Christian support for Homosexuality, Islam....

[chev1958]

We tend to not say so much about other sins (even sins of a sexual nature), while spewing forth hatefully when it comes to condemning homosexual sin. I am not sure why this is, perhaps you have a thought to share concerning it?

Much of the strong reaction to sodomy today is because supporters have become so much more vocal today. Sodomites stayed in the closet, so there wasn't much of a need to preach against it. In the 1950s, rock music was the scourge of society. In the 1960s, preachers thundered against "free love" and drugs. When abortion was legalized in 1973, preachers focused heavily on that issue. As divorce became more prevalent, more sermons were directed against that. Of course, liquor always get attention. Sodomy was not that big of a societal issue until now.

Now, sodomites are coming out and shoving their debauchery into the face of society, trying to gain acceptance of their lifestyle choice. The rapid pace of legalizing sodomite marriages has caused a strong pushback. That's why it seems Christians are reacting so vehemently against it now. It's become the pressing issue of our time.

[heartstrings]

We tend to look down more on those who do the things we don't do......But the Word of God puts things like "defrauding your brother" right in there with homsexuality. Over the years I've witnessed church members back stab one another, do despicable things to each other and apparently think nothing of it. "Touch not mine anointed" is not just a warning to those who would do the Pastor or preacher wrong: it means any brother or sister in Christ and it's a very serious thing. There is a proper way to deal with such contentions given in Matthew 18. But back to homosexuals: Would I go to a church which had a homosexual pastor, music director or anything like that?. absolutley not. But nOBody is going to want what we have, if we don't show compassion and the love of God in us.

1 Corinthians 6:6
But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Edited August 13, 2010 by heartstrings

[trc123]

Interesting OBservations chev1958 and heartstrings. Thank you for sharing.

[CPR]

To answer the question concerning the Episcopal Church, I (and I'm sure ptwild as well) did not mean to imply that we were independent in the same way that an IFB church is independent. I was trying to point out the difference between the Catholic Church and the Pope and my church and the Archbishop. Our churches are not bound to a leader who we must believe is infallible in doctrine.

Bishops are elected by individual dioceses. We are all accountable to Christ, but I and many others find it a little concerning when a system is set up that has no system of accountability and hierarchy. I'm not saying that it's wrong, and OBviously it works for some churches. Again, there is OBviously concern for systems set up where you have too strong of an authority (earthly that is) that cannot be challenged. If misused I think these are the systems most vulnerable to abuse. I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong, because let's face it, any system made of humans has flaws. Just some things that do occur to me.

Back to the original question, I'm prOBably not explaining very well to someone who doesn't have any experience the system of bishops, but this website is pretty good for exploring all aspects of the Episcopal/Anglican church: http://anglicansonline.org/basics/what_is_episcopal_ch.html

Edited August 13, 2010 by CPR

[ptwild]

To answer the question concerning the Episcopal Church, I (and I'm sure ptwild as well) did not mean to imply that we were independent in the same way that an IFB church is independent. I was trying to point out the difference between the Catholic Church and the Pope and my church and the Archbishop. Our churches are not bound to a leader who we must believe is infallible in doctrine.

Bishops are elected by individual dioceses. We are all accountable to Christ, but I and many others find it a little concerning when a system is set up that has no system of accountability and hierarchy. I'm not saying that it's wrong, and OBviously it works for some churches. Again, there is OBviously concern for systems set up where you have too strong of an authority (earthly that is) that cannot be challenged. If misused I think these are the systems most vulnerable to abuse. I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong, because let's face it, any system made of humans has flaws. Just some things that do occur to me.

Back to the original question, I'm prOBably not explaining very well to someone who doesn't have any experience the system of bishops, but this website is pretty good for exploring all aspects of the Episcopal/Anglican church: http://anglicansonline.org/basics/what_is_episcopal_ch.html

Good points about the hierarchy system. I don't believe that it is necessary and that it is right for everyone, but I do prefer it. Not only do I believe that it is in line with the practices of the early church, but I also believe it is what keeps us all together. In other Christian communities in which there is no heirarchy, it seems that once the leader (usually a pastor or preacher) goes against the will of the congregation, or starts promoting unsound doctrine, the only reaction is to split up. Those who oppose the pastor leave and those who agree with him stay. Then, a few months or years later, the pattern repeats itself. Someone gets upset over nothing, or the pastor (or maybe even the congregation) starts delving into unsound doctrine (or perceived unsound doctrine) and they split again. And so it goes, on and on, until you have a town of 3,000 people and 30 Baptist Churches (not picking on Baptist -just using them as an example - it could be anyone) with a new one popping up every few years.

On the other hand, if you have a Bishop, there is no splitting. The Bishop simply removes the priest from the Church. Now, there could be a huge prOBlem if the Bishop himself is not acting in accordance with scripture. Well, in the Episcopal Church, the Bishop is elected by his dioceses and thereby can be removed by the popular vote of the congregations. Sure, it can get bogged down at times, but it provides by a continuity that keeps us together through the good times and the bad.

[Alimantado]

John, I've asked this question of Jerry Numbers and--if you don't mind--I'll ask the same of you. I'm still searching for a church over here in the UK. I've found it very difficult as a new Christian to tell what a 'good' church is as I know so little of scripture and cannot easily judge how faithful a given church is to God's truth. Many churches teach the same fundamental truths but differ on details and I've yet to find one that wouldn't be condemned by many on this board for one reason or another--it might be reformed in its teachings, or it might allow women to preach, or it might let women have their heads uncovered, or it might not be AV-only, or it might believe in talking in tongues etc etc.

To focus on two of those that come up on this board frequently--Bible versions and Calvinism--I've found out that there are almost no churches left in the UK that are AV-only. As far as I can tell, the only ones left are either Anglican or reformed or both. Many on here would say that a Church that taught reformed doctrine was "yoked to wickedness" and more would say that a church that didn't use the AV was "yoked to wickedness", just as surely as you say that Anglican churches are "yoked to wickedness".

What church would you recommend I attend in the UK, given what I've just told you? Or could you give me any other advice about my situation?

trc123: We tend to not say so much about other sins (even sins of a sexual nature), while spewing forth hatefully when it comes to condemning homosexual sin. I am not sure why this is, perhaps you have a thought to share concerning it?

Hi trc123, I think Heartstrings has made an excellent OBservation. Perhaps it is indeed easier to speak out against sins that one is certain they are not guilty of themselves. Relatively few people have homosexual desires and the average Christian does not worry that they might be tempted. Heartstrings brings up defrauding your brother. Another sin listed in that verse is covetousness. I have only ever heard one sermon on covetousness and although I've seen at least half a dozen entire threads on homosexuality in this forum over the past couple of years, I've only seen one member condemn covetousness, that being Jerry Numbers.

Cheers

Carl

[John81]

I would like to make what I believe is an OBvious OBservation; but there may be some reading too whom it may not be so OBvious.

One can support the individual civil liberties and rights afforded by our secular government to an individual without condoning or supporting someone's sinful behavior (as defined in the Scriptures).

For instance, while I oppose the sin of homosexuality and gay marriage and I will legally speak out for my government to not allow it to be legal; I will not do anything to physically or emotionally harm (vicious name calling) those engaged in that sin. I will tell them it is sin and preach it is sin and call them to repentance, but it is not my place as a Christian to show hatred toward them. It is my place to show them the eternal and temporal results of their sin before God. After that, it is in God's hands to deal with and judge.

Also, it seems to me that we (me included) Christians are a bit hypocritical in the way we talk about and too those in the sin of homosexuality. We tend to not say so much about other sins (even sins of a sexual nature), while spewing forth hatefully when it comes to condemning homosexual sin. I am not sure why this is, perhaps you have a thought to share concerning it?

I don't know of any true Christians espousing hatred or name calling.

All sins are to be confronted and most true Christians are doing this, whether it be homosexuality, adultery, or whatever. The reason the homosexual issue seems to be more at the front right now is because the homosexual movement has determined to take an "in your face" approach. They claim to not want anyone telling them what they can do in their bedroom (which, if they kept it there who would really know?) but in reality they want to push for full acceptance of homosexuality in public while demanding special rights. Any seemingly extra attention homosexuals are receiving today is because of their actions.

[John81]

John, I've asked this question of Jerry Numbers and--if you don't mind--I'll ask the same of you. I'm still searching for a church over here in the UK. I've found it very difficult as a new Christian to tell what a 'good' church is as I know so little of scripture and cannot easily judge how faithful a given church is to God's truth. Many churches teach the same fundamental truths but differ on details and I've yet to find one that wouldn't be condemned by many on this board for one reason or another--it might be reformed in its teachings, or it might allow women to preach, or it might let women have their heads uncovered, or it might not be AV-only, or it might believe in talking in tongues etc etc.

To focus on two of those that come up on this board frequently--Bible versions and Calvinism--I've found out that there are almost no churches left in the UK that are AV-only. As far as I can tell, the only ones left are either Anglican or reformed or both. Many on here would say that a Church that taught reformed doctrine was "yoked to wickedness" and more would say that a church that didn't use the AV was "yoked to wickedness", just as surely as you say that Anglican churches are "yoked to wickedness".

What church would you recommend I attend in the UK, given what I've just told you? Or could you give me any other advice about my situation?



Hi trc123, I think Heartstrings has made an excellent OBservation. Perhaps it is indeed easier to speak out against sins that one is certain they are not guilty of themselves. Relatively few people have homosexual desires and the average Christian does not worry that they might be tempted. Heartstrings brings up defrauding your brother. Another sin listed in that verse is covetousness. I have only ever heard one sermon on covetousness and although I've seen at least half a dozen entire threads on homosexuality in this forum over the past couple of years, I've only seen one member condemn covetousness, that being Jerry Numbers.

Cheers

Carl

Without knowing more it's really hard to give a specific answer. There are no perfect churches but there are some very bad churches. When there is no church that fits you really well, one must look for the best possible church available.

Reformed churches vary greatly. Some you would hardly know they had any Calvinist to them at all unless perhaps the pastor was preaching on certain passages in Romans. At the same time, some Reformed churches emphasize such.

There are some good churches out there that don't use the KJB. I know some men who attend a good church that uses the NIV and these men use the NIV and these men are among the spiritually strongest men I know. (I'm not advocating the NIV, myself I find it to be very weak and unfulfilling, but somehow these men manage to grow in the Lord using it) Anyway, my point being that it's possible to find a good church where the Word of God is preached effectively, where the lost could hear the true Gospel and the saved can be edified, even if they don't use the KJB. I attended such a church for a time and I carried a parallel Bible with their MV and the KJB side by side in it.

A few years ago when we were looking for a new church home I spent a great deal of time looking up church websites, reading their "what we believe" statements, reading online sermons of pastors, checking out material I could find from these churches and visiting some. I also asked around, which might help for you or others, but in my case this didn't reap much good.

I never found exactly what I was looking for but I did find a few which seemed worth checking into further. All but two of those failed inspection. One I could have settled upon if there was no other choice, the other (the one we now attend) was very close to what I was looking for.

Most important is to know the pastor is a true born again believer in Christ and that he preaches the Word of God.

[chev1958]

Good points about the hierarchy system. I don't believe that it is necessary and that it is right for everyone, but I do prefer it. Not only do I believe that it is in line with the practices of the early church, but I also believe it is what keeps us all together. In other Christian communities in which there is no heirarchy, it seems that once the leader (usually a pastor or preacher) goes against the will of the congregation, or starts promoting unsound doctrine, the only reaction is to split up. Those who oppose the pastor leave and those who agree with him stay. Then, a few months or years later, the pattern repeats itself. Someone gets upset over nothing, or the pastor (or maybe even the congregation) starts delving into unsound doctrine (or perceived unsound doctrine) and they split again. And so it goes, on and on, until you have a town of 3,000 people and 30 Baptist Churches (not picking on Baptist -just using them as an example - it could be anyone) with a new one popping up every few years.

On the other hand, if you have a Bishop, there is no splitting. The Bishop simply removes the priest from the Church. Now, there could be a huge prOBlem if the Bishop himself is not acting in accordance with scripture. Well, in the Episcopal Church, the Bishop is elected by his dioceses and thereby can be removed by the popular vote of the congregations. Sure, it can get bogged down at times, but it provides by a continuity that keeps us together through the good times and the bad.

Unfortunately, you're correct that too many Baptist churches go through splits. I've been through one, and there are no winners when it happens. If congregations would follow Scripture instead of men, then a pastor would be removed by the congregation (Matt 18) if he advocates unsound doctrine, and there would be no split. Having someone outside the church telling the congregation who will and who won't pastor a church doesn't go over well with Baptists.

What happens many times is a pastor becomes popular rather than Scriptural, and folks follow the man rather than God. Similar to politics, now that I think about it.

[ptwild]

Unfortunately, you're correct that too many Baptist churches go through splits. I've been through one, and there are no winners when it happens. If congregations would follow Scripture instead of men, then a pastor would be removed by the congregation (Matt 18) if he advocates unsound doctrine, and there would be no split. Having someone outside the church telling the congregation who will and who won't pastor a church doesn't go over well with Baptists.

What happens many times is a pastor becomes popular rather than Scriptural, and folks follow the man rather than God. Similar to politics, now that I think about it.

I think this prOBably has to do with the increased role the pastor plays in Baptist churches. If my priest had as much control and influence as I believe most pastors do, I wouldn't want anyone else having anything to do with picking my priest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it indeed a pastor who is usually the one that actually "starts" (don't know if that's the right word) the church? Whereas in Anglicanism, the dioceses plants a church whereever there is a large enough congregation of practicing Anglicans to support it.

A priest has a much less active role in the affairs of the local church (at least in the Anglican Church). He is there to administer the sacraments and lead the worship service (and even that is a limited role considering that the BCP dictates the order of service). The administration of the Church's business is left to what we call the vestry (made up of a senior warden, junior warden, secretary . . .).

[HappyChristian]

Good points about the hierarchy system. I don't believe that it is necessary and that it is right for everyone, but I do prefer it. Not only do I believe that it is in line with the practices of the early church, but I also believe it is what keeps us all together. In other Christian communities in which there is no heirarchy, it seems that once the leader (usually a pastor or preacher) goes against the will of the congregation, or starts promoting unsound doctrine, the only reaction is to split up. Those who oppose the pastor leave and those who agree with him stay. Then, a few months or years later, the pattern repeats itself. Someone gets upset over nothing, or the pastor (or maybe even the congregation) starts delving into unsound doctrine (or perceived unsound doctrine) and they split again. And so it goes, on and on, until you have a town of 3,000 people and 30 Baptist Churches (not picking on Baptist -just using them as an example - it could be anyone) with a new one popping up every few years.

On the other hand, if you have a Bishop, there is no splitting. The Bishop simply removes the priest from the Church. Now, there could be a huge prOBlem if the Bishop himself is not acting in accordance with scripture. Well, in the Episcopal Church, the Bishop is elected by his dioceses and thereby can be removed by the popular vote of the congregations. Sure, it can get bogged down at times, but it provides by a continuity that keeps us together through the good times and the bad.

These are some good points, and often quite true. But with IFB, a good many churches (most likely all, but I can't say that for sure) have constitutions which give the people the authority to dismiss the pastor if he veers from scripture into unsound doctrine or unbiblical practice. If the congregation studies scripture enough they will know the unsound doctrine and can do something about it - at times. Not always, and that is sad.

We do enjoy the privilege of deciding on our own choice for pastor, though, and (as Mitch said) is something we would be loath to give up. The flip side of that is the offerings which come in. The monies that IFB churches collect are kept within the purview of the individual congregation and disbursement is decided on by that same congregation. Many denominations send their monies to headquarters, or headquarters tells them how the money is to be spent - how much on missions, how much for building, etc., etc. That is another privilege that IFB would be loath to give up, for many reasons, not the least of which is that we don't want our money to be given to something or someone we don't support for biblical reasons.

Church splits are a sad thing, and a mediating authority might be good in such a case. Especially an OBjective one. But there again is the independence. There are pros & cons to both systems. As to the early church, there isn't complete agreement that it was a system of hierarchy at all times. When persecution hit Christianity and they began to scatter, things changed a bit. Paul planted churches and was in the position of advisor (granted an advisor with authority) until he died. No-one took his place, and things changed some more. Until we get to today when I truly don't think any church is just like the first churches.

Mitch, you're exactly right! People seem to need to follow, and the pastor is a good focus for many - sometimes regardless of his doctrine or lifestyle. Even when a church doesn't technically split, when a few members leave here and there for scriptural reasons, people are hurt. My folks went through something like that and were spiritually wounded. God showed us a wonderful church for them and they have healed and thrived, praise the Lord.

[HappyChristian]

I think this prOBably has to do with the increased role the pastor plays in Baptist churches. If my priest had as much control and influence as I believe most pastors do, I wouldn't want anyone else having anything to do with picking my priest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it indeed a pastor who is usually the one that actually "starts" (don't know if that's the right word) the church? Whereas in Anglicanism, the dioceses plants a church whereever there is a large enough congregation of practicing Anglicans to support it.

A priest has a much less active role in the affairs of the local church (at least in the Anglican Church). He is there to administer the sacraments and lead the worship service (and even that is a limited role considering that the BCP dictates the order of service). The administration of the Church's business is left to what we call the vestry (made up of a senior warden, junior warden, secretary . . .).

Many times the pastor will start a particular church. Our pastor started ours 40 years ago this fall. He was asked to come here by people who lived in the area and wanted an IFB church. However, one of these days he will be stepping down, as he's not getting any younger (duh! =D) and the church will vote on a new pastor. We actually did that a few years back, but then that man felt that God didn't actually want him to pastor the church. And that was fine - better to find out before he actually assumed the position than afterwards!

Many times, a church will help a man start another church. We've done that with 2 in the Chicago area, so they were considered part of our missions program (one still is, the other has been indigenous for quite a while now). Both financial support and physical (people going at times to help with various things at the new church, whether it's knocking on doors, special services, building, etc) are part of that.

[chev1958]

Many times, a church will help a man start another church ... Both financial support and physical (people going at times to help with various things at the new church, whether it's knocking on doors, special services, building, etc) are part of that.

That's my situation, except our sending church asked me to start our church and then provided the support.

[JerryNumbers]

It's interesting that some Baptists condemn churches like the Catholic church for teaching that they must be part of a specific church to be saved, but they are often the first to question if one is a "true Christian" when attending a church other than a Baptist church.

Maybe that old joke about Baptists thinking they are the only ones in heaven has a little bit of truth?

I have no idea who is telling this joke, I never heard it, and I have never heard it said in a Baptist church in my 63 years that only Baptist will be in heaven. I've never head a person who calls their self a Baptist make such a statement. Oh, that is not something one should joke about, its something to be serious about, it is a matter of souls going to hell. Anyone who can find humor in that is sick.


By the way, Jesus saves, not works, not baptizing, not church membership, that said, check out the Catholics, you will find that they have taught you must be a member of the Catholic church to enter heaven, and the churches of Christ teach one has to be baptized into the church of Christ to enter heaven.

I know for fact that they church of Christ teach this, I've been told by its members, and I have heard some of its pastors state this on TV.

[JerryNumbers]

It's a real shame but I know what you say is true. How amazingly shallow are so many professing Christians when something personal in their lives comes in conflict with the Word of God. Are we to ignore the Word of God because someone we know submits to the sin of homosexuality? Are we to ignore the Word of God because we want to be rid of our spouse and find us a "better" one?

It's all too common for professing Christians to put their own desires above God. Christ is Saviour AND Lord, not just Saviour. If we proclaim Christ as our Saviour we must have Christ as our Lord as well. It seems a great many professing Christians want the security feeling of Jesus as Saviour but they don't want their lives interferred with by having Jesus as Lord. An unbiblical concept that more than a few pastors even promote.

A lot of professing Christians are more interested in comfort and ease or even tradition than it doing what the Word of God commands. They will sit in a corrupt church rather than find a good church because it's so much easier. They don't want to upset anyone by leaving but they are unconcerned with how their sin grieves the Lord. They will remain yoked to an ungodly church because their family has always done that and better to disrespect God than to risk offending their family.

As you rightly point out, Christ never promised us a life of ease and comfort where everyone would love us and all would go our way. Rather the Lord told us plainly that following Him will cost us and if we are not willing to pay the price we are unworthy to be His disciple.

I must confess, I once was very interested in the comfort and ease, what I could get out of God, but OBeying this verse changed me.


15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15 (KJV)