Jerry_B wrote:I would hope nothing would be done to "placate" anyone. In fact I don't want to be placated. We believe homosexuality to be inconsistent with the Christian lifestyle as a matter of conscience. I would hope this is the reason the CBF instated the policy in the first place, because they actually believed it. If CBF doesn't believe this any longer and wants to change, that is fine, well within their rights. As is our right to no longer associate with them.
What I cannot fathom is such a central focus on homosexuality when considering denominational (or denominational subgroups) membership. It involves a subset of life for at most 7% of people. Jesus certainly did not make a big deal of it that we know of. He did make a big deal out of Pharisaism, out of judging others, out of helping the poor/sick/hungry/ostracized, out of doing the great commission (to all
the world). Choose a denomination and a church on these "weightier matters”.
Ed: And Keith why is it so difficult to fathom why sin is considered individuals for employment (the subject of Jerry's post ) by a Christian organization.
Keith: I would be judging the denomination by a very narrow standard if I left it for support/non-support of homosexual rights or banning homosexuals from membership or any position within that church.
Ed: If that narrowness is too much so for you, you would be welcome to stay I am sure.
Keith: CBF is right to re-assess its stance on homosexuality periodically, it’s a complex issue. Why not wait to see the outcome and then pray (or re-pray) about?
Ed; I have seen no one saying that CBF is not right to reexamine the question. Some have questioned Colleene's conclusion that the present hiring policy is not workable.
Ed P wrote:Ed: So Tim if People know when they aren't welcome why would a Homosexual want to work for CBF? I guess I should should, also let them know that that one of the two local Episcopal churches is also open to them. But note I did not say we would not welcome sinners to worship with us, but to join they would have to repent.
Keith: I shudder to think we would be giving potential church members an inquisition upon entry to a church, demanding identification and repentance of all sins (or particular sins) as prerequisite. The inquisition committee would be declaring someone unclean if they send a homosexual (out of or in the closet, practicing or not), down the street to the UCC or UMC or Episcopal church because they just could not tolerate his/her presence - let those screwed up denominations deal with the unclean ones. I suspect God would not think highly of such gatekeeping. We do not usually point anyone down the street who does not help the poor, acts like a Pharisee, or does not evangelize actively (and those matters are clearly delineated by Jesus).
Ed: And Keith I think inquisition as you use it here is simply a flame word, I think inquiry is sufficient. But Keith are you saying the church has no right to have expectations for membership. And I believe you have long ignored a distinction that I have made frequently between who I believe should be welcomed into Membership and whom we should minister to and invite to worship with us. This distinction may or may not alive you concern about what some other local church does.
And I suspect god prefers gate keeping for hos church over saying come one and all and we will not ask you to change.
Keith: And if I were to obsess with gatekeeping of my church’s or denomination's door, I am by definition a Pharisee who Jesus condemned and I would be working on my attitude with a lot of prayer. Work on the weightier matters while inside the gate and keep the gate as open as possible - Jesus did.
Ed; I really don' think we should obsess about any thing including the inclusion of homosexuals. I believe Jesus pointed up a number of errors of the Pharisees but when did he "condemn" the individual pharisee.
Keith: Now if someone (homosexual or heterosexual) started making passes at people regularly, I’d show them the door.
Ed: How soon. I would invite them to discuss their actions and explain what we consider to be more appropriate, gay or straight.
Keith: My judgment (and I could easily be wrong) is that homosexuality is short of what God intended. So is a lot of behaviors. Whether inclinations towards homosexuality/bisexuality is 1) inherited in genes, 2) influenced by our upbringing, or 3) entirely of our own choosing is not at all clear to me. Whereas being a person who walks by the other road when he sees a person in need is certainly not an inherited trait. We’d have to kick out virtually everyone from our churches, if we did so consistently for anyone who ignores people in need.
Ed: I am glad to see in your first sentence that you agree with Joy Yee one of our recent CBF National moderators who was on on the panel when we had an open session on the subject of ministering to homosexuals at the CBF National assembly in Charlotte in (in I think 2009) I not sure that their where any BL.C participants other than Myself and Rock in on that session. And i have never objected to the many discussions we have had at CBF assemblies on ministering to those in need.
The church that i am currently in does rather well at meeting need of the church family and strangers. We would not have to kick anyone out on that score.
Keit: You know that a psychologist might say an obsession with the homosexuality of others just might be a reaction to curtail one’s inner struggle. I’d say just as likely it is a case of desiring to declare oneself as better than some easy targets.
Ed: The only folk I am acquainted with who come close to what I would call obsessing about homosexuality are some friends in the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Churches. And I personally have known Psychologist and more importantly Psychiatrist who would say both of your comments immediately above are over simplifications of complex question. To say to me that " a psychologist might say" is about like saying a lawyer or a car sales person, or a Pastor "might say". Far to general.