What to Call them?

Ah, but now you are talking about how they should behave on our ground. When we send a letter, we are going to them. Not the other way around.

And so, what is discussed in a couples class that wouldn't be appropriate for homosexual to hear? Oh wait, if we allow them in our churches single group, then we won't be condoning the sin of them being a couple? But if we allow them in our singles group, won't we be condoning their lifestyle? Ackkkk! Can't have that! They can't go in with the kids they might be perverts. Where can they go?

Oh I know the answer to this one. Christ doesn't want them in His church until they have rejected their sinful ways. Man, I'm glad I wasn't such a bad sinner that I had to clean up before I could go to a place to hear how to clean up!

Are you sure we have become the Pharisee instead of the publican?

So how do you address letters to other sorts of sinners without condoning their sin?

I missed the whole sentance about the drunk preaching. Straw man. Sounds like you have a point but you don't. The issue here is how to address a letter. It has nothing to do with allowing one who doesn't meet the qualifications outlined in the Bible to preach. Get real.

 

Okay, I've read. I can't find an instance where Christ told an individual to "go and sin no more" where that individual didn't already have faith in Him. You'll have to show me.

 

You are making an invalid comparison here. If they come into our churches and act in any way contrary to biblical behavior then they should not be allowed. But that goes for anyone believers or non. Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone suggest they should not be in our churches or classes. And not validating their behavior is not equal to not letting them in our churches.

 

Let me know when you allow people to sit in any part of your church and drink beer and get drunk. Also let me know when you'll let people remain in the different groups at your church while they continually use foul language.

You are really trying to confound the issue here. I would not allow them in a married peoples class, because what they have is not a marriage. It wouldn't be a proper place for them. The same would apply to non-married heterosexuals. I would allow them in a singles class, but if they are open and unrepentant of their lifestyle then they wouldn't be allowed in that class either.

Yes, people sin, but to be accepting of it is not what we are to do. Under no circumstance should sin be allowed to be openly engaged in at church.

As for your post about them being perverts, you are right on with that one!

I can't think of an instance where this would apply. Care to tell me what other sort of sin would be something I would condone by addressing a letter? When I address a letter to John Smith, who happens to be a drunk, my addressing of the letter says nothing one way or another about his sin. When addressing a letter to a homosexual "couple", it directly references their sin.

 

Rev M the point is that addressing the same letter to two people who happen to be lesbians is NOT condoning their behavior. Someone else (as in not you or I) brought up the idea of whether we should also allow those lesbians to participate in a couples class at church if we dare to condone their sin by addressing a letter to them in a way that suggests they are a couple. And those same believe that we should send 2 letters addressed to the individuals so those women understand that we don't condone their sin.

It gets to the point of the ridiculous what we do so others recognize our disapproval of their lifestyle.

Our disapproval doesn't matter! Only God's opinion counts and He think the same about them(homosexuals) as He does those who lie, kill, steal or any number of other sins you could name. Yet we treat THIS sin, with such disdain that we can't figure out a way to address a letter that shows the grace of God. We must show our disapproval instead by mailing two identical letters to one household.

I'll exercise my liberty in Christ and do as Jim1999 suggested in his first post on this thread. Both names, one envelope.

 

While I have read through this thread I did miss the point of a couples class. My error, and they should not be allowed in one to be sure as if they were a couple.

Sometimes the recognition of our disapproval is a result of not wanting to recognize their sinful behavior and nothing more.

Our approval of sin does.

We do not need to overlook the impact of certain sins as being much greater than others. As a result dealing with those who do these things becomes more difficult. But I am quite sure most Christians would respond to all these sins in a similar manner.

As will everyone else.

 

When people send us formal letters (usually all it is are wedding invite and requests for monetary support) we get them as Drs. P & J.

Maybe the same here.

Btw, I'm glad this thread got started. Our church has not, yet, had to deal with this but we will. We already have an influx of several unmarried couples living together and have had to modify our church database software accordingly. (Pretty funny how even our software is stuck in traditionalism.)

This is going to be an issue for every church (well maybe not some) and needs to be addressed. I recognize and affirm (why do I have to add these silly cavaets?) that homosexuality is a henious sexual sin and the only form of marriage condoned by God is between a man and woman.

Perhaps just addressing the letter Mr John Juniper & Mr Howard Evergreen.

When we, as Christians, replying hatefully towards the lost who are engaged in sinful behavior we only push them farther from the Cross of Christ and reinforce negative stereotypes they already have about Christians.

 

So who suggested replying hatefully?

Do you think that on the day of judgment they will have an excuse that Christians pushed them away?

 

I can see it now, "Those sorry self righteous people that call themselves Christians just repulsed me." "They nagged me about my chosen life so much so, that I chose the total opposite for eternity."

I can see God pointing to the gates of Hell, "You mean they were right to tell me that my sin is going to land me in Hell?"

 

No Rev M. I'm not afraid of what God will say to them on judgement. I'm much more worried about what He'll have to say to me. I don't want my attitude toward any person to be the thing God points to as the stumbling block to their salvation.

I understand that my salvation is secure regardless. But I'd rather be saved and know my Father was happy with me than just saved. So yes, knowing how easy it is to push people away from the cross, I'm going to err on the side of being nice to them until such time has come that they have refused and I am instructed to "shake the dust off my feet" as I leave.

Addressing letters, or appropriate actions in church or even directly addressing THE sin in the life of a homosexual can all be nicely and nice doesn't have to mean one is condoning their sin. There may come a time when nice is not necessary, but addressing letters is just not that time.

 

Besides, in a secular world, homosexuality is not a problem, and it sure isn't a sin in their eyes. Far better to talk about a relationship with Jesus to begin with, and allow the believers to grow.

Cheers,

Jim

 

While I did not say that to you you dodged the question in your repsonse. Your personal and subjective view of what is mean or harsh is not lining up with scripture.

If addressing a letter is done in a way that gives the appearance of legitimacy of their sin then it is. The kindest thing you can do is to show them their sin. It certainly cannot be divorced from being a witness for Christ.

 

If they don't know what sin is, I don't believe they can experience salvation. In order for one to accept the gift of salvation they must acknowledge they are a sinner and need God's help. Salvation isn't about a "friendship" with Jesus. It's about allowing Him to become the Lord of your life and having him pay your sin debt for you. If you aren't addressing sin with people when you witness to them, how do they know they need a Savior?

 

You want to isolate one item that may or may not be a sin per se........Just as we don't present a list of sins to each person who walks an aisle, so why do we have to use a loudspeaker over homosexuality?

Cheers,

Jim

 

I'm not isolating one issue. I've previously stated in this thread that we should deal with any open and unrepented sin in a person's life. If it is a heterosexual couple living together I would not address the letter to them together either. This isn't about homosexuality per se, but about open unrepented sin and if we as believers should act in ways that shows acceptance of the sin. The bottom line is that we should not show acceptance for any type of sin.

Of course, if you think that homosexuality "may or may not be a sin per se", then we might as well end the debate here. There is no reason for it to continue.

 

I think the reason so many Christians have such a strong reaction to same sex issues is because it is a lifestyle being foisted on the culture. It is not a private issue anymore, as it was supposedly claimed to be at one time.

When some were trying to overturn certain laws a number of years ago, they said they only wanted the freedom to practice their sexuality in private. But now that is long gone.

Now it is a desire to teach it as normal in the schools, to force Christians to accept it as biblical, to change laws so there can be same sex marriage, and for the culture to accept it as equally moral as heterosexuality. The pressure on this increases each year on many fronts.

It is not just a sin done in private, but a sin being accepted by society as normal and moral, and those opposed are characterized as homophobes, idiots, narrow-minded whatevers, etc.

 

I can name a whole lot of things being shoved down societies throats by fundamentalist Christians as well, and this is a secular society, like it or not.

Ps, My Doctor, medical doctor, friend believes homosexuality is as normal as anything else, and she also knows what scripture teaches.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yep, those crazy fundies always trying to talk about the Bible and things. The next thing you know they are going to try and get God mentioned on our money and in the pledge of allegiance. Those weirdo fundies are always causing problems for them secular folk.

(yes..I know you are in Canada)

Your point is? There are plenty of medical doctors that will tell you homosexuality is a sin as well.

It doesn't matter what your friend or my friend tells me. What matters is what God tells me.

 

IF homosexuality was such a problem, why is teaching about it absent in the New Testament? It was virtually a Greek society (and Roman) which was given to homosexual practice even amongst married men.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Not send them a letter. I'm not even sure of addressing John Smith's wife, Mary, as "Mrs. Mary Smith" instead of properly as "Mrs. John Smith."