Just because a church is big doesn't make it a wishy washy "megachurch".
We all know this here on FR, but it's good to remember there are exceptions.
Posted on 10/17/2016 7:16:46 AM PDT by tuffydoodle
A north Dallas church is sticking to its convictions after it revoked a gay man's membership, saying he no longer desired to resist sin.
In a candid facebook post last Sunday, Jason Thomas wrote about a painful anniversary one year ago about the day Watermark Community Church sent him a letter revoking his membership. Thomas said he spent years of his life in church programs that promised to help him over come his attraction to men. Many of those years was at Watermark Community Church. One program he participated in is described as a "12 step discipleship through recovery", also aimed at helping people with eating disorders, drug abuse and pornography addiction.
"I was told, very convincingly, that I can change my attractions, and that's just not the case." Thomas said.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox4news.com ...
What!? Where did you get this nonsense. Inactive members are cut from the rolls on a routine basis. The hope is, it will spur them into going to another church that will “fit their wants and needs”.
I was thinking that, too.
. Nobody gets to choose what temptations are going to afflict them. Sometimes you get the same temptations all your life. But we are all responsible for resisting the temptation AND avoiding the people, places or things that tend to lead us into sin.
Which might involve breaking up with the "boyfriend," especially if the boyfriend isn't willing to renounce the eroticized aspects of their friendship.
The church is dispensational evangelical. Basically a breakoff from Northwest Bible over music styles. It has some big dollar members and real estate holdings in the $75-80 million range.
From the website:
“Every member, however, is required to agree with these seven essentials:
...
We believe that God created mankind in His image: male (man) and female (woman), sexually and biologically different, but with equal personal dignity. It is inconsistent with God’s design for a follower of Christ to in any way practically live or physically seek to change, alter, or disagree with their obvious biological sex which has been assigned by God (Genesis 1:26-28, Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
We believe that marriage is a union ordained by God and intended as a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman (Genesis 1:27-28, Genesis 2:18, Matthew 19:4-9, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31-33). In keeping with the Bible’s clear teaching on marriage as a union between one man and one woman, we will not conduct nor host wedding ceremonies inconsistent with Scripture.”
http://www.watermark.org/dallas/about/beliefs
How many other places have been sued by gays for “dissing” their lifestyle?
Re: “Perhaps they shouldn’t have promised to change his attraction but to help him find the strength and faith to.live chastely.”
Of course, we’re getting his side of the story as to what was actually said to him by this church. But, I would agree that promising that God would help give him strength to resist his desire to sin would be a better promise.
Just because we have to desire to do something doesn’t make it right or normal or “un sinful”.
People could be born with all kinds of natural inclinations that would be sin, yet we must resist them with God’s help through His Son.
Perhaps they shouldn’t have promised to change his attraction but to help him find the strength and faith to.live chastely.
No, you are quite wrong. A church may indeed freely choose its members.
Churches, REAL New Testament churches, OUGHT to make people uncomfortable in their sins - the "welcoming" trend is an unbiblical farce.
The white-hot Church after Pentecost was an intimidating thing. Of the people who heard their message and saw their miraculous signs, "no man join himself to them" out of fear that their sins would be their end.
I believe wbarmy’s comment was meant to be predictive, not an advocacy for such a policy.
True. But the separation of church and state works in both directions. Provided, of course, if the court, a real live honest court, will deny the claim based on such a power. But again, the church will take a hit on legal fees, if sued. These sorts of “contracts” might fail, but as a good Freeper, I did not read the posted fact pattern. :-) Culling the membership falls within the authority of the church and should not be touched by the courts.
I don’t think he was advocating it. But it sounds like he believed that they could not legally refuse him.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" - Jeremiah 17:9
Apparently, he was going by the wrong source.
So...no remarrying divorced people?
Just because a church is big doesn't make it a wishy washy "megachurch".
We all know this here on FR, but it's good to remember there are exceptions.
I know people with three or four children who have gotten earlier marriages annulled so they could be (re-)married in their church.
The sneering and snarling from the deviant left is loud, and getting louder. They have always assured us that they would leave us alone in our churches to conduct our religion as we have a right to do.
This obviously was a lie, just like all the other lies they have been telling.
I think Thomas probably will, where he'll find his lifestyle choice decidedly affirmed, if not just ignored.
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.