Would You Let a Known Lesbian Perform at Your Church???

[saturneptune]

What are you going to do? Stone her?

No, no one would stone her. A familiar Scripture comes to mind that says "He who is without sin cast the first stone," and "Go and sin no more." Those two sentences answer every objection in this thread. "Go and sin no more" means that we as brothers and sisters in Christ lead her to repentence, or restoration, whichever the case. What everyone seems to be forgetting is "He who is without sin cast the first stone."

Why is it so difficult to grasp the concept of sin and God's relation to it? You would think that would be a Course 101 for all of you with highly advanced theological degrees. Sin is sin. God hates it. The Lord could care less about your opinions or your lists of the degrees of sin.

The bottom line is this. The open lesbian has no business in a leadership position, and neither do 99% of those shouting the loudest about it, because their sin is great to the Lord, but probably quite small to the handy dandy list of sins they have created in their own mind.

 

[jaigner]

All sins are not equal. The consequences of some make much more of an impact on lives than others do. But the op was only about homosexuality and there no need to bring anything else into the discussion. It just doesn't advance it and is off topic.

Actually, dude, I was just bringing those up for the sake of comparison. You're the one off topic by taking time to chastise me here.

Now, back to all those contributing here.

Homosexuality is a complex and difficult issue by all accounts. I understand and agree that a homosexual person should not be in a leadership position, although there are some ways in which I feel they could still be used.

But we do need soft hearts toward those struggling in this area, as we would with those struggling in any other area. This is where the call to love as Jesus would and ascribe them the worth Jesus ascribed in his death should come into play. We don't have to play tough in this area to make sure people know the truth about homosexuality.

And it's not as if they just don't know the argument anyway.

 

[Revmitchell]

although there are some ways in which I feel they could still be used.

Bingo! my point, in post # 40, about the defense of homosexuality is made.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I think it's high time we stop pretending that sexual sin is somehow grosser or more sinful than any others. There are people openly sinning in every church, some with gossiping, others with idolatry, others with pride, others with any number of other cancerous kinds of sin.

But you see, little brother, the Bible says that the nature and consequences of sexual depravity is worse.

Yes, an open liar and gossiper should not be permitted to lead in the church either and both the sin of coveting and the sin of murder makes one disobedient, but your statement that I have underlined here is what I am addressing.

In 1 Corinthians 6:18, Paul says, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."

Paul, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is telling us that sexual sin is different from other sins. Because the sin is against the human body - the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Paul said, "All other sins are outside the body." This distinguishes sexual sin from all other sins - not in the nature of their being a sin - but in the consquences and in its relative rebellion against the Holy Spirit of whom our body is the Temple.

 

[saturneptune]

But you see, little brother, the Bible says that the nature and consequences of sexual depravity is worse.

Yes, an open liar and gossiper should not be permitted to lead in the church either and both the sin of coveting and the sin of murder makes one disobedient, but your statement that I have underlined here is what I am addressing.

In 1 Corinthians 6:18, Paul says, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."

Paul, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is telling us that sexual sin is different from other sins. Because the sin is against the human body - the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Paul said, "All other sins are outside the body." This distinguishes sexual sin from all other sins - not in the nature of their being a sin - but in the consquences and in its relative rebellion against the Holy Spirit of whom our body is the Temple.

Very good post. Yes, Paul distinguishes sexual sin in relation to the Son and Holy Ghost. Paul describes of cheating on a spouse as a Christian in this manner, when there is a sexual relationship between two unmarried people, the two in essence become one. If one does this, he or she is guilty of joining Christ with a prostitute. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and likewise, when such conduct is engaged in, the temple is defiled. In my opinion, it also offends the Father, as he ordained marriage in Genesis. So, your point is very well taken, that Scripture distinguishes this from all other sins. The consequences are the same eternally, they are either forgiven, or they are not.

However, what I was trying to point out is that aside from your post, we tend to create sins and put them on a scale. Actually, we are worse than that. We ignore some sins, such as gossip, gluttony, pride, arrogance, backbiting, dissention, and the like. That stuff is rampant in the remote corners of churches. All I am saying is that those who point fingers and shout the loudest, will, almost all the time, be living in open sin, and usually a sin we have chosen to ignore. These have no business being leaders either.

 

[Scarlett O.]

However, what I was trying to point out is that aside from your post, we tend to create sins and put them on a scale. Actually, we are worse than that. We ignore some sins, such as gossip, gluttony, pride, arrogance, backbiting, dissention, and the like. That stuff is rampant in the remote corners of churches. All I am saying is that those who point fingers and shout the loudest, will, almost all the time, be living in open sin, and usually a sin we have chosen to ignore. These have no business being leaders either.

I quite agree. :thumbs:

 

[annsni]

Trevin Wax has some thoughts on his blog about this. Here are the highlights:

1. We need to shift emphasis from the truth that “everyone is a sinner” to the necessity of repentance.

2. We must not allow ourselves to be defined by our sexual attractions.

3. We must expose the arrogance and judgmentalism of those who would so flippantly dismiss the witness of Christians for two thousand years.

4. We need soft hearts toward Christians struggling with same-sex attraction.

There is some good, thoughtful commentary in between those points. Point one seems key to me.

I was just going to post Trevin's blog post too. I put it on my Facebook. Should cause some interesting discussion amongst my more liberal friends.

 

[annsni]

While I appreciate your taking the time to post this Blog, I would only say, that there is no lack of compassion in regard to the singer, nor was there a lack of the call for her to repent. She stubbornly refused to acknowledge that her homosexuality was the problem, while she placed the blame on a pastor who stuck by the Word, told her he still loved her, but, could not accept her choice, which was sinful in the eyes of God, therefore he denounced her sin.

Most importantly, we must not forget that the Scripture does not allow for "a soft heart" when it comes to allowing this person, or, any other person to sing in a church when they are proclaiming to the world that their sinful choice is not wrong. I find it hard to believe that a God who hates sin, would allow for us to be soft on her sin, or, any other persons sin, especially if that sin was being flaunted in outward way.

Paul does not mince his words in Romans 1:26-28 -"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity." and, 1Co 5:5 - "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

It does not sound as if God, or, the church is permitted to have a "soft heart" toward a believer who is caught up in sin, and stubbornly holding to their faith, publicly. This kind of testimony and witness to the public makes a mockery of a Just God, and misleads others, who are questioning their sexuality.

My daughter is as stiffnecked as this singer in regard to her Christianity and her homosexuality being acceptable in the eyes of God. And she would take this singers position of popularity as being another point of support for her to continue in her sin.

I'm sorry, but, IMHO, your blog writer is not 100% in-tune with God's Word.

Where does Trevin say that we need to be soft on sin? He's not. We're to have a heart towards the sinner like Christ did. Tell the truth, teach them the right way and allow them to choose. I don't see anything in his blog post (did you read the post or just the points?) that says that we're to be soft on sin.

 

[jaigner]

Bingo! my point, in post # 40, about the defense of homosexuality is made.

Yeah, except for two things:

1) I'm not defending homosexuality, I'm defending homosexual persons in the face of the harsh, meanspirited and extreme treatment they receive from much of evangelical Christianity.
2) Nothing I have said anywhere on this post makes me a liberal.

Thank you, sir. Goodnight.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yeah, except for two things:

1) I'm not defending homosexuality, I'm defending homosexual persons in the face of the harsh, meanspirited and extreme treatment they receive from much of evangelical Christianity.
2) Nothing I have said anywhere on this post makes me a liberal.

Thank you, sir. Goodnight.

Yea I know obeying scripture is mean spirited.

Joh 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard (OFFENSIVE)saying; who can listen to it?"

Your position that homosexuals should serve in the church in any capacity is heresy and shows your intention to defend homosexuality. And defending homosexuality is a liberal position.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I think we can make a distinction between people who struggle with same-sex attraction but don't act on it and people who are open, unrepentant homosexuals. It's not a sin to be tempted, but it is to act on it. I don't think either one should be in church leadership, but someone who recognizes that homosexual activities are sinful and doesn't act on it and is repentant if he or she has done so in the past can be a member and serve in many non-leadership areas, including music, while still being "gay" in a certain sense. Unrepentant homosexuals should be brought to repentance and, if they fail to repent, brought up for church discipline, provided that church discipline is done in a fair and impartial manner.

 

[preachinjesus]

curses! I had a whole reply...and the BB just took it away into the black of cyberspace...along with my high school senior term paper...drat!

Your local church has a leadership covenant, and stops at the walls of your church. Every local church is autonomous and sets their own standards.

Yeah I never said anywhere that our church standards should every church's standards.

I was simply replying to the OP which asks: Would You Let a Known Lesbian Perform at Your Church???

You said in your post "You live in sin you are disqualified from leadership." A few lines down, you said "we would not welcome nor support any worship gathering led by someone living in open sin." So my first question, which is it, living in sin, or living in open sin?

It is living in open sin. We can't see secret, closed sins. All we can do is set the standard (what we believe to be Scriptural standards) for our called out leadership. We don't try to ferret out secret sins, we find that too be too inquistional.

Now If you happen to have the super power that lets you see individuals secret sins please let all of us know.

My second question is, if it is sin one is living in, I assume since you are in a leadership position, you have lots of 24 hour sinless days?

This is unfair and not the point at all.

Not all sins are equal. Do I sin? Yes, sadly. I repent of them. I do not live in open, unrepentant, unconfessed sin. I do not live in private, unrepentant, unconfessed sin. All I have is my testimony and dignity man. Without it I've got nothing. We ask our leadership to live as humbly and honestly as possible. We do not accept open sexual sins, lifestyle sins, or continual grievous sins that disdain the sacrifice of Christ.

Open sin that brings puts a local church in a bad light would surely disqualify a person for leadership for a season, but that list of sins is not limited to your opinion of the serverity of sins. While that would include an open lesbian lifestyle, which seems to be the subject of this thread, it would also include the deacon who thinks he runs the church and decides who can and cannot join a local congregation, or a deacon who constantly berates or puts up roadblocks to a pastor. Also disqualified for leadership would be the local church gossips, backbiters, the prideful and arrogant, and the gluttons, just as much as the drunkards, sexually immoral, and thieves.

Not all of these sins are equal. Take gluttony for instance. How do you know someone is truly gluttonous? According to the biblical standard? Because weight problems aren't the chief reason. Also, I see no Scriptural disqualification for that. I do see it for open, sexual sin. Are you seriously going to say because my brother deals with a genetic difficulty that affects his weight that this is on the same level as my other brother who is living in open, flagrant sin with a partner? They aren't the same.

Not all sins are equal. God does not create us to live in sin. I agree with the wise words of my brothers and sisters around here that I can find no biblical re-qualifier for someone living in open, unrepentant sin. God commands us to move out of the bondage of sin and into the freedom of forgiveness.

In this instance, as applied to the OP, I would say this individual is certainly disqualified if she is open and living in sin. If you know of a way to disqualify people living in secret sins I'd love to know it. Other than the discernment of the Holy Spirit we can't become the religious gestapo and hunt down all of our leaders to make sure they are living as they say. We can only involve ourselves with them, hold them accountable, pray God's protection, and discern by the Spirit.

Here's a story from a previous church: We had hired a young man to lead worship. He was very good and our services really hit a great note. We found out about nine months later that he had been having multiple s3xual relationships with other women in our church. In several instances he used his spiritual authority to work his way into their lives. He did this in secret. We didn't know about it. As a leadership team as soon as we discovered this truth we immediately removed him from leadership, tried to begin a restoration process with him and the young ladies, and tried our best to heal our church. It was very difficult. As a leader we are held to higher standards. This young man hid his sin as long as he could. We couldn't have known about it. Upon discovery we did what we could to heal the situation. Now tell me, how could we have known about it beforehand? Is there some kind of super power that our staff didn't have access to?

The whole "secret sin" thing is just a red herring. It does pertain to the OP.

 

[preachinjesus]

What are you going to do? Stone her?

Now you're just being dramatic. We would, hopefully, seek her restoration and healing.

By removing someone from leadership and a place of significant influence (a stage is a place of SIGNIFICANT influence) we are protecting our people. Leaders are held to a higher standard.

In a past experience I've had with a small group leader who revealed his struggle in this area we aided him, counseled him, prayed with him, held him accountable, and loved him through that difficult time. But we sure didn't let him continue teaching while in sin.

 

[StefanM]

I think we can make a distinction between people who struggle with same-sex attraction but don't act on it and people who are open, unrepentant homosexuals. It's not a sin to be tempted, but it is to act on it. I don't think either one should be in church leadership, but someone who recognizes that homosexual activities are sinful and doesn't act on it and is repentant if he or she has done so in the past can be a member and serve in many non-leadership areas, including music, while still being "gay" in a certain sense. Unrepentant homosexuals should be brought to repentance and, if they fail to repent, brought up for church discipline, provided that church discipline is done in a fair and impartial manner.

Why should neither be in church leadership? What makes homosexual temptation different from other temptations?

 

[j_barner2000]

Wouldn't let anyone involved in known, unrepentant sin be in any kind of leadership, including performances.

was forced to resign from my previous pastorate for holding to this standard.... caused a major split and i would never change my mind. someone engaged unrepentantly in open sin is not going to be a leader in any church i am responsible before God as pastor. if the church wants to fall into apostacy then i will not have a part in it.

 

[dcorbett]

No, noone living in open sin performs at our church. I had to give up playing in a bar band before I could be used in the music ministry at our church. I am SO GLAD I did.

 

[Crabtownboy]

was forced to resign from my previous pastorate for holding to this standard.... caused a major split and i would never change my mind. someone engaged unrepentantly in open sin is not going to be a leader in any church i am responsible before God as pastor. if the church wants to fall into apostacy then i will not have a part in it.

Just curious, give us a list of sins lived openly that you feel disqualify a person from leadership in a church.

 

[jaigner]

Yea I know obeying scripture is mean spirited.

Joh 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard (OFFENSIVE)saying; who can listen to it?"

Your position that homosexuals should serve in the church in any capacity is heresy and shows your intention to defend homosexuality. And defending homosexuality is a liberal position.

Liberal how? Politically? Not theologically. It's not a liberal position that we should love people as Jesus does.

Practicing homosexuals should not serve in leadership positions. There. That is my position. But we should seek to minister to such persons, which can take many forms.

Rev, I think when you throw political terms around like "liberal," your American flag gets wrapped around your Bible. It's not clear what you're talking about.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think we can make a distinction between people who struggle with same-sex attraction but don't act on it and people who are open, unrepentant homosexuals. It's not a sin to be tempted, but it is to act on it. I don't think either one should be in church leadership, but someone who recognizes that homosexual activities are sinful and doesn't act on it and is repentant if he or she has done so in the past can be a member and serve in many non-leadership areas, including music, while still being "gay" in a certain sense. Unrepentant homosexuals should be brought to repentance and, if they fail to repent, brought up for church discipline, provided that church discipline is done in a fair and impartial manner.

Why?...............................................................

 

[preachinjesus]

Just curious, give us a list of sins lived openly that you feel disqualify a person from leadership in a church.

Perhaps you could provide us with a list of sins that qualify someone for leadership...:flower: