Posted on 08/04/2005 6:24:09 AM PDT by mbarker12474
see #19
That is correct, of course, but in modern parlayance, I think "fornicator" would be the more common term.
People who participate in such behavior should be welcome in the church so that they might hear the truth and turn away from sin. Lowering the bar set by Him to accomodate such behavior means the parish is preaching a false gospel.
The pro gay Methodist Bishops have been pushing the gay agenda for 2 decades. Now they are taking out the preachers/pastors who dare to stand up to them.
I say God bless the Reverend Johnson for taking such a courageous stand.
She is laying the groundwork for the Methodist Church to allow ordination of homosexual ministers. "If they 'must' be allowed as members, how can we not allow them to be ministers?"
I think it's line in the sand time for the Methodist Church. And I don't think the choice that is going to be made is the correct one.
This is not the church I was raised in.
The last General Conference, the classical, biblcial Christian position was upheld by 70%, a number that has only improved over the last few decades.
I think the Bishop's purpose was in concert with the homosexual man's purpose. I think it might even have been coordinated through 3d & 4th parties.
They wished to sow discord in that church as a test case for doing it in other churches with theologically conservative leanings.
Is the "Bishop" married? To a man?
Dan
It seems to me that both the Superintendent & the Bishop are bound by the same vows all pastors take when they are ordained, as well as the same book of discipline. It seems that this pastor chose to honor and uphold his vow in spite of being told different by his "superiors". If it was the associate pastor who "turned him in", how is his behavior not an act of insubordination as they are claiming Rev. Johnson's is for not extending membership to the homosexual man?
Satan's mission is to divide & conquer. This church was not providing a very united front. Looks like Satan is winning with that congregation. A situation that won't improve while they don't have a senior pastor.
Scripture does say to "turn away from sin". We are all sinners who should have a repentant heart. If we don't turn away, we are slaves to sin. While we can invite a sinner to church to hear the Word, they must also be trying through prayer, etc. to turn away from it. If they don't we need to explain why we (Christians) must dissociate ourselves from them.
The denomination has a very strict rule against the ordination and appointment of practicing homosexuals, so I doubt that she could be married to a woman (overtly, anyway.)
If she's married it would be to a man. But I don't know her marital status.
Married since 1970.
It sounds like the Bishops are just like the judges in this country. It doesn't matter what the people "want", what matters is what the judiciary (or bishops) "want.
Thanks for the info about the General Conference. Maybe there's still hope.
If you read your bible about Pergamum and Thyatira in Revelation 2, then I think you'll get some idea of what the solution might be.
ping
Are openly practicing homosexuals, that is, when they come in with their "spouse," considered sinners, or does one assume that they are living together platonically?
Two men attending a service together would not merit so much as a question. If, however, they made a point of their deviant lifestyle, they would be called to repent and would be ineligible for membership until they did.
How would they repent? Is simply SAYING it enough? Would they have to live apart? Would they have to SAY that they are merely living platonically?
What would be the baseline for membership, I wonder?
Excuse me, but repentance is a basic part of being a Christian. If they don't even know how to do that then they have a lot more to work on than mere appearances.
Is simply SAYING it enough?
That could possible fool some people but it would not fool God.
Would they have to live apart?
We wouldn't be sending a "Church Cop" to investigate, no.
Would they have to SAY that they are merely living platonically?
They certainly could not say that they were in a sexual relationship with someone other than their spouse (of the opposite sex, of course, there is no other sort of spouse).
What would be the baseline for membership, I wonder?
Obeying Scripture and Church teachings and participation in the Sacraments.
Saying they were homosexual and acting as if they need not repent would prohibit being a recognized member of the church.
Sounds about right.
In the end, it's a judgment call.
Would other church members make that judgment?
I'm not needling, really just curious.
It's always pretty much of a judgment call and the Catholic Church rarely makes it on individual members. I am wondering if yours does.
Actually, it would be the priest who had that authority.
It's always pretty much of a judgment call and the Catholic Church rarely makes it on individual members.
I would think that priests in the Roman Catholic Church could refuse Communion to someone for cause. Is that not correct?
Yes, it is but the priest would have to read the sin in the communicant's heart. He wouldn't ask or assume anything. I've never, ever seen that.
In my entire life, I have only heard of ONE refusal of communion and that was in the news this year.
I used to go to Mass where there were a number of halfway house folks. Some were downright nuts. They were never refused communion. I suppose the priest thought that the body and blood of Jesus could only do them good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.