Posted on 10/28/2005 2:11:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
The man had been attending a Methodist church in South Hill, Va., for several months. He sang in the choir. He owned a business and was well known in the community. But when he asked to become a formal member of the church, the pastor turned him down, because he is gay.
Those are the bare facts of a case that has split a 650-member congregation in southern Virginia and that threatens to divide the 8 million-member United Methodist Church, the nation's second largest Protestant denomination.
Yesterday in Houston, the Methodists' highest court heard an appeal from the pastor of South Hill United Methodist Church, the Rev. Edward Johnson. He was placed on unpaid leave after he rejected entreaties from his immediate supervisor and his bishop to admit the gay man, who has not been named by church officials and has declined to talk about the case.
Nationally, the Methodist Church prohibits "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" from serving as ordained ministers. But it has declared that gay men and lesbians are "persons of sacred worth" and has repeatedly said there are no bars to their participation as lay people.
"The theme of our church for five years now has been 'Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors.' The issue here is, 'Are we really open or not?' " said the Rev. W. Anthony Layman, who was Johnson's district superintendent when the pastor was removed in June by a 581 to 20 vote of fellow ministers in the church's Virginia conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Go ask your priest if you have one. You will find his replies are identical to mine. I'm through disputing with you (see the Titus reference again. Hint: it refers to you).
"Go ask your priest if you have one. You will find his replies are identical to mine."
As a life-long Catholic who also attended Catholic schools for twelve years, I know of no priest who has your very warped view of Christianity. I think any Catholic priest would agree with the 96.7% of Virginia ministers who fired the minister you are supporting.
The church is the body of believers. They are the ones that have repented and have turned towards God.
If you want to join this body, then all must do the same. On the hand, if you continually commit sin, and you have no remorse, no sorrow, no regret...you have no reason to believe that you are saved and that you can be counted among the brethren.
You're absolutely correct on that one.
I myself am a habitual, repeat offender. But I deplore it. I repent it. And with God's help through His Church, I am struggling towards living a Christian life.
But the church cannot help sinners who do not repent. Accepting a member who says, "I don't regret my sins and I have no intention of turning away from them," would be the same as saying, "We don't care about your soul, all we want is your dues." And THAT would be religious hypocrisy at its worst.
You said: I agree Homosexuals shouldnt lead the church or act as Ministers, but every person has the right to worship God in the church of their choice.
***
On the surface I tend to agree with you, but look at it also from the perspective of the other worshippers. Do they not also have the right to worship God in the church of THEIR choice? And if their choice is a church that considers homosexuality a lifestyle inconsistent with Christianity, where do THEY go to worship?
I don't know this man. I don't know if he is continuing to live a homosexual lifestyle or if he is trying to overcome his sin, but the rest of the congregation (or half of it, or whatever the split is) should be given some consideration in the analysis of this situation.
There's no gluttony commandment in the Decalogue; the closest it gets is Thou Shalt Not Covet. In this age of wondrous plenty, it's possible to get monstrously fat on food bought by the money earned in about 10 hours a week at minimum wage. Whatever that would be, it ain't covetousness, and the bible has zilch to say about fatness being bad (in fact in places the bible refers to fatness as good) so long as it is not to the point that it impedes one's service to God.
Absolutely correct on that one.
I myself am a habitual, repeat offender. But I deplore it. I repent it. And with God's help through His Church, I am struggling towards living a Christian life.
But the church cannot help sinners who do not repent. Accepting a member who says, "I don't regret my sins and I have no intention of turning away from them," would be the same as saying, "We don't care about your soul, all we want is your dues."
And THAT would be religious hypocrisy at its worst.
Your misuse of this scripture is almost as bad as your comparison to people being overweight to homosexuality.
What a distorted and unbalanced application of scripture.
Your arguments are typical of what Jesus so eloquently described as those who "strain on a gnat but will swallow a camel".
Because the church is the last institution that is preventing homosexuality from being totally accepted as "normal" in society and they want to undermine it and water down it's teachings.
This is evident in the fact that there are "gay churches" but most gays don't seem very interested in belonging to them.
Their focus is on forcing mainstream churches to accept them.
I am familiar with those passages. I am also familiar with who those passages address. the LAW was given from God, by Moses, to the nation of Israel, the chosen ones.
As Christians, we are "grafted" into the tree, but at no time, are we, Christians, UNDER THE LAW. Instead, we live by grace. We are told to listen to the Holy Spirit.
Indeed, the Law is an instructional tool, but it's requirements cannot be easily met, by anyone but Himself. God made us that way.
I know Paul's writings, well. Jesus was born by, lived among, and ministered to Jews, though not exclusively. He was bound by the prophecies, and predictions.
Paul ministered, as a Jew, to "Gentiles", Christ followers. Jesus spoke to the masses, while Paul spoke to specific groups, and needs, among BELIEVERS. He was not an evangelist. He ministered to them.
The Old Testament is a history book, which points to, and lays the groundwork, for the Christ. The New Testament, is the revelation of the Messiah.
The Holy Spirit is what convicts us of sin, not the letter of the law... it only reveals our faults.
Eve bit the fruit. She offered it to Adam. At that point, they were made aware. God cast them out from the Garden, because they now knew good, from evil.
Watch any little child, as he does something wrong. He's looking to see if he's gonna get caught...
"All Scripture is profitable for doctrine..." but eternal life comes only by faith in Jesus, the Christ!
2 Cor 3: 7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
12Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect[a] the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
NIV
I am sorry for you that the truth hurts but you can have the last word if you want it. Children like that.
Everyone sins but if a person is living in sin, and is making no effort to change that, I see no reason why they should be allowed to poison the rest of the flock. Much like I wouldn't want an unrepentant and active serial murder in my church.
I'm not sure if we are really debating anything now. Your post confirms what I said. The law slays us as guilty sinners before God, so we can be resurrected by the new covenant. Not that the problem was with the law, but with us.
Romans 7:5-7 says
5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Paul can say the letter kills because the law, exposing our guilt, “kills” us before God. It thoroughly and completely establishes our guilt.
It isn’t that the Holy Spirit replaces the written law, but completes and fulfills the work of the written law in our hearts.
So, we can’t throw away or neglect our Bibles (which some might say is the letter), because now we have the Spirit. Instead, the Spirit makes us alive to the letter, fulfilling and completing the work of the the letter in us. We also shouldn’t think this is permission to just live our Christian life on experiences or mystical interpretations of the Bible. Experiences and seeing allegories in the Bible are fine, but each must be proved true and supported by studying the literal meaning of the Bible. The Spirit and the letter are not enemies, but friends. One doesn’t work to the exclusion of the other, but one is incomplete without the other.
Romans 6:15 says,
"What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."
I'm not sure if we are debating. Do you think that the Bible teaches that we do not have to keep God's laws? Grace is about being forgiven...forgiven from what? Sin. Grace is God's undeserved mercy he grants us through the shed blood of Jesus.
Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
No, I believe that we cannot keep God's laws. I believe we know right from wrong, despite the law. Was there sin before the Law? Yes, but it wasn't imputed as such. The law only revealed it.
The law exposes sin. It defines some items, but has only a short list of right and wrongs. Jesus gave us a better way... God's way.
Sin. What is it? It is defined as "missing the mark". You quote Romans 6:15, but fail to note the passages before and after. The very next one (v16, and the following ones) explains Paul's thoughts better.
16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[b] Christ Jesus our Lord.
LOL. Well, I still don't know what we are debating.
On the surface we are in agreement, but I can't help but think we are teaching a different Gospel. How do you define grace? I get the impression that you think Grace is a condition of the individual.
If you don't mind me asking...what denomination are you?
I'm curious. I was raised Catholic, but I am now a Baptist.
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.