Gay church leaders

[Acumen]

Bro John,

As a side note, why do you think the acquisition of Bnet by Fox Newsgroup will have an effect on this forum?

[Bro John]

Oh ... I was just thinking that as it's been sold and people seem very unhappy about it perhaps some may drift over here.  So far, I like here better than there ... but don't tell anybody I said that ... 

You were kind enough to send me an ivite over here and I'm glad I checked it out ... I've mentioned it to a few other people.

Blessings
Bro. John

[Acumen]

John,

Thanks.  As Howie says, "there are less crazies over here."

[Bro John]

   What til you get to know me better ... you might have to retract that statement!

Blessings
Bro. John

[Some Darn Xian]

The struggle to which I was referring was that of the closed minded people who tend to throw looks and anything else they can at a person who is different from the majority of the group.

[gluadys]

I am not lesbian myself so I haven't had to deal with the issue from that perspective.  But over the last 20-25 years I have made a complete reversal in my thinking. 

For me, the loving and compassionate treatment of people must always take priority over ideology and theology.  Isn't that part of the lesson Jesus taught us in his dealings with the Pharisees?

I have just met too many gay and lesbian Christians in leadership positions, involved in wonderful and productive Christian ministries, to ever again think of excluding them.  And, yes, several were openly involved in same-sex partnerships.

I stand at odds with the current policy of our denomination on this. 

[Acumen]

Glu,

I have just met too many gay and lesbian Christians in leadership positions, involved in wonderful and productive Christian ministries, to ever again think of excluding them.  And, yes, several were openly involved in same-sex partnerships.

How exactly can people who openly admit to engaging in acts condemned by the scriptures be involved in wonderful and productive Christian ministries?  Just wondering.

[gluadys]

Glu,

I have just met too many gay and lesbian Christians in leadership positions, involved in wonderful and productive Christian ministries, to ever again think of excluding them.  And, yes, several were openly involved in same-sex partnerships.

How exactly can people who openly admit to engaging in acts condemned by the scriptures be involved in wonderful and productive Christian ministries?  Just wondering.

Because, I suppose, they are Christians and they have obvious leadership skills which took them into their ministries.  I can only speak  from personal experience, which is always anecdotal and proves little.  But I know close to a dozen people in such positions and I have not seen it harm their ministry in any way, even when they made no secret of their same-sex partnerships. 

I offer this simply as data.  Explain it how you wish. 

[metis]

How exactly can people who openly admit to engaging in acts condemned by the scriptures be involved in wonderful and productive Christian ministries?  Just wondering.

I do believe much depends on how one views scripture itself.  Certainly one would expect the literalist to have difficulty, but a great many Christians, including some ministers, are not literalists.  Some do believe that scripture also reflects cultural considerations and influences and, therefore, do not believe all of scripture is from a divine source and inerrant.

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

I do believe much depends on how one views scripture itself.  Certainly one would expect the literalist to have difficulty, but a great many Christians, including some ministers, are not literalists.

We're not dealing with the book of Psalms or Proverbs here.  I think the non-literalist would be hard pressed to show that certain condemnations of homosexuality were poetic or figurative modes of expression. 

Some do believe that scripture also reflects cultural considerations and influences and, therefore, do not believe all of scripture is from a divine source and inerrant.

Caution, slippery slope ahead.  One can quite easily dismiss any biblical statement as the mere byproduct of ancient culture. 

[gluadys]

We're not dealing with the book of Psalms or Proverbs here.  I think the non-literalist would be hard pressed to show that certain condemnations of homosexuality were poetic or figurative modes of expression. 

A bit off topic, but I wonder about this paragraph.  Are you suggesting that poetry or figurative language in scripture is somehow less authoritative than legal language? 

[metis]

We're not dealing with the book of Psalms or Proverbs here.  I think the non-literalist would be hard pressed to show that certain condemnations of homosexuality were poetic or figurative modes of expression.

I didn't say they were "poetic" of "figurative", but that some may well believe that much or part of scripture may well just reflect cultural values.  Again, one does not have to necessarily believe in the dichotomy that scripture is entirely divinely inspired or not at all.  There is a middle ground.
 

Caution, slippery slope ahead.  One can quite easily dismiss any biblical statement as the mere byproduct of ancient culture. 

Are you certain they're not?



Shalom,
Vern

[gracebyfaith]

I would like Metis to explain what he thinks Scripture is saying regarding
homosexuality.  Whether he believes certain scripture is only a reflection
of culture influences or NOT.  I don't ask this in a malicious way - I sincerely
want to know how some people justify "sodomy" in the church.

thanks,
Grace

[Gracie]

Weighing in very late, but seeing I will reflect the minority position here:

What is the weight of sin? 

Let's say you have a gay bishop who has said, honestly, he is gay and active.  That's what openly means.  He has not compounded the situation with a lie.  His words are very gentle, he reflects kind intent, he is humble, he tries to help others like himself--others who are oppressed, unable to get jobs because they are gay, unwanted in the church because they are gay, murdered because they are gay, told God hates them because they are gay.  On the other hand you have a straight bishop who hates the gay bishop, who spouts vitriolic rhetoric against gays and thinks they should be hung, who refuses to share the Lord's table with anyone who is gay or who is on their side.  Which one should we follow?

According to James, to have broken one precept of the law has the same effect as to have kept none of it.  So, if a person misquotes one person one time, judges one person's faith based on what he believes one time, sleeps with a person other than his spouse one time, fails to be loving toward the hungry man on the sidewalk one time, tells one person they are unworthy of the love of God or installs a pirated copy of Windows on his machine--well, you get the idea--any one of these sins one time means the death of the person.  No one kind of sin is more deadly than any other kind of sin.  That has nothing to do with arguing whether a sin is a sin--we've been doing that for centuries.  Without Christ both the men in the above example would be dead in their sin.  Sin is sin.

So, here we all rocking in the very same boat.  We are all dead in our sin.  We have all sinned.  Not one of us is worthy.  No, not one.  Neither bishop above is worthy.  No person who has ever lived is worthy--but one.

When did sin come to be weighed?  The weight of sin is death.  We have only examples of sin.  Most of us would be dead in our sin even while living exemplary lives.  Only one thing counteracts our sin--and one alone.  When we love.  Any other condition is sin.  Anybody who claims:  For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son that all who believe in him will not perish but will have everlasting life--and tries to limit that statement in any way by telling someone who is a sinner that they are unworthy has just denied God and God's will for mankind. the most basic tenet of our faith, our Lord's work on the cross.   

We could speak of the fruit of the Spirit, if you like.  In the first example, God has nurtured the faith of one believer and he exhibits the good fruit of the Spirit.  The other, it seems, does not exhibit the good fruit, the outward sign of inward grace.  But our Lord clearly told us to follow only those who exhibit the good fruit of the Spirit.  He did not tell us to follow only those we consider to not be sinners--which would be a lie, since we all sin.  Only by the grace of God can we either hope to not sin or hope to do any good, show kindness, generosity, compassion, etc. 

One man fought against his nature for years, he tried to submit to God, to change because he believed he was a sinner because that was what he was taught--but he was not changed in that way, but only in other ways.  Did he stop sinning first?  His faith grew and grew, he dedicated his very life to God, he spent all his days doing what he thought God wanted him to do.  But he still was not changed.  Why?  What is the measure of sin?  What is the measure of faith?  Well, for that matter--how did the sinner come by faith?  Was it something he did?  Was it merited favor?  Did he make himself worthy? 

Every Christian that I have ever known without exception has said all these things, they have taught them in Sunday School, they will tell them on the street--but for one type of sinner, they won't.   

[Acumen]

Gracie,

First, welcome to the forum!  Glad to see you participating.

Let's say you have a gay bishop who has said, honestly, he is gay and active.  That's what openly means.  He has not compounded the situation with a lie.  His words are very gentle, he reflects kind intent, he is humble, he tries to help others like himself--others who are oppressed, unable to get jobs because they are gay, unwanted in the church because they are gay, murdered because they are gay, told God hates them because they are gay.  On the other hand you have a straight bishop who hates the gay bishop, who spouts vitriolic rhetoric against gays and thinks they should be hung, who refuses to share the Lord's table with anyone who is gay or who is on their side.  Which one should we follow?

I would say tht we follow neither bishop.  Both bishops are actively engaging in acts that the scriptures clearly identify as inappropriate for those who are supposedly regenerated.  The gay bishop will have a much higher mountain to climb because his sin is harder to remedy -- sexual inclincations are often strong and compelling.  The hateful bishop also has a mountain to climb because he has a problem with love and understanding -- his words aren't intended to remedy the problem, but rather to harm individuals.

According to James, to have broken one precept of the law has the same effect as to have kept none of it.  So, if a person misquotes one person one time, judges one person's faith based on what he believes one time, sleeps with a person other than his spouse one time, fails to be loving toward the hungry man on the sidewalk one time, tells one person they are unworthy of the love of God or installs a pirated copy of Windows on his machine--well, you get the idea--any one of these sins one time means the death of the person.  No one kind of sin is more deadly than any other kind of sin. 

With respect to sin, there are some pretty good indications that some sins are worse than others.  One example of a grave sin is blaspheming the Holy Ghost.  There are also concepts in the NT that indicate that individuals can sin unto the point of becoming a reprobate, or being "given over to a reprobate mind."  One of the greatest promises of the NT is that sinners have an opportunity to be washed of their sins based upon faith, repentance, and baptism.  Repentance begins as an inward recognition that we are sinners deserving of death and punishment.  This step, in some way or another, leads to conviction and a driving desire to turn back toward God's mercy.  The gay bishop, by being openly gay, is not showing a repentant spirit.  Although there might be a recognition of sin, but the conviction and drive to overcome it (an earmark of repentance) isn't there.  You speak of breaking one law being equivalent to breaking all of them.  That's an OT concept applicable to those who leaned on the law for justification.  If one leans on the physical acts of law for righteousness, one just might receive condemnation because the law is a two-edged sword.  However, the NT concepts emphasizes the inward man by speaking of inner reliance (faith), recognition of sin, inner conviction, inner regeneration, and an inner concern for someone else's well being (love).  The weight of sin isn't truly reflected by outward acts, but by inward desires, intentions, and commitments.  Like the hateful bishop, the gay bishop commits a sin.  And they will both die in their sins unless they have a repentant heart and faith that God can and will restore them.

Anybody who claims:  For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son that all who believe in him will not perish but will have everlasting life--and tries to limit that statement in any way by telling someone who is a sinner that they are unworthy has just denied God and God's will for mankind. the most basic tenet of our faith, our Lord's work on the cross.

Right, but the Lord didn't die on the cross so we could be openly sinful.  This reminds me of Paul's words, "Shall we continue to sin so grace may abound?"  Paul's letters are choked full of statements that we ought to fight off sin with spiritual weapons.  He didnt' say that since all sins are the same, and since we all sin, therefore being sinful is really no different than being openly sinful.

-Acumen

[metis]

I would like Metis to explain what he thinks Scripture is saying regarding
homosexuality.  Whether he believes certain scripture is only a reflection
of culture influences or NOT.  I don't ask this in a malicious way - I sincerely
want to know how some people justify "sodomy" in the church.

I agree that it seemingly does classify homosexuality as a sin and that it is forbidden.  I also have no doubt that scripture is a "reflection of culture" to a large extent since it's obviously operating from the Jewish experience and tradition, but I do question whether there's divine inspiration in scripture.  However, notice that the word "question" does not mean "answer".
This response is not to "justify sodomy" since, even if scripture were not to be divinely inspired in any way, a society still will establish its own morality in the form of laws and folkways.  

Shalom,
Vern  

[metis]

According to James, to have broken one precept of the law has the same effect as to have kept none of it. 

Not to disagree with you, but just to mention that in the traditional Jewish perspective, this was and is not the view.  Many of the sins found in Torah have a penalty attached to them, so would we lump all sins together and stone to death every single person who commits any sin if a "sin is a sin" and they're somehow viewed by God as being all the same?  And remember that the penalties do not differentiate between believers and non-believers.

However, does that mean that traditional Judaism didn't believe in forgiveness?  If one checks on all the verses in Torah that deal with God's forgiveness, one clearly sees that God can and does forgive, and also that Temple sacrifices are only one aspect of how God may forgive. 

Yes, "sins are sins", but Torah differentiates between them and sets up ways in which these sins can be forgiven.

Shalom,
Vern 

[Gracie]

Vern,
In the Christian view, of course, we are no longer under the Old Covenant (Testament).  It lies under a veil and can only be seen through the eyes of Christ.  To consider sin as Christians, we must look at it as Paul suggests, "For all alike have sinned, and all are deprived of the divine splendour, and all are justified by God's free grace alone, through his act of liberation in the person of Jesus Christ."  You and I, indeed we all, remain sinners.  We all remain beholden to Christ.  We may do better but--I reiterate--we have, none of us, become free of sin. 

I respect our Jewish heritage, but we are Christian and we must keep the Torah where the Torah belongs under our present Covenant.  We can't weigh the wages of sin.  A murderer may kill one person (and we may commit murder in our hearts) but a glutton may kill fifty.  The wage of sin is death.  That is an absolute.  I like the way that The Cloud of Unknowing framed it, we are just lumps of sin in God's eyes.  Another absolute is "God hates sin."  These are sentences taken directly from scripture.  Sin would be the death of us all.*  Let's say a person hates another person that he perceives to be a sinner--then God would hate that sin as much as the sin of the person that is being hated and maybe more if we try to weigh sin.  To hate your brother is to break the Great Commandment:  how can you say you love God whom you have not seen if you hate your brother you have seen?   We have first and foremost the summary of the Law.  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.  In short, failing to love is to break either one or both of these laws. So, I conclude the same way that I began.  Now I have quoted John 3:16--but somehow you wish to weigh the Law, you wish to make one sin more deadly than another and outside the pale.  Paul tries to remind those who judge that they are no better than those who they judge who are guilty.  Can you be half alive or half dead?  No. 

I make this point to bring the Law back into perspective.  Ironically, in this current debate that is dividing our faith, it seems that sin is being put on a footing like no footing it has ever been on before, an entirely new covenant.  We all must be free--we can do anything!--and one type of sinner will be sacrificed for us.  No, if sin matters, it matters for all of us and our own individual sins matter to ourselves as they always did in the Christian tradition.  We examine ourselves.  We discern the Spirits that guide us.  We ask forgiveness for our sin.  We go to the Lord's table for forgiveness of our sins.  And so the table is unbalanced by the way we have begun to value sin.  We fail to love and then try to claim somebody else is more wicked than ourselves.   

*It is through faith and it always was through faith that our sins were forgiven. 

Now, all this is to operate under the assumption that all same sex acts are always a sin.  I begin with the subject of sin because there is a great divide and I feel we must deal with the divide first and then with the sin.  Christ has paid the penalty, the perfect sacrifice for the whole world.  Truth doesn't remain frozen on the page in print, but in lived faith it is proved true.  God doesn't just speak words locked in time by the written word, but in every day our daily bread.  I'm not sure we are ready to discuss the real heart of this issue as long as we've forgotten what John 3:16 promises to all of us, why Christ came and God's will for sinners, in short: why the Gospels are the Good News.  As long as we are divided, we should discern the spirits that lead us--because we should always be united through faith in Jesus Christ.  Ergo, we have erred, all of us. 

Peace.

[metis]

Gracie

Yes, I'm quite familiar with Christian theology, but I do appreciate the time and effort you spent on your last post. 

I might mention one more thing and that is that, in Judaism, if one sins against someone else, they must at least attempt to make up for the damage done.  To ask God for forgiveness but to not lift a finger to undo the damage we've done to another is considered hypocrisy, and Torah states that those sins are not forgiven. 

Shalom,
Vern

[Gracie]

Gracie,

First, welcome to the forum!  Glad to see you participating.

You invited me.  I have simply taken the liberty of adopting a different pseudonym.  Thank you.

Both bishops are actively engaging in acts that the scriptures clearly identify as inappropriate for those who are supposedly regenerated.

I could laugh and say that to be a bishop--any bishop--is to have a mountain to climb--against pride.   

Sin is an interesting subject, however.  We aren't very good at weighing it.  Actually the hateful bishop is by far the worst of the sinners and may indeed not be able to begin to climb the mountain at all.  He must have no faith!  No love of God.  He does not recognize (acknowledge) the Imago Dei! 

I used this example for another reason.  I know a lot of gays (I use this term the way you have chosen to) who have tried and failed to be straight.  I know many who have struggled against their nature for years.  I know many who have hidden their truth or rather messed up their own lives, the lives of their spouses whom they married while trying to hide, etc.  But if we do believe scripture, then we must believe it to be truly evidenced in the believer through the grace of God.  So the very dedicated faith walk, the love and devotion they have for God, their generosity and kindness (fruit), compassion for others is indeed the evidence of faith both in reality and according to scripture, and should tell us something of God's view of gays and God's will for gays.  I roughly used V. Gene Robinson as an example, of course, but I've seen this same scenario played out time and again in other clergy roles.  It isn't enough to just quote scripture, but to live faith.  Scripture is a guide and it is worth no more than that if evidence in our lives doesn't support it.  I say the evidence does support it, but the accent is on other scripture, higher scripture, than on that which some wish to depend.

So, in my opinion, you softened this too much!  Reflecting our Christian culture at this time where this point of view is the norm, you are in mind of the man's true wickedness.  But many Christians I have known would choose to follow a man like this and even imitate him and despise the gentle, loving sort. 
 

The hateful bishop also has a mountain to climb because he has a problem with love and understanding -- his words aren't intended to remedy the problem, but rather to harm individuals.

With respect to sin, there are some pretty good indications that some sins are worse than others.  One example of a grave sin is blaspheming the Holy Ghost.

Aha!  You've taken a bit of thrust out of one of my arguments so now I must twist it back into service!  That's right.  The one potentially unforgivable sin.  That, or turning our back on God.  And yet, we also believe that all sin can be forgiven . . .  It is important in my argument to as a means of proving that the focus on sexual sin is off-base. 

There are also concepts in the NT that indicate that individuals can sin unto the point of becoming a reprobate, or being "given over to a reprobate mind."

 

Romans 1?  That was from worshiping idols, birds and beasts and things like that.  So God has given them over to sin.  But the case in the example may not be one that can be fairly used in this debate . . .

This step, in some way or another, leads to conviction and a driving desire to turn back toward God's mercy.  The gay bishop, by being openly gay, is not showing a repentant spirit.

I heartily disagree since I have not met one gay person who has not struggled long and hard against their nature and I have watched as they have changed their view as their faith grew!  They began with the conviction they had been taught by the Church, they struggled and failed repeatedly, they prayed, they tried to live in denial--I'm talking years!--until slowly, from the depths of despair, God lifted them up--not changing their nature, but showing His love.  Spend some time listening to your brothers and sisters and their heartfelt and painful stories of redemption. 

And you and me, too!  Have you ever confessed your sin daily?  Have you really changed yourself?  In the reality of a lived faith, sin remains a struggle.  I even believe that our Lord allows us to retain some weakness to keep us mindful of our need of him! 

No, if scripture is to be believed we do not change ourselves and we cannot change ourselves.  There is only one way to change--through faith by the grace of God.  That would apply to both bishops. 

I am going to have to let this rest at this time.  My apologies, but duty calls . . .

fHs,
Gracie