Homosexuality

[JSM83]

Assume true:
Homosexuality is a sin. A practicing homosexual may come to church but may not be in leadership.
Question:
Must we forbid the following people to be in leadership too.
1) Those who have children who do not believe, 2) People prone to dissipation (like overeating or such), 3) Alcoholics who are not abstinent?.

Titus 1:6-7
"...having children who believe.......not accused of dissipation......not addicted to wine..."
NASB Version

 

[Albion]

IMHO, referring to "leadership" blurs the question. What is meant by "leadership?" What leadership positions?

Also, it is the case that drunks, etc. are normally not chosen for the positions I think you have in mind. The question, however, supposes that "practicing homosexuals" in the congregation are the victims of some special discrimination.

 

[JSM83]

IMHO, referring to "leadership" blurs the question. What is meant by "leadership?" What leadership positions?

Also, it is the case that drunks, etc. are normally not chosen for the positions I think you have in mind. The question, however, supposes that "practicing homosexuals" in the congregation are the victims of some special discrimination.

If we choose to forbid practicing homosexuals from church leadership - ought we to forbid those who have unbelieving children too? and those who overeat consistently?

To answer your question, I didn't suppose special discrimination or application of the rules towards homosexuals, not until I went to church and their policy towards homosexuality was the following statement: A practicing homosexual may come to church but may not be in leadership.

So my question to myself was, why are the rules not applied across the board?

It was true, leaders children were not checked for being believers. Many leaders were practising in dissipation in a form or another - as for the drinking, I can't say I saw outward alcoholics, but the other two items were being ignored and the homosexuality statement was clearly made.

 

[muichimotsu]

If we choose to forbid practicing homosexuals from church leadership - ought we to forbid those who have unbelieving children too? and those who overeat consistently?

To answer your question, I didn't suppose special discrimination or application of the rules towards homosexuals, not until I went to church and their policy towards homosexuality was the following statement: A practicing homosexual may come to church but may not be in leadership.

So my question to myself was, why are the rules not applied across the board?

Because people likely prefer not to stigmatize things that are not within a person's control regarding their behavior (the whole, gay people can be gay, they just can't act on it distinction to seem gay-friendly). I don't believe, but if my dad wanted to be an elder at the church he goes to (not remotely sure he's that involved, but let's go with hypothetical) and that rule applied, that'd be unfair.

And as for the problems of gluttony or drunkenness, that's assuming that someone who has that kind of flaw cannot deal with it and have to be prohibited from leadership initially. Even the prohibition of someone that is being sexually responsible and is only different from a heterosexual person in that they are in a committed faithful relationship with a person of the same sex seems unfair because you're judging based on similar superficial traits and not on on traits that would be a matter of human fallibility in general

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Assume true:
Homosexuality is a sin. A practicing homosexual may come to church but may not be in leadership.
Question:
Must we forbid the following people to be in leadership too.
1) Those who have children who do not believe, 2) People prone to dissipation (like overeating or such), 3) Alcoholics who are not abstinent?.

Titus 1:6-7
"...having children who believe.......not accused of dissipation......not addicted to wine..."
NASB Version

Sounds appropriate. We are all people who have been saved, and none of our flesh is perfect yet. However, those in leadership should strive for the highest standard.

Cannot really control adult children though.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If we choose to forbid practicing homosexuals from church leadership - ought we to forbid those who have unbelieving children too? and those who overeat consistently?

To answer your question, I didn't suppose special discrimination or application of the rules towards homosexuals, not until I went to church and their policy towards homosexuality was the following statement: A practicing homosexual may come to church but may not be in leadership.

So my question to myself was, why are the rules not applied across the board?

It was true, leaders children were not checked for being believers. Many leaders were practising in dissipation in a form or another - as for the drinking, I can't say I saw outward alcoholics, but the other two items were being ignored and the homosexuality statement was clearly made.

Your question is a fair one.

 

[JSM83]

Because people likely prefer not to stigmatize things that are not within a person's control regarding their behavior (the whole, gay people can be gay, they just can't act on it distinction to seem gay-friendly). I don't believe, but if my dad wanted to be an elder at the church he goes to (not remotely sure he's that involved, but let's go with hypothetical) and that rule applied, that'd be unfair.

And as for the problems of gluttony or drunkenness, that's assuming that someone who has that kind of flaw cannot deal with it and have to be prohibited from leadership initially. Even the prohibition of someone that is being sexually responsible and is only different from a heterosexual person in that they are in a committed faithful relationship with a person of the same sex seems unfair because you're judging based on similar superficial traits and not on on traits that would be a matter of human fallibility in general

Thank you for your reply.

 

[JSM83]

Sounds appropriate. We are all people who have been saved, and none of our flesh is perfect yet. However, those in leadership should strive for the highest standard.

Cannot really control adult children though.

No you can't. A cold hard reading of the text in the black and white seems unfair (or it would be if it were applied).

 

[Albion]

To answer your question, I didn't suppose special discrimination or application of the rules towards homosexuals, not until I went to church and their policy towards homosexuality was the following statement: A practicing homosexual may come to church but may not be in leadership.

So my question to myself was, why are the rules not applied across the board?

Now I see that the wording was simply that which the church itself used (leaving us here with no resolution of the questions I asked).

It was true, leaders children were not checked for being believers. Many leaders were practising in dissipation in a form or another - as for the drinking, I can't say I saw outward alcoholics, but the other two items were being ignored and the homosexuality statement was clearly made.

Maybe attending a different church would solve the problem for you.

 

[JSM83]

Your question is a fair one.

Thank you.

It makes me wonder if we haven't all missed a trick somewhere.

Maybe we could all stand to do a deeper more contemplative reading of the scriptures again??

 

[renniks]

Assume true:
Homosexuality is a sin. A practicing homosexual may come to church but may not be in leadership.
Question:
Must we forbid the following people to be in leadership too.
1) Those who have children who do not believe, 2) People prone to dissipation (like overeating or such), 3) Alcoholics who are not abstinent?.

Titus 1:6-7
"...having children who believe.......not accused of dissipation......not addicted to wine..."
NASB Version

I'd think wisdom would cause you to pick people who aren't addicts of any kind. I'm not sure why disbelieving children is in there. Maybe someone has some context on that one.

 

[JSM83]

Now I see that the wording was simply that which the church itself used (leaving us here with no resolution of the questions I asked).

Well the questions you asked were about defining the term leader - arriving at a definition definition of "Leader" doesn't explain why some "rules" were observed in the plain black and white and others were flouted.

Maybe attending a different church would solve the problem for you.

Maybe, but where does that leave the homosexuals?

I feel there is something wrong going on, deeply. Maybe this forum can provide answers to really tough questions without it getting personal and people getting hurt?

 

[Albion]

I'd think wisdom would cause you to pick people who aren't addicts of any kind. I'm not sure why disbelieving children is in there. Maybe someone has some context on that one.

It's a reference to the passage (see Titus 1:5-9) which gives the qualifications necessary for a man to become an elder/presbyter. However, there are relatively few people who become priests, so this is why I said that speaking of "leadership" isn't very specific. And it appears only in Titus, although there are about a dozen other passages that lay out criteria and do not include this point about believing children.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I'd think wisdom would cause you to pick people who aren't addicts of any kind. I'm not sure why disbelieving children is in there. Maybe someone has some context on that one.

Well, the scriptures tell us to train up a child as he should go, and to speak the Word to them when we rise up, and when we lie down. The assumption was and the emphasis is on that one needs to teach his children of his faith.

Of course, some kids will reject it anyway, especially in young adulthood, when they know everything.

 

[Albion]

Maybe, but where does that leave the homosexuals?

I feel there is something wrong going on, deeply.

Excuse me, but if so, "there is something wrong going on" in that congregation you referred to.

If we survey the whole of Christianity, there are all sorts of "slants" on this subject.

 

[JSM83]

It's a reference to the passage (see Titus 1:5-9) which gives the qualifications necessary for a man to become an elder/presbyter. However, there are very few people who become priests, so this is why I said that speaking of "leadership" isn't very specific. And it appears only in Titus, although there are about a dozen other passages that lay out criteria and do not include this point about believing children.

Can we fairly say - the author meant generally "leader"?
Or
Did the author likely mean a very specific type of leader?

 

[Albion]

Can we fairly say - the author meant generally "leader"?
Or
Did the author likely mean a very specific type of leader?

We need to know what "leader" in the context of that congregation is, if we are to comment on any of the questions you put to us.

 

[JSM83]

Excuse me, but if so, "there is something wrong going on" in that congregation you referred to.

If we survey the whole of Christianity, there are all sorts of "slants" on this subject.

Slants one way or the other - that is true.

Some think it's a sin, others are not so sure.

 

[JSM83]

We need to know what "leader" in the context of that congregation is, if we are to comment on any of the questions you put to us.

Do you know what the author likely meant??

Generally "leader"?
Or
Or a very specific type of leader?

 

[Albion]

Slants one way or the other - that is true.

Some think it's a sin, others are not so sure.

True enough, so we are back to one congregation's own policy...but we do not know which offices, etc. are either open to or closed to any particular people in that assembly. "Leadership" can refer to a wide variety of posts.