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.
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.
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
“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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
Mr. Weave:
Are you saying that Broadway Baptist needs to deal with unrepentant racism as well as unrepentant homosexuality?
Riick Mang
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
And it really bothers me to be agreeing with Big Daddy. Sorry, fella, but it makes me question myself.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Brother Dave,
Sorry, but Robin made me edit that comment.
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
For the record, I don’t make anyone do anything. I only advise. :-D
Tim, BTW I find the steaks at Salt Grass are 100% better than Golden Corral. Just thought I would let you know.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 ( “arsenokoite?s” – 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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?
Big Daddy… Thanks and nice to see ’round again.
matt,
if you’re living in homosexual sin, then you are living in sin. also, we have every right to doubt your salvation…and, apparently, we need to doubt big daddy’s salvation as well…after the statement he made. it makes me wonder if yall truly understand the gospel.
matt, people who divorce and remarry are not necessarily living in sin. if the divorce was for reasons allowed in the bible, then they are free to remarry. 1 corinthians 7
now, if the divorce was for unbiblical reasons, then they should confess their sin….but, they should still stay together…imho. two wrongs dont make a right.
matt, with all the others in here, i encourage you to examine your heart and soul. it really sounds like you have missed the kingdom of heaven.
david
Matt,
I don’t think your point could be addressed with any more clarity that it has been already, but I’ll give it one last shot anyway.
A gay person who sees nothing wrong with their sin and feels no need to repent should not be pictured in the directory. A divorced-and-remarried person who sees nothing wrong with their sin and feels no need to repent should not be pictured in the directory.
A gay person who has recognized and repented of their sin, and determined from that day forward to life a life honoring to God should be welcomed into the membership of the church. A divorced-and-remarried person who has recognized and repented of their sin, and determined from that day forward to live a life honoring to God should be welcomed into the membership of the church.
Matt,
I was hoping you would take me up on the offer. But instead, you are going to run and hide and pretend that I did not answer your questions.
BTW, my offer still stands…. so when you stop pretending to want answers, just let me know.
Blessings,
Chris
Wes… Thank you for the direct response. But my point is still lost.
The very act of living in marriage with the second spouse is a state of living in sin, according to Christ. The first divorce should have never taken place and the rightful spouse is the first spouse. The FIRST marriage is still valid. By living in marriage with the second spouse, a person is actively committing adultery. This is the Bible. These are Christ’s words — yet this sin is given a pass by modern churches while gays are continually demonized.
The hyprocrisy here is rancid.
Matt
So, are you saying that the remarried couple should divorce after they have realized their previous divorce was a sin? Are you advocating they sin further?
MAT,
The comments by # 77 Volfan7 / David, # 78 Wes Kenney, # 79 Chris Johnson all put together answers all your questions by the Word of God.
The Holy Spirit resides in a Born Again Believer and corrects by a feeling of Guilt whenever one Sins. These leads the sinner to repent for each Sin as it Happens.
IN His Name
Wayne
Security Word was and is SPIRIT!!!
Big Daddy,
I am late to the party. I have a question for you based upon your #70 comment.
Is Matt Comer living a life-style wherein he is actively involved with males in sexual relations?
I have not read all of the comments here. I have read yours. I would greatly appreciate an answer if you know the answer.
Matt Comer,
If Big Daddy cannot or will not answer the question maybe you will;
Are you a sexually active sodomite?
cb
Robin said: “So, are you saying that the remarried couple should divorce after they have realized their previous divorce was a sin? Are you advocating they sin further?”
Robin, I’m merely applying Scripture the way it is literally written. The couple wouldn’t be sinning further, they’d only be putting a stop to their adultery and returning to the FIRST, sanctified and holy marriage. That’s Christ’s words, not mine.
Ya’ll… I really don’t understand why you all can’t understand this passage (Matthew 19:9) taken literally. You all are usually so good at Biblical literalism.
Matt,
God created man and woman. Man and woman have specific DNA at birth. Man and Woman have a purpose in God’s plan for redemption. What you and B. Diddy have yet to discover, is that no matter how someone is born, they have a specific DNA by God’s design. Sexual orientation / behavior which go against the plan of God, whether in homosexuality, divorce, adultery, etc. will always come under the wrath of God. There is no other answer. Simply hoping that God will understand your emotions and somehow overlook sin is the height of deception.
The reason God is against homosexuality is that sin has caused man to go against the revealed purpose and plan of creation. God’s design of man and woman has been compromised, whether by divorce, or homosexuality or adultery, etc.
In heaven there is no need for marriage. Why? Because God’s plan of redemption is complete. God is extremely clear on these points throughout scripture.
You may have a love for another man, but it is not by God’s design if it includes an orientation or behavior that burns in sexual desire for that man. God teaches us to flea those desires simply because those desires do not come from God, but they do come from the master deceiver, Satan.
I am still open to looking at any scripture you deem worthy to support your stance that God ordains homosexuality.
The divorce issue you keep returning to is no doubt a problem in many churches and should be dealt with on an individual case basis. God hates divorce. Divorce is allowed by God. Homosexuality is not allowed by God. Adultery is not allowed by God. Fornication is not allowed by God. What is your point?
Blessings,
Chris
CB… I don’t ask you about your personal sexual business, don’t ask me about mine. All you need to know is that I am gay (attracted emotionally, physiciall and spiritually to males) and a victim of church oppression and religion-based bigotry.
Chris said: “[Divorce] should be dealt with on an individual case basis.”
SO the church complains about the “threat” of gay marriage when we are only 4-5% of the population, yet when nearly a quarter of self-described born-again Christians have had a divorce, it is an “individual,” “case-by-case” problem? WOW.
Matt,
oh no Matt, you would be individual case as well. There is no such thing as “gay marriage” in God’s economy.
As far as victimization…You don’t make any sense brother. There is no way that anyone can be oppressed by the church “the called out one’s of God. He makes us free (Hebrews). God calls his children out in hope, not to victimize them. You and I are victims of sin. Fortunately there is remedy. Homosexuality is not the remedy, but it will continue to make you a victim.
Blessings,
Chris
“There is no such thing as “gay marriage” in God’s economy.”
Great sound-bite Chris, but that doesn’t hide the millions and millions of dollars poured into supporting constitutional amendments to ban marriage for loving gay couples.
I still haven’t heard anyone hear voice their support for an amendment banning divorce (except for unchastity, as laid down by Christ in Matthew 19:9).
anyone here* I used the wrong “here” lol oops It was that darned “heard” I wrote a few words before it.
Matt
I have read your comments since you started. I have also read the comments of others as they have answered your questions. In comment #87 you have taken Chris’ comment out of context.
Based on your comments, I honestly believe that no matter what we say, it will not be satisfactory to you. My advice to all the commenters is to figuratively shake the dust off our feet and leave you to the Lord. We have tried our best, your questions have been answered directly.
I pray the Lord will illuminate your mind to His truth and not some twisted pseudo truth you have formulated in your mind for the easement of your conscience.
all,
i’m beginning to think that no matter how much you try to explain scripture and try to reason with matt, he will not listen. i’m really beginning to think that matt does not want to truly discuss this issue. he just wants to argue and fight.
cb, if you will click on matt name, then you will go to matt’s blog. you will learn all you need to know about matt when you get there.
matt, the scripture literally allows people to divorce. the scripture literally allows divorced people to get married again. the bible…scripture…does not permit people to live in sodomy. it’s called a sin…clearly called a sin. in fact, gay sex is called a perversion…..it’s sin that is totally twisted.
come out of this sin and turn to Jesus. let Jesus be Lord of your life. throw your self upon His mercy. do it today, matt. please, do it today.
david
Matt,
You keep moving to Matthew 19, when we have been in 18 for most of this post. You have offended your brothers in Christ and a Holy God by defending a sin that is clearly marked out in scripture.
Most everyone on the post have given you wonderful direction and shown you scriptural support for God’s hate of homosexuality, divorce, fornication, adultery, etc. But, you continue to try and defend one of Satan’s most lavish besetting sins….passion outside of the plan of God. You’re not the first one to say that God can’t be right about this one.
I don’t see anyone here defending divorce, or adultery, or fornication. And you are the only one defending homosexuality (well…possibly BDW).
The truth will set you free my friend. So, like most of us on this post,…repent and know the joy of obedience in Christ. There is a certain guarantee… 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 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.
Whoever is telling you different is not from God.
Blessings,
Chris
David said: “matt, the scripture literally allows people to divorce. the scripture literally allows divorced people to get married again.”
You are right, but the Scripture only allows divorce in one instance. How can the church enforce Scriptural interpretation differently for different people. Sin is sin, right or wrong? How Baptists treat gay people doesn’t sync up with how they treat straight people who are sinning. It is wrong and as hypocritical as the actions of the religious leaders in Christ’s time.
Matt,
Basically I was seeking an answer from Big Daddy, but yours will do.
I have now had opportunity to read and catch up with the flow of this thread.
Matt, your original two questions are in all probably “strawmen.” Wes Kenney answered you well and accurately.
You are not too theologically sound because you are seeking to use what you think is an inequity within NT churches to justify you sin.
There is no inequity. If you are a sodomite who has been saved and does not engage in sodomite sexual activity due to knowing it is sin, no matter if you are “committed” to one man or if you play the field like the greatest of hetro-whoremongers that would be one thing. You may struggle with that sin as we all struggle with something, but if you are seeking to live holy before God you are as welcome in a church where I am as is Tim Rogers or his little brother Ben Cole.
If you are a sodomite who says he has had an experience of grace, yet continues to be sexually active with even a long time mate without the Spirit’s chastisement and conviction the Bible plainly says you are a bastard and not a son.
(if any of you boys want to yell at me for using the word bastard in this context; take it up with God)
Big Daddy, I like you greatly, but if you know this man is living as a sexually active sodomite, and you see no wrong in it, then maybe you need to check your own salvic relationship to Christ.
All, The sin of the sodomite has historically been very instrumental in the destruction of every civilization and society which has ever embraced it. Our nation will be no different.
Teach and preach against this sin to the death if necessary. Let the sodomites and those who would lie to them say what they please. A true Bible preacher is the best friend a sodomite has.
If we do not tell them the truth they will not repent and if they do not repent they will go to hell and at a later time be turned into the lake of fire.
What a shame we will carry before the judgement seat of Christ if we do not love them enough to tell them the truth of this sin.
We must preach the whole counsel of God and let the Devil take the hindmost parts with anything else.
cb
matt,
how do sb churches treat gay people? i always try to treat gay people with kindness and respect. i’d love for every gay person in my county to come to church this sunday. but, i also would tell them, like i’m telling you, that the bible says that they’re living in sin. now, you might call that mean. i dont. i would tell two straight people who were shacking up that they’re living in sin. i’d tell a pedophile that he was living in sin. and, this is not mean…it’s just telling the truth in love.
before i came to Christ, i lived to party. i smoked marijuana and drank on a consistent basis….as well as many other sins. i was wrong. and, when the preachers would preach about how wrong living in these type of sins was, they werent being mean to me. they were telling me the truth…out of love for my eternal soul. and, for that, i’m eternally grateful. i am thankful that they loved me enough to preach and teach the truth to me. i hope that you can appreciate that i’m trying to preach the truth to you…out of love and concern…right now.
david
Mat,
Doesn’t the Holy Spirit convict you that you are living in Sin and that you need to repent and get out of any situation that is causing you to Sin?
IN His Name
Wayne
Well…
The issue distills to this, how do we handle Divorce & Homosexuality? I, too, believe the majority of your questions, Matt, have been adequately handled. The one drum you keep beating might best be answered with a different approach.
You quote Matthew 19:9 — “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (ESV).
Upon the simple reading of the logical, and literal, interpretation of that verse we can see that the man who divorces his wife for the sake of immorality is freed from the prohibition to remarry.
This thought agrees well with the instruction given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 to women who are not married and widowed (by definition and usage of Greek words these women are not the same. Neither is the ‘unmarried’ of 1 Corinthians 7:8 ["To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. "] to be equated with the ‘never married,’ ‘betrothed,’ or ‘virgin’ of 1 Corinthians 7:25…again we have different words and the contrastive conjunction of “Now to the betrothed…”.) In 1 Corinthians 7:9, Paul lists an inspired instruction to the unmarried and widow… “But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
Simply stated, Scripture interprets Scripture and is systematically consistent from Genesis to Revelation. To attempt to proof-text a verse out of context leaves you with no viable argument.
Sola Gratia!
Scott… for someone who loves Biblical literalism as much as you (see here, in case you’ve forgotten), you’ve also seemed to have done what I get accused of doing everyday, mainly justifying sin.
Christ is clear when it comes to divorce, literally read. Paul’s words have nothing to do with Christ’s answer on the divorce question from those around Him.
The point remains that the church treats straight sinners differently from gay people. Again, this place wreaks of arrogant hypocrisy.
Does anyone mind if I jump the conversation all the way past Matthew 18 and Matthew 19 down to Matthew 23? There, in verse 23, Jesus said,
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.”
When someone points out your hypocrisy in order to urge you to be obedient on all points without neglecting any, then they are doing the work of Jesus in your life. On the other hand (pay close attention here, Matt), when someone alleges hypocrisy with the sole attention of bringing you to despair and urging you to neglect all points, they are doing the work of Satan. From such people, run.
Matt,
If this comment thread reeks of “arrogant hypocrisy” it is because you have comment over a dozen times as a hypocrite.
You obviously pose as what you are not.
cb
“sole intention“, that is.
Bart
I bet you waited to be #100.
:-)
foolishness: n. The act of knowing that C. B. Scott is taking someone on and yet thinking that the situation requires any effort on your part.
overkill: n. C. B. Scott + anyone else.
Robin,
You know me well.
Robin,
Perhaps Broadway Baptist Church was properly named.
David R. Brumbelow
I need to finish…
Matt, the understanding of porneia runs from sexual immorality to idolatry. Thus one has an equivocal statement to what Paul again instructs in 1 Corinthians 7:15 — “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.” In this case the believing spouse is no longer bound to the marriage if an unbelieving spouse leaves and divorces that person.
You raise the specter of the abusive spouse. That goes to the heart of breaking the wedding vows. That abusive spouse has certainly acted as unbeliever in his (or her) relationship to the other spouse. No one would, including Christ, advise anyone to stay in a situation which is abusive. (This argument has been well worked through at Vol’s blog recently). Divorce is never the primary option. reconciliation is at the heart of all we do as Christ’s ambassadors on earth. We must encourage people to be reconciled to each other and to God on the basis of His unchanging word and not cultural preferences. God has allowed divorce…WHICH HE HATES…because of the sinfulness with which people act toward each other.
NOW…no matter how many ‘theologians’ wish to redefine the Bible, homosexuality has been and continues to be described as sin. That issue is well established within the context of Scripture and the consistent witness of hundreds of years of Christian history.
SG!
Matt,
Ever been to New Orleans over Labor Day weekend?
Matt…
You consistently :-) accuse many here of inconsistency (e.g. hypocrisy). How would you be consistent with homosexuality, divorce, adultery, and fornication?
…and you LITERALLY hit the nail on the head! I do believe the Bible to be LITERALLY true and nothing I have said here contravenes that assertion.
I have said nothing to justify sin nor condone any lifestyle which is contrary to God’s word. All Scripture is GOD BREATHED…not just the parts you want to use. Contrary to the ‘red letterers,’ the words of Christ are not more inspired than Paul’s or Peter’s or Luke’s or John’s or Moses’ or Joel’s or David’s…ALL SCRIPTURE is profitable and must be used to gain a comprehensive understanding of God’s standard for our lives.
SG!
Matt,
If my understanding of divorce and remarriage be justification of sin, I am in good company…with men like Dr. John MacArthur espousing (yes used on purpose) the same point of view.
By Grace Alone!
Matt,
Some of these men I know personally. Some I know only from Blog Town.
I believe any one of them would show you respect as a person created in the image of God.
It may not be evident to you at this time, but they have acted toward you with godly compassion in telling you the truth.
They have presented you the gospel. They have rightly interpreted the Scripture relating to your specific questions and to the subject at hand.
They have been true friends to you on this day.
I pray you seek true peace with God through grace, by faith in Christ.
cb
Matt,
Many here have lovingly reached out to you. A brief analogy: Your house is on fire and burning down. We are banging on the door to warn you, because we do care! If we did not care, we would just let you and your house be destroyed. But not just to you or this sin, but to the whole world. As Paul stated, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. It is that good news that we want you to have and to no longer be in bondage to sin.
Ron P.
I believe Matt deserves a straight answer to his question regarding the interpretation of Matt 19:9 and how it applies in the local church. I’ll take a humble stab at it.
I believe, Matt, even though you are quoting the verse correctly, when removed from its context it means something different from what Jesus meant by it. The way you seem to be interpreting the verse is as if Jesus is answering the question, “Can a divorced person ever remarry?” That is not the context of Jesus’ response at all. Jesus is answering the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (19:3). His answer is clearly, “No. What God has joined together, let no man separate.” Divorce is not God’s plan.
The Pharisees then ask a loaded question, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” (A note of precision: Moses never “commanded” divorce, but he did “permit” it.) Why did he permit it? “Because of your hardness of heart,” in other words, because of sin. Whenever divorce takes place it is because people’s hearts are hard and unwilling to work according to God’s plan for marriage.
With that context, that no one can divorce for just “any reason” that they want but in certain cases it may be “allowable,” Jesus responds to people who are wanting license to divorce for “any reason at all” with, “Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (19:9). In other words, a person seeking to divorce their wife so that they can marry another woman is committing sheer adultery. They have been unfaithful to their wife they have.
In other words, Jesus was still answering the original question, “Can a man divorce his wife for any reason at all?” He was speaking to the purpose that they wanted a divorce (so that they could remarry). Anyone who finds another person they would rather be married to and thus divorces to marry another is committing “adultery.” This term does not necessarily apply to someone who has been divorced in the past and later on decides to remarry.
In my ministry, Matt, I deal with some very flawed sinners. If they have been divorced in the past and are seeking remarriage, there are two things we must first deal with: (1) The “hardness of heart” issue. We must first deal with their personal sin that may have led to that divorce. (2) The purpose for their divorce and the reason they want to remarry. If the two purposes are in any way related, then it is an “adulterous” situation and I won’t have a part in it. If they come to a point of repentance, when they are ready to act in a godly way, then we will talk.
That’s my long-winded interpretation of an intriguing passage from Jesus’ lips. I hope it helps.
Kevin Peacock
Brother Kevin Peacock,
Matt is not looking for a ‘straight’ answer. He has received those answers already and they were not what he wanted to hear.
However, you do give a great exegesis of that text.
Blessings,
Tim
Actually Tim… Kevin was the first to directly answer the question in clear terms and without the added preaching about my sexuality. Thanks Brother Kevin — your answer actually helps my understanding of some things I didn’t know (i.e. “commanded” vs. “permitted”, as one example).
Matt,
Your last answer reveals the closed mind that you have. You use what you would like in order to further your cause and capture your quest.
While Brother Kevin gave an excellent exegesis of the text, he really did not reveal anything that others in this comment thread have not already said concerning the Matthew passage. You would not accept the truth of the passages outlined for you in Comment #42; in comment #48 you were given a ‘straight’ answer concerning your questions, as well as comments #50;63;64. In comment #82, Brother Wayne Smith, who BTW seldom agrees with me on anything, agrees with the direction this thread took once you entered. It is not about us saving you it is about you allowing the Lord Jesus to have preeminence in your life. For the Lord Jesus to have preeminence means a turning from your sins and self and turning to Him.
Your questions were answered long before Brother Kevin Peacock entered the comment stream. What you have done is what you appear to do with other passages of Scripture–pick what suits your fancy. I encourage you to accept the full council of God and stop picking and choosing.
Blessings,
Tim
Matt,
So, now you know. What are you going to do about it? Will you now be obedient to the whole counsel of God’s Word?
Your use of an isolated Text as an argument for embracing a sodomite life-style is now shown to be without merit when compared to the truth of that particular Text and the whole of Scripture.
If you believe the Bible to be sufficient then you must turn toward God in repentance and place faith in Him to work His good purpose in your life.
To do anything else will be rebellion to a greater degree than your previous rebellion now that you know the truth. You, by your own admission now have an understanding of the Text to which you directed your questions. There is an Old Testament passage which well describes your future if you do not repent and turn in faith to Christ relating to this matter in your life.
Take heed, and seek God while you have opportunity, Matt, and the truth of John 8:31-36 will make you free indeed.
cb
Mr. Comer,
As I read your comments, it seems you are looking for consistency. You would like the same passion against homosexuality placed on other sin that you see in the “church” today. All the surveys conducted indicate that the majority of so called “born again” Christians are hypocritical. Even in my own life, I struggle with hypocrisy. It is truly easier to see others sin quicker than I see my own. (From your comments it seems we both might struggle with that) For that, we should repent. Why? Because it is sin. Sin keeps us from fellowship with God. It is a barrier that we place that must be broken down. It will not be broken down by ourselves. It takes one who knew no sin to do that for us – Jesus Christ. We repent – turn from our sin. Confess – say the same thing about sin that God says. I know I’m preaching and it’s a sermon you have obviously heard before. But please hear my heart… I do not want to come across as arrogant, self-righteous, or uncaring. The greatest sin is not homosexuality. The greatest sin is not divorce. The greatest sin is idolatry, worshipping other things beside the one true living God. Greed is sin. Pride is sin. Gossip is sin. All of these including homosexuality keeps us from true fellowship with God and they must be dealt with and needs to be forgiven. As Billy Graham said, “That’s why Christ came and died on the cross.”
Yes, as born again Christians we should lobby just as hard against divorce that is unbiblical as we do against homosexuality. Know this… There is one pastor in Illinois that is just as consistent about divorce as I am about homosexuality. Just as consistent about gossip as I am about homosexuality. Just as consistent as _________ (you fill in the sin) as I am about homosexuality. Because the bottom line is that people suck – But God saves. People are bad. Satan is bad, but God is good. Just as he forgives my sin, he will forgive your sin.
Matt,
I would like to add to what Brother Brent has presented to you. There are pastors in the SBC that are just as consistent about divorce as we are about homosexuality. One example that comes to mind for my particular church. Our church understands that the Bible teaches Deacons that have a divorce and remarriage in their background are not able to fill that position. However, we do not stop there. We also will not allow a man to serve as a deacon whose wife is known as a gossip.
There is a consistency with dealing with sin. You are over in Charlotte, and I am not far from you here in Statesville. Come visit with us and we would be honored to have you.
Blessings,
Tim
Mr. Comer and all of us sinners,
Jesus gives the most lucid truth concerning the subject of sin and justice. The scene will be like this… When we stand before God, we will try to argue our case for sin, whether it is fornication, drunkenness, divorce, drunkenness, or homosexuality.
My primary and best defense is that I am sincere in my pursuit and surely a loving God will understand my desires. I will tell God that my interpretations of His word can’t be wrong,… at least all my friends agree with how I see scripture. After all, the bible tells me God is love, and He surely understands my heart and my deep affections and love for others. He would not punish me for that, it just would not be right.
I would go on to say…”You don’t understand me God….Big Daddy Weave even came to my defense, He told you without any hesitation…….
“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.”
“Lord, …I have a great testimony. I have other Christians say to you that I’m a Christian. My testimony is moving and everyone likes it and many others have been saved because of it. Why can’t I just love this one sin…..it is not that big a deal, it’s the most valuable thing I cherish in this life…..surely you wouldn’t make me give that up…would you? Look, God…you even allow those divorce people to get on with their lives..I know you are a fair and loving God ..I know you can’t judge me, unless you judge them too.”
The only recourse that God has is His word of truth…..
Matthew 7:18-23 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. (19) “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (20) “So then, you will know them by their fruits. (21) “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. (22) “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ (23) “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Our only recourse…. before the Lord meets us with that truth…. is to repent and love Him.
Blessings,
Chris
I’ve really enjoyed reading all of the comments on this thread. I sense a true love for Matt and his situation, not a condescending, judgmental attitude as some would say. I appreciate that.
Someone alluded to this earlier, but I think that Matt’s point is not to argue that divorce and remarriage is wrong, but to try to undo just one little knot in a person’s theology. If he can do that, the whole garment comes apart, and then he will be right in his belief that men can be married to men.
What no one has mentioned is that whereas the Bible is literally true, it is not always meant to be understood literally. Someone said earlier that Jesus’ talk about divorce and remarriage was in response to an attitude by the Pharisees, not so much a definitive answer to a definitive question. Is divorce a part of God’s plan? No way. Does He graciously allow those of us who are prone to sin to divorce and remarry without fear of losing our salvation? I think so. I am divorced and am now remarried. I am a sinner, but my relationship with my wife is not sinful. I am not petitioning my church to call me as a deacon, or hire me as a staff member, nor would I want to. God uses me in much bigger and better ways than that.
Point is, I can make a pretty good argument that even though divorce and remarriage is an issue that can be debated, it is not always clear cut when it is a sin to divorce, or who commits sin when they remarry.
What is clear cut, in both the Old and New Testaments, and whether you believe in a literal interpretation or not, is that homosexuality is a sin. Period. And even though a person can be a Christian and still struggle with the temptations associated with having a leaning toward homosexuality, I don’t believe that a person can be a Christian if they are homosexual, if they spend their lives not only refusing to repent of it, but trying to change God’s mind about it. The same would be true of refusing to repent of any sin.
This isn’t about homosexuality, or divorce and remarriage. It is about repentence. It is about agreeing with God that we are sinners, and we are in desperate need of salvation. It is about acknowledging that the only way to have salvation from our sins, and the penalty of those sins, is to turn from them, and accept the gracious offer of God to save us. What will not save you is trying to convince God that he was wrong, and needs to change his mind.