Two Articles Written To Our Local Newspaper 

 

 

 Legislature’s  Chaplain

 

   The following article was submitted to the Yuma Daily Sun in response to articles read about our State Legislature and the kind of Chaplain some seem to think it needs.

 

   Editor, the Yuma Daily Sun. Concerning our Legislature and its keeping the chaplain position, Jan. 16th, 2001. I looked up the word chaplain. Definitions ranged from a clergyman attached to a chapel to one officially attached to an institution of some kind. When I think of one attached to a chapel I perceive that he will be giving some standard of moral instruction and advice. But then again I don't find chaplains as I study the bible so this might be a figment of my imagination. Do all of our Senators have the same religious belief? If there's to be one "clergyman" for the whole Senate then I'd presume that there's going to be many Senators who do not believe what that one "clergyman-chaplain" believes. I've been reading and thinking about the former position being held by a gay man (chaplain) and the hue and cry that they're discriminating against him because of his admitted and also publicly staged and proclaimed sexual orientation. Hmmm! a gay chaplain for the whole Senate. What about Senators who don't believe that "gay" is moral? Surely we have legislators who are moral, believe in morality as taught in the Bible (Romans 1:26-28; I Cor. 6:9-10), and desire to be advised concerning moral decisions by those who are moral. Don't we? Let's hope so. I'd certainly think that moral Senators don't need a homosexual chaplain to advise them on moral matters. Well, let's see, perhaps this matter of being a chaplain doesn't involve advising on moral matters even though the basic idea of the word from the dictionary (not the bible) seems to point to that. But I've admitted that I could be wrong about the very concept here. Maybe the office of chaplain is just something contrived by "man" to suit certain sectarian purposes that please men. Perhaps it's just some strange kind of sacerdotal class ~ "clergy chaplains" ~ by man's appointment, not God's, that exists outside of convictions on morality. A sort of do nice things and be a nice guy generally and all goes well kind of thing. Hmmm! in that case I can picture the caplain going to a Senator for the Senator's advice. Is this working right? OK, in that case it appears that a Senator whose morals are based upon belief in the bible might want to talk to a "homosexual" Chaplain (should there be one) about the prospect of his immoral lifestyle!

 

Bob W. Lovelace

Yuma, AZ.

——————————————————————

 

 

 

 

 

THE APPROACH OF GAY & LESBIAN ANGLICANS

 

Editor, the Yuma Daily Sun: With regards to Mr. Parsels article “Stand by beliefs” (7-30-1997).  Compare the approach that gay and lesbian Anglicans have used to try and force acceptance with the simple solution offered by Mr. Parsels, which was simply to obey the teaching of the New Testament which is the will of Christ.

 

1. THE CHARGE OF HYPOCRISY.

   Gay and lesbian advocates have charged that many bishops are hypocrites because they signed a statement that they did not accept gay relationships among clergy but have hired or ordained non-celibate homosexuals. Thus they claim such are victimizing in public those whom in private they have professed to support.

   a. SCRIPTURAL SOLUTION: The scriptural solution to such a charge from the Word of God is not to endorse the sin of  homosexuality or any other form of sexual immorality. (See Romans 1:26-32) IF such bishops are privately endorsing the practice of homosexuality then such bishops need to repent of their sin of endorsement in private. (See I Timothy 5:22) According to the Scriptures it would not be that the hypocrisy needs to be exposed so they can go ahead and be blessed to practice a sinful act, but rather that the practice of such endorsements in private be repented of so the sinner doesn’t think he has an endorsement at all!

 

2. THE CHARGE THAT YOU ARE DENYING THE HOMOSEXUAL A BLESSING.

   Secondly, the charge is often made that you are “denying” the homosexual the right to the blessing of a sexual relationship.

   a. SCRIPTURAL SOLUTION: When leaders such as “Bishop” (Not by New Testament standards by any means, I Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-10) John Baker are quoted as making such ridiculous statements as “I cannot see that married heterosexual clergy have a right to deny their homosexual brothers and sisters the potential spiritual blessing of a sexual relationship when they themselves enjoy that blessing," then the reply should be to Mr. Baker and others that it doesn’t really  matter what “YOU” can’t see for the thing that counts is that all men be able to see what God sees and says about this sin! (See Isaiah 55:8-9)Mr. Baker needs to learn to deny himself the freedom he’s taken upon himself  to speak out in favor of what God does not permit and labels immorality. There is NO spiritual blessing from Christ or God in homosexual and lesbian sexual relationships of any sort! For crying out loud the Apostle Paul said in I Corinthians 6:9, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites ...will inherit the kingdom of God.” Obviously some leaders in the Anglican church do NOT KNOW this. One wonders just how many are deceived.

 

3. THE CHARGE OF INSENSITIVITY AND HOSTILITY.

   For further illustration of how the wind blows with false doctrine some bishops of the Canadian church have been said to have stated that they believe the church should apologize to the gay and lesbian community for insensitivity and hostility. And several said that the church should be "more accepting and affirming of models of family other than the nuclear family." How about that one folks! If you apply that to homosexual and lesbian couples living in sin then that spells just one thing -- More accepting of and affirming of sin! (See Romans 6:1-2)

   a. SCRIPTURAL SOLUTION:  The problem once again is a true lack of sensitivity towards God’s plain declarations in His Word that this is immorality. (See Matthew 13:15) What is needed is rebuke not only for those who commit such sin but also for those who condone such and continue to promote such.  (See I Timothy 5:20)

 

Bob W. Lovelace

Yuma, Az.

 

 

  Back to the Table of Contents

 

 

Home