When I hear things like what Kevin Rudd had to say on Q&A the other night, I am pretty prone to despair for the future of our society. Inwardly I throw my hands up and angrily brood. Not a very constructive response.
So I'm thankful for my friend Nathan, who is always so helpful to me in setting out the argument clearly and rationally, and not being as blinded by emotions as I tend to be. Many times he's helped me put a finger on the reason why something has gotten to me but that I haven't been able to quite articulate. I vote for Nathan to go on Q&A!
Here's some of what he had to say in this post-
This is the first point at which KRudd’s position poses a significant threat to the Gospel. If there is no dilemma – if what is natural is good, if what is natural is created and “what ought to be” – then there is no human dilemma. If sin is not natural then there is no need for humans to be rescued by God. There is no need for God to send Jesus into the world. There is no need for Jesus to go to the cross to deliver us and to redeem our nature. There is no need for the Holy Spirit to work in us, as Paul says it does in Romans 8:29, to conform us into the image of God’s son..
..If slavery is a “natural condition” as Rudd says – then there should be no escape. And yet, here Paul calls those who are slaves to take their freedom if available.
The ability to change your state from bondage – your natural state or in this case literally being a slave – is a huge part of Paul’s understanding of the Gospel. Why should our sexuality be removed from this equation?