How I would react.....

I have three Facebook friends that are of this persuasion. (three that I know for sure) - One (a female) is the child of a lifelong friend - one (male) is a local boy who was in h.s. band with my two and who became an opera singer - and the other (male) is a local elementary teacher who is on the city council whose "partner" owns one of the local greenery nurseries.

First of all, I pray for God to give me wisdom in dealing with this. Secondly, I don't act any differently towards them than I do any other lost person - They all know that I have a strong stance on the Bilbe, and they also know I am a conservative voter - but I don't flaunt my aversion to their lifestyle in their faces....if they ask, I will tell them. But I don't seek to patronize or scorn them. Sin is sin is sin.

There is only one unforgiveable sin - denial of Christ as Savior.

Let he who is wthout sin cast the first stone??

If I were ever able to get them to church, believe me, I would. Until that day, I try to walk the walk of a Christian.

Those are my random but sincere thoughts.

Debbie Mc

 

My comment wasn't about not associating with a homosexual. It was about not hiring a guy for your wedding that is a known homosexual activist. It seems to me that as a conservative, it's not very consistent of Rush to hire Elton.

Should we refuse to get in a taxi because you find out the driver is a homosexual? No, I'm not saying that at all.

Should we invite them to church? That wouldn't be a bad idea. I'd present the Gospel to them outside of church first though. I believe the church is primarily a place to edify the believers. Too many people use the church as a place to bring unbelievers because they are too scared to present the Gospel individually.

 

No
Yes
Yes
I would stop directly witnessing to them and allow my life to continue to be a witness and continue befriending them.

We have used the word abomination to give us license to ostracize homosexuals and that is wrong on the part of Christians. There are many other sins in the scriptures which God also calls abominations and I'd bet at least 1 applies to each one of us here. So am I supposed to stop associating with you, or you with me? No. So neither should we stop associating with homosexuals. We are to LOVE the sinner. God loves them, he simply hates their sin as much as he hates any sin anyone commits. God hates all sin.

Sometimes I think we've all gone overboard with wearing the mantle of conservativeism because we're trying to appear so holy and just. Instead we need to take a harder look at scripture and remember who Jesus associated with in His life....the lowest of the low. He loved them, and won them for Heaven. We should do the same.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

It is my conviction that simply withdrawing friendships and relationships with those of the homosexual persuasion is not the correct response of believers who take seriously the challenge to be salt and light to the culture at large. That having been said, dealing with the "militant representatives" of such is a different challenge altogether. We should be clear, humble, but clear that we as Christians stand morally opposed to such conduct, and particularly against cultural elements which seek to "legitimize" it in all ways.

We should clearly and humbly communicate that "we" are only "morally" different in that, as believers, we have been redeemed. Judging (real judgement) is in the job description of the Diety (YHWH) only.

 

Accountant...........................Yes
Auto Mechanic.......................Maybe
Babysitter.............................Need you ask?
Corner Store clerk...................Probably
Lawyer..................................Yes
Minister.................................Definitely
Taxi Driver.............................Don't know
Paper boy..............................No

No

No

That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Sexual deviance betrays an aberrant apetite and a wholly corrupt view of nature, society and man's place and duty therein. One would be a fool to knowingly enter into partnerships or other contractual obligations where one's livelihood or home can be put at risk.

On the subject of close friendships, it shouldn't even be a question. Do not be deceived, (And Paul says that because many ARE deceived) evil communications corrupt good manners.

 

No.

Yes.

Yes.

I witness with actions and with words. I don't make a sales presentation of my faith or the gospel. I lay it out there as reality, and I make sure I live in that reality. The Holy Spirit takes care of the conviction.

In any relationship of any depth whatsoever, the spiritual issues naturally come up. I don't shy away from those subjects nor beat others over the head with them. The most important thing the other person needs to know is that you love and respect them... and that you are actually listening to and considering what they are saying, not just giving them a canned presentation.

When I am actually having a conversation about spiritual things with a person, I can rest assured that the Spirit has already been working in their lives and continues to work through people like me.

I think we need to distinguish between people who have a same-sex attraction and those who actually indulge in inappropriate sexual activity. As far as I can tell, the scripture does not address the modern concept of "sexual orientation" (same sex attraction), but instead focuses on what we actually do (or don't do) as far as sexual activity.

We could well ask the same questions you asked of heterosexual people we know who are involved in sexual activity outside of marriage. I think there is just as much sin there as in homosexual sexual activity.

One does not have direct control over sexual attraction (to the great frustration of heterosexual and homosexual people everywhere), but we do have control over what we do about it, unless we have given ourselves over to sin and have so damaged our self-control that we need to enter a structured support program. The scripture only condemns the intention to commit inappropriate sexual acts and acting upon inappropriate sexual desires*.

The homosexual community tends to push people to act on their attractions, implying that one is less than human or fulfilled unless they participate in sexual activity. To a slightly lessor degree, popular culture does the same with heterosexual men and women, essentially claiming that sexual self-control is somehow weird or psychologically damaging.

I am friends with a number of people who identify as gay/lesbian/bi-sexual and know the a number of them are likely true believers in Christ. I don't like the way they identify themselves (although they are simply going by the way popular culture likes to pidgeon-hole people, and frankly, the church doesn't really help in this area very much), but know that most of them truly struggle with these issues. Several of them have told me they live a celibate lifestyle, which I heartily approve of for all single persons. I don't think God condemns people for things over which they have no control.

However there are ways that we can change our desires and behavior. Through the use of simple spiritual disciplines and the action of Christ in our life, we can be transformed and gain mastery over the desires of our flesh so that we can be useful in the Kingdom of God in the power of the Spirit.

And yes, I believe persons with same-sex attraction can have their desires transformed through the transformation of character. The sad thing is that the vast majority of pastors and churches know very little about how to help their congregations enter into true discipleship with Christ. The sheer number of prominent pastors whose lives are out-of-control demonstrates how grave the situation really is.

---

* I know someone is going to rightly bring up the subject of lust. Jesus speaks very strongly on the issue of lust. However many people confuse lust with inappropriate sexual desire. I think what Jesus is really teaching about lust is that lust is the desire and intent to have inappropriate sexual relations who someone if the situation presented itself and the chances of getting caught were negligible. Jesus is talking about the character of a person. There are many people who are murderers in their character, but wouldn't actually go through with it because they know they would eventually get caught and punished. There are many people who are thieves in their character, but they don't steal because of strict accounting methods and constant oversight. There are many people who are adulterers in their character (lust), who don't commit adultery because they think they might get caught. So when Jesus is talking about the issues of murder, lust, etc. in Matthew, He is talking about the issues of character and the way one's righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees (those who simply managed to not commit the "big sins"), but instead have a character that would not commit those sins if it had the opportunity.

 

Even Camelback Bible Church, whose pastor serves on the Council of the Gospel Coalition with Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, and Ligon Duncan, every year hosts a "Boys to Men" extravaganza as part of the church's Performance Series. Always performing is the Phoenix Metropolitan Men's Chorus, "a voice of the g@y community".

Here is the Chorus's Facebook with an album of them at the Gospel Coalition church last year.
Caution—other albums feature their Jello wrestling fundraiser, etc.

 

I wonder how many of us are friends with or associate with people who have had s3xual relationships outside of marriage? Whether same gender or opposite gender?

Why is it that homos3xuals get blasted but guys who walk around hooking up with any girl they can get a pass? Why is it we are tolerant of the woman who stays in monogamous relationships but always sleeps with her boyfriend of the time?

My family has a number of friends who are dealing with or openly practising homs3xuality. We appreciate them for who they are as people, enjoy their company, and look for opportunities to minister to them...just like with our heteros3xual friends who are in openly s3xual, non-married relationships.

 

Who are these people that give them a pass? Every once in a while I see these vague and broad claims made but I never see it happening.

What often gets overlooked by some with regards to homosexuals is that they are the ones pushing for political and cultural acceptance. They work to have it taught in our public schools and to get laws passed to accept them as well. This brings their behavior to the front. It is a result of their own actions.

I do not see heterosexuals adulterers pushing for acceptance in public schools by things like teach adultery history or pushing for legislation to give adulterers special rights. If they were you would see the same attention on them as well.

 

I think the difference is that there is already social and political acceptance of heterosexual sexual relationships outside of marriage, so no one feels the need to fight for it.

Among the people I work with, most of the unmarried 20- to 30-year-olds are living with a boyfriend/girlfriend (if it is a serious relationship) or indulging in a sexual relationship with those they are dating. (I'm told it's generally a third to fourth date kind of thing.)

People were shocked when they realized I wasn't living with my wife before we were married a little over five years ago, and they would have been astounded to know that we had not consummated our relationship prior to our wedding.

And these are mostly people who regularly attend church (many of them Methodists) and claim the name of Christ.

The accepted pattern seems to be:

1.) Go out a few times.
2.) Initiate a sexual relationship.
3.) Get serious.
4.) Move in together.
5.) Get engaged.
6.) Get married.
7.) Wonder why the relationship is so shallow and the other person seems not the be the same person you dated/married.
8.) Fight.
9.) Figure out how to become happily married or divorce.

 

First it is not accepted any more than anything else including homosexuality. No one is giving marital rights to adulterers. Neither are they wanting adultery history taught in schools.

Really? You want to paint the whole country based on what some Methodist church does in your area?

 

Really? I'm afraid you aren't out in the "real world" enough. That's one of the drawbacks of being a pastor. People are often on their best behavior around you.

I think it is important to remember that there are gay activists, and then there are simply people who have same sex attraction and may or may not be acting on those impulses.

Only one of the persons I know (who was formally a practicing lesbian, and happens to still identify herself as a lesbian, even though she fell in love with a man and married him) is an activist. The rest are quietly living out their lives.

Remember, just like Jesse Jackson does not speak for all black people, gay advocacy groups do not speak for all gay people, or even the majority of them.

1.) Not "some Methodist church." This includes many churches in this region, including Baptist, non-denominational and Catholic ones. I just happen to live in a majority Methodist region and I work with quite a few Methodists.
2.) What I have described seems to tie into what is popularly portrayed in the media, including television sitcoms/dramas where the characters become sexually-involved very early in the relationship and moving in together is considered a prerequisite to engagement and marriage.
3.) Beyond my co-workers, I have also seen this pattern in my own family and relationships outside the office.
4.) Do you have any evidence to suggest that the majority of people in their 20s and 30s are sexually chaste before marriage in other parts of the country outside of North Texas (the "Buckle of the Bible Belt")? I'd love to hear that but it doesn't seem to line up with reality.

 

Why?

It doesn't change the level of activist activity going on in this country. How many are not involved in activism is not relevant.

And?

Ok?

Ok?

Ok?

Why would it matter?

 

Because people can say things, allegedly in my name for my alleged benefit, without getting my permission.

Westboro Baptist Church claims to speak for God. Do you this He endorses their message?

If we don't hold God responsible for Westboro's message (which He could actually do something about with some well-placed lightning bolts), why should I hold all gay people responsible for what some gay activists say?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

See the first point in this post.

Why the question?

Again, why the question? Do you see a different pattern in popular media? One of chastity and sexual purity before marriage?

Again, why the question? It seems like you don't like my points but can't really counter them either.

Because you said in Post #13 of this thread:

"Really? You want to paint the whole country based on what some Methodist church does in your area?"

I assumed that you thought your point mattered and I'm trying to take you seriously.

You implied that I'm falsely "painting the whole country" as having a predominant sexual ethic that is counter to scripture, yet when I asked for you to present some sort of evidence that counters my position, you want to know "why would it matter."

If you are simply going to be contentious and not participate seriously in this discussion, I'll stop wasting my time.

 

Please point out anything I have said that was contentious. I did not imply that you falsely painted anything. If someone cannot disagree with you without being accused of some implication of false statements then the contention is on your part. I asked you questions because it is not obvious how they are relative. Maybe you could just answer the questions.

 

So how am I supposed to interpret this statement from Post #13:

Maybe you actually mean that it would be a good thing to paint the whole country based on what some Methodist church does in my area?

Come on, if you miscommunicated, just say so. But don't deny what is there for everyone to see in Post #13.

Um, no. Just explain how I should have actually taken your "paint the whole county" statement in a normal natural way and have it not imply that I was trying to misrepresent something and I'll apologize.

I'm happy to do so.

But you didn't actually deal with the biggest one I already answered:

Does God affirm Westboro Baptist Church's message?

If not, should we blame God (who actually can do something about it) for their message?

If not, why should we blame all gay people for the words and actions of a relatively small number of activists?

Once you answer those simple questions, I'll know how to respond to the rest to make my points more relative to the situation at hand.

If you don't answer them and change the subject to something else, then I'll know if you are more interested in uncovering truth or "winning" an argument.

 

You used the word "false" I did not. Neither did I imply that. You read more into what I said than I intended. I have no idea why. I was asking for clarification of your point because that was how it appeared to me. Next time I will use the words "I am asking for clarification". I thought the question mark made that clear. The question mark is used to indicate a question about something not understood clearly or unknown. Not to make a statement of fact or implication.

 

Happens every day. I'd submit that most people on this board are happy to associate with people having heteros3xual premarital relationships more than those who are homos3xual.

I know some us don't have the context as the rest but in reality if you begin looking around at the actual stats and behaviours the evangelical church in America has completely lost the war on se3xuality in the last generation or two. More people between the ages of 20 and 39 are likely to be non-married than married. Of couples getting married (specifically in the area where I live, a large metro area) 90 - 95% either have had or are having biblically inappropriate relationships with their significant other prior to marriage. Cohabitation is off the charts, probably about 50% of the couples coming through the church where I serve for our premarital counselling program are living together.

The reality is too many in the evangelical church are way too comfortable with hetros3xual misconduct and then won't have anything to do with homos3xuals. It's a double standard.

Personally our family has friends who are all over the place. We have people we know who cohabitate before marriage. We have people we know who are homos3xuals. We have people we know who are single but very open to s3xual relationships. We have people we know who are living a biblically pure and authentic lives. We minister to all people. Just seems to me the second ground is often maligned while the others get a pass.

I don't care about the public agenda. That's not my point.

The point, in relation to the OP, is about the social relationships.

Many of our friends who live in homos3xual relationships are so hurt and cast out by evangelicals that they have an immediate response of fear when they find out we are loving and caring for them (while upholding biblical standards of purity in leadership and our own lives.) Christianity no longer has a voice in that community because of the hate, hypocrisy, and vitriol of too many of our former leaders. We have much ground to redeem.

(as a side note I hope this convo stays open...its an important one to have)