One of the top professors here at Asbury/Orlando is Dr. Hugo Magallanes -- one of those rare teachers who takes positive delight in people disagreeing with him. I used to think that he was a liberal, but now I suspect that he'll just take the opposite position of whatever you take in order to force you to defend your perspective. Anyway, I have Christian Ethics with him this semester and today we talked about homosexuality and church membership. In the UMC, this is hot issue, and the Methoblogosphere was hoppin' with it back when the Judicial Council handed down the Ed Johnson case decision.
A few class sessions ago, we discussed the three schools of Christian thought on violence and war:
1. Pacifism: there is a separation between the values of the Christian community and the values of the world; the former must never be compromised under any circumstances. Violence is utterly contrary to Christ.
2. Just War: living within the world entails certain responsibilities, such as to prevent, terminate, or deter harm to others under certain criteria.
3. Crusade: the world is divided in between the Good and the Evil (no neutrals) and evil must be totally destroyed; no rest until it is annihilated.
Today, he compared this model with three views on homosexuality and church membership that were being voiced in the classroom:
1. Pacifism: accept all people -- including unrepentant practicing homosexuals -- with unconditional love and no demands on sanctification.
2. Just War: accept all people -- including unrepentant homosexuals -- into church membership, but insist upon sanctification.
3. Crusade: reject all practicing sinners, including unrepentant homosexuals.
It's an interesting comparison.