Evangelicals and Homosexuality: One more thread

[Ed B]

Rather than comparing homosexual sex to divorce, it's probably more helpful to compare it to unmarried heterosexual sex. Even though the homosexual aspect compounds the sin, both are still sin and the church ought to stand against both.

There are some churches where, despite what they officially believe, this simply doesn't happen much. Is the church for sexual purity, diligently fighting temptations those in the church themselves are most likely to struggle with (in most churches, this means heterosexual sex/p0rnography), or is the church merely against the sins it sees in outsiders?

I agree Jack.

Some evangelical congregations (many? most?) have grown comfortable enough with unmarried heterosexual couples living together while sitting in the pew that the Church leadership and members will often use a “don't ask don't tell” policy and just look the other way. That is more analogous to the question of how the Church deals with unrepentant homosexual couples than divorcing for unbiblical reasons. In both cases the persons involved can repent, though the path forward can be different for the heterosexual couple because they can repent and marry. But in both cases they need to repent. As someone mentioned before we tend to grade homosexuality as worse sin because the vast majority of us are not tempted by it. I tend to think we should treat practicing, unrepentant homosexuals the same as we treat others who live in a state of open unrepentant sin.

 

[Rich Koster]

The "straw that broke the camel's back" for us was this DADT attitude at our final mainline Baptist congregation. My bride was discussing something with a group of ladies, and when a shacked up couple was mentioned, the consensus was "Oh, they've been together so long we consider them married" She went against the crowd's consensus and got the cold stares and "how can you be like that" dirty looks. She came home rather upset by this. After some discussion and prayer, we drafted a goodbye letter stating the reason we could no longer be part of that congregation.

 

[Peairtach]

Ed

while sitting in the pew

They can sit in the pew along with practising homosexuals, drunkards, adulterers, the incestuous, beastialists, thieves, murderers, sabbath-breakers, idolaters, and unbelievers, and the rest of us sinners saved by grace that are living imperfect lives.

The pew is for everyone, unless they're disruptive.

But they can't take the Lord's Supper while practicing cohabitation or homosexuality. It is the duty of the elders to bar certain sinners from the Table. Those the elders know are practising flagrant and presumptuous sin.

 

[Ed B]

Ed

while sitting in the pew

They can sit in the pew along with practising homosexuals, drunkards, adulterers, the incestuous, beastialists, thieves, murderers, sabbath-breakers, idolaters, and unbelievers, and the rest of us sinners saved by grace that are living imperfect lives.

The pew is for everyone, unless they're disruptive.

But they can't take the Lord's Supper while practicing cohabitation or homosexuality. It is the duty of the elders to bar certain sinners from the Table. Those the elders know are practising flagrant and presumptuous sin.

I agree with you that all the above should be welcomed to sit in the pew. I am simply against singling out homosexual sin above other open unrepentant sin.

 

[Constantlyreforming]

homosexuality is a sin that regeneration is surely capable of undermining, cleaning, and restoring the individual to an upright status before God. I would argue that we tend to magnify that sin because of the old testament statements regarding it, as well as the sheer fact that it's not a hidden sin...it's pretty up front and personal as it's a public sin usually that is in your face.

I say that comparatively to the person who doesn't pay for his soda from the company fridge every day....secretly stealing thousands of dollars from the company's wallet over the course of decades.