reaching out to homosexuals

No, it talks about accusers of the brethren, for one thing.

This is true. Just as the "former" homosexual, once saved and regenerated is no longer a homosexual. Just as the former adulterer, once saved and regenerated is no longer an adulterer.

I never said Paul was giving a license to sin, that is your accusation.

This is the original post taken from what you posted in another thread. I call it a social gospel -

No, let me rephrase this, it is a "politically correct social gospel."

Well, call it whatever you want to. It's kumbayah time at the Gospel Hour. You can dress it up whatever way you want to or call it whatever you see fit, the message you promote is still the same.

Sorry, blaming the church, blaming fundamentalists, blaming parents, blame, blame, blame someone else for the homosexual choosing the lifestyle is scapegoating. Excusing.

This is true. What did Jesus say to the woman at the well? He called it like it is. Even to the point of her living with someone who wasn't her husband. Read it slowly. Not once did He make excuses. He just told her the truth. Even that she was living with a man she wasn't married to. Didn't go into psychoanalysis about it, either. Just the truth.

No, sir, you are in error. You think you'll come on the Baptist Board and set all the fundies straight (no pun intended) and accuse fundamentalists of being the "cause" of some homosexuals.

Nope you are. What shall I do to "understand" homosexuals to "understand" sin? Well I do understand it - it's called rebellion and selfishness. Plain and simple. Based on that first choice which eventually became a lifestyle. And if you think there are no demons involved, you're only kidding yourself.

I don't. I don't expect a homosexual to understand me. In fact, I don't expect ANYBODY to understand me. But I don't have an axe to grind and I'm not angry with anybody or any particular "group" of people (except the liberals).

That's your opinion. That'll be the day I "respect" a movement trying to force their way into my every day life, into my home on television, infiltrating the public schools with their alternate lifestyle, I have 2 moms and I have 2 dads and everything is just so wonderful and "normal." Baloney!

We are to emulate Christ. That doesn't mean to excuse the sin or the agenda of those who are anti-Christ in spirit. I don't want to listen to the gays. I don't want to listen to the child molester. I don't want to listen to the rapist. I don't want to listen to all these different issues because they are all rooted around anger, rebellion, and selfishness. Once a person gets REAL with themself and with God, they can find redemption and peace and freedom from anger and bitterness. And they will no longer need to scapegoat anyone else.

You took it out of context. Read the passage.

Both true. And I said I WAS a sinner. I never said I have not sinned. All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. You are confusing the act of sinning with the state of being a sinner. They are two different things. I understand justification fully and sanctification, as well. There but by the Grace of God go I.

Believe me when I say, homosexuals are not the only hurt people in the world. Homosexuals are not the only people with low self esteem. And they are not the only people raised in dysfunctional families. In fact, there is nothing unique about the reasons homosexuals are homosexuals. The same case could be made for anybody else trapped in a lifestyle of sin.

PS: I had nothing to offer in payment for my Lawyer in Heaven. He took me pro bono.

 

DD, are you serious that you don't know anyone that is a homosexual?

How can that be? What part of the world do you live in?

I live smack in the center of the Bible belt in a town of about 17,000 with a church on every corner(more than half a dozen with the word Baptist in their name). In this town I know two practicing homosexual and one nonpracticing homosexual(or maybe he just keeps his activity to himself). One of them is my cousin. Another is a former member of my own church and is a school teacher here.

Off the top of my head I can name others that I don't come into close contact with that are homosexual.

I agree with what JohnV and GMBridges have said. We must reach them with love and understanding even if we find it distasteful. If we push them away from ourselves we push them away from Christ. If they can't see the Christ in the Christians around them where ARE they going to see him?

Guess what, a good many Christian people here think just what LadyEagle and DD think. But I'm here to tell you that telling a homosexual that he is going to hell for his sin and behaving as though his sin is the worst sin possible to commit is NOT going to bring him to the realization that that he needs the love of the Saviour. It is only going to push him farther and farther away.

I have seen it happen first hand. My cousin had so many people telling him what an awful person he was that he ended up moving out of the state. I don't recall even one person saying 'You know I believe this to be sin but everyone sins. There is a Solution to our sinfulness. ______is what Christ saved me out of. I love you and Christ does too. Since Christ hasn't stopped loving you I'm not about to'.

Instead he faced recrimination on every hand. Those in the family who he thought loved him, suddenly didn't. Didn't want anything to do with him.

Especially the Christians.

I pray that he didn't think I was a part of that. In the years before he made this decision we were very close. At that time, we didn't have much contact as our lives had led us in different directions. I also pray that someday he will find the Answer that I know he is really looking for. One day maybe the Lord will open the door for me to witness to him. If He does I will not begin with all the bad things my cousin has done. He already knows all about that. I will begin with "God loved you so much that he GAVE his only Son that through him you might be saved from the consequences of your sin."

I will not stop loving him any more than I stopped loving my mother when she became addicted to prescription drugs. Understand, that I'm not excusing their sin. I won't expose my young children to him any more than I expose them to my mother(only in my presence and then not often). That is an earthly consequence of their sin.

But..."God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, the that the world through Him might be saved." John 3:17. If Christ didn't come to condemn than who am I to condemn them?

 

Great words, menageriekeeper.

Paul, one of the greatest men of God that ever lived on this earth, called himself, "the chief of sinners." He didn't pull any punches. Christians are sinners saved by grace, however, we still sin. We wrestle with our flesh daily. Just as someone who lies is a liar, so someone who sins is a sinner.

Is it semantics? I don't think so. This is an important point in soteriology. It helps to understand the difference between the imperative and the indicative. We are saved, and we are still being saved. "Knowing this that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin."

Paul said, "Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. (Phil 3:12)" Paul understood that he was still a sinner. Why don't some Christians understand that same truth? Hebrews 12:1 also points to us being sinners. When we become a Christian, we are in the words of Martin Luther simul iustus et peccator -- at the same time just and sinner.

 

Scott, I started a new thread in the Theology Forum.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2260.html

 

Might I throw my $0.02 into the forum?

In my 20's, as I was graduating college, I was what I would characterize as a militant homophobic fraternity boy. I was intolerant of anyone who I would consider to be <insert any slur for a homosexual here>.
My first job out of college, I worked for a homosexual. He was not the stereotypical effeminate gay man by any means (in fact, he possessed an intolerance for them - more so than I did). I shared an office with him, and found him to be very funny, intelligent, and gracious. He broke every stereotype I had ever formulated about the gay community.
He had a "husband" (his word, not mine) and they were in a long-term monogamous relationship. On a trip "down under" they came back to the US, and his "husband" became very ill. They went to a doctor, and the diagnosis: he had FULL-BLOWN AIDS. [Thinking that they were not a risk, they were never tested.]
I met him in the twilight of his fight against the killer disease. He was also very bright, professionally he was wildly successful, and we shared a common sense of humor. He never tried to get me to "come over to the other side," and I really enjoyed talking with him. When he lost his fight, his parents came down for the funeral. His mother was ashamed, his father was devastated. Although I do not have children and cannot truly relate to being a parent, I will never forget what he said at the wake: "I've lost my boy."
My boss was in great physical shape, and worked out five times a week. He took pride in his appearance, and was rather striking. It wasn't long before AIDS attacked him as well. I watched this fine specimen of physical conditioning degenerate into a very skinny lifeless shell of a human. He too lost his fight with AIDS, and is buried in Tampa, FL (my adopted hometown).
My boss was Jewish, and he would always grab my shoulder and refer to me in public as "a good Southern Baptist boy." I strived to make every attempt to live my life as a testimony to my Lord and Savior. I was careful what I said and did, always trying to live my life according to WWJD. But I never once made an attempt to witness to him.
Who knows, I could have been the one who might have had the honor of leading this man out of sin, and safe into the arms of Jesus. At times, he seemed ripe for the picking, and I was too blind or too stupid to say anything. Perhaps I still harbored some sort of intolerance for him because of his SSO. But I will never know, and if he never repented, he is living a Godless eternity. I wonder: which sin is greater - his homosexuality or my failure to witness to him?

Is homosexuality a sin? Yes.
Should we hate the sin? Absolutely.
Should we love the sinner? With all our hearts.

 

Baptist in Richmond, that is the best post on this thread.

 

This is the original post taken from what you posted in another thread. I call it a social gospel -

No, let me rephrase this, it is a "politically correct social gospel."[/quote]

Hmmm, thought there was a rule about not bringing in things from other threads. "Social gospel" is defined specifically as giving alms, feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, etc. at the expense of not sharing the gospel with them, that is to say without sharing the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ with them, the one that gives spiritual and not physical life.

What I said in that thread is that when we tell homosexuals they are horrible people and offer them simplisitic answers, we only reinforce the perceptions that drove them into their sin to start with. The same is true of drug addicts. People commit sexual sins because they think they are worthless people. People do drugs for the same reason. We must be careful that, when pointing out their sin for what it is and calling them to repentance, that we do not do so in a way that sends them the message that they are worthless people. I have never said we are to excuse sin or fail to point it out. NEVER.

Jesus did that with the woman at the well. She was a Samaritan. She was a kind of person that Jews thought were worthless people. Jesus did point out her sin, but the fact that He spoke to her and did not treat her in a subhuman way and actually related to her is the heart of the story. The story isn't just about Jesus offering her the water of life and being sure to name her sin. It is about treating lost people with respect and dignity. This is what I read when I read your statements. When I asked you earlier about Sharelife, I really meant I wanted to know your answer. You told me in another thread that you think the world of Dr. Corts. Well, this is the kind of evangelism that he taught about, the kind of evangelism he called for from the pulpit and in his Sharelife classes.

No, believers in the social gospel do not advocate sharing the gospel at all. They do not point out sin at all. Please don't throw around terms so glibly. When you say I believe in a social gospel you are way, way far off the mark. Do you think HarvestUSA and Cross Ministries promote a social gospel too?

So what you're saying is that fundamentalist Christians that feel as you do are not in fact guilty of anything? If so, then what do you make of this statement:

"Many in the church would list sexual sin at the top of their list of "worst sins." This contributes in part to the deep sense of shameful stigma that sexual strugglers feel in their church. But the fact is that such a perspective is not Biblical and is a denial of the grace of the gospel. In I Corinthians 6:9-10, the Apostle Paul lists sins of greed and gossip in the same list with the "sexually immoral" or "homosexual offenders." The truth is, sin is sin. When we sin, we sin against a Holy God and expose our deep need for Christ's forgiveness. Of course some sins have greater consequences than others. (1 Cor.6: 18) The real issue is that in God's eyes all sins are the same and must be confessed openly to Christ for forgiveness. All sin, whether it is greed, gossip or homosexuality, equally needs the grace of God. The danger in viewing sexual sin in a harsher light than gossip or greed, is that the sexual struggler feels a pressure to hide and keep his sin in the closet. It is no wonder then that so many sexual strugglers choose to avoid confession and carry their painful conflict alone. This in turn leads so often to a person living in two worlds, one existing in the fellowship of believers, and the other being the secret dark world of their sin. It is in this kind of isolation that the bondage of sexual sin entrenches itself. Sexual bondage thrives in the darkness of denial and deception that is fostered by such isolation. As long as there is hiding, there is little hope for freedom."

That statement was written by a fundamentalist Christian.

Homosexuals blame everybody for their problems, except for the problem of their homosexuality. I would agree with what you say, if you said anything but what you did. Yes, they are the ones responsible for their drug problems, because they create the environment in which meth addiction flourishes. Yes,they are responsible for their high levels of domestic violence. However, they blame US for those problems. They do NOT blame us for their sexuality. By alleging that parents, churches, and other individuals have played no part in the development of the homosexual you are denying the facts about homosexuality. Homosexuals have a lot invested in the idea of no fault for anybody, especially parents, etc. This is part of their agenda. What you are saying actually buys into that belief of theirs. That's the truth of the matter. We must call the homosexual to personal repentance, but we must admit that we ourselves may have had a hand in creating and reinforcing the environments that led to the dysfunctions that led to their condition and gave birth to the desires that, when they acted out on them, led them into their own sin. This is not an abdication of their responsibility. They are responsible for their choices. However, they do not make those choices in a vaccuum.

Yes he did, but the point is that she was a Samaritan. By the time He got around to addressing those issues, He had RELATED to her. She was a Samaritan. Samaritans did not expect Jewish people to speak to them, much less relate to them and show compassion to them. Like I said, I have repeatedly said that feelings of victimization and oppression DO NOT excuse the homosexuals' sin. You continue to repeat that mantra, but it is not true, as I have said. How is that an excuse? Sorry I just don't see it.
I'm merely saying that if you'd just take some time to say go to an ex-gay website or two and take time to read about homosexuality, its causes, its treatment, the way to properly minister to persons in sexual sins, it might just give you some insights beyond "they're horrible sinners in need of Christ." We all know that, but that attitude really doesn't do much for the person sitting next to you in the pew on Sunday who is afraid to open up to you because of your attitude, and so they continue in their sin out of a sense of fear and rejection from you, not of love and mercy and compassion.

No, sir, you are in error. You think you'll come on the Baptist Board and set all the fundies straight (no pun intended) and accuse fundamentalists of being the "cause" of some homosexuals.
[/quote]

Hardly, I recognize there are different opinions, but at least I listen to them. Homosexual desire is a result of feelings of victimization. Creating a hostile environment only further victimzes the homosexual and forces them to either live a life of secrecy, which offers little hope of getting free, or leads them to act out, which eventually takes full fruit in open rebellion. This is a fact supported by every ex-gay ministry in this nation, a fact you have yet to acknowledge or as far as I can tell show any desire to even attempt to investigate.

These words are highly applicable here:

"Many a sexual struggler has shared with me the frustration over having finally opened up their problem with someone from their church, only to hear the moralistic response of "Just turn to God and repent." This unsympathetic response amounts to being heard as "Just shape up and act the way God wants you to act." Too often the well-meaning, but misguided persons who offer this advice, are Christians who have not wrestled with the depth of their own sin and the complexities of the bondage of serious sexual sin. These people tend to understand the bondages of serious sexual sin as simply "yielding to the flesh" and think that the cure is exhortation and rebuke. Occasionally this type of approach may seem to work. But in the long haul, it fails to address the depth and deceitfulness of the human heart that empowers ongoing bondage. In addition, this kind of self-righteous approach ignores and puts salt into the struggler's deep wounds. This in turn often drives him or her away from God, and the supportive fellowship of their churches, rather than toward the redemptive mercy and love of God and His people."

Again, that was written by a fundamentalist Christian

Never said anything about demons one way or the other. However, I don't see demons around every corner either. As I said, I never said that rebellion and selfishness weren't involved. However, the rebellion and selfishness of the homosexual is not a license for lack of understanding or compassion. THAT is what I have been saying REPEATEDLY.

"It will not be by pressure of pharisaical exhortation that sexual strugglers will be invited to open up their lives and be restored. This kind of restoration and freedom will only take place in the context of a ministry that invites sinners to have their hearts captured by the glory and tenderness of the gospel. Dr. Dan Allender captures this truth powerfully with this concluding quotation: "Paul says that deception and enslavement to all kinds of passions begin to melt in the light of the kindness and love of God (Titus 3:3-4). The brutal power of lust will not succumb to any force of the human will unless the heart is captured by the glory and tenderness of the gospel"

That's just so sad on so many levels, I'm at a loss for words. I'm sorry you don't wish to take time to get to know and understand others who are made in God's image or have others understand you. That says to me that there may be some walls here that account for much of the tone of what I have read here.

What's a liberal? Anybody with whom you disagree?


I never said you should respect the gay political movement. Please refrain from introducing red herrings. What I said is that we need to respect and understand homosexuals as both individual sinners responsible for their individual sin, and as victims, because they did not just wake up one day and decide to be attracted to members of the same sex. They are in bondage for a reason, and we, as the church must offer them mercy and compassion, not vitriole and rage. That is not Jesus' way. This thread is about reaching out to homosexuals and the way we do or do not do it well, not about the gay political movement. The two are not the same.

Want to talk demons Satan must be mighty pleased with himself and what he's done right now. He's gotten one group to push their twisted political and moral agenda down the other's throats, and he's gotten the other one to refuse to respect them, show compassion or mercy to them, or even make an attempt to understand, favoring instead to preach at them and not to them. He's helped get one group into bondage and has worked just as hard to be sure the other keeps them there.

We are to emulate Christ. That doesn't mean to excuse the sin or the agenda of those who are anti-Christ in spirit. I don't want to listen to the gays. I don't want to listen to the child molester. I don't want to listen to the rapist. I don't want to listen to all these different issues because they are all rooted around anger, rebellion, and selfishness. Once a person gets REAL with themself and with God, they can find redemption and peace and freedom from anger and bitterness. And they will no longer need to scapegoat anyone else.[/quote]

That's not a magic bullet. Sin leaves scars, madam. It may take a lifetime to get over them. You are confusing a political agenda with the individuals to whom we are to minister with mercy and compassion. Nobody is "scapegoating" anybody here. You keep saying that, but like a poor marksman you keep missing the mark. What I and others here have continued to say is that we need to have mercy and compassion in dealing with homosexuals (and others in sexual sins), because if we don't we reinforce the perceptions that led them into their sins in the first place. It is no wonder that so many gays try to justify their sin and twist Scripture with the way they get treated by Christians. It is no wonder that they hate us so very much. It is no wonder that they turn to secular support groups instead of the church for help and report that they get more love and kindness from the world than they do us.

I never said that there was anything unique about them, except for the way they get treated. Unlike heterosexual adulterers, at least they don't have Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on national television condemning them. At least they don't have people on Christian bulletin boards that claim to be Christians calling them "queers" and "homos." as if there's nothing wrong with that. At least they don't have people telling them that God hates them. (Yes I know that he's a minority, but that's not how he's perceived). At least they don't set homosexuality off into its own special category of sin like its worse than the other things God says He hates. We do not need to rub salt in their wounds in order to heal them.

And, one more time. Feelings of alienation and oppression and victimization are not an excuse for homosexual sin. Each homosexual that acts on his desires is in clear violation of God's moral standards and has sinned grievously against their Creator. However that fact does not mean we are not at least in part responsible for creating and maintaining the hostile environment in which homosexual desire and feeling is created and maintained. We must repent with them as well as call them to repentance. Should we witness to them. YES! Fervently! I even pray every day that the Lord will send a missionary from the NAMB into Atlanta's gay community. Since First Baptist left several years ago, there is not, to my knowledge, an evangelical Christian church in Midtown, the 'gay ghetto.'

Satan has set the two against each other. He helped put them into bondage and he has used us to keep them there.

 

Oh, please! It's ridiculous, and patently false, for you to lump anything you don't like into the "liberal religionist" and "politically correct" barrel.

It is the saved individual who denies that he is a sinner his entire life is the liberal religionist, since this directly contradicts Pauline theology. Those Christians who do this, and who likewise make excuses for their unrighteous behavior towards others, accusing those who disagree with them as "politically correct", are themselves guilty of abandoning the loving message of Jesus' love and redemption in favor of the hyperfundamentalist bandwagon du-jour.

 

In your name calling, you, massdak, have exposed yourself as the true liberal religionist dressed in hyperconservative clothing, proving that you are more concerned with remaining "conservative" than remaining biblical. That's quintissential liberal religionism.

You're just as much of a sinner as a homosexual. For youto deny that is unbiblical. Paul, who called himself the "chief of all sinners" would concur.

 

massdak has attacked no one and not called anyone names.

 

Massdak has called me a liberal religionist. I have stuck to a biblical perspective on this issue. He may disagree with it, and may have a different biblical perspective on it, which I can respect. But for him to resort to unrighteous labelling is uncalled for.

 

Can we close this thread now? It has turned ugly.