What do you think about the ordination of Gay clergy?

DeanRoberts.Net said:

I recently wrote a blog post on the Church of Scotland's current assembly; one major issue they're debating is whether homosexuals can be ordained.

You can read it @ http://deanroberts.n...ate-gay-clergy/

What do you think? Should factors such as practicing homosexuals be considered? Or just the mental side of being homosexual?

Would love to know your views, especially in relation to the blog post!

Click to expand...

Doesn't this show clearly how far we've come from the days of the early church?


A practicing homosexual in a place of authority?

Man's deviations from God's ways seemingly knows no bounds. Who instituted clergy? Who made denominations? Are these not deviations themselves?

I guess it is only natural then that further deviations take place!

BTW..Hi Dean!

DeanRoberts.Net said:

I recently wrote a blog post on the Church of Scotland's current assembly; one major issue they're debating is whether homosexuals can be ordained.

You can read it @ http://deanroberts.n...ate-gay-clergy/

What do you think? Should factors such as practicing homosexuals be considered? Or just the mental side of being homosexual?

Would love to know your views, especially in relation to the blog post!

Click to expand...

I replied "I don't know" because there was a fourth choice I feel was not considered. If you stated in the poll "practicing homosexuals," then I would clearly state a BIG NO!!. However, due to the nature of our flesh, I do think that a person who wrestles with same sex attraction should clearly both teach against it as well as remain celibate and chaste. In this manner, a person who wrestles with the degeneration of the flesh faces the same imperfections as everyone else may battle different vices. Hence, it should not be a disqualifying factor unless they endorse and practice homosexuality. Those people who are considered for the clergy should be made to state in no uncertain terms that homosexual acts are contrary to the Gospel and should not be allowed to stay silent or to be vague on the issue. Such vagueness or silence against such an issue might cloud their judgement went put into a position of a priest or bishop who may elect some to such positions as lecturn, Eucharistic minister, and other administrative positions that would ultimately hire those who would seek to undermine the position of the Church and fire those who stand firm in the faith in both doctrine and morals.

The issue here isn't about sexuality; it's about 'purposed unbelief'. When i read Romans chapter 1 i can see no room for an interpretation that would allow a 'homosexual' (practicing or not) to be justified in their homosexual belief - God's Word is clear on this area - He calls it an abomination in the OT.

but the root problem is not homosexuality - it's being in strong and obvious opposition to God's clear Word in any area.

Look at it from a different perspective - would you approve of a Christian leader who professes to be a child molester? what about one who professes to be a murderer? how about an adulterer? how about one that believes it's ok to 'sleep' with an animal? why would homosexuality be different?

the problem with all of these is the same - people have judged God to be wrong in something He is clear about in His Word. as 'little-Christs', we are not free to believe what we want to - we are to believe what God believes.

i don't hate homosexuals; i have friends who are Christians and homosexual. i don't condemn them for something Jesus paid for - but neither do i minimize the importance of what God has judged to be an abomination when it comes to leadership positions in the church.

how about someone who was a homosexual and now agrees with God about this (i.e., who has repented - changed)? what we used to be shouldn't render us ineligible from leadership (or there's no one at all who's eligible.)

hey - drop those rocks!!!

GLY!!!

St. Columcille said:

I replied "I don't know" because there was a fourth choice I feel was not considered. If you stated in the poll "practicing homosexuals," then I would clearly state a BIG NO!!. However, due to the nature of our flesh, I do think that a person who wrestles with same sex attraction should clearly both teach against it as well as remain celibate and chaste. In this manner, a person who wrestles with the degeneration of the flesh faces the same imperfections as everyone else may battle different vices. Hence, it should not be a disqualifying factor unless they endorse and practice homosexuality. Those people who are considered for the clergy should be made to state in no uncertain terms that homosexual acts are contrary to the Gospel and should not be allowed to stay silent or to be vague on the issue. Such vagueness or silence against such an issue might cloud their judgement went put into a position of a priest or bishop who may elect some to such positions as lecturn, Eucharistic minister, and other administrative positions that would ultimately hire those who would seek to undermine the position of the Church and fire those who stand firm in the faith in both doctrine and morals.

Click to expand...

Scripture already makes statements about sex outside of marriage and alcohol abuse and lying, etc. Should people that lie be in the ordained ministry? Or abuse alcohol? Or steal or ??? I think sin is sin. How about people that teach false doctrine? I think they will cause more people to go to hell and are more dangerous than gays.

Homosexuals should not be in church authority, just as thieves, adulterers, murders, abusers or drunks should not be allowed to be in authority.
Read 1 & 2 Timothy. Obviously our Pastors and elders cannot be perfect...they are still human. But they are to be "above reproach". The Bible clearly teaches homosexuality is a sin, like any other sexual sin. It should not be permitted within our church pulpits.

[Qualifications for Overseers]
[3:1] The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. [2] Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
(1 Timothy 3:1-3 ESV)

[Qualifications for Deacons]
[8] Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. [9] They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. [10] And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.
(1 Timothy 3:8-10 ESV)

[15] Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
(2 Timothy 2:15 ESV)

tomwebster said:

Scripture already makes statements about sex outside of marriage and alcohol abuse and lying, etc. Should people that lie be in the ordained ministry? Or abuse alcohol? Or steal or ??? I think sin is sin. How about people that teach false doctrine? I think they will cause more people to go to hell and are more dangerous than gays.

Click to expand...

The scripture clearly teaches that all have sinned and come short of God's glory. Saul had an encounter with Jesus and became Paul. There is certainly a need for a long engagement when it comes to preparing for ordination. It is a time for venting the candidates, a time for them like Saul after a conversion to prove themselves as living in accord with the Spirit. When it comes to temptation, nobody is without such confrontations; each of our temptations differ in degree and in type. The Code of Canon Law in the Catholic Church has some very harsh things to say about a great many things contrary to teaching against the orthodoxy of faith and in morals. Even when a priest falls into grave sin, we are not to doubt the effectiveness of the visual signs (sacraments). This was clearly condemned by the Catholic Church during the time of St. Augustine when dealing with the heresy known as "Donatism." It is clearly an understandable sentiment to be against people who are like the "Traditors," those Christian priests and bishops who handed over works of Christian antiquity to be burned and sentenced many good Christians to their death during a time of great persecution, only to have them become bishops and priests once again. Let us not be soo condemning of people, thinking that redemption and forgiveness is impossible. Sometimes the greater a man is forgiven his sins, the greater that man's capacity to love. This seems to be represented in a Gospel passage in Luke 7.40:

Then Jesus took him up and said, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’ He replied, ‘Say on, Master.’ [sup]41[/sup]　‘There was once a creditor who had two men in his debt; one owed him five hundred denarii, the other fifty. [sup]42[/sup]　They were unable to pay, so he let them both off. Which of them will love him more?’ [sup]43[/sup]　Simon answered, ‘The one who was let off more, I suppose.’ Jesus said, ‘You are right.’


I just want to reemphasis that there needs to be greater venting of candidates to positions of authority. Priests need to identify correct Catholic doctrine and morals, should be acquainted with the Code of Canon Law when it comes to violations that would defrock them. Some people just don't know how the Canon Law works, how much time is taken to review each case in a thorough manner. For some, the wheels of justice in the Church turn too slowly. And when the Church takes a black eye, it takes a black eye. Even Pope Benedict wrote a specific letter to the Church in Ireland fairly recently. The Church still teaches against homosexual acts, against beastiality, against pedaphilia. The teaching authority has not been tainted, only the priest who succumbs to temptations in thought, in word, in what they have done and what they have failed to do.

DeanRoberts.Net said:

I recently wrote a blog post on the Church of Scotland's current assembly; one major issue they're debating is whether homosexuals can be ordained.

You can read it @ http://deanroberts.n...ate-gay-clergy/

What do you think? Should factors such as practicing homosexuals be considered? Or just the mental side of being homosexual?

Would love to know your views, especially in relation to the blog post!

Click to expand...

Well when it comes to what the Christian religious institution is up to, I don't think it matters nor is it a concern to Father, it is a carnal man-made system.
Now, are there homosexual elders in the body of Christ? Absolutely not, it is an like an oxymoron. Are there believers who are homosexual? Very probable, but homosexuality is an indication of infancy when it comes to spiritual maturity. Elders/leaders are not sexually immoral nor do they struggle with such things, they have matured spiritually and died to self, bearing the fruits and character of Christ Himself.

Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God's people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ. This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God's Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won't be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Eph. 4:11-14

tomwebster said:

S C
Are you thinking I'm Catholic? I'm not.

Click to expand...

No, but I used to be Lutheran and I used to be Episcopalian. The scriptures are said to be completely authoritative, but the interpretations of it are not. Hence, the ECUSA, PCUSA, ELCA, and minor pockets within the UMC and elsewhere are demonstrating that there is no such thing as a Protestant authority when it comes to the interpretation of historical traditions, and the inspiration of scripture has become a by-word, a cliche, a mockery to the traditional forms. The Catholic Church, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches, are a fortress amongst a sea of Protestant -isms.

tomwebster said:

Scripture already makes statements about sex outside of marriage and alcohol abuse and lying, etc. Should people that lie be in the ordained ministry? Or abuse alcohol? Or steal or ??? I think sin is sin. How about people that teach false doctrine? I think they will cause more people to go to hell and are more dangerous than gays.

Click to expand...

-- In God's eyes, sin is sin. Those you listed ARE AS DANGEROUS as the orgination of gays, not more or less.
Isn't the fact that a gay (or the church that ordains him or her) guilty of the "teach false doctrine" statement you are speaking of?

St. Columcille said:

No, but I used to be Lutheran and I used to be Episcopalian. The scriptures are said to be completely authoritative, but the interpretations of it are not. Hence, the ECUSA, PCUSA, ELCA, and minor pockets within the UMC and elsewhere are demonstrating that there is no such thing as a Protestant authority when it comes to the interpretation of historical traditions, and the inspiration of scripture has become a by-word, a cliche, a mockery to the traditional forms. The Catholic Church, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches, are a fortress amongst a sea of Protestant -isms.

Click to expand...

-- Unfortunately the Catholic church has practices that are either not supported by scripture or run contrary to scripture altogether.

Foreigner said:

1-- In God's eyes, sin is sin. Those you listed ARE AS DANGEROUS as the orgination of gays, not more or less.
Isn't the fact that a gay (or the church that ordains him or her) guilty of the "teach false doctrine" statement you are speaking of?


2-- Unfortunately the Catholic church has practices that are either not supported by scripture or run contrary to scripture altogether.

Click to expand...

1--In God's eyes, who needs no interpretation to himself in Trinity, knows full well everything; with mankind, who understands language through myth must be able to distinguish through interpretation the regional historical and cultural understanding by a method of hermeneutics (just a for instance on the myth aspect, "hades" in Kione Greek is understood to be hell, but hades is in reality Zeus' brother who rules the underworld and so "hades" is a linguistic term of myth). What one Protestant raises up as being dogmatically essential to belief (like Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Tongue speaker vs. varients of non-tongue speaker, end time positions, and many others) another Protestant sect will with the same scriptures denounce it. Who is using the proper hermenutics?


I have stated before, when there is a Catholic priest who is gay, that the Church teaches that the human nature is tainted. So just because a priest struggles with same sex attraction, it no more makes him less a human being of the same make-up as Protestant pastors who may struggle with greed, heterosexual lust, and other vices. What is important is that the "teaching" authority remain intact even if the professed has fallen short when tempted. There are several bad popes in history that adulterers having children out of wedlock, but they never taught it was ok to engage in the behavior they were themselves engaged in. Now, a priest who may suffer with same-sex attraction is taught to remain celibate, he cannot teach that homosexual acts are acceptable. What you have in the myraid of Protestant sects who ordain homosexual leaders is that they allow them to teach that it is alright and openly practice it. Priests who, in the Catholic Church, teach against it and if engaged in it try to hide it knowing full well the Code of Canon Law forbids it. In the United Methodist Church, which is winning against the homosexual special interests, the Book of Discipline cannot ever be enforced because the episcopal structure of the UMC has limited power. You need a top down, not a bottom up type of ecclesiastic structure to enforce the teaching of the communion--and it must have apostolic succession.


2-this is certainly a place to debate the Catholic Church practices, and I will be happy to discuss one issue at a time while looking at primary Catholic sources for appropriate references.



2

DeanRoberts.Net said:

Hey

It's true; we deviate far away from Biblical authority. Though, this was just as much a problem in the early church; most of the New Testament is written in response to church problems... including homosexuality!

Click to expand...

Agreed and problems like the early church had still exist because sin still exists..That is why it is good to learn from a careful reading of the scriptures how Paul and others dealt with those problems. Homosexuality was never condoned there as biblically acceptable as some church bodies do today..to the point of ordaining clergy and even bishops who are opening gay and living with another gay person.

pilgrimjo said:

Agreed and problems like the early church had still exist because sin still exists..That is why it is good to learn from a careful reading of the scriptures how Paul and others dealt with those problems. Homosexuality was never condoned there as biblically acceptable as some church bodies do today..to the point of ordaining clergy and even bishops who are opening gay and living with another gay person.

Click to expand...

There were many things NOT in scripture by which the ancient Church had to make authoritative pronouncements.
Acts. 15.28-31:

28 'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, 29 namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.'" 30 And so they were sent on their journey. Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter. 31 When the people read it, they were delighted with the exhortation.
Notice the decision of the Council of Jerusalem? By what authority that they made a pronouncement? It was by the Holy Spirit, and by US--the authority of Jerusalem as a council made up of Apostles in their bishropic role. And hence, when the Church was loosing their apostles due to martyrdom, it was necessary for other councils to form in dealing with matters that threatened the Church and which councils were bishops who were made so by the authority of the apostles. In their pronouncements of Church teaching and the power of the Holy Spirit, we have been able to make clear the Triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and upon Christ's incarnation to ward off a great many heresies from Arianism, Nestorianism, and countless others. There may be biblical precidence, but the fact that heresies twist the scripture, formulate their own persuasive reasoning to gain a threat against harming the Church faithful, there still needs must exist a clear cut interpretation authority. When abortion was made legal, when issues concerning cloning came out, the Catholic Church has made it clear what the high road to take while many denominations drag their feet and make judgemental errors like the Southern Baptists in their 1971 and 1974 resolutions supporting abortion. Even the most conservative councils of Protestant ecclesiastic forms have no authority when pronouncing its "affirmation."