Skip to comments.Church Touts Homosexuality as a Gift, Not a Sin
Posted on 04/28/2011 5:55:29 AM PDT by ZGuy
Being gay is a gift from God, asserts one church in Ohio.
Thats the message that Central United Methodist Church is spreading throughout their community via a digital billboard, launched on Monday.
This simple statement, the church announced, is intended to be a gift to those who have experienced hurt and discrimination because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.
The Church seeks nothing less than the healing of the world, and Central UMC wants to offer words and acts of healing to those hurt and marginalized, the website states.
Jeff Buchanan, the director of Exodus Church Equipping & Student Ministries, agrees that the Church must display love and compassion for those in the LGBT community. But he opposes the message that CUMC is sending through their Being Gay is a Gift from God campaign.
Why would God bestow this gift only to condemn it throughout the Bible? This would seemingly contradict His character as a God who is loving and just.
The Toledo churchs controversial billboard ad is directly connected to a long month-long sermon series by its new pastor, Bill Barnard. The church is hoping that the ad will move the public towards tolerance, reported ABC 13, and not perpetuate anti-gay attitudes and behaviors, which were harming the LGBT community.
The purposes of their recently launched campaign are threefold: to offer welcome to all persons who are gay; to challenge the larger Church to fully accept persons who are gay into the life of the Church; and to call on all people to bring all the gifts of who they are to God.
By welcoming and living in community with faithful Christians who happen to be gay, we have come to understand that being gay is part of who God made them to be, CUMC proclaims on their site. And by gay Christians bringing all that they are to God, the body of Christ has been strengthened.
In fact, we would experience the body of Christ as incomplete without LGBT persons.
Barnard told ABC, We really believe that being gay is a gift from God, and its not anything that anyone has to apologize for or be ashamed about. So thats how [the campaign] came to be.
Believing sexuality to be a good gift from God or as they declared yet another way in Gods infinite diversity CUMC defines sin as denying who God created them to be.
The overwhelming scientific evidence is that people are born with their sexual orientation, that it is not a choice, the church contends. Fully accepting ones sexual orientation and identity is key to leading a normal and healthy life.
Forcing people to act against their God-given sexual orientation will lead to disordered lives. Allowing people to act in accordance with their God-given sexual orientation leads to reconciliation.
While deeming the marginalization of LGBT persons as unjustified mentioning that Jesus did not speak directly regarding homosexuality the Toledo church recognizes that the Church today continues to be divided over interpretation of Scripture related to homosexuality.
Just two months ago, 33 retired United Methodist bishops urged the denomination to remove its ban on homosexual clergy, prolonging the undying debate within the church body.
CUMC hopes to unify believers by focusing more on things that [they] agree on, such as kindness, justice, and humility, instead of contributing to hate and discrimination, which they believe leads not to reconciliation, but to self-destructive practices within the LGBT community.
Holding people responsible for matters in which they have no control is irrational and immoral, the church declares. We believe that both those within and without the Church are hungry for dialogue about homosexuality that reflects compassion and humility rather than intolerance and strife.
Buchanan contends that CUMCs message tells people that the only option they have is a gay identity.
But people need to understand that thousands of men and women have found there is another way and have found freedom from homosexuality through the power of Christ, he says.
Even if there was conclusive evidence supporting the theory that people were born this way, Buchanan stresses that Christians were called to be born again.
While we may not choose our desires, we do have the ability and responsibility to choose whether or not we act on those desires. Our goal should be living a life that is congruent with Scripture, he says.
Genesis describes the fall of man and the permanent effects that sin has on us spiritually, mentally, and physically. Just because something may be inherent does not mean it was intended.
Despite the outcry of many from the Christian community against CUMCs campaign, Barnard continues to proclaim that homosexuality is a gift and has people come and remain just as they are.
Working to accept persons who are gay into the full life of the Church, CUMC is a founding member of the Reconciling Ministries Network, which is the United Methodist movement for gay equality in the denomination.
Two of the volunteer staff members at their church, including the music director and lead team chair, live with their partners and have served the church for over seven years.
Grieved over the misinterpretation of Scripture and false teaching that is being promoted by CUMC and many other churches like them, Buchanan encourages churches to deliver the message of Christ with love and grace, but also with accuracy and uncompromised truth.
We must always remember that authentic love is built upon a foundation of grace and truth.
Stanford Rives does not appear to be Catholic, so your ire is misdirected.
Regarding your calumny against Catholic leaders, I personally know quite a few priests and bishops who do not fall into the categories you present.
It does not sound like the writer fully understands. No Catholic is allowed to dissent on any defined doctrine and remain in the Church. The organization must remain unified to retain the four essential marks of the Church: 1. one, 2. holy, 3. catholic, and 4. apostolic.
Here is the proof text for purgatory:
"Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." (1 Cor. 3:13-15)
Actually I suspect this is a unitarian /universalist defending old Servetus
So serial adulterers and child molesters should be allowed to act in accordance with their "God-given" sexual orientation"?
What about kleptomaniacs and homicidal maniacs. Should we let them steal our property and kill our families so that they can be reconciled to their god-given orientations?
Your counter argument consists of nothing more than an appeal to your credibility, which based upon your posting history and agenda, is nonexistent. The Rives article is well written and thoroughly footnoted. If you can't refute or impeach the specifics then the reasonable person would have to conclude it is true and your response nothing more than an expected sectarian knee-jerk reaction.
The key is “defined.” Do you know how many verses of the Bible have been infallibly defined, and do you know for sure how many infallible declarations there are?
Rome actually makes very few binding statements about what purgatory is, and due to the lack of Scriptural support, what it does state took centuries to formulate, and any Scriptural support is extrapolated from a few vague and misunderstood texts.
As for your proof text, has that been infallibly defined to say that? Or is this you interpretation, which is one of 6 interpretations?
This actually is a poor choice if one seeks to defend purgatory by it, as contextually the issue is “how” one builds the church, with the fire being in relation to rewards, with loss of rewards being suffered according to how much one built Christ church by carnality, NOT one being purified from personal faults.
Leading up to this Paul speaks about how he “planted, and Apollos watered; but God gave the increase,” (v. 6) and “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. “ (1 Corinthians 3:10)
The larger context is that the Corinthians were building the church with carnal membership, even tolerating a man living in an incestuous relationship with his mother, a capital crime under Moses. (1Cor. 5; Lv. 20) Which certainly relates to the subject of this thread. Thus the temple referred to in v. 17 is that of the church, and is what the Corinthians were warned of.
Scripture does foretell of every person receiving for the things done in his body, but as regards the elect, 1Cor. 3:10-17 most clearly deals with such, and nothing is shown as to making more satisfaction for sins to God than what Christ made, or purifying torments, but there will be tears when one sees at the judgment of 1Cor. 3:10-17 how much more he could have gloried Christ but did not.
In addition, while the N.T. speaks about chastisement for sin(s), which can be very grievous i know, yet the location of postmortem believers is always shown to be with the Lord, (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 5:8; Rv. 6:9) wherever it is addressed, including all who will be raptured. (1Thes. 4:17)
In contrast, Gregory even said that the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hell: and hence they are in the same place
Moreover,, chastisement and refinement for holiness is only shown as connected to this life, (1Cor. 11:29-32; 1Pt. 5:9,10) and the only further punishment for sins after death is seen in the warning against continued will-full sinning after conversion, and is unto perdition, and which is punitive, not purifying. (Heb. 10:19-39)
In the world to come, as regards the 1,000 year reign of Christ, though one need not hold to that, there will be punishment for sin, but this doe not refer purification of believers.(Zech. 14:17,18)
Other text may be invoked, but to do not established purgatory, as it is really based upon Tradition, and Rome’s self-proclaimed authority, not Scripture, and even then Orthodox reject Rome’s version as being unTraditional. See post 270 above.
All of which is in contrast to expiation for sins being made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.” And which leads to a bureaucratic system of salvation in which sssisting with devotion at the procession of the holy Rosary obtains 7 years and 7 quarantines of indulgence; Or “with faith, piety and love” saying “My lord and my God” at the elevation of the host during Mass (7 years); Kissing the Pope’s (300-day indulgence, but a bishop’s gets only 50); Ascending the holy stairs in Rome on one’s knees, “whilst meditating on the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ” (9 years per step). Among others
Not unlike "limbo" the concept of Purgatory is a logical construct arising from the dilemma of those who die in God's grace and friendship, but are still imperfectly purified. Even though they are assured of their eternal salvation they need to undergo purification after death to achieve the holiness necessary to enter heaven. (See 1 Corinthians 3:15 and 1 Peter 1:7) It is not a place but akin to a process.
In the absence of Purgatory, how does Protestantism reconcile the dilemma?
Canon 915 - Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Sadly, Archbishop Chaput has indicated that it is the responsibility of the communicant to stay away from the Communion Rail. This is not correct. Rather, it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Eucharist to deny Holy Communion. This is a huge difference that goes against the Church's teachings regarding canon 915 as well as recent statements from the Vatican stating that the manifest pro-abortion politicians must be denied, and the burden IS upon the Minister to deny, NOT upon the communicant to stay away
. -- from the thread Will Denver Catholic Archbishop finally enforce Canon 915?
"...there's a question about whether this canon'' the relevant church law "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' -- from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion
Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together. -- from the thread Bishop: None of your business (Hubbard rejects Catholic expert's criticism of Gov. Cuomo)
[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, but he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives.Related threads:
-- from the thread US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed)
There are little green men on the moon.
Prove me wrong.
Yo, dude, only dingbats don’t know the answer: if it is not explcitly in their chosen interpretation of the bible, it don’t matter.
That is Quix's thing.
Now, for an even more difficult challenge, prove yourself credible.
BTW you are no more certain of the original Greek than I am.
I am going to assume that that is a rhetorical comment and not an attempt at mind reading.
I admit that my Latin is far better than my understanding of Greek, which is why I asked for your opinion on what the deeper exegestic meaning was. BTW, I am still interested in your opinion.
But you agreed with the writer on Calvin being a sodomite ... so he MUST be correct right?
Based upon the evidence presented by the writer it is a valid conclusion; at least it is certainly plausible.
If you are certain is it false simply present exculpatory evidence.
He also footnoted his stand on purgatory.. so that also MUST be correct
Are you able to differentiate between the burden of proof applied to historical events and characters and the process of arriving at theological conclusions?
How about this ? Is he correct here?
I'm not even curious enough to open the link. I'm waiting for your exculpatory evidence as to Calvin's "appetites".