Christians Need To Stop Assuming LGBT Sin Matters More Than God’s Mercy

[B/W Photodude]

Christians Need To Stop Assuming LGBT Sin Matters More Than God’s Mercy

To believe that Christ is your savior, you have to believe he has saved you from something, which sinners will never understand if Mama Church keeps telling Papa God to have a Snickers every time he’s acting a little too Old-Testamenty.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/14/christians-need-stop-assuming-lgbt-sin-matters-gods-mercy/

[JoeMo]

I thought it was a fairly good article trying to say that Jesus died to save everybody; not just straight people; but you have to allow His saving grace to work through you to cleanse you of your impurities.  Although the article specifically dealt with LGBT, no matter what our pet sin is, we need to allow Christ's grace to work those sins out of our system.  I think there is a difference between welcoming sinners into fellowship to give them exposure to the love, mercy, and moral compass provided by church and celebrating their sins by making them officers in the church or marrying them in the church.  Does that make sense?

[B/W Photodude]

21 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I seriously do not get the point of this article; and I did read the whole thing? Am I losing it, or was there an actionable point to the diatribe? Or, perhaps I could ask: Did you have a reason for posting this, is there a point you are trying to make?

There was a point to the article, although they seemed to lose it by the end. I disagree with JoeMo's interpretation of the article.

So, start by seeing a couple of the referenced "Snicker" commercials, then we can get to the article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UO2A2p-19A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP6XG-s32y8

Some quotes from the article:

it’s a statement that is perfectly consistent with the core creed of good old-fashioned American Christianity: “When Papa God is being too strict, have Mama Church talk some sense into him.”

For the average American who is somewhere on the church-going spectrum, his understanding of Christianity is something like this: God has promised to be our father, and we have promised to be his children. But the caveat of this covenant is that both parties must behave reasonably for it to remain unbroken. God will give us his kingdom if we are reasonably obedient to him, and we will give him our obedience if the things he commands seem reasonable.

When this happens, we then expect Mama Church to rebuke Papa God for his unreasonable devotion to his unchanging word, telling him, “I know you’ve always said these things were wrong, but everybody does them now. So cut the kid some slack.”

“Mama Church convinced straight people that they could still be Christians and continue pursuing the illicit sexual encounters that appealed to them, so why can’t we do the same for gay people?”

What I see the article taking to task is the position of many churches and even members of the SDA church is that sometimes God is too strict. People appeal to the church to loosen the restrictions by supposedly saying God didn't mean what he said. Unfortunately, many believe that feelings are more important than obedience to what is likely their eternal loss.

Another point I hear often is that heterosexuals are fornicating, so why can't gays?! It might just be me, but the take I get on it is that from the Bible is that heterosexuals, homosexuals, and all the various permutations of the various genders being invented today will go to perdition for immoral behaviors. 

God already proved his love for people by making it possible to be saved. He is under no obligation to approve fornication because someone is getting their feelings hurt.

[phkrause]

I'm in agreement with your post B/W!!

I also, though, think that JoeMo's post was a fair thought on the article!!

What I didn't hear from the article, although I could be wrong, is as Jesus said to Mary after forgiving her, "go and sin no more!" I have no problem with showing kindness and love towards sinners, but I do have a problem with saying that certain sins are OK because that's the way we were born, etc.!!!! God's law is not stricter for some and less strict for others!! It's the same law each one is under!!

[Lone Ranger]

33 minutes ago, phkrause said:

What I didn't hear from the article, although I could be wrong, is as Jesus said to Mary after forgiving her, "go and sin no more!" I have no problem with showing kindness and love towards sinners, but I do have a problem with saying that certain sins are OK because that's the way we were born, etc.!!!! God's law is not stricter for some and less strict for others!! It's the same law each one is under!!

Just my opinion, but I think that "go and sin no more," while an important principle/command (Wanderer, don't make a big thing out of that comment) is too often applied to those more visible or heinous sins that others do and not to the minor sins we all do. It applies equally to both. My life has been far more affected, and negatively, by the power-seeking control freeks and bullies in the church (especially leadership, but I will not belabor that point) who want everything their way, than by those whose gender attraction  is different than mine.

When you find that you have annoyed someone, do you try to anticipate like situations to avoid them? GO AND SIN NO MORE.

A soft answer turneth away wrath... GO AND SIN NO MORE.

When someone disagrees with you... GO AND SIN NO MORE.

When someone gets judged for...whatever...GO AND SIN NO MORE.

Its easy to say such and such LGBT/whatever cannot participate because of their lifestyle/whatever/whatever. It's a lot harder to keep the head elder/deacon/pastor from participating because they are control freeks/bullies/whatever.

P.S. I will not respond to nit-pics regarding this post.

[Lone Ranger]

11 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

 "worried" about: 

In Advent speak, a compound verb implying or indicating a lack of control, as in "I'm worried that I can't control you" or "I'm worried because I can't force you to see or understand everything EXACTLY  the way I do."

It falls into the same class of verb as "I'll pray for you" meaning I'll tell  God to change your thinking to be like mine.

[Gustave]

LGBTQQAA, sin is simply the particular sin of those effected by those desires - at the end of the day God looks at those sexual sins no differently than sins within the heterosexual camp. The biggest issue we face as sinners is justifying that our OWN SIN ISN'T THAT BAD  because WE THINK it's less of an offensive / damming sin than the other persons -which couldn't be further from the truth.

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I disagree with JoeMo's interpretation of the article.

That's okay; maybe I misinterpreted the article.  I may not be tempted with "gayness", but there are other temptations in my life that I sometimes give in to that would likely get me kicked out of church (or at least any leadership position therein) if they became public knowledge because they became so much of a problem.  I tend to err on the side of mercy rather than judgement.  I have a very jaded past - so much so that I wonder at God's desire to save me.  As far as I am concerned, people with serious issues need God in their lives more than saints ( we all need God in our lives whether we realize it or not).  Most people (including must Christians) I know have a chronic sin problem in some sort of their lives.  Whether it's a problem with what most people call "little sins" or "big sins", they're still sins.  If we got rid of all the sinners in the church, there wouldn't be many of us left.  Should mama church advise Papa God to be a little less harsh and more patient and understanding? NO! God has shown His infinite patience and understanding to us by offering His one and only Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.  Should the church be so stern as to exclude all those with a "sin problem" as a way to preserve the purity of the church? NO!  If they did it completely, the churches would be empty!  That being said, the way some people interpret Revelation and Daniel, Christian churches will be practically empty when Jesus returns.  Diminishing attendance to churches in the present day seems to be trending that way. 

[JoeMo]

1 minute ago, The Wanderer said:

But, sad to say, my experience with being told I am "not saved" is all-too common.

The people who tell you that have a much larger problem than you do.  Who are they or anyone else to judge you?  God is the ultimate judge.  You can choose to let their words influence you or let God's promises influence you.  Are you rough around the edges? I think so!  Do you have a passionate love for God and His Word? I think so!  Does God love you as a son? I don't need to think about that - I'd say definitely yes!

At least He tolerates you! 

[Lone Ranger]

13 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

While I am tired of always "failing" the test, 

What test? 

Galatians 3:3 "Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to gain your goal by human effort?"

[Lone Ranger]

3 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Are you rough around the edges?

I have a few rough spots, some of which I hone to a sharp edged. 

[Lone Ranger]

15 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

correct me if Im wrong my friend, but doesnt the RCC teach some form of some sins are better than others? "cardinal sins," "venial sins" stuff like that? I seem to remember my Grandmother, who was Catholic saying something about that?  Please dont take that question personally, its not intended, that way, its just the question that popped into my mind. Im sure you can clarify.

As an aside, 1 John 5:16, 17 does seem to indicate that not all sins are equal and that there may be categories or "levels" of sin.

[Gustave]

44 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

correct me if Im wrong my friend, but doesnt the RCC teach some form of some sins are better than others? "cardinal sins," "venial sins" stuff like that? I seem to remember my Grandmother, who was Catholic saying something about that?  Please dont take that question personally, its not intended, that way, its just the question that popped into my mind. Im sure you can clarify.

1 John 5, 16: If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God^[b] will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.  All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

 

Venial Vs MORTAL or Deadly sin.

What I'm saying is that I'm guilty of committing deadly sin and in truth probably everyone reading this thread is as well. A sexual sin is one within the lust category and I'm thinking that King David's sin when he slept with another man's wife was just as deadly as a gay man who buggered another man. King David was contrite just as a queer who engages in homosexual can be contrite. 

What I'm saying is that there are many folks who actually think because they are not attracted to the same sex it means that their desire to have sex with the opposite sex is in some way less of a sin (because it's natural for men to be attracted to women). The reality is that for a real gay person their desire for the same sex can be just as "natural" because to them it is natural.  

We are all essentially "in the soup" together as far as sin is concerned. I think this was part of Jesus' teaching when He told the mob that whoever within it was not guilty of sin to throw the 1st rock at the woman. Essentially saying IF GOD has forgiven this woman for what she did how dare anyone else for not forgiving her. 

 

[Gustave]

Just found this, he explains it better than I did. I realize that he says some things SDA's wouldn't agree with such as confession however what he's saying about the difference of the kinds of sin may give you a better idea of what some people believe about it. 

 

 

[Lone Ranger]

While you are correct re: minor disagreements he does do a good job of explaining the contrast between venial sins vs mortal sins. However, to me the best part of the video was Father Mike's insistence that we are never beyond the grace of God.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Well, thanks for enclosing that video. IMO his only "saving grace" for the message of that video was as LR has said that no one is beyond the grace of God. I got mixed messages from it, to make the longer story shorter.

The message basically reinforced the existential dilemna I characterized above by stating its a "mortal sin" to not go to church. As one of my Adventist cohorts said: "I am not saved" because of that.

Would your church say something similar? I have some other questions but that will depend on time & energy

It would say something similar and absolutely DOES. I say this from experience as I've gotten the same comments directed at me that evidently you have.   Some things I have an issue with and that (almost superstitious belief one HAS to attend organized religion) is certainly one of them. I think I know what you mean,

[phkrause]

4 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

 However, to me the best part of the video was Father Mike's insistence that we are never beyond the grace of God.

We don't need "Pastor" Mike to tell us that we are never beyond God's grace!! We have our real Father and his Son Jesus to tell us that!!

[Gustave]

13 minutes ago, phkrause said:

We don't need "Pastor" Mike to tell us that we are never beyond God's grace!! We have our real Father and his Son Jesus to tell us that!!

Do you extend that same rubric to Pastor's within your own denomination that say this or that, or, do you only reserve that rubric for clergly that falls outside of your faith tradition? 

[Lone Ranger]

24 minutes ago, phkrause said:

We don't need "Pastor" Mike to tell us that we are never beyond God's grace!! We have our real Father and his Son Jesus to tell us that!!

In the first place, it is "Father" Mike, not "Pastor" Mike.

Second point, IMO this video was kindly posted by a member of another faith tradition in order to help us understand an aspect of their faith, namely venial sins vs mortal sins, a distinction not generally made by protestants. As such this response is un-called for and not in the spirit of open discussion amongst members of many faiths.

[Gustave]

It's all good, I'm thick skinned. 

[B/W Photodude]

12 hours ago, phkrause said:

I also, though, think that JoeMo's post was a fair thought on the article!!

What I didn't hear from the article, although I could be wrong, is as Jesus said to Mary after forgiving her, "go and sin no more!" I have no problem with showing kindness and love towards sinners, but I do have a problem with saying that certain sins are OK because that's the way we were born, etc.!!!! God's law is not stricter for some and less strict for others!! It's the same law each one is under!!

I was not saying JoeMo was wrong, I just did not see it as a focus of the article. The article seemed to be looking at the increasing habit of churches to OK was the people want even when against the word of God. They also did seem to be saying we should be OKing the LGBT+ people because the "church" had already approved of the various heterosexual misdeeds. 

11 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

Its easy to say such and such LGBT/whatever cannot participate because of their lifestyle/whatever/whatever. It's a lot harder to keep the head elder/deacon/pastor from participating because they are control freeks/bullies/whatever.

There is a significant difference between approving of the LGBT+ crowd and how the elder/deacon/pastor handles a situation. Someone has to look out for the beliefs of whatever faith is under attack. Sins that are open and involve other people should clearly be dealt with. True, there are many private sins, but that is between the individual and God to work out. I suspect "individual" also includes people who are SSA or have some other confusion of morals. Some forget that the elder/deacon/pastor is also a sinner working out his own salvation and sometimes it is uncomfortable to be in a position of being charged with maintaining church discipline.

Unfortunately, it does not end there. Many are advocating that those openly practicing the LGBT+ lifestyle be baptized into the SDA church and be given leadership positions. There is nowhere in the Bible that allows exceptions to the law of God to save someone's feelings. And some LGBT+ people, along with many other people afflicted with many other kinds of sins, must suffer the temptation and overcome or they will be lost. (At least that is what my Bible says.)

Some think that they should not have to suffer temptation. But Jesus suffered every day of His life the temptations of the flesh and did not fall. The phrase "take up your cross" covered this suffering for sin. So, who are we to thing that we should not suffer for His sake?

[B/W Photodude]

7 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Do you want to suffer for His sake? Have you prayed: "Dear Jesus. Please, help me to suffer more."

Jesus did not want to suffer for our sakes! But He submitted to the will of His Father.

So, no I do not want to suffer, but everyone must. It is all part of the sanctification process. To be clear, by suffering I mean denying ourselves what our sinful selves want. This is not a physical pain. A similar situation would be someone who wants to lose weight. They deny themselves all the things they want to eat, but are they physically in pain? No, but it is "torture" to not drop in for a milkshake when driving by the Dairy Queen.

Since our suffering involves more serious things that when we fail, Satan accuses us before the Father, then as heaven watches us intently and we achieve the victory thru Jesus, we have that opportunity to glorify God.

Our prayer is not to suffer more, but "lead us not into temptation."

[Lone Ranger]

10 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

There is a significant difference between approving of the LGBT+ crowd and how the elder/deacon/pastor handles a situation. Someone has to look out for the beliefs of whatever faith is under attack. Sins that are open and involve other people should clearly be dealt with. True, there are many private sins, but that is between the individual and God to work out. I suspect "individual" also includes people who are SSA or have some other confusion of morals. Some forget that the elder/deacon/pastor is also a sinner working out his own salvation and sometimes it is uncomfortable to be in a position of being charged with maintaining church discipline.

Unfortunately, it does not end there. Many are advocating that those openly practicing the LGBT+ lifestyle be baptized into the SDA church and be given leadership positions. There is nowhere in the Bible that allows exceptions to the law of God to save someone's feelings. And some LGBT+ people, along with many other people afflicted with many other kinds of sins, must suffer the temptation and overcome or they will be lost. (At least that is what my Bible says.)

Some think that they should not have to suffer temptation. But Jesus suffered every day of His life the temptations of the flesh and did not fall. The phrase "take up your cross" covered this suffering for sin. So, who are we to thing that we should not suffer for His sake?

There are several straw-man arguments here. First, I know that some people equate "acceptance" with "approval." These two are not the same. We are called to accept people where and how they are, and by our love and inclusion show them a better way in Jesus. If God sees a need to change them (OR US), that's up to Him. (Mike-drop.)

As far as " look[ing] out for the beliefs of whatever faith is under attack." the best defense is living a Christian life of love, acceptance, and support and letting others see the beauty of your belief. As far as defending God...well, that is just un-Biblical; God defends us. Read Isa. 46.

As far as "private sins" are not ALL sins between the individual and God? And ALL sins affect people around us. How is "openly" LGBT+++ any different than "openly" controlling, lying, bullying or excluding. Yet the one is readily accepted and the other is condemned and excluded. ALL sin is sin.

One is born with a very dominant personality needing to control everything, the other is born preferring the same gender. Both are "wired" that way. Neither one chose that. Both are sinners* Yet we exclude the one and praise the other.

It is not our job to judge and condemn or exclude anyone. We are called to love and include EVERYONE. I know that sits VERY uncomfortably with the old-school mind. They're so afraid the church will be filled with homeless and hookers and drug addicts and pimps and thieves and God knows what. Actually, I can barely think of a better situation, because I AM INCLUDED! JoeMo, you said you had a jaded past. I relate. I have one too. I also have a jaded present. It bothers me, but I leave it with God. And God knows what. God knows what I have done. God knows what I will do. God knows what YOU have done, and will do. And God knows what He wants, and how to achieve it.

*Certain caveats apply, beyond the scope of this discussion. 

[JoeMo]

19 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Sins that are open and involve other people should clearly be dealt with. True, there are many private sins, but that is between the individual and God to work out.

Well said.

[JoeMo]

Jesus gave us an example of the dichotomy we are discussing.  The Pharisees brought a woman to him caught in the very act of adultery to have her stoned.  Jesus told them that he who was without sin should throw the first stone.  They left.  So the writer of the Law that said adulterers should be stoned to death was there with an adulteress.  He was the only one there who was without sin; and He had the power and authority to condemn her on site.  But He did not.  He told her to go and sin no more.  We don't know whether she indeed quit sinning, but if she didn't, and they brought her to Jesus again, would He have then had her stoned?  I think not.

I'm glad church discipline even at its worst isn't as harsh as it was then.

What about the Corinthian church?  In 1 Corinthians, he admonishes then about doctrinal division, incest, sexual immorality, taking brothers and sisters to court, among other things.  Sounds like a pretty dysfunctional church to me! Yet Paul says:

"To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus.5 For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— 6 God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. 7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." (1 Cor. 2-9)

This horrible church was still under the blessing of God.  Who are we to say anything about what congregation is or is not under the blessing of God?