"Gay-Friendly" Churches

I know what verse people use to support this idea.

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Paul was talking to people who believed that if you keep just one principle part of the law perfectly then you were as good as someone who kept the whole law, and Paul was correcting that false Idea. He was letting them know that if you break one law, you have broken the covenant and you cant be saved by the law....one strike and you are out. You break one law and you are guilty of all the law. I think people come to the wrong conclusion if they believe that this verse means all sin is the same.

Good guess. That would be one criterion, but not the only. That would be the difference between a "crime" -- which I feel the laws of the land can and should control, vs. a sin that is not otherwise a crime, and should therefore not be legislated. If we're ranking sins as a level of "badness," I'm not sure that's always the same gauge. I think being a drug addict (and any kind of drug that destroys the body, the temple of the Lord), is worse than driving over the speed limit, insofar as how it hurts God, yet one is clearly a "victimless crime," while the other is more in the realm of "laws of the state."

This is where the phrase "consenting adult" is really important. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the homosexual population. It is not uncommon for an older gay man to "groom" a younger gay man. This is called "chicken hawk," and this would probably fit in what you're talking about. The younger man may not be "fully" gay -- he might actually be just confused or dealing with some issues, and the attraction to his own gender is one way that those injuries are manifesting themselves in him at that time in his life. When the older gay man takes him under his wing, so to speak, yes, there' a certain ... I don't know, sliminess there that I do not like. Even if the younger man is over 18, over the legal age of consent, there's still something there that smells like a rat.

However, I have known a few gay couples who I just don't see how their relationship can be labeled as sinful. Apart from the actual act of sex, they are truly wonderful with each other and for each other: loving, supportive -- more loyal and faithful than most straight couples I know! And really, what they do in the bedroom is none of my business (I'm not into porn, so I don't care to think about such things, thank you very much).

Maybe what they do in the bedroom is sin. If they ever invite me over to watch, I would say no, so I would never be in the position to judge whether what they do is sin. What I see is two people who love each other very much and would die to protect the other. How is that sinful? They know where I stand and I know where they stand. I leave the judging to God, and I tell them about Jesus every chance I get. I'll keep doing so, and let God do his part. I'm not going to do God's job: God gave me a task, and that's what I do.

But I digress.

So here are your "mac daddy" sins, taken from those two scripture passages you listed. I have divided them into three groups.

Group 1: sins that I think we all agree on what they mean, and warrant no further discussion:
fornication
idolatry
adultery
stealing
murder
drunkenness
extortion
heresy

Group 2: These are things that I agree are sin, but are you sure you want to put them on the same level as murder with the above sins?
uncleanliness
envy
coveting
variance
hatred
reviling
wrath
revelling
Dang. If having a messy house is as bad as murder, I'm totally doomed. And excuse me, but almost every time I go to church it's a bit of a "revel-fest" for me ... I enjoy worship, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that! I certainly don't consider enjoying worship (or any other activity) worthy of damnation!

Group 3: These are things which I think we need to consider the Greek word that Paul uses, and check the definition, because the English translation may or may not be completely accurate.

Witchcraft -- As you said, this word basically means "medication." In Paul's day, any medication would be seen as witchcraft. A diabetic person taking insulin would be seen as total blasphemy. I don't think that such practice is evil. I think Paul is showing a cultural bias here, a healthy distrust of quacks (which is what almost any healer but Jesus was back then ... they just didn't have the medical knowledge they have today). Is it a sin to trust medical doctors? I don't think so. I believe that God gave us doctors and nurses. I think we can trust them too much, rely on "worldly medicine" to the exclusion of prayer, and that is a problem. But I think God uses medication to answer our prayers sometimes.

Lasciviousness
Being effeminate
Abuse of oneselves with mankind
Emulation
strife
sedition
"and such like"
On all of these, I'm going to have to take a look at my Greek, and do some study to see what the root word was. I'm running short on time (I'm pretty sure chatting on the computer instead of doing work you've contracted to do is a sin!) so I'll get back to you later today or tomorrow.

LOL, I think if we met IRL, we might actually get along Thanks for the like-kindness.

In Christ!

I'm all for 'sinner-friendly' churches. That's the only kind that can exist.

However I'm not a fan of pretending sin isn't sin. It's a stumbling block to repentance and forgiveness.

What these churches typically mean by 'gay-friendly' is that they don't believe homosexuality is a sin.

But it is a sin. Pretending otherwise is not being loving to someone who struggles with it. It's helping them condemn themselves.

Live and let live is not biblical. Jesus didn't come to ''live and let live'', he came to say ''repent and be saved''. If you embrace sin that is up to you and you be condemned for your own sin, but Jesus also said, '' if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea'' ('Mat18:6) , seems like God gives greater judgement to those who teach evil huh? . That's why Paul said, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1).

Just because someone wants to be a teacher doesn't mean God wants them to be teachers, there are more verses saying that those who support sin are going to be judged for that, so a teacher who supports sin is going to be judged for that, and HEAVILY. Supporting sexual sin of any kind is a BIG deal, I don't care if it's okay for americans, africans, or asians to be adulterers, it's NOT okay with God, and it's the same thing with homosexuality or any other sin. The Bible also says that those who commit sexual sin are not only sinning against their own body, they are also defiling God's temple.
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! (1Cor6:15)

The way I see it, you can be a man pleaser or a God pleaser.

actually, after doing some research, I gotta say I was definitely wrong in posting that they are all the same:

ultimately, all sins are equal in that they all lead to the same eternal fate. That part is and has always been clear.
"For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)
"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." (James 2:10)

and ultimately, all sins are equal in that they can all be forgiven:
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (John 1:9)

HOWEVER, that said, they do NOT all have the same results or carry the same consequences on earth and by that standard, there are certainly worse sins than others. hardly anyone would claim that murder is the same as hating someone, even though both are obviously sins - one is far more permanent than the other. Likewise, those that teach that teach that something is not a sin had better be right, because if they are not, they are certainly more guilty than those that just follow that misleading advice.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matthew 23: 23 – 24).

sorry about the misleading statement. and thanks for calling me on it.

Post your sources.

That does not make this a statistical reality.

Find me some articles and actual research that PROVE what you have claimed is a PROVEN FACT:

1. Homosexuals are unhappier than heterosexuals
2. Homosexuals are more unfaithful than heterosexuals
3. Homosexual relationships are more violent than heterosexual relationships

Let's see it.

So you're not serious, then.

Even if homosexual couples are fully grown consenting adults who are very aware of what they are getting into, they are still hurting each other because they are causing each other to sin. Plus, I dont see how you cant see a gay couple as being sinful outside of the sexual act...the act is a big deal and cant be over looked (not saying you are doing that). I dont know too many homosexual couples who dont plan on including the sexual act. Its not any of my business what people do in their bedrooms but it is Gods business and he says its wrong and I dont think we should hide that fact. At the same time I dont go around pointing out everyone's individual sins either. I dont walk up to someone who is over weight and start harping on them about being a glutton, but I wont try and hide the fact that its wrong either.

I do believe that we condone and overlook sins in our society that are sociably acceptable. I was thinking about caffeine addiction yesterday and I came to the conclusion that it is a drug addiction. We dont think of it like that because its sociably acceptable, but even smoking cigarettes is drug addiction because people are addicted to the nicotine. Paul said ...1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.


"Witchcraft -- As you said, this word basically means "medication." In Paul's day, any medication would be seen as witchcraft. A diabetic person taking insulin would be seen as total blasphemy. I don't think that such practice is evil. I think Paul is showing a cultural bias here, a healthy distrust of quacks (which is what almost any healer but Jesus was back then ... they just didn't have the medical knowledge they have today). Is it a sin to trust medical doctors? I don't think so. I believe that God gave us doctors and nurses. I think we can trust them too much, rely on "worldly medicine" to the exclusion of prayer, and that is a problem. But I think God uses medication to answer our prayers sometimes."

I dont believe Paul had any problem with people using medicine for medical purposes, only people who abused drugs. There was a problem with people taking "medication" a.k.a "drugs" when they would worship their gods. Paul told timothy to take a "little" wine for the sake of his stomach and frequent infirmities.

1Ti 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

Plus, Jesus used being a doctor as a metaphor of himself

Luk 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

Luke himself was a medical doctor, and I get the feeling that the women in the below verse probably was given medicine or at least I would imagine.

Luk 8:43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,

"Group 2: These are things that I agree are sin, but are you sure you want to put them on the same level as murder with the above sins?
uncleanliness
envy
coveting
variance
hatred
reviling
wrath
revelling
Dang. If having a messy house is as bad as murder, I'm totally doomed. And excuse me, but almost every time I go to church it's a bit of a "revel-fest" for me ... I enjoy worship, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that! I certainly don't consider enjoying worship (or any other activity) worthy of damnation!"

I mean Paul put them in the same category as murder didn't he? How can I argue with him? It says if you practice those things you wont inherit the kingdom of God. I dont know if an unclean house is what Paul means by "uncleanliness". I think he means morally unclean, but who in the world wants to "habitually" live in an unclean house anyway though .....And you know revelling is meant in a negative sense and not in the sense of worship.

The point is, we shouldnt be habitually committing any type of sin. The subject at hand is preachers, and I think we have to hold them to a higher standard. Like I have already said a few times before, I believe you can struggle with homosexuality and still be a preacher...you just cant embrace that life style. David committed adultery and murdered someone but I still read the psalms (which he wrote many of). David however, repented and didn't habitually continue to do these things.

Here are some verses that tell us what is required of a elders, bishops, deacons and so forth.

Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Tit 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Do you have any evidence to support this? I have not seen any numbers, but of the gay couples I know, FAR more of them are faithful than the straight couples I know. Like I said, this is just based on my personal experience, I don't know if it's accurate to generalize to the whole population.

If you have any evidence that states one way or another I would be interested in seeing it.

Sorry, that is just your personal experience. That is not a valid source from which you can draw a conclusion.

You are male, you have been "attacked," (I think that's what you meant ... with you misspelling I can't be sure, but that's what I am guessing) by a guy who was obviously gay and wanted sex. Three times, you claim.

You want to know how many times I've been pushed (sometimes violently) for sex by a straight man? You think it's less than three? In fact, I'd be surprised if there's a woman over 20 who hasn't been rudely propositioned at least three times for sex from a straight man. That's just because a lot of men (not Christian men, thankfully, although sometimes even they can be like that, too) are sex-crazed. You haven't received such behavior from women not because straight people are less violent than gay people, but because men are more violent than women. THAT, my friend, IS a true fact, and scientists call it "testosterone."

Gay men tend to be more promiscuous than straight men, not because they are less likely to be faithful, but because they're more likely to find a willing partner. Gay women are actually significantly less promiscuous, statistically speaking, than straight women. If you want to use promiscuity statistics to base your morality, then lesbians are the most "moral." Somehow, that doesn't quite work out, methinks.

Also, can you run your posts through a spell-checker so we can understand what you're trying to communicate? Thank you.

I want to comment on the comparision of polygamy (i e polygyny, one husband with plural viwes) and homosexuality. They can NOT be compared like that. In fact we do have many examples of polygyny in the Bible, especially in the OT (and also in the NT, according to some research).

Not even once is this practice clearly condemned (nor condoned) in the Bible, although the ideal marriage is said to be between one man and one woman. Obviously many righteous and holy men nevertheless had plural wives. These men are spoken of in positive terms in the Bible. This is never the case with homosexuality, which is never spoken of in positive terms, nor are the practitioners of such practices spoken of in positive terms in the Bible. Huge difference there.

This is what have served as basis for the post biblical practice of polygyny in these lands, be it done within christian, jewish or islamic framework. Of course the kind of polygyny we still see in parts of middle east and africa also has to be understood in its own environment since it is a cultural practice that implies various conditions, culturally and socially, that can not be easily transferred to a western milieu or mindset.

But here is some background as to the foundation for much of the polygyny of middle east and africa. Do I have to state that the view on homosexuality in this part of the world is extremely negative? Of course that does not hinder it from being a reality also there, but the official and cultural view of it is most tabooed and hostile. It is normally viewed as a punishable offense. In some cases it is even denied to exist at all.

There are some other cultures elsewhere who have had a more positive view on homosexuailty but these cases did not draw on the abrahamic religions to get to that position.

Diva, do you think it’s possible we got confused? lol I know I did. I confused your poll with the post that followed it. I crave your pardon on bended knee! And though I say that with levity, I do sincerely seek your forgiveness. I think I am confused by the poll…and I’ll try to explain why, and what I think about this.
I feel as if there’s a mixture here of our legal system and God’s, which may have confused me. I certainly have a Christian obligation to obey the law of the land, so far as it does not disobey the Law of the Lord, whether or not I think it’s “good”.

I guess it boils down to this one point: there is just one Church. Ephesians 4 says there’s one faith, one God, one baptism. One faith implies we ought, as Christians, all know, understand, believe God’s Word and follow it. Because we are sinful to the core (although in the process of being renewed), we have really messed this up. It’s difficult for us, as humans, to see where we’re off course, especially since our hearts are deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9) and we are great at justifying whatever we’re comfortable with, regardless of its inherent Truth. And please know I fully include myself in this group of (in my own case very) imperfect Christians!

As concerns “churches” whose doctrine is unscriptural (e.g. the Mormons, JWs, etc.) these are not members of the Body with which we are to strive for unity in the Spirit (Eph. 4:3). These are unbelievers, and we are to have a completely different relationship with them than we are with one another. Liz really hit the nail on the head when she quoted 1 Cor. 5:12, but my feeling is the whole chapter is pertinent to the discussion. I think God is saying that He will judge (in an active sense) the unbeliever, but that we ought to judge those within the household of faith who are living in sin—in other words, doing anything that is contrary to the Word in a continual, day after day kind of way without repentance.

We must take care lest we assimilate with cult-ure. Our standard is not what culture says, or the government law, or, may it never be! our own opinions. Our standard is Christ, as set forth in the Word—the Bible. It matters not whether our governing bodies in DC or our state capitols say something is okay. Does legal abortion, adultery, or gay marriage make these things righteous? Obviously, no.

So to (what I think are) the questions you posed: I think if you’re asking “Shouldn’t we in the Church just agree to disagree?” my answer is no. But to the question, “Shouldn’t we Christians allow other faiths to practice their own faiths as they see fit?” my answer is yes. It’s that I don’t see those two things as the same in scripture in terms of our judgment of them. We may judge (passively) those who are not in Christ with the righteous judgment given us by the Word, that is, we may (not self-righteously but) in Christ say they are wrong, just as the Lord says.

We within the true family of God have not a right, but a duty to judge one another’s actions (NOT heart or motives) as set forth in the Word. It’s an unpleasant task, and one which (I hope) no one could look forward to doing. I can give scripture to this point, but I don’t think it’s pertinent, as I feel your questions more concern those who are outside the family of faith.


Sorry for the essay, and thanks for listening!
~ellie

No harm, no foul.

There is one true church -- just one faith that is correct. Yes, that is correct.

But there are a lot of faiths out there who worship what you and I would say are false gods, and some of them call their places of worship "churches." We don't have a monopoly on that word.

I guess what I'm saying is that if a group of people want to get together and claim to be a "church," and say that homosexuality is not a sin, I don't think we have a right to tell them they can't. Does that make sense?

No apologies necessary. Thanks for posting!

Do I understand you correctly that you believe polygyny is okay, but homosexuality is not?