will baptist churches soon have gay ministers?

[latterrain77]

No. I do not think that Baptists will make the same regrettable error the Episcaple's have. They have wandered down a sad path. However, this whole thing is not so much about homosexuality as it is about arrogance and the mad pursuit of power among so-called church "elite."

This man's defiance is so transparent that it should be easy for all to see right through him and his radical agenda. Selfishness is the foundation of this pursuit (unlike the Anglican in England who chose to NOT pursue the same path and made a MUCH stronger statement of love and charity as a result).

1 Tim. 3 is clear that a bishop MUST be married to a woman. This man is divorced (1 Tim. 3: 2). A divorced man, by definition, is NOT married. He is therefore unfit for the office of Bishop/pastor on this alone. There are many other reasons why he is unfit as well.

I support homosexuals who come to the throne of mercy and grace with humbleness and meekness as all Christians and seekers are required (Matt. 5: 5, 1 Cor. 4: 21). I did not see one ounce of "humbleness" or "meekness" in any of the Epis church's ordination process. It is obvious to me that the passionate pursuit for power, status, fame, and affirmation were the fuel behind this drama; all of which is hardly humble and meek.

This ordination is not a worthy symbol for struggling homosexuals in the church (or outside of it) but rather a symbol of supreme arrogance and pride within the church. It is this same arrogance that is so evident and rife among MANY church power chasers and especially those with an agenda. I doubt that Baptists would succumb to this "openly" but then again, anything can happen in these wild times. Ironically, this ordination may be viewed as a mockery of homosexuality to some.

Finally, any would be seeker for the office of Bishop/pastor who does not meet the 1 Tim. 3 standard is UNFIT for that office; heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise. latterrain77

 

[Pete]

They better change the name if they do, because it would not be Baptist, and it definitely would not be Church.

Pete

 

[dianetavegia]

Pete! Maybe that's why Joshua used a lower case 'b' for baptist!

Diane

 

[blackbird]

Now, fifteen years in pastoral ministry and I have run into countless Baptist who have "come out!"

Yes, much to my dishonor and shame I have had members of my own churchs that I have pastored to "come out!" But as soon as they "come out"--I have watched--they always tend to "go out"--that is, they leave my particular church I pastor!

Mark it now! I have never had to use so called "church discipline" on them--they leave before that materializes--and I have never "run" any gay member off, either!

There is a Proverb that states, "The wicked flee when no one pursues!" Just keep preaching the truth of God's word--they'll do one of two things (1) they will receive the word and turn away from that perversion and to the Lord Jesus or (2) they will resist the truth of the word and turn to the gospel the world has to offer! Usually and unfortunatly it winds up being them choosing #2!

Brother David

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

I don't believe that a man could have a homosexual lifestyle and be a minister of the Gospel at the same time. So my answer to the question is I certainly hope not. If I found that my pastor was an openly (or a closeted) homosexual, I would leave the church. Just my humble opinion.

 

[AF Guy N Paradise]

It is amazing to see how powerful the gay community is becoming. Next to African Americans, no other group can have their agenda pushed to the top forcing people to give in to their wants and desires.

Every group is offended these days of something, but how come the typical Christian is completely forgotten about in this scenario.

My military peers cuss constantly along with always mentioning alcohol and attractive woman are brought up in inappropriate ways. If I stand up and say I am offended as a Christian, I am laughed at and told, "oh well, get over it".

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Pete! Maybe that's why Joshua used a lower case 'b' for baptist!

Actually, I picked up that habit from baptist historians like Leon McBeth. Unlike "Catholic" (as opposed to "catholic"), "Episcopal", etc. - "Baptist" is not a denomination. It is an approach to polity. One can be a baptist church without being part of any larger regional body. Therefore, baptist is simply an adjective, not a proper noun.

Joshua

 

[dianetavegia]

Joshua, can I quote this on another thread about 'Is this a Baptist Church?"

One can be a baptist church without being part of any larger regional body. Therefore, baptist is simply an adjective, not a proper noun.

I am not an authority on this and the guys are asking about a church, like yours, that is ABC and UCC... BUT.. that church doesn't require baptism for membership.

Diane

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Sure Diane. We're actually Alliance and UCC (and CBF, but we don't send them much money). I would think a board like this one, with so many IFB folks, would immediately recognize the fact that baptist churches do not require larger affiliations. I think such affiliations are important for accountability; but they are not essential.

It's very unusual for any church, much less a Baptist one, to not require baptism for membership.

My personal belief, as a baptist, is that believer's baptism is the historic and full expression of our entrance into the body of Christ. Nevertheless, I understand the logic behind infant baptism. Offering membership without any sort of baptism makes no sense to me at all.

Joshua

 

[Jamal5000]

I doubt whether Baptists will allow homosexual ministers because I believe our type of Christians live on the more conservative side of the cross.

Besides...who would trust a homosexual minister? I cannot think of one unbeliving male that would set foot in a church with a gay minister.

They would laugh him off the pulpit. With all due respect, I wouldn't blame them because a homosexual minister will face looooots of criticism and discredit from the congregation and other people who hear about him.

How in the world can he minister effectively under such conditions?

We'll see I guess.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Jamal,

I thyink you're missing the point. There are already churches with homosexual ministers. I don't know anyone who finds them "untrustworthy" as a result. Your peer group may be particularly uncomfortable around GLBT persons; but that simply isn't true for everyone.

Joshua

 

[massdak]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
Sure Diane. We're actually Alliance and UCC (and CBF, but we don't send them much money). I would think a board like this one, with so many IFB folks, would immediately recognize the fact that baptist churches do not require larger affiliations. I think such affiliations are important for accountability; but they are not essential.

It's very unusual for any church, much less a Baptist one, to not require baptism for membership.

My personal belief, as a baptist, is that believer's baptism is the historic and full expression of our entrance into the body of Christ. Nevertheless, I understand the logic behind infant baptism. Offering membership without any sort of baptism makes no sense to me at all.

Joshua

joshua do you believe that there is a literal hell?
do you believe a person will go there if not saved by Christ?
would you be against homosexuals preaching if you knew in your heart for sure that it was wrong?
along with all the other liberal errors. just think if you are opened to Gods truth you may be saying something like this someday " i call on all liberal teachers and preachers to resign and leave their office" your spelling may be better though.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

If I found that my pastor was an openly (or a closeted) homosexual, I would leave the church.

I'm with you Joshua. Everyone in my congregation would get up and leave. We are independent and autonomous and I just can't see that happening.

 

[dianetavegia]

The other Joshua said:

Nevertheless, I understand the logic behind infant baptism.

I don't. Can you explain the logic? We're having to deal with that since our daughter married an inactive Catholic (father in law is demanding....)

Diane

 

[Rev. Joshua]

The argument is that believer's baptism makes sense for someone who converts to Christianity. (In other words, they go from not believing that Jesus is the Son of God to believing that he is.) On the other hand, at an infant's baptism their parents, godparents, and church family covenant to raise the child with a salvific understanding of Jesus.

Consequently, there isn't a specific moment at which they move from unbelief to belief. Instead, they move to an increasingly mature understanding of who Jesus is and their relationship with Him. At a certain age, they "confirm" that understanding and are admitted to full membership in the church.

Joshua

P.S. One of my seminary professors once remarked "I changed my views on infant baptism when I realized how little I understood about my own salvation."

 

[massdak]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
The argument is that believer's baptism makes sense for someone who converts to Christianity. (In other words, they go from not believing that Jesus is the Son of God to believing that he is.) On the other hand, at an infant's baptism their parents, godparents, and church family covenant to raise the child with a salvific understanding of Jesus.

Consequently, there isn't a specific moment at which they move from unbelief to belief. Instead, they move to an increasingly mature understanding of who Jesus is and their relationship with Him. At a certain age, they "confirm" that understanding and are admitted to full membership in the church.

Joshua

P.S. One of my seminary professors once remarked "I changed my views on infant baptism when I realized how little I understood about my own salvation."

maybe it is best to allow God to form our views.
one must be obedient to the gospel first.
thanks for answering my questions to you.

 

[Brett]

Hmm...

A homosexual, celibate baptist should be admired, not given a greyhound ticket outta here. -_- A celibate homosexual baptist is trying his/her very best to live up to God's standards, as they are refraining from that sinful activity of actual homosexual behavior. Clearly, a homosexual baptist's faith is not enough to 'convert' them to heterosexuality, and I'm sure they pray for it often. How, then can they possibly be BLAMED for being a nonpracticing homosexual? That's ridiculous. They cannot be blamed for their thoughts... As we've all experienced, thoughts simply pop into our head as a result of various stimuli, set environment, and/or genetics. Our thoughts are not entirely under our control, really. Resisting the compulsion to act on sinful thoughts, as a homosexual baptist bishop would do, is the true sign of a followe of Christ.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Sorry massdak, here you go

do you believe that there is a literal hell? yes

do you believe a person will go there if not saved by Christ? If not saved by God

would you be against homosexuals preaching if you knew in your heart for sure that it was wrong? Well, I would be against anything if I 'knew in my heart it was wrong.' I know in my heart that ordination of homosexuals is not wrong, however.

along with all the other liberal errors. Is this a question?

just think if you are opened to Gods truth you may be saying something like this someday " i call on all liberal teachers and preachers to resign and leave their office" I wasn't aware that I was closed to God's truth.

your spelling may be better though.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Rev. Joshua - Feel free NOT to answer personal questions not germaine to the thread. Massdak was out of line.

We do not QUESTION the salvation of folks here because we disagree with their views on various issues.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Thanks Dr. Bob. You can delete my reply if you like since it is off-topic. I always feel compelled to answer such questions since - if I don't - I hear about it. A lot. No matter how inane or repetitive or off-topic the questions.

Joshua