You are here

Gestapo in Sheep’s Clothing, Part 1

+ enlarge
 

A few weeks ago before church services, I was approached by the senior pastor. A few weeks earlier, he had asked me to send him some URL links to some of my writings on sexual ethics. He became particularly disturbed by one of my blog posts where I stated my belief that the sin of Eve was that Eve had sex with the devil. He described this notion as “bizarre.” When I calmly tried to defend my position by stating that this belief was widespread among the ancient Jews, and that the vast majority of Christians throughout history believed that the sin of Adam and Eve had something to do with a sexual transgression, I was accused of being argumentative and was escorted off the premises by two deacons and told that I was never to return. The pastor said he did not want me to spread my bizarre teachings to members of his congregation.


I have no problem with the fact that he does not agree with me. That’s fine, though I was hoping I could engage in an intelligent dialogue with someone who genuinely cared about truth. Whether I am right or wrong, I don’t know for certain. I do know that I certainly have an enormous amount of compelling evidence to support my positions. Later, in an email, he accused me (someone who has studied this subject matter for over twenty years) of being “brainless” and having less intelligence than his three-year-old daughter. I then tried to reason with him via email. I gave him a week to respond with an apology for my mistreatment. That deadline has come and gone without a peep.


Christians need to ask themselves whether pastors like this are fit to be pastors. I have received similar treatment from other several churches. What follows is the email exchange between myself and that pastor. Only the names have been changed. You be the judge.


From: Mr. G (me)
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 2:00 PM
To: Pastor XYZ


Pastor XYZ,


Though we may disagree on many things, one thing we both seem to agree on is that R.C. Sproul is a fine and credible teacher. I’ve written an article entitled “Prominent Theologian Considers Polyamory,” which comments on a radio program by R.C. Sproul. Here is a synopsis of the article:




Nonmonogamous movements, such as polyamory, have always been met with tremendous opposition by mainstream Christianity. Nevertheless, a prominent theologian recently made some thought-provoking comments in a radio broadcast strongly suggesting that having an intimate personal relationship with thousands of different people just might be mankind’s ultimate idyllic destiny.


I have enormous respect and admiration for Dr. Sproul, as I mention in the article. However, some of his comments lead me to the inevitable conclusion that polyamory is the idyllic lifestyle of Heaven. It seems like a no-brainer that most of the drawbacks to polyamory would not exist in a utopian paradise populated by a sinless humanity. Put another way, it doesn’t seem to take an expert in ethics or a graduate from seminary to deduce that most of the sexual restrictions recorded in the Bible were placed upon us because sin entered the world after Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. If only R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur (my two favorite Bible teachers, by the way) would simply allow their common sense and logic to run their natural course, they would surely reach the conclusion that polyamory is the idyllic lifestyle that will exist in Heaven and would exist now if only our original parents hadn’t succumbed to the seduction of the serpent.


I would be interested in your comments. The article is in two parts and can be found at the following links: Part 1, Part 2.


From: Pastor XYZ
To: Mr. G (me)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:30


Mr. G,


I have little hope of you hearing anything I would have to say for I believe your pride steers your faith. However, I am surprised that you believe I have more wisdom than you since you have asked for my comments. Therefore, I will briefly point you in the right direction and if you desire to actually hear the truth, you can repent.


In Genesis 3, the man represents a man. The woman represents a woman. The snake represents a snake. The garden represents a garden. And the fruit represents fruit. If you can’t even understand this simple explanation (that my three-year-old daughter understands) then talking back and forth would be brainless. Unless you say the fruit is fruit and not sexual activity, I will not correspond with you.


Pastor XYZ


(To be continued in Part 2)

Comments

Loading comments...