Pastoral Perspectives on Homosexuality

[Eric Frey]

Anyone receive this "official statement" from the Board of General Superintendants? What are your thoughts? Is it available on line?

[Hans Deventer]

Anyone receive this "official statement" from the Board of General Superintendants? What are your thoughts? Is it available on line?

No, I didn't. Which one is it, this (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=153919#post153919) one?

[Eric Frey]

It came in the mail at the end of last week. It was a 12 page or so booklet that includes the Manual statement on human sexuality, an "official statement" from the BoGS, scriptural argument supporting their statement, Traditional (Didache, Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, et al) support for their statement, as well as several Q&A's related to common issues in the homosexuality discussion. But I can't find it on any of the official websites.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Anyone receive this "official statement" from the Board of General Superintendants? What are your thoughts? Is it available on line?

Yes, I got it. I haven't read it yet.

[Ryan Scott]

I haven't seen it yet, but I had breakfast with the author last week who was encouraged by the wholesale support of the General Superintendents on the issue.

Again, I haven't read it, but from our conversation I imagine its at least a step in the right direction.

[Charles W Christian]

I did read it, and I thought it was well-written. It emphasized historic disagreement with homosexual lifestyle, but it provided a clear emphasis upon loving all people.

Thanks,
Charles

[Kevin Rector]

I read it the day it came and I really thought it was well done. I loved that it emphasized that homosexuals are people of value and worth and that the church has the mandate to love them while holding to an historical understanding of sexual relationships.

[Jon Twitchell]

I thought the statement was well done. I particularly appreciated the separation of orientation from lifestyle choice. I also appreciated the fact that they did not take the position that orientation is always/necessarily a choice.

[William Hunter]

I have read it and found it one of the better uses of money spent by HQ. This is well done and helpful to us. Now to figure out how to get this type of info. available to my cong.

[Hans Deventer]

Is there a way the poor deprived Nazarenes from across the pond :rolleyes: can receive this booklet?

[Billy Cox]

Anyone receive this "official statement" from the Board of General Superintendants? What are your thoughts? Is it available on line?

Don't expect to find it online. I will say no more about that.

[Billy Cox]

I thought the statement was well done. I particularly appreciated the separation of orientation from lifestyle choice. I also appreciated the fact that they did not take the position that orientation is always/necessarily a choice.

How about doing a labor of love and copying the contents to NazNet?

[Pete Vecchi]

I received it in the mail last week and have skimmed through it. To tell the truth, with the end of our church year upon us at the end of this month, this just hasn't been an urgent topic in my mind at this time.

Does anyone know why this particular mailing was sent to pastors at this particular time? I mean, why wasn;t it sent 3 years ago or at some other time, and why is this issue the one topic (aside from the Centennial celebration) that the pastors are being sent information about?

[Eric Frey]

There are NO copywrights, so I don't see why someone couldn't scan it in somehow.

[Ryan Scott]

It was commissioned by the Board of General Superintendents and approved by them, but the timing of now, I think, is simply because now is when it was finished.

[Jon Twitchell]

How about doing a labor of love and copying the contents to NazNet?

Well... there is no copyright notice on the booklet...

However, it is quite lengthy (much longer than my District's Report of the "Christian Action Committee" that I typed in last week for you all to read).

The back page says "For additional resources, contact our Clergy Development Office pastor@nazarene.org."

I would suppose that someone might be able to receive the booklet if they emailed and asked nicely.

[Jon Twitchell]

I will copy the "Official Statement" from the third page.

The Church of the Nazarene believes that every man or woman should be treated with dignity, grace, and holy love, whatever their sexual orientation. However, we continue to firmly hold the position that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful and is contrary to the Scriptures.

We further wish to reemphasize our call to Nazarenes around the globe to recommit themselves to a life of holiness, characterized by holy love and expressed throug the most rigorous and consistent lifestyle of sexual purity. We stand firmly on the belief that the biblical concept of marriage, always between one man and one woman in a committed, lifelong relationship, is the only relationship within which the gift of sexual intimacy is properly expressed.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I scanned it in. The .pdf file was way too big for Naznet (almost 10 MB), so I'm hosting it, but I'd be happy to spread the bandwidth with someone else. :basic05

Here it is (please save it to your computer rather than reading it from the site, if you can - right click, "Save As" or "Save Link As"):
http://northst.org/Various/Pastoral%20Perspectives%20on%20Homosexuality,%20Bo ard%20of%20General%20Superintendents,%20Church%20o f%20the%20Nazarene.PDF

[Jon Twitchell]

Jeremy... I'll happily host it if you have bandwidth concerns...

Here:

www.yourchurchweb.net/resources/perspectives.pdf

[Dennis M. Scott]

There are times when I am grateful to be a part of a worldwide fellowship such as ours. We will always be transitioning from where we have been to a better position. There will likely be those who bemoan this changed attitude as lack of clarity. It definitely is a changed attitude: a good change. Interestingly, it sets the table for a broader discussion about sexuality in general. This document addresses Christian sexuality better than I've ever heard from the church, but there is need for further development. It is not only homosexually oriented that will benefit from a clearer Christian understanding of human sexuality. We've not done that very well. When we help our people comprehend sexuality in general, I am convinced that deviant behavior will be easier to avoid.

I think it was NPH rep Paul Neal that said that sex was invented in 1967. :rolleyes: That being the case, probably 40 years later would be a good time for us to acknowledge such a reality. Good and Godly move.

[Gina Stevenson]

I think it was NPH rep Paul Neal that said that sex was invented in 1967. :rolleyes: That being the case, probably 40 years later would be a good time for us to acknowledge such a reality. Good and Godly move.

1967!? If so, then where'd all these people come from? Hatched from eggs? Or was that old stork story right, after all, maybe? Or, maybe Grandma's story re finding all of hers under her rose bushes wasn't so far-fetched, either? :laughing

[Hans Deventer]

So, in short, though homosexuality is something we can't help, the behaviour is sinful and God "is able to either deliver them from the homosexual desires or enable them to live celibate lives".
Now celibacy is a special gift, as I understand from the Scriptures. And healing, from whatever disease we have may, doesn't always happen.
So there is no place in between, where there is neither healing nor the graceful gift of celibacy? That would be great.

Seems to me that defining homosexual behaviour as sin, together with our holiness theology, must inevitably lead to the two options offered above. I sure hope for all the homosexuals that this will be true in their lives.

What I like about the "perspective" is the pointing towards "corporate sin". Very good!!! I'm looking forward to a discussion of corporate sin and entire sanctification. I also like the quote below: "The reoriented or celibate single homosexual will be invited to full participation in the life and ministry of the church, leading ministries, serving on boards, and singing in choirs."

[Martijn van Beveren]

Is there a way the poor deprived Nazarenes from across the pond :rolleyes: can receive this booklet?

It's important that we can have this information also...:preach

[Martijn van Beveren]

So, in short, though homosexuality is something we can't help, the behaviour is sinful and God "is able to either deliver them from the homosexual desires or enable them to live celibate lives".
Now celibacy is a special gift, as I understand from the Scriptures. And healing, from whatever disease we have may, doesn't always happen.
So there is no place in between, where there is neither healing nor the graceful gift of celibacy? That would be great.

Seems to me that defining homosexual behaviour as sin, together with our holiness theology, must inevitably lead to the two options offered above. I sure hope for all the homosexuals that this will be true in their lives.

What I like about the "perspective" is the pointing towards "corporate sin". Very good!!! I'm looking forward to a discussion of corporate sin and entire sanctification. I also like the quote below: "The reoriented or celibate single homosexual will be invited to full participation in the life and ministry of the church, leading ministries, serving on boards, and singing in choirs."

I'm not so strong in the explanation of this theological tension your talking about Hans, but I am surely concerned for those people who are not healed. Since there is no garantee that this will happen. What dod we do with the people who fall between the rules?
In my opinion, embracing, belonging, accepting in Love... Does God not step over the rules to reach out and say:"don't hinder the children to come to Me?"

Aren't we playing the in/out game here?

[Hans Deventer]

I'm not so strong in the explanation of this theological tension your talking about Hans, but I am surely concerned for those people who are not healed. Since there is no garantee that this will happen. What do we do with the people who fall between the rules?

Well, according to the booklet, they will receive the grace to live in celibacy. Like you, I do hope none fall between the cracks.

Also, it says you can't be a "practising homosexual Christian". You're either practising or Christian. I also sure do hope they will say the same for every other sin, including the corporate ones. They specifically say that "Americans tend to be greedy as an influence of our consumer society" (I think we're not so different in Western Europe). It might get rather lonely in church if we abide by these rules.

[Scott Sherwood]

Well, according to the booklet, they will receive the grace to live in celibacy. Like you, I do hope none fall between the cracks.

Also, it says you can't be a "practising homosexual Christian". You're either practising or Christian. I also sure do hope they will say the same for every other sin, including the corporate ones. They specifically say that "Americans tend to be greedy as an influence of our consumer society" (I think we're not so different in Western Europe). It might get rather lonely in church if we abide by these rules.

Or it may get rather vibrant, Spirit-filled, and effective.

I think there are many churches who really are doing their best in these matters. I don't think the propensity toward sins of greed and the like are so much because people are being unfair as that some sins are easier to identify than others. For example, I am sitting in my recliner right now typing on my laptop while listening to my ipod. Am I therefore guilty of the sin of greed? I am sensitive to that possibility but always just a little unsure where productive use of material blessing becomes sinful greed. However, it is very easy for me to identify whether I slept with my wife last night or someone else.

I personally am very thankful for this clear, gracious, official statement from our Generals.

[Hans Deventer]

I personally am very thankful for this clear, gracious, official statement from our Generals.

Scott, it's a vast improvement, there can be no doubt about that.

[Dale Cozby]

Well, I am going to make a tongue in cheek confession here:

I am a murderer(though non-practicing). I have become convinced I was born that way. So far I have resisted the desire to kill people all my life. I have come close a few times, as a child I began to have these desires the first time I got bullied at school. As I got older and entered puberty with the release of all those hormones, the thoughts got even stronger, and the level of the temption only grew as I had the physical strength to carry out my desires. I turned to violent sports as a release, I played football and was on wrestling team...but I still struggled with my attitude of violence.

I remember one bully that I fought... I might have killed him if it had not been for a caring Coach who pulled me off him but it hurt and made me feel ashamed when he pointed out my sin when he said..."What were you trying to do....kill him?

Even as a young Christian, I occasionally had thoughts about sending someone on to heaven early.:eek: Especially when someone tempted me by making me angry. But the longer I have stayed faithful to Jesus' message the less these thoughts occurred and the more I began to see these people not as my potential homocide victims, but as a "neighbor" to love.

I am a chaste murderer. It is my desire to not fall off the wagon and kill someone nor to have anymore desire to kill... I have prayed that God would remove the desire to kill people and I have found the more that I love God and desire His will, the less I desire to kill people. While I may never be completely free from the desire to do harm to someone, as people still make me angry from time to time...I have become able to cope with the knowledge that God's grace and love help me make it one day at a time.

I know you guys all know this stuff...but I just like to share some verses that come to mind.

"Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." James 1:12-15

"Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do;"

So we all know: Sin is inbred....we inherited the sinful nature. Sin takes on many manifestations.....and we all must deal with our own temptations and desires.

Grace and peace,

Dale

[Crystal Lutton]

Well, according to the booklet, they will receive the grace to live in celibacy. Like you, I do hope none fall between the cracks.

Also, it says you can't be a "practising homosexual Christian". You're either practising or Christian. I also sure do hope they will say the same for every other sin, including the corporate ones. They specifically say that "Americans tend to be greedy as an influence of our consumer society" (I think we're not so different in Western Europe). It might get rather lonely in church if we abide by these rules.
Overall it seems like a good statement but I want to go through and read the long version ;) Thank you, btw, those who willingly scanned/hosted it.

One thing I've come to realize is that often God approaches people and issues differently than the hierarchy we seem to place on their sins. Is God not granting the gift of celibacy to the homosexual or is he, just maybe, dealing with an issue that is more immediate a need for that person? I wonder how often well-meaning Christians focus on sin X and create a great excuse for the individual to ignore God's leading with sin Y.

That said, I have seen amazing stories of God healing people from homosexuality! Truly amazing stories.

I'm also concerned, though, about how we will handle the issues of homosexuals who have adopted children or created families. Is it more loving to demand homosexuality be eradicated from lives than it is to encourage children be raised in family units. I'm not answering that one here, but I'm becoming very aware that the issue is not as clean as it used to be. I think that a clear statement on homosexuality may be far too late in the coming so that it risks being irrelevant to the current issues being created by homosexual lifestyles. I hope heads haven't been stuck in the sand so long that we're answering last decades questions.

[Martijn van Beveren]

Or it may get rather vibrant, Spirit-filled, and effective.

I think there are many churches who really are doing their best in these matters. I don't think the propensity toward sins of greed and the like are so much because people are being unfair as that some sins are easier to identify than others. For example, I am sitting in my recliner right now typing on my laptop while listening to my ipod. Am I therefore guilty of the sin of greed? I am sensitive to that possibility but always just a little unsure where productive use of material blessing becomes sinful greed. However, it is very easy for me to identify whether I slept with my wife last night or someone else.

I personally am very thankful for this clear, gracious, official statement from our Generals.

I agree ;) It's good to see some clear statement from the GS'es

[Gina Stevenson]

While I see the gratefulness & can agree w/it, I also see Crystal's wondering about the timeliness of it all ... perhaps such a statement [which I've DL'd, but now need to get a reader back (after the latest computer redo) & read] would have been yet more timely before the era in which such couples were given the right to adopt?

But, yes, we'll take what we can get now ... as some things are better late than never (old cliche' but how else to say it?).

[Billy Cox]

I think that a clear statement on homosexuality may be far too late in the coming so that it risks being irrelevant to the current issues being created by homosexual lifestyles.

Better late than never.


I hope heads haven't been stuck in the sand so long that we're answering last decades questions.

The question of what the church has to say to homosexuals is far from being settled. Applying wisdom to the answer instead of fear/hate is a good step forward.

[Pete Vecchi]

So, in short, though homosexuality is something we can't help, the behaviour is sinful and God "is able to either deliver them from the homosexual desires or enable them to live celibate lives".
Now celibacy is a special gift, as I understand from the Scriptures. And healing, from whatever disease we have may, doesn't always happen.
So there is no place in between, where there is neither healing nor the graceful gift of celibacy? That would be great.

Seems to me that defining homosexual behaviour as sin, together with our holiness theology, must inevitably lead to the two options offered above. I sure hope for all the homosexuals that this will be true in their lives.

As someone else has said in this thread, this seems to open the door to discussion of all sexual issues, not just homosexuality.

If I am understanding Hans correctly, it seems that there may be an indication of lack of "middle ground" or "nothing in between" when it comes to the issue of either being delivered from homosexual tendencies or remaining celibate. But doesn't a very similar situation exist with heterosexual behavior? The only difference is that there is one Biblical way for the heterosexual desire to be fulfilled, and that is within the context of monogamous heterosexual marriage. But absent that, then what? The heterosexual person with heterosexual desires may not have the gift of celibacy (which I fully agree that Paul said is a God-given gift) but also may not have a spouse. There are some heterosexual people who simply will likely never get married.

So, what is the difference between heterosexual people who have heterosexual urges but can't get married and homosexual people who have homosexual urges and can't get married?

[Christa Woodward]

As someone else has said in this thread, this seems to open the door to discussion of all sexual issues, not just homosexuality.

If I am understanding Hans correctly, it seems that there may be an indication of lack of "middle ground" or "nothing in between" when it comes to the issue of either being delivered from homosexual tendencies or remaining celibate. But doesn't a very similar situation exist with heterosexual behavior? The only difference is that there is one Biblical way for the heterosexual desire to be fulfilled, and that is within the context of monogamous heterosexual marriage. But absent that, then what? The heterosexual person with heterosexual desires may not have the gift of celibacy (which I fully agree that Paul said is a God-given gift) but also may not have a spouse. There are some heterosexual people who simply will likely never get married.

So, what is the difference between heterosexual people who have heterosexual urges but can't get married and homosexual people who have homosexual urges and can't get married?

The difference to me is that a heterosexual person has the "possiblity" of marriage and within that marriage can fulfill those desires, but for a person who is homosexual there is no context in which we would say it was okay for those desires to be fulfilled. There is no Biblical way for their desires to be met so the only other answer that we give is healing from those desires and that doesn't always happen, even in the most sincere person. So what do we do with that? A heterosexual person who really struggles can theoretially just "get married" (I realize I am oversimplifying it) but what do we say to the gay person? And then when you add in the complication of relationships, adopted children - its messy and I realize that life is messy, but there are no easy answers, to me at least...

I relate to this struggle in some ways because I have had a life long struggle with food - I know its not a popular thing to bring up, but I'm fat...I'll just say it, I don't know that it was God's plan for my life for me to be 100lbs overweight. I do well for awhile on some diet and lost 30 lbs or so and then fall off the wagon, etc, etc...I know that many choices that I have made have gotten me to this point, but there are also family situations, emotions and genetics that come into play. I'm just thankful that no one is kicking me out of church for being a glutton :) I realize that no on in this thread is saying that we should meet gay people with anything but love, but I struggle with this situation and as I compare it to my own life, I feel compassion for the less than perfect people. We all have something in our life that we struggle with I guess I'm thankful that my struggle is more acceptable than some...and I am glad that our church is trying to address some of the issues, but there are a myriad of related issues that may get more complicated.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm just thankful that no one is kicking me out of church for being a glutton :) I realize that no on in this thread is saying that we should meet gay people with anything but love, but I struggle with this situation and as I compare it to my own life, I feel compassion for the less than perfect people. We all have something in our life that we struggle with I guess I'm thankful that my struggle is more acceptable than some...and I am glad that our church is trying to address some of the issues, but there are a myriad of related issues that may get more complicated.

A mere "thank you" is not enough. You've captured brilliantly the very struggle I still have with the booklet, though gratefully accepting it is already a big leap in the right direction.

[Ryan Scott]

There's a good section in Greg Boyd's Repenting of Religion that compares the traditional attitude of the Church to gluttony and the attitude towards homosexuality. I think it's a very good start.

[Pete Vecchi]

I relate to this struggle in some ways because I have had a life long struggle with food - I know its not a popular thing to bring up, but I'm fat...I'll just say it, I don't know that it was God's plan for my life for me to be 100lbs overweight. I do well for awhile on some diet and lost 30 lbs or so and then fall off the wagon, etc, etc...I know that many choices that I have made have gotten me to this point, but there are also family situations, emotions and genetics that come into play. I'm just thankful that no one is kicking me out of church for being a glutton :) I realize that no on in this thread is saying that we should meet gay people with anything but love, but I struggle with this situation and as I compare it to my own life, I feel compassion for the less than perfect people. We all have something in our life that we struggle with I guess I'm thankful that my struggle is more acceptable than some...and I am glad that our church is trying to address some of the issues, but there are a myriad of related issues that may get more complicated.

This is another great aspect of the issue. Please note that I did not condone nor condemn in my previous post. I simply brought up the similarities between heterosexual and homosexual desires. I am in no way trying to minimize the struggles that people with homosexual tendencies go through, but I don't think we should dismiss the similarities between the struggles of heterosexuals and homosexuals based on the the "possibilities" that a non-married heterosexual can get married. The "possibility" that a heterosexual can get married are sometimes far from realistic. The point is that I still see that the two situations can often be quite similar. And far from being judgmental, I am trying to say that both situations are very difficult. The whole situation it seems comes down to how we should interpret the Bible when it comes to sin, judgment, and grace.

I'm glad that Christa brought up the issue of gluttony. What constitutes gluttony? Does overeating one time constitute gluttony? Or is it only gluttony if it is a chronic situation?

Why are we so quick to judge sexual behaviors, but not so quick to judge non-sexual behaviors--especially the sexual and non-sexual behaviors of others? The Bible talks against gossip, but it seems to not be taken as seriously as sexual sin even though I would venture a guess that more gossip occurs in churches than does sexual sin.

And if we insist on judging sexual sin, then somewhere along the line it's going to have to be defined as to just what constitutes unacceptable sexual practice. Is a kiss forbidden? Hand holding? A hug? How about going to the other side of the spectrum and saying that something can't be considered sex unless intercourse occurs? It seems that a former President of the U.S. tried to use that argument, and many people (not necessarily people from NazNet--I just don't specifically recall it being discussed here) seemed to support it.

Basically, we are going to have to find the proper balance between making judgments against sin--sexual and otherwise--as a denomination and going to the other side of the spectrum and simply ignoring sin because we fear being labeled as "judgmental."

[Hans Deventer]

Why are we so quick to judge sexual behaviors, but not so quick to judge non-sexual behaviors--especially the sexual and non-sexual behaviors of others? The Bible talks against gossip, but it seems to not be taken as seriously as sexual sin even though I would venture a guess that more gossip occurs in churches than does sexual sin.

Yes. James has a warning

4Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

Anyone who's been around in church for a while knows that these words are very true.

Basically, we are going to have to find the proper balance between making judgments against sin--sexual and otherwise--as a denomination and going to the other side of the spectrum and simply ignoring sin because we fear being labeled as "judgmental."

I think we especially need to define why with some sins we tend to give the Holy Spirit time to heal and cleanse the person, while with others we close the door at forehand and say: "clean up your act before you can enter".

Now of course there is devastating behaviour that we need to protect the congregation from. But I'm not so sure our apparent list of "devastating behaviour" matches reality.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

As I read this piece (a friend of mine brought me the paper copy) several things occurred to me.


This piece demonstrates the General Superintendents being pastoral toward pastors. Seeing all of the signatures together does communicate something which is helpful. I think this may be one of the advantages of having a Board of General Superintendents rather than a single General. I hope that this piece begins a pattern where the Generals address other issues facing the church. Even if we disagree about what is said, healthy theological discussion in the church is something that should be celebrated.
This piece is a shrewd political maneuver that sets the terms (at least for the COTN) for all subsequent debates on the issue of homosexuality. I've been concerned for some time now that the absence of one of these kinds of pieces would leave a vacuum in our tradition which might expose us to greater difficulty when dealing with the issue at a later time.
The piece has made persons (who I've spoken to) uncomfortable. Some think the piece is too accommodating and some think it isn't accommodating enough. If that is the case, there is a high likelihood that the Generals have actually staked a middle way which balences the call of God with the Grace God offers to respond to the call.

Just a few preliminary thoughts...
--JS

[Dale Cozby]

Yes. James has a warning

4Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

Anyone who's been around in church for a while knows that these words are very true. This scripture doesn't address gossip at all. No where is that mentioned in the text. This text could apply just as easily to verbal abuse, hate speech, threats of violence, etc. It does directly mention boasting, which would seem to indicate the primary thought of James would be one of pride, arrogance, self-righteousness etc...

I think we especially need to define why with some sins we tend to give the Holy Spirit time to heal and cleanse the person, while with others we close the door at forehand and say: "clean up your act before you can enter". For that matter if someone has been convicted of a sex crime we essentially say "there is the door don't come back." Seems there is no place for them to serve or even "be" in the church. They would not even be allowed to be a volunteer janitor in most churches. Why are some sins "unforgivable" in our society and why does the church follow suit in treating them that way? I don't think that is what the church is suppose to be about.

Society seeks to normalize almost all sexual sins while at the same time give others the "Go directly to hell, do not pass Go, do not get forgiveness" I really don't think the church should be following the lead of society to know the Way. The world would have us stone those it stones, and praise those it praises. But God said "your ways are not my ways." Isaiah 55:7-9

We need to learn to treat all sinners with the same love, mercy and patience, because that is what some of us were. see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

People struggling with porn, fornication, homosexuality, adultery, or even some criminal sexual behavior... all need the same cure. You don't ask the alcoholic to just cut back his drinking you ask him to stop. You don't ask the wife beater to cut back, you ask him to stop. Same with sexual sins. When/if they fail/fall...you encourage, forgive, even rebuke if you have that level of relationship, but we don't sit back and just leave them wallowing in thier sin, failures and despair, hoping they make it out one day. If a person really hates who they are and what they do/think, then they can change and the church can help. Repentence is always possible. But if they like who they are and what they do then they will see no need for change( in thier mind) and the church can do nothing for them. So let's let the Holy Spirit work. In the meantime, preach the good news, live the example, be patient and help those who will accept our help.

Now of course there is devastating behaviour that we need to protect the congregation from. If we are going to define why some sins are given time to heal, we must also define/understand the consequences of those sins which demand immediate changes as Christians while others less apparent or damaging can be worked on over time. BTW They are all covered by grace.

But I'm not so sure our apparent list of "devastating behaviour" matches reality. Agreed. And it really doesn't have to match society's morays either.

[Greg Farra]

Speaking as one who went through this issue in the ELCA, it is good that it's being addressed by the leadership. When the ELCA was formed from three Lutheran denominations, it was stated that the new church would follow the predecessor bodies' statements until the new church could make their own. That was 1989, I believe. There still is no consensus. The church, mainly through the Bishops, have welcomed all into the full life and ministry of the church, with the exception of clergy. You can be gay and a pastor, but not be partnered. This has been ignored by many bishops. This past year, the ELCA voted to urge restraint in discipling pastors in same sex realtionships. The ELCa has been shrinking in number for years, in my opinion, partly because it is trying to please both sides. This has not happened. What you have is a fractured church. I hope the COTN does not take this route.

[Dale Cozby]

Saying someone is "gay" or "Bi" or "Trans" like it is written in marble is wrong.

People change...both ways. That is the nature of sin and desires. people can become tempted by something they see, hear or read to do something sinful and if they give rise to that desire it will fester and grow into sin. Others hate the sin they are in and leave it.

I am not kidding when I said I use to be a very violent prone young man. My last full blown fight was while attending a Nazarene university( fortunately not wiht other students):eek: But even after college I still found things that would set me off from time to time and I fought the temptation.

So being prone to a certain sin does not make you that for life. That is what our society wants to do...brand you for life on your forehead. Once gay always gay, once a pedophile always a pedophile, once a killer always a killer and so on. That is simply NOT the Christian perspective.

Though you may have to deal with temptations as they come along the rest of your life....it is the feeding of the desire for such things that does you in. I hate to call it an orientation because it sounds so permanent, but agin that is what the world wants to think.

Things that use to make me mad...I just laugh at now. Things that once would make me want to take your head off....I now feel compassion and sadness for the person who does such things. That is a changed nature. didn't all happen over night but it happens just the same. God changes orientations!! Just like he takes away beig oriented toward violence, substance abuse and so on.

We can ALL overcome our own sins through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Liars, Thiefs, Murderers, Sex Offenders, Drunks/drug addicts, and yes homosexuals too. Not by my strength but His strength do we stand...anything else is arrogance and sets you up for a fall.

So the idea of someone being gay for life AND in the ministry just doesn't jive with me. That is like saying I am a drunk pastor. I am a wife beating pastor. I am a pedophile pastor. I am a killer pastor.

I don't go around telling everyone how many people I beat up or put in the hospital as a young man, for that person who did those things is dead now. If someone desires to leave their "sin lifestyle" for Christ, then do it! I only share this because I think it is important to realize:

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

I don't think anyone should have to known for the sins they committed in life or for the temptations they deal with, but rather for who they become in Christ Jesus.

[Crystal Lutton]

I think we especially need to define why with some sins we tend to give the Holy Spirit time to heal and cleanse the person, while with others we close the door at forehand and say: "clean up your act before you can enter". I agree with Hans here. Again, I'm glad we have a statement that says that for the COTN homosexual lifestyle is not consistent with holiness and we aren't going to embrace the worldly idea of tolerance on this issue. I'm grateful we have an in writing touchpoint as we move forward.

In Acts we find what the Apostles set as the prerequisites for being welcomed into the family of believers--the four elements of the pagan communion had to be abandoned. Then James makes a wonderful statement that the rest has been taught in the Synagogue since the time of Moses. I very much believe he was expressing the belief that once they are "in" they will learn as they study and as they are exposed to the Truth. I find it very relevant that homosexual practices were very common in those pagans who were allowed in if they would only abandon the pagan communion.

People struggling with porn, fornication, homosexuality, adultery, or even some criminal sexual behavior... all need the same cure. You don't ask the alcoholic to just cut back his drinking you ask him to stop. You don't ask the wife beater to cut back, you ask him to stop. Same with sexual sins.I highlighted the exception I take to this statement. I realize there are some registered sex offenders who were 18 year old boys with their 16 yo girlfriend and certainly we must know those who are being put into any role of leadership. Stepping outside of that, though, I do not believe a convicted rapist or pedophile should ever be given a place in leadership in a community of faith. The Lord can absolutely change them! But the evidence shows that they are repeat offenders and there isn't a woman or a child in my home or my congregation that I would put at risk. Can they worship with us? Under certain circumstances, absolutely, but not leadership. Could God make me go against that statement at some point? Sure, but it would have to be iron clad clear it was from him.

That said . . . all other sexual sins do not preclude someone from ministry or leadership imo. But just like the porn addict who must spend the rest of his life with certain safeties in place (like internet filters, etc.) I believe we need to set everyone up for success! Even the pastor with no history of sexual sins would be wise to counsel with their door open or a window.

The reality is, though, *I* am not the one who asks the alcoholic to stop drinking (unless I'm family and/or part of an intervention). And even in AA the first steps involve admitting they are out of control and have to turn to a higher power for help. Friends in AA wil tell you that until God convicted them they said the right stuff, attended meetings, etc., but they never moved from those first steps. One of the reasons AA works is that they keep welcoming them back and they keep holding them to the truth.

When we've had homosexuals want to attend our congregation they have come to us and shared that they are homosexuals (because I think we don't give homosexuals enough credit for knowing how the majority of the church thinks about their situation) and asked if it's okay. We have welcomed them with open arms--with the assurance that we do believe Scripture teaches homosexual lifestyle is a sin AND with the assurance that we believe Scripture calls us to love and teach truth. Our boundary with them is that they may not ask out any same sex attenders of our congregation. We've had some who refuse to respect the boundary and they are asked to leave; we have many more who respect the boundary, attend, meet the Lord, and then we get to watch the beautiful process of HIM changing them.

When I was in college I was blessed to play a role in a homosexual friend's life. He was dying of AIDS and unbeknownst to me from the moment of his diagnosis he only wanted to be free of his attraction to men. I was one of several Christians put in his life who shared my faith with him and God had me give him a Bible at a party before he went home to die. Friends who were believers were with him in the hospital 3 days before his death when he accepted the Lord and were able to report that for the last 3 days of his life he was FREE of that struggle. He died in peace.

I absolutely believe God can free people from this issue! I've seen it.

I also know God well enough to know that the timing and the method are not going to be formula. They will be personal, and in his timing, and as he leads. And I'm so glad he takes that responsibility on himself.

[Dale Cozby]

I do not believe a convicted rapist or pedophile should ever be given a place in leadership in a community of faith You prove my point. This is the attitude of the world. This does not sound like redemption, nor love, nor forgiveness to me. it sounds just like the world. Take them out and stone them they are beyond redemption.

That said . . . all other sexual sins do not preclude someone from ministry or leadership imo So this( sex that is against the law)must be the unpardonable sin then. Did you know in 16 states homosexual intercourse was against the law until 2000 when the supreme Court struck down a Texas law in Dallas? What if the convicted sex offender was guilty of beastility or public lewdness or just indecent exposure? Would you still feel the same as if he was a pedophile or rapist? What if no sex crime was ever committed but they were guilty of just seeking sex with a 15 yr old "minor" who was asking for it but was actually a police officer online bating them? Something that has happened here in Texas lately. So 40 yrs later this guy is still excluded from the church service because of something he did when he was say 20. Not very redemptive if you ask me. I am glad God doesn't judge me for my sins that hard. Aren't you?

The Lord can absolutely change them! You bet, but according to your opinion we can never forgive them. This needs to change to.

We have welcomed them with open arms--with the assurance that we do believe Scripture teaches homosexual lifestyle is a sin AND with the assurance that we believe Scripture calls us to love and teach truth. This is truly a double standard. what if someone came and said they were a registered sex offender...and here is why. Would you still welcome them with open arms? Or would you say...stay away from our kids, and our teens. Never go down that hallway unless you are accompanied by an adult.
Don't use our restrooms wihtout another adult in there and you can't work in any area of the church where kids are present ever for the rest of your time with us. Wonder how they will stay if the glares and worried glances happen everytime they are there. Hey..might as well get out the branding iron and put it on thier forehead.

Granted, I am not saying take risks beyond reason, but somehow we must restore them to full fellowship as well....somehow...sometime with love and encouragement.

Hey look how long it took Saul/Paul to be accepted by the church! But He did it and they did too.

Not picking on you particularly, just the idea that some sins are beyond redemption/reconciliation.

[Gina Stevenson]

'Know who came to mind now & then during the various readings of this thread? This dude:
http://www.gregbuchananministries.com/bio.html


If you've heard him tell his story, it's quite a story ... evidence of possible change when God's taken into account. His bio, I see, doesn't mention it---perhaps b/c they've found that unless someone's met him first, they might not wish to(?)---but when hearing him in person years ago in California [& later in Michigan with Danny when we were here for awhile], he told how both he & his wife came from the gay lifestyle into a marriage blessed by God.

[Greg Farra]

When it comes to pedophiles, I quote the great theologian Ronald Reagan: "trust but verify." No one is beyond redemption, but church should be a safe place for children. One of the consequences of our sin may be that we may not be easily trusted.

[David Molle]

I'm not a pastor or clergy type person but am very grateful to have
read this document. I was uncertain as to the church's view on this
issue as it hasn't been really addressed in the short time I have
been attending a cotn.

What I am most grateful for is that the document in my opinion kept
it's information very simple and to the point. Alot of the views posted
in this thread I probally wouldn't have considered or thought of but
are very thought provoking and make me take a hard look at myself.

couple things I would like to comment on in regards to this thread.

I was raised catholic and was taught that some sins (mortal sins) were
unforgivable and if you committed one you were hell bound, period over
and out. That's what I grew up thinking.
Until I grew up and came to understand/believe otherwise.
That's all on that, just a statement.

The other is in regards to aa, na. (narcotics anonymous) I have been in both programs and I have learned that I am not a recovering drug addict or alcoholic. I cannot recover what Ive never had. I have learned I can be saved. I have learned I can be changed through the saving grace of
Almighty God.
i apologize if this is seen as off topic.
I appreciate all of your replies to this thread.

[Wesley Smith]

When I received my copy, I actually left it in my mail box for a few days because I thought it looked like a production of some organization that was intending to use "Pastoral Perspectives" as a come-on to recruit me to their business.

THEN...I saw the small print, "From Your General Superintendents." Well, that got my attention and the footnote, "on Homosexuality."

My read of the booklet was quick and thoughtful all at the same time. That our Generals should endorse such a compassionate, firm and fair perspective draws my attention, admiration and affirmation. Upon completion of my reading of the booklet, I sent an email to the BGS expressing my gratitude.

A quote that especially stood out to me, "What we do know from walking with people in a fallen world is that homosexuality is real, it tends to begin early, and is rarely a choice." That statement at face-value suggests to me that our future participation in discussions and relationships about and with heterosexuals and homosexuals is, by that statement, radically changed. (Not speaking particularly, rather, generally.) The door has been slammed open for us now to recognize the extreme complexity of human sexuality. Compassion and Scripture must go hand in hand.

My hat is off to our Generals.

Friend,

Wes

[Crystal Lutton]

You prove my point. This is the attitude of the world. This does not sound like redemption, nor love, nor forgiveness to me. it sounds just like the world. Take them out and stone them they are beyond redemption.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never suggested taking them out and stoning them. However, the reality and the numbers do not support your pie in the sky theology of God WILL change them all. The reality is certain sexual predators are repeat offenders--every.single.time. Pedophiles being among them. And the number of them who lie about who they are in order to gain access to children is staggering. You can feel free to have them around your children or grandchildren but I'll keep them away from mine, thank you very much. My children and the children in our congregation are my responsibility. Yet I have never suggested they should be barred from worship. Quite the opposite--with proper precautions in place they need a place to worship. They need salvation and redemption as much as everyone.

So this( sex that is against the law)must be the unpardonable sin then. Did you know in 16 states homosexual intercourse was against the law until 2000 when the supreme Court struck down a Texas law in Dallas? What if the convicted sex offender was guilty of beastility or public lewdness or just indecent exposure? Would you still feel the same as if he was a pedophile or rapist? What if no sex crime was ever committed but they were guilty of just seeking sex with a 15 yr old "minor" who was asking for it but was actually a police officer online bating them? Something that has happened here in Texas lately. So 40 yrs later this guy is still excluded from the church service because of something he did when he was say 20. Not very redemptive if you ask me. I am glad God doesn't judge me for my sins that hard. Aren't you?Please read my words again--That said . . . all other sexual sins do not preclude someone from ministry or leadership Please tell me where "do not preclude someone from minsitry or leadership" or, in other words, yeah, someone with those sins in their past can be in leadership and ministry, is being UNforgiving. I really believe you have a bone to pick and are willing to throw anyone you even think is disagreeing with you on the altar to prove your point. My words cannot help you because they do not say what you want to make them say.

Would you still feel the same as if he was a pedophile or rapist? What if no sex crime was ever committed but they were guilty of just seeking sex with a 15 yr old "minor" who was asking for it but was actually a police officer online bating them?I pulled this out because, well, I'm shocked at your argument. If an adult man doesn't know better than to meet a 15yo CHILD for sex, whether the child is "asking for it" or not then that adult man is going to get from the justiec system what he deserves. He IS a pedophile. God can absolutely forgive him! I'm still not allowing him near my children. Call that unforgiveness if you want, I call it wisdom. I encourage you to read Gavin De Becker's "Protecting the Gift". He is the nations' foremost authority on human predators. Your words express full blown denial and women and children aren't safe if this is how you welcome people into your life, home and community of faith.

You bet, but according to your opinion we can never forgive them. This needs to change to. I NEVER said "never forgive them". I said put precautions in place to make sure that their redemption and change--that we can't see--is not going to put our families and our members at risk.

Would you put a convicted embezzler in the position of treasurer? Would you put an adulterer still struggling in their marriage working closely with a single and lonely person of the opposite sex? Where is setting people up for success? You speak as though we should set them up for failure to prove God's amazing grace!

This is truly a double standard. what if someone came and said they were a registered sex offender...and here is why. Would you still welcome them with open arms? Or would you say...stay away from our kids, and our teens. Never go down that hallway unless you are accompanied by an adult. If they were convicted of pedophilia and wanted anything less than to be fully accompanied by someone at all times to make sure THEY avoid temptation then I would not trust them in our congregation. I would not believe their protests of change. I know a little about this issue from studying it--things you seem to not realize at all. Pedophiles do not usually want to repeat their offenses. They struggle with it terribly. In fact, many are petitioning for laser castration--a surgery that would sever the sexual impulse part of their brain. They can't get this, however, because "inmate rights" groups argue that it would end all "normal" sexual impulse as well and is cruel and unusual punishment. Their response--I do NOT have NORMAL sexual impulse and I want this hell I live in to stop. I have yet to read a case of a "reformed" pedophile. Some commit suicide; some justify it and join NAMBLA. Anyone who comes to our congregation and is anything less than forthright about their struggle and who doesn't want full accompaniment when around children (especially considering their probation depends on them not being around children!!!!!) is lying and trying to gain access to them. The one who comes humbly, admits his struggle, asks for help, accepts accountability, and works with us to set him up for success . . . . they may worship with us for sure!

Don't use our restrooms wihtout another adult in there and you can't work in any area of the church where kids are present ever for the rest of your time with us. Wonder how they will stay if the glares and worried glances happen everytime they are there. Hey..might as well get out the branding iron and put it on thier forehead.He has been branded with a probation list of requirements that do this. I would be a fool of a pastor if I set these precautions aside while he was within the doors of our church. The pastors who do this out of showing charity often end up on the news with their parishioners suing over their child being violated.

Granted, I am not saying take risks beyond reason, but somehow we must restore them to full fellowship as well....somehow...sometime with love and encouragement.Actually, given the issue of pedophilia, YES you are saying to take risks beyond what is reasonable and prudent. Your ideas put children at risk. WE cannot restore them to full fellowship. God must restore them--and we must always love them by setting them up for success and never putting them in the way of temptation--because the injury that comes from even a small slip is just too heinous to allow. I never want to be the pastor who has to explain to the mother of a violated child why I thought it was okay for the convicted pedophile to be alone with her child.

Hey look how long it took Saul/Paul to be accepted by the church! But He did it and they did too.Paul never sexually violated a child. If you are stoning Christians and you become one then, yes, there is a chance you can prove your sincerity. Stand up in front of enough people wanting to kill you for what you say and preach the Gospel and risk your own stoning and I'd be very willing to listen to you. You simply cannot compare these issues.

Not picking on you particularly, just the idea that some sins are beyond redemption/reconciliation.I know you aren't picking on me personally--as I said, you didn't even respond to much of what I really wrote. And NO sins are beyond redemption. Some are beyond full reconciliation if that means just trusting them to be great guys with whom everyone is safe.

THE PROBLEM with all of this and why I'm frustrated that you picked up on my one disclaimer: you CANNOT lump homosexuals and pedophiles into the same category. This shows ignorance of the issue. While it is true that most pedophiles are men (though some are women), it is not homosexuals who are pedophiles. Being a pedophile refers to being sexually attracted to CHILDREN. Pedophilia repulses heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. While within pedophilia there are those who prefer opposite or same sex victims, being a homosexual who is attracted to adults of the same sex does not make one a greater risk for being a pedophile.

I have never had a problem having homosexuals in our congregation (as long as they respected the boundary of not asking out others from our congregation). I was a Theatre major in college and I've had lots and lots of friends who are homosexual. I have family that is gay. That doesn't change my view of homosexuality as an issue of sin or my belief that Scripture teaches that the homosexual lifestyle is sin and must be repented of by the believer.

And it stands that, as I said which wasn't picked up on and pulled apart, I have witnessed gay friends be relieved of homosexual attraction by the grace and redemption of God so that prior to death my friend could have peace--he truly entered Shalom. WHEN God does change and redeem and restore, whether immediate with or subsequent to salvation, then I say that person can do ministry work that I cannot do and I'm thrilled to embrace them in leadership roles in the Kingdom!

Maybe it's just our congregation but we don't put people in leadership positions who are actively struggling with any sins. If someone is an unrepentant gossip we don't put them in ministry leadership. If someone hasn't stopped the affair and repented and gotten help and isn't actively working to restore their marriage then they don't get a position in ministry leadership. That's not branding them--that's following Paul's teaching that those in leadership need to have shown that they are ready for it. Ifyou are mired in your sin where exactly are you leading anyone?

[Roland Hamilton]

A quote that especially stood out to me, "What we do know from walking with people in a fallen world is that homosexuality is real, it tends to begin early, and is rarely a choice." That statement at face-value suggests to me that our future participation in discussions and relationships about and with heterosexuals and homosexuals is, by that statement, radically changed. (Not speaking particularly, rather, generally.) The door has been slammed open for us now to recognize the extreme complexity of human sexuality. Compassion and Scripture must go hand in hand.

Speaking as an outsider, this document seems to me like a big step forward for the CotN. Although I disagree with many of its conclusions, statements like the above stand in stark contradiction to what the churches have taught for years. And like you, I would hope that this document will serve to facilitate a continued debate about this issue. The authors of this document should be complimented.

[Dale Cozby]

Your knee jerk reaction again proves my point about how much hatred there is toward some sex sins(crimes) while compassion for other sex sins(not crimes). You basically say, There is NO redemption for sex offenders ever.
I have never recommended total trust, that is foolharty...but you are recommending no trust ever, no matter how many years pass. Essentially, Once a pedophile always a pedophile. Once gay always.... Once trans always.... and so on.
This is the same thinking about homosexuality, and other sinful "orientations" the way the world views sexual orientation....like it can never ever be changed. I disagree....God changes people...period. He changes minds, He changes hearts, He changes desires, he changes futures...he changes everything. All Trust must be earned...but you are saying there is no way a pedophile can ever earn your trust....ever.

If I am reading you right grammatically : "all other sexual sins do not preclude someone from ministry or leadership" That means that all other( excluding the one mentioned) can minster except..... Did you mean that pedophiles could be given leadership too? If so then you should not have used the word "other" and i apologize for my exception.

Assuming I read you right: You are singling out offenders to be barred for life from the segment of church that tempts them. How can they go to any function without kids there?What happens if the offender is also a dad? Can he not even be at kids events for his own kids without an bouncer/escort? Church picnics,easter egg hunts, VBS, so much of church life has kids as part of the group...they might as well go back to prison. If they have kids...should they never see there kids again until they are adults?

Should homosexuals be barred from men's groups? or Lesbians barred from women's fellowships? If we start barring people from parts of the church that bring temptation then all groups should all be broken up by gender. Especially teens.

Using your example of someone who embezzled. If an accountant by trade who embezzled, did time and got out and became an accountant by trade again, and served the church faithfully in other capacities...even 30 yrs later... they would still be disqualified to serve as a treasurer/usher if all things are equal. That is no redemption.

THE PROBLEM with all of this and why I'm frustrated that you picked up on my one disclaimer: you CANNOT lump homosexuals and pedophiles into the same category. This shows ignorance of the issue. While it is true that most pedophiles are men (though some are women), it is not homosexuals who are pedophiles. Being a pedophile refers to being sexually attracted to CHILDREN. Pedophilia repulses heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. While within pedophilia there are those who prefer opposite or same sex victims, being a homosexual who is attracted to adults of the same sex does not make one a greater risk for being a pedophile.

I think you should read some other sources for facts about homosexual tendencies. The mainstream media has a very pro-gay position and doesn't tell you the real stats because it would make gays look worse.
1/3 of all pedophile cases are homosexual in nature, that is same gender offense. Homosexuality represents 1-3% of the general populace but 33% of offenses.....just do the math. Would you also have a problem with gays working with kids in church? You should.

http://www.hli.org/homosexuality_not_molestation.pdf
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005d/120905/120905i.htm
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/sexabuse.html
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/

The current worldview is that child sex offenders are not straight or gay but some other totally unique orientation. But why are so many more likely to be same-sex offenders than represented by the general populace? Here is the kicker: Why blame them any more than homosexuals for their inclinations if it is an "orientation"? If I were a betting man...in 40-50 years(the way psychology & society is going) pedophiles will be looked at as just another long misunderstood lifestyle group, and the age of consensual sex will be lowered to about 13 or 14, Like in ancient Rome.
Don't think it could happen? Hey, 35 yrs ago homosexuality was listed as a deviant mental disorder by APA, it was against the law in almost all states and they were discriminated against in harsh ways and society that supported shunning it.

So if it happens... the Body of Christ will adapt and serve, proclaiming the gospel to all.

[Billy Cox]

Saying someone is "gay" or "Bi" or "Trans" like it is written in marble is wrong.


I believe that most homosexual people (whether in or out of the closet) are hard-wired to be sexually attracted to the same gender. We have no difficulty accepting that heterosexual people do not choose to be attracted to the opposite gender, so why is so hard to imagine that homosexuals are any different?

Having said that, I do leave room for the possibility that a small number of people 'choose' to be gay because the gay community has loved and accepted them when they could not find similar affirmation in non-gay circles.

The irony for groups like Exodus that try to 'cure' gay people, is that people in the second group (the choosers) are probably driven deeper into the gay lifestyle by confrontational therapy.

[Roland Hamilton]

Having complemented the authors of this document previously, here are some criticisms and general comments:

1. I really dislike the use of terms such as "homosexual acts", "homosexual activity", "homosexual practice", etc, etc. Although I'm quite sure that those who use these terms assume they include any intimacy between persons of the same gender, see if this one makes sense: "heterosexual acts". Or, "what should the Church's position be on heterosexual activity"? Probably the logical response from most would be, "what specific type of acts or activity are we talking about? It makes a big difference, doesn't it? Defining exactly what acts or activity one is looking for with respect to Holy Scripture will have a big impact what answer one finds. If one looks for a reference to any same-gender relationship as condemnation of all such relationships, you will find some passages that will satisfy you. If you look for a passage that clearly condemns romantic love between two same-gender individuals, you may be disappointed - there aren't any.

2. The document notes (page 2) that "What the Bible does talk about are homosexual acts [aaaaargh - RH]. We need to be clear on this, and to not say more than the Bible says. One of the problems in the destructive debates that are taking place is the lack of clarity at this very point." Having made this important observation, the authors appear to miss one of the most obvious implications of it - i.e., what acts are referred to in the various passages that are listed in the following sections? Rape? Adults molesting children? Ritual prostitution? Promiscuous relationships? Oddly enough, no one seems to have noticed that none of the passages listed even suggests at a condemnation of romantic love between two persons of the same gender.

3. The authors state that "there is no indication that Israelites or Christians frequently struggled with the temptation or pull toward homosexual practices". My congratulations to the general superintendents for having discovered probably the only two groups of human beings among whom this particular phenomenon did not exist. I'm sure those in the scientific community who study these things will be quite interested.

4. The authors note that "for the first time in Scripture, female homosexual practice is rejected" in the New Testament. So.....for thousands of years there was no need to make any specific reference to gay female relationships. Oh, that's right, they didn't exist.

5. The authors note that "the few biblical texts that speak of homosexual activity all do so with unqualified disapproval....". So if all the references to it are negative, we should condemn it. The alternative of course is that the few biblical references to same-gender intimacy refer to very specific things (rape, promiscuity, ritual prostitution, etc) that deserve to be condemned - but NOT to every conceivable same-gender relationship.

6. How about the broader issue of permitting some latitude of belief for those who may not be gay, but who just don't completely agree with the General Superintendents' position on this, or at least making it clear that there is grounds for different opinions within the Christian community? Or is that something that should cause one to go looking for another denomination? Speaking for myself, I really could care less if others in my parish or denomination have differing opinions from my own - but I'll never belong to a local church that would tell my gay friends and family members that this is the only position one can have as a Christian, because I think it's wrong. This, in my estimation, will become more and more important as time progresses and the thinking of those in the Christian community continues to evolve.

There's much more that could be said to express why many of us in the Christian community are re-thinking this issue. The authors do deserve credit for a thoughtful and well-written document, but these issues really deserve a great deal more debate, which I hope will result from its distribution.

[Crystal Lutton]

Dale, I don't even know what to say as you can't possibly be reading my words and responding to meas you are. My words stand as what they are. Your arguments are something completely different. The two are incongruous.

[Crystal Lutton]

3. The authors state that "there is no indication that Israelites or Christians frequently struggled with the temptation or pull toward homosexual practices". My congratulations to the general superintendents for having discovered probably the only two groups of human beings among whom this particular phenomenon did not exist. I'm sure those in the scientific community who study these things will be quite interestedThis is an interesting claim from the document and not at all supported by the information I learned from my archaelogy professor at Fuller. The evidence he reported stated that the Israelites dealt with the issue of homosexuality (which I'm curious about God including instructions for life regarding this issue if they didn't have an issue with it. That seems an odd thing for him to have done.) by having them handle the dead. Because being gay made them unclean, and because touching the dead made them unclean, they lived ceremonially unclean but were put to use for society in that capacity.

I couldn't pull out the information to support it as this was a class years ago, but I thought that relevant.

As to your positions 2 and 4, Roland, I do believe Scripture is clear, in the OT, that same sex activity is viewed as sin by God. We don't have to always like his rules but he gets to express them and I don't buy the argument that what we find is only referring to adult/child sexual contact. That said, I agree there is no sin in same sex love--in fact, one of my frustrations with our modern culture is that I believe, especially for young people today, love and sex are so confused that when a young person experiences normal, healthy and necessary love for someone of the same sex they are encouraged to explore the ramifications of same sex sex and that violates God's Word. It's a shame to me that sexualizing of young children has led to homosexualizing of young children but I'm not surprized. Most of Western culture doesn't understand healthy love between anyone so we need the Church to teach it . . . maybe this statement can move us in the right direction towards filling this need. I suppose time will tell.

[Martijn van Beveren]

Roland,

Though I don't have a parish :basic02, I've read it too. I also found the parts you quote disturbing.
Even so, I appreciate the gesture, which is quite needed.

I'm temped to quote your whole text on here again :) Thx!

[Roland Hamilton]

Roland,

Though I don't have a parish :basic02,

Oh, I'm sorry you don't have a 'parochie' - I know there is at least one in Amersfoort - H. Georgius:

http://amersfoort.okkn.nl/

But, it's ok if you have a 'kerk' instead!


I've read it too. I also found the parts you quote disturbing.
Even so, I appreciate the gesture, which is quite needed.

I'm temped to quote your whole text on here again :) Thx!

Dank je wel, Martijn :)

[Roland Hamilton]

This is an interesting claim from the document and not at all supported by the information I learned from my archaelogy professor at Fuller. The evidence he reported stated that the Israelites dealt with the issue of homosexuality (which I'm curious about God including instructions for life regarding this issue if they didn't have an issue with it. That seems an odd thing for him to have done.) by having them handle the dead. Because being gay made them unclean, and because touching the dead made them unclean, they lived ceremonially unclean but were put to use for society in that capacity.

I couldn't pull out the information to support it as this was a class years ago, but I thought that relevant.

As to your positions 2 and 4, Roland, I do believe Scripture is clear, in the OT, that same sex activity is viewed as sin by God. We don't have to always like his rules but he gets to express them and I don't buy the argument that what we find is only referring to adult/child sexual contact. That said, I agree there is no sin in same sex love--in fact, one of my frustrations with our modern culture is that I believe, especially for young people today, love and sex are so confused that when a young person experiences normal, healthy and necessary love for someone of the same sex they are encouraged to explore the ramifications of same sex sex and that violates God's Word. It's a shame to me that sexualizing of young children has led to homosexualizing of young children but I'm not surprized. Most of Western culture doesn't understand healthy love between anyone so we need the Church to teach it . . . maybe this statement can move us in the right direction towards filling this need. I suppose time will tell.


Crystal, just to be clear - my point was only that adult/child relationships were one of many types of same-gender relationships, not that all passages referring to some type of same-gender relationship are referring to this.

As far as your other comments, I can only add that from my own experience there are lots of people outside the institutional Church, both straight and gay, who have a pretty good idea what healthy romantic love for another person is and really don't need to be lectured about that, especially by Churches that are full of people (even in leadership positions) who couldn't keep their own marriages together.

The Church can make an important contribution to helping all couples build healthy relationships - but it has to approach this issue with a lot more humility than what I've seen from churches in my lifetime. This document moves in the right direction - but there's a long way to go.

[Charles W Christian]

Crystal, just to be clear - my point was only that adult/child relationships were one of many types of same-gender relationships, not that all passages referring to some type of same-gender relationship are referring to this.

As far as your other comments, I can only add that from my own experience there are lots of people outside the institutional Church, both straight and gay, who have a pretty good idea what healthy romantic love for another person is and really don't need to be lectured about that, especially by Churches that are full of people (even in leadership positions) who couldn't keep their own marriages together.

The Church can make an important contribution to helping all couples build healthy relationships - but it has to approach this issue with a lot more humility than what I've seen from churches in my lifetime. This document moves in the right direction - but there's a long way to go.

Roland -
I think your points about our need for ongoing humility are valid and very relevant.

I think your second paragraph here has some flaws in the sense that they miss the point. People outside the "institutional Church" as well as people within are all created to express the love that Jesus (the institutor of the institutional Church, by the way) taught. I'm doubt that many outside have a "pretty good idea of healthy romantic love", and to state this seems just as naive as saying that all those within the Church have it all figured out. In other words, we are all seeking love -- the experience of it and the expression of it. This is best experienced in Christ, who is the head of the Church. Therefore, it is quite appropriate for the Church to address issues of relating to relationships, love, sex, etc.

We may not always agree with one another, and Lord knows I can be a thorn in regard to critiquing general and district leadership at times (in love); however, I think in this case it was a very appropriate and bold move on the part of the GS's to put forth such a document. They are the overseers of our denomination, and they have earned the right to be heard on such matters. The attempt was pastoral -- not as systematic as you would have liked (maybe not quite as systematic as I would have liked in places) -- however, the manner was indeed pastorally sensitive and their conclusions did demonstrate conclusions that have long been held in Church life.

With all its flaws, it is in and through the Church that God does His focused work of redemption and love. It is in and through the "institutional church" that we are called to serve, to grow, and even to learn. Along the way, as part of the "institutional church", we get to have our voices contribute to the direction of the Mission of God in the world.

The mission of God through the Church involves getting into the business of addressing matters of morals and relationships. In short, IT IS the Church's business, because we are entrusted by God (despite our own imperfections) to address it. Because of our imperfections, you are correct in noting that we are to do so with humility and with more monologue than dialogue.

I hear more monologue in your pronouncement that the church should "butt out" than I heard in the GS's attempt at a dialogical way of addressing this sensitive issue.

Thanks
Charles

[Jim Monck]

I'm not a pastor or clergy type person but am very grateful to have
read this document. I was uncertain as to the church's view on this
issue as it hasn't been really addressed in the short time I have
been attending a cotn.

How are most pastor's dealing with the statement the Generals sent out? Quoting in a sermon, attaining extra copies to pass out?

[Crystal Lutton]

Crystal, just to be clear - my point was only that adult/child relationships were one of many types of same-gender relationships, not that all passages referring to some type of same-gender relationship are referring to this. Thank you for clarifying. I have engaged with many who argue that all passages refer to this.

As far as your other comments, I can only add that from my own experience there are lots of people outside the institutional Church, both straight and gay, who have a pretty good idea what healthy romantic love for another person is and really don't need to be lectured about that, especially by Churches that are full of people (even in leadership positions) who couldn't keep their own marriages together. I'm glad your experience is with people who understand healthy love between same and opposite sex people. As a counselor and with the many women I work with online across denominations it's more my reality that many don't. And, as you express, even within the Church many don't understand healthy love.

The point I was attempting to make, however, was that same sex love is vital for the health and emotional stability of individuals. Just think about Anne of Green Gables and even Johnathon and David. What our culture today has done is sexualized love to the point where many young people feel that normal and healthy love and become confused by it. I do believe the Church needs to be equipped to deal with these issues.

The Church can make an important contribution to helping all couples build healthy relationships - but it has to approach this issue with a lot more humility than what I've seen from churches in my lifetime. This document moves in the right direction - but there's a long way to go. I agree with all of these opints.

[Roland Hamilton]

Roland -
I think your second paragraph here has some flaws in the sense that they miss the point. People outside the "institutional Church" as well as people within are all created to express the love that Jesus (the institutor of the institutional Church, by the way) taught. I'm doubt that many outside have a "pretty good idea of healthy romantic love", and to state this seems just as naive as saying that all those within the Church have it all figured out. In other words, we are all seeking love -- the experience of it and the expression of it. This is best experienced in Christ, who is the head of the Church. Therefore, it is quite appropriate for the Church to address issues of relating to relationships, love, sex, etc.

We may not always agree with one another, and Lord knows I can be a thorn in regard to critiquing general and district leadership at times (in love); however, I think in this case it was a very appropriate and bold move on the part of the GS's to put forth such a document. They are the overseers of our denomination, and they have earned the right to be heard on such matters. The attempt was pastoral -- not as systematic as you would have liked (maybe not quite as systematic as I would have liked in places) -- however, the manner was indeed pastorally sensitive and their conclusions did demonstrate conclusions that have long been held in Church life.

I hear more monologue in your pronouncement that the church should "butt out" than I heard in the GS's attempt at a dialogical way of addressing this sensitive issue.

Thanks for the feedback. Just a few comments in response:

1. From my own experience, I've seen all sorts of dysfunction in the (mostly very conservative) churches I've grown up in. I've also known many with no real involvement in churches who have been happily married for decades. The latter includes some gay couples. And of course the reverse is also true. So although I do NOT believe that the church should 'butt out' (as you eloquently stated) on matters like this, when I hear someone say that "Most of Western culture doesn't understand healthy love between anyone so we need the Church to teach it . ." as Crystal noted, I'm sorry but that's not my experience. And it comes across to many as arrogant.

2. The Church, having been dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way to admitting that, gay orientation may not be a choice (which gay people have been insisting for at least decades if not longer), now wants to lecture gays about sexuality as if it has credibility. Hello! The Church threw away much of its credibility by not being willing to listen to anything these people said in the first place. So you may think that it is the height of 'pastoral sensitivity' to say that even though we were wrong about that little detail, your relationship with your faithful partner of 21 years is disordered and sinful and you need us to teach you about healthy love (which you can't figure out without us) and you should join our church with all our divorced and remarried people so we can teach you how to love properly. Good luck selling that to gay people.

3. As I said before, I think this document moves the debate in the right direction, notwithstanding my criticisms of it. But it's important to at least try to look at this sort of thing from the other side (something that's easier to do if you have gay friends, family and fellow parishioners as we do).

[David Molle]

How are most pastor's dealing with the statement the Generals sent out? Quoting in a sermon, attaining extra copies to pass out?
this is the first Ive known about the document or the church's position.
bearing in mind I have not asked, researched nor am I attending any
church groups aside of sunday services.
so maybe I have missed it.

monologue: a prolonged talk or discourse by a single speaker, esp. one dominating or monopolizing a conversation.
dialogue: conversation between two or more persons.
dialogical: of, pertaining to, or characterized by dialogue.

I'm good now. please continue

[Crystal Lutton]

Roland, I understand what you are saying. I'd like the opportunity to clarify something you are reading very differently than I intended. I said
so we need the Church to teach it . . . maybe this statement can move us in the right direction towards filling this need. I suppose time will tell.
I was not at all intending to arrogantly suggest that the Church is in a position to teach this currently. I was saying that there is a need--and where there is a need in the world I believe it's the job of the Church to be God's means of meeting that need. And I then expressed my hope that this statement could move us in the direction of being able to do that.

I don't think we are saying anything too different on that point.

*edited to clarify something

[Dale Cozby]

I believe that most homosexual people (whether in or out of the closet) are hard-wired to be sexually attracted to the same gender. We have no difficulty accepting that heterosexual people do not choose to be attracted to the opposite gender, so why is so hard to imagine that homosexuals are any different? If this is so....then likewise other sins must be given to this hardwire effect. Someone is "hardwired" to be a thief, or a liar or a murderer. I doubt this to be the case. I am inclined to believe that we have a fallen nature and it inclines us to sinfulness. That coupled with environmental conditions early in life tend to shape the particular sins a person is most tempted with. A person who was beaten or abused as a child is more likely to become violent as an adult, a person with an alcoholic parent is more likely to become an alcoholic themselves. Children from divorced homes are much more likely to divorce themselves as adults and so forth....

Sin nature coupled with life experience and bad examples set the stage for our temptations later. BUT!! God changes minds, hearts, and futures.
"When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"
To me this supports the idea that God does not "wire" us to sin a certain sin. He didn't make you sin a certain way by inbreeding that sin into your soul.

Concerning environment and example: see Deuteronomy 5:8-10 I see this scripture as pointing to generational sin habits and examples.


If one looks for a reference to any same-gender relationship as condemnation of all such relationships, you will find some passages that will satisfy you. If you look for a passage that clearly condemns romantic love between two same-gender individuals, you may be disappointed - there aren't any.....Oddly enough, no one seems to have noticed that none of the passages listed even suggests at a condemnation of romantic love between two persons of the same gender.
Romantic love is "Eros" the word we get erotic from. So eroticism and romance are linked at the hip. It is the misuse of the word "love" in our society that clouds this issue so much. Love( erotic or otherwise) is not condemned in the Bible you are right. BUT it's misuse is very clearly condemned. God means a thing for good...yet man always finds a way to abuse it for personal gratification, out of ignorance, or even malice. Erotic love is no different. In the right context it is a good thing...in the wrong context it is a perverse/profane thing. If one becomes romantically involved with a child that is bad thing, if a family member that is a bad thing,if a person already married a bad thing, if a person of the same sex....you get the idea? Erotic love then can be perverted....same sex erotic love is a bad thing. You are trying to disconnect the erotic/romantic desire and mental need for "love" and acceptence from the "actions" of that "love".

In fact: All of the 7 deadly sins are perversions of things that God intended for our good, but man twists and makes it perverse.

Roland after reading to the bottom of your post..you might should consider a church that is more openly pro-gay since the CotN won't be anytime soon and this seems to be a big issue for you. I do agree that this issue will become more important over time. The church in the the west will eventually be divided with one side accepting homosexuality and a large host of other Scripture condemned sins into its membership and leadership and the other side not. Each side will look at the other and proclaim they are standing on the moral high ground. But in the end only God will judge both.

The irony for groups like Exodus that try to 'cure' gay people, is that people in the second group (the choosers) are probably driven deeper into the gay lifestyle by confrontational therapy. Seems like you may be just a bit judgmental there Billy. I have found that Exodus seeks to place itself where they can be accessed and can dialogue with the gay community...those within that community who want to inquire can do so....I don't think of that as confrontational....if it is....then all preaching of the gospel is confrontational because it says God can change your heart. The Love of God, His Way is the "cure" for all sins is it not?

[Greg Farra]

Thanks for the feedback. Just a few comments in response:

1. From my own experience, I've seen all sorts of dysfunction in the (mostly very conservative) churches I've grown up in. I've also known many with no real involvement in churches who have been happily married for decades. The latter includes some gay couples. And of course the reverse is also true. So although I do NOT believe that the church should 'butt out' (as you eloquently stated) on matters like this, when I hear someone say that "Most of Western culture doesn't understand healthy love between anyone so we need the Church to teach it . ." as Crystal noted, I'm sorry but that's not my experience. And it comes across to many as arrogant.

2. The Church, having been dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way to admitting that, gay orientation may not be a choice (which gay people have been insisting for at least decades if not longer), now wants to lecture gays about sexuality as if it has credibility. Hello! The Church threw away much of its credibility by not being willing to listen to anything these people said in the first place. So you may think that it is the height of 'pastoral sensitivity' to say that even though we were wrong about that little detail, your relationship with your faithful partner of 21 years is disordered and sinful and you need us to teach you about healthy love (which you can't figure out without us) and you should join our church with all our divorced and remarried people so we can teach you how to love properly. Good luck selling that to gay people.

3. As I said before, I think this document moves the debate in the right direction, notwithstanding my criticisms of it. But it's important to at least try to look at this sort of thing from the other side (something that's easier to do if you have gay friends, family and fellow parishioners as we do).

The problem with this is that some homosexuals don't want to listen as well. They have their advocacy groups in all of the big denominations. They have their minds made up. And we're not 'selling' anything. We're giving the life-changing gospel to a lost world that desperately need Jesus and his transforming power. I have looked at it from the other side. We studied the issue to death in the ELCA. I prefer the stand of the COTN.

Roland, can I ask which denomination you're a part of? I must admit, I find this post, especially #2, arrogant.

[Charles W Christian]

Roland H. -
I have not always been happy at all about Evangelicals have treated the issue of homosexuality, so we're in some agreement there. My wife and I have ministered to and become friends with many men and women who happen to be homosexuals.

I will say, though, that your posts paint a picture of homosexuals as almost better off without the Church in general, and with this I disagree. Furthermore, even statistically speaking, you greatly overestimate the situation regarding homosexual couples, it seems. I see even less stability and long-term strong relationships, statistically, in the gay community. Relationships are hard. Period.

The Church is created to be a place where the love of God creates true Community with God and others. This doesn't happen because we are perfect, but precisely because NONE of us is perfect and we are in need of the love of Christ to teach us to live and to love. This is true regardless of one's sin, struggle, or identity. A healthy church will not be filled with perfect people, and I agree with you that it should likewise not be filled with judgemental, short-sighted people as far as God's love is concerned. Howeever, to treat the church as if it were just some random option misses the point of God's entire work through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. At its best, the Church can draw us to God by creating God's community within us and among us. From there, God does the cleaning up. This cleaning may indeed mean forsaking actions that please us or even actions that we have a tendency toward (whether gay or straight).....

Blessings,
Charles

[Martijn van Beveren]

Oh, I'm sorry you don't have a 'parochie' - I know there is at least one in Amersfoort - H. Georgius:

http://amersfoort.okkn.nl/

But, it's ok if you have a 'kerk' instead!

Dank je wel, Martijn :)

I wonder how you got to this... I've been there once when they were practicing with a gregorian choir. This parish is located in the centre of Amersfoort. I heard it on the street while riding my bike, the doors were open , so I went in and just listened for a while. Spiritual moment...

It seems like you know a bit of dutch... how come?:fav06

[Martijn van Beveren]

If this is so....then likewise other sins must be given to this hardwire effect. Someone is "hardwired" to be a thief, or a liar or a murderer. I doubt this to be the case. I am inclined to believe that we have a fallen nature and it inclines us to sinfulness. That coupled with environmental conditions early in life tend to shape the particular sins a person is most tempted with. A person who was beaten or abused as a child is more likely to become violent as an adult, a person with an alcoholic parent is more likely to become an alcoholic themselves. Children from divorced homes are much more likely to divorce themselves as adults and so forth....


Hi Dale,

Of course you may doubt if a person can be born with an attraction to the same gender, but also consider that many people are also born with a handicap so to say. Some are born without leegs and have a wheelchair for the rest of their life, they were born with it (no! off course not the wheelchair:eek:). Some people have a minimal brain function where they were born with, and act like a 2 year old. Some are hyper intelligent, but are absent of any social skills. Some people are born without or double genitals and the doctors have to decide if it's a boy or a girl...
That's the grey area where we cannot be the judge of. And yes, I also affirm that there are those who are influenced by their childhood, and on the road to adulthood found comfort, joy in the same gender group because they are all labeled as outcast... (Matthew 19:13-14)
I see a picture where we play holy Christians, while we condemn the outcast because they don't abide by the law. But Jesus rebuked His disciples and said to them, do not hinder them to come to me.
That's why I struggle with drawing a hard line. are we here to judge? what about the splinter in the eye of our gay neighbor?
Is it possible to be healed from something, yes, though through experience we can see that even healing doesn't always happen, or even in a way we always want it to be done.


...

The church in the the west will eventually be divided with one side accepting homosexuality and a large host of other Scripture condemned sins into its membership and leadership and the other side not. Each side will look at the other and proclaim they are standing on the moral high ground. But in the end only God will judge both.

Seems like you may be just a bit judgmental there Billy. I have found that Exodus seeks to place itself where they can be accessed and can dialogue with the gay community...those within that community who want to inquire can do so....I don't think of that as confrontational....if it is....then all preaching of the gospel is confrontational because it says God can change your heart. The Love of God, His Way is the "cure" for all sins is it not?

Maybe in time... but we don't know when or how... should we then let them stand outside?

Martijn

[Richard Lighthill]

First of all, I want to thank Hans Deventer for his help and gracious phone call this morning and allowing me access to this forum.

I am pastor of Grace Fellowship Church of the Nazarene in La Pine, Oregon.
I have pastored here for 10 years and we are in the process of building
a new church sanctuary (doubling our capacity) and that as a result of
God's grace and help (I might write sometime and tell you all the miracles
that have made this possible, as we are a smaller congregation and there
are no wealthy folk amongst us!)
I am not an "old fashioned, dyed in the wool Nazarene."
Instead, I entered the COTN from being a pastor in the Assembly of God.
("Oh my!)
I chose to become a Nazarene because they stated that they
believed that nothing was beyond the redeeming grace of Christ
to transform the heart, soul, and the inclinations of the sinful
nature. They proclaimed, not "perfectionism" but a sanctifying
grace that, as Paul put it in Romans 12:1-2 would result in
a transformation of the mind, not a conformity to the world.

But what I read in the most recent Pastoral Perspectives on Homosexuality
is a presentation of the later and not the former.
I will list it all out in a later post, as I don't have time to do it now.

I received and have studied this document a number of times since.
And the more I read it the more I am concerned.

While I understand the general intent of the GS's on this issue
I do have a number of issues with...
...its theology and interpretation of some scriptures,
...its implications and how they came to the conclusions they espouse,
...and the solutions that they say we are to impliment.

And what concerns me most is that it is all stated categorically as "THE" position of the Church of the Nazarene.

I am an ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene and
I do not remember ever being involved or even asked to be
involved in a such a serious issue as this. Nor do I know of
any other elder who has. Yet this is now presented as our
"pastoral" position.

What would happen if this was read to our congregations
world-wide? Our people love Christ and love those caught
in sin, but we must beware lest we hand a certain class
of people an excuse for their "inclination" or their sins.

To say that this is "rarely a choice" flies in the face
of logic. If choice is not involved, there can be no conviction
of sin. If Christ cannot save us from our inclinations
what power does He have? Just to forgive? Then become a Baptist.

Jesus says that if a man lusts after a woman in his heart
that he has committed the sin of adultery already.
Would it not then be applicable to this issue if Jesus had said,
"If a man lusts after a man in his heart
he has already committed the sin of homosexuality" ?

In other words, the whole point of the Sermon on the Mount
is that in the Lord's view, it is not just an issue of "practicing" one's sins
that makes one guilty of sin, nor is it the abstenance from practicing
one's sins upon one's self or other that clears one of sin,
but that God demands purity in the heart, the thoughts.
And a sin there, is sin even if it is never outwardly practiced.

This document gives the homosexual a free pass from being
convicted of the sins of his/her thoughts just so long as
they are "celibate" in their actions!
Sounds like a Pharisee, who outwardly is pure
but inside content to not have the
thoughts and intents of their hearts transformed!

That is just one contention I have in this document.

I'll post the rest of my concerns later. Thanks for reading.

Adios

[Hans Deventer]

First of all, I want to thank Hans Deventer for his help and gracious phone call this morning and allowing me access to this forum.

You're welcome.

This document gives the homosexual a free pass from being convicted of the sins of his/her thoughts just so long as
they are "celibate" in their actions!

Yes, that's how I read it as well.

Sounds like a Pharisee, who outwardly is pure but inside content to not have the thoughts and intents of their hearts transformed!

I didn't read it that way. As I understood it, the generals proceeded (mostly) from the Wesleyan definition of sin, the voluntary transgression of the known law of God. However, the question is if a homosexual inclination fits that definition. I think not, and apparently, they didn't so either.

Now it is absolutely true that God can heal any physical defect in us. Experience shows that He does so quite rarely, that's why we call it miracles. Paul got the answer that his problem wasn't removed but God's grace would be sufficient anyway. It seems the generals followed that example, still holding a door open for complete healing.

I think the heart of the discussion is the question if a homosexual inclination is a moral deficiency or not. If not, the general's points follow logically. If it is, your point follows logically.

So the burden is on the proof that a homosexual inclination is an act by a morally responsible person.

[Charles W Christian]

And what concerns me most is that it is all stated categorically as "THE" position of the Church of the Nazarene.

I am an ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene and
I do not remember ever being involved or even asked to be
involved in a such a serious issue as this. Nor do I know of
any other elder who has. Yet this is now presented as our
"pastoral" position.

What would happen if this was read to our congregations
world-wide? Our people love Christ and love those caught
in sin, but we must beware lest we hand a certain class
of people an excuse for their "inclination" or their sins.

To say that this is "rarely a choice" flies in the face
of logic. If choice is not involved, there can be no conviction
of sin. If Christ cannot save us from our inclinations
what power does He have? Just to forgive? Then become a Baptist.

Jesus says that if a man lusts after a woman in his heart
that he has committed the sin of adultery already.
Would it not then be applicable to this issue if Jesus had said,
"If a man lusts after a man in his heart
he has already committed the sin of homosexuality" ?

In other words, the whole point of the Sermon on the Mount
is that in the Lord's view, it is not just an issue of "practicing" one's sins
that makes one guilty of sin, nor is it the abstenance from practicing
one's sins upon one's self or other that clears one of sin,
but that God demands purity in the heart, the thoughts.
And a sin there, is sin even if it is never outwardly practiced.

This document gives the homosexual a free pass from being
convicted of the sins of his/her thoughts just so long as
they are "celibate" in their actions!
Sounds like a Pharisee, who outwardly is pure
but inside content to not have the
thoughts and intents of their hearts transformed!

That is just one contention I have in this document.

I'll post the rest of my concerns later. Thanks for reading.

Adios


Welcome, first of all, Richard!

In the CoTN, the GS's aren't required to consult all of us in order to express a matter of pastoral concern. So, they are doing just that and no more.

Inclination is not the same as sin. Lust is sin, but an inclination toward it is not necessarily so in every case, right? One can be born with all kinds of predispositions based upon environment, genetics, etc. Some are more talkative, some are not, etc. Maybe the more talkative person is inclined toward more trouble, but their talkative nature does not make them sinners per se.

We all have inclinations toward sin, as our Manual reminds us. These inclinations do not necessarily equal sinning. If a person is born with some sort of attraction/inclination that is same-sexed, that doesn't automatically mean that they are bound to sin all the time. It does mean that they should be aware (if I'm reading the GS document correctly) that this inclination can lead to sins which the Chuch explicitly does not condone. and which the Bible seems not to condone as well.

If a person walks by a bar and really itches to drink, have they sinned already? Maybe -- maybe not. They sure need to be aware that the inclination is there, and if they do drink, then what? Well, at very least, they need to probably be aware of an inclination toward moving into sin, maybe more quickly than the person next to them....

Anyway, my point is that the GS letter was of a pastoral nature. It seemed to try and demonstrate sensitivity toward the complicated nature of sex and sexual identity and to the (often neglected or quickly shunned) struggles of homosexuals and people who are struggling with sexual identity and temptation.

I'm not sure I would argue for every word in the document, of course. However, I appreciate the attempt and the sensitivity and Christlike compassion mixed with a serious attempt to maintain boundaries that I see in the letter. I'm looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts on the matter, too.... Those are just some of mine that your post made me think of.

Thanks!

Charles

[Glenn Messer]

In my experience, I have always had more problems from GOSSIPS and Thieves than from homosexuals. (Gossips and thieves can resurrect that 'corporate' desire to commit murder someone wrote about.) I just finished reading the full statement and, for the most part, find I am in agreement with it. I think that brief summations are likely to be unfair representations of what it actually contains. For instance, I don't think the words, "God cannot" were used. The greater miracle may be the grace to "lay aside the sin that so easily entangles...".

I confess that as I age, my theology (40+ years in ministry) is shaped more deeply by life's experiences interpreted through my limited knowledge of the Word. The more I am in God's Word, the more I am amazed by how much I don't know. I suspect (IMHO, is that right? I don't do text messages so this may just be the first time I've ever used a text abbreviation!) that some future day some folks will stand in the judgment courts of eternity and realize they wasted a lot of time 'second-guessing' God.

[Glenn Messer]

Ok, I'm slow at typing and I just read some of the other. What does it mean to "lust" after a woman. I'm not sure scripture fully defines it. What I do know is that I never met a guy who would confess that the first time he ever saw his "wife to be" (may not have even known her name yet), his first observation was, "That's the ugliest gal I've ever seen. I think I'll marry her." When I first met my wife, there was strong physical attraction. It was the grace of God and a strong fear of possible repercussions that enabled control until marriage. There, I've said it and I don't feel the least bit guilty!

[Eric Frey]

Do the GS not have the authority to make official interpretations of the Manual? I'll have to do some checking. Perhaps you can help me out with that. I am pretty sure that they can and I am even more sure that they should make these kind of clarifying statements on issues not clearly articulated.

It comes back to the authorty of the Church. The Church has not only the authority, but also the responsibility to clearly state what it believes and teaches officially regaurding a given topic.

Parishoner says to pastor: "what does the Church teach about homosexuality?"

Pastor says: "It says nothing, but I can tell you what I believe."

This is hardly an adequate response. Now I can concretely teach scripture and doctrine because the BGS has clearly given us an authoritative statement of what the Church does teach about homosexuality, scripture, and doctrine.

Thank you BGS.

[Glenda Harvey]

I like that the Nazarene Church is not insisting that homosexuals must be reoriented in order to be saved. It should be enough that they allow the Holy Spirit to deliver them from lust and from sexual sins. We do not need to insist that they become attracted to the opposite sex. This is something that should be between them and God.

[John Kennedy]

There, I've said it and I don't feel the least bit guilty!

I'm reasonably sure if you can hang on for a bit, we'll be able to round up a number of people who will be glad to tell you why you should feel guilty.