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

just fyi, around these parts some people think that they can marginalize and manipulate you into rhetorical submission if they call you a liberal. Its sort of a catch-phrase for anti-intellectual, no common sense, vapid argumentative styles.

 

Thank you for that acknowledgement. I guess the anti-intellectual mentality of the "fundamentalist" camp is still alive and well. How tragic.

I would think they would see such arguments as being devoid of Christian love.

 

You provide such a wonderful example of Christian love with your "anti-intellectual" comments. You might want to examine your own words before you cast stones.

 

I nominate this for the best post of the year on BB!

 

Hmmm...I've just been trying to make all my arguments through clear presentation. I've not been attempting to marginalize. It's very sad to me that some have not yet come to the understanding that the evangelical mind should not be compromised, and I say that with the utmost sincerity.

 

It is a liberal position that homosexuals should serve in any capacity in the church. Trying to equate (although it was off topic) homosexuality with a list of other sins and then presenting your position that homosexuals should serve in some capacity in the church is defending it and liberal.

Now I call a conservative a conservative and a liberal a liberal. In that aspect I do not respond any differently to one or the other. But liberals like to wander around in obscurity and do not want to be identified. That way their world view cannot be identified and criticized.

A conservative theological view will lead to a conservative political view and vica versa.

What I said is clear as I always am. I am straight forward and direct. Your claim that I am otherwise is not credible and most likely nothing more than a debate tactic.

 

If you read Trevin Wax's blog about homosexuality, I think you would agree that he makes some very good points.

http://trevinwax.com/

 

Rev, I bet you were the kind of kid who stole the ball and ran off the baseball field whenever your team was behind.

 

Another demonstration of the Christian love you tell others they should have?

 

No, I was just referring to the fact that instead of listening and finding common ground, he persists in shutting off every dissenting opinion, instead resorting to these pejorative and unfounded responses. It was begging the comparison.

Mr. Wade, I hope you have a great day.

 

What you refer to as "finding common ground" is quite often simply another way of saying "compromise scripture". I believe that gay people should be welcomed into the church as visitors and taught the Word of God. That said I believe that with an honest reading of Scripture it is also obvious that until they have repented of that sin and broken openly with that lifestyle they have no place in anything other than a visitor capacity. I would say the same for a hetero person living is sin. We are to faithfully follow all parts of Scripture not just the parts we like or that make us comfortable. The same Bible that teaches us to reach out in love to sinners also sets a very high standard for those in leadership positions in the church. It also sets a high standard for those seeking to join with a church body. Obviously we cannot expect sinless members or leaders but honestly that is not the point. The whole all sins are the same is nothing but an attempt to justify a stance (or lack of one) on a particular issue. As far as Salvation is concerned all sin is equal. As far as how specific sins are to be dealt with then no all sin is not equal.

 

The "finding common ground" I was referring to was actually for the sake of discussion and debate featured in this forum. I'm not suggesting one compromise beliefs about Scripture's teachings, and I would agree with everything in your post.

Perhaps I should have been more specific earlier, but I do not believe practicing homosexual persons should be in leadership positions. I believe, as you said, they should be welcomed into the church as visitors. I've been in churches where homosexual people were hired for occasional supplemental work playing in an orchestra or ensemble, for instance. That could potentially be a positive witness to those people. On the other hand, professional relationships like that tend to not reveal much about personal life.

In any event, treatment of homosexuals by the Church has too often been horrid, a complete travesty and misrepresentation of the gospel. That is deeply concerning to me, because being a classical musician, I have had the opportunity to get to know a number of gay people personally, and in almost all cases, there is a deep wedge driven between them and the Church, part of it by their own sin, but much of it because of the way they've been treated by Christians. I'm not saying you have to let them into full participation in the Church, but I think we turn people away too quickly, especially if they express an interest in knowing Jesus.

 

A sin is a sin, right? All sin is equal in the eyes of God. AND all our righteousness is as filthy rags. So yes, homosexuals are welcomed in
and offered the Gospel. I was welcomed in and offered the Gospel as a
sinner, but I couldn't serve until I repented and accepted Christ and
started following the Bible as my guidebook, walking a Christian walk.
I couldn't walk a Christian walk and play in bars - I was creating
a stumbling block for my brothers. I realized this and stopped doing it.
Now I can serve God with an happy heart, knowing I am growing in
my walk.

The same would apply for anyone who had "stuff" to clean up....and
sexual desires that are directly dealt with in the Bible would be some
of that "stuff".....so nope, homosexuals cannot serve until they
repent of homosexual desires. The same as a heterosexual who might
desire to have extramarital affairs and tells his friends.
- they couldn't serve.

 

If you're not having relations with the same gender, you're not gay or lesbian.

The idea that you have this genetic or pre-determined "s>xual identity" is a crock. The behavior defines the sin...not the "orientation."

If one is chaste, then they are not gay/lesbian.

 

We've drifted. The OP wasn't whether or not one was welcome...it was about their being allowed to "perform." If we take that to mean lead in worship...is there any argument whatsoever (at least, from those who purport to believe Scripture?)

 

Preaching in Jesus,
You made a lot of good points about open sin vs secret sin. However, and I think you would agree, some of the sins listed that we tend to look the other way are often times not secret. As a pastor, my guess is that you know exactly who the gossips, backbiters, and pot stirers are in your church. That would also include deacons and others already in leadership positions that abuse their power.

You also said all sin is not equal. I disagree. What makes it unequal is human opinion of the offense. The only sin that was pointed out from Scripture to have a different dimension to it is sexual immorality, as it is a sin against our own bodies. We all sin, and God hates all sin. The sin is either forgiven through Jesus, or it is not. There are no exceptions.

No one is arguing to put lesbians, gays, or other such nonsense in a leadership position or to lead a service. What should be said though is that the gossip, the leader that is unfit, and proud and arrogant, also have no business leading until a period after repentance and restoration.

No, gluttony is not evidenced by being overweight. It is evidenced by the way people eat meals, such as pot lucks. There are lots of thin people who are gluttons. It is like any other thing that can be abused. It is usually the bigger gluttons that shout the loudest about drinking, smoking, shopping in excess, etc. which makes them the highest order of hypocrite.

As I said in my above post, the final decision of leadership come down to the policy of the local church.

 

uh....yea............

 

What a compelling statement. See my last post for a more detailed explanation.

 

If she was repentant over her sin and became born again and wanted to share her testimony about how Christ saved her, forgave her, and delivered her out of that lifestyle, then we'd be thrilled to hear her testimony.

But as her "testimony" stands now, of course not.

As for her music, that wouldn't really be an issue because we have a rule in our church that we don't have any rock music (not that we're against rock music, just that we don't believe it's appropriate for church) or "special music". The only music we have is congregational singing with just a piano.

We've just found in the past that that can lead to giving too much glory to the singer and not to God, so the rule really is to protect the church, the congregation, and the singer, themselves. There's also the issue that singers usually don't present their songs to the church beforehand for critique to make sure they're Biblical.

Yeah, I know. We're weird.