« Beauty and the Beast Series–Part 1 | Main | Beauty and the Beast - Part Two »
Broadway Baptist and The Homosexual Issue
Posted by Robin Foster | March 2, 2008
Recently Broadway Baptist of Ft. Worth voted to not have pictures of families in their directory because some of the “families” were homosexual couples. You can read about the debate and the vote of the congregation here.
How did this historic church that is known for its music come to debating if homosexuals would be represented in their directory? According to their web site, they have had a string of pastors who led the church to liberal views and practices.
John Rowan Claypool, 1971-1976 was the pastor that “ordained a woman to be a minister, the first by any church affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas and only the ninth in the Southern Baptist Convention.”
Later, C. Welton Gaddy, 1977-1983 “was one of three Baptist preachers who attended a meeting in Gatlinburg, Tennesee, called by Cecil Sherman out of concern about the attempted takeover by the Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson of the Southern Baptist Convention.”
The next pastor was the man who organized the aforementioned meeting, Cecil E. Sherman, 1985-1992. “He was in the forefront of the organizing of Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and became that organization’s first executive head in 1992.”
H. Stephen Shoemaker, served from 1992-1999 until he took the pastorate at Myers Park Baptist Church, Charlotte, North Carolina. You might remember the homosexual controversy of Myers Park from this article that reported, “The Executive Committee of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina ruled Nov. 12 that the church was not in compliance with membership articles. While convention messengers voted overwhelmingly to hear the Myers Park appeal the next day, they voted similarly to reject it.”
In 2001, they received Brett Younger as their current pastor. Younger made this statement about the current controversy: “If we look into the eyes of a gay Christian, we may have to rethink some of our opinions.”
I agree with Younger. Broadway Baptist does need to rethink some of their opinions, first being the idea that a person can be a “gay Christian.” Such a statement is akin to saying “dark light” or “depraved saint,” and is an unworthy utterance from any Christian’s lips.
What caused the church to come to this point? In my opinion they had a consistent stream of liberal leadership that desired to become more like the world than being salt and light of God’s Word. Broadway Baptist Church is an example of why I rejoice that God raised leaders in the SBC to bring us back to our conservative roots. I personally believe if the Claypool’s, Gaddy’s, Sherman’s, and Shoemakers had their way, we could very well be debating homosexuality within the convention. But God raised men like Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, Adrian Rogers, Al Mohler, and others who took hits from the liberals to lead our convention back to her conservative roots. Two points I would like to make concerning Broadway Baptist. First, has the Executive Committee looked into this situation with a recommendation in Indianapolis to remove fellowship from this church if they still belong to the SBC? Second, this is a very precarious situation. No matter what the church chooses (other than removing from fellowship those practicing homosexuality) they are still redefining the family. To print a picture in a church directory of two homosexual men or women as a family redefines the family contrary to the biblical witness. Also, to refrain from printing family pictures of a husband/wife/children, husband/wife, single parent/children or single person in favor of group pictures diminishes the importance of families in the local church. Either way, unless they follow the biblical mandate to remove those practicing what God considers an abomination, they are redefining the family. I hope the executive committee is looking into this situation and preparing recommendations to the SBC when she meets in Indianapolis. I also hope that Broadway Baptist will take a stand for God, with love, and discipline those members so that they realize their sin and turn from it. Topics: Cooperation, Ecclesiology, Homosexuality | 121 Responses to “Broadway Baptist and The Homosexual Issue”
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 am
But before that string of progressive-minded pastors, Broadway employed a sorry-excuse-for-a-pastor, Dr. W. Douglas Hudgins who is chronicled in Charles Marsh’s award-winning book, God’s Long Summer. Hudgins like many other conservatives of his day hid behind traditional Baptist beliefs and thus refused to speak out against the lynchings and other activities of members of the KKK (one of which was the “High Priest”) who belonged to his church in Jackson, Mississippi.
I hope that tidbit adds a little value to your rather unimpressive coverage of old news.
I’m just wondering Robin but have you ever stopped to considered that the adjective GAY refers to a person’s sexual orientation. Not every heterosexual nor every homosexual is out and about having sex. Some are celibate. If a man is attracted to other men, that doesn’t make him any less gay simply because he avoids applying the adjective.
Perhaps its time for you “SBC conservatives” to start having a conversation about sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior. Conservative theology holds that the latter is a sin but the former is not. Other conservatives have already begun that conversation.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:38 am
Brother BDW,
I must admit that you have really added a new twist on the term Gay. Are you now saying that Gay is only an adjective describing a person that is only attracted to people of the same sex, but are not acting on that attraction? Are you trying to say that what one with that kind of attraction is waiting for is the good people in Congress to pass a bill allowing them to be married in the eyes of the state?
If that is what you are saying, and it appears that you are, then we are only one step away from allowing Transgender and Bi-sexual attractions to become a standard for families. Then we will have the following kind of reasoning:
I don’t see any reason why a bisexually oriented person should be any less monogamous than a unisexually oriented person. You might as well ask if a straight (heterosexually oriented, that is) person can be monogamous, since there are so many people of the target sex running around loose.
All bisexual orientation really means is that, when the bisexual monogamous person cheats on his or her spouse, there is much less likelihood than with a homo- or heterosexual person that the cheating object will be of the same gender as the spouse. Again, you’re confusing orientation with activity, it looks like to me.
The Bible as a whole seems rather polygamy-neutral. Something kings tend to do that can sometimes cause more trouble than it’s worth. I can’t think of Bible passage offhand that mentions non-polygynic polygamy; not surprising, since polyandry was not common even for the upper classes in Bible lands and times. Typology tends to favor monogamy, with us the Church (regardless of the pope’s gender) in the female role.
I think the SBC will rather stand on Scripture concerning the family than have society dictate to us what a family is. As to the KKK reference to one of the former pastors, that is a great way to divert the truth of the argument that is was the liberal pastors that led this church to where they are in their belief of the Scripture.
Blessings,
Tim
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 am
“Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”
Revelation 2:5 esv
God help that congregation. Thank God they are in the minority. Let us pray to God they stay that way.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 am
Robin
I do not believe that BBC is currently a member of the SBC. I could be wrong, but it is worth looking into.
BDW
Are you saying that he couples that wish to be placed in the directory are ‘celibate’ gay couples?
jrm
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 am
I’m with you on this issue, Robin. Certainly if there are people in a church living in open, flagrant sin, they should not be allowed to openly display it in a church directory. I would hope that they would not allow it if one of the deacons were carrying on an affair with a woman, and there was a picture of the two of them happily checking in to the local Motel 6.
My question is this: would you be in favor of the church prohibiting people from being portrayed in the directory, if they were openly involved in other types of sin? For example, if the organist were known as a gossip or a busybody? Or if the pastor had rebellious children?
I do agree with you that those who will make a point of openly trying to justify their sin have no place doing so in a forum like a church directory. However, maybe what BDW is trying to say is that there are people with leanings toward homosexuality who are trying do obey the Bible. They are trying to become master over their temptations, and live right. Surely they would be welcome in a directory, right? They would surely be as welcome as any of us on the other team, who are trying to gain self-control when it comes to lust, or greed, or coveting. Right?
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
jasonk,
if these two men, or women, were not living in gay sex, as a couple; then why would they want to have thier pic in a church directory together as if they were a couple? why would they make a big deal out of it? why would they be trying to push the envelope?
david
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:39 am
Mr. Foster, I completely agree with your assessment that someone cannot openly live in sin without the conviction of sin or the need to repent - whether it be homosexuality, gossip, pride, or any number of things we struggle with. I do understand the point of the post. It’s not necessarily about homosexuals, but instead the gratefulness to leaders who took difficult stands many years ago.
However, when Christ followers began talking and debating homosexual issues, non-christians only hear hate speech. Though we could chalk it up to conviction, its probably much more deeper than that. I know I read this somewhere but I have forgotten where I read it, “It is one thing to be against homosexuality - the practice of a same sex relationship, but it is another to be against homosexuals.” When we say love the sinner and hate the sin, most homosexuals do not hear anything about love. They only hear hate.
This was a great reminder for me and maybe it will be for others. “When we get to know and love homosexuals because they are people, perhaps they will grow to love and appreciate us and maybe even listen to what we believe. We need to be more concerned about reaching those who need Jesus than ‘proving’ our faith to those who already claim to know Jesus.” David Kinnaman.
One more quote… “Nothing that we despise in the other man is entirely absent from ourselves.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I use the quotes to remind us that one of the hardest things for pastors to do is balance grace and truth. Thankfully, we have our greatest example in Jesus who was never easy on sin but always merciful to sinners.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:51 am
Brother Brent Williams,
Are you saying in your comment that it is best that we not say anything about this issue within the life of the church and even within the life of the SBC? Broadway Baptist is a part of the SBC.
Blessings,
Tim
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 am
David,
Go back and re-read what I wrote. I agree with you 100%. I would be opposed to a same-sex couple posing for a picture in the church directory, the same as I would be opposed to an adulterous deacon publishing a picture with his girlfriend.
My only question is, how far do we take it? We tend to single out those sins where we do not struggle. I have an unblemished record of staunch heterosexuality, therefore it is easy for me to single out homosexuals. But don’t start in on me when it comes to lust, or gossip, or greed, no sir.
My only question was regarding people who struggle with homosexuality, and yet they are not practicing it. Say, for example, Senator Larry Craig were a member of your church. He is married, and yet he has allegedly struggled with homosexuality. Do you let him pose with his wife in your church directory? Or a single man in his mid-fifties? He sturggles with a desire for a same sex relationship, but wrestles with temptation every day? Would you let him have his picture taken?
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 am
Tim Rogers,
If that is what you read, I am a terrible communicator. Absolutely not! I ended my comment with our example in Jesus who was never easy on sin. We should and we must stand up for truth. As a cooperating Southern Baptist Pastor and church, we must take these stands. We must proclaim truth even when it is uncomfortable or not popular. My comments came from a desire for the SBC to me more concerned with the person who is living life without the hope of Jesus Christ, the person who is locked in a prison of sin then with just the sin. You can’t deal with sin apart from Jesus Christ.
Our sexual sin problem in SBC churches is not homosexuals. We all know that. The sexual sin most SBC churches face is not same sex attraction. I think sometimes it is far easier to jump on that bandwagon because its easy. It is my desire to have the same passion we show with homosexual sin shown and preached against divorce, pre-marital sex, or pornography. Those sexual sins are far more rampant in our churches today.
My comment was an attempt to do a little preaching on Monday morning. It was attempt to remind us of the importance of seeing a homosexual as a person who needs the love of Jesus and to be consistent as the body of Christ. If this church was a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, I would want every attempt to be made to reconcile this issue, but if none was attained, I would not want to cooperate with them as we reach the world for Christ.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 am
Robin,
Homosexuality is a sin. No question about that fact. The Bible is clear. I have friends who struggle with the issue but their salvation is not something that I would question.
Therefore, be careful about an edict in which you deny the possibility of a “gay Christian.” Someone would then ask if it is then impossible to be a:
Obese Christian
Gossiping Christian
Alcoholic Christian (because once an alcoholic …)
Democrat Christian
Republican Christian
Libertarian Christian
Hypocritical Christian
You get the idea. Call a sin a sin. I encourage you in this action. However, we all have sins of which we struggle through.
Those individuals who are trapped in such a lifestyle must be told forthrightly about the sin but reminded that grace covers a multitude of sins. Don’t compromise on the sin but remember that mercy and grace are a part of God’s character as well.
I will close with this example. I have a friend who is a homosexual. He was sexually abused as a young boy by a youth minister. He has a very distant relationship with his father. He has always sought out the approval of men because of what is missing in his life. He struggled for years with the sin … and for many of them lived as a celibate man. He has “fallen off the wagon” and is now living with a man. I contacted him. Confronted him with grace and mercy about the sin. Told him that while I could never condone his choice and that I believe his choice is a sin, he will always be my friend and I would be there when he needs me. I have managed to stay in contact with him to check on him, be a present witness of God’s truth, and allow him to know that when he is ready for help I will be there as best I can.
Some “friends” have abandoned him. Others ignore him. I have chosen this route. Which would you have chosen?
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:57 am
Jason
I am glad we agree. I believe all open sin that blemishes the witness of the church needs to be dealt with according to the principles Jesus lined out in Matt 18. Therefore anyone who continues in unrepentent sin (homosexuality, adultery, gossip, anger, etc) should have already lovingly been confronted before any picture is taken for a directory. If the church follows those principles in Matt 18 then one of two things should have occurred. Either the person has repented or the church has removed them from membership. If they repented, they should be included in the directory. If not, they are not a member.
Brent,
I also agree with you on this, we need to see the homosexual as a person in need of salvation of their soul. But at the same time, we need to focus on the sin.
I had hoped that the focus of this post would be on BBC and the dilemma they are now enduring because of turning a blind eye. Issues occur in churches because of unchecked sin. Homosexuality is the topic of this post, but there are churches that deal with all kinds of unchecked issues that threaten the unity of fellowship.
I thank all for commenting. I won’t be able to respond again until later this evening.
God Bless
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 am
Interested Observer
I just read your comment and would like to give a quick response before I go. First, thanks for your comment.
One of the great things about the principles laid out in Matt 18 is that Jesus says we are to treat those in unrepentent sin as tax collectors and Gentiles. I don’t believe that means that they are to be treated with disdain as outcasts, but with love, measured with grace and a conviction that they need to repent of their sin. Jesus reached out to the two groups of people mentioned, but did not condone the actions of either.
We can do the same.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Brother Brent,
I like your website. Your sermon series on redemption seems to be a great series to take through the book of Ruth. Keep up the good work preaching. I understand your need to preach on Monday Morning, as I have the same need also, because I did not get preached out on Sunday. :>)
I understand better what you are saying. I too believe that we need to deal with the person as a person, not as a sexually oriented agent that we do not like. We are all clear that the Bible speaks clearly to homosexuality, it also speaks clearly to gossip. I am all for taking just as strong a stand on gossip as one takes on homosexuality. However, as Brother Robin stated above, the issue of the post is about the lackadaisical attitude of the church in the past concerning this openly avowed sin. If the church would have been led to deal with the person and stand against the sin, I believe they would not be dealing with this issue today. However, their apparent way of dealing with the person was to overlook the sin and even re-define the role of family in order to accommodate the sinful actions of the person.
Blessings,
Tim
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Robin,
BDW does bring up an interesting viewpoint. As mankind ignores sin (i.e. proclivities to sexual orientation) as the Apostle Paul has put it, a man burning is not the same as a man committing acts, but in either case God gives them over to their sin.
1John 2:15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Corinthians 7:8-9 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. (9) But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, (27) and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
He is right… there is not truly any difference in a pastor ignoring obviously overt sins like hate consorter’s of the KKK.
Yet, it appears that BDW is on the wrong side of understanding ,…in that sexual orientation certainly is a sin when out of step with the creator’s sovereign assignment,…. which leads to further degradation as given through the Apostle Paul to those choosing sexual orientation opposed to God and following their pursuits. B. Daddy’s argument works well in politics, but not in the Kingdom of God.
Who needs a directory anyway? Our Lord said “Matthew 12:32-33 “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (33) “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.”
Blessings,
Chris
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 am
Is the church directory really the place where we should be exercising church discipline? Is that really what we think Jesus had in mind when he taught about how to deal with a brother or sister caught in sin? Do we really believe that telling an errant church member that we may have to cut them out of the directory this year is going to be the deterrent that helps them see the light and be reconciled to Christ?
I am a firm believer in church discipline and I share the same beliefs most of you do about homosexuality, but this whole debate about the church directory just seems silly to me.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Jake writes: “Is the church directory really the place where we should be exercising church discipline?”
Of course the answer is no, the church directory is not the place for church discipline and I don’t see that as the point of Brother Robin’s post. The point is that this church (which is in good standing with the BGCT by the way) is so confused over the sinfulness of open homosexuality that they don’t know how to tell some of their church members, who are living in open homosexual relationships, that they must repent and leave that sin or be removed from the membership of the church. We are not talking about “non-members” who are homosexual (in conduct). The fact is that this church has for years (according to their pastor), had openly homosexual members serving in positions of leadership (and they have always been in good standing with the BGCT and CBF)). These individuals now also want to be included as families in the church directory. This would expose their sin - and the sin of the church in accepting this lifestyle - to the public. The church is trying to sweep this under the rug because if their sin was exposed, the BGCT will be forced to take a stand and either embrace a church which openly endorses the homosexual lifestyle - or remove said church (and those of its membership in positions of leadership at the BGCT). As I doubt that the BGCT would expel Broadway - for many of the same reason that Broadway refuses to expel those members in sin - this issue could possibly release a revolt among many within the BGCT itself.
The issue over the directory is just that it would publicly expose the church as one which condones an openly homosexual lifestyle. It is not that the church doesn’t already do this - they just don’t want it publicized for political reasons (in the BGCT)
Wes
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Wes,
You are absolutely right. Let me add that the same indignation would be present if heterosexual couples living together (i.e. not married) wanted their “family” picture in the church directory. Any church that would knowingly allow either, is undeniably in a state of apostasy and unrepentant sin.
It will be interesting to see if BGCT takes a stand here. If they do not, I think there will be more churches joining the SBTC.
Ron P.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Mr. Weave:
Are you saying that Broadway Baptist needs to deal with unrepentant racism as well as unrepentant homosexuality?
Riick Mang
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Ron P.
I doubt the BGCT will do anything - they haven’t in the past and knew very well what was going on at Broadway. The problem is that now it is exposed to public knowledge. They will likely come up with something like “autonomy” or “hate the sin, love the sinner.” And yes, before anyone jumps on that, I do believe that we love the sinner - as Christ did - by confronting their sin (in humility and grace) and calling them to repentance.
Wes
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Let me address the comment about Douglas Hudgins & KKK:
That was an historical tidbit that I added. Since Robin giving a history lesson - I decided to offer up some of my own knowledge. That’s what we historians do….
As to Broadway, I don’t know Brett Younger. But Dr. Claypool was a great man and Dr. Shoemaker was my very first pastor back in Louisville. I feel for Dr. Younger and the situation that his church is in.
Tim,
I’m a “straight” almost 25 year old man or heterosexual male. Straight and Heterosexual are the adjectives. I have a girlfriend. But there’s no sex. Does that make me any less STRAIGHT? I just used the adjectives “straight” and “heterosexual” to describe my sexual orientation. Aaron is attracted only to members of the opposite sex. What’s new? Is sexual orientation too difficult of a concept to understand? I assume there was a point in your life Tim when you too were celibate. Although, even in your celibacy, I’d suspect you too were still a straight fella….
Hence, we should distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. The Bible doesn’t address the former.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Brother BDW,
Ok, I will play along. The adjective Gay describes the inclination of the desire, not the action upon that inclination. So, you are saying that the Bible says it is ok to have the desire as long as you do not act on it. Serious flaw in your tap dance around the sin. Jesus preached a sermon on the side of a hill one day and we have termed it the Sermon on the Mount. In this message Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-28 You have heard that it was sad to those of old; ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Now, I will concede to you that Jesus is speaking her of a man lusting after a woman. But, that also makes my other point as well. Jesus did not endorse homosexual behavior, neither does he advocated homosexual orientation.
Blessings,
Tim
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Brother BDW,
One other thing after reading your response in full. I also feel for Dr. Younger. It is a terrible situation for any pastor to have to face. Having said that, let me tell you that I too have faced situations where church members are at odds with the pastor and while it did not become national news it could have been as far as my family was concerned. Everyone we knew in the community we served knew about and was talking about our church’s situation.
I encourage Dr. Younger to go to the Scripture and stand firmly on what the Scripture teaches. If he does that then come what may, God will see him through. However, if he falters and tries to rationalize the best way to navigate through these waters, he will sink. I pray that he sticks with the Scripture.
Blessings,
Tim
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Brother B.Diddy, (Historian)
Sexual Orientation – “The direction of one’s sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.”
You said – “Hence, we should distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. The Bible doesn’t address the former.”
Are you really serious? Are you really saying that the bible does not address “the direction of one’s sexual interest”…. ??
I thought you were only kidding!
-Chris
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
As one who seeks reform in the SBC, I want to say that I NEVER want to go back to the days when churches like this could be an active part of the SBC. I doubt this church even considers itself SBC anymore.
I am thankful for Adrian Rogers and all the others who led us to stand against this nonsense.
I would quarrel with one thing you said. “Gay Christian” is not an oxymoron. I have had gay Christians in my churches, one an active Sunday School teacher.
These people were tempted in different ways than I am. They were tempted toward lust and sin by same-sex attractions.
However, they recognized them as sin and resist them. I don’t care what temptation someone is resisting, as long as they are resisting it.
The problem at Broadway is not that they welcome homosexuals, but that they welcome unrepentant homosexuals and affirm their sinful lifestyle.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Note - the Sunday school teacher who struggled with homosexuality was not at my current church, but a previous one. Just thought I should make that clear.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
And it really bothers me to be agreeing with Big Daddy. Sorry, fella, but it makes me question myself.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Brother Tim,
According to previous press reports, Dr. Younger is in fact supportive of including homosexuals in the life of the church. He acknowledges there have been open homosexuals in the church for years. He is quoted as saying: “Broadway has for years had an amazing policy of including gay people. It’s not a policy that a committee came up with, or the staff or the deacons. It’s an unwritten policy that came out of the shared life of this congregation, a policy I believe was inspired by the Spirit.” (BP article dated 11/19/2007). As the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram reports indicate, there were three homosexual couples requesting inclusion in the directory as “family.” That means this is more than an “inclination” toward a certain behavior - it is in fact the behavior itself that is acknowledged in the life of the congregation.
Dr. Younger believes the inclusion of openly homosexual couples in the full fellowship of the church is “inspired by the Spirit.” Yes, I feel for him too, but this is a situation that he has helped to bring about. You can’t just thumb your nose at the clear teachings of Scripture and not expect the Lord of the Church to act in judgment. BTW, this is a word of warning for all of us who have the privilege of serving as pastors.
Wes
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Thanks Wes for the links…. it appears that the pastor is not prepared to meet this scripturally. In many of his quotes, he appears to be more interested in pleasing both sides.
That is unfortunate….for everyone.
We need to pray that God give him courage to defend the gospel of God.
Blessings,
Chris
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Christopher,
What’s great about this conversation on sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior is that not only does Dave Miller agree with Big Daddy Weave but so does Albert Mohler.
I’ve stated all along that you good conservatives should distinguish between orientation and behavior. Al Mohler did just that in his rather controversial article entitled Is Your Baby Gay?
In that article, Mohler asked: If you knew that your unborn baby boy was GAY (orientation), would you take hormonal treatments to change the baby’s orientation to heterosexual if such treatments existed?
Mohler stated that there is no “incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists” but that “the direction of the research points in this direction.”
The entire article is based on the premise that babies made in the image of God are not all born with the same sexual orientation. Mohler clearly argues that the sin is same-sex eroticism not orientation.
And, it really bothers me to have to cite Al Mohler of all people in support of my argument….what in the world.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
To all
Several questions have been asked concerning my statement about the term, “gay christian.” Allow me to clarify what I mean.
First, I define a homosexual as someone who actively engages in having same sex relationships. They can either do this physically or lust in their heart. I do not believe that someone who has either repented of that lifestyle or may have had feelings of that nature without embracing it in their heart is a homosexual.
In other words, someone who may have those feelings and does not engage them in their heart or actions, but repents of their feelings is not a homosexual.
If someone feels the urge to steal, but doesn’t do so, he is not considered a stealer.
Again, I do not consider someone who might have those feelings, but does not engage in them in either their hearts or actions a homosexual.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Chris,
Sorry I can’t directly “link” to those articles … I am not savy enough at this point to do that - I’m still learning this here thing! 8->
It is a sad situation, but it is also one that we are going to be facing more and more. The more homosexuality becomes accepted by the world - the more often we are going to be forced to deal with it in the church. I do pray that we are much more biblical about it than it seems BBC is at this point.
Weave,
I don’t believe this is a “conversation on sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior.” That is not what Brother Robin posted about. This is a conversation about a church who has lost its moral foundations and is willing to condone a lifestyle clearly condemned in Scripture. The couples in question are living together as openly homosexual “families.” The church is willing to accept them into membership - they just don’t want it publicized. Your repeated attempts to redirect the thread just don’t wash IMHO.
Wes
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Brother BDW,
If I could get you all of what Dr. Mohler writes and not just the parts that you believe support your argument I would be making progress. However, I can’t expect anything more from one who believes the Bible is inspired in spots and he is inspired to spot the spots. :>)
Seriously, thank you for referencing Dr. Mohler. While you have correctly referenced his article, you have one flaw. I came out in opposition of Dr. Mohler’s article from the start. If you do not believe me contact our friend who formerly lived in Arlington and now resides in Enid, Oklahoma and he will tell you such. As a matter of fact he was the one that alerted me and we both agreed that this was not a solid pro-life argument.
As to the orientation vs. action argument. This was argued ad nasuem over at Baptistlife.com forum. But I believe Uncle Prentice argued very effectively; “<i>Why not accept Homosexual Activity in the church fellowship (Which was the original point of this thread); then I wonder what the next ecclesiastical concern will be. Why not polygamy? Why not pedophilia? Why not bestiality? etc., etc. until it includes Why not Necrophilia? If it is a “COMMITED Relationship?”</i>.
Blessings,
Tim
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Tim, warn a guy. I have been dealing with food poisoning or some kind of particularly virulent stomach virus for a few days now. Your last sentence nearly gave me a relapse.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Brother Dave,
Sorry, but Robin made me edit that comment.
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
For the record, I don’t make anyone do anything. I only advise.
Tim, BTW I find the steaks at Salt Grass are 100% better than Golden Corral. Just thought I would let you know.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Tim,
It is a fact that in the end SEBTS guys will stick together. (you and Ben
I do think Dave and Chris have made some very valid statements.
There are those who struggle with this sin who are Believers.
Another thing is orientation; I don’t believe the Scriptures allow the idea that some are born sodomites. I believe all such orientation is developed resulting from environment or recruitment or both (Romans 1:26-28)
Once a person has given themselves over to the sodomite mentality, his orientation is twisted due to being given to their reprobate desires by God. Such a person may become a Christian, but they may struggle with this “conditioned orientation” all of their lives. That is one reason the sodomite life-style is so destructive in general.
A more frightening fact has to do with pedophiles. Once a person develops a sexual orientation toward children and away from those of his own age range it is all but impossible for them to be free of the desire to be with children. That is true even if they get saved.
This, again, gives credibility to the argument that the sodomite life-style is far more socially destructive than many other things.
Also, I admire Big Daddy’s grit. He is right about Douglas Hudgins. The man was just as ungodly in not teaching and preaching the whole counsel of God as was Claypool, Sherman and Shoemaker.
Hudgins was just a dirty little coward and we would be too if we defended him.
You know, it is just a fact……….your gut wretches just about the same when you cover up the body of a man who has been hanged and set on fire just for being born who he was as it does when you wrap up a little girl in your coat who is bleeding from her privates and take her out of a house where a piece of trash has raped and sodomized her.
Guys, our job is to preach against the sin of the man burner and the sodomite with the same conviction;
At the same time praying we don’t give in to some devilish temptation in our own lives (Galatians 6:1-4).
cb
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Thanks CB. I appreciate the point that you’re making that it isn’t just one sin we need to be careful of, but all of them. And we can’t just focus on disciplining the red-meat sins that we can wave in front of the congregations to get them wildly cheering…
Speaking of devilish temptation in our own lives and Golden Corral being mentioned in the same thread…irony “for the win” anyone?
Greg Harvey
March 4th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Forgive me if I may seem a bit tolerant.
Homosexuals are not sinners because they commit fornication with people of the same sex.
People are homosexuals because they are sinners.
I sinned (murdered, committed adultery, lied, blasphemed God, etc.) knowing that it was against the law that was written on my heart. I knew that breaking this law would sentence me to death, yet I continued in my sin because I was a sinner by nature. There was no good in me. I was a God-hater, an enemy of God.
But God, Who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He love me, made me alive together with Christ so that I may no longer be a slave to sin, but a slave to God.
Are there problems with the church in question? Absolutely, but no greater problems than many churches throughout the country have who allow open, unrepentant sin to continue unchecked by their brothers and sisters in Christ.
It is easy to pick on the church that allows open homosexuals to fill leadership positions (And yes, I would go so far as to say that these “gay Christians” should examine themselves to see if they are in the faith). Many pastors do the same thing when they get in the pulpit at revival time and rail against alcoholics and drug users. Nobody wants to talk about the sins of the tongue, or the evil thoughts and desires of the heart.
This is not to say that Robin is in anyway wrong by the assessment that was given. We should be diligent as brothers and sisters in Christ to purge the church of all open and unrepentant sin, not just those that are “easy” targets.
With all the love of Christ that a murderer can muster, I am…
ABClay
March 4th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Two quick questions for those taking hard-line approaches to gay and lesbian people, here in this comment thread:
1. How would you address the situation of a divorced man married to his second wife? Would they be pictured together as a family in the church directory? After all, there is no question that they (at least the man) are living in sin.
2. How would you address the situation of the extreme divorce rates in America? Straight people have done far more damage to marriage than gay people could ever accomplish. I have yet to hear any serious calls for constitutional amendments banning divorce.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:01 am
And, a further question…
The Bible is clear: “…whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9
The Bible clearly doesn’t mention domestic violence as a reason for divorce. In fact, it was Christ Himself who gave that rule. How then does the church address the woman who was abused by her husband, divorces him and then marries a man who respects her?
I’m all for Biblical literalism and the lack of human, Christ-like compassion — ONLY if it is applied evenly, across the board.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Matt,
It seems that you are seriously trying to seek truth and for that I commend you. Truth is what we seek to present here at SBC Today and certainly want you to know the Truth of Jesus Christ.
According to your profile; “Matt, 22, is an LGBT journalist, activist and youth advocate“. I need to begin with the basis for truth and that is Jesus Christ. According to Romans 3:23 we are all sinners, Matt. Sin separates us from God. We all need God’s forgiveness, Matt and that forgiveness can be found only through a complete surrender to Jesus Christ. You see, Matt, there is a penalty for sin and that is death according to Romans 6:23. Jesus said that there will be a pay day some day for all. That death will be the penalty, but there is a conjunction in that verse that gives us hope. Matt, the Bible tells us that the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. That hope, Matt, is available to us all. Matt, while that hope is available it is not automatic. Jesus says as recorded in Matthew 7:21; Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Why would Jesus say something like that Matt? He says it because it is impossible for us to get to Heaven on our own. Tell me Matt, ho can a sinful person, which you and I are, have eternal life with Jesus in heaven? Well Matt, according to the Bible there needs to be a change. This change is only possible through the drawing of the Holy Spirit and that drawing entails a response from us. That response is called repentance. Matt, repent means to turn. We must turn from sin and self. Jesus said in Luke 13:3, Unless you repent, you will all perish as well. Just turning from our sin and self is not sufficient. The reason Matt, is that we then are depending on our own to overcome the sin, which is something we cannot do. We must also turn to somone and that is Jesus. In John 14:6 Jesus said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Matt, here is the greatest news of all. The Bible tells us in Romans 10:9-10 how one is able to have this eternal life and be set free from the shackles of the sinful body we live inside. If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes resulting in righteousness and with the mouth one confesses resulting in salvation.
Matt, this salvation can be yours just for the receiving. You can receive it today, right this minute. Matt, all you have to do is confess your sin and your need for Jesus as your Savior. Matt, I believe you are a seeker because you have not found purpose in life. God has a perfect plan for you and it is yours for the receiving. Just pray a prayer asking Jesus to forgive you of your sins and asking him to grant you salvation. It is not anything magical about the prayer or the words of the prayer. The prayer is nothing more that you saying what Jesus says you are and acknowledging your need for Him.
I am praying for you Matt. You can contact me through my email if you have further questions.
Blessings,
Tim
March 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Tim,
I thank you for your very compassionate witness, but there is no need. I already believe in Christ as my Saviour; I have since child-hood. In fact, I still remember clearly the day I was saved and the day, later in my life, when I rededicated that commitment.
Tim, you state, “It seems that you are seriously trying to seek truth and for that I commend you.” Yes, you are right. I do seek Truth. It is my obligation as a Christian to first follow God and Christ and to live my life according to His Will, then to continually seek Truth in my life and to tell others of the Gospel. With this I agree.
However, my Truth probably differs from yours, in that — from what I have seen here — your Truth takes a most unfortunate, un-compassionate turn.
Is there anyone who can answer my two questions above? Again, I’m all for Biblical literalism, ONLY if it is applied equally to all people, gay and straight — and in my life so far, that hasn’t been so.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Brother B. Diddy, (My mother really does not like “Christopher”,… actually my Dad doesn’t like it because my moms old boyfriend’s name was Christopher, so they just call me Chris ..ha)
The very definition of “sexual orientation” allows for God ordained sexual proclivity or anti-God sexual proclivity. So, yes, “sexual orientation” is in the “big game”, just like his older and more experienced brother “sexual behavior”. The only difference, as cb aptly described, …is its compliance to God’s law.
BTW, I don’t disagree with you about the others that have overlooked obvious sin should be given stagetime as well. These things are overtly obvious and so it should not surprise anyone that this particular church, over the years, is getting what it votes in as pastor. So again, we should pray that the person of the Holy Spirit who is at work in the pastor of Broadway would grant him understanding to fight the good fight of faith and meet this sin head-on.
If Mohler said and meant what he said you said,… he is just wrong. And that would be very rare and unusual for him.
Blessings,
Chris
March 4th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Matt,
As a seeker of Truth you need to realize there is only one Truth. Truth cannot be Truth for me but not Truth for you. True Truth is found in Jesus Christ and as John so clearly stated it in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Then he moves to the climatic point in verse 14 where he says, And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. There is only one truth so as a seeker you need to seek that truth.
As for the literalness of the scriptures, I cannot discuss that with you yet because I am not certain in my mind that you know Truth as of yet. You say that you went through a time when you were younger and say you remember being saved and then a time when you rededicated that commitment. Not knowing anything about you let me guess. You made a commitment that you call salvation when you were younger, then you began a journey trying to “find yourself” when you were in your teen years? Through your teen and college years it was a world of doing as you desired and struggling with your homosexual desires. Someone came to you and told you that you did not have to struggle with the guilt of being a homosexual and you came out, so to speak. Am I correct? How far did I miss your story?
Blessings,
Tim
March 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
WesInTex- “I doubt the BGCT will do anything - they haven’t in the past and knew very well what was going on at Broadway.”
I recall the BGCT sending back C.P. money and not seating messengers from University church in Austin when they ordained a homosexual deacon. Don’t be too sure what the BGCT will and will not do.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Okay Tim… You can hold literalistic interpretations of Scripture against me, but yet you can’t discuss that act with me?
We’re on a mighty high horse today, aren’t we?
P.S. - My coming out experience was pretty much done all on my own… my study of the Scriptures, my study of my life. I didn’t tell anyone until I was ready, especially since I heard death for homosexuals preached from my church’s pulpit.
I’d still like an answer to my questions above… Again, in case folks missed them…
Two quick questions for those taking hard-line approaches to gay and lesbian people, here in this comment thread:
1. How would you address the situation of a divorced man married to his second wife? Would they be pictured together as a family in the church directory? After all, there is no question that they (at least the man) are living in sin.
2. How would you address the situation of the extreme divorce rates in America? Straight people have done far more damage to marriage than gay people could ever accomplish. I have yet to hear any serious calls for constitutional amendments banning divorce.
And, a further question…
The Bible is clear: “…whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9
The Bible clearly doesn’t mention domestic violence as a reason for divorce. In fact, it was Christ Himself who gave that rule. How then does the church address the woman who was abused by her husband, divorces him and then marries a man who respects her?
I’m all for Biblical literalism and the lack of human, Christ-like compassion — ONLY if it is applied evenly, across the board.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Matt,
Any of us that are “in Christ” have had the guilt and shame of sin, the enmity and wrath of God broken by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The obedience of Christ is really applied to our lives on a daily basis,….this is our sanctification.
Homosexuality (even the sexual orientation to Homosexuality) is not sanctification. If you truly believe the God of the bible, then you will know that God’s wrath is 100% against the sin of his creation that agrees with or glorifies the heart and act of homosexuality.
1 Corinthians 6:8-11 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. (9) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, (10) nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (11) Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
God has stated that those that have their hearts set on homosexuality ( “arsenokoitēs” – as in this Corinthian passage ) will not see Him. This is tragic, because He is able to sanctify and will sanctify, but God’s sanctification has nothing to do with a man having sexual desires toward another man. (That man is still at war with God) So the truth is clear. All believers know these things.
You are correct to say that sin is sin. God gives a way of escape. He is consistent.
Blessings,
Chris
March 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Hey Brother Ken,
Hope things are going well for you.
Yes, I recall that too. But the fact is that the BGCT is still receiving CP from BBC even though they have know about this issue for some time (at the very least the past six months - that’s two reporting cycles). Also, according to Dr. Younger himself, BBC has been accepting of open homosexuals “for years” and he believes this policy “is inspired by the Spirit.” Are you saying that no one in the leadership of the BGCT knew this? Why hasn’t the leadership of the BGCT taken action against Broadway? Also, perhaps you could tell me - or at least tell me how to research the information myself - how many members of BBC are currently serving on BGCT institution and agency BoTs’?
Blessings,
Wes
March 4th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Matt,
You ask some good questions….
Q. How would you address the situation of a divorced man married to his second wife? Would they be pictured together as a family in the church directory? After all, there is no question that they (at least the man) are living in sin.
A. God hates divorce,….and sanctifies His own. Malachi gives us great insight into how God deals with sinners that continually do evil in his sight. God is a God of justice and brings wrath on the creature in disobedience.
Malachi 2:14-17 “Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. (15) “But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. (16) “For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” (17) You have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet you say, “How have we wearied Him?” In that you say, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and He delights in them,” or, “Where is the God of justice?”
Q. How would you address the situation of the extreme divorce rates in America? Straight people have done far more damage to marriage than gay people could ever accomplish. I have yet to hear any serious calls for constitutional amendments banning divorce.
A. God ordained marriage has always honored God. The marriage between a man and woman is God’s design and is bringing into existence the very inhabitants of the Kingdom of God. His design for marriage is intrinsically tied to His mission in the world to call to Himself those He is saving. His mission will never change. God is unchanging. God will not be mocked. Your arguments about marriage are from emotion, not truth.
Blessings,
Chris
March 4th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Matt,
Brother Chris has beautifully presented the position that I stand. I cannot discuss the various passages of Scripture that you want discussed because you are at enmity with the God of the Bible.
I do not in any way want to come across as being on a “high horse” in the conversation. I am not holding literalness of Scripture as a standard. I would love to discuss it with you, but you cannot, and will not receive it. Why? 1 Corinthians 2:14 says; “<i> But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.</i>
Blessings,
Tim
March 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I still do not have real answers to my questions. I’m amazed at how quickly people can give answers to questions regarding homosexuality, but for my questions, no one seems to know how to respond.
They were direct questions… As a brother in Christ — as the very subject of your debates on sexuality — I deserve the respect straight talk (no pun intended) and direct answers.
P.S. - I find it beyond repulsive and offensive that any body here has the right to question my faith or my belief in Christ.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Matt,
I have directly answered your questions. You probably don’t like the answers.
No man or woman has truth without freedom…..
Galatians 5:1-8 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. (2) Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. (3) And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. (4) You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (5) For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. (6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. (7) You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? (8) This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
True freedom never allows for the penalty of the Law. In other words, Christ is of no benefit to those that live by “the Law”. When Christ broke the power of the sin of homosexuality, He did so…so that anyone that is in that sin can be free. Christ’s freedom not only pursues righteousness, but is righteousness. Freedom is not looking back at the Law …. In other words – don’t do this or don’t do that…. It is freedom to agree with the person of the Holy Spirit who is applying the obedience of Jesus Christ to each and every adopted child of the Kingdom of God.
Don’t confuse the persuasion to continue in Homosexuality with the truth of the Gospel. “This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.”
Blessings,
Chris
March 4th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I wasn’t asking about homosexuality… Here are my questions again. I already know how a Baptist church deals with gay people, but how does a Southern Baptist church deal with these circumstances…
Two quick questions for those taking hard-line approaches to gay and lesbian people, here in this comment thread:
1. How would you address the situation of a divorced man married to his second wife? Would they be pictured together as a family in the church directory? After all, there is no question that they (at least the man) are living in sin.
2. How would you address the situation of the extreme divorce rates in America? Straight people have done far more damage to marriage than gay people could ever accomplish. I have yet to hear any serious calls for constitutional amendments banning divorce.
And, a further question…
The Bible is clear: “…whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9
The Bible clearly doesn’t mention domestic violence as a reason for divorce. In fact, it was Christ Himself who gave that rule. How then does the church address the woman who was abused by her husband, divorces him and then marries a man who respects her?
I’m all for Biblical literalism and the lack of human, Christ-like compassion — ONLY if it is applied evenly, across the board.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
To all
Here is an article that shows the rush of the world to do away with the idea of sin, especially with reference to homosexuality.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27532
Matt,
I do feel that Tim and Chris have adequately handled your questions. Until you deal with what they have presented, I feel you will struggle with any answer we give you.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Robin… My questions have not been answered. I have been talked to about homosexuality and given a couple of Scriptural passages, but I have not received direct answers.
Would a divorced and remarried man and his wife be pictured in the church directory?
What would the church tell the abused wife who divorces her husband even though domestic violence is not cause for divorce (Matthew 19:9)?
If marriage is so sacred, and it must be protected from gays through the use of constitutional amendments, why have I not heard calls for amendments banning divorce?
This are direct questions and direct answers have not been given. I’m starting to wonder why everyone here is so afraid to direct answers on these issues, when they are never afraid to give direct, and sometimes very un-compassionate, answers to issues regarding my life and the lives of millions more gay and lesbian people.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Matt,
I can’t answer for the SBC, but the bible addresses these issues as follows:
Q. How would you address the situation of a divorced man married to his second wife? Would they be pictured together as a family in the church directory? After all, there is no question that they (at least the man) are living in sin.
A. I would address the situation directly. If the man is divorced without any biblical basis (i.e. out of convenience, etc.) then I would lovingly call him to obedience. As for the picture thing….. We do not have a picture directory. Furthermore, I believe the Picture directory is just a smoke screen of a much larger problem.
Q. How would you address the situation of the extreme divorce rates in America? Straight people have done far more damage to marriage than gay people could ever accomplish. I have yet to hear any serious calls for constitutional amendments banning divorce.
A. Marriage is the institution of God and is not in jeopardy. Divorce rates are extreme in America because of the sin of the man and the woman. I would and do address the divorce rates by preaching the Gospel of God. Only God can change the heart to understand God’s institution and purpose for marriage. Sin, whether “gay or straight” is sin and it always brings about death and destruction. Again, it is a simple thing to lovingly call your brother or sister in Christ to repentance. It is a great honor and freedom given to the children of God administrated by the Spirit of God.
Q. The Bible clearly doesn’t mention domestic violence as a reason for divorce. In fact, it was Christ Himself who gave that rule. How then does the church address the woman who was abused by her husband, divorces him and then marries a man who respects her?
A. “Domestic Violence” should first and foremost have the husband or wife arrested and put in jail or prison. The process of reconciliation can be long….so with the husband or wife in prison, at least there is an opportunity to share the Gospel and see God work repentance. The audience is easier to find and most of the time accessible, depending upon the degree of violence. The process to remarry should not be considered at that time.
Blessings,
Chris
March 4th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Matt,
No one is afraid to answer your questions. However, you need to understand, according to the Scriptures, you will neither hear the answer, nor understand the answer. The reason has everything to do with the basic issue of salvation. According to your own admission of lifestyle you neither know Jesus, nor do you follow Him.
There is no dodging of a question here. I am just trying to point you to Truth. Regardless of how you feel about yourself, salvation–according to Scripture–has not been received by you. Romans 1:24-25 speaks to this issue.
Blessings,
Tim
March 4th, 2008 at 11:56 am
If the “living in sin” standard is going to be applied to gay people, why is it not applied to all people “living in sin”?
You all cannot answer my questions because, if you do, it exposes hypocrisy and huge holes in church doctrine and practice.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:59 am
From the Christian Action League of N.C.:
“26% of born-again Christians are currently or have previously been divorced, compared to 24% of adults who are not born-again (Barna Research 1999)”
Does being divorced and remarried not equal “living in sin”? And if a person is living in sin in this way, why are they allowed church membership, while gays are not?
Oh nevermind… That was a direct question. There are no answers here. My bad.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Matt,
The Israelites were having the same issues with the Law as you are having. I, like Paul, would wish myself accursed to have you understand the truths of God’s Holy word. I love you…. and as Paul is explaining to the Roman believers and listeners a very similar dilemma, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.”
In other words, not everyone that says they believe in Jesus Christ is actually in Christ. Those that are in Christ know the will of the Father, because of the person of the Holy Spirit that resides in their lives.
Romans 9:1-7 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, (2) that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. (3) For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, (4) who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, (5) whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (6) But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; (7) nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.”
So two things,
If you are in Christ – You should not be fighting against the truth of God, you should accept it and rejoice in the truth that God has set you free and then walk in that freedom. Homosexuality, Divorce, Violence, etc. are not a part of God’s Kingdom, no matter how desperately anyone wants to include it or try to make it fit.
If God has not adopted you into His Kingdom,…then before you put your head down to sleep tonight….come to Him humbly and call upon the redeemer, Christ Jesus, for the forgiveness of your sin. God is faithful and hears the cry of a repentant heart. He hears my cry on a daily basis.
Let me know …615.545.2693.
Blessings,
Chris
March 4th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Matt,
I appreciate first of all your willingness to engage in this forum. Your questions do indeed deserve answers, and I believe that they have been adequately addressed.
The issue that calls into question your profession of salvation is one of continuing in sin. Scripture is clear that homosexuality is sin, and so to openly profess to be involved in that lifestyle is incompatible with a profession of faith in Christ.
As these passages make clear, it is impossible for a believer to continue in unrepentant, habitual sin. We cannot change past behavior, but if we are in Christ, we will exhibit a continuing sanctification whereby sin becomes the occasion rather than the pattern.
We experience immediate conviction due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If you are not under constant conviction for living a lifestyle which the Bible calls sin, then the Holy Spirit is not dwelling in you, no matter what you may profess.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
As to your question about a man who is divorced being pictured in a church directory with his second wife, I would simply say that while we cannot change the past, we are responsible for our behavior now. The answer to the question is a very individual one.
I have two members of my church who were married and divorced while very young. They are each now married to their second wives, and have been for thirty years or more. They are model husbands and fathers. The sin that saw the breakup of those first marriages happened at a point in time. They have responded with brokenness and repentance for those sinful acts, and have been forgiven on account of Christ. They are welcome to be pictured in our church directory.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
However, while I know of no example of this where I now serve, I can easily imagine a scenario in which a man married to his second wife would not be welcome to appear in our directory, nor would he be welcome to partake of the Lord’s Supper.
It would be because he had refused repeated attempts at loving correction of his unrepentant attitude toward his sin, first by an individual, then by a group, and finally by the church.
Such a person should not, however, be an object of scorn and ridicule, but of prayer, love, and continual outreach in the hope that, through the church, the love of God might soften his heart and bring him to the point of repentance.
These things are not determined by the social acceptability/unacceptability of a person’s sin, but by their willingness to forsake that sin and seek God’s forgiveness.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Wes… So straight people sin through divorce and remarriage, yet they are welcome in your church? You believe that gay people sin, yet they are unwelcome. How does this add up? I thought one sin was equal to another?
March 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
And P.S. to Chris and others. Stop trying to save me. I’m already saved. You are wasting your energy writing down what steps I need to take to gain salvation. I’m already your brother in Christ, no matter how much we may disagree on matters of law.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
They become equal at the point of repentance. The homosexual, like the man divorced and remarried, is welcome into the full fellowship immediately upon their demonstrated willingness to forsake the sin of homosexual behavior and to allow the Spirit to bring their life into line with God’s commands as revealed in His Word.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Mr. Matt,
I am not trying to save you….that is impossible for me, but is possible with God for you and me. So since you’re saved, then why do you continue to defend sin?
Blessings,
Chris
March 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Matt,
Christians do not disagree on matters of law. Christ has fulfilled the law. The church, ‘or called out ones’, are in agreement in Christ because of the Holy Spirit who applies Christ’s obedience to His children.
So why do you disagree with God about homosexuality, divorce, etc. This surely is not about having your picture in the directory is it…? It appears you are saying that since divorce people get to have their picture taken together, so should homosexuals or anyone else that is in sin. That is simply missing the entire work of Christ and the point of salvation to the Glory of God.
Tell me this is not about the picture directory or equal opportunity!! Come on brother, you can do better than that.
Blessings,
Chris
March 4th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Oh dear,
I wake up this morning to find that my friend Matt Comer is getting witnessed to, pretty heavily. I guess that’s the Southern Baptist way. Sorry about that, Matt. I’ve heard Matt’s moving testimony and followed his work with Soulforce; this Baptist doesn’t question his salvation.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Brother BDW,
Matt works with Soulforce? I remember them well. And you believe people that are in homosexual relationships are saved? Your apology to Matt concerning a clear witness reveals you to be one that enjoys tickling the ears of the others. But, not to worry, you are still my favorite
moderateliberal.Blessings,
Tim
March 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
B. Daddy,
Are you going to defend homosexuality and divorce like Matt is doing? What churches or associations are defending those or ever has? The Corinthians were trying and failed.
Your emotional plea on his behalf is touching, but testimonies are a dime a dozen these days.
I do not question his salvation, only his maturity. If he defends homosexuality or divorce, or begins to compare the two for inclusion to certain rights in the church he is professing to be a part of….then he misses the point.
Pretty simple stuff,
Blessings,
Chris
March 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Chris said: “So why do you disagree with God about homosexuality, divorce, etc.”
I don’t disagree with God. I believe that people have, in error, misinterpreted His Word when it comes to my life and my love of another man. I agree that divorce is wrong.
Chris said: “This surely is not about having your picture in the directory is it…? It appears you are saying that since divorce people get to have their picture taken together, so should homosexuals or anyone else that is in sin.”
No Chris, this is not about a picture in the directory. It is about how you interpret and enforce the Scripture — which is, by all means and at this point, in incoherent and unequal ways. How many gay people do I know who have been kicked out of their churches? More than I can count. Can I say the same about divorced people? Absolutely not.
Any person who says gay and straight people are treated the same within the church when it comes to sin would be lying.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Matt,
I am willing to look at scripture to prove a valid interpretation. What scripture are you referring to that lifts up homosexuality as the God ordained relationship for humankind? There are not two valid interpretations, so let’s dig in and see if we can get to the truth….
You say you are in Christ and I say I am in Christ….so, we should be able to agree according to the truth revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. This is not a secondary issue BTW. Let’s go…
Where would you like to start?
Blessings,
Chris
March 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
So, Chris… Now you are willing to be direct, yet when I wanted direct answers to my questions, I never got them. Shame.
My point in this whole thread is Christian hypocrisy. Gay people are treated one way because others they think are sinning, yet straight people are treated differently.
Everyone here says gay people can’t be pictured in that directory because they are “living in sin,” yet all those married couples who had divorces and remarried are living in sin, as well. Can’t everyone see that the circumstances aren’t being treated the same way at all?
March 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Big Daddy… Thanks and nice to see ’round again.