Disciplined Church Life

[Ken]

From what I can tell he doesn't want gay people to have any meaningful role as equal members in his church unless they decide not to be gay or at least pretend not to be gay. That seems a distinction without a difference.

Do you believe that heterosexual singles can avoid having sex outside of marriage without deciding not to be heterosexual or pretending not to be heterosexual?

Can people give up things they would love to have in order to follow Jesus, even if it's hard? Can we walk together with these people and help?

If a gay couple visited your church and was interested in joining. Would they be welcomed as they are and be welcome to participate in all aspects of your church life from membership, leadership, and even ordination? From what I understand from your comments here, the answer is a clear and unequivocal no. In fact, most gay people I know would frankly find it insulting to hear "we can walk together and help you not be gay"

All I am saying is that it would be a lot simpler for everyone involved if we stopped pretending otherwise. That was also the message of that author you quoted on a different thread yesterday. The whole notion that churches can be welcoming to gay people while simultaneously rejecting them is what created most of this mess in the first place. Sometimes there isn't a middle ground. Have the courage of your convictions. If gay people aren't welcome, don't pretend that they are.

Note, I have no issue with churches that undertake a disciplined church life as described in this thread. Much of it isn't for me but that's fine. So carry on.

[GaryK]

From what I can tell he doesn't want gay people to have any meaningful role as equal members in his church unless they decide not to be gay or at least pretend not to be gay. That seems a distinction without a difference.

Do you believe that heterosexual singles can avoid having sex outside of marriage without deciding not to be heterosexual or pretending not to be heterosexual?

Can people give up things they would love to have in order to follow Jesus, even if it's hard? Can we walk together with these people and help?

If a gay couple visited your church and was interested in joining. Would they be welcomed as they are and be welcome to participate in all aspects of your church life from membership, leadership, and even ordination? From what I understand from your comments here, the answer is a clear and unequivocal no. In fact, most gay people I know would frankly find it insulting to hear "we can walk together and help you not be gay"

If a person who has tendencies toward pedophilia visited your church and was interested in joining, Would they be welcomed as they are and be welcome to participate in all aspects of your church life from membership, leadership, and even ordination?

I'm guessing we all have lines that we feel are unacceptable for Christians to cross.

[Bootstrap]

From what I can tell he doesn't want gay people to have any meaningful role as equal members in his church unless they decide not to be gay or at least pretend not to be gay. That seems a distinction without a difference.

Do you believe that heterosexual singles can avoid having sex outside of marriage without deciding not to be heterosexual or pretending not to be heterosexual?

Can people give up things they would love to have in order to follow Jesus, even if it's hard? Can we walk together with these people and help?

If a gay couple visited your church and was interested in joining. Would they be welcomed as they are and be welcome to participate in all aspects of your church life from membership, leadership, and even ordination? From what I understand from your comments here, the answer is a clear and unequivocal no. In fact, most gay people I know would frankly find it insulting to hear "we can walk together and help you not be gay"

How is that different from a straight single who uses Tinder? He might also find it insulting that I would be happy to help him change his lifestyle. Same thing holds for someone who is addicted to toxic gossip or greed, or someone with a job in the armed services. Or a self-righteous person who believes in religion but not the compassion and redemptive love that we see in the ministry of Jesus. Or someone who is simply unwilling to take the Bible seriously, thinking it has been supplanted by modern thinking. What I believe is offensive to most people in mainstream society. They crucified Jesus for a reason.

I wonder if it would be easier to discuss this thread if we left the LGBTQ issue out of it and used other examples. I don't think the answers change when you change the example.

[Josh]

A man who had struggled with homosexuality joined my church many years ago. He lived a life free from sin and in fact married my wife’s aunt, and raised several children who are in the church today with their own families they are raising.

Unfortunately, he fell into sin a few years ago, was tempted to be in an ungodly relationship, and left his wife so he could be with a man.

He got infected with AIDS and died.

I think being part of our church was a good thing, although there is much grief he wasn’t faithful to the end. But at least his legacy includes a family and children.

[Bootstrap]

Can we go back to the subject of this thread?

[Neto]

That’s not a fair description of Boot’s position at all.

A man indulging in lust burning towards another man, engaging in carnal death sin with another man, is something that cannot be in the kingdom of heaven.

However, many men control their lusts and desires. I would dare say most Christian men, and CA men too, often are attracted to women who aren’t their wife.

But it is not proper for them to speak of this or identify as an adulterer. They simply reject such thoughts and desires as being from the enemy.

Likewise, many Christian men aren’t married at all. To follow Jesus, they must be like Jesus and Paul and not indulge any carnal feelings or desires at all.

To my mind, the key word here is "indulge". I doubt if any of us are perfect. (At least I know that I am not.) I mentioned somewhere (maybe this thread) what Hubmaier said or wrote: it is the difference between "living in sin" vs "falling into sin". When God (or your friend, or pastor) confronts us regarding our failure, we should not make excuses, or say "So and so is worse than me", or blame someone else. God desires to have his relationship with us restored. (The membership process in our congregation includes words about "giving and receiving admonition". This, to me, is what a disciplined congregational life is about.) But being tempted is not the sin. The coddling of the temptation is the sin, first in the mind, then in the body. I was reading a book about the Kleine-Gemeinde yesterday afternoon, and they were dealing with the question of the role of 'works' in salvation by grace alone. They started with Jesus' words about looking at a woman with lust as being adultery of the heart, saying that the sin starts in the mind, or heart (I do not distinguish between them). This is where faith resides as well, in the heart-mind. They went on to say that just as sinful thoughts put to action are evil deeds, faith put to action is righteous deeds. If sinful desires are coddled, physical evil deeds will result. If faith is coddled, then righteous deeds will result.

[ohio jones]

Can we go back to the subject of this thread?

Can we be self-disciplined or do we need the Bishop to enforce it?

[ken_sylvania]

It would be a lot simpler if churches that are willing to follow God's commands would be forthright with people and tell them outright that yes, homosexual behavior is sinful and therefore anyone who has not repented of any such sin is not welcome as a member because they are not followers of Jesus.

It would also be a lot simpler if Ken would stop pretending that it would be Christ-like for a church to ordain someone who is actively engaged in defying clear Bible teaching on this matter.

[Ken]

Do you believe that heterosexual singles can avoid having sex outside of marriage without deciding not to be heterosexual or pretending not to be heterosexual?

Can people give up things they would love to have in order to follow Jesus, even if it's hard? Can we walk together with these people and help?

If a gay couple visited your church and was interested in joining. Would they be welcomed as they are and be welcome to participate in all aspects of your church life from membership, leadership, and even ordination? From what I understand from your comments here, the answer is a clear and unequivocal no. In fact, most gay people I know would frankly find it insulting to hear "we can walk together and help you not be gay"

How is that different from a straight single who uses Tinder? He might also find it insulting that I would be happy to help him change his lifestyle. Same thing holds for someone who is addicted to toxic gossip or greed, or someone with a job in the armed services. Or a self-righteous person who believes in religion but not the compassion and redemptive love that we see in the ministry of Jesus. Or someone who is simply unwilling to take the Bible seriously, thinking it has been supplanted by modern thinking. What I believe is offensive to most people in mainstream society. They crucified Jesus for a reason.

I wonder if it would be easier to discuss this thread if we left the LGBTQ issue out of it and used other examples. I don't think the answers change when you change the example.

Every person and every group has different and unique lines that they draw when it comes to sex and sexuality. And they are all drawn differently when it comes to church standards and discipline. Just off the top of my head (and I'm sure I'm missing many), here are a whole bunch of sex and relationship issues that are largely NOT about LGBT since you wanted non-LGBT examples.

Child marriages: Legal in some states, illegal in others, and very common in the Bible. Not common but still accepted in some fundamentalist type communities both American and foreign. I strictly oppose
Arranged marriages: Not common in modern America but common in the Bible and other cultures. I strictly oppose.
Forced marriages: Uncommon but still happen in the US in certain fundamentalist circles, common in the Bible, I strictly oppose.
Rape: Illegal everywhere, common in the Old Testament, common in war such as the Russian invasion, I strictly oppose.
Polygamy: Illegal in the US but not all countries, opposed by most but not all churches, common in the Bible. I oppose largely for practical reasons if it involves adults. I vehemently oppose if it involves children.
Divorce and remarriage: Legal everywhere, opposed by some CA churches. Legal in the Bible. There seems to be a wide range of specific positions within the CA community. I do not object
Gay or straight sexual relations between adults and children: Largely illegal, I strictly oppose under all circumstances
Straight sexual relations between unmarried adults: Most churches frankly look the other way or make little issue of it if not conspicuous. I don't generally object. I think consent is very important.
Straight or gay sex between older teens of similar ages. Most churches oppose but I expect treat straight and gay sex differently in terms of discipline. I oppose but recognize that kids are still going to do it and so at least want them to be safe, avoid pregnancy, and be diligent about consent.
Sex between kids of different ages. The laws vary. I strictly oppose but haven't thought about it enough to have a very bright line. I'd defer to the laws of my state I guess to distinguish between this and the previous category.
Straight sexual relations between married and unmarried adults (or two married adults not married to each other). Most if not all churches oppose but probably don't get too involved if it is not conspicuous. I strictly oppose.
Sexual relations between married couples that include sodomy or oral sex. Most churches look the other way, I don't object
Masturbation. Some churches oppose, most look the other way or never address it. I don't object
Gay sexual relations between unmarried adults. Many churches treat this differently than straight sex between unmarried adults. I frankly do not.
Gay sexual relations between gay adults married to each other. Some churches oppose, some ignore. I don't object.
Gay sexual relations involving married people not married to each other. Most if not all churches oppose. I strictly oppose.
Relations with prostitutes, gay or straight. Most churches oppose but largely ignore (I've never once heard a sermon about prostitution). I oppose.
Swinging or Open Marriages: Married couples exchanging sex partners openly and with consent, or "open marriages". I expect most churches oppose. I would oppose but don't find it as serious of a violation as adulatory where one partner secretly betrays the other.
Pornography: Most churches oppose but largely ignore unless it becomes a problematic obsession. This is difficult because everyone finds different things arousing and not all are porn. For some maybe it is shoes or hands or feet. Or just a simple portrait. For others nudity. I don't generally object for adults as long as it isn't a problematic obsession but I think it should be generally kept away from kids. Although I know that is impossible.
IVF with sperm/eggs not your own by married couples. I don't object and it is legal. Perhaps some churches have an objection? I don't know.
Single adults having children through adoption, surrogacy, or sperm donors. I don't generally object. I don't know what common church positions are here. I expect many but not all churches object. But it also probably depends on circumstance.

I would suggest that if you survey churches across the spectrum from Old Order Amish to Unitarian Universalist you will find that none of them draw all the lines in the same exact places much less weight each of these different issues equally in terms of church discipline.

What I personally disagree with is when churches push gay sex and gay relationships to the very top of their list of sexual issues to take an absolutist moral stand on to the point of breaking churches apart. And then largely ignore or hand-wave away the rest of these very similar sexual subjects that all have some sort of similar connection to Biblical teachings in some way or another. I think that can actually cause more damage than good in a lot of instances such as Josh's example that is not uncommon frankly. I, for one, do not want any of my daughters to accidentally take up with a closeted gay man and then have the relationship explode and fall apart years down the road after children are involved. That is much more likely to happen in a society where being gay is repressed. I have personally seen it happen in multiple instances.

[ken_sylvania]

If a gay couple visited your church and was interested in joining. Would they be welcomed as they are and be welcome to participate in all aspects of your church life from membership, leadership, and even ordination? From what I understand from your comments here, the answer is a clear and unequivocal no. In fact, most gay people I know would frankly find it insulting to hear "we can walk together and help you not be gay"

How is that different from a straight single who uses Tinder? He might also find it insulting that I would be happy to help him change his lifestyle. Same thing holds for someone who is addicted to toxic gossip or greed, or someone with a job in the armed services. Or a self-righteous person who believes in religion but not the compassion and redemptive love that we see in the ministry of Jesus. Or someone who is simply unwilling to take the Bible seriously, thinking it has been supplanted by modern thinking. What I believe is offensive to most people in mainstream society. They crucified Jesus for a reason.

I wonder if it would be easier to discuss this thread if we left the LGBTQ issue out of it and used other examples. I don't think the answers change when you change the example.

Every person and every group has lines that they draw when it comes to sex and sexuality. And they are all drawn differently when it comes to church standards and discipline. Just off the top of my head and I'm sure I'm missing many, here are a whole bunch of sex and relationship issues that are largely NOT about LGBT since you wanted non-LGBT examples.

Child marriages: Legal in some states, illegal in others, and very common in the Bible. Not common but still accepted in some fundamentalist type communities both American and foreign. I strictly oppose
Arranged marriages: Not common in modern America but common in the Bible and other cultures. I strictly oppose.
Forced marriages: Uncommon but still happen in the US in certain fundamentalist circles, common in the Bible, I strictly oppose.
Rape: Illegal everywhere, common in the Old Testament, common in war such as the Russian invasion, I strictly oppose.
Polygamy: Illegal in the US but not all countries, opposed by most but not all churches, common in the Bible. I oppose largely for practical reasons if it involves adults. I vehemently oppose if it involves children.
Divorce and remarriage: Legal everywhere, opposed by some CA churches. Legal in the Bible. There seems to be a wide range of specific positions within the CA community. I do not object
Gay or straight sexual relations between adults and children: Largely illegal, I strictly oppose under all circumstances
Straight sexual relations between unmarried adults: Most churches frankly look the other way or make little issue of it if not conspicuous. I don't generally object. I think consent is very important.
Straight or gay sex between older teens of similar ages. Most churches oppose but I expect treat straight and gay sex differently in terms of discipline. I oppose but recognize that kids are still going to do it and so at least want them to be safe, avoid pregnancy, and be diligent about consent.
Sex between kids of different ages. The laws vary. I strictly oppose but haven't thought about it enough to have a very bright line. I'd defer to the laws of my state I guess.
Straight sexual relations between married and unmarried adults (or two married adults not married to each other). Most if not all churches oppose but probably don't get too involved if it is not conspicuous. I strictly oppose.
Sexual relations between married couples that include sodomy or oral sex. Most churches look the other way, I don't object
Masturbation. Some churches oppose, most look the other way or never address it. I don't object
Gay sexual relations between unmarried adults. Many churches treat this differently than straight sex between unmarried adults. I frankly do not.
Gay sexual relations between gay adults married to each other. Some churches oppose, some ignore. I don't object.
Gay sexual relations involving married people not married to each other. Most if not all churches oppose. I strictly oppose.
Relations with prostitutes, gay or straight. Most churches oppose but largely ignore (I've never once heard a sermon about prostitution). I oppose.
Swinging or Open Marriages: Married couples exchanging sex partners openly and with consent, or "open marriages". I expect most churches oppose. I would oppose but don't find it as serious of a violation as adulatory where one partner secretly betrays the other.
Pornography: Most churches oppose but largely ignore unless it becomes a problematic obsession. This is difficult because everyone finds different things arousing and not all are porn. For some maybe it is shoes or hands or feet. Or just a simple portrait. For others nudity. I don't generally object for adults as long as it isn't a problematic obsession but I think it should be generally kept away from kids. Although I know that is impossible.
IVF with sperm/eggs not your own by married couples. I don't object and it is legal. Perhaps some churches have an objection? I don't know.
Single adults having children through adoption, surrogacy, or sperm donors. I don't generally object. I don't know what common church positions are here. I expect many but not all churches object. But it also probably depends on circumstance.

I would suggest that if you survey churches across the spectrum from Old Order Amish to Unitarian Universalist you will find that none of them draw all the lines in the same exact places much less weight each of these different issues equally in terms of church discipline.

What I personally disagree with is when churches push gay sex and gay relationships to the very top of their list of sexual issues to take an absolutist moral stand on to the point of breaking churches apart. And then largely ignore or hand-wave away the rest of these very similar sexual subjects that all have some sort of similar connection to Biblical teachings in some way or another. I think that can actually cause more damage than good in a lot of instances such as Josh's example that is not uncommon frankly.

I would also have a problem with a church that largely ignores or hand-waves away the rest of these very similar sexual subjects. If I'm understanding you correctly, the difference between you and me is that you believe that a church should forget about enforcing Bible teaching related to homosexuality if they're not going to enforce the rest of Bible teaching about sexual immorality, while I believe that a church ought to diligently enforce both (OK, enforce is a sloppy word to use here but I can't think of the right way to word this so I hope you can understand what I'm saying).