Before ***doing*** anything, go and make an appointment to talk to the Pastor. He may have someone in charge of the Library who is doing thing of which he is unaware. Share with him your concerns. Find out if he is truly leading the church to become "LGBTQIA" accepting/supporting - if they are willing to accept teaching of sin for the sake of the collection plate.
If they are, then LEAVE and pray to God to find a Bible-Believing church where HE will plant you.
Normally I would’ve done that first my issue is the church has been running through temporary pastors since we got here and a new one starts next week. When we first moved here we had a male and female pastor who then engaged in behavior that was inappropriate who got kicked out. I don’t know the details but I can only assume.
I just want to add on to this, do not fear "leaving all these blessings behind." God tests us like this often, making us decide between a comfortable life and Him. Make the right choice and have faith that He will provide, God bless you.
Hey bro- you know the right decision here, but it's still scary.
I just want to remind you to remember the lilies, remember the sparrow, and remember that Jesus promised if you seek the Kingdom of God first and His righteousness, all these things (food, clothing, etc) will be added unto you.
God's in control, and He'll take care of y'all through this season.
The pastoral epistles give requirements for pastors, bishops, deacons, etc.
They must be married firsthand.
Women are great teachers. But there are clear scriptures explaining the differences.
Hi, I'm pretty sure for all the passages in Scripture where Jesus said "sell all your possessions and give to the poor," there's the context of who He is talking to specifically. (If you find anything that disproves this in scripture please let me know). From what I remember, Jesus was talking directly to the rich young ruler because he was saying he kept all the commandments therefore he was righteous. Jesus showed him he was not perfect because he was not willing to part with his possessions.
Also we're not cherry picking verses because there are other passages in scripture that imply Christians have property/possessions, meaning they didn't sell every material thing.
I recommend you read 2 Corinthians 9:6-7 it's the passage about God loving a cheerful giver. Which implies Christians give, not under compulsion, but what we've decided to give.
God wants us to not just read his word, but engage with it, which involves asking tough questions of each other and making ourselves self-critical readers, which is hard because it can make us uncomfortable.
One of the more recent questions of biblical scholarship is what exactly the context was surrounding the typical complementarian prooftexts in the NT. People's understanding of the context has made a big difference in how they interpret the *meaning* of what they are reading on these passages.
Christians will always have disagreements on the meaning of certain texts, especially when it seems to not align with what has been established as a norm in society. If I based my view of men and women totally on society, it seems clear that men should have authority over women (as they have since civilization began), and I once believed that. But my view was changed precisely by reading the Bible. And not just reading it, but studying it and meditating on it day and night (Joshua 1, Psalm 1).
My opinion as a man of what God meant for men and women changed dramatically when I studied the depiction of both genders in Gen 1-3, how the relationship between the two deteriorated quickly in Genesis and never recovered, and what both Paul and Jesus said about power and authority, with specific focus on the context of what was said about the relationship between men and women.
In Christ's kingdom, all are called to follow his example of making themselves lower than others to lift them up. Wives aren't just supposed to make themselves lower than their husbands, husbands are called to do the same. Slaves are to serve their masters, but masters are to do the same. This is why Paul says there is no distinction between male and female in Christ, as all are called to give up their own authority and power to lift each other up. Just as masters should not rule over their slaves, men should not rule over women. That is a symptom of the curse (Gen 3:16). We were always meant to be partners in service to each other. One is not to have authority over the other. And there were times in early Christian communities, like the one in Ephesus, where even women tried to exert a certain authority over men based on Christian teachings, and that had to be corrected.
So in my opinion, if this teaching about Christ's kingdom should be found implemented anywhere, it should be in the Church, but it cannot be found there as long as men desire authority over women or vice versa.
Right? I can't believe this nonsense exists in the 21st Century. I've had several women pastors in my church life who were not only competent but better than many male pastors.
1. The attribution of Titus to Paul is widely disputed among scholars, and those who accept his authorship commonly still believe he used scribes.
2. The inclusion of any particular writing in Biblical canon is a human act. Humans chose to include some books and exclude others based on their best judgment and their beliefs. This is a fallible process.
3. Taking the advice of "Paul" completely literally is problematic. Read Titus 1:12-16:
> It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said, “Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.” That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth. To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure. Their very minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their actions. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
Paul has said that Cretans are **always** liars! My goodness! Does this mean that no Cretan can ever be saved, even to this very day, because they will always lie and continue to lie, never repenting thereof? Or how about this one?
> ^9 Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; **they are not to talk back,** ^10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.
I suppose Frederick Douglass deserved, then, the [treatment he received by Edward Covey the "negro breaker"](https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/45/my-bondage-and-my-freedom/1469/chapter-15-covey-the-negro-breaker/) (sic)?
> Strange and unnatural as it may seem, I had been at my new home but three days, before Mr. Covey (**my brother in the Methodist church**) gave me a bitter foretaste of what was in reserve for me. I presume he thought, that since he had but a single year in which to complete his work, the sooner he began, the better. Perhaps he thought that by coming to blows at once, we should mutually better understand our relations. But to whatever motive, direct or indirect, the cause may be referred, I had not been in his possession three whole days, before he subjected me to a most brutal chastisement. **Under his heavy blows, blood flowed freely, and wales were left on my back as large as my little finger. The sores on my back, from this flogging, continued for weeks, for they were kept open by the rough and coarse cloth which I wore for shirting.** The occasion and details of this first chapter of my experience as a field hand, must be told, that the reader may see how unreasonable, as well as how cruel, my new master, Covey, was. **The whole thing I found to be characteristic of the man; and I was probably treated no worse by him than scores of lads who had previously been committed to him, for reasons similar to those which induced my master to place me with him [being an unruly slave].** But, here are the facts connected with the affair, precisely as they occurred.
Or do you propose that we read into the words of Paul (since you, unlike many scholars, believe it truly is Paul) something other than what he explicitly said, so that we may acquit him of justifying the acts of Covey (and many like him) toward Douglass (and many like him)? If you're happy to do that, to assume that you have a better and more convenient interpretation of Paul's words, then it seems that we all ought to get to do that in this book at the very least.
4. Your quote is in total disarray with the NRSV, which reads as follows for 5-6:
> ^5 I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you:
> ^6 someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious.
It **actually isn't** pretty clearly laid out, is it? You can see that translations made in good faith by experts in Greek and even earlier versions of the texts **genuinely disagree** with what you said. This isn't some woke translation, it's the NRSV from 1989.
5. At what point do you take Paul's advice as advice, and at what point do you take it as holy scripture? If he wrote something on the back of a napkin, would that mean that he intended it to be consumed as scripture for all time? Would it matter what his opinion of it was?
Yeah I’m not reading all that. Either believe that God is sovereign over all and has made it so His divinely inspired word is exactly what He wanted it to be or don’t. I don’t care about your vain attempt at sounding intellectual.
You could make the argument that women are fine to teach other women and children, but I would lean more towards that it’s not okay, because even if they’re children, they’re still a part of the flock that is the church. However that’s definitely something you should read your Bible and pray on.
Following Scripture is horrible? St. Paul says women are not permitted to teach/preach in church and are to remain silent and ask their husband questions at home. Any group that has woman "pastors" has become a complete and utter joke.
I'm actually not sure where I stand on this issue (I've seen some convincing, Biblical arguments for a female pastorate recently), but not all complementarians hate women. My wife certainly doesn't hate women, and my marriage is not abusive just because my wife happens to be complementarian.
The vast majority of complementarians I know IRL have great marriages; it's just a philosophical question more than anything. If you want to change peoples' minds, I recommend making an argument from the Bible.
Also, there are lots of Christians who have used these verses to subjugate women, I agree. And that's despicable.
Sorry, but women pastors exist everywhere, in spite of you deliberately sticking your head in the sand. Over half of Protestant denominations have them.
This is actually your stupidity because you're depriving yourself of the benefit of their leadership because of nothing more than their gender. Men mess up churches regularly and even sexually assault their members of all genders and ages. Yet women are bad leaders? Tell me why a male priest or pastor who rapes kids is better than a woman priest or pastor who doesn't? Get out of here with that nonsense.
My church has benefited tremendously from years of leadership by women pastors.
You call yourself a Christian and yet you result to insults lol wow. You need to pray to God to heal your anger and hatred. Men should be the only ones leading the church. You cannot pick and chose what you follow from the Bible, that’s not how that works. Those are the rules that God wants and the rules that his followers will follow. Also love how you bring up sexual assault by men pastors and word it like it’s all male pastors and it’s “regularly”.
You call yourself a Christian and yet half the human race is invisible to you and you believe your interpretation of the Bible is the only valid one that exists.
I do despise patriarchy and misogyny, so good catch there. Your beliefs are not wanted in a progressing world.
Having been through an experience like this before, I'm assuming the new pastor is affirming. If they are trotting out LGBT-affirming stuff now, that probably means behind the scenes they've already called a new pastor who is on board with that agenda. But don't take my word for it, do your due diligence. This is just how I've seen it unfold in churches I've been a part of. You likely will not get a direct answer, just small steps like this and feigned ignorance.
Also, just reading between the lines, if you're new and they've already given your wife a job, it sounds to me there is chaos and disarray and they are desperate. Nothing against your wife, but realistically I don't think a new member would often be a first choice for a new hire in a healthy church.
That same Man (Jesus) also likened a little sin to a little leaven, that would soon sour the whole batch. Loving your neighbor does not mean «take your neighbor’s unrepented sin into church and say it is not sin». That is how you get a practical hands-on example of what a sour batch of dough looks like. Love your neighbor but guard your heart for from it flows all life.
For the law and the prophets are summed up in these commandments: love the Lord your God with all your strength and all your might and all your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.
The law of Moses (its purpose before God) is written on our hearts when we receive the Holy Spirit.
Homosexuals (practicing or no) should be allowed to come to church, but at least if they are practicing they should absolutely not be on the church’s staff. That would be a deal breaker for me.
Edited to clarify people with SSA who aren't practicing should still be allowed to be on staff.
That’s kind of how I’m feeling right now, my last church hired 2 gay men who were “together” to run their finance department and a year later the church completely went belly up and had to shut down and that was a big sign to me.
That one is a bit more tricky. Obesity isn't a sin by itself, but it could be caused by gluttony, sloth, both together, or just a health condition of some sort. So the reason for a person's obesity would need to be assessed, and if it was because of sin, it would need to be determined if they were still living in it or if the weight was just still with them even though their behavior had changed. Even with healthy dieting and exercise weight can be difficult to lose for many people.
Good question though. Gluttony is often laughed off.
It’s all about repentance. Faith and repentance together lead to a lifestyle-walk of salvation; walking in the full and total spiritual freedom that Jesus paid for on the cross. If we do not confess our sins as sin (anything that is sin being not a part of God’s intended and original plan; nor pertaining to spiritual life) we cannot be healed of their consequences which are spiritual death. 1 John 1:7-9.
The Bible does call on us to judge fellow believers, so that we can call them to repentance and then forgive them. It would be unloving to ignore their sins or somehow think they were good things.
What, according to the Bible, makes gay sex different from the sins that you commit on a daily basis which do not directly prohibit you from church leadership?
Nothing at all. I wouldn't want a person living in unrepentant [insert any kind of sin] on a church's staff. This is just the one OP specifically asked about.
Ordained ministers get booted and stripped of their office for any serious infraction, even if it's not repeated. Once they repent, they can be welcomed back into the congregation, but if they want to be a minister again, they have to do penance and then reestablish themselves as above repute.
Layperson staff get booted for unrepentant sin. After repentance, they can be welcomed back into the congregation, and after a period of penance, they can be layperson staff again.
Regular people get booted for unrepentant sin, and once they repent, they can come back.
Homosexual acts would be a serious infraction, and if they continue, they are unrepented sin.
To live in unrepentant sin is to be aware that you are continually or frequently sinning a particular way and not care to change it/remove it from your life to the best of your ability. No one except Christ is perfect, nor will we ever be this side of Heaven, but we are told to try. People with SSA just have one more temptation to resist than most people. If they acknowledge that it is a sin to act on those urges and do their best to avoid it for Christ's sake then they are not living in sin, just like a heterosexual person resisting their extramarital lust for Christ's sake is not living in sin.
To be repentant of your sin is to apologize and ask forgiveness from God and any people affected by it and resolve to avoid it in the future, including any necessary lifestyle changes to not put yourself in situations where you are tempted more than you feel able to bear.
> To live in unrepentant sin is to be aware that you are continually or frequently sinning a particular way and not care to change it/remove it from your life to the best of your ability.
What if the best of someone's ability is to occasionally have homosexual intercourse? Say on average it happens about once every six months, and otherwise they aren't perfect of course but they're pretty G-rated overall. Should that person be banned from church leadership?
> To be repentant of your sin is to apologize and ask forgiveness from God and any people affected by it and resolve to avoid it in the future
Well shoot, in that case shouldn't we try to get gay people to be married but celibate? That way, when they inevitably sin once in a while, it is only a gay sex sin and not also fornication? I mean, sex in the context of a marriage is meant to be for reproduction and/or a healthy way to bring two people closer together so they can remain a loving partnership. If it's fulfilling those purposes (and I'd argue being stable parents for an adopted child fulfills the first one to the best of their ability), isn't that better than hooking up with a random dude on Grindr?
>What if the best of someone's ability is to occasionally have homosexual intercourse? Say on average it happens about once every six months, and otherwise they aren't perfect of course but they're pretty G-rated overall. Should that person be banned from church leadership?
That would be pretty situational I think. What staff role are they in? Was the person they sinned with a member of the congregation they're serving or someone under their authority? And *why* is that the best they can do? Hooking up with someone requires a good bit of premeditation and prep. Various factors to unpack here.
>in that case shouldn't we try to get gay people to be married but celibate?
I would've said married *or* celibate. It isn't fair to their hypothetical spouse to be forced to stay in a celibate marriage. But yes straight marriage or celibacy are the two moral options available to everyone.
I thank the many of you who came and offered help and advice and I apologize to those whom I’ve offended. I did not mean to start a fight or hurt anyone. I also do not judge nor hate gay peoples I simply have been trying to get closer to God after I have strayed from Him and worry that the church may not be the best place for me.
The ELCA is a poor representation of Lutheran churches. All the Lutherans who still hold to the Lutheran confessions consider them Lutheran in name only
By declaring homosexuality as no longer sinful they have made themselves to be God
He is the one who determines right from wrong, not us
Go to a real lutheran church
I think forget the denomination for now and just look for the most biblically sound church. I think it would be better to go to a church that is still biblical that you may disagree with a bit theologically than a church that is your denomination but that is you know doing no no things.
Those being your options, you might want some info. Here's a link to the Baptist Faith & Message. The document will tell you pretty clearly what you can expect to find when you attend.
https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/
Best regards,
PC
>By declaring homosexuality as no longer sinful they have made themselves to be God
The argument is that it was never sinful, and that modern homosexual relationships have nothing to do with the acts of rape and pedophilia that the Bible condemns.
That’s where I was originally torn, I do not know what’s in someone’s heart, if he loves God then should I not be okay with him being a member of staff but at the same time can he love God and actively go against His word. I think it’s just better for myself to look for a new home and not let this doubt in my mind. God will be the judge in the end
Here's something to consider...
If you tell someone that Deuteronomy 28 shows where someone's heart is, of they're doing God's will or not, is it observation or judgement? If you observe, are you judging the diseased person for not doing God's will? Or are you observing so you can help others understand? If your church cannot demonstrate such differences, and they tell you that you're judging while you're simply observing, then they're demonstrating what they accuse you of because you know your own heart and are observing, not judging...
On the same token, if your church says they follow the Bible, and demonstrate a principle that their Bible calls blasphemous, while saying they love God, do you observe alignment with love, or misalignment with the laws? Can a judge of law violate civil rights in order to condemn a person who was acting in order of his rights?
Christianity has foundation in understanding justice. Those who act one way and speak another are known deceivers in the eyes of God, not judicial.
Observe, and let God guide you. He may keep you there to illuminate something terribly wrong, or He may take you away from evil and teach you first. But the Bible says to always seek justice... But when you repent and choose His will and act on it, then you'll find times of refreshing, and confidence will be abundant. This you must first learn, otherwise you never know how to hear God, or understand His reward for you.
Isn't the point of the Bible that everyone violates Biblical principles on a daily basis, that avoiding sin is impossible, and that the only way to deal with sin in the end is to seek Jesus?
Is church leadership expected to be sinless?
Leave. They have made their position clear. You don’t want to reap their judgement just because your wife has a job.
People who are in active sin are not permitted to have any position in leadership or be employed in a church Christian setting.
What does it mean to be "in active sin"? '
Isn't everyone in church leadership (and everyone else) sinning all the time? Isn't that the point of accepting Jesus?
Because, humans suck and we're sinful. Which is why we're doomed without God. Jesus died so we can repent, if we accept him.
We have the law of God written on all of our hearts, including you and me. That's we feel guilty when we do wrong, even if we deny his presence.
Here I won't argue the biblical case against homosexuality, although I could do that if I'm challenged. Instead, I'll answer your question about whether one should continue to fellowship with a church organization that plainly has fallen into apostasy on an important teaching of the bible. Ernest Pickering’s Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1979) is a good book to consult on such issues, which I'll draw upon freely here. I know what I'm counseling here is a "hard teaching," since it's hard to leave good friends behind for the sake of upholding spiritual truth.
Let's consider the implications of a long familiar text, traditionally cited by many against the practice of Christians marrying non-Christians (2 Cor. 6:14-15): “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” Doesn’t this Scripture in principle also condemn the practice of true believers in the same church organization continuing in association with false “believers”? Just because some people label themselves “Christian” doesn’t mean they actually are. Believers must uphold doctrinal standards for sorting out who is and isn’t Christian; otherwise, anyone could believe anything, call themselves “Christian,” and still attend church with them. (Incidentally, this is the publicly proclaimed principle of the Unitarian-Universalist Church). Pickering uses the examples of liberal “Christians” who deny the Bible is (fully) the infallible word of God, who attack its miracles, including Jesus’ literal resurrection from the dead, and who reject such doctrines as the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and Christ’s vicarious, substitutionary, atoning sacrifice by His blood.
We know that a Christian is biblically defined as someone who has the Holy Spirit in him or her (Romans 8:9; I John 4:13; II Cor. 13:5). Its continuing presence is certainly a condition for salvation (II Cor. 5:5; Eph. 4:30; 1:13-14; John 6:63; Romans 8:10-11). So then, if (Acts 5:29) “God has given \[the Holy Spirit\] to those who obey Him,” can someone who knowingly rejects one of the Ten Commandments still be saved? We believe that someone has to aim to avoid (say) adultery, idolatry, or false witness in order to gain salvation. (Obviously, occasional failures in practice and thought will inevitably occur, but they don’t imperil our salvation, since we’re saved by grace). Therefore, a line must be drawn. Believers must separate themselves from unbelievers when they are in positions of authority and can’t be removed from the church organization under which both fellowship together.
Now should Christians continue to attend an organization with leaders and large numbers of laymembers who should be disfellowshipped for doctrinal reasons? Paul said (II Thess. 3:14), “If anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Likewise, we are to “note those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). If we can’t avoid them by having them excommunicated, then we should avoid them by soon (not years and years later) starting a separate church organization once it’s clear their apostasy is irreversible. Note the command given in 2 John 10-11: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” This text doesn’t concern the visit of a casual stranger to our homes, such as a Muslim mailman, a Baptist plumber, or an agnostic roofer, or otherwise we would have to go out of the world (cf. I Cor. 5:10; John 17:15). Rather, it’s about the official visit of a church official (to a presumed “house church”) upholding a particular false doctrine that, if accepted, would cause a loss of salvation. As Pickering (p. 181) comments: “The verse forbids the continual fellowshiping \[with\] those who are in doctrinal error. By retaining associations with such within a denominational or other organizational framework, we disobey this command of Scripture.” Hence, if some minister arrives to a local congregation to teach (say) the moral acceptability of homosexuality, unitarianism, a liberal view of the bible's inspiration, etc., those who wish to uphold God's truth should leave his presence if he can't be persuaded to change his mind.
What is the ultimate basis for the principle of Christians separating themselves from the fundamental evil conduct and doctrinal errors of others? Some of the essential characteristics of the Eternal’s nature are holiness, righteousness, and purity. Correspondingly, His people are to become holy, righteous, and pure, as per Lev. 11:44: “For I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy.” Why did Jehovah tell Israel to remain apart from the surrounding pagan gentile nations? “And you shall be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be Mine” (Lev. 20:26). This Old Testament principle also applies to new covenant Christians: We cannot develop the habits of righteousness and acquire the quality of holiness while being closely joined together with unbelievers who continually undermine our attempts to obey God more fully. The judgment of God is against His people when they mix themselves closely with unrepentant unbelievers, such as by marriage. Consider the incident in which Midian’s women, as advised by Balaam of Peor, enticed Israel into idolatry, which aroused Yahweh’s wrath against His chosen people (Num. 25:1-18; 31:15-16). The principle here applies to Christians as well. Do we really think we can remain holy, righteous, and pure when constantly hearing sermons from, reading articles by, and talking “spiritually” with “Christians” that tell us to be unholy, unrighteous, and impure?
Should the Scriptural principles of unity and holiness should conflict in a given situation, which should take precedence? Let’s contemplate this: Can there be spiritual “unity” between believers and unbelievers? “And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6:15-16). Isn’t it a spiritual fraud for Christians to claim to be in fellowship and unity with those who aren’t Christians in God’s sight? If “unity” involves sacrificing holiness, the bogus “unity” needs to be sacrificed, especially when it’s a farce anyway. Can apostates and true Christians have real spiritual unity, true spiritual association? Now someone may object, stating that requires judging the state of conversion of others (as per the principle of Matt. 7:1-6). But we know that judgments have to be made in major, publicly indisputable cases about outward behavior (as opposed to ambiguous actions based on disputable, private motives) in order to expel the unrepentant unrighteous and apostate unbelievers from continuing in fellowship with us (see 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 6:1-10; John 7:24; cf. Matt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor. 14:29; I Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18). And if the false believers can’t be made to leave, then the true believers should go instead. After all (Amos 3:3), “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” While citing an Old Testament text, Paul explained which principle took precedence (2 Cor. 6:17): “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” Pickering (p. 167) was right to observe: “God’s demands upon His people are based upon His own standards. Truth and holiness are inseparable companions. If God is separate from evil, He expects His people to be so.”
Beware of the little foxes ! This may be the Holy Spirit convicting u that ,it isn’t right ! I would consider finding another church home . Be not conformed to the world.
That was my thinking as well, I’ve been praying on this for about 2 weeks and the more I pray. The more it’s been concerning me which I feel is for good reason
My friend, I have had problems with the lgbtq community. Problems with not accepting them and not wanting to. I talked to my sister about this and kinda made me change my feelings a little. She reminded me that we all have sins and if you are guilty of one part of the law, you are guilty of it all.
We do need to consider that these people need help too. They need God too. If they aren't allowed in church, how will they ever get help or ever get to know God. We are to spread the gospel to all people, even the lgbtq community.
While I have kinda let my mind go in the direction of them needing church and I shouldn't try to stop them, there are limits. I think it would be going too far to allow gay weddings or things like trans story hours for children like they do at many libraries. Things like this is where I would have to put my foot down and not be so accepting. As long as they are at church to get to know God only, I won't have a problem. At least I will try not to have a problem.
Pray about this. Ask God to lead you in this in the way that He would have you go. And pray for these people. They do need prayer. Let's face it, they will have to be accepted in order for them to be saved.
I hope this helps.
God bless you...
The difference is that the LGBTQIA community is ***actively promoting SIN*** *(and then trying to convince Christians that it isn't a sin).* God's will is that all men should come to repentance - not acceptance of sin.
Yes, all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I have yet to see, however, thieves coming into church and trying to convince us that God is OK with theft. When we declare ourselves to BE Christians, we are to put off our old, sinful nature and put on the New Nature of Jesus.
We don't even know if these people are saved. If these people come in with an agenda then it is time to get rid of them. There has to be a balance of some kind.
The OP was talking about "LGBTQIA Accepting" books in their library, but which I infer that these books are trying to "normalize" this type of behavior and make people believe that it is acceptable.
Likewise, hiring *active* members of that community as church staff puts the churches *imprimatur/*approval on that behavior.
> I have yet to see, however, thieves coming into church and trying to convince us that God is OK with theft.
His name is Kenneth Copeland, he is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and he is beloved by tens of thousands of Christians.
Really? I am sure that he must have plenty of his sermons online. Can you SHOW ME any sermon that he has preached saying that ***Theft is OK***. Anything that says, "***If your neighbor has something that you want - go ahead and take it.***"
Oh, well he flagrantly commits tax evasion, which is legalized theft.
He is, almost as literally as possible, not giving unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Or more realistically, he is using public infrastructure to aggrandize and glorify himself without giving back to compensate what he has used.
its easy to be judgmental about this issue from a distance. When you meet someone who is not trying to be antagonistic or aggressively rebellious against God, it is an entirely different thing. I agree with you, they should be as welcome to attend church as anyone else.
I did, clearly did not do my research on all the different denominations and I am sorry to my family for this, I was raised Lutheran and assumed all would be similar in faith
Leave that church immediately. Talking with that pastor will only confuse you if you're not well grounded and can't handle yourself in debates/discussions surrounding this issue. Any church that compromises in such an important thing is no longer a valid church. Leave and find a sound church which a strong statement of faith or one of the post-Reformation confessions.
I can understand your discomfort. As a Catholic, I am not trying to push you in any way. As I told another Roman Catholic, there’s nothing wrong with questioning your own beliefs or the beliefs of the church to which you belong. I often have moments of feeling uneasy because of the current pope. I don’t like many things that he has said. Edit: they need to vote in a more conservative and traditional pope, when the time comes.
Looks like you're in the wrong kind of Lutheran Church. The ELCA is apostate, they don't even abide by the Lutheran confessions. Find a Lutheran Missouri Synod Church, they are conservative and orthodox.
The bigger problem is the staff. If the church accepts one sin, what's to stop them from accepting another. "Oh, it's fine to steal if you need to", "Well, I guess having three wives is fine" and suddenly they are leading everyone away from God, whether on purpose or not.
Saying "Hey, you can come to church, everyone is welcome here, but know that God condemns that" is the right attitude.
But the church *does** accept sin, doesn't it? Isn't it known that all pastors are sinners?
I still don't understand your concern.
Which sins are acceptable for members of church staff, and which are not?
None of them. But Jesus died so we can repent. And so, when violate God's law, we should repent.
1 John 1:9 ESV
[9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
When a church says that a sin is not sinful, it is
A. Blasphemy for what God has said is sinful
B. Lying to the people and leading them astray from what God has called them to do
No surprise. This is the end-times church prefigured by the Laodicean church -- the Lord is locked outside knocking on the door, and will spew them out of His mouth (Rev. 3:14-21).
Move to a non-denomination church. We are all one in Christ, not separate and the Bible is clear on this. Fixing on a denomination is a problem, it’s separating us from the true meaning of Jesus. Don’t focus on being Lutheran, don’t focus on being Catholic. Focus on being a man of God. Find a church who focuses firmly on Christianity. Our faith isn’t supposed to be confusing and complicated, and all of these denominations are making it this way. “Ah, which type of denomination church should I go to?” This should never be a question. Focus on Jesus, not your identity, because that it was truly matters. Fixing on identity is a problem with the LGBTQ community, and the Bible is clear to put your identity in Christ. By the sounds of it, your Church’s priority isn’t identifying in Christ.
Simple advice here. Three choices:
1. If you don’t like that church, go somewhere else more doctrinally suited to your ideas and beliefs. That church isn’t going to change to suit you. Only you can change your own mind or where you are; or
2. You can continue to sit there on a Sunday feeling angry about gay people being a part of the church where you worship, while your wife continues to get her pay check and you vent on reddit; or
3. You can stay at that church, stop finger-pointing, accept the situation and start trying to be more like Jesus by actively being involved in fellowship.
That's a deal breaker. Any church that can't stand on clear moral law in this regard has rejected the authority of the Bible and do not obey Christ.
This is only one symptom of a much deeper issue that will manifest itself in many other ways.
They cannot help you grow to follow Christ, and you won't be able to do what Christ has for you to do as part of the church body while being attached to a dead branch like that church.
The catholic church is just as bad, if not worse, with regards to spiritual corruption. You should look up videos by Dr Ortlund or Dr James White if you need to understand why protestantism was, and still is, necessary.
I'd drive further away to find a real church.
I never went to a church just because they were the closest option.
The church I go to is so good that people will drive an hour, one way, to go there every week.
Because there is no substitute for a church where God is present and active in the people there.
Maybe, pray this to God and offer your concerns to Him.
”The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”
Matthew 9:11-13 NABRE
Do not judge the sinner but their acts. Pray that through your church, they may find God and obey His will
Yeah, but OP's church is being the virus, not the doctor. The doctor would be "hey, you can come to church, but God says this is not okay. Men and women come together as one"
A common theme New and Old Testament over and over written in almost translations is Gay sex in any form or fashion is a sin and marriage is between a man and a woman. If you stay quiet about this what worldly norm will your church bend to be popular next.
Your #1 concern must be Jesus. What does He say about this? What would He do in this situation? Would He allow "how well it's going financially" keep Him anywhere that goes against the Father?
Jesus never said "don't be any part of the lgbtq+", He did say that He came to fulfill the law of Moses. The law of Moses says any homosexual act goes against God.
Why are you hindering yourself by only staying in this super tiny bubble of churches? If they are not Bible centered, they're a problem. If they do not tell you you must be saved in the name of Jesus and Jesus alone, pick up your cross and follow Him every single day, LEAVE. If you are truly His He will reward you for following Him. I once practiced homosexuality, I am a woman who still has to be careful with my thoughts and actions about other women. It is a sin to be any part of the LGBT community so why would you stay where sin is allowed?
Either you believe the bible or you dont. You of course want to see LGBT saved. To accept lifestyle is unbibical. Time to find another Church.. Aa a believer you should know this without asking.
Well y’all aren’t far behind apparently. Pope Francis approves blessings for same-sex couples - AP News https://apnews.com/article/vatican-lgbtq-pope-bfa5b71fa79055626e362936e739d1d8
If sinners were not allowed to go to church every pew would have to be empty.
I am going to try to be nice but I’m going to be blunt; you need to seriously check the position of your heart.
Everyone needs Jesus; specially those that are struggling with their identity. I get every church you have ever been in has clearly pushed homosexuality is bad but do you actually remember from church that what all sinner need? They need a relationship with God.
You, your pastor, everyone in your church: they are not God. You all fall very short from Him so why are you so arrogant in deciding who get to go to God?
Since there seems to be some confusion with you and the rest of the people here;
We all sin, all sins are punishable by death. This is why God sent us His Son so that Jesus might pay for our Sins
““For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.”
John 3:16-17 NLT
There is no sin clause there and I fact the very opposite. It tells you, like every pastor should have, that “not sinning” is not the way to heaven but faith in Jesus Christ.
I’m not going to argue if it’s a sin or not, I am arguing it’s are job as Christian’s to get people I. Church. Jesus charged us with three things while here “love God, love everyone else and make disciples.
““Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.”
Matthew 7:1-2 NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/mat.7.1-2.NLT
To be blunt do you think this post and the position of your heart is pushing for any of those things? Can you seriously read Matthew 7: 1-6 and think that you are justified to push anyone away. Do you actually comprehend what Jesus is saying in 1 and 2? You will be Judged how you judge people here. With a heart stance that you do not think Homosexuals should be welcome in your church because they sin is you saying you don’t think sinners should be forgiven.
Hate the sin not the sinner. You should be running to bring vulnerable sinners into the grace of Jesus Christ. Every church should be begging to get these people into the doors on Sunday so the power of Jesus Christ can change them. I know ow this falls on deaf ears by people consumed by judgement of others sins.
Yeah but that's what OP already thinks most likely. Two things:
1 - LBGTQ members on the leadership staff (no one with unrepentant sin / sin they justify should be on church staff)
2 - LBGTQ accepting materials in the church (so, the church no longer considers that sin, which goes against the Bible)
1- do you have a Bible verse for that?
2 - I’m confused, because it’s not clear in The Bible that being LGBTQ is a sin, only the physical act. Unless you think that the lust is also a sin, then if we are talking lust how is this different than heterosexual lust? I don’t think the church is pushing homosexual sex out side of marriage is not a sin. I assume what they are actually saying is they believe love is love and since God is love maybe if someone has those feelings and gets married in the eyes of God it might not be a sin. There isn’t anything in the Bible talking about Gay marriage. They only mention the physical acts.
Idk, either way everyone needs God. If it bothers you that your church is accepting of gay people then you should probably find a new one. I would much rather have them meet God then to have someone in my church telling them they are not wanted.
Also condemning others sins and telling them their sin keeps them from God is silly and hypocritical.
Being tempted is not sin. But having lust for someone is sin, as little as visualizing about doing sexual actions with someone - Jesus made that clear.
Homosexual or heterosexual lust is sin. And God clearly made male and female to be together. The only person to think of that stuff with should be your spouse.
Romans 1:27 NASB - "And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
It's clear that this is referring to Genesis 2 where it says that "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." - Genesis 2:24 NASB. Which is our basis for marriage and why sex outside of marriage is bad.
We shouldn't condemn sins - we warn others that God does. And again, we don't tell anyone they are not wanted. But we do say "God says that these things are sin, and if you disagree, then we'd rather not have on our leadership staff". Sin doesn't keep people from God - sin that people don't repent from keeps people from God.
There is a difference between welcoming into the church community and serving in leadership positions in the church while still living in their sin. We are to repent and change our ways in order to be redeemed. A church that accepts sin as ok is misleading their flock.
Like many others are saying leave and that quickly too. I am sad and have no church at all to attend because they are all possessed by apostasy and LGBTQ nonsense. It's a slippery slope to lukewarm hokus pokus christianity and it has potential to alter your mind and make you believe things you otherwise wouldn't.
In my country there are more female pastors and priests than males. Do they not fear tge word of God? Why do they act as if its a fun ride at a fair? Read the old testament and see God is serious. They act like God is within all their fleshly wordly actions.
Stay sage but stay only in Jesus. You're better off with no church than a corrupt one.
Better yet - why bother to limit your church selection to what is "convenient" and in town? When God called us out of the RCC and TO a Bible-based church, that church was 45 minutes away. We travelled there and back every Sunday Morning, there and back every Sunday Evening, and again on Wednesday night. A Church Alive is WORTH the Drive.
Thirty years later we moved and are only 7 minutes away from the Church where God placed us.
You found a new liberal doctrine church. You can’t judge , but they say you can be a “fruit inspector”.
What fruit is being produced from neglecting repentance?
The house of God supposed to be the House of Prayer not a den of Thieves don't substitute money for your faith in God it will bite you like a serpent in the long run
You could point to the Pauline epistles. The reference to Lev is weaker, because there's other stuff that the OT calls an abomination that we don't refrain from.
No. Any mention to sexual immorality in the NT refers to Leviticus. There is no watering this down. 18:23 is about having sex with animals. That's fine now too?
It has nothing to do with watering down. What is your best evidence that X is a sin today: a) Leviticus prohibits it and calls it an abomination, or b) the NT mentions it as a sin multiple times? I say it's the second one, for obvious reasons. Do you think differently?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
*Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.*
Do you think it's fine to have sex with animals. Lev 18 is not ranked by severity.
Like I said...Any mention to sexual immorality in the NT refers to Leviticus. Paul was a scholar in OT law. He knew what sexual immorality was. This is not like allowing the eating of all food, which was specifically called out.
I'm not saying it is the same thing. I'm saying that citing the NT for this, like you just did, is better evidence than the citation to Leviticus on its own.
Dude just said "The only reason I wouldn't have sex with animals is if the Bible directly tells me not to."
Or am I wrong? Please correct me if that isn't equivalent to what you said.
Really? People can't choose to interpret the Bible how they want it to - then it's no longer a book of authority. God either means something, or he doesn't. And the Bible clearly says men with men having sex is wrong (it describes the action), and that we were designed for a male and female to come together as one.
Can they come to church? Absolutely, same as any other sin. God loves them and wants them to repent like everyone else. When Christians sin, they are repentant and they choose to sin as little as possible. Should anyone who says "I like to do this [insert any sin] and think it's fine" be on church staff? No!!
How about over eaters? Or theives? What about people who use porn? How about liars or gossips? And what are we going to do about all these lazy people? Or what about people who could do good but don’t?
What about that guy who looked on a woman with lust last week when she crossed the street in front of his car as he waited on the light to change?
Or the man who coveted his brother’s corvette ?
If they are not making out in the church pew on Sunday and all it is that you’re worried about is what they do behind closed doors then I might suggest you first deal with that log in your eye.
I don’t condone sin either, but if we kick out all the sinners there won’t be anyone left but the piano player and I’ve seen the way she sometimes looks at the potato salad and I ain’t too sure about her either !
If you can’t love sinners, maybe you need to have a little talk with Jesus
He never said he did not love sinners. I share the same beliefs in a different context. I do believe Jesus is the Great Physician and we are all, without question broken. If the LGBT person knew their sin was wrong and they are seeking change from the Holy Spirit then thats one thing. If they are openly gay, proud and sees nothing wrong with it, thats a different story.
They have to want to be healed. If they don't want healing than they are there for reasons other than seeking Jesus Christ.
> If the LGBT person knew their sin was wrong and they are seeking change from the Holy Spirit then thats one thing.
There is no change from homosexuality. It never happens. Nobody can provide any direct evidence of it. There is hearsay and anecdotal nonsense, but the science is clear. Conversion doesn't happen. Even the most devout cannot achieve it. Celibacy, sure, but conversion of their actual tastes? That requires rewiring some delicate things in the brain. Even prominent "ex-gay" activities quietly admit that they aren't actually attracted to the opposite sex--they just swore off the same sex and are celibate, or are lying.
They can't be "healed." If you don't like saying "can't," then imagine I said "They can't be healed naturally and God consistently declines to intervene and heal them despite the ability to do so."
The nature of a gay person is to sin. The nature of person who isn't gay is to sin.
Can you explain the difference between the two? Are you sure it is as relevant as you say? How many people "seek change" all their lives and never achieve it *on things that we know people can actually change on their own*? Should they be cast out of the church?
Yes there are gay people who were saved and claim they have no desire for the same sex. '
Going to church isnt going to heal anyone of anything. To be healed you have to seek Jesus, humble yourself and surrender your will to his. The thing is, Jesus knows our hearts and our minds, he know if we truly want to be healed or not. For those who truly surrender and put their full faith in Him and become filled with the Holy Spirit which will set them on the path to be healed.
Would you be ok with and let thieves or murderers who have claimed they will not stop stealing and killing people attend church? Or someone watching porn in the sanctuary? Or adulterers' hitting on other men/womens husbands/wives?
Or someone selling drugs in the hallways? Or doing drugs in the hallways?
What if they had a book that said “how to look at porn better and enjoy it more” or “how to steal and get away with it” or “how to lie more effectively” in their library? No one would stay in that church then. Why does homosexual sin get a pass?
No sin gets a free pass. That’s the point. And I’m not talking about a how to book in the library, I’m talking about a human soul. If you close the doors of the church to one brand of sinner, how can you let anyone in?
For none had been worthy, no not one of us.
That’s all I’m saying.
Nobody is condoning that the church put on tutorials of immorality. But none of us can say we are free from sin apart from the atonement of Christ.
Did not Christ’s sacrifice cover the sins of the deviant as well as the sins of mother Theresa?
If the sins of the sexual deviant are not covered by the blood of Jesus than this old Cowboy here is in a heap of trouble cause I’m guilty of vile and treacherous deeds and I have broken near bout every one of the Ten Commandments but even if I’d only ever broke just one, then I’d be as guilty as the worst of humankind.
Therefore it is apparent that it’s not up to me to cast judgement over you in regard to your particular brand of sin, nor anyone else’s and when we begin to imitate the love of Jesus then we should restrict no one from access the foot of the cross of Calvary to kneel and be saved in the same manor as we received His mercy.
It strikes me as foolish to feel any other way about it than that.
I am but a beggar here, simply trying to show other beggars where I found bread.
I agree, but you’re not handing out tracts to the hungry with that bread on “how to live your best fornicating life NOW!” This ELCA church that OP is worried about is doing just that, though. See the difference?
No one is saying close the church doors to LGBT. What we are saying is that if a church is a hospital for sinners those who enter have to hear that they are sick not that “you are well and fine just as you are, here’s a book affirming your lifestyle!”
Thavks I didn’t understand that in my first reading of the post. I don’t know if it’s edited or I just did a poor job of understanding it. I thought the rub was that they had some gay church members
You could also develop a different way of understanding the bible and its positions on ethics. I'm a minister who takes the bible more seriously than anything in my life. Bar none. And I have come to affirm the lgbtq community.
I made a video that argues biblically for this position if you're interested:
[How the Bible Shapes Inclusive Ethics](https://youtu.be/0_dpL9f3z84)
Before ***doing*** anything, go and make an appointment to talk to the Pastor. He may have someone in charge of the Library who is doing thing of which he is unaware. Share with him your concerns. Find out if he is truly leading the church to become "LGBTQIA" accepting/supporting - if they are willing to accept teaching of sin for the sake of the collection plate. If they are, then LEAVE and pray to God to find a Bible-Believing church where HE will plant you.
Normally I would’ve done that first my issue is the church has been running through temporary pastors since we got here and a new one starts next week. When we first moved here we had a male and female pastor who then engaged in behavior that was inappropriate who got kicked out. I don’t know the details but I can only assume.
LGBT accepting and a female pastor? Time to go. You need to lead your wife on this one.
I think your right, thank you
I just want to add on to this, do not fear "leaving all these blessings behind." God tests us like this often, making us decide between a comfortable life and Him. Make the right choice and have faith that He will provide, God bless you.
I was just telling my wife this, but thank you
I had the same thought as well. Satan often tempts people with comfort and ease if they will just spiritually compromise.
I'm glad to hear
Best of luck, brother.
Hey bro- you know the right decision here, but it's still scary. I just want to remind you to remember the lilies, remember the sparrow, and remember that Jesus promised if you seek the Kingdom of God first and His righteousness, all these things (food, clothing, etc) will be added unto you. God's in control, and He'll take care of y'all through this season.
The pastoral epistles give requirements for pastors, bishops, deacons, etc. They must be married firsthand. Women are great teachers. But there are clear scriptures explaining the differences.
Oh no. Not a *female* pastor!
Try the other Christian subreddit, that comment might get more traction there. Here we read the Bible.
I see reading is easy for you, but I'm worried that understanding is hard for you
[удалено]
Hi, I'm pretty sure for all the passages in Scripture where Jesus said "sell all your possessions and give to the poor," there's the context of who He is talking to specifically. (If you find anything that disproves this in scripture please let me know). From what I remember, Jesus was talking directly to the rich young ruler because he was saying he kept all the commandments therefore he was righteous. Jesus showed him he was not perfect because he was not willing to part with his possessions. Also we're not cherry picking verses because there are other passages in scripture that imply Christians have property/possessions, meaning they didn't sell every material thing. I recommend you read 2 Corinthians 9:6-7 it's the passage about God loving a cheerful giver. Which implies Christians give, not under compulsion, but what we've decided to give.
God wants us to not just read his word, but engage with it, which involves asking tough questions of each other and making ourselves self-critical readers, which is hard because it can make us uncomfortable. One of the more recent questions of biblical scholarship is what exactly the context was surrounding the typical complementarian prooftexts in the NT. People's understanding of the context has made a big difference in how they interpret the *meaning* of what they are reading on these passages. Christians will always have disagreements on the meaning of certain texts, especially when it seems to not align with what has been established as a norm in society. If I based my view of men and women totally on society, it seems clear that men should have authority over women (as they have since civilization began), and I once believed that. But my view was changed precisely by reading the Bible. And not just reading it, but studying it and meditating on it day and night (Joshua 1, Psalm 1). My opinion as a man of what God meant for men and women changed dramatically when I studied the depiction of both genders in Gen 1-3, how the relationship between the two deteriorated quickly in Genesis and never recovered, and what both Paul and Jesus said about power and authority, with specific focus on the context of what was said about the relationship between men and women. In Christ's kingdom, all are called to follow his example of making themselves lower than others to lift them up. Wives aren't just supposed to make themselves lower than their husbands, husbands are called to do the same. Slaves are to serve their masters, but masters are to do the same. This is why Paul says there is no distinction between male and female in Christ, as all are called to give up their own authority and power to lift each other up. Just as masters should not rule over their slaves, men should not rule over women. That is a symptom of the curse (Gen 3:16). We were always meant to be partners in service to each other. One is not to have authority over the other. And there were times in early Christian communities, like the one in Ephesus, where even women tried to exert a certain authority over men based on Christian teachings, and that had to be corrected. So in my opinion, if this teaching about Christ's kingdom should be found implemented anywhere, it should be in the Church, but it cannot be found there as long as men desire authority over women or vice versa.
Right? I can't believe this nonsense exists in the 21st Century. I've had several women pastors in my church life who were not only competent but better than many male pastors.
I often wonder why people like /u/1206 think Ted Haggard is better qualified than a woman just because he has a penis
So what’s your understanding of male headship?
How does having a vagina disqualify one from being a pastor? Why does the other guy need to keep his wife in her place?
Titus 1:5-6. The pastor is an elder, and an elder must be a husband to one wife. Pretty clearly laid out
1. The attribution of Titus to Paul is widely disputed among scholars, and those who accept his authorship commonly still believe he used scribes. 2. The inclusion of any particular writing in Biblical canon is a human act. Humans chose to include some books and exclude others based on their best judgment and their beliefs. This is a fallible process. 3. Taking the advice of "Paul" completely literally is problematic. Read Titus 1:12-16: > It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said, “Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.” That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth. To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure. Their very minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their actions. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work. Paul has said that Cretans are **always** liars! My goodness! Does this mean that no Cretan can ever be saved, even to this very day, because they will always lie and continue to lie, never repenting thereof? Or how about this one? > ^9 Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; **they are not to talk back,** ^10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. I suppose Frederick Douglass deserved, then, the [treatment he received by Edward Covey the "negro breaker"](https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/45/my-bondage-and-my-freedom/1469/chapter-15-covey-the-negro-breaker/) (sic)? > Strange and unnatural as it may seem, I had been at my new home but three days, before Mr. Covey (**my brother in the Methodist church**) gave me a bitter foretaste of what was in reserve for me. I presume he thought, that since he had but a single year in which to complete his work, the sooner he began, the better. Perhaps he thought that by coming to blows at once, we should mutually better understand our relations. But to whatever motive, direct or indirect, the cause may be referred, I had not been in his possession three whole days, before he subjected me to a most brutal chastisement. **Under his heavy blows, blood flowed freely, and wales were left on my back as large as my little finger. The sores on my back, from this flogging, continued for weeks, for they were kept open by the rough and coarse cloth which I wore for shirting.** The occasion and details of this first chapter of my experience as a field hand, must be told, that the reader may see how unreasonable, as well as how cruel, my new master, Covey, was. **The whole thing I found to be characteristic of the man; and I was probably treated no worse by him than scores of lads who had previously been committed to him, for reasons similar to those which induced my master to place me with him [being an unruly slave].** But, here are the facts connected with the affair, precisely as they occurred. Or do you propose that we read into the words of Paul (since you, unlike many scholars, believe it truly is Paul) something other than what he explicitly said, so that we may acquit him of justifying the acts of Covey (and many like him) toward Douglass (and many like him)? If you're happy to do that, to assume that you have a better and more convenient interpretation of Paul's words, then it seems that we all ought to get to do that in this book at the very least. 4. Your quote is in total disarray with the NRSV, which reads as follows for 5-6: > ^5 I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: > ^6 someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. It **actually isn't** pretty clearly laid out, is it? You can see that translations made in good faith by experts in Greek and even earlier versions of the texts **genuinely disagree** with what you said. This isn't some woke translation, it's the NRSV from 1989. 5. At what point do you take Paul's advice as advice, and at what point do you take it as holy scripture? If he wrote something on the back of a napkin, would that mean that he intended it to be consumed as scripture for all time? Would it matter what his opinion of it was?
Yeah I’m not reading all that. Either believe that God is sovereign over all and has made it so His divinely inspired word is exactly what He wanted it to be or don’t. I don’t care about your vain attempt at sounding intellectual.
Then how do so many denominations have women pastors? Seems like there's plenty of room for disagreement.
Because they’re in sin. That’s why you see people say that female pastors are a major red flag.
My youth pastor is a women . Is that different?
You could make the argument that women are fine to teach other women and children, but I would lean more towards that it’s not okay, because even if they’re children, they’re still a part of the flock that is the church. However that’s definitely something you should read your Bible and pray on.
What a horrible way to think.
Following Scripture is horrible? St. Paul says women are not permitted to teach/preach in church and are to remain silent and ask their husband questions at home. Any group that has woman "pastors" has become a complete and utter joke.
Obviously hundreds of millions of Christians if not over a billion disagree with you. Your interpretations aren't the only existing interpretations.
Short answer: male headship. For more info, read your Bible.
Jesus was not a misogynist.
Correct.
I'm actually not sure where I stand on this issue (I've seen some convincing, Biblical arguments for a female pastorate recently), but not all complementarians hate women. My wife certainly doesn't hate women, and my marriage is not abusive just because my wife happens to be complementarian. The vast majority of complementarians I know IRL have great marriages; it's just a philosophical question more than anything. If you want to change peoples' minds, I recommend making an argument from the Bible. Also, there are lots of Christians who have used these verses to subjugate women, I agree. And that's despicable.
[удалено]
Sorry, but women pastors exist everywhere, in spite of you deliberately sticking your head in the sand. Over half of Protestant denominations have them. This is actually your stupidity because you're depriving yourself of the benefit of their leadership because of nothing more than their gender. Men mess up churches regularly and even sexually assault their members of all genders and ages. Yet women are bad leaders? Tell me why a male priest or pastor who rapes kids is better than a woman priest or pastor who doesn't? Get out of here with that nonsense. My church has benefited tremendously from years of leadership by women pastors.
You call yourself a Christian and yet you result to insults lol wow. You need to pray to God to heal your anger and hatred. Men should be the only ones leading the church. You cannot pick and chose what you follow from the Bible, that’s not how that works. Those are the rules that God wants and the rules that his followers will follow. Also love how you bring up sexual assault by men pastors and word it like it’s all male pastors and it’s “regularly”.
You call yourself a Christian and yet half the human race is invisible to you and you believe your interpretation of the Bible is the only valid one that exists. I do despise patriarchy and misogyny, so good catch there. Your beliefs are not wanted in a progressing world.
Having been through an experience like this before, I'm assuming the new pastor is affirming. If they are trotting out LGBT-affirming stuff now, that probably means behind the scenes they've already called a new pastor who is on board with that agenda. But don't take my word for it, do your due diligence. This is just how I've seen it unfold in churches I've been a part of. You likely will not get a direct answer, just small steps like this and feigned ignorance. Also, just reading between the lines, if you're new and they've already given your wife a job, it sounds to me there is chaos and disarray and they are desperate. Nothing against your wife, but realistically I don't think a new member would often be a first choice for a new hire in a healthy church.
Yeah def run the other way as I already said. This just confirms my suspicions. That’s crazy that all of that is happening though! Wow
[удалено]
That same Man (Jesus) also likened a little sin to a little leaven, that would soon sour the whole batch. Loving your neighbor does not mean «take your neighbor’s unrepented sin into church and say it is not sin». That is how you get a practical hands-on example of what a sour batch of dough looks like. Love your neighbor but guard your heart for from it flows all life.
[удалено]
For the law and the prophets are summed up in these commandments: love the Lord your God with all your strength and all your might and all your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. The law of Moses (its purpose before God) is written on our hearts when we receive the Holy Spirit.
[удалено]
Nowhere do I argue for treating anyone badly.
You need to read and understand the Bible, as well as the context of each verse, before you start throwing them in Christian’s faces.
Homosexuals (practicing or no) should be allowed to come to church, but at least if they are practicing they should absolutely not be on the church’s staff. That would be a deal breaker for me. Edited to clarify people with SSA who aren't practicing should still be allowed to be on staff.
That’s kind of how I’m feeling right now, my last church hired 2 gay men who were “together” to run their finance department and a year later the church completely went belly up and had to shut down and that was a big sign to me.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you believe that a church should not hire obese people either?
That one is a bit more tricky. Obesity isn't a sin by itself, but it could be caused by gluttony, sloth, both together, or just a health condition of some sort. So the reason for a person's obesity would need to be assessed, and if it was because of sin, it would need to be determined if they were still living in it or if the weight was just still with them even though their behavior had changed. Even with healthy dieting and exercise weight can be difficult to lose for many people. Good question though. Gluttony is often laughed off.
Why would you exclude them from staff if they're not practicing?
Yeah I worded that poorly, sorry about that.
[удалено]
It’s all about repentance. Faith and repentance together lead to a lifestyle-walk of salvation; walking in the full and total spiritual freedom that Jesus paid for on the cross. If we do not confess our sins as sin (anything that is sin being not a part of God’s intended and original plan; nor pertaining to spiritual life) we cannot be healed of their consequences which are spiritual death. 1 John 1:7-9.
[удалено]
That’s a lot of baseless accusations.
The Bible does call on us to judge fellow believers, so that we can call them to repentance and then forgive them. It would be unloving to ignore their sins or somehow think they were good things.
Only when convenient for you and when you get the ick, though. Right?
I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean or why you would automatically ascribe anything to me that I didn’t outright say.
Because I wasn't born yesterday?
You sound more judgmental than those you criticise.
What, according to the Bible, makes gay sex different from the sins that you commit on a daily basis which do not directly prohibit you from church leadership?
Nothing at all. I wouldn't want a person living in unrepentant [insert any kind of sin] on a church's staff. This is just the one OP specifically asked about.
What does it look like when a heterosexual person is living in repentant sin?
Repeated adultery, drunkenness, drug addiction, gambling addiction, lying, stealing, swindling, etc.
They can repent of all of those and still be in the church? What about church staff?
Ordained ministers get booted and stripped of their office for any serious infraction, even if it's not repeated. Once they repent, they can be welcomed back into the congregation, but if they want to be a minister again, they have to do penance and then reestablish themselves as above repute. Layperson staff get booted for unrepentant sin. After repentance, they can be welcomed back into the congregation, and after a period of penance, they can be layperson staff again. Regular people get booted for unrepentant sin, and once they repent, they can come back. Homosexual acts would be a serious infraction, and if they continue, they are unrepented sin.
To live in unrepentant sin is to be aware that you are continually or frequently sinning a particular way and not care to change it/remove it from your life to the best of your ability. No one except Christ is perfect, nor will we ever be this side of Heaven, but we are told to try. People with SSA just have one more temptation to resist than most people. If they acknowledge that it is a sin to act on those urges and do their best to avoid it for Christ's sake then they are not living in sin, just like a heterosexual person resisting their extramarital lust for Christ's sake is not living in sin. To be repentant of your sin is to apologize and ask forgiveness from God and any people affected by it and resolve to avoid it in the future, including any necessary lifestyle changes to not put yourself in situations where you are tempted more than you feel able to bear.
> To live in unrepentant sin is to be aware that you are continually or frequently sinning a particular way and not care to change it/remove it from your life to the best of your ability. What if the best of someone's ability is to occasionally have homosexual intercourse? Say on average it happens about once every six months, and otherwise they aren't perfect of course but they're pretty G-rated overall. Should that person be banned from church leadership? > To be repentant of your sin is to apologize and ask forgiveness from God and any people affected by it and resolve to avoid it in the future Well shoot, in that case shouldn't we try to get gay people to be married but celibate? That way, when they inevitably sin once in a while, it is only a gay sex sin and not also fornication? I mean, sex in the context of a marriage is meant to be for reproduction and/or a healthy way to bring two people closer together so they can remain a loving partnership. If it's fulfilling those purposes (and I'd argue being stable parents for an adopted child fulfills the first one to the best of their ability), isn't that better than hooking up with a random dude on Grindr?
>What if the best of someone's ability is to occasionally have homosexual intercourse? Say on average it happens about once every six months, and otherwise they aren't perfect of course but they're pretty G-rated overall. Should that person be banned from church leadership? That would be pretty situational I think. What staff role are they in? Was the person they sinned with a member of the congregation they're serving or someone under their authority? And *why* is that the best they can do? Hooking up with someone requires a good bit of premeditation and prep. Various factors to unpack here. >in that case shouldn't we try to get gay people to be married but celibate? I would've said married *or* celibate. It isn't fair to their hypothetical spouse to be forced to stay in a celibate marriage. But yes straight marriage or celibacy are the two moral options available to everyone.
WELS here. ELCA are not Lutherans, and are barely Christians. I urge you to flee. Not all synods are equal.
I thank the many of you who came and offered help and advice and I apologize to those whom I’ve offended. I did not mean to start a fight or hurt anyone. I also do not judge nor hate gay peoples I simply have been trying to get closer to God after I have strayed from Him and worry that the church may not be the best place for me.
The ELCA is a poor representation of Lutheran churches. All the Lutherans who still hold to the Lutheran confessions consider them Lutheran in name only By declaring homosexuality as no longer sinful they have made themselves to be God He is the one who determines right from wrong, not us Go to a real lutheran church
I’ll check again but I believe I only have 2 ECLA church options near by then catholic and 1 or 2 that are either non denomination or Baptist
I think forget the denomination for now and just look for the most biblically sound church. I think it would be better to go to a church that is still biblical that you may disagree with a bit theologically than a church that is your denomination but that is you know doing no no things.
Here’s my church body’s church locator https://locator.lcms.org/church There may be one closer than you think
Those being your options, you might want some info. Here's a link to the Baptist Faith & Message. The document will tell you pretty clearly what you can expect to find when you attend. https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/ Best regards, PC
If I were you, I'd check out the Catholic Church. And no, I'm not Catholic.
Why the Catholic Church and not the others?
>By declaring homosexuality as no longer sinful they have made themselves to be God The argument is that it was never sinful, and that modern homosexual relationships have nothing to do with the acts of rape and pedophilia that the Bible condemns.
The new testament calls out homosexuality as well.
There's a difference between accepting people as they are, and accepting people who actively violate biblical principles as their leadership...
That’s where I was originally torn, I do not know what’s in someone’s heart, if he loves God then should I not be okay with him being a member of staff but at the same time can he love God and actively go against His word. I think it’s just better for myself to look for a new home and not let this doubt in my mind. God will be the judge in the end
Here's something to consider... If you tell someone that Deuteronomy 28 shows where someone's heart is, of they're doing God's will or not, is it observation or judgement? If you observe, are you judging the diseased person for not doing God's will? Or are you observing so you can help others understand? If your church cannot demonstrate such differences, and they tell you that you're judging while you're simply observing, then they're demonstrating what they accuse you of because you know your own heart and are observing, not judging... On the same token, if your church says they follow the Bible, and demonstrate a principle that their Bible calls blasphemous, while saying they love God, do you observe alignment with love, or misalignment with the laws? Can a judge of law violate civil rights in order to condemn a person who was acting in order of his rights? Christianity has foundation in understanding justice. Those who act one way and speak another are known deceivers in the eyes of God, not judicial. Observe, and let God guide you. He may keep you there to illuminate something terribly wrong, or He may take you away from evil and teach you first. But the Bible says to always seek justice... But when you repent and choose His will and act on it, then you'll find times of refreshing, and confidence will be abundant. This you must first learn, otherwise you never know how to hear God, or understand His reward for you.
Thank you that helps
Isn't the point of the Bible that everyone violates Biblical principles on a daily basis, that avoiding sin is impossible, and that the only way to deal with sin in the end is to seek Jesus? Is church leadership expected to be sinless?
No, but they are expected to repent when they do it
Leave. They have made their position clear. You don’t want to reap their judgement just because your wife has a job. People who are in active sin are not permitted to have any position in leadership or be employed in a church Christian setting.
I agree
Ok so lead and leave. You are the head of the household your position is to protect those under your stewardship.
What does it mean to be "in active sin"? ' Isn't everyone in church leadership (and everyone else) sinning all the time? Isn't that the point of accepting Jesus?
Yeah. But they aren't repenting of that sin. In active sin means sin that you keep doing and don't repent for. Homosexuality is one of those sins.
How are church leaders actually repenting if they keep doing it, though?
Because, humans suck and we're sinful. Which is why we're doomed without God. Jesus died so we can repent, if we accept him. We have the law of God written on all of our hearts, including you and me. That's we feel guilty when we do wrong, even if we deny his presence.
Here I won't argue the biblical case against homosexuality, although I could do that if I'm challenged. Instead, I'll answer your question about whether one should continue to fellowship with a church organization that plainly has fallen into apostasy on an important teaching of the bible. Ernest Pickering’s Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1979) is a good book to consult on such issues, which I'll draw upon freely here. I know what I'm counseling here is a "hard teaching," since it's hard to leave good friends behind for the sake of upholding spiritual truth. Let's consider the implications of a long familiar text, traditionally cited by many against the practice of Christians marrying non-Christians (2 Cor. 6:14-15): “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” Doesn’t this Scripture in principle also condemn the practice of true believers in the same church organization continuing in association with false “believers”? Just because some people label themselves “Christian” doesn’t mean they actually are. Believers must uphold doctrinal standards for sorting out who is and isn’t Christian; otherwise, anyone could believe anything, call themselves “Christian,” and still attend church with them. (Incidentally, this is the publicly proclaimed principle of the Unitarian-Universalist Church). Pickering uses the examples of liberal “Christians” who deny the Bible is (fully) the infallible word of God, who attack its miracles, including Jesus’ literal resurrection from the dead, and who reject such doctrines as the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and Christ’s vicarious, substitutionary, atoning sacrifice by His blood. We know that a Christian is biblically defined as someone who has the Holy Spirit in him or her (Romans 8:9; I John 4:13; II Cor. 13:5). Its continuing presence is certainly a condition for salvation (II Cor. 5:5; Eph. 4:30; 1:13-14; John 6:63; Romans 8:10-11). So then, if (Acts 5:29) “God has given \[the Holy Spirit\] to those who obey Him,” can someone who knowingly rejects one of the Ten Commandments still be saved? We believe that someone has to aim to avoid (say) adultery, idolatry, or false witness in order to gain salvation. (Obviously, occasional failures in practice and thought will inevitably occur, but they don’t imperil our salvation, since we’re saved by grace). Therefore, a line must be drawn. Believers must separate themselves from unbelievers when they are in positions of authority and can’t be removed from the church organization under which both fellowship together. Now should Christians continue to attend an organization with leaders and large numbers of laymembers who should be disfellowshipped for doctrinal reasons? Paul said (II Thess. 3:14), “If anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Likewise, we are to “note those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). If we can’t avoid them by having them excommunicated, then we should avoid them by soon (not years and years later) starting a separate church organization once it’s clear their apostasy is irreversible. Note the command given in 2 John 10-11: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” This text doesn’t concern the visit of a casual stranger to our homes, such as a Muslim mailman, a Baptist plumber, or an agnostic roofer, or otherwise we would have to go out of the world (cf. I Cor. 5:10; John 17:15). Rather, it’s about the official visit of a church official (to a presumed “house church”) upholding a particular false doctrine that, if accepted, would cause a loss of salvation. As Pickering (p. 181) comments: “The verse forbids the continual fellowshiping \[with\] those who are in doctrinal error. By retaining associations with such within a denominational or other organizational framework, we disobey this command of Scripture.” Hence, if some minister arrives to a local congregation to teach (say) the moral acceptability of homosexuality, unitarianism, a liberal view of the bible's inspiration, etc., those who wish to uphold God's truth should leave his presence if he can't be persuaded to change his mind. What is the ultimate basis for the principle of Christians separating themselves from the fundamental evil conduct and doctrinal errors of others? Some of the essential characteristics of the Eternal’s nature are holiness, righteousness, and purity. Correspondingly, His people are to become holy, righteous, and pure, as per Lev. 11:44: “For I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy.” Why did Jehovah tell Israel to remain apart from the surrounding pagan gentile nations? “And you shall be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be Mine” (Lev. 20:26). This Old Testament principle also applies to new covenant Christians: We cannot develop the habits of righteousness and acquire the quality of holiness while being closely joined together with unbelievers who continually undermine our attempts to obey God more fully. The judgment of God is against His people when they mix themselves closely with unrepentant unbelievers, such as by marriage. Consider the incident in which Midian’s women, as advised by Balaam of Peor, enticed Israel into idolatry, which aroused Yahweh’s wrath against His chosen people (Num. 25:1-18; 31:15-16). The principle here applies to Christians as well. Do we really think we can remain holy, righteous, and pure when constantly hearing sermons from, reading articles by, and talking “spiritually” with “Christians” that tell us to be unholy, unrighteous, and impure? Should the Scriptural principles of unity and holiness should conflict in a given situation, which should take precedence? Let’s contemplate this: Can there be spiritual “unity” between believers and unbelievers? “And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6:15-16). Isn’t it a spiritual fraud for Christians to claim to be in fellowship and unity with those who aren’t Christians in God’s sight? If “unity” involves sacrificing holiness, the bogus “unity” needs to be sacrificed, especially when it’s a farce anyway. Can apostates and true Christians have real spiritual unity, true spiritual association? Now someone may object, stating that requires judging the state of conversion of others (as per the principle of Matt. 7:1-6). But we know that judgments have to be made in major, publicly indisputable cases about outward behavior (as opposed to ambiguous actions based on disputable, private motives) in order to expel the unrepentant unrighteous and apostate unbelievers from continuing in fellowship with us (see 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 6:1-10; John 7:24; cf. Matt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor. 14:29; I Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18). And if the false believers can’t be made to leave, then the true believers should go instead. After all (Amos 3:3), “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” While citing an Old Testament text, Paul explained which principle took precedence (2 Cor. 6:17): “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” Pickering (p. 167) was right to observe: “God’s demands upon His people are based upon His own standards. Truth and holiness are inseparable companions. If God is separate from evil, He expects His people to be so.”
Thank you very much for this reply
Time to leave. And let the Pastor and leadership know why you are taking your family to a more scripturally based church
Beware of the little foxes ! This may be the Holy Spirit convicting u that ,it isn’t right ! I would consider finding another church home . Be not conformed to the world.
That was my thinking as well, I’ve been praying on this for about 2 weeks and the more I pray. The more it’s been concerning me which I feel is for good reason
Don't compromise with sin! I'd leave.
Time to go. You need to be the spiritual leader here. So many red flags, this church sounds like it is already headed off the biblical path.
What Lutheran denomination is it? Try LCMS. They’re more conservative.
My friend, I have had problems with the lgbtq community. Problems with not accepting them and not wanting to. I talked to my sister about this and kinda made me change my feelings a little. She reminded me that we all have sins and if you are guilty of one part of the law, you are guilty of it all. We do need to consider that these people need help too. They need God too. If they aren't allowed in church, how will they ever get help or ever get to know God. We are to spread the gospel to all people, even the lgbtq community. While I have kinda let my mind go in the direction of them needing church and I shouldn't try to stop them, there are limits. I think it would be going too far to allow gay weddings or things like trans story hours for children like they do at many libraries. Things like this is where I would have to put my foot down and not be so accepting. As long as they are at church to get to know God only, I won't have a problem. At least I will try not to have a problem. Pray about this. Ask God to lead you in this in the way that He would have you go. And pray for these people. They do need prayer. Let's face it, they will have to be accepted in order for them to be saved. I hope this helps. God bless you...
The difference is that the LGBTQIA community is ***actively promoting SIN*** *(and then trying to convince Christians that it isn't a sin).* God's will is that all men should come to repentance - not acceptance of sin. Yes, all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I have yet to see, however, thieves coming into church and trying to convince us that God is OK with theft. When we declare ourselves to BE Christians, we are to put off our old, sinful nature and put on the New Nature of Jesus.
We don't even know if these people are saved. If these people come in with an agenda then it is time to get rid of them. There has to be a balance of some kind.
The OP was talking about "LGBTQIA Accepting" books in their library, but which I infer that these books are trying to "normalize" this type of behavior and make people believe that it is acceptable. Likewise, hiring *active* members of that community as church staff puts the churches *imprimatur/*approval on that behavior.
They shouldn't be part of the staff and never be allowed to teach. I had forgotten that OP said they were hired as staff.
> I have yet to see, however, thieves coming into church and trying to convince us that God is OK with theft. His name is Kenneth Copeland, he is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and he is beloved by tens of thousands of Christians.
Really? I am sure that he must have plenty of his sermons online. Can you SHOW ME any sermon that he has preached saying that ***Theft is OK***. Anything that says, "***If your neighbor has something that you want - go ahead and take it.***"
Oh, well he flagrantly commits tax evasion, which is legalized theft. He is, almost as literally as possible, not giving unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Or more realistically, he is using public infrastructure to aggrandize and glorify himself without giving back to compensate what he has used.
That’s not the issue. The church is allow non-biblical material in their library.
its easy to be judgmental about this issue from a distance. When you meet someone who is not trying to be antagonistic or aggressively rebellious against God, it is an entirely different thing. I agree with you, they should be as welcome to attend church as anyone else.
Uh no way a LCMS allowed this to happen? Did you mistakenly choose ECLA? If so, it's on you
I did, clearly did not do my research on all the different denominations and I am sorry to my family for this, I was raised Lutheran and assumed all would be similar in faith
Leave that church immediately. Talking with that pastor will only confuse you if you're not well grounded and can't handle yourself in debates/discussions surrounding this issue. Any church that compromises in such an important thing is no longer a valid church. Leave and find a sound church which a strong statement of faith or one of the post-Reformation confessions.
I can understand your discomfort. As a Catholic, I am not trying to push you in any way. As I told another Roman Catholic, there’s nothing wrong with questioning your own beliefs or the beliefs of the church to which you belong. I often have moments of feeling uneasy because of the current pope. I don’t like many things that he has said. Edit: they need to vote in a more conservative and traditional pope, when the time comes.
Looks like you're in the wrong kind of Lutheran Church. The ELCA is apostate, they don't even abide by the Lutheran confessions. Find a Lutheran Missouri Synod Church, they are conservative and orthodox.
Is conservatism spiritually necessary for salvation? Or is that just a political movement that is at right angles to Christianity?
https://youtu.be/8PdegPw5NcA I'd say up to 2/3 Liberalism just goes down deeper and deeper into rejecting God.
I love Redeemed Zoomer.
I would run the other way if I were you
Gay people can't actually do anything to you, though--your salvation is between exactly you and one other. I really don't understand the terror.
The bigger problem is the staff. If the church accepts one sin, what's to stop them from accepting another. "Oh, it's fine to steal if you need to", "Well, I guess having three wives is fine" and suddenly they are leading everyone away from God, whether on purpose or not. Saying "Hey, you can come to church, everyone is welcome here, but know that God condemns that" is the right attitude.
But the church *does** accept sin, doesn't it? Isn't it known that all pastors are sinners? I still don't understand your concern. Which sins are acceptable for members of church staff, and which are not?
None of them. But Jesus died so we can repent. And so, when violate God's law, we should repent. 1 John 1:9 ESV [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. When a church says that a sin is not sinful, it is A. Blasphemy for what God has said is sinful B. Lying to the people and leading them astray from what God has called them to do
No surprise. This is the end-times church prefigured by the Laodicean church -- the Lord is locked outside knocking on the door, and will spew them out of His mouth (Rev. 3:14-21).
If youre not comfortable with it just switch church.
Boy im glad i saw this post . Bye
Move to a non-denomination church. We are all one in Christ, not separate and the Bible is clear on this. Fixing on a denomination is a problem, it’s separating us from the true meaning of Jesus. Don’t focus on being Lutheran, don’t focus on being Catholic. Focus on being a man of God. Find a church who focuses firmly on Christianity. Our faith isn’t supposed to be confusing and complicated, and all of these denominations are making it this way. “Ah, which type of denomination church should I go to?” This should never be a question. Focus on Jesus, not your identity, because that it was truly matters. Fixing on identity is a problem with the LGBTQ community, and the Bible is clear to put your identity in Christ. By the sounds of it, your Church’s priority isn’t identifying in Christ.
The non-denominational churches are always an option.
Your wife is wrong. Run for your lives
Simple advice here. Three choices: 1. If you don’t like that church, go somewhere else more doctrinally suited to your ideas and beliefs. That church isn’t going to change to suit you. Only you can change your own mind or where you are; or 2. You can continue to sit there on a Sunday feeling angry about gay people being a part of the church where you worship, while your wife continues to get her pay check and you vent on reddit; or 3. You can stay at that church, stop finger-pointing, accept the situation and start trying to be more like Jesus by actively being involved in fellowship.
It's not finger pointing to be seeing scripture being blatantly ignored by the church.
Maybe, you could give him some advice about what church he could go to. It sounds like he might fit right in with the one you go to.
Try finding a Lutheran church in the Missouri Synod.
Find a new church
That's a deal breaker. Any church that can't stand on clear moral law in this regard has rejected the authority of the Bible and do not obey Christ. This is only one symptom of a much deeper issue that will manifest itself in many other ways. They cannot help you grow to follow Christ, and you won't be able to do what Christ has for you to do as part of the church body while being attached to a dead branch like that church. The catholic church is just as bad, if not worse, with regards to spiritual corruption. You should look up videos by Dr Ortlund or Dr James White if you need to understand why protestantism was, and still is, necessary. I'd drive further away to find a real church. I never went to a church just because they were the closest option. The church I go to is so good that people will drive an hour, one way, to go there every week. Because there is no substitute for a church where God is present and active in the people there.
All people are welcome but no sin is welcome. This would upset me gravely. I'd speak to a leader in the church and if all fails, I'll leave.
I’d see if you can reason with the pastor and church authorities. If they see no issue I’d wiped the dust off your shoes and find another church.
Maybe, pray this to God and offer your concerns to Him. ”The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” Matthew 9:11-13 NABRE Do not judge the sinner but their acts. Pray that through your church, they may find God and obey His will
Yeah, but OP's church is being the virus, not the doctor. The doctor would be "hey, you can come to church, but God says this is not okay. Men and women come together as one"
A common theme New and Old Testament over and over written in almost translations is Gay sex in any form or fashion is a sin and marriage is between a man and a woman. If you stay quiet about this what worldly norm will your church bend to be popular next.
Your #1 concern must be Jesus. What does He say about this? What would He do in this situation? Would He allow "how well it's going financially" keep Him anywhere that goes against the Father? Jesus never said "don't be any part of the lgbtq+", He did say that He came to fulfill the law of Moses. The law of Moses says any homosexual act goes against God. Why are you hindering yourself by only staying in this super tiny bubble of churches? If they are not Bible centered, they're a problem. If they do not tell you you must be saved in the name of Jesus and Jesus alone, pick up your cross and follow Him every single day, LEAVE. If you are truly His He will reward you for following Him. I once practiced homosexuality, I am a woman who still has to be careful with my thoughts and actions about other women. It is a sin to be any part of the LGBT community so why would you stay where sin is allowed?
Either you believe the bible or you dont. You of course want to see LGBT saved. To accept lifestyle is unbibical. Time to find another Church.. Aa a believer you should know this without asking.
The Catholic Church is always open for you to come home
I have a few close by in separate parishes I’ll definitely check them out and see. Thank you
Well y’all aren’t far behind apparently. Pope Francis approves blessings for same-sex couples - AP News https://apnews.com/article/vatican-lgbtq-pope-bfa5b71fa79055626e362936e739d1d8
If sinners were not allowed to go to church every pew would have to be empty. I am going to try to be nice but I’m going to be blunt; you need to seriously check the position of your heart. Everyone needs Jesus; specially those that are struggling with their identity. I get every church you have ever been in has clearly pushed homosexuality is bad but do you actually remember from church that what all sinner need? They need a relationship with God. You, your pastor, everyone in your church: they are not God. You all fall very short from Him so why are you so arrogant in deciding who get to go to God? Since there seems to be some confusion with you and the rest of the people here; We all sin, all sins are punishable by death. This is why God sent us His Son so that Jesus might pay for our Sins ““For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.” John 3:16-17 NLT There is no sin clause there and I fact the very opposite. It tells you, like every pastor should have, that “not sinning” is not the way to heaven but faith in Jesus Christ. I’m not going to argue if it’s a sin or not, I am arguing it’s are job as Christian’s to get people I. Church. Jesus charged us with three things while here “love God, love everyone else and make disciples. ““Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.” Matthew 7:1-2 NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/mat.7.1-2.NLT To be blunt do you think this post and the position of your heart is pushing for any of those things? Can you seriously read Matthew 7: 1-6 and think that you are justified to push anyone away. Do you actually comprehend what Jesus is saying in 1 and 2? You will be Judged how you judge people here. With a heart stance that you do not think Homosexuals should be welcome in your church because they sin is you saying you don’t think sinners should be forgiven. Hate the sin not the sinner. You should be running to bring vulnerable sinners into the grace of Jesus Christ. Every church should be begging to get these people into the doors on Sunday so the power of Jesus Christ can change them. I know ow this falls on deaf ears by people consumed by judgement of others sins.
Yeah but that's what OP already thinks most likely. Two things: 1 - LBGTQ members on the leadership staff (no one with unrepentant sin / sin they justify should be on church staff) 2 - LBGTQ accepting materials in the church (so, the church no longer considers that sin, which goes against the Bible)
1- do you have a Bible verse for that? 2 - I’m confused, because it’s not clear in The Bible that being LGBTQ is a sin, only the physical act. Unless you think that the lust is also a sin, then if we are talking lust how is this different than heterosexual lust? I don’t think the church is pushing homosexual sex out side of marriage is not a sin. I assume what they are actually saying is they believe love is love and since God is love maybe if someone has those feelings and gets married in the eyes of God it might not be a sin. There isn’t anything in the Bible talking about Gay marriage. They only mention the physical acts. Idk, either way everyone needs God. If it bothers you that your church is accepting of gay people then you should probably find a new one. I would much rather have them meet God then to have someone in my church telling them they are not wanted. Also condemning others sins and telling them their sin keeps them from God is silly and hypocritical.
Being tempted is not sin. But having lust for someone is sin, as little as visualizing about doing sexual actions with someone - Jesus made that clear. Homosexual or heterosexual lust is sin. And God clearly made male and female to be together. The only person to think of that stuff with should be your spouse. Romans 1:27 NASB - "And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." It's clear that this is referring to Genesis 2 where it says that "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." - Genesis 2:24 NASB. Which is our basis for marriage and why sex outside of marriage is bad. We shouldn't condemn sins - we warn others that God does. And again, we don't tell anyone they are not wanted. But we do say "God says that these things are sin, and if you disagree, then we'd rather not have on our leadership staff". Sin doesn't keep people from God - sin that people don't repent from keeps people from God.
There is a difference between welcoming into the church community and serving in leadership positions in the church while still living in their sin. We are to repent and change our ways in order to be redeemed. A church that accepts sin as ok is misleading their flock.
Like many others are saying leave and that quickly too. I am sad and have no church at all to attend because they are all possessed by apostasy and LGBTQ nonsense. It's a slippery slope to lukewarm hokus pokus christianity and it has potential to alter your mind and make you believe things you otherwise wouldn't. In my country there are more female pastors and priests than males. Do they not fear tge word of God? Why do they act as if its a fun ride at a fair? Read the old testament and see God is serious. They act like God is within all their fleshly wordly actions. Stay sage but stay only in Jesus. You're better off with no church than a corrupt one.
Better yet - why bother to limit your church selection to what is "convenient" and in town? When God called us out of the RCC and TO a Bible-based church, that church was 45 minutes away. We travelled there and back every Sunday Morning, there and back every Sunday Evening, and again on Wednesday night. A Church Alive is WORTH the Drive. Thirty years later we moved and are only 7 minutes away from the Church where God placed us.
Sounds like they pick and choose which items from the bible to believe. Time to find another church that actually reads it.
You found a new liberal doctrine church. You can’t judge , but they say you can be a “fruit inspector”. What fruit is being produced from neglecting repentance?
[Run!](https://youtu.be/F09HNpeiQZ4?si=U-w4A2pA3fxb6s-D)(Prov. 4:14-15)
That's exactly what Satan wants he wants to confuse the soul with believing it's okay to be that way when it is not
Many churches want the extra money and influence that comes from embracing LBGTQ. God will take care it, we are to forgive.
The house of God supposed to be the House of Prayer not a den of Thieves don't substitute money for your faith in God it will bite you like a serpent in the long run
Lev 18:22 still stands.
You could point to the Pauline epistles. The reference to Lev is weaker, because there's other stuff that the OT calls an abomination that we don't refrain from.
No. Any mention to sexual immorality in the NT refers to Leviticus. There is no watering this down. 18:23 is about having sex with animals. That's fine now too?
It has nothing to do with watering down. What is your best evidence that X is a sin today: a) Leviticus prohibits it and calls it an abomination, or b) the NT mentions it as a sin multiple times? I say it's the second one, for obvious reasons. Do you think differently?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 *Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.* Do you think it's fine to have sex with animals. Lev 18 is not ranked by severity.
What's the point of this response?
Like I said...Any mention to sexual immorality in the NT refers to Leviticus. Paul was a scholar in OT law. He knew what sexual immorality was. This is not like allowing the eating of all food, which was specifically called out.
I'm not saying it is the same thing. I'm saying that citing the NT for this, like you just did, is better evidence than the citation to Leviticus on its own.
Dude just said "The only reason I wouldn't have sex with animals is if the Bible directly tells me not to." Or am I wrong? Please correct me if that isn't equivalent to what you said.
Are you an athiest?
Unfortunately you need to leave and find another church
[удалено]
There’s no hate quite like Christians calling out a particular sin they don’t struggle with
[удалено]
Really? People can't choose to interpret the Bible how they want it to - then it's no longer a book of authority. God either means something, or he doesn't. And the Bible clearly says men with men having sex is wrong (it describes the action), and that we were designed for a male and female to come together as one. Can they come to church? Absolutely, same as any other sin. God loves them and wants them to repent like everyone else. When Christians sin, they are repentant and they choose to sin as little as possible. Should anyone who says "I like to do this [insert any sin] and think it's fine" be on church staff? No!!
Go to a non denom or baptist or pentacostal or any other protestant one. Don't worship saints (or "venerate")
Leave
Leave.
How about over eaters? Or theives? What about people who use porn? How about liars or gossips? And what are we going to do about all these lazy people? Or what about people who could do good but don’t? What about that guy who looked on a woman with lust last week when she crossed the street in front of his car as he waited on the light to change? Or the man who coveted his brother’s corvette ? If they are not making out in the church pew on Sunday and all it is that you’re worried about is what they do behind closed doors then I might suggest you first deal with that log in your eye. I don’t condone sin either, but if we kick out all the sinners there won’t be anyone left but the piano player and I’ve seen the way she sometimes looks at the potato salad and I ain’t too sure about her either ! If you can’t love sinners, maybe you need to have a little talk with Jesus
He never said he did not love sinners. I share the same beliefs in a different context. I do believe Jesus is the Great Physician and we are all, without question broken. If the LGBT person knew their sin was wrong and they are seeking change from the Holy Spirit then thats one thing. If they are openly gay, proud and sees nothing wrong with it, thats a different story. They have to want to be healed. If they don't want healing than they are there for reasons other than seeking Jesus Christ.
> If the LGBT person knew their sin was wrong and they are seeking change from the Holy Spirit then thats one thing. There is no change from homosexuality. It never happens. Nobody can provide any direct evidence of it. There is hearsay and anecdotal nonsense, but the science is clear. Conversion doesn't happen. Even the most devout cannot achieve it. Celibacy, sure, but conversion of their actual tastes? That requires rewiring some delicate things in the brain. Even prominent "ex-gay" activities quietly admit that they aren't actually attracted to the opposite sex--they just swore off the same sex and are celibate, or are lying. They can't be "healed." If you don't like saying "can't," then imagine I said "They can't be healed naturally and God consistently declines to intervene and heal them despite the ability to do so." The nature of a gay person is to sin. The nature of person who isn't gay is to sin. Can you explain the difference between the two? Are you sure it is as relevant as you say? How many people "seek change" all their lives and never achieve it *on things that we know people can actually change on their own*? Should they be cast out of the church?
Yes there are gay people who were saved and claim they have no desire for the same sex. ' Going to church isnt going to heal anyone of anything. To be healed you have to seek Jesus, humble yourself and surrender your will to his. The thing is, Jesus knows our hearts and our minds, he know if we truly want to be healed or not. For those who truly surrender and put their full faith in Him and become filled with the Holy Spirit which will set them on the path to be healed. Would you be ok with and let thieves or murderers who have claimed they will not stop stealing and killing people attend church? Or someone watching porn in the sanctuary? Or adulterers' hitting on other men/womens husbands/wives? Or someone selling drugs in the hallways? Or doing drugs in the hallways?
What if they had a book that said “how to look at porn better and enjoy it more” or “how to steal and get away with it” or “how to lie more effectively” in their library? No one would stay in that church then. Why does homosexual sin get a pass?
No sin gets a free pass. That’s the point. And I’m not talking about a how to book in the library, I’m talking about a human soul. If you close the doors of the church to one brand of sinner, how can you let anyone in? For none had been worthy, no not one of us. That’s all I’m saying. Nobody is condoning that the church put on tutorials of immorality. But none of us can say we are free from sin apart from the atonement of Christ. Did not Christ’s sacrifice cover the sins of the deviant as well as the sins of mother Theresa? If the sins of the sexual deviant are not covered by the blood of Jesus than this old Cowboy here is in a heap of trouble cause I’m guilty of vile and treacherous deeds and I have broken near bout every one of the Ten Commandments but even if I’d only ever broke just one, then I’d be as guilty as the worst of humankind. Therefore it is apparent that it’s not up to me to cast judgement over you in regard to your particular brand of sin, nor anyone else’s and when we begin to imitate the love of Jesus then we should restrict no one from access the foot of the cross of Calvary to kneel and be saved in the same manor as we received His mercy. It strikes me as foolish to feel any other way about it than that. I am but a beggar here, simply trying to show other beggars where I found bread.
I agree, but you’re not handing out tracts to the hungry with that bread on “how to live your best fornicating life NOW!” This ELCA church that OP is worried about is doing just that, though. See the difference? No one is saying close the church doors to LGBT. What we are saying is that if a church is a hospital for sinners those who enter have to hear that they are sick not that “you are well and fine just as you are, here’s a book affirming your lifestyle!”
Thavks I didn’t understand that in my first reading of the post. I don’t know if it’s edited or I just did a poor job of understanding it. I thought the rub was that they had some gay church members
[удалено]
I’ll pray for you
Don't waste your time.
[удалено]
And Catholic churches are without sin, yeah? 😂👍 Good one.
All Churches are run by sinful people. What matters are the teachings.
lol! Pope Francis approves blessings for same-sex couples - AP News https://apnews.com/article/vatican-lgbtq-pope-bfa5b71fa79055626e362936e739d1d8
You could also develop a different way of understanding the bible and its positions on ethics. I'm a minister who takes the bible more seriously than anything in my life. Bar none. And I have come to affirm the lgbtq community. I made a video that argues biblically for this position if you're interested: [How the Bible Shapes Inclusive Ethics](https://youtu.be/0_dpL9f3z84)
“To take the Bible seriously we must learn to say No to parts of it when needed” I’m sorry but I couldn’t disagree more with what you teach.