Gay Pastors?

[Repent-or-Burn]

You need to read the rules of Baptist Board. What will get you a ticket out of here really quick is to accuse someone of blasphemy, especially in a frivilous way which you just did. The wages of sin is death, period. Scripture does not say the wages of sin at a certain level is death or a worse death. I would strongly suggest you not use the word blasphemy in relation to any of my posts again, or anyone else for that matter.

I said, "if" you are wrong. If I cannot tell someone that what they did is or could be sin, then by all means - ticket me out.

If I came to this board telling people that I was living with a woman, or that I was beating my wife, etc. you'd tell me I was a fornicator or etc. I told you that was blasphemous. I would love to see what the moderators do with the stance you took. Quite hyporitcal if you are right.

I stand by what I said.

 

[saturneptune]

I said, "if" you are wrong. If I cannot tell someone that what they did is or could be sin, then by all means - ticket me out.

If I came to this board telling people that I was living with a woman, or that I was beating my wife, etc. you'd tell me I was a fornicator or etc. I told you that was blasphemous. I would love to see what the moderators do with the stance you took. Quite hyporitcal if you are right.

I stand by what I said.

I have nothing else to say to you except you will not be here long. People that come to this board with posts like yours are a dime a dozen. I will let you argue with someone else.

 

[Johnv]

Be careful, bud. You attached God's name on it, I hope for your sake you're right. Otherwise, that's blasphemy.

Whoa! Did you really imply that Saturn's statement "To God, sin is sin" is blasphemous? That's exactly what scripture says, so it can't qualify as blasphemous in any remote sense.

If his wife died, then he is still the husband of one wife if he remarries. If divorce was the case, then his first wife is not dead, and he is married to more than one wife if he remarried.

Many would include divorce for the scripturally permissible reasons of adultery and abandonment wualify as being a husband of one wife, since the marriage covenant to the prior wife has been severed, in the same way that a death of a spouse severs the covenant. I believe that to be a reasonable application.

 

[Repent-or-Burn]

If that is scripture, then I withdraw my statement completely.
However, is that the verse - or is that his interpretation of multiple verses?

Maybe you're missing my point.
He was trying to, as far as I understood his post - say that all sins are equal. He stated his view, and attached God's name to it. Am I wrong here?

Remember, I did say "if" his view is wrong.

(And by my understanding, it is.)

 

[webdog]

Hello Everyone,

I am curious if anybody would accept a Pastor who was gay? Specifically a person who is gay but does not participate in that lifestyle because of what the Bible says.

Having many conversations on this issue I wonder about the possibility of this.

Let's say for the sake of argument gays are born they way they are. God gives various challenges to mankind. Possibly, this is a way to see if one can control their lusts. That while one is attracted to the same sex, they fight their desires and find love through friendship and family, avoiding temptation.

Would any be opposed to a Gay Pastor who was celibate?

Since I believe that being the husband of one wife is mandatory in being a pastor, I would say no.

 

[Repent-or-Burn]

Theoretically, a man can be gay and be the husband of one wife..

Practically, that's not likely.

 

[webdog]

Theoretically, a man can be gay and be the husband of one wife..

Practically, that's not likely.

True......

 

[saturneptune]

Since I believe that being the husband of one wife is mandatory in being a pastor, I would say no.

I can understand why you believe that. Scripture saying a one of a Pastor's qualifications is the husband of one wife can be read that way. In practical terms, it is probably a very good idea to have a pastor who is married for many reasons, the top one being if he cannot take care of a family, how could he take care of a church?

I think it would be a great study (since I know nothing of Hebrew or Greek) to look at those verses closer, and find out for sure, does it mean he must be married, or does it mean he must have only been married once with no divorce, (except death of a wife), or does it mean the most liberal view I have ever heard, he is only married to one wife at a time.

Excellent point you make.

 

[Repent-or-Burn]

I can understand why you believe that. Scripture saying a one of a Pastor's qualifications is the husband of one wife can be read that way. In practical terms, it is probably a very good idea to have a pastor who is married for many reasons, the top one being if he cannot take care of a family, how could he take care of a church?

I think it would be a great study (since I know nothing of Hebrew or Greek) to look at those verses closer, and find out for sure, does it mean he must be married, or does it mean he must have only been married once with no divorce, (except death of a wife), or does it mean the most liberal view I have ever heard, he is only married to one wife at a time.

Excellent point you make.

It means one wife, exactly. Polygamy would be two wives, even 'serial polygamy.'

Why does it mean exactly one wife, and not what was common in his culture - polygamy.. i.e., "being the husband of ONLY one wife?"

Because of:
1Ti 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

If we're looking at culture, now.
The norm was for MEN to be polygamous, not women.
Why does he give the same requirement to women? So that they weren't polygamous either? No. Because it means, exactly one.

:type:

 

[alatide]

Jas 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

1Jn 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

To this:
"Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me."
I reply,
Mat 26:9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
Mat 26:10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
Mat 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Actually, this scripture that you quoted from James supports my belief.

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

If you're not a homosexual, don't support abortion, don't commit adultery but lie to your neighbor, it's the same thing as doing all these things. A sin is a sin and is abominable to God.

 

[Repent-or-Burn]

That depends how you look at it, Alatide.

Is it a question of degree, or equivalency? i.e., if you break any law, then the law is broken and your wages are hellfire.

If I had only that verse to go by, I'd take the stand you did.

But, how do you interpret all the other verses? Scripture doesn't contradict. I'd like to see your explination of those.


"Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. "

If all sins are equal, then we must say this same thing over even a "white lie." We must shun them.

 

[webdog]

I can understand why you believe that. Scripture saying a one of a Pastor's qualifications is the husband of one wife can be read that way. In practical terms, it is probably a very good idea to have a pastor who is married for many reasons, the top one being if he cannot take care of a family, how could he take care of a church?

I think it would be a great study (since I know nothing of Hebrew or Greek) to look at those verses closer, and find out for sure, does it mean he must be married, or does it mean he must have only been married once with no divorce, (except death of a wife), or does it mean the most liberal view I have ever heard, he is only married to one wife at a time.

Excellent point you make.

I'm probably in the minority in my view, but as you (and Paul) stated, if they can't rule and manage their own family, how can they rule and manage God's? This is something a single man cannot do, and the reason why I think Paul stressed that point. My denomination (SBC) sees nothing wrong with a single man being a pastor, but on this we disagree. If "one woman kind of man" was Paul's intent, the reference to a family would have been moot.

 

[Johnv]

If all sins are equal, then we must say this same thing over even a "white lie." We must shun them.

All sins are equal in that even the smallest condemns a person to Hell. However, not all sins are equal in consequence and restitution. It's easier to repent of the sin of paying your car loan late, but it's hard to repent of the sin of killing someone. Yet both condemn you to Hell.

Frankly, though, when it comes to a pastor, do you want a pastor who thinks it's okay to lie, even little ones?

 

[Repent-or-Burn]

That's not what I said, John.

The point is, that we don't have the right to "shun"/excommunicate them for it.
We must rebuke, of course.

 

[rbell]

I'm probably in the minority in my view, but as you (and Paul) stated, if they can't rule and manage their own family, how can they rule and manage God's? This is something a single man cannot do, and the reason why I think Paul stressed that point. My denomination (SBC) sees nothing wrong with a single man being a pastor, but on this we disagree. If "one woman kind of man" was Paul's intent, the reference to a family would have been moot.

I do disagree...I see this as referring to polygamous...

This is descriptive here, rather than prescriptive.

Just MHO.

But back to the OP...no, a homosexual cannot be a minister.

 

[annsni]

That's not what I said, John.

The point is, that we don't have the right to "shun"/excommunicate them for it.
We must rebuke, of course.

How does this line up with 1 Corinthians 5?

 

[Repent-or-Burn]

How does this line up with 1 Corinthians 5?

I don't understand the question.

 

[annsni]

I don't understand the question.

You said:

The point is, that we don't have the right to "shun"/excommunicate them for it.
We must rebuke, of course.

Then I asked how that comment can be stated in light of 1 Corinthians 5:

1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. 2And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

3For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

 

[Johnv]

The point is, that we don't have the right to "shun"/excommunicate them for it.

If you've got a member of your congregation who is an unrepentant and chronic liar, whose actions are causeing strife amongst the congregation, certainly, I think it's permissible for the church to shun that person.

 

[annsni]

If you've got a member of your congregation who is an unrepentant and chronic liar, whose actions are causeing strife amongst the congregation, certainly, I think it's permissible for the church to shun that person.

It's not only permissible but commanded.