Posted on 08/06/2003 7:08:03 AM PDT by Miss Marple
With apologies for posting a vanity, but I wanted to put this theory up for serious discussion.
The gay movement in churches does, indeed force people out (along with other divisive liberal issues). I myself have left my life-long church, the Methodists, because of several doctrinal and political disagreements.
I have noticed that the gays are not lobbying in the Southern Baptists, nor in the Church of Christ, nor in the Assemblies of God. Now, one would on its surface think that it is because those churches are less susceptible to the message of "inclusiveness." That may be true, but there is another underlying reason as well, I think.
The mainline Protestant denominations, as well as the Roman Catholics, own a great deal of real estate and have fairly large bank accounts. The real estate (in Manhattan and Boston and other large cities across this nation) is owned by the denomination, not the individual congregation, and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. An entire Episcopal congregation who wishes to split from the church and go independent must LEAVE the building, abandoning it to the gay-friendly people. This holds true for the Methodists as well, and I believe for the rest of the mainline denominations and the Roman Catholics.
On the other hand, most Southern Baptist congregations own their property individually. They can withdraw without losing the building, nor would they lose control of their bank accounts.
It seems to me that this is a concerted effort to not only shape public opinion but, more importantly, to control real estate and money. Money is used to sway political beliefs, push certain social issues, and shape public discourse.
If I wanted to control a lot of real estate and church bank accounts, so that the money could go to causes I believed in but were not supported by most of the congregants, I would choose to infiltrate the church with people whose presence would FORCE OUT those who have less radical views, and I would also be forcing them to leave the very expensive real estate, bank accounts, and endowments behind. I could then funnel money to groups like anti-war organizations without any objection.
It seems to me that there is a plan afoot to rob people who have donated their time and treasure (in some families' cases, for generations) to a congregation and church building, and secure the land and money for their own purposes.
In other words, this is about money as much as sex. Otherwise, why wouldn't these people simply start their OWN churches? I have not forgotten how once before we were distracted from the real evil by a story about sex.
They don't want to start their own churches, because they want the land, the buildings, and the money. I think this needs to be looked at with more attention to the financial side.
I also would like to point out that manay mainline churches also control large universities, and this also supports my theory that the issue is financial and political control, not simply sex.
Let us not forget that Satan comes as a thief in the night.
After seeing a very good single mom, I still haven't changed my mind that women are supposed to be married when they have kids.
I don't think a 'good' woman pastor would change my mind at all... much as a very nice homosexual man wouldn't convince me what he's doing is right.
Most mainline denominations, because they are old, have both valuable real estate (in large metropolitan areas) on which their churches were built years ago (think of the Episcopal church of St. John's across from the White House); in addition, over the years, they have been recipients of land and other valuables bequeathed to them by grateful members.
Some churches also own universities (Southern Methodist, for example).
You are right that they probably shouldn't be that wealthy. I think many of the churches have used income from these properties to fund worthy endeavors. However, should the hierarchy change, I do not think the money would go to the same causes.
Don't worry about the Catholic Church's problems. It is made up of sinful human beings, but Jesus guaranteed that it would never TEACH false doctrine. The rest is up to Catholics.
The gay bishop problem of the Episcopalians is illustrative. This will never happen in the Catholic Church. Sure, there are and will be gay priests and bishops but the Magisterium of the Church will never APPROVE of openly gay clergy. Similarly, there will never be woman priests. We have Jesus's guarantee.
Artificial birth control is another example. EVERY Christian church taught that it was deeply immoral until the 1930's. Then the Anglicans succumbed to the spirit of the age (as they have again) and the rest is history. Only the Catholic Church held firm.
Remember, the bad Catholics you run into are in fact Protestants; i.e., they PROTEST the teachings of the Church. I urge you to find the Catholic parish or parishes in your area that are truly Catholic (you will know by the size of the families in attendance) and commune with the angels and saints in the Holy Mass.
Sure it is. Both show a distinct contempt for Biblical mandate. You don't have to like it, but don't act like it isn't there.
If I didn't think it would bore you to death, I could give you citations to quite a number of cases. To boil it down to basics, states may have nothing to do with church property disputes, or they may jump in with both feet, or (like Georgia) they take a middle ground and decide property disputes only with respect to certain churches. In GA, it makes a difference whether your church government is hierarchical, congregational, or some hybrid of the two.
Source please. Paul said in the Timothy letters that a church leader "must be the husband of one wife".
My sister made me check out the local "word faith" church (avoid those please!) with her... since I was very pregnant at the time, and have a hair problem I have to wonder if they pounced on me thinking that I was pregnant and in treatment for cancer (without even bothering to ask) - and they asked as I was just about to go out the door if I needed prayer. So I said "yeah we need a minivan because we're upside down on the loans on our two cars and can't fit all of us in one once the new baby comes.
I think she was hoping I'd say I had a serious health problem but I didn't. Anyway she prayed about the cars and then launched into praying in tongues. I just kind of politely waited until she was done and then left.
The next week we went to this Covenant church we now belong to - the pastor was genuinely interested in each of us, people were nice and asked us questions about ourselves, but not too pushy. It felt very comfortable. In addition the denomination's motto (ironically in the case of women pastors) is "where is it written?" [in the scriptures] and they encourage discussion of issues/doctrine etc. to keep each person sharp. Now, whether the individuals actually participate in those discussions is another thing.
That is NOT what Corinthians says!
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.