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

[B/W Photodude]

9 hours ago, Lone Ranger said:

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.

First of all, openly bullying and all the other things you list should also be dealt with. There is no pass given by me because they are as "not as sinful" as engaging in gay behavior. I was referring to the hidden things of the heart that probably only God can see or are so silent that when they do damage someone else, they are not observed for what they are. I would disagree that your sins you listed as openly being accepted really are accepted.

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

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.  ...  He told her to go and sin no more.

 

It seems that whenever we are discussing discipline over sin in the church, this story always gets dragged out. However, it seems that people cross to the other side of the street and look the other way when reading the parts of the NT where Paul listed the qualifications for leadership in the church and when he detailed the steps to be taken when someone engages in open sin. Technically, you could say Jesus took the first step of the process when working with someone engaging in sin - he counseled one to one. I suspect it was enough, which is what you would always hope for.

There are probably at least three layers of expectations for those coming to church - visitors, members, and leaders. Every time we get on this discussion it seems that people are suggesting that we are barring the windows and locking the doors when we see a LGBT+ person approaching the doors of the church. It rarely happens and then by some misguided "saint", but it is NOT the policy of the church. There are expectations for someone who wants to be baptized into the church and these are usually agreed on by the person being baptized. And there are even more stringent expectations if you want to be or are called to be in leadership. Wolves in sheep's clothing come in various forms within the church and sometimes the wolf in sheep clothing even stands in the pulpit.

[Lone Ranger]

34 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

First of all, openly bullying and all the other things you list should also be dealt with. There is no pass given by me because they are as "not as sinful" as engaging in gay behavior. I was referring to the hidden things of the heart that probably only God can see or are so silent that when they do damage someone else, they are not observed for what they are. I would disagree that your sins you listed as openly being accepted really are accepted.

Fair enough.

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

There are probably at least three layers of expectations for those coming to church - visitors, members, and leaders.

I agree.  Anyone dressed and behaving appropriately while at church should be welcome to visit.  Should one want to become a member, there are certain conditions that they must agree to.  While those conditions may be sincerely agreed to at baptism, how many of us fall back into old habits?  How many SDA's are closet smokers, drinkers, porn addicts, or LGBT+?  As long as they are good at hiding their vices, they continue to be "members in good standing" in the denomination, but probably less so in the body of Christ.  Leadership should hold to even higher standards; although in practice it's probably easier to disfellowship the average member than it is to pull the credentials of a pastor or unseat a wealthy and influential head elder.

We had a case many years ago in our church where a young Junior SS leader - the daughter of a very active and sincere family in the church - got pregnant out of wedlock.  When the Church found out, she was immediately removed from leading the SS class - an appropriate disciplinary action IMHO.  A couple weeks later, the church disfellowshipped her in a public business meeting - a totally inappropriate action IMHO.  The entire family was so embarrassed by this public condemnation that they got up and left the meeting, never to return.  In 20/20 hindsight, I wish we had removed her from SS leadership and then threw her a baby shower to show that we still loved her and her family.

When I reflect on my jaded past, I realize that old age and a sense of my own mortality  have greatly assisted in lowering my level of "jadedness", as well as the work of the HS in me.  I have no doubt that some of my past sins would be classified as "mortal sins" in the RCC - probably rightly so.  I am amazed that God would even tolerate me much less love me enough to call me His child.  If I were God, I wouldn't have forgiven all my sins.  Who am I - a very unworthy servant - to judge the worthiness of another?  OTOH, I suppose the denomination does have that right.  Any sustainable club has to have rules.

[Lone Ranger]

JoeMo I agree.....mmmostlyy..

(Our differences are not worth mentioning)

I certainly AGREE about the baby shower!

[phkrause]

On 3/17/2019 at 8:27 PM, Gustave said:

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? 

I do! Only one difference none of the pastors or leaders call themselves "Father!"

On 3/17/2019 at 8:42 PM, Lone Ranger said:

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

Yes in his video and to those in his congregations!!

On 3/17/2019 at 9:34 PM, The Wanderer said:

I am surprised to see you "flame" someone like this. Its not your usual style!

I agree with LR in that the reason the video was posted is totally reasonable; I see no problem with it....its all about CONTEXT, not "right or wrong" in this case.

First: I didn't intend that the statement come out that way, for that and for those that thought so, I apologize!

Second one: Never said anything about the video per se, video was OK!

And for the reason for the statement that didn't come across as intended:

Jesus talking in Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth `Father.' because you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

From my understanding he's talking about religious leaders here??

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, phkrause said:

I do! Only one difference none of the pastors or leaders call themselves "Father!"

Yes in his video and to those in his congregations!!

First: I didn't intend that the statement come out that way, for that and for those that thought so, I apologize!

Second one: Never said anything about the video per se, video was OK!

And for the reason for the statement that didn't come across as intended:

Jesus talking in Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth `Father.' because you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

From my understanding he's talking about religious leaders here??

Do you "hate" your Father? 

I'll let Pastor Mike answer your question. If there are additional questions you have after watching this I would love to try to answer them for you. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As many of you know, I spent 20 years working in a VA hospital as a chaplain.  Many people were not certain as to how to address me.  Some would ask.  I would tell them that I was not hung up on titles, but if they wanted to call me Chaplain, that would be fine.

Others would look back into their history and knowledge and venture a guess and call me either Father or Reverend.  It always took that as an attempt on their part to be respectful and to acknowledge me as a member of the clergy.  I never  corrected them in any way.  I simply took it for what they meant.

NOTE: I was never called Mother.

By the same token, as a matter of respect, I did use the common titles of Reverend and Father in my address to clergy who normally used those titles.  I do not believe that any of them ever thought that I, as SDA clergy was attributing anything more to them than that of respectfully acknowledging them as clergy.

And, my doing so served to build relationships.

I believe that God expects us, as Adventists, to build relationships with people of other denominational backgrounds, to include other clergy.  I am not going to call other clergy by a title that may cause them to think that I do consider them to be the clergy that they are.

As to the title given to the Pope of Your Holiness:  No Catholic who understands the Catholic faith would ever consider that title to indicate that the Pope is without sin.  Catholic doctrine clearly teaches that the Pope is a sinful human being and the Pope must go to Confession the same as any other Catholic.

The Catholic teaching of the meaning of the title Your Holiness is that the Pope his dedicated his life to that which is set apart as a follower of Christ and the religious life.  IOW, the Pope has put apart the secular and it  totally dedicated to the spiritual, even if as a human imperfect.

 

[Gustave]

10 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As many of you know, I spent 20 years working in a VA hospital as a chaplain.  Many people were not certain as to how to address me.  Some would ask.  I would tell them that I was not hung up on titles, but if they wanted to call me Chaplain, that would be fine.

Others would look back into their history and knowledge and venture a guess and call me either Father or Reverend.  It always took that as an attempt on their part to be respectful and to acknowledge me as a member of the clergy.  I never  corrected them in any way.  I simply took it for what they meant.

NOTE: I was never called Mother.

By the same token, as a matter of respect, I did use the common titles of Reverend and Father in my address to clergy who normally used those titles.  I do not believe that any of them ever thought that I, as SDA clergy was attributing anything more to them than that of respectfully acknowledging them as clergy.

And, my doing so served to build relationships.

I believe that God expects us, as Adventists, to build relationships with people of other denominational backgrounds, to include other clergy.  I am not going to call other clergy by a title that may cause them to think that I do consider them to be the clergy that they are.

As to the title given to the Pope of Your Holiness:  No Catholic who understands the Catholic faith would ever consider that title to indicate that the Pope is without sin.  Catholic doctrine clearly teaches that the Pope is a sinful human being and the Pope must go to Confession the same as any other Catholic.

The Catholic teaching of the meaning of the title Your Holiness is that the Pope his dedicated his life to that which is set apart as a follower of Christ and the religious life.  IOW, the Pope has put apart the secular and it  totally dedicated to the spiritual, even if as a human imperfect.

 

Very well said, and true!

[JoeMo]

13 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I sometimes think some Adventists are rather prejudiced against RCCs and will not ever call a Priest "Father," but they wont hesitate to call the Dali Lama "Your Holiness."  Know what I mean?

Yes.  To me, it's no different than calling a judge "your Honor" or a doctor "Doctor".  It is a sign of respect rather than a sign of obeisance.  my step-kids and sons and daughters-in-law call me "Dad", not out of any form of submission, but out of love and respect.  I never asked them to call me that.

When I was a Catholic, my view of calling a priest "Father" or a nun "Sister" was out of familial respect, just like I call you my brothers and sisters.  When I'm around priests and nuns (my family is still Catholic), I still call them Father and Sister.  One conservative priest that I'm friends with prefers that I call him Eddie when we're out together in street clothes.

[Lone Ranger]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Also, how would we explain : "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Mat 23:49)??

Contrast Matthew 23:9 with 1 Corinthians 4:15.

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

really???????

Yes. Just my opinion.

 

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Also, how would we explain : "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Mat 23:49)?

If I took that completely literally, I shouldn't have even called my dad "father".  Jesus also said if your eye causes you to sin then pluck it out.  If I took that literally I would be blind.  Just my opinion.

[phkrause]

51 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

If I took that completely literally, I shouldn't have even called my dad "father".  Jesus also said if your eye causes you to sin then pluck it out.  If I took that literally I would be blind.  Just my opinion.

First, as I've mentioned earlier, I don't believe its a family thing!! If you look at a few verse before, Jesus is talking to his disciples and a crowd of people. He's talking about the leaders of the church. Telling them that they like being called Rabbi, etc., and how they do all there deeds to be honored by all. That's when he tells them that no one should be called father. I also look at it as him telling them that no one should take upon themselves those titles, like father, reverent, etc. So in my case I've always taken that literally!! That's where I'm coming from.

[Gustave]

11 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

It could also be noted too that there are quite a few other religions that also have a "Your Holiness." I sometimes think some Adventists are rather prejudiced against RCCs and will not ever call a Priest "Father," but they wont hesitate to call the Dali Lama "Your Holiness."  Know what I mean?

You could be right, to be honest I've not thought about that question before. Jerusalem was called "the holy city" & there are other examples of individuals being called holy such as 2nd Kings 4,9 / Sirach 45,6 & Mark 6, 20. I've just considered it another way of describing a devoutly religious person. 

[B/W Photodude]

18 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

really???????

There are those in certain communities who are pushing so hard for acceptance that they over do it so the regular members are "not so bad." So, to see someone dressed outrageously in church is not impossible. It seems certain communities are also working over time to destroy the mores of other communities. They can demand all the respect and acceptance in the world, but are dead set against giving any such respect to anyone else. The problem is that church and the services should be considered holy. We are in God's house and have a certain duty to keep out misbehavior. There are many Bible stories that bring out the idea that certain contaminating influences should be removed from holy places.

[Gustave]

15 hours ago, phkrause said:

First, as I've mentioned earlier, I don't believe its a family thing!! If you look at a few verse before, Jesus is talking to his disciples and a crowd of people. He's talking about the leaders of the church. Telling them that they like being called Rabbi, etc., and how they do all there deeds to be honored by all. That's when he tells them that no one should be called father. I also look at it as him telling them that no one should take upon themselves those titles, like father, reverent, etc. So in my case I've always taken that literally!! That's where I'm coming from.

That's why I asked you if you hated your Father, if you take the hyperbolic speech Jesus commonly used, "literally". 

Luke 14, 26: "If anyone comes to me and DOES NOT HATE HIS OWN FATHER AND MOTHER AND WIFE AND CHILDREN AND BROTHERS AND SISTERS, yes even his own life, he CANNOT be my disciple". 

 

[Gustave]

Just now, Gustave said:

That's why I asked you if you hated your Father, if you take the hyperbolic speech Jesus commonly used, "literally". 

Luke 14, 26: "If anyone comes to me and DOES NOT HATE HIS OWN FATHER AND MOTHER AND WIFE AND CHILDREN AND BROTHERS AND SISTERS, yes even his own life, he CANNOT be my disciple". 

 

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Its NOT the word "Father" thats "hyperbolic" here.

The hyperbole would be meaningless without the nouns or it would suggest that Christ was teaching that to follow Him one must simply "hate".

"If anyone comes to me and DOES NOT HATE HIS OWN [XXXXX] AND [XXXX] AND [XXXX] AND [XXXX] AND [XXXX] AND [XXXX], yes even his own [XXXX], he CANNOT be my disciple".

[Gustave]

7 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Yes, true; BUT the actual "hyperbole" is WHAT?

The opposite of an understatement, it's an over-statement.  Hyperbolic speech is grossly exaggerated to make a point.

Point being that Jesus' Disciples were not to act like or "Lord" their position over the people like the people Jesus was using as an example.

Jesus couldn't have literally meant He didn't want anyone to be called Father, because:

"Our Father WHICH ART IN HEAVEN".

"Your heavenly Father"

"It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven"

"As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever"

The early Church didn't understand it literally, otherwise St. Luke would not have said what he did.

[JoeMo]

18 hours ago, phkrause said:

First, as I've mentioned earlier, I don't believe its a family thing!! ... So in my case I've always taken that literally!! That's where I'm coming from.

That's okay.  Maybe because I was a "good" Catholic raised with respect for the clergy until age 21; and certain priests served as excellent role models when I was a teen. I'm comfortable with it.  It doesn't bother my conscience in the slightest to call clergy by the title used in their denomination.  If it bothers your conscience, I respect that.

 

[Gustave]

52 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Jesus clearly warned us against calling "no man" [human person] "Father. So, again, what specifically was the hyperbole in this text?

IS it a good principle of exegesis to try to say "Jesus didnt really mean what He said?"

Certainly; IF I was going to try to use this one text to say we should call priests "Father," I think it would fail on many counts. (keep in mind what I have already stated above).

I can appreciate how one might interpret it that way but it doesn't hold up when we see how the Scripture was understood by the early (New Testament) Church.

You say,  "Jesus clearly warned us against calling "no man" [human person] Father".

Does your Church have their kids sing the "Father Abraham Song"?

Or are you saying here that Jesus didn't want us to consider human religious authorities in a Fatherly sense?

 

[Gustave]

42 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

  Great come-back Gustave. I am out of time for a bit. Will be back tonight, possibly tomorrow.

a little hint for you; I am bearing in mind, in my replies, BOTH Adventist & RCC weak spots in this line of text, and similar ones.

Again; where is the "hyperbole" in Mat 23:9?

I would say the hyperbole is actually the part that says "call no man father".

Jesus was a Jew who was addressing religious Jews, Jews who knew the term "father" was saturated throughout the Scriptures that existed at that time.

Genesis 24,7

Genesis 24,38

Genesis 27, 18: "and he came unto his Father, and said, my father....."

Genesis 28, 18 has God saying it: "I AM the Lord God of Abraham, thy Father...."

Exodus 3, 13 Moses says it: "The God of your Fathers has sent me".

This is just representative of the commonality in the 1st 2 Books of the Bible whereas God and individuals call their Father, "Father". It's for these reasons I'm reasonably certain the hyperbole in Matthew 23,9 is itself the command to call no man Father.

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

On March 21, 2019 at 12:04 PM, The Wanderer said:

I am reminded of times where I have seen people get kicked out for not "dressing right."

In one case; I had a two-inch framing nail driven into my exterior door to pin a sign on it with a passage from Selected Messages on it to "correct" the way I dressed. Apparently, someone didnt like what I was wearing to church.

I have known the clothing police who must have had mental rulers to measure dress length and how much cleavage was being displayed. That was pretty much over the top. I was referring to the really wild members of certain communities who might show up in dresses and other paraphernalia which was inappropriate to their biology. Some go to extremes with their "in your face" attitude.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

I was referring to the really wild members of certain communities who might show up in dresses and other paraphernalia which was inappropriate to their biology.

That would DEFINITELY be inappropriate dress for church!! 

[Lone Ranger]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

I was referring to the really wild members of certain communities who might show up in dresses and other paraphernalia which was inappropriate to their biology. Some go to extremes with their "in your face" attitude.

While "they" MIGHT show up and there ARE  "Some who go to extremes" this has neither been the norm nor common, and such cases are extremely rare if they happen at all. 

I have been to A LOT (ie: 60 years x 52 Sabbaths a year) of churches, both SDA and other, in Canada, the US, and overseas, and I have not noticed that this (showing up in drag and being in-your-face) is any kind of issue anywhere.