Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Hope12's Avatar
    Hope12 Posts: 159, Reputation: 25
    Junior Member
     
    #1

    Jul 29, 2007, 11:20 AM
    Should a Christian allow those taking the lead in the Church such as Ministers be gay
    I believe that no man or women should ever be allowed to serve as a minster or a leader of any church that represents God. Why?

    To be frank, the Bible condemns homosexuality. No amount of verbal hocus-pocus can make scriptures like Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26, 27 disappear.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New King James Version)
    New King James Version (NKJV)
    Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

    9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

    Mankind has become very tolerant and will make all kinds of excuses and take the Bible and twist it to fit what they want it to, so as to do their own thing. They even go as far as saying that if a Christian is to love all people then they need to love the gay person. As a Christian myself, I do love all people including homosexuals, I though hate their behavior and their choice to go against God's laws. I am able to separate the person from their behavior or actions. God does not approve of homosexuality but He also does not approve of a Christian treating anyone harshly or to hate them in any way. I also feel that gays are welcome into the congregation I attend, but they will be asked to respect God's house by obeying His commandments and laws about proper conduct. A gay person would not be serving as a leader in the congregation that I attend. How could they? They are suppose to be representing the supreme Sovereign of the universe. They can not serve God and Satan. The Bible forcefully admonishes, "O you lovers of God hate what is bad." Psalm 97:10 Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms, not there own.

    If Leaders in the Congregation of God allows these gays to enter into a leader position and to try to teach others to do God's will and they themselves are not obedient to God's laws, and they approve of homosexuals becoming priest and leaders of their church, this is detestable in God's eyes and I truly feel sorry for the future generations. Gay or homosexual behavior is not approved by God nor should their conduct be welcomed in any place of worship of those claiming to serve God.

    As a minister of God, I welcome all persons gay, straight, thieves, murders and sinners, but once you enter the congregation of God, all the conduct that God does not approve of will never be welcomed. We can not serve the God of the Bible and not obey his laws against homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroy in Lots day. Why? Homosexuality was one of the reasons. One reason I don't go to the churches of this world is because of this very thing. As a Christian, Jesus Christ is the head of the Congregation. Those who take the lead in the congregation must become workers for the members of the congregation, under Christ. There are requirements that those taking the lead in the congregational affairs must adhere to. Notice what the Bible says these qualification are. Here is God's view on the matter.

    I quote:
    (1 Timothy 3:1-7) 3 That statement is faithful. If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2The overseer should therefore be irrepressible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5(if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God's congregation?) 6not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. 7Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.

    (Titus 1:5-9) 5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were defective and might make appointments of older men in city after city, as I gave you orders; 6if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children that were not under a charge of debauchery nor unruly. 7For an overseer must be free from accusation as God's steward, not self-willed, not prone to wrath, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, not greedy of dishonest gain, 8but hospitable, a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his [art of] teaching, that he may be able both to exhort by the teaching that is healthful and to reprove those who contradict.

    1 Thess. 4:3-8: "This is what God wills ... that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in covetous sexual appetite such as also those nations have which do not know God; that no one go to the point of harming and encroach upon the rights of his brother in this matter, because God is one who exacts punishment for all these things, just as we told you beforehand and also gave you a thorough witness. For God called us, not with allowance for uncleanness, but in connection with sanctification. So, then, the man that shows disregard is disregarding, not man, but God, who puts his holy spirit in you."

    Eph. 5:5: "No fornicator or unclean person or greedy person-which means being an idolater-has any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God."
    People do change though and many who used to practice homosexuality are now Christians and serving God and obeying his laws. They learn God's way of Cleanliness and they have changed their ways to gain God's approval and with His approval comes many blessings. You see, God is love and he does forgive, if we choose to obey Him and do things his way, not the way of this world. God wants his followers and servants to be clean because He is clean. Anyone overseeing the Christian congregation therefore will have to be clean in God's eyes.

    Comments?
    Take care,
    Hope12
    Fr_Chuck's Avatar
    Fr_Chuck Posts: 81,302, Reputation: 7692
    Expert
     
    #2

    Jul 29, 2007, 03:58 PM
    Those that live a life style where they are living with someone they are not married to, should not be a leader in a church.

    So they can not be living unmarried to a man or women and be a leader.
    Also marriage is considered by the church as a union of a man and women, so that leads gays out.

    Those chuches that allow this are no longer truly Christian.
    Choux's Avatar
    Choux Posts: 3,047, Reputation: 376
    Ultra Member
     
    #3

    Jul 29, 2007, 05:25 PM
    Religion is in a bind, especially Roman Catholicism, because being a Minister or Priest attracts male homosexuals, just like hair dressing and interior decorating. Always the scandals as the church members get outraged when their minister turns out to be gay.

    In the American Catholic Church it is estimated that 50% or so of priests are homosexuals.
    Being a minister is not an attractive job for a healthy heterosexual male in Catholic America; there is a shortage and priests are imported from Latin America and other countries such as India.

    I have never seen statistics on FundiEv Christian churches, but there is always some kind of sexual scandal in the news, not necessarily over homosexuality. Recently, we had Ted Haggard seeing a homosexual prostitute. After he left his large mega church, the membership dropped precipitously. Who can forget Swaggert, Bakker and the others? FundEv ministers who are ambitious are able to make an extremely good living blowing smoke and staging mirrors so their faithful are lulled to sleep.

    It would be wonderful if there were more Billy Grahams, but that era has passed, unfortunately.
    labman's Avatar
    labman Posts: 10,580, Reputation: 551
    Uber Member
     
    #4

    Jul 29, 2007, 08:16 PM
    As commissioner to Presbytery, I was part of voting down ordaining any not living in fidelity in marriage or chastity several years ago. Unfortunately the church leaders are allowing homosexuals to flout the constitution.

    If enforced, it would also deny most lay leadership roles in the PCUSA
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,132, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #5

    Jul 30, 2007, 10:55 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by labman
    As commissioner to Presbytery, I was part of voting down ordaining any not living in fidelity in marriage or chastity several years ago. USA
    In other words Labman, you would not disqualify a person from being ordained (or being your own minister) if that person was homosexual, but chaste. Well, that's a good starting point.

    I guess someone here has to stick up for the liberal wings of the various US denominations that have ordained openly gay clergy - it may as well be me. I understand that anyone on this board whose religious views are driven by a belief in the literal interpretation of the english language version(s) of the bible is not likely to be persuaded. However, a few points to ponder:

    As I believe Labman would agree, one can be gay and non-sexually active and still be ordained and could make a terrific minister or priest. Anyone disagree?

    So let's address the issue of ordaining homosexuals who are in active, committed, monogamous, and loving relationships - that's where most of the controversy lies. The english language translations for many of the biblical passages regarding homosexuality inevitably are about male prostitution and promiscuousness. The concept of sexual orientation as we understand it today wasn't even considered back when the bible was formulated - for example, any male-on-male sexual activity in those days was considered a form of prostitution because people who did this there were inevitably involved with multiple partners, performing in orgies, etc. The bible is virtually silent on the issue of homosexuality between committed, monogamous, and loving partners.

    Much of the argument in the liberal denominations in support of ordaining openly gay clergy has been based on a model of balancing (a) scripture, (b) reason, and (c) traditions in determining what the church should do on this issue. If you believe that only (a) applies, then there's no reason to be against slavery (which no where does the bible condemn) or child labor, or supportive of women's rights, at least from a religious perspective. The more liberal denominations have tended to believe that the bible should be read and understand in terms of broad themes, such as loving one's neighbor, forgiveness of sins, etc. and not so much word-for-word analysis of passages written by men from cultures long ago. These denominations do not believe the bible is inerrant, especially as translated into english by men who most certainly had their own biases. They also firmly believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices, but are part of who each of us are, and so to treat homosexuality as inherently evil is counter to the notion that we are all God's children. And once again, to be clear, we are talking only about people who are in committed, monogamous, and loving relationships, which is a concept the bible does not address.
    Canada_Sweety's Avatar
    Canada_Sweety Posts: 597, Reputation: 49
    -
     
    #6

    Jul 30, 2007, 11:04 AM
    I'm all for equal rights (because of one of my best friends) but in all honesty, no, a person who is gay/lesbian should not be aloud to be a church leader. It is a sin and it would set a bad example unto the rest of the congregation.
    Skell's Avatar
    Skell Posts: 1,863, Reputation: 514
    Ultra Member
     
    #7

    Jul 30, 2007, 05:50 PM
    Oh the intolerance.

    Justifies why many don't belong to churches / groups who judge so ignorantly.

    They have their own relationships.
    SnaveLeber's Avatar
    SnaveLeber Posts: 103, Reputation: 5
    -
     
    #8

    Jul 30, 2007, 06:42 PM
    Comment on Canada_Sweety's post
    Definitely agree
    SnaveLeber's Avatar
    SnaveLeber Posts: 103, Reputation: 5
    -
     
    #9

    Jul 30, 2007, 06:52 PM
    YESS!!! YOU FREAKIN ROCK!!! SOMEBODY THROW YOU A COOKIE!!! So many time i want people to understand that just because you are homosexual does not mean you are any worse than anyone else. we have all fallen short and the wages of ANY sin is death... but you have to make the committment to change, out of love. Freaking bonus points to you
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #10

    Jul 30, 2007, 07:22 PM
    The Bible has a definition for chastity which makes certain lifestyles incompatible with its definition. In short, a murderer, habitual, thief, habitual liar, adulterer, fornicator, idol worshipper, habiutual sloth, a person who is habitiually violent, or even one who entertains evil thoughts though he doesn't carry them out doesn't qualify as being virtuous. Now, we can disagree, ignore, and go our own way. But what we cannot say is that the Bible approves of these behaviors. Only that WE don't see it the way that the Bible sees it and bvased on that we will classify these behaviors as we see fit.

    As for intolerance, the Bible doesn't describe God as tolerant of all behavior. It is very specific in telling us that he does view certain behaviors as wrong. Actually, only an idiot would be tolerant of all behaviors since many behaviors are violations of the human rights of others and toleration of them would lead to anarchy.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,328, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #11

    Jul 30, 2007, 07:35 PM
    Also marriage is considered by the church as a union of a man and women, so that leads gays out.
    You mean single gay people who are chaste, cannot be a model or leader, in the christian church?? You mean they can't have a same sex roommate either??
    SnaveLeber's Avatar
    SnaveLeber Posts: 103, Reputation: 5
    -
     
    #12

    Jul 30, 2007, 08:49 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ebaines
    In other words Labman, you would not disqualify a person from being ordained (or being your own minister) if that person was homosexual, but chaste. Well, that's a good starting point.

    I guess someone here has to stick up for the liberal wings of the various US denominations that have ordained openly gay clergy - it may as well be me. I understand that anyone on this board whose religious views are driven by a belief in the literal interpretation of the english language version(s) of the bible is not likely to be persuaded. However, a few points to ponder:

    As I believe Labman would agree, one can be gay and non-sexually active and still be ordained and could make a terrific minister or priest. Anyone disagree?

    So let's address the issue of ordaining homosexuals who are in active, committed, monogamous, and loving relationships - that's where most of the controversy lies. The english language translations for many of the biblical passages regarding homosexuality inevitably are about male prostitution and promiscuousness. The concept of sexual orientation as we understand it today wasn't even considered back when the bible was formulated - for example, any male-on-male sexual activity in those days was considered a form of prostitution because people who did this there were inevitably involved with multiple partners, performing in orgies, etc. The bible is virtually silent on the issue of homosexuality between committed, monogamous, and loving partners.

    Much of the argument in the liberal denominations in support of ordaining openly gay clergy has been based on a model of balancing (a) scripture, (b) reason, and (c) traditions in determining what the church should do on this issue. If you believe that only (a) applies, then there's no reason to be against slavery (which no where does the bible condemn) or child labor, or supportive of women's rights, at least from a religious perspective. The more liberal denominations have tended to believe that the bible should be read and understand in terms of broad themes, such as loving one's neighbor, forgiveness of sins, etc., and not so much word-for-word analysis of passages written by men from cultures long ago. These denominations do not believe the bible is inerrant, especially as translated into english by men who most certainly had their own biases. They also firmly believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices, but are part of who each of us are, and so to treat homosexuality as inherently evil is counter to the notion that we are all God's children. And once again, to be clear, we are talking only about people who are in committed, monogamous, and loving relationships, which is a concept the bible does not address.



    Okay first of all to address your statement on ministers who are not acting out on that impulse... the notion that for instance "Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic" or anything else, is a secular point of view. And you can not combine the secular viewpoint with the christian.

    If they are no longer maintaining a gay stance then they must think its wrong, therefore, have repented, therefore as God has forgiven them so should the congregation and they are no longer homosexual.

    Also... the notion that homosexuality is something people are born with... secular viewpoint.
    People are all born with a sin nature.
    Some people are more likely to want to steal, some to lie, some to rebellion... and one in the same, some people are born with the tendency to want to be homosexual... but sorry, its not a gene.

    As with anything, you can fight off any of those desires... but everything in society today revolves around accepting and acknowledging your wants and desires. If you want to have sex on the first date... GO For iT! Just make sure to wear a condom. If you want to get plastered at a party go for it... just don't drink and drive.

    Im sad for the people. People who are brought up to believe such things therefore making it so much more difficult to acknowledge the fact that so many of these things are in fact wrong.
    They continue to hurt themselves and get more and more violent and or depressed, but "its not what they are doing, its a chemical condition that requires medication to fix. not prayer nor repentance, jsut more and more pills."

    God made the laws that he did to keep us from pain... because he loves us and no matter how much you want to contort the bible or say that it was meant differently, he told the writers of the bible what to write so even the most belligerent or unlearned people could understand and follow, but only if they want to.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,132, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #13

    Jul 31, 2007, 07:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Starman
    The Bible has a definition for chastity which makes certain lifestyles incompatible with its definition. In short, a murderer, habitual, thief, habitual liar, adulterer, fornicator, idol worshipper, habiutual sloth, a person who is habitiually violent, or even one who entertains evil thoughts though he doesn't carry them out doesn't qualify as being virtuous.
    Is it your position then that church leaders must be virtuous, per this definition? Do you know of any church leaders who measure up? I would bet that all people have had "lust in their hearts" (to quote Jimmy Carter) at some time in their lives - clergy included. I submit that this doesn't disqualify a person from being ordained. What's important is how one choses to act (or not) on these "impulses." So, I ask - as a first step: what is it about a person with homosexual tendencies who is chaste that in your view would disqualify that person from being an outstanding church leader? And would you also disqualify a heterosexual who has an occasional fantasy regarding the opposite sex?
    Canada_Sweety's Avatar
    Canada_Sweety Posts: 597, Reputation: 49
    -
     
    #14

    Jul 31, 2007, 07:56 AM
    There is a difference between fantasyzing and doing...
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,132, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #15

    Jul 31, 2007, 07:59 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Canada_Sweety
    There is a difference between fantasyzing and doing...
    Correct - so you therefore agree that a chaste homosexual person would be OK as a church leader, right?
    Canada_Sweety's Avatar
    Canada_Sweety Posts: 597, Reputation: 49
    -
     
    #16

    Jul 31, 2007, 08:01 AM
    Hmmm... there is still a difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual. But I'm begining to see what you mean..ish.
    Marily's Avatar
    Marily Posts: 457, Reputation: 51
    Full Member
     
    #17

    Jul 31, 2007, 08:34 AM
    SnaveLeber the only difference between a true christian a sinner is the Holy Ghost:)
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #18

    Jul 31, 2007, 10:27 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ebaines
    Is it your position then that church leaders must be virtuous, per this definition? Do you know of any church leaders who measure up? I would bet that all people have had "lust in their hearts" (to quote Jimmy Carter) at some time in their lives - clergy included. I submit that this doesn't disqualify a person from being ordained. What's important is how one choses to act (or not) on these "impulses." So, I ask - as a first step: what is it about a person with homosexual tendencies who is chaste that in your view would disqualify that person from being an outstanding church leader? And would you also disqualify a heterosexual who has an occasional fantasy regarding the opposite sex?


    No one measures up. The only reason we are accepted is based on Jesus Ransom sacrifice. However, the stipulations for church leadership are found in the Bible itself
    And are very clear and they disqualify a practicing homosexual. That you suggest they be ignored shows that you hold the Bible in little esteem. Which of course is again your privilege. But please allow others their right to respect the biblical view.


    There are countless scriptures I could show you which encourage us to keep our minds free from evil thoughts. But since my computer doesn't permit it at present that will have to wait.
    inthebox's Avatar
    inthebox Posts: 787, Reputation: 179
    Senior Member
     
    #19

    Jul 31, 2007, 10:33 AM
    (1 Timothy 3:1-7) 3 That statement is faithful. If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2The overseer should therefore be irrepressible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5(if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God's congregation?) 6not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. 7Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.



    From the op's biblical reference , I do not believe a homosexual should be church leader.
    But not only does it speak to the issue of homosexuality, which everyone gets their underclothes in a wad about, but also about other character traits.

    I certainly would not qualify, because I've been divorced [? Husband of one wife - or is that in reference to polygamy] and most of the time my kids are too rambunctious.




    Grace and Peace
    Canada_Sweety's Avatar
    Canada_Sweety Posts: 597, Reputation: 49
    -
     
    #20

    Jul 31, 2007, 10:48 AM
    Well everyone knows that there aren't many people who can even qualify as it is. The people who do were chosen by God himself to lead the rest of his people in said community.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search


Check out some similar questions!

My gay friends tell me my new love interest is gay [ 11 Answers ]

Hello everyone. Im new to this service. I am a 32 year old female, who has been dating a 26 year old guy for about 2 months. I met him about a year ago, and up until 2 months ago, really only hung out with him with our other friends. We both knew there was something there, had not had the...

Australian Prime ministers [ 3 Answers ]

Who is the most influential Australian Prime Minister and Why

How thick is the lead in a lead joint [ 2 Answers ]

Im getting ready to take the Indiana pluming test and I was wanting to know how thick the lead Is suppose to be in the hub of the cast iron.

Prime ministers and presidents [ 8 Answers ]

My question is how do you think has more power- prime ministers or presidents and why? I`m not sure myself cause I'm in favour for presidential government yet still in favour for parilamentary government. Please help


View more questions Search