Anglican Samizdat

December 18, 2009

Scott Brison’s Christmas card

Filed under: Christmas,homosexuality — David Jenkins @ 12:20 pm
Tags: , ,

Has caused a bit of a fuss:

Add an Image

OTTAWA — It has all the hallmarks of a politician’s glossy Christmas card.

Pastoral setting? Check.

Doe-eyed golden retriever? Check.

Handsome couple dressed in smart casual? Check.

Same-sex couple?

That was too much for “a handful of bigots” who objected to Scott Brison’s holiday greeting card depicting him and spouse Maxime St. Pierre, according to the Nova Scotia Liberal MP.

Brison insists there was no political message behind the holiday greeting. “I’m not the first politician to have a family picture on a Christmas card. . . . I’m looking forward to the day when this is seen as no big deal.”

I can’t help thinking that Brison is being rather disingenuous when he insists there was no political message in the greeting. His saying, “I’m looking forward to the day when this is seen as no big deal” is a political message – one which declares that same-sex marriages should be accepted as equivalent to heterosexual marriage. I am quite sure he received bigoted responses – something that could scarcely have surprised him – but it is possible to disagree with his advertising of a lifestyle which, up until recently would have been regarded as perverted, without being a bigot.

And, considering Christians do not accept same-sex partnerships as true marriage, to use a Christian festival to deliver this political message was an act of considerable crassness.



  1. Maybe I’m going soft in the head but I’m not offended by the card.
    If we accept that we are in a post Christian society, we have no reason to expect others to believe as we do.
    This is not a Bishop entrusted with the teaching of the flock, it’s a politician being up front about his life choices.

    Comment by Jim Muirhead — December 18, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

  2. Who care’s if they’re gay and they’ve sent out a Christmas card that happens to have a picture of them on it? Whether we like it or not, Christmas is becoming less about Christian values and more about the spirit of giving and friendship and love. It’s not a terrible change. Sure, the people who want to take the season religiously can do so, but it would be foolish to think that everyone who celebrates Christmas is doing it out of faith. It’s ingrained in our culture, for believers or non-believers, people of every race and ethnicity, strait, gay, bi-sexual, whatever. What does it matter? If God takes it upon himself to punish these people for their lifestyles, so be it. No skin off your back, no skin off mine. Why people have to be so concerned with how other people choose to live their lives is beyond me. Like I said earlier, Christmas is about giving, friendship and love, it always has been and will continue to be, with or without Christianity as an underlying factor. I believe that is the true spirit of the season.

    Comment by Kathleen — December 18, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

  3. I concur 100%. It also has to be kept in mind that “bigots” who manifest themselves on message boards could really be anyone, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that some, if not most, are themselves members of the gay community.

    Comment by Ken — December 18, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

  4. Wow,
    actually, jsut calling sexual orientation a “lifestyle” counts as being bigotted. Its not a choice. Its who a person is. If you believe in God, believe that he made people to love other people. Do not subversively imply a person is “perverted” and then claim to be anything other than a bigot.

    Besides, Christmas wasn’t even originally a “Christian” holdiway, it was a pagan one, the winter solstice, co-opted into use by a religion seeking to dominate those who followed competing (pagan) religions. Christ would have been born at a different time altogether, in the spring. Sounds pretty “crass” to promote it as anything otherwise.

    And where, exactly, does it say this is a “Christmas” card? Bryan sent it out as a holiday greetings card. There are many religious and secular holidays celebrated during this time of year.

    This whole post and corresponding comments reeks of bigotry, hate, and ignorance. I am disgusted to have come across it.

    Comment by Kelley Logue — December 18, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

  5. Quite a few Christians, myself included, consider same-sex marriages as true marriage. There are even gay bishops, and they are Christian and considered Christian by their own Christian churches.

    You can speak for yourself, but don’t be so pompous to speak for all Christians.

    Comment by Harry Safre — December 18, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

  6. Pfft to you. The voters knew he was gay, he LEGALLY married his spouse, the marriage IS equal to any traditional marriage according to provincial and federal law so how dare you say it isn’t? I doubt they were married in an Anglican church, but even if they were, who are YOU to say that it isn’t valid? Maybe you only consider Anglican church-approved marriages to be valid? If so, I deplore your narrow-mindedness.

    Comment by Christopher Smith — December 18, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

  7. Narrow minded, I probably am. According to the handbook, they are living a sin. You can make anything acceptable within secular law, however, some of us subscribe to a more stringent code of conduct. I am thrilled they cannot reproduce.

    Comment by Steve L. — December 18, 2009 @ 8:22 pm

  8. No big deal indeed. If you believe in God and you believe he created the world and all its creatures, how can you think that God hates homosexuals? Let’s have a little logic here.

    Comment by Louise — December 18, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

  9. Well I see the left wing slander brigade has swung into action on this thread. Express an opinion counter to the politically correct police and one is immediately branded as “reek(ing) of bigotry, hate, and ignorance”.
    Also, I suggest that those who hold up North American Anglicanism as representative, spend some time with the Covenant and ponder what the Anglican Communion expects their adherents to believe.

    Comment by Jim Muirhead — December 18, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

  10. What a breath of fresh air this card is. At least the card,and the people sending it, are HONEST.

    After listening to the Tiger Woods debacle it’s great to see a couple truly happy in their marriage.

    Comment by Carole Skaaning — December 18, 2009 @ 9:55 pm

  11. I just received a Christmas card from my M.P. It shows him with his wife and their two grandchildren. I happen to know he has had a mistress for many years. What would Jesus do? Does hiding “sins” make them OK?

    Comment by Robert — December 18, 2009 @ 11:19 pm

  12. I find it sad that fellow Christians cannot love all people and accept the diversity dealt to us. Being gay is and has been part of humanity – don’t mix a minority with wrong or sinful. This a a committed and loving monogamous couple – turn your energy towards those – straight or gay – who through dishonesty, lust, cheating, on their partners do real harm. And use your energy to help them, not to hate them. Is it not hypocrisy for Christians to despise gays who have decided to commit themselves in a monogamous relationship for life – the only one that God gave them? Look deep inside, people.

    Comment by Edward — December 19, 2009 @ 11:24 am

  13. In the comments above there were a number of references to “hate” – some implying that the original post demonstrates hate, another that Christians hate homosexuals and another that Christians think God hates homosexuals.

    In the original post I questioned Scott Brison’s motives in sending out the card; that doesn’t mean I hate him or am inciting anyone else to hate him; I don’t know him and have little doubt that he is a perfectly likeable bloke. I can disagree with what he does without hating him.

    God loves us even though we are sinners – that’s why he sent his Son to redeem us; that includes homosexuals.

    Christians love homosexuals – at least they should. Loving someone doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything they do or every cause they espouse, though.

    Comment by David — December 19, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

  14. I was so pleased to read the thoughtful and respectful comments on the site (leaving aside the more negative ones for a moment.) It has taken me many years to acknowledge that
    Christians come in many shapes and sizes and not all of them are hateful bigots trying to impose their limited understadning on the rest of us. I have, I think, really dealt wth my christianity-phobia. Thank you for reaffirming my hope in a just and gentle god.

    Which doesn’t make the homophobia from some christians any easier. Gays write the homophobic attacks themselves? As if there is time enough in our busy and happy lives. And there are many christians who genuinely believe and are proud of and feel obliged to spread their painful beliefs. Phrases such as political correctness police or left wing brigade are shallow attempts to conceal a lack of thinking. Let him who is wiithout sin throw the first stone is a great guide to foster intelligent debate. Each perosn must make her or his own peace with the covenant and God expects no less of you. Just be sure you ahve the right image of god. If Jesus was walking amongst us today, I firmly believe he’d be marching in pride prarades and challenging the mockery that some heterosexuals have made of marriage.

    Comment by Tess — December 20, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

  15. No, it is NOT possible “to disagree with his advertising of a lifestyle which, up until recently would have been regarded as perverted, without being a bigot”. If you disagree with that lifestyle, then you’re a bigot. Period. Take ownership of your bigotry. And by the way, Christianity is not the exclusive realm of heterosexuals, so surely there is nothing wrong with sending this card over the Christmas holiday.

    People need to get over themselves. Mind your own business, and if you have something to say about other people’s lives, you know what – keep it to yourselves.

    Comment by Pedro — December 20, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

  16. I think a holiday card (or any card really) with a picture of a person and their significant other in a non-erotic pose is completely and totally tasteful and appropriate. The two dudes in the picture aren’t even touching! A bi-racial couple wouldn’t be sending a “political” message with their card if they sent out a similar one. And, to borrow a phrase from the feminist movement, the personal IS political, especially when you are a part of a marginalized group.

    There is nothing wrong with him putting out a card with his loved ones on it. I’d much rather that than a sappy card with a theologically incorrect, poorly rendered nativity scene on it.

    Comment by ladyrebecca — December 20, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

  17. Sadly interesting to see how a spousal relationship is branded political, immoral, perverted, contrived. Majority of Canadians know honesty when they see it. Mr. Brison together with his partner display who they are with honesty, and good taste in this Christmas Card. Christmas is all about “family” & they are truly family.
    There will always be those to dissect every action & inaction, to attribute to it “baser human intentions” .
    Whatever political stripe, MY congratulations to Mr. Brison and to his partner for their integrity before the Canadian public.
    From my family to your family, Mr. Brison, a very Merry Christmas !
    Vancouver Island

    Comment by TED SIMONITE — December 20, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

  18. Personally I’m not that fussed about the actions of secular society (so long as they are legal), but the misunderstanding and misrepresentation, shown in many of the foregoing comments, of what Christianity has historically taught and what the Bible actually says is quite interesting. Very representative of our post-modern society and the wide-spread rejection of absolute truth. Of course, the Bible teaches that this is to be expected.

    Comment by Warren — December 20, 2009 @ 8:51 pm

  19. The Comments in defence of this man and his greeting card make many groundless assumptions:
    1 God created us as we presently are – and thus God loves and accepts us just as we are, and our behaviour as it currently is.
    2 Anyone can choose to “be” a Christian and choose to hold views of their own, contrary to scripture and tradition (ie. authentic Christianity).
    3 One’s sexual preferences are inherent and inevitable, and not the result of nurture or choice (or both).
    4 The men in the photograph are monogamous, committed and loyal (they may be, they may not be).
    5 As long as you are honest, then what you choose to do must be OK.
    6 Because Christmas is alleged to be located on the date of an ancient pagan festival, then it’s ok for anyone to do anything at this time, and call it “Christmas”.
    7 To disaprove of a “lifestyle” (“disagree” doesn’t mean anything here) is “bigotry” – Note: consult a dictionary to find out what “bigotry” really means.
    8 Christians who generate their views on the basis of scripture/tradition can be dismissed as “bigots”.
    9 Things that people do (particularly those in public life) can have no effect on society as a whole, or ordinary peoples’ lives (“Who cares if …”).
    10 As long as something is done according to the current law of the land, it’s right.
    – I could go on, but you have to finish some time, don’t you?

    Comment by John Thomas — December 23, 2009 @ 10:56 am

  20. “[C]onsidering Christians do not accept same-sex partnerships as true marriage”

    Which Christians? Any number of Christians in Canada, not least denominations like the United Church of Canada, see same-sex marriages as, well, marriages.

    Comment by Randy McDonald — December 26, 2009 @ 12:46 am

  21. not least denominations like the United Church of Canada

    I rest my case.

    Comment by David — December 26, 2009 @ 12:50 am

  22. How so? The UCC self-identifies as Christian, is identified as Christian by other churches and religious bodies and people at large, and justifies its support for same-sex marriage in Christian terms. Why would the fact that its stance differs from yours justify throwing it from the Christian fold entirely? (Brison, Wikipedia says, belongs to the UCC, so he’s being consistent on that front.)

    Anyway. People who belong to denominations of Christianity which do recognize the legitimacy of Brison’s marriage aren’t likely to be offended. People who do belong to denominations of Christianity which don’t recognize the legitimacy’s Brison’s marriage are more likely to be offended, but only somewhat more: people always distinguish between the rules that their group leaders say they should follow and the rules that they actually do follow. To name but one relevant example, most of the population of Québec is Roman Catholic, but most of the population of Québec also supports same-sex marriage.

    Is the photo on the Christmas card a political act? It is, sure, in the way that David identified it, but it’s no more political an act than any appearance of a political couple of unorthodox composition–a female MP and her husband, say–on any Christmas card. It seems to be a non-issue in Kings-Hants, anyway, where the electorate kept returning him to Ottawa despite breaking from the Conservatives’ substantially on the ground of his sexual orientation and after his fairly well-publicized marriage to M. Saint-Pierre.

    Comment by Randy McDonald — December 26, 2009 @ 1:20 am

  23. Randy (#22), although it isn’t the final word on the matter, I like the following “nine marks” of a Christian church:

    1. Expositional Preaching
    This is preaching which expounds what Scripture says in a particular passage, carefully explaining its meaning and applying it to the congregation. It is a commitment to hearing God’s Word and to recovering the centrality of it in our worship.

    2. Biblical Theology
    Paul charges Titus to “teach what is in accord with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). Our concern should be not only with how we are taught, but with what we are taught. Biblical theology is a commitment to know the God of the Bible as He has revealed Himself in Scripture.

    3. Biblical Understanding of the Good News
    The gospel is the heart of Christianity. But the good news is not that God wants to meet people’s felt needs or help them develop a healthier self-image. We have sinfully rebelled against our Creator and Judge. Yet He has graciously sent His Son to die the death we deserved for our sin, and He has credited Christ’s acquittal to those who repent of their sins and believe in Jesus’ death and resurrection. That is the good news.

    4. Biblical Understanding of Conversion
    The spiritual change each person needs is so radical, so near the root of us, that only God can do it. We need God to convert us. Conversion need not be an emotionally heated experience, but it must evidence itself in godly fruit if it is to be what the Bible regards as a true conversion.

    5. Biblical Understanding of Evangelism
    How someone shares the gospel is closely related to how he understands the gospel. To present it as an additive that gives non-Christians something they naturally want (i.e. joy or peace) is to present a half-truth, which elicits false conversions. The whole truth is that our deepest need is spiritual life, and that new life only comes by repenting of our sins and believing in Jesus. We present the gospel openly, and leave the converting to God.

    6. Biblical Understanding of Membership
    Membership should reflect a living commitment to a local church in attendance, giving, prayer and service; otherwise it is meaningless, worthless, and even dangerous. We should not allow people to keep their membership in our churches for sentimental reasons or lack of attention. To be a member is knowingly to be traveling together as aliens and strangers in this world as we head to our heavenly home.

    7. Biblical Church Discipline
    Church discipline gives parameters to church membership. The idea seems negative to people today – “didn’t our Lord forbid judging?” But if we cannot say how a Christian should not live, how can we say how he or she should live? Each local church actually has a biblical responsibility to judge the life and teaching of its leaders, and even of its members, particularly insofar as either could compromise the church’s witness to the gospel.

    8. Promotion of Christian Discipleship and Growth
    A pervasive concern with church growth exists today – not simply with growing numbers, but with growing members. Though many Christians measure other things, the only certain observable sign of growth is a life of increasing holiness, rooted in Christian self-denial. These concepts are nearly extinct in the modern church. Recovering true discipleship for today would build the church and promote a clearer witness to the world.

    9. Biblical Understanding of Leadership
    What eighteenth-century Baptists and Presbyterians often agreed upon was that there should be a plurality of elders in each local church. This plurality of elders is not only biblical, but practical — it has the immense benefit of rounding out the pastor’s gifts to ensure the proper shepherding of God’s church.

    By this standard, I believe the UCC falls well short. I think it falls well short of Calvin’s marks as well: Word rightly preached, the sacraments rightly celebrated and discipline observed.

    Comment by Warren — December 26, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

  24. By this standard, I believe the UCC falls well short.

    That’s your interpretation, and that’s fine. There’s very good reason to believe that the UCC and its communicants would disagree strongly, however, and your opinion isn’t close to being a majority opinion in Canada, unless I’m mistaken.

    Even if your opinion was commonly accepted, that still wouldn’t have much bearing on the Christmas card being discussed here, since Brison and his co-religionists would presumably identify themselves as Christians and wouldn’t see anything at all un-Christian or unjustly provocative about this card.

    My two previous paragraphs leave untouched the extent to which Christmas has become a secular activity at least as much as it is a religious festivity. Even if the majority of Canadians agreed with your definition of the UCC as non-Christian, and even if Brison et al. saw the Christmas card s being in conflict with Christmas as a religious holiday, the card needn’t be out of place as a secular cultural product. (Probably isn’t, inasmuch as gay issues seem to be viewed here as a matter of the secular intruding on the religious.) That’s probably how the card would best be understood: this CBC photogallery of 47 MPs’ Christmas cards, including Harper’s, shows very few cards with explicitly religious themes. Most, like Brison’s, show a happy family assembled and presented to the MPs’ core constituents.

    Bringing this discussion back to the original post, I don’t think there’s any reason to suspect Brison of being crass regarding the card. Brison belongs to a religious denomination recognized as Christian by its own members and by other Canadians that supports same-sex marriage; Brison clearly doesn’t have a problem with his sexual orientation or his relationship; the card is itself a pretty secular item that was sent to supporters and to an electorate that doesn’t see his sexual orientation as an issue.

    Comment by Randy McDonald — December 27, 2009 @ 12:10 am

  25. Even if your opinion was commonly accepted, that still wouldn’t have much bearing on the Christmas card being discussed here . . .

    And I refer you to my comment in #18 – I’m not accusing Mr Brison of being crass, and I’m losing no sleep over the Christmas card in question. You were the one who first brought up the UCC in this thread. I’m assumed that this was because you view the UCC as a bellwether of Christian teaching. David disagreed, and so do I. I suspect that many UCC communicants would disparage some or most of the nine marks referenced in #23 rather than “disagree strongly” that their church falls short of them (that said, an old family friend, whom I respect greatly, is a UCC pastor – even though I don’t understand why he stays in the denomination).

    Do you believe that majority opinion in Canada is relavant in determing the truth of Christian doctrine or whether a church is a true Christian church? Do you believe the Bible to be God’s inspired and infallible Word, or just a man-made book? How do you define the term “Christian”?

    Comment by Warren — December 27, 2009 @ 12:49 am

  26. To look at this in perspective for a second. Probably less than a generation ago, people would have railed in self righteous indignation at a picture of a mixed race couple on a card,Christmas or otherwise.

    It will take time but I do believe that eventually the bigots in our society will eventually get a grip on reality as to what is really important in our world and that is saving the planet from ourselves.I congratulate Scott and his partner.

    Comment by Jon Heaney — December 27, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

  27. Jon (#26), granted that your perspective is not biblical, I can see your point. If saving the planet (from ourselves or anything else) is the ultimate purpose of man (rather than glorifying God as stated in the Westminster Shorter Catechism), then everything we do should have this end in mind. I would be interested, however, to know how you logically arrive at this purpose as that which is most important? Why your definition of “good” is better than that of others? Why your “reality” is more real than that of others? Why others are bigoted and you are not? Is it popular opinion (or at least perceived popular opinion) of the society in which you live that determines the answers to these questions for you? Do you see any ultimate truth other than the “truth” which is most valued by your peer group and those whom you respect (and the media that you pay most attention to)?

    Comment by Warren — December 27, 2009 @ 9:06 pm

  28. Warren:

    I brought up the United Church of Canada because, at least according to his Wikipedia article, Brison belongs to that church and was married in one on account of rain. Even if Brison did see Christmas as a purely religious festival, there’s no reason to think that he intended the card to be :an act of considerable crassness”; by his own druthers it was a perfectly acceptable Christian thing to do.

    As for the question of whether or not the UCC is Christian, all I can say at this point is that it’s descended from Christian denominations, is regarded by its membership as Christian is regarded by non-UCC people as Christian, and conducts relations with other Christian denominations and other religions as a Christian denomination. Why not call it Christian?

    Comment by Randy McDonald — December 27, 2009 @ 11:06 pm

  29. Randy,
    “The UCC self-identifies as Christian, is identified as Christian by other churches and religious bodies and people at large, and justifies its support for same-sex marriage in Christian terms.”

    As one who grew up in the United church, whose parents served it most of their lives, and whose grandfather was one of its clergy, I must disagree with all your above points but the first. I, myseLf, left the denomination in the mid-’60’s over what I saw as rank hypocrisy and waffling in their professed beliefs. I would not have categorized myself as a Christian at the time, but I knew irrelevance when I saw it. For a number of years after actually coming to faith I followed their magazine, the Observer, and there saw increasing evidence that they were departing further and further from what I understood as true Christianity. An account of a women’s conference, for example, described how the participants molded statues of the, “goddess Sophia.” In light of the second commandment, how far from Christianity is that???
    Many of their leaders and/or former leaders, in contradicting even their own Basis of Union, no longer subscribe to even the most basic doctrines of the faith, such as the Virgin birth, the sinfulness of man or the physical resurrection of Christ. If they are honest they would simply admit that what they practise is no longer Christianity, but something else; something of their own invention. As I posted here, some seem unwilling even to mention God or Jesus in their mission statement.

    The United Church of Canada was once a strong and faithful denomination, but that time, sadly, has passed.

    Take Care.

    PS: I do not find any particular offense in the card. It’s just the way the world is going.

    Comment by John K — December 28, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

  30. Warren (#25): I raised the subject of the United Church of Canada because Brison’s Wikipedia article identifies him as a member of the UCC and he himself was married in his hometown’s United Church. Sending out a Christmas card featuring him and his partner isn’t crass, as the post’s author said, but is rather entirely in keeping with the theology of the church to which Brison belongs.

    Warren (#25) and John K (#28), the question of whether or not the United Church is “really” Christian is pretty much irrelevant for the purposes of this post. The UCC is regarded as a legitimate Christian denomination by the large majority of Canadians, and that, for the purposes of the public, is that. Even if it isn’t Christian any longer, it’s still a denomination of some kind. Regardless of the Church’s status, it’s no more a problem for one person to act in a way keeping with that denomination’s theology than it is for anybody else in any other denomination.

    Comment by Randy McDonald — December 28, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

  31. . . . the question of whether or not the United Church is “really” Christian is pretty much irrelevant for the purposes of this post.

    Fair enough – although you are begging the question as to why you brought up the UCC in the first place. Although I can make a reasonable assumption as to why you chose to post here, it would be helpful if you could state your position clearly. I have an idea of what you stand against, but I’m much less clear on what you stand for. From your last sentence in #30, it would appear that you are okay with anyone doing anything so long as it is in keeping with their beliefs and presumably doesn’t interfere with your personal freedom to do what you think is right. Am I reading too much into your comment and wrongly assuming that your are a proponent of relative truth?

    Comment by Warren — December 29, 2009 @ 12:09 am

  32. Only the first statement in #31 should be in italics. I seem to have a perpetual problem with html tags. Blogs that allow commenters to preview their comments are really helpful for hamfisted people like me. – fixed

    Comment by Warren — December 29, 2009 @ 12:11 am

  33. I first raised the Untied Church of Canada in connection to the original poster’s suggestion that same-sex marriages were incompatible with Christianity. I then raised the United Church of Canada again in regards to Brison’s motives, i.e. even if he did treat Christmas as a religious holiday his church membership would mean he’d have no reason to think it crass to send our Christmas cards featuring him and his husband.

    “From your last sentence in #30, it would appear that you are okay with anyone doing anything so long as it is in keeping with their beliefs and presumably doesn’t interfere with your personal freedom to do what you think is right.”

    What I’m saying is that Brison was acting in a self-consistent fashion, in a way that meets up with popular opibnion and the strictures of his faith, nothing more, nothing less.

    Comment by Randy McDonald — December 29, 2009 @ 10:47 am

  34. Randy (#33), I apologize if it sounds like I’m flogging a dead horse, and I appreciate the patience you have shown and polite tone of your replies. I also thank David, as the owner of this blog, for his long suffering. I am interested, however, in the importance you seem to place on popular or majority opinion, as I think this is a key discriminator between our respective world views. Christianity does not give any special importance to popular or majority opinion, which sets it apart from post-modern thinking (I argue that post-modern thinking is predominant in our society). As someone who claims to follow Christ, I am called to be obedient to God’s Word; even if that means that my thinking is in opposition to most of the people around me and, as a result, I am an object of scorn. Churches such as the UCC and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) have increasingly bowed to the popular mood of our society and have, in many areas, abandoned historic and orthodox Christian thinking. They no longer look to the Bible as the ultimate source of truth. This is why I reacted to your original comment and likely explains David’s and John’s reaction as well.

    As someone who believes that the Bible is God’s inspired and infallible Word, I believe homosexual behaviour as a sin in God’s eyes (churches such as the UCC and ACC make very weak arguments that homosexual behaviour is condoned in the Bible, but these arguments are widely rejected by those with a high view of the Bible). I also believe that many other actions and thoughts are also sins – actions and thoughts that I am guilty of on a daily basis. These thoughts and actions, which violate the standard of a holy God who is the creator of the universe, make me worthy of eternal damnation were it not for the sacrifice of Christ who stood in my place and bore the punishment that I deserve. Accordingly, I don’t consider myself better than Mr Brison (in many respects he may be a better human being than I), nor do I believe that I have the right to impose on him the standard that I look to for moral conduct. It would make me glad, however, if he (and you) were to become a follower of Christ.

    Comment by Warren — December 29, 2009 @ 11:59 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: