WN: Lutherans to Vote on Sexually Active Gay Clergy - Washington Post

[PhoenixJLD]

No, to be honest - I don't get what you're saying. How does pedophilia have anything to do with what we're talking about here?

I would be against someone struggling with pedophilia becoming a youth leader, simply because it puts them in a position where they are constantly surrounded by temptation and where innocent people are going to be badly hurt if their resolve fails.

You were talking about folks struggling with lustful urges were you not?

If a person is struggling with an urge and you place a temptation in it's way that is stupidity.

As with the gay person who "struggles with lustful urges for other men", he shouldn't be serving. Like I said - his sin needs to be dealt with and fruit needs to be consistent before that person serves in ministry.

If you really read closely what I posted, you would see I also included the heterosexuals in the same way.

It's not rocket science you know.

I just don't see how serving in the ministry is a temptation, unless you're serving in exactly the area your urges coincide with. Then I'd agree - that's just stupid.

Maybe this is the problem though. I don't believe for a man to "struggle with lustful urges for other men" is a sin. Only if he acts on those urges - until then, they're only a temptation he needs to rely on God in order to fight.

[Guest HIS girl]

'PhoenixJLD'

I just don't see how serving in the ministry is a temptation, unless you're serving in exactly the area your urges coincide with. Then I'd agree - that's just stupid.

Maybe this is the problem though. I don't believe for a man to "struggle with lustful urges for other men" is a sin. Only if he acts on those urges - until then, they're only a temptation he needs to rely on God in order to fight.

An addict struggling with a drug addiction wouldn't be allowed to serve in my Church UNTIL the person showed they had overcome the desire for it and was living in accordance with the Word and produced the fruit to back it up.

It's simple.

People struggling with issues need to get it right before serving, especially if they are going through the motions in their heads - Jesus said that to even look at a woman to lust for her has already comitted adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5 v 28

So that carries over to lust for children, men etc..

We can either have the Word govern our Churches or let our "good intentions/emotions" get in the way...

[nebula]

Most everyone possesses sexual desire of one form or another. It is a natural part of our being.

There's a difference between possessing sexual desires and that of actually struggling with lust.

[Guest HIS girl]

But going back to whether sexually active gay men/women should serve in Church - NO.

Simple.

To violate Scripture and then to serve the One whom you are violating is the highest degree of hypocrisy.

It speaks loud and clear of how dear one holds the value and content of Scripture.

Jesus declared the Father is looking for those to worship in Spirit and in Truth. (John 4 v 23)

[PhoenixJLD]

But going back to whether sexually active gay men/women should serve in Church - NO.

Simple.

To violate Scripture and then to serve the One whom you are violating is the highest degree of hypocrisy.

It speaks loud and clear of how dear one holds the value and content of Scripture.

Jesus declared the Father is looking for those to worship in Spirit and in Truth. (John 4 v 23)

I totally agree.

[~candice~]

Phoenix - while it is true that temptation is not a sin, is there any benefit to possessing or holding onto an orientation that leads to temptation or sin? I don't think there is.

Most everyone possesses sexual desire of one form or another. It is a natural part of our being.

There's a difference between possessing sexual desires and that of actually struggling with lust.

Someone struggling with lust isn't in a position to serve. Possessing sexual desires that aren't leading a person to sin is OK. I have wondered in the past (I even have a thread somewhere ) about whether those gay people should want to hold onto their desires... I would feel uncomfortable with a pastor who says 'I'm gay, and thats ok, because I don't lust or fornicate' etc etc, because I would want my pastor to not want to hold onto any orientation that could lead to sin or temptation. I would rather he have the attitude 'I'm gay, and I hope God purges this from me, and until He does that I will resist temptation'. Hard to explain, I hope I got my point across...

But going back to whether sexually active gay men/women should serve in Church - NO.

Simple.

To violate Scripture and then to serve the One whom you are violating is the highest degree of hypocrisy.

It speaks loud and clear of how dear one holds the value and content of Scripture.

Jesus declared the Father is looking for those to worship in Spirit and in Truth. (John 4 v 23)

Totally agree.

The issue of pedophiles serving in youth group is different because that is intentionally placing them in temptation which is sinful and illegal and dangerous.

[~candice~]

Someone struggling with lust isn't in a position to serve. Possessing sexual desires that aren't leading a person to sin is OK. I have wondered in the past (I even have a thread somewhere ) about whether those gay people should want to hold onto their desires... I would feel uncomfortable with a pastor who says 'I'm gay, and thats ok, because I don't lust or fornicate' etc etc, because I would want my pastor to not want to hold onto any orientation that could lead to sin or temptation. I would rather he have the attitude 'I'm gay, and I hope God purges this from me, and until He does that I will resist temptation'. Hard to explain, I hope I got my point across...

What if he just said "I'm gay and I can't change that"?

It's about his attitude towards sin. He might not be able to change it on his own, but God could. I think there should always be hope in the homosexual that God will change them, and until that happens, faith that He will enable them to stand under the temptation.

I'd rather hear "I'm gay and I can't change that, but God can and my hope is in Him".

[OneLight]

Someone struggling with lust isn't in a position to serve. Possessing sexual desires that aren't leading a person to sin is OK. I have wondered in the past (I even have a thread somewhere ) about whether those gay people should want to hold onto their desires... I would feel uncomfortable with a pastor who says 'I'm gay, and thats ok, because I don't lust or fornicate' etc etc, because I would want my pastor to not want to hold onto any orientation that could lead to sin or temptation. I would rather he have the attitude 'I'm gay, and I hope God purges this from me, and until He does that I will resist temptation'. Hard to explain, I hope I got my point across...

What if he just said "I'm gay and I can't change that"?

I personally know those who lived the gay lifestyle and God has changed them. You are right, they can't change, but God can change them. It all depends where your faith is and what the desires of their heart is.

[PhoenixJLD]

What if he just said "I'm gay and I can't change that"?

It's about his attitude towards sin. He might not be able to change it on his own, but God could. I think there should always be hope in the homosexual that God will change them, and until that happens, faith that He will enable them to stand under the temptation.

I'd rather hear "I'm gay and I can't change that, but God can and my hope is in Him".

Or what about, "I'm gay and I can't change that, but I choose to obey and serve God anyways"?

[Guest HIS girl]

~andy~'

The issue of pedophiles serving in youth group is different because that is intentionally placing them in temptation which is sinful and illegal and dangerous.

The aspect with this is: gay men are attracted to men period - serving in Church involves contact with other men on an ongoing basis - if a gay man is struggling with issues concerning attraction to men - this needs to be resolved BEFORE serving.

I cannot stress this enough.