Posted on 10/28/2005 2:11:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
If your understanding is correct; I am in full agreement with you. For the church to permit an openly Gay member; who intends to continue his 'lifestyle' is an affront to everything the church stands for.
I am into genealogy and a fellow family researcher sent me a link to the minutes of a church that an ancestor attended back in the early 1800's. I was amazed at how many were kicked out and at the reasons.
Thank you for saying this. Do you suppose that many of us may be surprised to discover with whom we have to share heaven?
At question here is the Church's obligation is to follow God's word. When we change the scriptures to meet our desires then we blapheme God. We are not talking about suspicion, we are talking about someone who is openly gay. The church shows favor of such pervertism by not condeming those who would openly claim to be a homo. They are complicant in creating more homos or any other perverted or evil act by not condeming those that would call themselves members but refuse to denounce such behavior.
I was curious about your statement so I did a little search. You are right. They were first mentioned by Pope Gregory 1 about 600. They are found in the Bible but not together as seven.
That is precisely the reason Rev. Johnson declined to admit the man to membership. The man in question refused to renounce his homosexual [sinful] behavior.
See post #47.
It depends. Was he "just visiting"? If so, or even if regularly attending, then of course he should be welcome. But if he wanted to be formally listed on the membership roll and take communion while at the same time insisting on his "right" to deny central tenets of your faith (perhaps the divinity of Christ or the existence of the Holy Trinity), then yes, he should be politely told that formal membership and communion are only for those who believe what the church teaches.
Why would anyone want to belong to something they don't support? There is no "right" to church membership.
Since I do not believe what the Episcopal church teaches I surrendered my membership.
The gay guy in this case was just looking for an issue and publicity and he found it.
Perhaps what is really needed is a Church (with a capital C) that behaves more like a Church: calling sin "sin" and calling on sinners to truly repent and change their ways.
Just a thought....
They aren't saying he can't worship there, they just said they don't want him as a member.
However, I agree with your general sentiment. If the church were really honest about casting out all unrepentent sinners, the pews would be much emptier on Sundays. The truth of the matter is the chruch, for the most part, emphasize the enforcement of prohibitions against sexual sins more than against equally serious sins like gluttony, sloth, envy,pride, etc.
"We are talking about people who have PRIDE festivals to celebrate their . . . uh . . . frailties."
Indeed, I am talking about individuals struggling to find the Lord, as opposed to the group that openly and loudly rejects God (Which is what these pride festivals are all about). The Lord will judge us as individuals, not as a group, when judgement day comes.
I think they should be kicked out. So, what's your point?
"Seems the church is actually doing the right thing here."
Great quote.
One problem I see with your view is that there are many practicing Catholics who use birth control yet attend Catholic mass and belong to the church. They say their Act of Contrition every night and promise to amend their life and never do.
Though it is true that many homosexuals have no intention of ceasing their perversion that shouldnt prevent them from joining a Church. There are many people who steal and attend mass on Sunday .Even some in the Mafia go to church. Church is not for the saints among us but the sinners. Most go to Church because they are comforted by what they perceive is a closeness to God in that Church, personally I dont need a Church to be comforted,My God is everywhere, but I wouldnt deny it to those who do.
In an attempt to clarify and/or weaken the prohibition against homosexual pastors, the 2004 UM General Conference added unfaithfulness in marriage to the list of "chargeable offenses" (Paragraph 2702.1, 2004 Book of Discipline).
All sex outside one-man/one-woman marriage is against scripture's/God's intent and is therefore "sin."
When the Church (big "C") begins enforcing God's commands again, perhaps things will turn around in our nation/culture/world. It's clear that people have made a mess of everything.... :)
John 8:34, "Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. "
1 John 3:4, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." (That includes all sins, not just sexual sins.)
1 Timothy 5:22, "Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin."
It can be arguede based on 1 Timothy 5:22 that the congregation is doing this man a favor by not being too hasty in accepting him into full membership in the church.
Just my opinion....
C'mon, you guys ... we all know that homosexuals are welcome to *attend* church. What's being discussed is the ability of homosexuals to serve in the church as lay-people. Huge difference.
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.