A trajectory of love? How logical is that as an hermeneutical choice?

Remember the old advice, don't mix religion and politics?

Well, I am here to tell you that you had better mix your religion with your politics because politics involves moral choices.

Now, at the onset, let me make it clear that there are some moral choices that are personal, either on an individual basis or between two consenting adults. That, of course, includes one’s sexuality; again between two consenting adults. 

Marriage license and tax laws, of course, are effected when the State sanctions same sex unions. Naturally, as an Evangelical minister, I believe that Scripture is adamantly opposed to homosexuality and the gay lifestyle. And, no, I am not homophobic. However, I have come to the conclusion that we do not have exclusive rights to the use of the English language; so, if States decide to call same sex unions marriage there is not much I can do except object and protest against the use of the word to describe such unions.

There is, however, a world of difference between the legality of certain aspects of the gay agenda and nurturing such beliefs in innocent children as an viable choice. Scripturally, it is not a viable choice, ever! That is, unless you are willing to employ what is known as trajectory hermeneutics which liberal impose on biblical interpretation. The essence of which is that scripture, for example, once condoned slavery which the church finds no longer acceptable. Other examples are the stoning of adulterers in Old Testament times, or insisted that women remain silent in church during New Testament times. Today, they point out, this is no longer accepted, and is, indeed, considered barbarous.

The whole idea is that morals are determined by a trajectory of love which eventually will eradicate the unloving response to such issues as homosexuality and/or abortion. The logic for either case is, I must admit, beyond me.

Paul, as a matter of fact, says that it is unnatural; which it is. Intuitive, nature itself argues against it; yet, gays and gay sympathizers continue to search for that elusive “gay” gene. The truth is, however, that gene not unlike evolution’s “missing” link is simply not there.

Enough of that, however.

What about “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion rights? I agree that there should be a choice; but it should be the baby’s choice, not some immoral adult that has decided that a new member of the family or a child would cause an inconvenient burden or interfere with their hedonist lifestyle.

So, “pro-choice”? Yes. But, let’s make that the baby’s choice!