the very heart of Christianity ("true religion is this...").
But I must challenge your angle - that we need to adopt to prevent gays from adopting?! How utterly offensive and ungodly!
I'll remind you of the biblical citation again: TRUE religion is this - to care for the orphans...
My gay brothers and sisters make excellent parents - I've seen them in practice and know from experience - and there is no evidence that parents can "make" children gay.
How easily could YOU have been "made" gay?
So I respect and encourage your efforts to get the church to adopt but rebuke in the name of Christ your demonization of my gay brothers and sisters.
Well then I'm all outta luck, it appears...
Ahh...there's a lot of stuff going on here.
I'm pretty sure it'd be pretty difficult to find something in the bible that says homosexuals will go to hell solo. The bible is much more inclusive than that.
And there's also a pretty strong case to be made that the bible is much more about not going, or better yet not being in hell at all. Take Exodus for example.
Dan - you might be outta luck as far as this post and it's comments go, but I read your stuff and I'm pretty sure you know you're not.
I recommend http://see.local.clergy.com
And I should also add...
I'm pretty satisfied that Matt doesn't see homosexuals as the enemy.
I'm way more interested in:
1. his claim that there is an orchestrated effort to get same sex marriage so that the babies can be adopted. I really wish he'd back that up, and wouldn't it be interesting if he couldn't.
2. his need to use the imagery in the first place. Seriously, the Bible's imagery in Revelation he points to is way better than his.
Despite what he says his intentions were, his wording is an inflammatory attack on our gay brothers and sisters and, if truly unintended, a retraction and correction should be made.
And an humble apology.
I don't see that happening.
minus, you handle that kind of exchange so diplomatically and gracefully while making excellent points. I'm afraid I would have lost it -- especially when he totally evaded your questions. Good job.
I don't see an apology happening either. But I'm not sure this is the venue for that to happen anyway.
Surely his presentation has been played to an accepting audience more often that it is questioned, therefore why apologize just cause a punk blogger thinks he's a smarty pants.
Pooks! Thanks.
I find myself wondering about these folks -- do they really believe it, or are they playing to the audience?
And I'm not sure which is worse.
I don't know Pooks. I'm very troubled by it too.
Interesting. Matt Lockett has removed all comments and commenting ability from his blog.
Not interested in dialog, I guess...
I may have pushed too hard this morning.
Post a Comment