The Narrow Path Ministries

Here is what has been said so far on another thread:

I said:

Quote:
Gay Christians

I didn't realize this was an argument within the true church.

Mort responded with:

So you don't consider Anglicans part of the true church? This is a huge issue within Anglicanism/Episcopalianism. Within the mainline and Evangelical denominations there are many gays who claim to be followers of Jesus. How do we deal with them in a Christ-like manner? Is homosexuality a worse sin than, say, alcoholism or porn addiction? Do we exclude gays? Include them? Don't ask, don't tell? Many churches are wrestling with these questions.

and SoaringEagle said:

We deal with them in the same way we deal with gluttonous Christians who have eating disorders, and I'm telling you, their situation is just as complicated as the homosexual. Show them unconditional love and acceptance while present Christ as Lord, Deliverer, Healer, and Restorer through the teaching of the word in a living and dynamic way, and allow them the space to grow. That's how we deal with them. Wink

Perhaps "Gay Christians" has more than one category. There are Christians that have homosexual tendencies, but struggle to overcome them like any other sin. Then you have gay Christians like those that are part of the Anglican denomination, to name one, who actual don't struggle with their homosexuality, and strongly believe that this is no sin at all, but rather that God created them with these tendencies, and they should fully embrace them. The first group you could easily say that they are followers of Christ, but the second group seems to be followers of their own sinful desires. Much like unrepentant heterosexual adulterers.

Robin

Where I stand now, and from what I see in Scripture, I do not think someone can be an unrepentant, practicing homosexual and still be a considered a Christian. This would tell me that they do not have the Holy Spirit, who convicts us of sin (and makes us holy). In the same way, someone cannot be an unrepentant murderer, or drunkard, or sorcerer, or filled with jealousy or rage and still be considered a Christian, because Paul makes it clear that these people "will not inherit the Kingdom of God." Because "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."

The unrepentant (in any of these areas) should be confronted (which is loving them in this situation) the way Scripture tells us to, and then if they remain unrepentant then they are to be removed from fellowship (not associate with them, or even eat with them! -- 1 Cor. 5:11) I believe the unrepentant gluttonous over-eaters should be dealt with the same way.

I am not talking about someone who is struggling and sins and repents (even up to 70 x's 7 times!) but someone who does not see what they are doing as sinful at all.

Rae wrote:In the same way, someone cannot be an unrepentant murderer, or drunkard, or sorcerer, or filled with jealousy or rage and still be considered a Christian, because Paul makes it clear that these people "will not inherit the Kingdom of God." Because "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."

I think one problem is, the World does not see us actually enforcing this. They see us singling out gays and ignoring the others. Of course, part of this is that homosexual behavior is more public than some other grievous sins, so it warrants a public response.

being homosexual (even if there is a genetic cause) does not justify practicing homosexuality. alcoholism has a genetic component, so alcoholics must not drink. it is a sin for alcoholics to get drunk, despite their weakness.

certain Anglicans seem to buy into the idea that since God made them that way, it can't be a sin. balderdash. what happens when they find the pedophilia gene? (they think they have, by the way.)

i agree with SE's approach. I sure wish we would have had an example in the bible of Jesus dealing with a homosexual. but we have enough other examples to extrapolate what he likely would have said. It probably would have included the proviso "go, and sin no more."

TK

Seth wrote:

I think one problem is, the World does not see us actually enforcing this. They see us singling out gays and ignoring the others.

I think the world is correct and very astute in this observation. If churches don't deal with things like unjustifiable divorce then it's the height of hypocracy to take a political stand against homosexuality or marginalize a gay person in their church IMO.

christopher- if you dont mind i am going to start another thread about how a church should deal with unjustifiable divorce. i personally dont have a clue.

TK

TK wrote:certain Anglicans seem to buy into the idea that since God made them that way, it can't be a sin. balderdash.

TK, a bit ambiguous, isn't it?

I initially read your statement as "certain Anglicans seem to buy into the idea that since God made them that way [made them Anglicans], it can't be a sin [to be an Anglican]. :lol::lol:

I agree that our response should be balanced, depending on whether a person, (although may be struggling) is repentant, or is wilfully sinning & in rebellion.

Joh 13:35 By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another.

- we need to show the same compassion & love that Jesus would, but also make sure it is not a false love that doesn't warn when necessary.
- the fact that there has been hypocrisy in the church regarding how gay people are singled out is unfortunate, but should not influence us to overact in the opposite direction, to compensate, contrary to clear scriptural teaching.
So in my view, it should be dealt with no differently than any other sexual sin.

Pro 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their own filth.

p.s.
Rae: congratulations, & welcome to Carissa, she looks gorgeous.

Paidion :

While I agree that this is an important question and needs to be discussed, I think we need to be careful.

John 8:7
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.

If we are going to deal with sin among the members of the congregation where do you draw the line? Are we not all struggling with some kind of sin? I suppose there is a difference between someone "struggling" with a sin problem and someone who doesn't see their sin as a problem. There must be consistency on all issues of sinful behavior.

Todd