My church just changed their stance on homosexuals. What do I do?

[Albion]

Mourn for one more church turning Apostate and find another.

I think you've gone to the heart of the matter with that. If "Very Conservative," who wrote the OP, is morally dissatisfied with the church's new policy, it would be best for him to change churches, and that's all there is to it.

 

[Prayer Circle]

I think you've gone to the heart of the matter with that. If "Very Conservative," who wrote the OP, is morally dissatisfied with the church's new policy, it would be best for him to change churches, and that's all there is to it.

Absolutely. That the church governors, or whomever is in charge of such decisions, made this choice and then informed the laity indicates their mission is not to keep to the scriptures, nor is it to take into consideration the spiritual direction of their congregation in total.

That the church actually apologized for upholding scripture, is reprehensible. Move on! This isn't a church of God anymore. The enemy has taken over. And even made a bold statement to insure no one mistakes that fact.

 

[Albion]

Absolutely. That the church governors, or whomever is in charge of such decisions, made this choice and then informed the laity indicates their mission is not to keep to the scriptures, nor is it to take into consideration the spiritual direction of their congregation in total.

That the church actually apologized for upholding scripture, is reprehensible. Move on! This isn't a church of God anymore. The enemy has taken over. And even made a bold statement to insure no one mistakes that fact.

IMO those are several good points we need to not lose sight of in this discussion.

VeryConservative is not ONLY aggrieved because of the church's current stance--which would be enough to warrant a move--but the way the change has been made is outrageous in itself.

 

[ActionJ]

How is being non-discriminatory accepting an entire lifestyle?

NO GAY PERSON accepts a "gay lifestyle" besides what they do in the bedroom. That's in the realm of the gay pride paradists who shove it down peoples face. With that people have plenty reason to think there's an agenda.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

Everyone knows that there is an agenda and everyone knows that there is a growing number of aggressive gay activists. Even you're an activist actively attempting to sway public opinion and to create an environment of "acceptance" and "non-discrimination."

The fact of the matter is that we all "discriminate" (even when we don't want to admit it). The word "discrimination" has become a bad word in today's society but it's really not a bad word at all. You've heard the term, "a discriminating palate?" It simply means that we like the way some foods taste better than others. The same is true of folks we choose to associate with. I don't hang out with the Hell's Angels, the Crypts, or the Bloods. I don't go down to the local Buddhist temple or the Islamic Mosque for fellowship. I'm a blue collar worker so I don't hang around with "high society" "blue blood" types either. Does that mean that I'm being discriminatory? Yes it does.

In short, I'm all about associating (on a personal basis) with Bible-believing, repentant, faithful Christians. I DO believe in spreading the Gospel to non-believers but only in the presence of at least one other Christian. Christ sent His Apostles out in pairs. However, I'm totally opposed to any church group that allows its leaders to be active in the "gay community" (as actively gay ministers or clergy of any sort) and I'm opposed to any church leaders who apologize for teaching the true Gospel of Christ and calling sin -- sin.

 

[ActionJ]

As well as you.

Note though that there is a difference between opinion and fact.

Homosexuality, by definition, is a sexuality where a person is attracted to a member of the same sex.

By definition it is not related to sexual addiction or any paraphilias.

There is a difference between opinion and fact just as there is a difference between the technical definition of the world "homosexual" and mainstream society's definition of that word.

In either case, the definitions are still contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture on the subject. Both Testaments of the Bible condemn the practice of homosexuality and consider it a sin. It is one of many human sins and we're all called to repent of our sins. No ifs, ands, or buts.

 

[Prayer Circle]

IMO those are several good points we need to not lose sight of in this discussion.

VeryConservative is not ONLY aggrieved because of the church's current stance--which would be enough to warrant a move--but the way the change has been made is outrageous in itself.

Agreed. I never thought I'd see the day that Revelation 22:18 is dismissed. Or that clergy charged with guiding people to the righteousness of the Lord's word and insuring their souls follow truth, would betray God's word for the sake of demonic PC and thereby advocate on behalf of tolerance for sin. Because you notice it's not conditional, this new apostasy that OK's homosexual sin. It's not saying, we only approve celibate homosexuals!

What's the world coming to when clerics say homosexual sin is perfectly OK and to make it worse, afford apologies for all those thousands of years of scripture that wrongly claimed it was a sin in scripture.

Oh, sure! What was God thinking? My goodness!

He must have been a Homophobe when he communicated that in his word! And here it is come the 21st century the duty of abominable clerics to fix his mistake.
*cough* Yes, that's it! Has to be.:o
Comes the judgment...I don't think Apostate clerics have thought that far ahead.

 

[korvus]

There is a difference between opinion and fact just as there is a difference between the technical definition of the world "homosexual" and mainstream society's definition of that word.

In either case, the definitions are still contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture on the subject. Both Testaments of the Bible condemn the practice of homosexuality and consider it a sin. It is one of many human sins and we're all called to repent of our sins. No ifs, ands, or buts.

"If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. . . . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner."

Martin Luther (Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521)

 

[korvus]

Agreed. I never thought I'd see the day that Revelation 22:18 is dismissed. Or that clergy charged with guiding people to the righteousness of the Lord's word and insuring their souls follow truth, would betray God's word for the sake of demonic PC and thereby advocate on behalf of tolerance for sin. Because you notice it's not conditional, this new apostasy that OK's homosexual sin. It's not saying, we only approve celibate homosexuals!

What's the world coming to when clerics say homosexual sin is perfectly OK and to make it worse, afford apologies for all those thousands of years of scripture that wrongly claimed it was a sin in scripture.

Oh, sure! What was God thinking? My goodness!

He must have been a Homophobe when he communicated that in his word! And here it is come the 21st century the duty of abominable clerics to fix his mistake.
*cough* Yes, that's it! Has to be.:o
Comes the judgment...I don't think Apostate clerics have thought that far ahead.

People were saying the same thing about racial equality, some time ago.

Both sides were always pointing out different parts of scripture that seem to be for and against, and both sides were twisting the Word of God.

As much as I can say you're twisting scripture with biblical literalism, you could very well say I'm twisting scripture with historical context.

All in all, it's the word of God, no God himself. It's doomed to poor translations and spotty historical notes to sustain what it originally means. Only can we trust in God what his the Truth, and align with what we know is harder to misread.

 

[ActionJ]

"If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. . . . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner."

Martin Luther (Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521)

Christ's sacrifice on the cross was not (and is not) a license to sin. He and the Apostles literally and specifically call Christians (the followers of Christ) to repentance. That requires a literal change in mindset and actions.

"Grace" is an important part of the Gospel message but it isn't the entire message in and of itself. We are all sinners but I would never boldly proclaim that adulterers should remain adulterers or that thieves should continue stealing. We must be able to define sin (from God's perspective) before we can repent of it. The Bible clearly defines the difference between right and wrong where the sin of homosexuality, murder, theft, covetousness, etc. are concerned.

The following passage is powerful and speaks to this subject:

Romans 6:1-11, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

[korvus]

Christ's sacrifice on the cross was not (and is not) a license to sin. He and the Apostles literally and specifically call Christians (the followers of Christ) to repentance. That requires a literal change in mindset and actions.

"Grace" is an important part of the Gospel message but it isn't the entire message in and of itself. We are all sinners but I would never boldly proclaim that adulterers should remain adulterers or that thieves should continue stealing. We must be able to define sin (from God's perspective) before we can repent of it. The Bible clearly defines the difference between right and wrong where the sin of homosexuality, murder, theft, covetousness, etc. are concerned.

The following passage is powerful and speaks to this subject:

Romans 6:1-11, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Martin Luther was stressing that we put our main focus on Jesus and His Grace. All sin is equal, and as humans, we sin no matter what. As long as we're on Earth, we're always going to be sin even as we put effort into focusing on Jesus.

Focusing on Christ, truly focusing on Christ, means as much as we humanly sin, to not have sin completely taking over our lives.

 

[ActionJ]

Martin Luther was stressing that we put our main focus on Jesus and His Grace. All sin is equal, and as humans, we sin no matter what. As long as we're on Earth, we're always going to be sin even as we put effort into focusing on Jesus.

Focusing on Christ, truly focusing on Christ, means as much as we humanly sin, to not have sin completely taking over our lives.

Martin Luther was a pillar of the reformation and did much to bring religious freedom to them who loved His Word and the message of salvation but Martin Luther was still a mere man. His words and opinions take a back seat to the literal Word of God as revealed in the Holy Bible.

It's true that if we daily place our focus on Christ and pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we will less likely sin. If we do so daily, diligently, and fervently then we will grow in Christ and have a much better chance of casting away the thoughts and habits of the "old man." I suggest we all endeavor to walk that narrow path.

 

[Gentlemantech48]

I agree with you. That does not mean you can't reach back to your old church and try to minister to those who are on the fence about the issue. In today's world there are too many Christians willing to compromise so they can stay in "their" church but that will never solve the problem.

 

[korvus]

In a hope to keep the momentum of this thread going.

This isn't the first time Christianity has changed, and of course naturally people are acting (im sorry to say this, to be honest) paranoid.

I make this comparison often, but when the Church a while ago changed it's views on racial segregation, the same exact air was felt.

It's going to be a huge growing pain, and there will be a split in the church. People will continue quoting Revelation as this being the end of the church.

Really the only thing we can do is continue to be whining liberals and worried conservatives.

 

[Albion]

In a hope to keep the momentum of this thread going.

This isn't the first time Christianity has changed, and of course naturally people are acting (im sorry to say this, to be honest) paranoid.

I make this comparison often, but when the Church a while ago changed it's views on racial segregation, the same exact air was felt.

No, that isn't so. Being of another race was not considered to be a sin, so it posed no similar moral problem.

 

[korvus]

No, that isn't so. Being of another race was not considered to be a sin, so it posed no similar moral problem.

I didn't say mention 'sin'. I only mentioned segregation. There were plenty of people in the 20th century that would argue tirelessly about Mosaic law that banned the mixing of Israelites and Canaanites in the book of Joshua.
Yes, it wasn't an argument that other races were sinful, but it was an argument that called for a particular position that was quoted ad nauseam from the Bible.

 

[Albion]

I didn't say mention 'sin'.

I'm aware of that, but that is why the comparison isn't valid. We can expect a church to balk at the idea of treating a sin as a harmless pasttime.

 

[korvus]

I'm aware of that, but that is why the comparison isn't valid. We can expect a church to balk at the idea of treating a sin as a harmless pasttime.

It's irrelevant to my point the difference between sin and pro-segregationalism.
I was simply citing an example of the church having a strong opinion on a particular matter that eventually changes.

Stop using strawmen.

 

[Albion]

It's irrelevant to my point the difference between sin and pro-segregationalism.
I was simply citing an example of the church having a strong opinion on a particular matter that eventually changes.

Stop using strawmen.

This is a discussion board. If discussions offend you, there's always model airplane building. You don't even belong on this forum but will not abide by the rules and so still are here to take issue with Conservative Christianity.

 

[korvus]

Get a grip. This is a discussion board. If discussions offend you, there's always model airplane building.

Well I was just making a comparison in the first place, probably a half-argument. Too bad this debate apparently has to discontinue.

I guess what I was trying to ask is the church's current strong position on homosexuality changing is similar to how the church's strong position on segregation changed.

I'm only identifying them as strong positions, no what the positions are on, so please answer.

 

[katautumn]

I don't think segregation was, by and large, a church issue, though. Segregation certainly wasn't fundamental church doctrine. It just so happened that a large enough chunk of society wanted segregation and, coincidentally at the time, most people attended church regularly. It goes largely ignored that most of the abolitionists and activists during the civil rights movement were conservative Christians. Both groups agreed that slavery and segregation were sinful, and could lead to God's wrath being poured out on America.

The crucial difference here is that the Bible, nowhere, condones racism. It does, however, condemn homosexuality and affirms the only marriages God recognizes are those between a man and a woman.