Gay Pastor's(xupc)recent Letter to the UPCI ! ! !

[tbpew]

I am not sure how "base" we will be allowed to post in offering dissenting views to one or more of the points listed in this letter found on Brad Boivin's New Hope Church website.

If God determined that a man would love a man in the same union of the marriage experience that he designed for a man and a woman, he provided NO HEALTHY design for that marriage to include sexual relationships.

Sodomy is inherently destructive to the wonderfully functional design of the relatively thin and delicate tissue of the colon. God NEVER designed the human body for such actions to be perpetrated. The witness of this truth is evident in the resultant damage and breeching of the cardiovascular system and the rampant exposure to bacteria.

So, unless this author is adovocating the life of a eunuch for every male homosexual, he needs to be forthright and plain in his acknowledgement that sodomy is fully contrary to God's wonderful design of the human body.

So Brian, do the right thing and take sexual activity out of the male homosexual lifestyle.

Since the Pentecostal Herald is the official organ of the UPCI, it seems that they (the UPCI) has officially taken up the "homosexual" debate.

That's all that perverted crowd wanted for right now. **groan**

[CC1]

I have a feeling this fancy letter is still not going to get Brad invited to speak at next year's AMC Conference or BOTT!!!!!

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Since the Pentecostal Herald is the official organ of the UPCI, it seems that they (the UPCI) has officially taken up the "homosexual" debate.

That's all that perverted crowd wanted for right now.

It's a slippery slope from here. Now that the UPCI has taken up the debate, pretty soon there'll be a resolution allowing for homosexual ministers and all kinds of filth . . .

Originally Posted by Thad

To date, the letter has not been published and no response has be received from the U.P.C.I. or the Herald. This is the letter:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should it be printed?

The article clearly suggests that it is erroneous for Christians to label homosexuality as the “unpardonable sin” as so many zealous preachers have over the years. The amount of spiritual, emotional, social, and psychological damage this sort of philosophy has created may never be known.

Homosexuality is an abomination but so is lying. The only unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit but if one does not repent of the pardonable sins, one faces the same eternity in the lake of fire regardless of whether one is a liar, a homosexual, an adulterer, a murderer, or whatever.

Dr. Norris briefly but accurately pointed out that Christians should approach homosexuals from a welcoming perspective as opposed to assuming that the homosexual’s conscience has been seared. We are in agreement on this point.

Welcome to find that place of repentance from the homosexual sin and welcome to seek God's healing of the underlying unnatural attraction. Welcome to obey the gospel call and go on from there to conform to the image of Christ.

Where we differ is on the issue of affirmation...that there are Biblical grounds for...affirming monogamous homosexual relationships...also for helping those who are homosexual understand that they can have a meaningful and reconciled relationship with God regardless of their sexual orientation.

Yes, well, I used to preach that garbage too!

Point One
The Bible clearly identifies the sins for which Sodom was destroyed and nowhere is homosexuality mentioned (Ezekiel 16:49). Also...it is clear that the act which has been broadly interpreted as homosexual in nature took place after the angels were sent to destroy the city for its ungodliness and, therefore, could not possibly be the reason for the cities destruction.

It is true that homosexuality is not the reason God destroyed the cities of the plain. The people of those cities did commit various abominations and one of those abominations may possibly have been homosexuality. Where I think so many Christians go wrong in the nonsensical interpretation (of Sodom being destroyed because of homosexuality) is that they paint Sodom and Gomorrah as being not nearly so bad as God said those cities were. The only correct interpretation of the Sodom story is God's interpretation in Ezekiel 16:48-50.

If the Bible does not incite homosexuality as one of the sins of Sodom and if it was not the cause for its destruction, then we cannot rightfully infer that it (homosexuality) is a sign of the times based on Jesus’ reference to Sodom in the Gospel of Luke.

The Bible doesn't incite homosexuality at all! While homosexuality may not be a sign of the end times (since it is identified in Romans 1 as something that's been around for quite a long time), that doesn't change the Biblical fact that homosexual behavior is sin and that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Point Two
I cannot imagine any Bible-based Christian organization embracing a philosophy or doctrine which claims the New Testament Church must embrace the Laws of the Old Covenant...I think most modern Christians would agree that we are no longer under the Old Testament Law and, therefore, citing Leviticus 18:22 as biblical proof that homosexuality is an abomination is not only irresponsible but inaccurate.

At least some of Paul's letter to the Galatians dealt with people who tried to bring the Church under bondage to the Law of Moses. However, that doesn't mean that God did not consider homosexual behavior an abomination. That Jesus brought the Law of Moses to completion when He was on the cross doesn't change the truth of Leviticus 18:22.

If the Christian Church is going to cite Levitical Law as a mandate against homosexuality it must also prohibit the eating of pork, shrimp, and lobster (11:10-12); the planting of two kinds of seed in the field (19:19); wearing mixed fabrics (19:19); eating rare meat (19:26); and women leaving their homes during menstruation (20:18 ). The Christian Church would also be required to keep a traditional seventh day Sabbath (23:3).

The interesting thing, though, is that Jesus used the Law of Moses in His teaching. Paul quoted from the Law of Moses. Peter may have quoted from it. The book of Hebrews puts the Law of Moses in the light of the new covenant. Acts 15 absolved Gentiles of the requirement to obey such laws.

Point Three
Romans chapter one is clearly dealing with God’s wrath being poured out on a group of unspecified Gentiles who were participating in idolatrous worship, were haters of God, knew God but did not glorify Him as God, and who were full of fornication, wickedness, envy, murder, and pride. Does this accurately describe our family and church members who are homosexual? Does this accurately describe the numerous anointed musicians, singers, and preachers that God has used in spite of their homosexuality?

It lists several sins that appear to have come about as a result of humanity's first forays into idolatry. Notice that sexual sin, including homosexuality, is at the top of the list.

To loosely place all homosexuals in the same category as the Gentiles mentioned in Romans 1 is an insult to those homosexuals who love God, worship and acknowledge Him as God, and are either living a life of celibacy or are in a monogamous covenant relationship.

Then placing all fornicators in the same category as the Gentiles mentioned in Romans 1 is an insult to those fornicators who love God, etc. Placing everyone who is disobedient to parents in the same category as the Gentiles mentioned in Romans 1 is an insult to those disobedient ones who love God. Insult or not, everyone who has ever committed any of the sins listed in Romans 1:18-32 falls in with those Gentiles in the first century who committed any of those sins. Otherwise, we must say that no scripture can ever be applied to us today!

Point Four
I Corinthians 6:9 cites two Greek words, malakos and arsenokoites, to describe just some of the many sinful behaviors from which the early Christians had been delivered. These two words have been erroneously interpreted in recent Biblical translations to mean homosexuals. In fact, prior to the use of the word homosexual by the NASB translation in 1963, the word malakos had been translated as male sex slave (Vulgate), sexual perverts (RSV), and people with infamous habits (Jerusalem Bible).

Such words, of course, aren't interpreted, they're translated.

The word malakos is literally translated as “soft ones” which Strong’s identifies as being of “uncertain affinity” and which would more accurately be defined as catamite or male temple cult prostitute.

Yes, it can mean catamite or male temple cult prostitute. It can mean the boy in the pederast relationship. It can mean people who live opulent, luxurious lifestyles. It can mean men who are effeminate, who adopt feminine mannerisms and behaviors. It can mean transsexuals.

Arsenokoites may accurately be interpreted as Sodomite which, historically, refers to a person who indulges in violent, idolatrous, and pagan practices. It is also worth mentioning that St. Jermone (347-419 A.D.) interpreted arsenokoites as “the purchased male sex slaves of men.” I think all Christians would agree (even those who are homosexual) that prostitution and violent sex acts, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature, do not reflect Christ-like behavior.

No, arsenokoites most literally means males who sexually co-habit (with each other). It comes from arsen (male) and koite ("couch," a euphemism for sexual cohabitation). Of course, Jerome couldn't have "interpreted" arsenokoites as "the purchased male sex slaves of men" because English didn't exist as a language and Jerome wrote primarily in Latin.

It appears that an ill-rooted prejudice against homosexuals has strongly influenced modern translations of the Bible which...has contributed to the...practice of assigning second-rate status to homosexual believers...most frequently evidenced by the slanderous from-the-pulpit-name-calling practiced by many preachers in many churches. This is unfortunate.

Is it prejudice against homosexuals or is it that the Greek words translate differently into modern English than the homosexuals want? The fact of the matter is that homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design for male and female and homosexual behavior (everything that occurs after the point of attraction) is sin.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

Point Five
We need to honestly acknowledge that though there are individuals in churches across the country who claim they are “ex-homosexual,” many of them will, in private conversation, admit to having homosexual thoughts and feelings...The reality is that they have not been changed as much as they have chosen to avoid behavior which they have been convinced will send them to hell. The avoidance behavior of many ex-gays eventually fails miserably which has been seen in many prominent cases in recent years.

Being "ex-gay" simply means that one chooses to no longer live a homosexual lifestyle and is in a process wherein God is healing the underlying unnatural attraction. To follow the "avoidance behavior fails miserably" argument, one might as well just go ahead and indulge one's sinful nature and go out and commit any sin one chooses. Of course, the New Testament teaches us to put our sinful nature to death and to stop walking after the things of the flesh.

Based on my experience growing up in the United Pentecostal Church, there are many “closeted” homosexual Pentecostals across the country who deny acting on their homosexual feelings for no other reason than to be welcomed and accepted by their family, friends, and local assembly and so that they may continue to exercise the good and perfect gifts they have been blessed with. I cannot understand how this sort of modification in behavior can accurately be labeled as “ex-homosexual.” I believe “non-practicing homosexual” would be a more acceptable term.

Maybe they should choose not to act on their unnatural homosexual feelings because they know those feelings are contrary to God's created design for male and female. Maybe they should acknowledge that they have these unnatural feelings and seek God for healing of that unnatural attraction. Maybe they should walk in the Spirit so that they will not fulfill the desires of the flesh.

Also, there is no more a distinction to be made between homosexual attraction and relations than there is between heterosexual attraction and relations. A homosexual who chooses not to actively engage in homosexual relationships is no more ex-homosexual than a heterosexual who chooses not to engage in heterosexual relationships is an ex-heterosexual.

Well, in the sense that such a person is no longer identifying himself by that unnatural attraction and is no longer engaging in the sin, he is an ex-homosexual.

This blinded misconception about sexual attraction and relations has a strong bias against homosexuals...The human needs of the gay Christian community have not only been abandoned by the Church but have been mocked and degraded. I fear for those who, on judgment day, will be required to give an account for those members of their congregation who have suffered homelessness, disease, and addiction simply because the church was unwilling to offer them the same support they offered the heterosexuals in their Church community.

The "strong bias" exists because homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design for male and female and acting on that unnatural attraction is sin. However, no one has ever been forced into a homosexual lifestyle and the need of homosexuals who want to be Christians is to repent of their sin and seek God for the healing of their unnatural attraction.

[CC1]

I am sure the Pentecostal Herald will be jumping right on this and issueing a retraction and apology for calling homosexuality a sin!

[Thad]

Chan, why don't you email them your rebuttal ?
homosexulaity is a worse sin then telling a lie. God never destroyed a city for telling a lie but he destroyed sodom for their perversion. i know you disagree but most of us believe that

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Chan

Why should it be printed?

Homosexuality is an abomination but so is lying.

Chan,

What the homosexuals do to each other in their (same-sex) bedrooms is hardly on the same level as lying.

The thought is so sickening as to make one deathly sick. It is not on the par with lying.

God never desroyed two cities for their lying to each other.

[Trouvere]

Amen to that Chan I like it.Go on and preach it!