www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall How the homosexual activist movement has targeted America's children

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan Lauffer:
[QB]Brian,

You set up the possibility that the Church would soon change.

No, I did not say that the Church would soon change. I said that it should look at the possibility of that based on the reality of loving and committed gay relationships. I think if anything was glib, it was the original article posted on this thread. Not only glib but deceptive.

If you wish not to answer the question as to how, that is your privilege, but it is not appropriate to set up a possibility and then dismiss the practical question with a "I guess we must agree to disagree."

Well, as to that, I think that no matter how committed and "respectable" gay couples are, there will still be some people who will not acknowledge the validity of their relationships, so sometimes it is better to "agree to disagree" to avoid flames.


I think it was Steve who said "according to Brian's reasoning, a heterosexual couple living together and engaging in sexual intercourse need not get married and can dismiss Sacrmanetal Marriage because they live good lives and live in longstanding, committed relationships"
I don't believe this at all. It is another straw man argument. These couples should be married. I value Sacrmental Marriage. But it avoids the issue though that gay people who are also committed Christians are not given this option. Many would like to have their relatioship solemnized in their religious Faith but cannot. This I do believe to be wrong and it puts gay people in a terrible Catch 22 situation.
That is what I believe the Church has a possibility of addressing. I don't think we would agree on this point, Steve and Dan, so that is why i said we would probably have to "agree to disagree" i was not being glib. I have restrained myself from replying to posts and to articles posted here that have made terrible and unfounded accusations against gay people. i have chosen not to respond since it would do no good and would ratchet up the flame wars. That is not edifying to anyone.

Brian,

Gay people are not given this option because God has said it is wrong. You are asking the church to abandon God's teaching and this it cannot do.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. I accept God's teaching on this. You don't.

I don't want to conduct a witch-hunt against homosexuals. I want them to follow the teachings of Christ and go to heaven. Do you?

Tell me, if God intended for men to lie with men and women to lie with women than why was He so stupid to give us commandments against such activities? Why do you choose to reject God's teaching?

With Christian love,

Steve

Same debate.....different denomination. (And, the debate goes both ways.)

Date: Fri, Jul 5, 2002, 7:08pm To: cob-l@bridgewater.edu (Multiple recipients of list COB-L) Subject: Re: An olive branch... Reply�to: cob-l@bridgewater.edu
Wayne et al,


Thank you for your olive branch consideration. As one who was in favor of standing committee recomendation, but did not go to the microphone, I would like to chime in.

I have been lurking for quite a while, but years ago, I was a prolific corresponder on COB-L. The reason I have been lurking is because I have not felt safe to come out of the closet as an evangelical. I am not kidding, or overstating my feelings.
Last year, at Annual Conference, one of my best friends ever, in my whole life asked me my opinion on the question. On several occasions in the past, he acknowledged that he felt and believed as I did about the issue. But he had changed his mind. And last year, before I finished my second sentence in answer to the opinion that he had asked me for, he interupted and told me that I was "stupid and ignorant." Now, as a friend,
I could have abided him saying that I was ignorant (he could have meant that I was not well informed) but stupid is a different statement all together. I was crushed by the meanness of his attitude. He told me that he had the loving position.
I was praying while I was listening to the debate on the conference floor. During my prayer, I had an image of Jesus Christ, suffering for me on the cross. I pictured the price He paid to save us from our sins. I pictured the terror of hell and the hope of heaven and realized how much love God has for us to pay such a price for us.

I felt that those who spoke against standing committee's recomendation and deny that homosexual activity is sin were speaking against the cross of Christ and Jesus Himself. I believe we faced the same thing when we voted on whether or not Jesus was the only way to salvation.
I was so grateful for Paul's admonishment to be loving.

Whoever cheered at the report of the vote did not understand the nature of the battle. No one won anything. What frosts my cookies is that we used a group of people for whom Jesus died as a metaphor for our understanding of sin, salvation, and the person and work of Jesus Christ. It seems to be a debate over "orthodoxy" or "new light."

The debate needs to be handled over the issue of who and what Jesus is, or what we believe about the scripture. This debate is not about homosexuality being sinful, it is about the existence of sin at all. Most who of the passion about it has nothing to do with homophobia, it is passion for the Lord Jesus' on the cross.
99.99% who support Standing committee's recommendation are not saying that homosexuality is any worse sin than anything else. We are saying that sin, in any form is to be repented of.


We believe that passing a statement saying that homosexuality is acceptable would be the same as saying that it is not sinful and that would be the same as saying that there is no such thing as sin. And that would be denying that Jesus needed to die on the cross to save us from the judgment of God.

It is not a witch hunt, since the ethics paper, any person in this denomination who has an extra-maritial affair in the context of his ministry is permanently disbarred from ministry. There is no forgivenss applied, even if there is repentance. It falls in keeping with our belief that sin is wrong.

Let me ask this question, Brothers and sisters: do we have irreconcialable differences?

Love,
Phil

Phil,

What Annual Conference? I was in No. Illinois. Are you considering a conversion?

Dan Lauffer

E-mail message

Sender: cob-l@bridgewater.edu From: tepoling@yahoo.com (Travis�Poling) Date: Fri, Jul 5, 2002, 8:47pm To: cob-l@bridgewater.edu (Multiple recipients of list COB-L) Subject: Re: more decades of darkness Reply�to: cob-l@bridgewater.edu
�Hello all,
Since Conference came to an end, I continue to be in a state of mounring for the church- not necessarily because of my personal beliefs on the matter of homosexuals in ministry, but more because I feel the church has turned our back on the Holy Spirit. In the Quaker tradition, if they can not come more or less to a consensus, they may sit in silence�to listen to the Spirit until the group moves closer to a decision, and if this does not happen, then it is delayed until this can happen. I realize we don't use that procedure, but I believe that we should spend a long time in prayer and dialogue about this issue before each of us is sure what we believe, after we have listened to the Spirit and to each other. I�understand that the speaches this year were not nearly as hurtful as last time this was discussed, which I am grateful for. And I feel that people at the microphones were being listened to, but it seemed that the delegates had already made up their mind (but! I could be wrong about that). I was prepared to porpose a substitute motion to send this issue back to the congregations for genuine dialogue and prayer for two years, then come back and vote on it, but I was not able to. Still, I hope we continue to pray about this- pray that the hurt and brokeness that I felt deep inside my soul as I stood in the middle of th Conference floor will not tear us apart. I hope that we can begin to open ourselves to God, repent and become whole again. None of us can do this alone or overnight- it must be done together, and over the next many years.
May God�forgive us.
Travis Poling
�
�
Travis E. Poling
(Brethren Volunteer, Center on Conscience & War www.nisbco.org) [nisbco.org)]
Home: 643 G St SE Washington DC 20003
Ph: work 202.483.2220 home 202.547.3808
EXPLORE Brethren Nonviolence [

[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: traveler ]

Welcome Brian! You are right, neither Dan or David can be reasoned with on this issue...all they can do is sling mud and call names. I gave up a long time ago on trying to have a decent discussion with them. Neither Dr. John nor I have ever said there wasn't such a thing as sin...because we believe that love is more important and powerful than rules or the catechism we are considered heretics. You make some very good points, dear brother, and I hope you will continue to share you wisdom with us. Thank you and may God bless you. Moe

E-mail message

Sender: cob-l@bridgewater.edu From: pliley@bentonrea.com (P.�Liley) Date: Fri, Jul 5, 2002, 8:47pm To: cob-l@bridgewater.edu (Multiple recipients of list COB-L)

Subject: Re: An olive branch...

Reply�to: cob-l@bridgewater.edu
����Now comes a related question: What happens with homosexuals who are already leading churches? Yes, we have some ordained/licensed ministers in the COB, and we have had them for many years. Some are still active, some are not. Do we tell those churches who have called a gay/lesbian minister that they can no longer be a part of the COB unless they throw out their current minister? How do we treat those ministers? If a gay man has given his life to God and worked as a minister for 18 years, leading a church, performing marriages and other sacraments just a a heterosexual minister has done, do we tell this gay minister that he is no longer able to serve our denomination? What about his retirement benefits? Do we expect him to simply throw aside all the years he has put into serving our denomination, and God, and start a new career outside of the COB and recieve no benefit from the years of service towards his retirement? -- I know this is less important than other aspects of the decision, but there are many ramifications such as this one that must be looked at.
����What do we do with these good and loyal servants? Cast them aside? Or simply pretend they don't exist?
��Pat L.

Traveler,

I don't know whether you are spamming or if you intend to converse. Actually, I hope you converse rather than continue to post this dialogue with people we don't know.

Assuming that you intend to write something I will respond to something you wrote.

The categories "hetero" and "homo" sexual have no theological meaning. If a pastor has participated in a sinful sexual relationship without repentance then they ought to be removed. If they have repented then embrace them and move ahead. If they have not participated in a sinful sexual relationship why discuss the issue at all?

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

I'm not spamming. I just chose three--of many--posts that are indicative of the struggles within the COB over the issue of homosexuality and ministry; the same struggles that Catholics are now forced to confront.

I can't speak to this issue out of the Catholic perspective since I am not a Catholic and can't become a Catholic, so it is better for me to remain silent and just read and learn. But, as a believer in Jesus, I must eventually take a stand. This is not an issue that one can just ignore because it is particularly disturbing, to say the least.

Salaam in Jesus,

Abdur

PS: I didn't write these letters; I just received them.

[ 07-06-2002: Message edited by: traveler ]

Read the Holy Scriptures on this, Moe. Christ clearly that to love Him is to follow His commandments and that if we lead people astray by telling them that sin is OK then we will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven and will suffer eternal torment. I love all people enough to teach them to abandon their sinful ways and follow the teaching of Christ. Why do you hate them and hate the teachings of the church?

Read the following if it is not clear to you:

Matthew 5:18-20: 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:16-17: 16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Matthew 22:37-38: 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[1] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[2] [1=22:37 Deut. 6:5 22:39 2 = Lev. 19:18]

Luke 18:19-21 19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. 20You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'[1] " 21"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said. [1 = 18:20 Exodus 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20]

Romans 7:7-9 Struggling With Sin 7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[1] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced eath in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. [1 = Exodus 20:17; Deut. 5:21]

Romans 13:8-10: Love, for the Day is Near 8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[1] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[2] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. [1= Exodus 20:13-15,17; Deut. 5:17-19,21; 2 = Lev. 19:18]

Moe,

Christ came to redeem us from the passions. Yet you encourage people with the intrinsic disorder of homosexuality to embrace what Christ clearly teaches to be sinful and against His Commandments. Why do you hate people so much? Why do you reject the clear teaching of Christ and His church?

With Christian love,

Steve

Dan,
Tell that to the Byzantine Catholic priests who were removed from their assignments this week. For them there is no chance for "repentance" -- thanks to the "Dallas directives" they are just gone, period.

Have you changed your stripes on the matter? Or were you not saying that you thought that the Dallas policy was too soft?

Criminal behavior is another matter. I was not writing about criminal behavior.

BTW Where can I read about these BC priests that were disciplined? I had only heard of one who left the ministry a decade ago. But then I've been pretty preoccupied this past week.

Dan Lauffer

[ 07-06-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

Dear Dan,

I do not think that you can, or should be able to read about this. Certainly not here on the Byzantine forum.

In all dioceses, the directives are being implemented. It is enough to know that.

The problem was grave, and the punishment severe. I hope it will not be considered censorship, If I suggest that we all allow all those involved to suffer without the additional pain of our gaze and attention.

Elias

As this topic has now wandered from the original title (the homosexual activist movement and America's children), and reached the 5th page of posts as well, I think it can be prudently closed.

Please feel to continue this or a similar discussion with a clear and focused title.

Thank you,

Elias

Father,

You are right. Thank you for your counsel.

Dan Lauffer