The Homosexuality Issue

[Halbhh]

Not really. The church is the body of Christ in which we are bound one to another by covenantal commitments.

The unredeemed can have no part of that.

This confusion about whether sinners can come to one's church is cleared up quite well by Christ Himself.

He knew this question would come up.

So, ahead of time He taught us the answer --

"When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”


A church is a very good place for the lost sinner to come to -- they could hear the Words of Christ in a church -- and we should invite them to our parties and go to theirs, eat with them, in our houses and theirs, and help them learn about Christ.

 

[1stcenturylady]

This confusion about whether sinners can come to one's church is cleared up quite well by Christ Himself.

He knew this question would come up.

So, ahead of time He taught us the answer --

"When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”


A church is a very good place for the lost sinner to come to -- they could hear the Words of Christ in a church -- and we should invite them to our parties and go to theirs, eat with them, in our houses and theirs, and help them learn about Christ.

Great minds... See #219

 

[hedrick]

Someone asked whether gays wait til marriage for sex. I said I wasn’t in a position to answer. I still don’t have a lot of data, but I have some.

First, some background. This comes from a support site for waiting until marriage, http://waitingtillmarriage.org/4-cool-statistics-about-abstinence-in-the-usa/.

About 3% of Americans wait til marriage, so this is a pretty low bar for asking gays about it. Furthermore, the 3% isn't distributed randomly. 20% of Southern Baptists do. The assumption is that other conservative religious groups would also be higher than 3%. But I doubt that many gays are members of conservative religious groups, though about half are Christian.

One other interesting number is that it was only about 11% in 1950. That agrees with other data I’ve seen. In days of yore, it wasn’t that kids didn’t have sex. It’s that you couldn’t find a decent woman unless it was agreed that you’d marry her if she got pregnant. Today many men consider pregnancy the woman’s problem, and just walk away. While I’m fairly liberal on sexual issues, I consider this reprehensible.

So now, do gays wait for marriage? The answer, surprisingly, is that some do. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...y-christians-navigate-faith-sexuality-n735071

I’m old enough that I’ve seen the whole history of the change in attitude towards gays. It’s my impression that along with gays being more visible and more acceptable, gays have been moving in the directory of conventional sexual practices. Before there was gay marriage, you could hardly wait for marriage. I’ve seen some articles by older gays noting that the old flamboyant gay culture is a lot less common today. As a Christian, I think it’s good that gays take the ethical implications of sex as seriously as heterosexuals.

 

[NBB]

Homosexuality doesn't seem normal even by human standards, i mean a lot of normal persons generally find it not natural, disgusting even??

 

[hedrick]

Homosexuality doesn't seem normal even by human standards, i mean a lot of normal persons generally find it not natural, disgusting even??

Historically people have found lots of things disgusting. In ancient Greece and Rome what bothered people was when a free citizen acted as a "bottom." (I'm limiting myself in this response slightly because I'm trying to avoid getting too explicit.) That can't be an ethical argument. Furthermore, I would bet that what people find disgusting is one particular form of sex, which is also used by about 1/3 of heterosexuals and not all gays. (I haven't found good data yet on frequency, but it appears that oral sex is more common.)

 

[BNR32FAN]

The homosexuality issue is apparently about to come to a head in the United Methodist Church, or at least, begin to come to a head. My understanding is that it well be addressed at the General Conference (an event that occurs every four years) in February.

The answer seems very easy: United Methodist pastors will refrain from teaching that homosexuality is not a sin, but the church will welcome homosexuals into their congregations.

Why a group of caring, loving Christians cannot agree to this, I'll never know.

It’s a step towards compromising sin. Much like the church in Purgamum mentioned in Revelation 2:12-17. It is not our decision what is constituted as sin. I think it is great that homosexuals are allowed to attend. I think every sinner should be allowed to attend church but I also believe that it is the church’s duty to heal those who are sick with sin. The goal is to bring people to Christ and to help them to walk in the Spirit. You can’t sweep sins under the rug and be saved. Repentance is mandatory for salvation. So repeatedly and willfully indulging in sin is not repentance. It is imperative that we convey that message while still giving sinners love, compassion, and support. We shouldn’t separate ourselves from them. We should invite them to join us.

 

[hedrick]

It’s a step towards compromising sin.

To my knowledge no one thinks we should compromise sin. About half of Christians think it isn't. A lot of us think conservative Christians are compromising on sins that are dealt with a lot more explicitly in the Bible. No, I'm not going to respond to political comments. But the point is that we're at the point where about half of us think the other half are compromising key aspects of the Gospel. Perhaps there no way to deal with this other than condemning each other. I think it would be a lot better demonstration of Christian behavior if we didn't.

 

[BNR32FAN]

To my knowledge no one thinks we should compromise sin. About half of Christians think it isn't.

It’s turning a blind eye to omit the scriptures pertaining to sexual immorality.

 

[hedrick]

We split over slavery. We split over ordination of women. Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church maintained uniformity only by persecuting everyone who disagreed. I guess it's unreasonable that we wouldn't split over this. With friends like this we don't need enemies.

 

[NBB]

I don't want a church that because some new interpretation of the bible which it seem very dubious backs up because of social pressure.

 

[dreadnought]

That's right, and in verse referenced, traditional married couples can do that same sin.

Additionally an even more prominent concern is here -- focusing on sin not in one's church, and avoiding talking about sin that is in one's church. See more here:
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-homosexuality-issue.8072700/page-10#post-72930787

My only concern is that the preacher not preach (or insinuate) that homosexuality is not a sin.

 

[dreadnought]

Homosexuality doesn't seem normal even by human standards, i mean a lot of normal persons generally find it not natural, disgusting even??

On every side the wicked prowl,
as vileness is exalted among the sons of men. Psalm 12:8 RSV

 

[dreadnought]

It’s a step towards compromising sin. Much like the church in Purgamum mentioned in Revelation 2:12-17. It is not our decision what is constituted as sin. I think it is great that homosexuals are allowed to attend. I think every sinner should be allowed to attend church but I also believe that it is the church’s duty to heal those who are sick with sin. The goal is to bring people to Christ and to help them to walk in the Spirit. You can’t sweep sins under the rug and be saved. Repentance is mandatory for salvation. So repeatedly and willfully indulging in sin is not repentance. It is imperative that we convey that message while still giving sinners love, compassion, and support. We shouldn’t separate ourselves from them. We should invite them to join us.

If we bar homosexuals from attending church, how can we justify letting other sinners attend church, and which of us is without sin? And yet it is so painful to see preachers stand before the congregation and say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

 

[hedrick]

If we bar homosexuals from attending church, how can we justify letting other sinners attend church, and which of us is without sin? And yet it is so painful to see preachers stand before the congregation and say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

If you forget that the issue is homosexuality, this brings up a question I’ve never felt there’s a good answer to. I agree that everyone can attend. But that’s almost never an issue. Where questions usually come up is when someone wants to join, or when we’re talking about a candidate for pastor.

Obviously we can’t reject anyone who sins. But how about someone who doesn’t repent because they don’t acknowledge a sin? Even there, surely almost everyone has sins about which they’re in denial.. So we can't even demand that people repent from every sin. But does that mean we never do discipline? That’s where the hard question comes up. How do we decide?

I think usually churches have rejected people whose sins are so visible that allowing them would compromise the church’s witness. That’s a matter of judgement. It depends upon what your church thinks its witness is. As you probably know, there’s a request to discipline Jeff Sessions. Given historic Methodist social policy you can make a good case that he is so flagrantly violating it that it would compromise the UMC witness to ignore it. Conservative churches emphasize personal purity. I think this is diametrically opposed to Jesus’ teaching, but that’s not my judgement to make. Given their concept of the mission of the Church, I think they’re going to have to reject gays and those who advocate for them.

It’s hard to know what to do when half the church has values that I think are closer to the Pharisees’ than to Jesus and the other half thinks the same of me. Personally, I’d try to be accepting of other viewpoints. That means letting Sessions slide, even though I think he deserves to be removed from the Church. But I don't think I'm going to win. When there are fundamentally different ideas of what Jesus wants, it may be that both of us can carry out our mission more effectively if we separate.

 

[dreadnought]

If you forget that the issue is homosexuality, this brings up a question I’ve never felt there’s a good answer to. I agree that everyone can attend. But that’s almost never an issue. Where questions usually come up is when someone wants to join, or when we’re talking about a candidate for pastor.

Obviously we can’t reject anyone who sins. But how about someone who doesn’t repent because they don’t acknowledge a sin? Even there, surely almost everyone has sins about which they’re in denial.. So we can't even demand that people repent from every sin. But does that mean we never do discipline? That’s where the hard question comes up. How do we decide?

I think usually churches have rejected people whose sins are so visible that allowing them would compromise the church’s witness. That’s a matter of judgement. It depends upon what your church thinks its witness is. As you probably know, there’s a request to discipline Jeff Sessions. Given historic Methodist social policy you can make a good case that he is so flagrantly violating it that it would compromise the UMC witness to ignore it. Conservative churches emphasize personal purity. I think this is diametrically opposed to Jesus’ teaching, but that’s not my judgement to make. Given their concept of the mission of the Church, I think they’re going to have to reject gays and those who advocate for them.

It’s hard to know what to do when half the church has values that I think are closer to the Pharisees’ than to Jesus and the other half thinks the same of me. Personally, I’d try to be accepting of other viewpoints. That means letting Sessions slide, even though I think he deserves to be removed from the Church. But I don't think I'm going to win. When there are fundamentally different ideas of what Jesus wants, it may be that both of us can carry out our mission more effectively if we separate.

We need to go back to Leviticus 18:22. If it's an abomination for a Jew to lie with a man, as he would a woman, it is an abomination for a Christian to do the same.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If we bar homosexuals from attending church, how can we justify letting other sinners attend church, and which of us is without sin? And yet it is so painful to see preachers stand before the congregation and say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

I’m a sinner and if I hadn’t been allowed to attend church I probably wouldn’t be saved now

 

[Shadowkat]

I’m a sinner and if I hadn’t been allowed to attend church I probably wouldn’t be saved now

I think that there is a difference between attending church and being accepted as a member who has agreed to the precepts, bylaws and beliefs of the church at which they are attending. Surely anyone interested in the Gospel or even just curious should be allowed to hear the Word of the Lord; However, the church doesn't and shouldn't have to accept the idea; dogma; indeed, religion of homosexuality in order to get people in the pews.
There is also a difference between a Christian who is struggling with an issue or behavior which they know is sin, and a person who expects the Church to welcome them and their sin as acceptable.
It is pretty commonly understood that the Bible decries homosexuality (Romans 1:26,27 KJV). The Church has a duty to serve the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the end that everyone everywhere has had an oportunity to decide for themselves to accept or reject Christ. It also has a duty to uphold the tenets of Christian ethics laid out in the Bible.
Long story short, if they want to come to church to learn to be one of us: Cool!
If they want to come to church to teach us to be like them:
They can leave.

Joshua 24:15 ...as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

 

[A_Thinker]

If they want to come to church to teach us to be like them:

They'd pretty much have to be in leadership to do that ...

 

[Shadowkat]

They'd pretty much have to be in leadership to do that ...

I'm not so sure. In my opinion, almost everytime a person talks to someone else, someone is teaching and someone is learning. Further, an idea that goes unchallenged can be accepted by default. I believe that Christians must have a loyalty to Biblical principle such that they protect it from being eroded by whims of dotrine, and those who serve their own causes. To love without compromise, without accepting sin as ok, is a theme I see in Jesus' life.

 

[A_Thinker]

I'm not so sure. In my opinion, almost everytime a person talks to someone else, someone is teaching and someone is learning.

This sounds more like the Biblical Pharisees than it does Jesus ...

15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.

3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.