Christians and the church can do much more beyond welcome. About half of LGBT adults surveyed report no religious affiliation. While the ones who did attend worship felt welcome, the Pew survey found that most LGBT respondents view major religious groups (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) as “unfriendly.”
A new attitude within churches of openness and hospitality, anchored in biblical grace and truth, would be a startling response for individuals or couples with same-sex attraction. We need to repent of the notion that sexual identity is as easy to change as a light bulb.
What would this new attitude look like? Biblical belief and practice are tested by extreme situations. In this instance, the test occurs inside and outside the four walls of a church.
Ok, but at some point there is a transformation away from a life of sin. Jesus meets with sinners and they turn away from sin. What do you do with the homosexual couple says:
1. No thanks, we are happy the way we are.
2. Paul and the scripture writers didn’t know anything about homosexual orientation and the scriptures are wrong as applied to us thank you very much.
3. Homosexual sex is not sin and the state says it’s OK otherwise we couldn’t be married.
Yes there is grace, but there is also an expectation that one will live a life holy to the Lord as set out in Scripture.
We must welcome them for as long as they want to be part of our fellowship, and meanwhile pray for the full conversion of all our members. Remember, there are most likely many others in our group with sexual secrets whom we don’t police. So unconditional Christian love of neighbor along with unashamed faithfulness to the Gospel is the rule. If that combination does not bring about conversion, then the couple may conclude on their own that they can’t in good conscience stay in that community. But if they do stay, then the community must remain charitable and faithful.
So, in other words, we tolerate the sin. Maybe we can even teach that it is just another acceptable life style in our Sunday School classes. “Heather has two mommies.” After all we need to be inclusive. That sin stuff is just so much of a drag.
“We need to repent of the notion…”
It is bit off putting – and damaging to his argument – to characterize an apparently ‘unacceptable’ thought as a sin.
RE: “Remember, there are most likely many others in our group with sexual secrets whom we don’t police.”
Except that when they make *public* their “sexual secrets” church discipline is enacted, I assume.
For instance, when the heterosexual couple publicly proclaims their open marriage, one announces that they cannot serve within church leadership and that they are now no longer members in good standing and communion is denied them.
Same with same-sex couples. They’ve made quite public their “sexual secrets” and those sins, unrepented of, are scandalous and communion-denying.
Just to be clear — I’m perfectly comfortable with same sex couples *attending* the church till the cows come home.
You know, the Bible speaks quite directly to this. I Corinthians 5.
The point I failed to make above is that if we’re applying biblical standards strictly, then all divorced-and-remarried persons will have to be disenfranchised too. And no female clergy either. And no users of birth control. It’s got to be a holistic application of biblical law or else it’s hypocritical. Or we can strive to extend as much grace and mercy as God will give us.
RE: “then all divorced-and-remarried persons will have to be disenfranchised too.”
Well of course not. There are biblically-sound reasons for divorce and remarriage. And further . . . I know divorced-and-remarried people who have repented of their sin. The act of being *married* — however one came to that act — is not an intrinsic sin, as is same-sex expression.
RE: “And no female clergy either. And no users of birth control.”
Well — if you believe RC theology, go for it. But thankfully we’re Anglicans and do not believe that it is Biblically required for sexual acts between married persons to occur with the possibility of procreation.
And of course . . . I’m opposed to women clergy anyway, so *that* threat is no great one for me. ; > )
But again — there’s no need to either “welcome” female clergy or not as their purported status is not intrinsically sinful, any more than a woman asserting wrongly that she is the Queen of Sheba is intrinsically sinful. It’s not intrinsically sinful to be delusional. It is intrinsically sinful to engage in sex acts between the same sexes.
Actually, there are no biblically sound reasons for divorce and remarriage. Jesus left no loophole whatsoever in his pronouncement as witnessed by Matthew, Mark and Luke. In fact, that one pronouncement speaks far louder and clearer than any regarding sexual perversion. Anglicans may not believe birth control is bad, but if you take the whole body of Scripture seriously, no Christian can deny its condemnation. As I said, if we’re going to speak on homosexuality with any integrity at all, we’ve got to humbly backtrack and look again at what Scripture says about all these other sex-related things that various denominations have seen fit to thumb their noses at.
RE: “Actually, there are no biblically sound reasons for divorce and remarriage.”
False. And a red herring attempt, which is understandable.
RE: “Anglicans may not believe birth control is bad, but if you take the whole body of Scripture seriously, no Christian can deny its condemnation.”
On the contrary the vast majority of Christians recognize that birth control is not remotely “bad.” Another red herring attempt — again, understandable.
So.
Here’s what we’ve got.
We’ve got a scandalous sexual sin on which *all* those who believe the Gospel agree and on which liberal activists who do *not* believe the Gospel assert otherwise, but whose opinions are irrelevant in a Christian church.
The standard of church discipline for those engaging in public scandalous sin is quite clear, and there is no reason — none whatsoever — to not treat the unrepentant, public sexual sinner in the same way as one would treat an unrepentant, public thief or arsonist or child abuser.
RE: “these other sex-related things”
Yup — and I named a “sex-related thing” above that should receive the same discipline.
There should be no double standard. Those engaging in public scandalous unrepentant sinful sexual acts — of all sorts — should be disciplined by the church.
I’m comfortable with noting that you don’t think it’s good to enact church discipline on those engaging in same-sex sexual relations — but attempting to trot out some non-sinful actions as red herrings simply reveals that you prefer to distract from your own beliefs.
You can just as well point out that the *actual* sins for which churches don’t discipline — out-of-wedlock heterosexual sex, adultery, etc — makes church discipline for same-sex sexual relations hypocritical. But then . . . this entire thread would agree and happily point out that we support church discipline and/or denial of membership to all such unrepentant, public scandalous sins, as our *written* standards clearly assert.
RE: “but attempting to trot out some non-sinful actions as red herrings simply reveals that you prefer to distract from your own beliefs.”
Using acts that Christians simply do not remotely agree on as faux examples of “hypocrisy” and therefore reasons why no church discipline should be enacted on those engaging in public, scandalous, unrepentant sex acts between men or between women is no different from the average American separatist dispensationalist fundamentalist saying “The point I failed to make above is that if we’re applying biblical standards strictly, then all [those who do not use the KJV-only] will have to be disenfranchised too.”
Or “The point I failed to make above is that if we’re applying biblical standards strictly, then all [those who allow their women to worship without headcoverings] will have to be disenfranchised too.”
But why stop with fundamentalists? We could use RCs:
“The point I failed to make above is that if we’re applying biblical standards strictly, then all [those who do not believe in transubstantiation] will have to be disenfranchised too.”
Or the pacifist, Eden, vegan Christians: “The point I failed to make above is that if we’re applying biblical standards strictly, then all [those who eat meat] will have to be disenfranchised too.”
I’m sorry I posted anything.
I’m not questioning your position on same sex relationships, but I think your position on divorce and remarriage is very vague, which is understandable. Clearly there are very few biblically sound reasons for divorce and remarriage? Sexual immorality (Matthew 19:7-9), and when an unbelieving spouse seeks divorce from a believing spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15-17).
To marry after a divorce on any other grounds or to marry someone who is divorced except for the permitted reasons is to live in a state of adultery. You are correct in your analysis that the act of participating in a marriage ceremony is not a sin (unless of course the couple lied to the Priest or Bishop about the status of their previous marriage(s); and even if it were one could repent and seek forgiveness of that sin. However, the sin in question is the act of living in an adulterous relationship, a public scandalous unrepentant sinful sexual act. How does one repent of that sin and remain in the relationship? I think the answer is the Church has simply started ignoring those relationships.