A Little Background
I've just been reading about the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's decision to "allowing practicing homosexuals, in committed relationships, to hold positions of authority within the denomination" (see here for the original article). This voted decision on Friday 21st August (just last Friday) has caused a huge internet response with blogs and comments as well as an apparent schism within the Lutheran church.
Can't I just take Romans 1 out of the Bible?
It's a toughie - to be honest, I wish I could say that homosexuality wasn't an issue. I sincerely wish that God hadn't written about it. I mean, couldn't we just take Romans 1 out of the Bible? I love people who are homosexual, it doesn't make me feel repugnant. I don't view it as a disease to avoid, just as I don't view liars as someone to avoid (just in case the lying rubs off on me?) After all, Jesus made a point of hanging out with who the religious establishment would view as morally reprehensible. How can we call ourselves "little Christs", and not do likewise? Besides, I think we as the church have a lot to learn about solidarity, unity, acceptance and community from the gay community. When was the last time I was "loud and proud" about my faith?
An Incomplete Church?
I've had friends who have come out and then left the church due to the lack of love they've received (one friend, in particular, I'm thinking of). I could see the pain in his life - that in pursuing what he felt was true for him meant being abandoned by the church (and this should never be - after all, in him leaving the church, did the church in fact become less complete - because we'd just lost a vital limb? - see Romans 12:5). This is the tension I find in being a pastor. I wish that Romans 1:26-27 wasn't in the Bible. Yet it is, and this is something I have to wrestle with. But it is interesting to note that in the same breathe as practicing homosexuals, Paul lists the envious, the slanderers (saying something untrue about someone to harm their reputation), the deceitful, the insolent, the arrogant, the boastful. Hmmm...perhaps it's too easy to point out one sin and underscore it / highlight it / capitalize it, and in doing so miss the rest (plankeye, anyone?).
So You're Not Gay. But Do You Gossip?
Besides, and I'm just thinking here, what if Romans 1:24:-32 is actually a crescendo passage? What if the list is ordered in 'levels' of what breaks God's heart. That is, as you read along, it's actually getting worse. It starts of with homosexual practice but then goes to envy, murder, strife, deceit and... MALICE (you can hear the audience gasp). No wait, but there's more...gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful (someone faints in the audience); they invent ways of doing evil; they... disobey...their...parents (a woman screams); they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. When is the last time you saw a placard saying "God's HATES those who disobey their parents!!"? Or "God hates the insolent"? Do we even blink an eye when we see the banner "God hates fags"?
One Finger Pointing At You. Three Pointing Back At Me
What if we're focusing on the sin of the day, homosexuality, while God is looking at me, at you, asking "Do you hide malice in your heart? Do you gossip? Do you boast about yourself and your achievement? Do you angle conversations so people will praise you? Do you name drop? Do you make sure people know how many hours you work? Do you disobey your parents?" You know, the old "one finger pointing at you; three fingers pointing back at me" scenario.
The Behaviour Has Changed. The Life Has Not.
You see, whenever we, the Church, tries to force the world into behavioural modification (without the prerequisite life change first), I feel God is speaking to each of us and whispering "Yeah, but what about you?". Christ was never about behavioural modification or just 'being good'. In fact, being good, being nice, being lukewarm, makes God want to throw up (see here). Many of the darkest chapters of church history involvde often well-meaning good Christian people going into another culture and forcing values / moral codes on the indigenous people groups. Instead of teaching them about Christ's sacrifice and intense love for them, they clothed them in good, stout clothes to hide their nakedness and made them speak English (Spanish, Portuguese...) - I know I'm irresponsibly simplifying some complicated and nuanced history here - I apologize. But you know what I mean.
What does God want?
Read Amos 5:21-24 (read the whole chapter for context)
But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!
Absolute Truth And Unconditional Grace
However, God does speak out against practicing homosexuality. Paul, in Romans 1, does deal with sin and the consequences of sin, of that there can be no doubt. It does become difficult when Church-wide theological doctrines and an individuals freedom of choice and freewill collide. After all, we're not just talking about an obscure line written in a dusty book somewhere - we're talking about real relationships, real lives, real love, real people who are attempting to navigate their way through life. And this is one of those cases. God intended for there to be a moral value espoused by the church (and especially it's leadership) even as He intended there to be utter grace and pure love given to each individual in the church and for whom the church exists (i.e. those not yet in the church). After all isn't that what He's shown us?
Inalienable Human Rights For Gays
I would love to see gay relationships have the same legal protection as heterosexual marriages. Does this mean that I espouse the practicing homosexual lifestyle? No. But I believe that their human dignity demands this. After all, forcing a non-Christian gay person to abandon their sexual practices in the name of faith is a huge misuse of power - we cannot legislate morality. Real life change can only come through a saving relationship with Christ (please don't read life change as "becoming un-homosexual" - I know homosexuals for whom attraction to the same sex did not abate after becoming a believer, but that God gave them the grace to live a life of celibacy...even to enter a loving same sex marriage; whilst for others, they struggle with it their whole life, just as others struggle with eating disorders or anger or lust their whole life). Real life is not becoming straight. I know many straight people who are just existing, just scraping through, just living for the weekend, just living for retirement. Sexuality is not the issue here. The Lordship of Christ is the issue here.
The Need To Enter Into Discussion
I do believe that we, the Wesleyan Church, need to be discussing this and issues like this now. Because if it's not an issue now, it will be soon, and we can't wait until the moment of decision to decide. We can't put our hands in front of our eyes and hope the issue will somehow pass us by. For the Lutheran church it already is an issue. Practicing homosexuals can hold places of authority in the Lutheran church. This is how it is. It is a present reality.
What I Do Believe (a disclaimer of sorts)
Finally, I believe in God, I believe Jesus (one person of the Trinity) came to save us and redeem us through His death on the cross after being born miraculously to the virgin Mary. I believe that there is such a thing as moral right and moral wrong and that we, as humans, are incapable of creating a moral rule for ourselves (even though we keep trying). Only God, as Creator, has the right and authority to deem what is acceptable and what is not. Any time we seek to do that, we are exceeding our boundaries as created beings and, in effect, telling God "I know best". I believe that we, as humans, as believers in Jesus Christ, have a fantastic talent for turning away from sound doctrine and, instead, gathering around ourselves a great number of teachers to tell us what we want to hear (see here). We like to invent truth. We like to invent morality. We like to turn away from doctrine and instead embrace what feels good or doesn't make us too uncomfortable. We are a product of post-modernism. What if, instead of trying to interpret scripture to suit our view of God, we allowed scripture to determine our view of God. After all, I think is was CS Lewis who said that if we're worshiping a God we've invented, are we really worshiping God at all? (Horrible paraphrase, but it was something like that).
Sripture Is Clear (1)
God clearly says in scripture that practicing homosexuality in counter to his desire for humanity, for his best plans for us. Just as he said lying is counter to his desire for humanity, and cheating is counter to his desire, and lusting after someone who is not my wife is counter to his desire. I do not understand all the medical science behind homosexuality, and I will not pretend that making Jesus your Lord will simply "make if all go away". Life is messy and God promises to meet us in the midst of our messy lives being lived in a messy world (that's my paraphrase!)
I do believe that there are many gay people who have been hurt by the church (sometimes well-meaning and sometimes being hateful). I do believe that taking a position of "us vs them" is harmful, and that a Christian hating homosexuals or being disgusted by them is doing (sometimes) irreparable damage in the lives of people for whom God is at best merely a distant being, irrelevant and detached (or non-existent) and at worst a malevolent God who is motivated by anger and has it out for the gays (or whoever the "sinners du jour" are).
Scripture Is Clear (2)
God calls us to love unconditionally, just as He loved us unconditionally and gave Himself for us, while we were yet sinners.
You Might Want To Watch This
An interesting DVD you might want to borrow and watch from the library (Ottawa Library) is "One Punk Under God" - a documentary on Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker's son, Jay and his church called "Revolution". In episode 2 and 3 the process of deciding whether to accept same-sex unions on the same level and without reservation as heterosexual marriage is discussed. I'd highly recommend it - not because I agree with everything Jay puts forward (in fact I heartily disagree with some things), but because it stimulates honest and debate and it shows in stark reality the decisions with Church leaders are finding themselves having to make. By the way, they do accept same-sex unions in the end. Crap! I just ruined it for you, eh?
Hate The Sin, Love The Sinner
But I totally agree with the statement "it would be lovely to hear instead of "Love the sinner - hate the sin", someone preach "Just Love". Why I agree with this is that many people (including myself) cannot divorce themselves from what they do. After all, gay people don't call themselves "people who engage in homosexual practice"; no, they call themselves "homosexuals". When I'm dealing with my sin, I can't objectively stand outside myself and say "I'm Dan, a sinner saved by grace, who's currently struggling with sin". No, I feel "I'm a worm, I'm useless, I suck...how could I have done this to you again, Lord?". I feel that I am my sin, my failure. Christians make the mistake of thinking that sin can be thought of objectively, outside of the person. But I know experientally that that's not true. So when someone hears the church say "Hate the homosexuality, love the homosexual", all the gay person hears is "Hate...the homosexual" because to a huge extent we are what we do (or at least we feel like that). We view this throwaway statement as an attack on our very humanity (rights and dignity) especially if we don't view our current action as a sin, or we do not have a new identity in Christ, and believe that the church is trying to force us into its moral mold through behaviour modification.
The greatest sin (there I go again, rating sin!) would be for the Church to turn away those who need to hear the message of the gospel, through polemic rhetoric and reactionary bigotry.
Time To Pull Our Heads Out Of The Sand
This isn't a simple issue and it's not one that will go away. But the Church has a responsibility to wrestle with this, to be true to the Bible and to church history, whilst somehow in this crazy balancing act, erring on the side of grace and absolute unconditional love.
Have fun figuring that one out!
Cheers
Dan
Well said, Dan-o. While of course people practicing any known sin should not be put into leadership of the church, it would be lovely to hear instead of "Love the sinner - hate the sin", someone preach "Just Love". We've been hurting through my homosexual brother-in-law's circumstances and choices in the past, we continue to hurt for the struggle in which he finds himself daily, which is also rooted in loneliness. It would be nice to see the church err on the side of grace. What if the church were to not just accept people struggling with homosexuality, but to run to meet them and embrace them, as they should anyone who struggles with their humanity and their sin nature and a longing to be whole. Oh, wait - that would mean the church themselves too. Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteBesides that, there's the whole chicken and the egg thing - was he born gay or become gay. Who cares! We are all born with a bent toward sin. The occurence of the wayward thought is not a sin, but rather the dwelling or acting on it where the sin lies. Some are born with a predisposition to alcoholism, some with other addictive personalities, some babies are born addicted to crack. The reality for all of us is that we are born into a sinful world with a nature that would love to revel in it, but we are not animals, any of us. We are responsible, on every level, not for our circumstances necessarily, but for our responses to them.
I'm hoping to delve more deeply into the resources you've mentioned and will continue to support any cause that stands for unconditional love. Period.
Hey Mel. No Sinners in leadership hmmm.?
ReplyDeletePerhaps we are looking at the wrong side of the issue because the issue of Homosexuals and leadership goes away when institutional Religion does not exist. If there was no requirement to ordain pastors, if there was no church property, charitable status, or paid pastors, where would the concern be? If churches were not concerned about market-share they would not have to concern themselves with cultural relevance. If people met in homes, parks, schools, wherever and they shared resources, stories, experiences, the Bible, and love; then anyone could participate regardless of their current position to the kingdom of God. I think there would be less of a desire to protect the Church and God from sinners because there would be no vested interest in an organization.
I can't help but think this picture resembles that Jesus and his first generation followers.
Cheers Dan.
In regards to the John Piper blog about the tornado riping the steeple in two at the beginning of the Luthern conference, I responded that I don't know if the tornado was a message from God. I still don't. I know that some would say that it was a message against homosexuality, while others would claim it was a warning for the approval of homosexuality. Here is another option to consider, what if it was a reminder of the ending of religion and the priest hood, like the riping of the curtain in the temple at Jesus' death. Don't know.
ReplyDeleteLeadership is so complicated but was obviously something important in the early church. Paul felt the need to define some characteristics in Titus 1:6-9. Even in a home church there will be those who take a leadership role, defined by the group or not.
ReplyDeleteFor me the issue here is whether all God's commands are good and enduring for us. If we want to be culturally relevent, why should a homosexual pastor be required to be in a monogamous, long-term relationship? (according to the CNN article this was what the Lutheran church approved) What about those who are dating - if they are wrong then why is a heterosexual pastor dating not wrong? It just gets so ridiculous. If we say the bible is all true and God still wants us to live the lives described there, shouldn't we at least say we expect God's power in us all to lead to lives that follow his directions - leaders or not.
Dan, I really like the bit about love. There is no way to separate ourselves from our sin. God sees it all and loves us the same and continues to state that his ways are perfect. We should feel free in his power to love all without divorcing ourselves from his perfect ways. Why does he say a beautiful love between two people of the same sex is wrong? I don't know but he does. And we are commanded to live in community with that in mind.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm really enjoying reading all the responses so far. There's LOTS to chew over and to process through. I am far from reaching a conclusion over this - it seems that every thought I have leads to another and to another. But God has created us to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12-13) - we have a responsibility to thoughtfully, prayerfully and Biblically figure out what bearing our communal faith has on our communal life and the world at large. But the verse continues: "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good pleasure" and THAT gives me hope. Thanks Mel, for beginning this process of discussion with your email to me!
ReplyDeleteMark, I'm not sure what bearing market-share value has on a church's desire to be culturally relevant. Paul addresses this relevance issue is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, check it out. He says:
"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win the Jews. To those under the law, I became like one under the laws (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law, I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law, but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak, I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do this all for the sake of the gospel that I might share in its blessings"
Paul's desire to be culturally relevant is grounded in his love for people and the message of the gospel. I know there are churches out there primarily run as businesses, but I hope that is the exception rather than the norm.
I do appreciate your statement "there would be less of a desire to protect the church and God from sinners", because that's what we all are, right? And as soon as we develop an "us v them" mentality we are creating a hierarchy which is forgetting the scripture "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ" (Romans 3:22-24)
Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost: black or white, male or female, gay or straight, sinner or Pharisee...he came to save me.
Re: Cultural Relevance
ReplyDeleteFor some to be cultural relevant would look like cultural acceptance, to the point of disregarding the clear teaching of Jesus. Paul was not becoming a sinner to reach sinners. His cultural relevance (like you said) was rooted in love. He was not putting himself above others. I think an example of cultural relevance should look like: How does the teaching of Jesus and the Bible as a whole speak to a cultural issue? In many cases the Christ followers response may be loving cultural subversion (the act of redemption, not war).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank-you Dan for opening this dialogue.
ReplyDeleteThis is NOT a one topic discussion. If we as human beings take the stand that our leadership must adhere to a pure moral code then I propose that we will have no-one that will be deemed suitable for leadership in anything.
I am a recovering addic and alcoholic. Is this a sin? Was it a sin when I was active? To me NO. God has forgiven me my sins. God will continue to forgive my sins. But my body re-acting differently to alcohol was not and never will be a sin.
Why was I created with this partcular defect? I have not the foggyest idea. Is it a sin that I am a poor speller as well? In some eyes yes. It would show a lack of study at an earlier age. Dyslexia would not be seen as an imperfection in my make-up but as a sin.
For those that seek perfection in leadership be it in your church or anywhere understand that there was and is only one perfect one.
I want someone who is able to teach the love of Christ and practive that love in his life as my leader. Nowhere that I am aware of does Jesus say anything about homosexuality. I may be wrong.
The new covenent was what Jesus preached. Do not fear a vengeful God. God loves you. Jesus is God. Jesus is human. Jesus was and is all inclusive. Women formed a major part of his life. All were treated equally.
People follow leaders they can trust. They are attracted to communities that display love.
As a member of the United Church I have been part of the struggle of this issue for many years.
Of the people that have left at various times over this issue I know not one that was destined to leave anyway.
There is nothing wrong with striving for perfection in ones-self.
I believe there is nothing right in demanding perfection in others until you achieve perfection in yourself.
The one perfect human did not demand perfection in others.
I live under the Grace of jesus Christ. I do not deserve it. I simply accept it and try to live my life with as much love and acceptance (not tolerance) as I can.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd my ability to love and accept is always (hopefully) growing as God reveals my pride, selfishness, etc. As I change, I am able to love better. Putting love into practise, (which I think may be the only way to love) especially with those who are different from me, can be complicated, risky, messy, and painful.
ReplyDeleteHey Swim. Removed your posted because you are afraid that people are going to misread, or not understand what you are trying to communicate? Isn't it better to enter the conversation without worrying about self preservation than not enter it. I am thinking of a fellow who was and IS misunderstood and was killed for it. JESUS. If this is an important conversation to have then where is the right place to have it?
ReplyDeleteSwim. No response required, else we could side track this blog. Although the two topics are not entirely unrelated. Re: the right place to have a conversation. I think the home is the first place, second the church, and then the community. If we as Christ Followers are not prepared to answer the questions or to stand up to the issues of our culture we will not have any foundation for our faith. We will give in to the influences of our culture. We will fear for ourselves, our institutions, and our comfort, and not have fear of the Lord who loves everyone.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good dialogue, but there's evidence of a lot of confusion, which is why God gave us His word - so we'd know exactly what He wants. First, take a look at the fruits in our society. We have drugs, murders, gang warfare, homelessness, children disrespecting their teachers, constant second-guessing (in institutions like the news media, no less) of law enforcement, and a total lack of individual love for people in reduced circumstances (the poor, homeless, down-and-out). As it was in Noah's day, Satan holds sway and we're the ones who let him in by winking at sin. It's not just sexuality -- although that's the most egregious: it's condoning lying and marital infidelity and revering the rebels and others who break the law, while our governments institutionalize sin by "decriminalizing" many actions and making money off others, like gambling.
ReplyDeleteSecond, we have to shake off the "plank-eye" mentality that says we need to wink at sin because we can't look at the cinder in our brother's eye until we deal with the plank in our own. Jesus doesn't say never to look at the cinder: He says to deal with our own plank and then look at the cinder. The process of dealing with that plank involves humbling ourselves, recognizing our own sin, repenting for it and receiving redemption at the Cross. THEN, we may turn to our brother and -- speaking the truth in love, as Paul put it -- help and encourage them to do the same. Loving someone does not mean turning a blind eye to their sin: that's sending them to hell, which is not love at all. If we don't hate the sin, how can we love the sinner?
But when we go through the plank-removal process ourselves, we get an idea of what our brother has to go through, and the necessity of being there for them through the process, encouraging them every step of the way and rejoicing with them at every one of those steps.
We also have to break that "this is how God made me/him/her/them" lie. God made each of us individually, but the enemy has ways of twisting certain characteristics into something that is definitely not in God's desire for His people.
Third, we have to re-think the Christian walk as something that promotes Christ rather than stomps on sin. When Jesus chowed-down with the publicans and sinners, they repented and turned to Him not because He railed at them for being sinners -- there were plenty of Pharisees and scribes who could do that -- but because they truly saw a better way than the way they were living. Jesus did not come to make us feel good about who we are and what we did: He came to save us from bondage and to show us how to really feel good. As Christians -- ambassadors for Christ -- that's what we're supposed to be doing. How well are we doing that job? Look around and see for yourself. But all we need to do is return to the Whole Counsel of God to clean up our own act and raise our brothers and sisters higher.
@drews: I am so blessed to read your post. It is a clear voice of reason in the midst of what should not be a confusing issue in the least. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
ReplyDelete@m. simpson: No fear here my brother (and you are my brother Pr.18.24). There are 2 main reasons for my withdrawal; one you have touched on, namely, "the right place to have a conversation". I am not convinced this is the right place for me to enter into it. I am not convinced of the fruitfulness of adding one more voice to the cacophony of voices wanting to be heard.
The second is that I am literally grieved (i.e. in physical pain) that this is even an issue for my brothers and sisters. As @drews rightly puts it, "there's evidence of a lot of confusion" and this simply should not be the case. Just to reiterate, this is only an issue, again like @drews pointed out, because we are not going "through the plank-removal process ourselves."
Drews, I join Swim in thanking you for your comment. Whilst using the loo yesterday, I turned to a page in a book that I'm reading on and off ("Smart Faith - Loving Your God With All Your Mind" by J.P Moreland and Mark Matlock, publ. by Think). I read the following:
ReplyDelete"This simple illustration shows how difficult it might be for someone to grow in his knowledge and understanding of God without taking some risks and interacting with others on subjects of faith. If you allow yourself to draw inward and avoid interaction, know that you're adopting a life that doesn't pursue intellectual development. You are missing out! We can't gain confidence without putting ourselves out there. I wouldn't know half of what I do if I didn't offer up my ideas and filter through the reactions. This is how we grow."
This is how I feel right now - as I'm reading through my original post and all the subsequent blog responses, I've gone through a number of emotions - fear, insecurity, questioning myself, adamant "what I have written, I have written"; wishing I could take back what I have written and put it forth in a more reasoned, thought out manner.
I am not a poster boy for cutting edge thinking - I'm processing, which is why I value SO much all the responses, even Swim's deleted ones :-)!!
I can be hyperbolic in what I say, I can be confused in how I deliver. I am SO up for discovering I am wrong in one or a number of points I've made.
I do know practising homosexuality is a sin.
I know I'm a sinner.
I know I'm a saint.
I know Christ is the hope of the world and longs to redeem the world. Indeed, he has done everything needful to save those who are willing.
I know that Christ has given us "everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who has called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them (and only them) we may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" (2 Peter 1)
I'd like to continue with a scripture I was pointed to, which meats out drews "plank-eye" clarification (which I believe was on the button. It's taken from 1 Corinthians 5 and reads:
"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolators. In that case you would have to leave this world. But I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolator or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge people outside of the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you""
Here, there is a clear demarcation re: judging - we are to judge ourselves as brothers and sisters in Christ. We are not to judge those outside the Church. That's God's role. Instead we are to be a light-giving and seasoning element in this world by
a) Setting apart Christ as Lord (the Lordship issue)
b)Always being prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that you have.
c) Doing this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear consience so that those who speak maliciously against our good behaviour may be ashamed of their slander (1 Peter 3:15-16)
I apologize if, in my desire to be inclusive and welcoming to the gay community to the life-changing community of the Church and the God-head, I came across as wishy-washy. I know my heart. You don't (most of you!) I am in no way denigrating the sacred insitution of marriage, and the clear desire and plan of God for monogamoous, heterosexual marriage as a picture of His love for the church. However, I do desire to discover more about ways in which Christ's body can be ambassadors of hope in a hopeless world, and how we can be those who lift up the oppressed, and who fight for the rights of those who lack such rights. To the extent that this applies to the gay community, I wish that the church would be on the front-line, combatting homophobia, and fighting judgmentalism or prejudice wherever it rears its ugly head. That's what Christ did in John 8 to the woman caught in adultery.
ReplyDeleteHe stopped the attackers in their tracks, taking the side of the sinner (even though her sin was apparent and repugnant to the self-righteous onlookers, and even though the Jewish law was on their side!)
He told her he did not condemn her (and if there was anyone who could, it was him).
He told her to leave her life of sin, following Him into freedom and newness of life.
That is what we all need, regardless of gender, orientation, race or age.
Here's something a lot of churches and individual Christians need to consider. Jesus' sacrifice -- and ONLY His sacrifice -- sets us free from the sins of our past and, as Paul puts it, blots out the handwriting of the ordinance that was against us. But Paul also says that he counts his past as "dung". Dung has its uses: it fertilizes what comes next. In other words, our PAST is turned into EXPERIENCE (sorry about the caps; I'd use italics if I could) under the Blood of Christ, and that experience helps us move forward and help others facing similar circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is, the Body of Christ stands to miss out on some wonderful, loving people who can help encourage others out of lives of sin -- whatever that sin might be. Paul also writes that "while we WERE yet sinners, Christ died for us", and the past tense implies -- to me -- that because of Jesus' death and resurrection, THOSE WHO RECEIVE THAT REDEMPTION ARE NOT SINNERS ANYMORE.
Therefore ... a person with homosexual tendencies who has repented and received Jesus' redemption -- who has gone and sinned no more -- should not be barred from leadership any more than a repentant adulterer or compulsive liar. All have something to contribute to the body of Christ, and with so many people emerging into the Light after the Woodstock/Me First/Get It On Generation(s), we need people with a "past" that can minister to others in similar circumstances.
Something to remember, though -- and I write this as someone who lives in Vancouver's West End, the seat of gay pride in Canada -- is that a sinner can only receive Christ once he or she has acknowledged the sin. Alas, there is such a movement surrounding this particular sin -- likening it to the black civil rights struggle, for example, or including "sexual orientation" on the list of "identifiable groups" in hate-crime legislation -- that homos and heteros alike are bullied into denying that it is a sin.
That's when all we can do is pray that God will reveal Himself to them -- and that we'll be ready to receive them when He does.
I know I'm chiming in late on this discussion. Dan, I really how you said we can learn from the gay community about unity/acceptance/community and when was the last time I stood up for my faith like the gay community stands up for their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I am so strongly for "Just love" as opposed to making sure they know we "hate the sin". If I read my Bible right, Christ is the judge and not us as Christians.
I think this is a big issue; we have commands and laws in the Word to guide us how to live and which encourages us to hold each other accountable.
But it seems that we in the church sometimes have no idea how and when this should happen. For one, we are not to hold non-Christians accountable for their behavior and lifestyle, but we are to love and serve them in such a way that they see Christ in us, and want to know him.
Romans teaches us that we have all sinned (3.23), yet it goes on to show us that ""God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners Christ died for us" (5:8).
The greatest commandments: loving God and loving others. We just need to pray that we can see everyone (the person with the physical or developmental disability, the person struggling with pride, the person struggling with homosexuality...) as God sees them and that is through the eyes of worth. We all have worth ONLY because of His sacrifice for us.
If we are going to make a mistake, then lets make the mistake on the side of grace. We, the church, have erred on the side of judgment to often, I think.