Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?

[Abiding Now]

If homosexuality is a chose and I believe that it is a very bad choice, why should I be looked on unfavorably because I don't agree with a person's bad chose.

[Aquila]

I wouldn't be surprised if biology does play a role. We are fallen creatures and, biologically speaking, sin has rewired us to experience any number of infirmities and conditions that were alien to man prior to the fall.

Is it possible that homosexuality, at least in some cases, might be classified as an "infirmity"?

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

INFIRMITY

in-fur'-mi-ti (dawah, chalah, machalah; astheneia): This word is used either in the singular or plural (the latter only in the New Testament) and with somewhat varying signification. (1) As sickness or bodily disease (Jn 5:5; Mt 8:17; Lk 5:15; 8:2; 1 Tim 5:23). In the last instance the affections seem to have been dyspeptic, the discomfort of which might be relieved by alcohol, although the disease would not be cured thereby. It is probable that this condition of body produced a certain slackness in Timothy's work against which Paul several times cautions him. In Lk 7:21 the Revised Version (British and American) has "diseases," which is a better rendering of the Greek noson, used here, than the King James Version "infirmities." (2) Imperfections or weaknesses of body (Rom 6:19; 2 Cor 11:30 the King James Version; 2 Cor 12:5,9,10 the King James Version; Gal 4:13). (3) Moral or spiritual weaknesses and defects (Ps 77:10; Rom 8:26; 15:1; Heb 4:15; 5:2; 7:28). In this sense it is often used by the classic English writers, as in Milton's "the last infirmity of noble minds"; compare Caesar, IV, iii, 86. The infirmity which a man of resolution can keep under by his will (Prov 18:14) may be either moral or physical. In Lk 13:11 the woman's physical infirmity is ascribed to the influence of an evil spirit.
Alexander Macalister

Here we see that an "infirmity" can be a physical condition, moral weakness, or the influence of an evil spirit. Might there be a condition wherein two, or all three, of these circumstances might come into play?

For example, due to biological/genetic make up one responds to same gender pheromones and pleasure centers of the brain are activated. However, the individual doesn't respond to opposite gender pheromones. This causes a sense of "physical attraction" for the same gender as it relates to neurologic chemistry. As a result the person is essentially predisposed to moral weakness as it relates to homosexuality. Being predisposed to this behavior, and engaging in it with abandon, might then lead to demonic oppression and the possibility possession.

Is it possible that by looking at this as though it has to be "either/or" (biological or a choice) we might be creating a false dichotomy? In doing so we might be missing the realization that therapy will do little for the homosexual. They need a physical "healing", spiritual restoration, and possibly deliverance from demonic influences.

[Esaias]

Does the bible identify it as an infirmity? Or as sin?

Does the bible even recognize what today is defined by godless humanists as "homosexuality"? Or does it recognize something else the sodomites and their humanist enablers don't want to recognize?

[CC1]

I was at a dinner party last night of some old friends and acquaintances and was sitting next to a woman I have known for many years whose family recently left Stan's church over this issue. She says that when he says in his sermon that is at time.com that the church has discussed this for many years that is not true. That he may have discussed it with a few "yes" people at the church but it was not a topic of discussion with the church overall so many people were shocked.

I told her I wasn't shocked because I had heard about him preaching at a gay Pentecostal church several years ago and when I didn't believe it then I either googled or someone sent me the link to a picture of Stan and his wife with that gay pastor and his "husband" as well as a write up about Stan preaching there. Apparently Stan had not publicized that trip to his church folks.

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by CC1

Apparently Stan had not publicized that trip to his church folks.

Key piece of info there! Whoops!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Dante

Churches need to be more accepting of gay people. I'm appalled at the hatred expressed in this threat towards homosexuals. They are souls in need of a savior, too.

They cannot think homosexuality is not sin though. That's the point. These gay inclusive churches say it's not a sin.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by mfblume

They cannot think homosexuality is not sin though. That's the point. These gay inclusive churches say it's not a sin.

You and Dante both make good points. Our church strives to be a loving place for all sinners regardless of their sins. However we make it clear that it is not Gods will for any of us to live in sin and following Christ means conforming our will to His as the Bible tells us.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

They cannot think homosexuality is not sin though. That's the point. These gay inclusive churches say it's not a sin.

I've become friends with some rather interesting Quaker folks. I like Quakers. They give me a lot of food for thought. These people are deeply spiritual, non-legalistic (to the extreme), and they live honest, peaceful, prayerful, and quiet lives. However, when discussing this issue once they had an interesting perspective that I believe has an element of truth to it.

They do not believe that sexuality, in any form in and of itself, is "sinful". They believe that what makes a given sex act sinful is what makes anything else sinful, the lack of love. Sexuality without love is inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing. From their perspective, all are loved and welcomed by God as they are through an infinite grace provided by Jesus Christ. The highest calling being love.

Thus what I've noticed is that for most "inclusive" churches the notion of what is sin and what isn't based on a given act or behavior. It is the heart's intention within the action.

The element of truth that I find in all of this is that this truly does essentially define "sin" at its core. Sin is that which is void of love for God and/or love for others. It is definitely anything that is inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing. The believer's highest calling is indeed love. Where I differ with them here is... I believe that some sexual behaviors, such as homosexuality (as I understand it), are inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing and that this is why God forbade them.

I do believe that anyone should be welcomed to come to Christ, regardless of the struggles with sin that they might face. Christ tends to clean one's life up significantly if one is dedicated to being conformed into the image and likeness of Jesus. Ultimately we, as individuals, will answer to God for our faith and our lives. I can only seek to listen and follow the Spirit's leading in my life and refrain from hating others based on how they feel God leading them. I don't hate anyone. But... I do not always agree with them.

But I will ask this. If one truly believes that their behavior isn't a sin, I ask that they deeply consider this and do some soul searching. Is their behavior/relationship harmful selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing in any manner? I am not fully convinced that a homosexual can answer yes to this this question.

And if they can... perhaps they should consider being Quakers. lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Does the bible identify it as an infirmity? Or as sin?

Does the bible even recognize what today is defined by godless humanists as "homosexuality"? Or does it recognize something else the sodomites and their humanist enablers don't want to recognize?

Please share more of your thoughts. It sounds interesting.

My only point was that an infirmity can be a moral or spiritual weakness and/or defect (Ps 77:10; Rom 8:26; 15:1; Heb 4:15; 5:2; 7:28). Wouldn't a moral or spiritual weakness or defect be a "sin"?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've become friends with some rather interesting Quaker folks. I like Quakers. They give me a lot of food for thought.

Ummm... like oatmeal? lol

These people are deeply spiritual, non-legalistic (to the extreme), and they live honest, peaceful, prayerful, and quiet lives. However, when discussing this issue once they had an interesting perspective that I believe has an element of truth to it.

They do not believe that sexuality, in any form in and of itself, is "sinful". They believe that what makes a given sex act sinful is what makes anything else sinful, the lack of love. Sexuality without love is inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing. From their perspective, all are loved and welcomed by God as they are through an infinite grace provided by Jesus Christ. The highest calling being love.

Thus what I've noticed is that for most "inclusive" churches the notion of what is sin and what isn't based on a given act or behavior. It is the heart's intention within the action.

I cant agree with that, because Romans 1 associated homosexuality with "vile affection" which involves alleged love.