# Would you rent to a gay person/pair?



## ARStager (Jul 18, 2005)

Some Christian and Lutheran friends of ours are looking to buy a duplex and one of them that they came across has renters that would stay - one or both of which, it's not clear - is gay. Might be a "couple". 

Not sure how to handle this - or how I would in this situation if confronted with it.

Your thoughts. 

Feel free to visit their blog on the subject: http://loveandblunder.blogspot.com/2005/07/thoughts-on-sinners.html


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2005)

Greg Bahnsen stood in the gap. 


Landlady's Religious Liberty upheld: Greg Bahnsen testified in her behalf


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 18, 2005)

Part of me says they are all sinners and I would allow them to continue renting the place. Then I also realise that by me allowing them to rent the home then I am aiding their sin. If I kicked them out though they will probably continue on in their sin and nothing will change.

I probably would not kick them out straight away but I would give them notice and tell them I would not renew their contract. You need to reasons to kick someone out here and I am not willing to go to jail or be fined a huge amount over it. Besides it could be a good witnessing time.

In the case actually mentioned one would have to be certain they are actually a couple before I see grounds to take strong action against them. I certainly would never give them the rent in the first place.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Greg Bahnsen stood in the gap.
> 
> 
> Landlady's Religious Liberty upheld: Greg Bahnsen testified in her behalf



Excellent testimony, Jacob!


----------



## matt01 (Jul 18, 2005)

I would rent to them in the same manner that I would rent to a heterosexual couple who were unmarried, or to a married couple with both members guilty of adultery--even though it may be only in the heart. 
If I were to refuse to rent to homosexual couples, where would I draw the line? Would I then refuse to rent to individuals who consistently broke the Sabbath? Or who didn't raise their children in the fear of the Lord?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 18, 2005)

Good article so why not post it. It is short.

PE189

Penpoint Vol. V:6 (July, 1994) Â© Covenant Media Foundation, 800/553-3938


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Landlady's Religious Liberty Upheld: Dr. Bahnsen Had Testified in Her Behalf
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen



According to the Law, God shows a special protection and concern for widows -- and His people should uphold them (and others who are socially disadvantaged) likewise. "Cursed is the man who withholds justice from ... the widow" (Deut. 27:19). To realize how serious this is to God, notice that this curse appears right alongside God's curse upon incest and bestiality (vv. 20-23).

God's protection of widows has particular application to their property rights. "Jehovah... keeps the widow's boundaries intact" (Prov. 15:25). Any attempt to restrict a person's freedom to use his or her own property -- or to dictate how and under what conditions he or she may choose to use it -- is to tamper with their "boundaries."

Thus in 1988 the case of Evelyn Smith, who lives in Chico, California, became a special concern of Dr. Bahnsen's. Mrs. Smith was a professing Christian and a recent widow who was hauled into court by the state of California, trying to control the terms under which she used the rental property left to her by her husband.



A Politically Incorrect Stand for Chastity

In 1987 Mrs. Smith, a devout Presbyterian, was attempting to rent out four one-bedroom duplexes which provide a significant portion of her income. Because she believes (quite correctly) that the Bible teaches that sexual relations should be pursued only within marriage, Mrs. Smith took the position -- on religious grounds -- that she would not rent to couples living together out of wedlock.

A young gardener and his girlfriend at first lied to Mrs. Smith to get her to agree to rent a duplex to them. When she found out the truth, she returned their deposit money and refused to rent to them. In retaliation, the gardener complained against Mrs. Smith to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which in turn filed charges against her for "marital status discrimination." The case came to trial in 1988.

By that time her lawyer (a legal counsel to the organization "Concerned Women for America") had contacted Dr. Bahnsen as a presbyterian and as an ethicist to present expert testimony in behalf of Mrs. Smith. (None of the local presbyterians was willing to do so.)

Often debating with a combative prosecutor over theology and exegesis, Dr. Bahnsen argued that the position taken by Mrs. Smith was both Biblical and established in presbyterian tradition. He testified both that sex before marriage is immoral and that facilitating the immoral acts of others is also sinful. He offered examples from Presbyterian history that consenting to, or complicity in, another's sin is condemned.

The administrative-law judge agreed with Dr. Bahnsen that Mrs. Smith was pursuing her sincere religious conviction in the matter, but cited "compelling state interests" in overriding her religious liberty. He required her to pay a fine to the couple and to post a sign in her rentals which confesses her offense and pledges not to do so again. She refused to pay or to post. "I don't answer to man, I answer to my God," she replied, saying she would be a "wimp Christian" if she gave in to fornicators on this issue.

A great deal was riding on this case for Christians (and indeed all citizens). Even nationally known commentator Pat Buchanan wrote in horror that, if this judgment were not overturned, "secularism has superseded Christianity as the faith of the United States." Whose values should define justice for the state? Here is a down-to-earth, nitty-gritty test case for the ongoing debate between pluralists and theonomists within the Christian community. Civil law will not, and cannot, be neutral. Discrimination is unavoidable. Now, Good News for Religious Liberty

Well, Mrs. Smith appealed the judgment against her, vowing to go all the way to the Supreme Court if it became necessary. Most believers in our "give-in-and-get-along" age would consider her stand futile and foolish. But Mrs. Smith chose to live by principle and to honor the word of God rather than the threats of men. We can all thank her for standing up to "compelling state interests" -- for in so doing, she has helped to preserve civil liberty for all believers (even her unkind detractors).

At the end of May of this year (six years after the initial trial!) the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, California, ruled that the Fair Housing Commission's decision was itself a violation of Mrs. Smith's right to follow her religious beliefs, which is guaranteed by both the state and federal constitutions.

At SCCCS we thank God for this appellate judgment. We are glad to have had some part in the case. Above all, we commend the determined and God-trusting stand of Evelyn Smith. We commend her love for the Savior, her testimony to the holiness of His word, and her perseverance for the faith. We pray that all our readers would take encouragement from her example. "A city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2005)

Thanks Randy

:thumbup:


----------



## Poimen (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by matthew_
> I would rent to them in the same manner that I would rent to a heterosexual couple who were unmarried, or to a married couple with both members guilty of adultery--even though it may be only in the heart.
> If I were to refuse to rent to homosexual couples, where would I draw the line? Would I then refuse to rent to individuals who consistently broke the Sabbath? Or who didn't raise their children in the fear of the Lord?



My thoughts exactly. "There is no one righteous, no not one..."

I voted yes.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> I don't think anyone is claiming there's a righteous person. Is it not the prerogative of the owner to choose who they'll rent to, regardless of what ANYONE thinks? It's THEIR property. That's like the state telling business owners that can't have smoking in their own establishment!



Well I agree with this as well. No doubt one should be able to rent out their property to who they want. 

My point in bringing up the fact that no one is righteous was only to emphasize what Matthew said: what difference does it make if one rents out to a gay/lesbian or a person who breaks any other commandment.


----------



## Robin (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by matthew_
> I would rent to them in the same manner that I would rent to a heterosexual couple who were unmarried, or to a married couple with both members guilty of adultery--even though it may be only in the heart.
> If I were to refuse to rent to homosexual couples, where would I draw the line? Would I then refuse to rent to individuals who consistently broke the Sabbath? Or who didn't raise their children in the fear of the Lord?



 Matthew. Though religious liberty is important to uphold....I would not confuse it with the City of man.

Robin


----------



## satz (Jul 18, 2005)

hmmm...very challenging...

if we own a business would we sell to any unbeliever? Because any unbeliever is in sin. Or working for a unbelieving boss? I know homosexuality is a very 'high profile' sin, but according to prov 21:4 even the ploughing of the wicked is sin.

i am not arguing one way or another atm, and i certainly support the legal right of any christian to say no if that is where their convictions lead them to, but...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by matthew_
> ...



I disagree. Sin is sin and separates from God, but there are varying degrees of sin. Jesus said that it would be better for some than others. Why do you think this is true? Because of what Jesus said concerning those who reject Him in comparison to Sodom. There are varying degrees of sin. In the line of sins in Romans 1 Homosexuality is at the bottom. But even lower than that is those who are shown the Glorious Lord and reject Him.

Mat 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. 

Mat 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. 

Mar 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. 

Luk 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. 

Luk 10:14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 18, 2005)

There are levels of sin that don't pull society down as bad as others. Homosexuality pulls down to heavily. I wouldn't rent to child molesters or dope dealers either.
My Kids are watching.


[Edited on 7-19-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Then you're not disagreeing with me. I was being a bit facetious.



That sounds like you.....


----------



## Robin (Jul 19, 2005)

Some thoughts....

One wonders HOW Christians might regain a hearing from the gay community if we show them less mercy than Christ showed us; how are we to truly demonstrate "eating & drinking with sinners" in an effort to model Christ, which, in turn might bring about opportunity to reach them?

There were homosexuals in the Corinthian church STILL when Paul wrote to them (for habitual sin dies a hard death.) They weren't excommunicated, were they? Didn't Paul appeal to and exhort them to consider what they WERE - even though the evidence of sin yet flourished? Paul used the Gospel to affirm the mercy God has on sinners -- even for the homosexual -- even for the homosexual struggling to walk in Christ.

Christians are simultaneously sinner and saint. Do we dare discriminate in judging sin when it involves our role in Redemptive history as being messengers of the Good News?

My sins of gossip, greed and hatred are certainly NO different than the horrendous offense of fornication. The Amazing Grace Christ has showered on me finds obligation in a noble duty: mercy and compassion that go beyond what the world can offer. If this is done in faith - Christ will honor His name and may grant grace unto repentance.

(off soap box)

r.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

> There were homosexuals in the Corinthian church STILL when Paul wrote to them (for habitual sin dies a hard death.) They weren't excommunicated, were they? Didn't Paul appeal to and exhort them to consider what they WERE - even though the evidence of sin yet flourished? Paul used the Gospel to affirm the mercy God has on sinners -- even for the homosexual -- even for the homosexual struggling to walk in Christ.




Where did you get the notion of practicing homosexuals being members of the Corinthian Church?

I am not saying don't be merciful. I have ministered to Homosexuals. A very good friend of mine died about 10 years ago because of AIDS. He was repentant. He found out after the fact that he had AIDS. I have had some significant friendships with people who were gay. I didn't promote their lifestyle though. I didn't bash them either. I wouldn't rent to a gay couple living together either.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 19, 2005)

A reason I eventually voted no (I would not rent a house to them to start of with) is that _I_ would be _aiding_ them in living together. I could rent the house to a murder or a rapist but if I knew they were using the house as a base of operations to commit their crimes then I would not rent them the house.

To conclude: my problem is not that I would rent the house to 'sinners' (and who isn't?) but rather that certain people I would be _aiding_ in their sin.

I hope this makes sense.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jul 19, 2005)

I voted "yes".

Granted that homosexuality is a heinous sin, and those that practice it damage society and the nature of the family and so on more than certain other sins; however, if the "couple" was found credit-worthy and had secure jobs and an excellent rent history, I would much rather have them renting from me than a couple of "Christians" who left their last place in shambles, forfeited their security deposit, and has left every place they've been worse than when they first got it.

Its like a shoemaker saying: "I won't sell this sinner a pair of my shoes. I worked hard making them: I sweated, labored, and used my God-given talents and abilities making the best pair of shoes I could at this price. And now I'm going to give them to this man so he can use them to run after sin, and support and comfort his feet as he hastens off to commit his evil acts??? Shall it never be!"

Shouldn't we rather serve society, a society made up of sinners and saints, good and bad? If our neighbor's roof is leaking, should we not help them mend it even if they're non-Christians and are "worshipping idols"? If someone's car breaks down on the side of the road, do we take their spiritual pulse before we help them fix it? No. We should do all the good we can to all the people we can. In the meantime, we have the witness of our actions and good deeds to further them down towards the road of redemption. Perhaps it will be their first "helpful" interaction with a Christian.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 19, 2005)

You may debate this in the sterile environment of a forum but you must also consider the law. If you are going to rent out a house or apartment, it would be nice if a sweet old saintly lady applied for it. In reality it's going to be someone who may have a very different world view than you and here in Wisconsin the rights are definitely on the side of the renter. Been there, done that, paid over a thousand dollars in 'stupid' tax.

I'm not going to be landlord again. Ugh!


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 20, 2005)

I am going to repeat again that I do not have a problem renting apartments/homes to sinners (as we all are). The problem with a gay couple is *you* are aiding them in their sin.


----------



## openairboy (Jul 20, 2005)

Yea, we are all sinners, so why not turn our homes and apartments into whorehouses? Why confuse the two-kingdoms? Why not rent it to Pee-Wee Herman and Ferris Beuller's Principle? We are all sinners. Dahmer, I believe, would make a good tenant. I heard he always paid his rent on time and had good credit. After all, there is no one righteous, so what makes a difference if they are pedophiles, crack-whores, or participate in bestiality. I mean, if a man "loves" his horse, why not rent it to them?

And, for the record, I wouldn't rent to a known Klansman or Neo-Nazi. I must be self-righteous, confusing kingdoms, and a host of other things if I don't rent it to them, huh?

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> There were homosexuals in the Corinthian church STILL when Paul wrote to them (for habitual sin dies a hard death.) They weren't excommunicated, were they? Didn't Paul appeal to and exhort them to consider what they WERE - even though the evidence of sin yet flourished? Paul used the Gospel to affirm the mercy God has on sinners -- even for the homosexual -- even for the homosexual struggling to walk in Christ.



I don't care how fancy one gets, but Paul tells me not to be deceived into thinking that a homosexual (yes, other sins as well) will inherit the Kingdom of God. I won't be deceived into thinking they will be.

If a professing Christian is practicing homosexuality, then they should be handed over to Satan that they might be saved on the Final Day.

openairboy

openairboy


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> Yea, we are all sinners, so why not turn our homes and apartments into whorehouses? Why confuse the two-kingdoms? Why not rent it to Pee-Wee Herman and Ferris Beuller's Principle? We are all sinners. Dahmer, I believe, would make a good tenant. I heard he always paid his rent on time and had good credit. After all, there is no one righteous, so what makes a difference if they are pedophiles, crack-whores, or participate in bestiality. I mean, if a man "loves" his horse, why not rent it to them?
> 
> And, for the record, I wouldn't rent to a known Klansman or Neo-Nazi. I must be self-righteous, confusing kingdoms, and a host of other things if I don't rent it to them, huh?
> ...



Keith, 
I think there's a difference between renting to one who is "dangerous", or who practices open, gross, vile sin and renting to a person who is a sinner and "tries" to do the right thing in society, although their skewed worldview may lead them to not get it quite right.
A man's reputation preceeds him. There is no reason to expect all "sinners" to be treated the same. A known Klansman, Nazi, pedophile, Dahmer, etc would certainly not have a shot in ANY of our buildings (unless I knew the roof was going to soon fall in. Hee hee)


----------



## Robin (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



 of course, in the end at The Judgment, God holds the right to separate the sheep from goats.

Understand though, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church mainly because of sexual impropriety. Corinthian culture was particularly decedent; those saved (while yet sinners) were utterly unschooled in Jewish religion; they didn't care about nor understand the Law of Moses. This caused a huge amount of unrest in their fellowship (a mix of Jews and Gentiles.) It is unreasonable to imagine, given the context of the letters, that those "formerly" in sin maintained a clean-repentance record once they "walked the aisle and asked Jesus into their hearts" (sarcasm.) Their struggle with sin was a daily, gradual, earthy, experience (Romans 7.) There is no doubt the Corinthian church (as did all the others, down until TODAY) struggle with on-going sin.

Do we have any maturity? Isn't it obvious, a Christian would not engage in business to promote evil (whorehouses, Etc?) And it is good that a Christian not expose himself to temptation; and should be considerate towards others weaker in conscious. Allowances are good and right to make. Likewise, the mature Christian understands a freedom enjoyed in America: to operate our business according to personal beliefs/convictions - a freedom in danger of being lost!

Rash and broad judgments honor not the whole Message of the NT. The Good News is: God saves the wicked! It is NOT "you better not fall of the wagon and commit sin XYZ...or you won't make heaven."

What can be said to the struggling, professing, truster of Christ WHEN they fall under the weight of sin? Do we speak differently to the gossip and the homosexual? To the slanderer and the adulterer? How many falters in sin constitute a "tare" within the church? Thus is the difficult and reverent work of the church's officers/church discipline.

We might be surprised who is in heaven after all. Christ came to save the wicked; the righteous have no need of Him.

Selah

r.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 20, 2005)

What is the difference between turning your house into a whorehouse - where by you provide your property for the committing of sexual immorality and provide a place for people to commit these crimes - compared to renting your house to an unmarried or homosexual couple?

In both case you are providing people with a place to commit their sins in an easy environment.

This is different from a 'casual' sinner who will continue lieing, being angry... etc... whether he is in a house or not.


----------



## openairboy (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> Keith,
> I think there's a difference between renting to one who is "dangerous", or who practices open, gross, vile sin and renting to a person who is a sinner and "tries" to do the right thing in society, although their skewed worldview may lead them to not get it quite right.
> A man's reputation preceeds him. There is no reason to expect all "sinners" to be treated the same. A known Klansman, Nazi, pedophile, Dahmer, etc would certainly not have a shot in ANY of our buildings (unless I knew the roof was going to soon fall in. Hee hee)



Christopher,

I agree. I was being a bit absurd, because we all draw the line somewhere. The "we're just sinners" is terribley impractical. 

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> What is the difference between turning your house into a whorehouse - where by you provide your property for the committing of sexual immorality and provide a place for people to commit these crimes - compared to renting your house to an unmarried or homosexual couple?
> 
> In both case you are providing people with a place to commit their sins in an easy environment.
> ...



I may rent my place to a closet homo, but never to people openly/flauntingly committing sodomy. 

I definitely believe in degrees of sin, and judge accordingly.

openairboy


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 20, 2005)

> What is the difference between turning your house into a whorehouse - where by you provide your property for the committing of sexual immorality and provide a place for people to commit these crimes - compared to renting your house to an unmarried or homosexual couple?
> 
> In both case you are providing people with a place to commit their sins in an easy environment.
> 
> This is different from a 'casual' sinner who will continue lieing, being angry... etc... whether he is in a house or not.



Oh for crying out loud. Renting my property out for the intent of it being a whorehouse (a business conducting this very business) is entirely different than supply a place to live. NO renter rents his/her property for the purpose of sexual intercourse, just living quarters. Is that so hard to grasp. Nobody advertizes in a newspaper, "Two Bedroom Apartment for Rent, fully furnished kitchen, 1 and 1/2 bath, so that an honestly married couple can have proper sexual relations - asking $750 per month plus utilities."

L


----------



## satz (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> What is the difference between turning your house into a whorehouse - where by you provide your property for the committing of sexual immorality and provide a place for people to commit these crimes - compared to renting your house to an unmarried or homosexual couple?
> 
> In both case you are providing people with a place to commit their sins in an easy environment.
> ...



then what about a heterosexual couple that was not married? or a single person who was fornication? How do we draw the line? Are we to keep checking up on the moral activities of our tenants?

If we own a restaurant do we before serving them have to check whether each couple is unmarried and having sex? Or whether each same sex couple is gay?

I too would never rent my house to be a whorehuose... and i agree that active homosexuality is worse than being a mere unbeliever in certain ways. But i don't know if this extends to commercial transactions so much.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 
> 
> > What is the difference between turning your house into a whorehouse - where by you provide your property for the committing of sexual immorality and provide a place for people to commit these crimes - compared to renting your house to an unmarried or homosexual couple?
> ...



The question has been blurred. Maybe I am taking it to serious. But an openly Homosexual couple would not be allowed to rent one of my properties if I owned any. The reasons have been stated above. I wouldn't rent to a young couple who were sexually active and not married either.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Oh for crying out loud. Renting my property out for the intent of it being a whorehouse (a business conducting this very business) is entirely different than supply a place to live. NO renter rents his/her property for the purpose of sexual intercourse, just living quarters. Is that so hard to grasp. Nobody advertizes in a newspaper, "Two Bedroom Apartment for Rent, fully furnished kitchen, 1 and 1/2 bath, so that an honestly married couple can have proper sexual relations - asking $750 per month plus utilities."


There are differences but the moral is the same In my humble opinion. What is the sin here? That the gay couple are living together (among other things). By giving them a place to live you are giving them a home to live together in. You are granting them the _ability_ to carry on their sexual immorality. Sure they might carry it on in other places if someone rented them their house - but it is the same as someone wanting to set up a drug lab in their rented home. You wouldn't allow tenants to set up a drug lab simply because if you kick them out they would build it elsewhere.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

No, I wouldn't. Read Romans 1. Then read it again.


----------



## Robin (Jul 21, 2005)

Brothers,

Allow the Apostle Paul to help clarify matters....
1 Corinthians 5:9-13 Sexual Immorality Defiles the Church

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

Without wasting time on absurdities, I wonder if Paul would rent to a gay couple? (Gasp!) For that matter, I wonder if Paul would attend a cocktail party and associate with Joe-Six-Pack?

Then, on the flip-side...HOW in tarnation, do Christians fellowship with brothers; discover that somebody is being (let's say) greedy, then obey Paul's admonition to not associate with them? Oooo, that's difficult. What do we do? (Probably another thread....)

So far, it's clear about our judging the lost, I think. Yes, there's freedom to obey conscious. (Thank God!) But, use caution when judging those outside.

1 Corinthians 4:5-6 is relevant too:

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God. 

I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.



r.


----------



## Robin (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Oh for crying out loud. .... NO renter rents his/her property for the purpose of sexual intercourse, just living quarters. Is that so hard to grasp. Nobody advertizes in a newspaper, "Two Bedroom Apartment for Rent, fully furnished kitchen, 1 and 1/2 bath, so that an honestly married couple can have proper sexual relations - asking $750 per month plus utilities."
> L



 

r.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> of course, in the end at The Judgment, God holds the right to separate the sheep from goats.
> 
> Understand though, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church mainly because of sexual impropriety. Corinthian culture was particularly decedent; those saved (while yet sinners) were utterly unschooled in Jewish religion; they didn't care about nor understand the Law of Moses. This caused a huge amount of unrest in their fellowship (a mix of Jews and Gentiles.) It is unreasonable to imagine, given the context of the letters, that those "formerly" in sin maintained a clean-repentance record once they "walked the aisle and asked Jesus into their hearts" (sarcasm.) Their struggle with sin was a daily, gradual, earthy, experience (Romans 7.) There is no doubt the Corinthian church (as did all the others, down until TODAY) struggle with on-going sin.
> ...




 Well said. Renting to a gay couple is not always a sin. By granting them a place of shelter, are you aiding their sin or are you showing them mercy by giving them a place to live even though they do not deserve it? Is this condoning their sin? Or is it reflecting God's mercy? I agree one has the right to not rent to them as a matter of conscience. But I fail to see how this is aiding them in their sin anymore than Providence providing for christians, who sin daily. Does God aid our sin by providing for us? Does God refuse to give refuge to Christians, though our sin qualifies us for death? Even the most mature christians among us (see Paul in Romans 7) continue to sin against him individually and corporately? Does this mean God is soft on our sin? No. Does this mean the law is aborted? No. It just means mercy trumps condemnation in how God deals with us sinners (christian sinners included), and if we are truly being made as repentant as we claim to be as opposed to the homosexual who isn't, shouldn't this repentance be evident in the fruit of showing mercy to all of God's creatures? Telling the gay couple that their lifestyle is good, or particpating with them in their lifestyle, or keeping silent at all times when they need to hear the law/gospel...this would be aiding their sin. But giving them a place to live, is that always in every situation, a condoning of their sin? 

General questions-
1. How many of us here have fully repented of all sins?
2. How many of us here do not struggle with one or more particular on-going sins?
3. How many of us who answered no to #2 have a strong internal desire to repent, but the flesh is weak in externalizing it?
4. How many of those who answered yes to #3 would we consider unregenerate? How do we know?

Christians, professing the doctrines of grace but then use them as a wall to hide behind so they can lob "law" grenades at those outside the church or even at fellow believers behind the wall, confuse and grieve me. When I hear the gospel, I want to repent (obey the law). When I hear the law, I want to resort to one of several christian methods to achieve holiness, and then look down on everyone else who is not on my level. The law guides, the gospel converts. The problem isn't that people need to hear the law, we are self-righteous by nature, people need to hear the gospel. And if people aren't living rightly it isn't because they need to hear more law, it is because they simply don't believe the gospel.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by RAS]


----------



## openairboy (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Well said. Renting to a gay couple is not always a sin. By granting them a place of shelter, are you aiding their sin or are you showing them mercy by giving them a place to live even though they do not deserve it? Is this condoning their sin? Or is it reflecting God's mercy? I agree one has the right to not rent to them as a matter of conscience. But I fail to see how this is aiding them in their sin anymore than Providence providing for christians, who sin daily. Does God aid our sin by providing for us? Does God refuse to give refuge to Christians, though our sin qualifies us for death? Even the most mature christians among us (see Paul in Romans 7) continue to sin against him individually and corporately? Does this mean God is soft on our sin? No. Does this mean the law is aborted? No. It just means mercy trumps condemnation in how God deals with us sinners (christian sinners included), and if we are truly being made as repentant as we claim to be as opposed to the homosexual who isn't, shouldn't this repentance be evident in the fruit of showing mercy to all of God's creatures? Telling the gay couple that their lifestyle is good, or particpating with them in their lifestyle, or keeping silent at all times when they need to hear the law/gospel...this would be aiding their sin. But giving them a place to live, is that always in every situation, a condoning of their sin?
> 
> General questions-
> ...



RAS,

We all draw the line somewhere. Will you rent to Heidi Fleiss knowing it will be used as a whorehouse? You are not the one making the profiting from the whorehouse, but merely showing mercy to whores, adulterers, and a "madam". What about sodomites from NAMBLA? Will you rent to them? The "I'm more humble than you because I will talk about grace and mercy and you talk about "law", or self-righteousness" doesn't go too far in practice or fly with me. It's a good piece of rhetoric but doesn't solve any issues.

Without hijacking the thread, I believe the Torah converts. The Torah is good. Lobbing a Torah grendade is the best thing we can do when there is sin; after all, is it not made for the unrighteous? The problem is it never possess the power of a grenade, but a mere lady finger at best. I love the Torah of YHWH. The obedience of faith includes great effort on my part, yet it is all of grace. I don't by the hermeneutic assumptions--it is faulty to assume that the "gospel" doesn't demand anything of the sinner.

This hermeneutic would never allow Paul to say, "You are our witness, AND SO IS GOD, how holy, righteous, and BLAMELESS we were among you..." I realize we will run it through our grid and it will come out the other end not really saying this, but Paul says before God and man. At best, according to this faulty hermeneutic, Paul would've said, "You know we all think we are holy, self-righteous, and blameless; hell, we even thought it while we were among you, but we weren't. We never are before God or before man and it is merely legal jargon that allows us to be this way before God and man. He never witnesses us to be holy, rightouess, & blameless except as he see's Jesus. We are just big, big sinners in need of a big, big savior. We need to cheer up, b/c we are worse off than we think." That, however, is not what Paul says. 

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Brothers,
> 
> Allow the Apostle Paul to help clarify matters....
> ...



Has anyone said they wouldn't associate with a queer, drunkard, greedy, swindler, etc? I dont' think anyone is saying they wouldn't associate w/ a homo. I don't think anyone is saying they wouldn't associate w/ a drunkard.

I still wouldn't rent my place to Heidi Fleiss.

openairboy


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jul 21, 2005)

hmmmmmmmmm interesting. so there is a difference between selling and renting regular products, vs selling and renting living space, since the latter comes with a greater potentiality for sexual relations whether licit or illicit due to the fact that a bedroom, bed and privacy are involved.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> RAS,
> 
> Will you rent to Heidi Fleiss...



Maybe.



> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> ...knowing it will be used as a whorehouse?



Absolutely not!



> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> The "I'm more humble than you because I will talk about grace and mercy and you talk about "law", or self-righteousness" doesn't go too far in practice or fly with me. It's a good piece of rhetoric but doesn't solve any issues.



I am not sure where this statement is in my post. Please re-read it. If you notice I struck a 'balance' between the law and gospel, judging and showing mercy, etc.. A distinction, not a separation. I feel you are casting my point into a stream I wasn't aiming for. My questions still stand to be answered, however.

And speaking of rhetoric, since you goaded me into a question about NAMBLA as an example (which streches the issue of this thread), I will ask a perhaps more concrete example: Should christian employers refuse to hire or fire an employee if that employee spends the paycheck you give them on getting drunk each weekend? Are you aiding them in their sin by giving them a paycheck? Or are you allowing them to have the opportunity to provide for their family (even though they personally refuse to use it this way), that they would not have if they were unemployed? Is that being lawless? Is this a pretension of humility? If an employee should do this, where does that line stop? Gossip? Reading his bible fewer times a week than we do? Here's another example: Should we rent to non-believers who aren't gay? I mean, they are skipping church on Sundays by sleeping in, in the place you have allowed them to sleep; is that aiding their sin? Why not? Is the command against homosexuality more serious than the command to honor the sabbath?
(please note, Keith, I intend for my tone to be seen as winsome here, not combative)



> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> .....it is faulty to assume that the "gospel" doesn't demand anything of the sinner.



May I ask what the gospel demands exactly?



> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> ...We are just big, big sinners in need of a big, big savior... That, however, is not what Paul says.



If this is not the sentiments of Paul, as you say, then we are left with only three other options:

1. we are small sinners who need a big savior
2. we are small sinners who need a small savior
3. we are big sinners who need a small savior

Which of these is Paul actually saying then? What does this mean for the classical-historical perspective on Paul?

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by RAS]


----------



## turmeric (Jul 21, 2005)

Nobody has yet successfully explained to me what is wrong with "cheer up, you're worse than you think" so using it against someone's argument doesn't do anything for me. We are worse than we want to realize. Saying so certainly doesn't make anyone more spiritual, nor is it an attempt to do so any more than most of what we say is an attempt to make ourselves look good in some way.


----------



## openairboy (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> I am not sure where this statement is in my post. Please re-read it. If you notice I struck a 'balance' between the law and gospel, judging and showing mercy, etc.. A distinction, not a separation. I feel you are casting my point into a stream I wasn't aiming for. My questions still stand to be answered, however.



I believe it is implicit in the sentiment of most law/gospel dichotomizers.




> And speaking of rhetoric, since you goaded me into a question about NAMBLA as an example (which streches the issue of this thread), I will ask a perhaps more concrete example: Should christian employers refuse to hire or fire an employee if that employee spends the paycheck you give them on getting drunk each weekend? Are you aiding them in their sin by giving them a paycheck? Or are you allowing them to have the opportunity to provide for their family (even though they personally refuse to use it this way), that they would not have if they were unemployed? Is that being lawless? Is this a pretension of humility? If an employee should do this, where does that line stop? Gossip? Reading his bible fewer times a week than we do? Here's another example: Should we rent to non-believers who aren't gay? I mean, they are skipping church on Sundays by sleeping in, in the place you have allowed them to sleep; is that aiding their sin? Why not? Is the command against homosexuality more serious than the command to honor the sabbath?
> (please note, Keith, I intend for my tone to be seen as winsome here, not combative)



My point in getting carried away w/ NAMBLA, et al, is to simply show that we all draw the line somewhere. To suddenly appeal to "we are all sinners", etc., is broadly speaking irrelevant.

I would hire the best person available for the job, including a sodomite (depending on how open, etc., he/she is).



> May I ask what the gospel demands exactly?



The obedience of faith. A.W. Pink, I believe, settles the issue nicely.




> If this is not the sentiments of Paul, as you say, then we are left with only three other options:
> 
> 1. we are small sinners who need a big savior
> 2. we are small sinners who need a small savior
> ...



First, a Pauline perspective enables an individual to say that they were "holy, righteous, and blameless". Not in some "positional" sense, but before God and man, "among you".

Second, the error, I believe, is to jump from one part of the story and take it for the whole. There is no doubt in my mind that I am a monster of iniquity and I have a God that is mighty to save. This salvation includes truly washing and cleansing me. His grace truly teaches me to say no to ungodliness and not merely declare that I am sinful. This Savior is so great that if people deliberately keep on sinning after having received a knowledge of him, then they will be sent to Hell. Or are we unaware that anyone who continues to sin is not born of him? 

So, yes, I am a monster of iniquity, a great sinner in need of a mighty Savior. This Savior is so mighty that he is greater than my depravity. He can take a wretch like me, worthy of the title 'chief among sinners', make me whole again, and I can say, "You yourself know how righteous, holy, and blameless I was amongst you."

Maybe I have to do away with a "classical-historical perspective", but I find it to be rather Pauline.

openairboy

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## openairboy (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Nobody has yet successfully explained to me what is wrong with "cheer up, you're worse than you think" so using it against someone's argument doesn't do anything for me. We are worse than we want to realize. Saying so certainly doesn't make anyone more spiritual, nor is it an attempt to do so any more than most of what we say is an attempt to make ourselves look good in some way.



If it was "Repent! You are worse off than you think!", then I might find it to be Biblical. Or maybe, "You hypocrites! You brood of vipers. Wash the inside of the cup..." This, to me, seems much more Biblical with a revelation from God. As is, I could never imagine Isaiah getting a glimpse of the holiness of God and the cheribum coming over and saying, "Cheer up! You are worse off than you think." Or John amidst the revelation of finding no one worthy to open the scroll. I just don't think this hasn't been the preaching of the Church down through the ages. I don't believe the Puritans knew anything of this. We can call it shortsightedness on their part, but I think it is more of a modern psychological spin on the whole story.

openairboy


----------



## JohnV (Jul 21, 2005)

I voted No. This is one that is a little close to home. I think we're talking about degrees here. It is my understanding that gay couples are inherently immoral in more than just their sexual orientation. This is evidenced by the fact that they are identified as a group by their aberrant sexual behaviour. The Bible also talks about this being the end result of leading a godless life. In the end, it is not a matter of the sexual preferences, but of godly/moral environment in the rental complex, for that too is the responsibility of the renter/owner. I would not consider it a safe environment if an openly gay couple were among the renters.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



Robin evidently didn't read my earlier post


> Where did you get the notion of practicing homosexuals being members of the Corinthian Church?
> I am not saying don't be merciful. I have ministered to Homosexuals. A very good friend of mine died about 10 years ago because of AIDS. He was repentant. He found out after the fact that he had AIDS. I have had some significant friendships with people who were gay. I didn't promote their lifestyle though. I didn't bash them either. I wouldn't rent to a gay couple living together either.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 24, 2005)

I'm with you Robin! Many will be surprised.

God is not a respector of ANY man's works PERIOD! Thus, if we have faith as the highest, that meaning the ditch digger will only be allowed into the kingdom of God as the pastor down the street and that alone by Christ alone and that any works wrought will in the end be shown to be God's alone in spite of ourselves - we might find ourselves quite humbled and we might stop exalting degrees of works and judging degrees of "sinfulness" as if some be more acceptable to man under some artificial circumstances. 

I'm not advocating or defending homosexuality, not at all. I was before conversion one of those very right right wingers that hated homosexuality. But when I saw my sin and the grace I received that changed drastically. Even the devil wasn't an atheist, so I have NO room to boast but in Christ alone. 

However, when it is all said and done unbelief is the chief sin of all sin in all of scripture and secures the harshest hell and wrath - not homosexuality per se. Though both are indeed sin we need to keep a perspective here. Thus, if one rent to an unbeliever one is supply a place were every breath he/she draws is an utter offence to God. Furthermore, the only reason any one of us may not have gone down that particular pathway of sin is by the shear grace of God ALONE. And Romans 1:18-ff list numerous sins taking careful note that ALL of them stem from unbelief and idolatry..."For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (continually) suppress the truth in unrighteousness,"...

24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 

25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 

28AND just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 

29being FILLED with ALL unrighteousness, wickedness, GREED, evil; full of ENVY, MURDER, STRIFE, DECEIT, MALICE; they are GOSSIPS, (OOPS GUESS ONE CAN'T RENT TO MOST WMUs)

30SLANDERS, haters of God, insolent, ARROGANT, BOASTFUL, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 

31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

I guess after a list like that - that one could rent to a monkey or a mouse maybe. The Holy Spirit condescends to live in the very presents of believers who STILL possess much much sin and offense to God, yet they've been shown mercy. Have you ever thought of the fact that apart from the shear mercy of God in Christ alone that if it were not that and that alone even the post-conversion Christian does NOTHING but add to their debt minute by minute and that each addition is an infinite sin in and of itself. That the Holy Spirit on the account of Christ alone condescends to live in our foul minds still ridden with much filth and sin in this life. That ANYTHING you do as a Christian is ONLY acceptable on account of Christ. Do not be so foolish as to think you do good works acceptable to God in and of yourself/themself, they are only acceptable for Christ's sake and NO other reason.

I think a little lesson down the road of vocation is in order here. The renter is the in the vocation (calling) of business and a particular business. And that business is the provision for a fee of living quarters, nothing more. Furthermore, a little milk of Christian kindness may go a long way to witnessing to someone.

A couple of years ago my wife, a trauma nurse at a trauma one unit (the gunshot injuries, drug od's, homeless, etc...unit) had an oportunity to witness Christ to a man. He had aids and was a blatant homosexual. She was very careful to give the truth and Christ to him. She made certain that he understood that the Scriptures didn't approve of his lifestyle and it was a sin worthy of God's wrath. BUT she also held out before him that her sin(s) were as bad or worse in the sight of God and by shear grace and mercy she had redemption in Christ alone. This particular gay person was normally particularly defensive and aggressive to such things. But he told her, "You know you are different than others I've run into, you don't judge me but just tell me your faith." He actually listened to her.

The point being that in her vocation (work-calling) she acted as she should to a worldling per that godly calling, loving her neighbor and at that one most would despise - and for her duty to her godly calling she was further rewarded with the opportunity to offer Christ to an otherwise dying man.

Be very aware to the world's eyes what you are bearing witness (pointing) to. Is it mere morality, self-righteousness and self improvement or is it Christ as Christ the redeemer. The Gospel is the power, Romans 1:16 ,"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Are you ashamed of the Gospel because it might show yourself as needy, even more needy than another?

L


----------



## turmeric (Jul 24, 2005)




----------



## Robin (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> ...my wife, ...had an oportunity to witness Christ to a man. She was very careful to give the truth and Christ to him. She made certain that he understood that the Scriptures didn't approve of his lifestyle and it was a sin worthy of God's wrath. BUT she also held out before him that her sin(s) were as bad or worse in the sight of God and by shear grace and mercy she had redemption in Christ alone. This particular gay person was normally particularly defensive and aggressive to such things. But he told her, "You know you are different than others I've run into, you don't judge me but just tell me your faith." He actually listened to her.
> L



Whoa, Larry! A similar event happened to me recently. My seat-partner on the plane -- very gregarious-gay, businessman, insisted on talking theology. As I explained Christ, stunned at my conduct, he recounted the painful story of his (Christian) relatives who had battered him (Bible quotes; hellfire sermons) being totally uncharitable and self-righteous. (_Damage control_  ) I apologized for the terrible behavior of those relatives. Jesus would never have agreed with it. Our discussion progressed; he heard the Gospel presentation and asked me to explain the meaning of being a Christian. Uncomfortable as it was, he received and heard all the "bad news" too. Bear in mind, describing hell requires a fair amount of information on redemption as it relates to reprobation. (Those catechisms and confessions come in so handy!) But the mercy part was the most important of all....he had never heard about God's mercy before.

In the end, he listened and asked questions for 4 hours and agreed to contact my pastor for further instructions.



God is amazing!

r.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 25, 2005)

Robin,

That's a great story! That's so true, so so true! 

L


----------



## Wrigley (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> Some Christian and Lutheran friends of ours are looking to buy a duplex and one of them that they came across has renters that would stay - one or both of which, it's not clear - is gay. Might be a "couple".
> 
> Not sure how to handle this - or how I would in this situation if confronted with it.
> ...



I voted yes. Is is possible to differentiate sins?


----------



## calgal (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Wrigley_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ARStager_
> ...


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 27, 2005)

Is it possible to differentiate sins? Hm. Some are called abominations, and others aren't. All are sinful, all break God's Law... but certainly some are abominable in ways others are not. So yes, you can differentiate them, insofaras Scripture does so.


----------



## satz (Jul 27, 2005)

Regarding differenting sins, i think all sin is equal in that it deserves hell. However, the physical treatment of various sins on earth is not necessarily equal...the civil laws of israel mandated death for some sins, but just payment of money for others, etc


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> Is it possible to differentiate sins? Hm. Some are called abominations, and others aren't. All are sinful, all break God's Law... but certainly some are abominable in ways others are not. So yes, you can differentiate them, insofaras Scripture does so.





Westminster Larger Catechism:



> Q150: Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
> A150: All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.[1]
> 
> 1. John 19:11; Ezek. 8:6, 13, 15; I John 5:16; Psa. 78:17, 32, 56
> ...


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 24, 2005)

In the future, those stupid _fair housing_ laws will likely be altered and you will be forced to rent to homosexuals or face repercussions from the authorities. Personally, I think these asinine laws do more harm than good... they're incredibly arbitrary and capricious. Accusations of discrimination are easy to assert and difficult to disprove.

Freedom of association includes a concomitant freedom to disassociate, and I think you should be able to rent to whomever you want as a matter of principle. If it is your property do with it as you please...


----------

