Bishop Alfred A. Owens, Jr. who I mentioned once before, caused a stir for trying to simply stand against sin. You can see my comments about his methods in that earlier post. He has offered a response to criticism of his Palm Sunday sermon.

I think he’s trying to do right and fully explained that he was not trying to hurt anyone, is there to help and won’t allow the gospel to be compromised by forces that at their core are totally ungodly. The pro-gay groups that attack him have no desire to turn from their sin. And the political attacks are only rooted in simple pandering. Neither pro-gay groups or politicians should determine the sermon of a minister. The church is bound by rules that were established by God, not man. But looking at man’s law, for those who don’t understand the first amendment.

The idea was for the government not to force the public into a form of worship and also to prevent the government from trying to control what comes from the pulpit. That’s why the “free exercise” clause exists. Nothing in the US Constitution prevents a sermon like Bishop Owens’ from being preached, so even under man’s law in the US Constitution he is protected. With the first amendment there are also misconceptions regarding funding, but I won’t side-bar on that in this post. (Mark Levin breaks the funding matter down well in his book Men in Black.)

Now given we know anyone can complain to the government, that does not mean government can actually tell a preacher what to say. In fact, for a member of government to do so violates the US Constitution. The law of man, that they are bound to respect in their position of political office. So Bishop Owens has every right and freedom to stand against efforts to use government forces against him.

Now having said all that, there was one item in his apology that may be an error. Revend DL Foster points it out. Because the church is not there to simply help someone become heterosexual.

…
God’s desire for us in never to make us heterosexuals as a goal, but that we walk in holiness. With the same level of heterosexual fornication as perhaps homosexual fornication going on in the church today, heterosexuality is not the answer, holiness is.
…

Whether heterosexual or homosexual, fornication is still sin. The only acceptable sexual activity is when it is between one man and one woman, that are married to each other and nobody else. For the church to stand against homosexuality simply by promoting heterosexuality only makes for a church full of sinners still. If Bishop Owens is also preaching against heterosexual fornication (and he better be), then his statement is simply saying he wants to help people lead a married life that is acceptable in the sight of God. Of course to marry a woman, a man needs to understand that to have attraction to a woman is natural and normal, same with a woman towards a man. But that attraction should not be allowed to fall into sin. A man and woman should marry, before “living together” and before “having sex”.

I think this is what Owens was trying to say, although he was not fully clear about that in his short statement. As Reverend Foster mentions, the ministry at Bishop Owens’ church is run by a pastor that has a full understanding of these issues and how to best address them. I think Bishop Owens does preach against all forms of fornication, but of course his speaking against heterosexual sex out of wedlock is not clipped, posted and criticized by these groups that cried to government about the sermon of a preacher. It is interesting how Liberals try and pull the church out of everything, but rush to try and stir the direction of the church when they disagree with the sermon.