Should LGBTs be allowed to be active church members?

[ByronArn]

I'm not asking in this thread about the sinfulness of homosexuality. Everyone has personal views on that. Nor am I promoting homosexuality by asking this (at least, I don't think I am), which is against this website's rules. My question is, if an openly gay (or lesbian, bisexual, or tansgendered person) were to start attending your local parish, do you think they should be allowed to be active church members (once being baptized, confirmed, and/or received, whichever is applicable). If so, should this be contingent on them being celibate?

My view is that they should be allowed to, regardless of whether they are in a monogamous sexual relationship or celibate. I do not know of any Anglican church that would not allow an unmarried couple that were living together to be active members, so I do not think they should do it to LGBTs either. If homosexuality is a sin (and again, I am not saying one way or the other whether I believe it is), its not worse a sin than fornication.

Your views?

 

[ebia]

If we excluded all sinners there would be no one left.

 

[seeking.IAM]

If we excluded all sinners there would be no one left.

I agree with this. Last one out, please turn off the lights.

 

[Sean611]

Interesting post, my parish is welcoming, yet traditionalist (Episcopal). We actually had a gay couple come to our church about a year or so ago and they came to several Sunday services. However, they ended up moving. That being said, we welcomed them just like we would welcome anybody else. However, my parish would not be comfortable performing a same-sex blessing.

 

[ByronArn]

So the consensus so far seems to be that LGBT Christians should be allowed to be active in the life of the church?

I am pleased to see that. I was sure there'd be at least a couple people who'd think they should be denied communion or barred from membership until they "repented of their homosexuality" and gave up ties to the LGBT community.

 

[mark46]

Christian churches are hospitals for sinners. We welcome sinners. We seek them out.

Restricting membership to those who do not sin is a strange idea, although many in the Early Church took this approach.

Where there is more of any issue for churches is whether ministries (ordained and non-ordained) or leadership should be restricted in any way with regard to this issue.

The Episcopal Church has taken the position of not having such restrictions.

Our bishop took the opposite view and considered this issue critical to his decision to pull our diocese out of the Episcopal Church and out of the Anglican Communion.

 

[2sparrows]

No they should not be allowed to be active members unless there is repentance. Paul warned of sexual misconduct in the Church and gave instructions on how to handle it. The Scriptures clearly define homosexuality as sexual perversion.
This is not so much about homosexuality as it is a Satanic attack on the Church and Scripture.

 

[mark46]

With regard to communion, I would note that in most Anglican churches, all baptized Christians are invited to receive.

So the consensus so far seems to be that LGBT Christians should be allowed to be active in the life of the church?

I am pleased to see that. I was sure there'd be at least a couple people who'd think they should be denied communion or barred from membership until they "repented of their homosexuality" and gave up ties to the LGBT community.

 

[GenemZ]

I'm not asking in this thread about the sinfulness of homosexuality. Everyone has personal views on that. Nor am I promoting homosexuality by asking this (at least, I don't think I am), which is against this website's rules. My question is, if an openly gay (or lesbian, bisexual, or tansgendered person) were to start attending your local parish, do you think they should be allowed to be active church members (once being baptized, confirmed, and/or received, whichever is applicable). If so, should this be contingent on them being celibate?

A rabbi simply saying a prayer over pork will not make it acceptable to be sold by a kosher butcher. Likewise..If they are not genuinely regenerate? No. Simply being religious does not make one a child of God.

One must receive the new nature by being baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ before one can be a true member of the church.

That is.. If its in fact a church. Not some religious organization that throws Bible verses over themselves like Adam and Eve put on fig leaves.

1 Corinthians 12:13

For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—
whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given
the one Spirit to drink.



​

Simply acting religious and following a church program does not cut it with God. They must be born again. Then God can transform them into the image of Christ. Christ was not gay.

 

[ByronArn]

With regard to communion, I would note that in most Anglican churches, all baptized Christians are invited to receive.

This is true. But the Book of Common Prayer (at least the 1979 USA version of it) allows for the withholding of the Eucharist. So if a priest was so inclined and thought it was a bad enough of a sin, he could in practice wothhold communion from an LGBT Christian.

 

[ByronArn]

I almost didn't respond, since neither of you two identify yourselves as Anglicans. But I'm just curious, do you hold the same standard to someone who is a glutton, and deny them the chance to be active church members? Because I can find no where in the Bible that says homosexuality is a worse sin than gluttony, and I've known a lot of fundamentalist pastors preaching against homosexuality who are big-time gluttons...

No they should not be allowed to be active members unless there is repentance. Paul warned of sexual misconduct in the Church and gave instructions on how to handle it. The Scriptures clearly define homosexuality as sexual perversion.
This is not so much about homosexuality as it is a Satanic attack on the Church and Scripture.

A rabbi simply saying a prayer over pork will not make it acceptable to be sold by a kosher butcher. Likewise..If they are not genuinely regenerate? No. Simply being religious does not make one a child of God.

One must receive the new nature by being baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ before one can be a true member of the church.

That is.. If its in fact a church. Not some religious organization that throws Bible verses over themselves like Adam and Eve put on fig leaves.

1 Corinthians 12:13

For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—
whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given
the one Spirit to drink.



​

Simply acting religious and following a church program does not cut it with God. They must be born again. Then God can transform them into the image of Christ. Christ was not gay.

 

[GenemZ]

Christian churches are hospitals for sinners. We welcome sinners. We seek them out.

Hospitals are places to get well.

 

[GenemZ]

I almost didn't respond, since neither of you two identify yourselves as Anglicans. But I'm just curious, do you hold the same standard to someone who is a glutton, and deny them the chance to be active church members?

What do you mean by "active" member?

To teach Sunday school? To baby sit the nursery? Or, to be someone who sits in the pew to take in the Word of God? Even an unbeliever should be allowed to sit in a pew, as long as he does not disturb the message.

Because I can find no where in the Bible that says homosexuality is a worse sin than gluttony, and I've known a lot of fundamentalist pastors preaching against homosexuality who are big-time gluttons...

All sins should be addressed in the teaching of God's Word. Many preachers would balk at preaching against spiritual pride.

Only churches where the full council of God's Word is expounded upon can a believer reach maturity in Christ. Many churches offer a variation of a religious experience only.

 

[PaladinValer]

If we excluded all sinners there would be no one left.

This sums orthodoxy, or at least real, authentic orthodoxy, up very nicely.

 

[2sparrows]

I almost didn't respond, since neither of you two identify yourselves as Anglicans. But I'm just curious, do you hold the same standard to someone who is a glutton, and deny them the chance to be active church members? Because I can find no where in the Bible that says homosexuality is a worse sin than gluttony, and I've known a lot of fundamentalist pastors preaching against homosexuality who are big-time gluttons...

If one is openly and proudly advocating behaviour contrary to Scripture; gluttony or homosexuality, then no; they should not be a active member.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Yes I think LGBT people should be fully included and active and I simply accept that I differ from the historic teaching and am unable to reconcile myself to it.

 

[PaladinValer]

If one is openly and proudly advocating behaviour contrary to Scripture; gluttony or homosexuality, then no; they should not be a active member.

Thankfully, such theology is neither Anglican nor orthodox Christian because we refuse to cast stones and make ourselves hypocrites.

And since this is STR and home for Anglicans, we don't have to suffer its promotion.

 

[mark46]

Lone ranger priests do many things.

In a sense, that is why there are bishops and other governing bodies. Other can share whether this is likely within their Anglican churches. I think that it would unlikely in The Episcopal Church. Here is South Carolina, it would not happen.

As I said earlier, we are discussing membership and communion. Being a Sunday school teacher or a ministry leader would be a different issues for many churches, including The Episcopal Church of South Carolina (not affiliated with TEC).

This is true. But the Book of Common Prayer (at least the 1979 USA version of it) allows for the withholding of the Eucharist. So if a priest was so inclined and thought it was a bad enough of a sin, he could in practice wothhold communion from an LGBT Christian.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I suspect there are LGBT folk in many if not most or all branches of Christianity. We just don't require ours to be disingenuous or deniers of who they are.

 

[everbecoming2007]

I suspect there are LGBT folk in many if not most or all branches of Christianity. We just don't require ours to be disingenuous or deniers of who they are.

Of course there are. We are everywhere. I even come across online blogs and writing by LGBT Oriental and Eastern Orthodox LGBT people, not all of them celibate, but they are not a highly visible presence as in much of Western Christendom. Even in Catholicism there is a highly vocal LGBT community and many allies.