The Bible says homosexuality is a sin so how can a gay lay pastor use the Bible to preach?

Even ultra-conservative Christians don’t support slavery anymore. Religions evolve. Historical contexts change. Maybe this helps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics#Trajectory_hermeneutics

The progressive liberation of women from oppressive patriarchalism, traced from Genesis and Exodus through to Paul’s own acknowledgment of women as ‘co-workers’ (Rom. 16:3), sets a trajectory that, when extended through to today, suggests that women ought to have the same rights and roles afforded as men. Homosexuality, it is argued, is a trajectory that travels ‘the other direction’.

According to the bible, we are all sinners, including every single priest. What’s the difference?

Hypocrisy is the order of the day within Christianity. Why?
They are obligated to preach a system which they cannot Live.

They are blind to the fact fact that they primarily are the ones who “create” the sin. First within themselves and then others.

This so because they look for Sin in everything thus creating it, and the tings they preach against is the very thing that they do.

Homosexuality is just one of these things.

A more vulgar way of expressing what @mattbrowne said:

People don’t have their heads up their asses quite as much now as they did when the Bible was written.

The same way men who cut their hair and eat pork can. Only those with a political agenda focus on those parts of the bible.

@augustlan According to the bible, we are all sinners, including every single priest. What’s the difference? The difference here is how can you do a duty feeding a flock on what the Bible says is rightious if you are not living it, especially if you do not try to change or denounce the sin the Bible says you are actively participating in, be it gambling, whoremongering, sleeping with animals or being homosexual? That would be somewhat equal to a cop who swears to uphold the law shaking down merhants in his patrol area for money to “assure” the local thugs did not find away to rob them in the near future.

@FutureMemory People don’t have their heads up their asses quite as much now as they did when the Bible was written. Who are these people who care not to follow the Bible? There are many situations that have been superseded by the New Testiment but those before mentioned acts were still said to be active sin.

In essence, what is called “Evangelical Christianity” or “Conservative Christianity” takes the teachings of Jesus and other writers in the Holy Scriptures generally more literally and less mythically than would, say, some other churches such as the United Church of Canada. Churches in the former categories (Roman Catholic, Free Methodist, Baptist, Pentacostal, Seventh Day Adventists, Apostolic, Salvation Army (it is also a church denomination), Brethren) generally would view the Holy Writ from this more classically conservative viewpoint, though people in these denominations also try to take into account what Jesus Christ and other writers in the Holy Scriptures meant culturally in the Jewish mindset of their day and how that translates culturally in our present day society, still seeking to keep as close to the original essence of meaning as possible.

However, church denominations such as Presbyterian and Anglican (Episcopalian in the U.S.) may take either a more conservative stance or a more liberal stance (I use the word “liberal” here to denote churches that view the teachings of Jesus, et al more ‘figuratively’ and mythically, such as liberal views on Creation, which basically coincide with theories of Evolution; churches of this nature also tend to agree with the reigning philosophy of the society—- for example, such churches would not disagree as much with Post-Modern thought as more Conservatively minded churches would), depending on the leanings of the bishop over an area and depending on the leanings of the minister or priest (priest in the Anglican church) .

The United Church of Canada is liberal in its views: in this denomination Gay and/or Lesbian people may become paid ministers in the church. The Anglican Church of Canada is presently going through a ‘deciding stage’ and general split of churches will eventually occur. Though, if the bishop in an area is Conservative in approach, the issue of ordaining gays and lesbians will not surface.

Hypocrisy Central, my guess is that the church you have heard of is a fairly liberally minded congregation: likely few in this church would have any difficulties with having a Gay lay pastor.

@Trissinger Hypocrisy Central, my guess is that the church you have heard of is a fairly liberally minded congregation: likely few in this church would have any difficulties with having a Gay lay pastor. I wasn’t thinking if the congregation would have trouble with it, logically if they were on board with it they wouldn’t. My thought was how can the pastor who is openly doing what the Book says is sinful be effective to teach people not to do it? As I said, it could be gambling, sleeping with prostitutes, sleeping with other women not your wife. There are parts in the Bible unless they were to be ignored or skipped that the pastor would have to use that says what he is openly doing is sin so how can he say “Romans so-and-so says this is a sin but I am doing it but you shouldn’t”? That is what I wonder, do the pastor simply pass over any scripture that says anything about a man who lay with another man is sin? And if he does that how can he tell the woman sleeping with another man not her husband that she is sinning?

Leviticus is the only place that speaks to homosexuality. That is in the old testament, and with the death and resurecction of Jesus we are told to adhere to his teachings versus the “eye for an eye” of the old testament. However the christians seem to have CONVIENTLY forgot that for this point. Although used whenever challenged on other hypocrisies.

Some conservative Christians believe Jesus already paid the price for our sins so as long as they accept the fact they are sinners and accept Jesus as their Saviour they are “saved” no matter what. I know Christians who think this way. Some Christians believe that once saved always saved. Then you have some Christians that believe only certain parts of the Bible are the Word of God while other versus are mens own opinions (Pauline Christianity).

Christianity and the Bible are comparable to a picture with a bunch of different colored scribbled lines painted in random patterns. The picture will look like a landscape to person A, a hidden message to person B and chicken scratch to person C. There are different translations of the Bible as well as different denominations.

The law,. as laid down in Leviticus, calls for stoning homosexuals to death. But in the same breath, it says we must stone to death anyone who commits the abomination of eating shrimp, crab, lobster or any other seafood that does not have fins and scales. How many Christian conservative pastors do you reckon have p[reached after eating shellfish?

It prescribes stoning for those who commit the abomination of wearing garments with mixed fibers. How many Christian conservative pastors wear Perma Press shirts made of cotton polyester? Most all of them seem to wear Polyester mix suits. Stone them too. They are every bit as odious as those that lie man with man.

Leviticus tells su to also stone to death all who plant mixed seeds. Just about any pastor whose wife has planted a flower garden is guilty on that one. Who in their right mind thinks that all these people should be put to death?

Homosexuals are easy targets because unlike all these other capital crimes, their crime involves sex, and thus your own internal yearnings for sexually forbidden fruit come into play, and you can absolve yourself by always being the first one to cast a stone at the queer. It’s a natural to trigger hypocritical behavior among the biblical literalists..

@ETpro That was the Old Testament, there were many things decreed in that which was for the Jewish people only because God had to keep the blood line of Abraham pure because Christ would be born of it. The barring of many “mixed” things was a physical representation to the Jewish Nation not to be unevenly yokes physically and spiritually with the heathens; the Canaanites, Philistines, Amorites, etc. Once the Day of Pentecost we heathens were allowed to be God’s people so there was no God’s chosen people, the Jews, and everyone else, us the heathens. Many of which people keep trying to go back to was modified or done away with because they served their purpose for the time they were used.

Certakn parts remain even in the New Testement like Rom 1: 26,27 and 1 Cor 6:9. It would be hard for a gay pastor to use that part of the Bible if that his what he is living. Yeah there are equal parts for any clergy who lusted, slept around, was a drunk or a gambler.

Do you imagine that there is a preacher alive who hasn’t sinned, ever? Who isn’t actively sinning all the time? Why make a big fuss over this particular sin? If everyone sins, can no one preach from the bible? I just don’t understand your point. At all.

@augustlan Why make a big fuss over this particular sin? I just don’t understand your point. At all. C’mon…..really? Really? Lets remove this particular sin and make it gambling, how effective do you believe a pastor who plays the ponies the moment he dismisses his flock be at telling the flock to stay away from gambling? Sure you can see the conflict of interest. What if it was a pastor preaching against the consumption of alcohol but comes staggering up to the pulpit smelling like a brewery? The only reason why this particular sin is in play because it was the one the news article decided to make in play, the one they reported. Does it mean there are no pastors out there committing adultery or worse? No. It just mean the editors or powers that be did not find any or thought it was interesting enough to report or write about in their paper, but they did feel a church with a gay pastor was. I am going out on a limb here and say it was due to verses like Rom 1: 26,27 and 1 Cor 6:9. which shows or leans to a glaring conflict of interest.

What if it’s a preacher who has lust in his heart? Or covets his neighbor’s wife? Or, lied to his kid about Santa Claus? Ever seen a fat preacher? Gluttony. Ever seen a rich one? Greed. No one is without sin. No one. That doesn’t mean they don’t know what sins are, or that they can’t teach others about them.

To put it another way, how can parents teach their children not to cuss, when they themselves cuss? Or the doctor who tells you to quit smoking, when they themselves smoke?

Really, though, all of this is irrelevant. Different people/churches interpret the Bible differently. Obviously, this particular church doesn’t feel homosexuality is a sin, or they wouldn’t have a gay preacher in the first place. They (like many others) likely feel that Jesus came and wiped out all that Old Testament crap. In their interpretation of the Bible, there is no conflict.

@augustlan – Jesus’s idea was to reject the sin, but not the sinner. He taught people not to hate other people and ask for forgiveness for their trespasses, as they will forgive others that trespass against them.

Ultra conservatives who hate and harass gay people do not follow the ideas of Jesus. However, if they acknowledge their sin and ask gay people for forgiveness Jesus taught us to forgive them.

@Hypocrisy_Central I hear that all the time from Christians who seem to consider themselves qualified to speak for God. But if you believe Jesus was God incarnate on Earth, here is what he had to say about that.
   Matt. 5.17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the
      Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
   Matt. 5.18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away,
      not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until
      all is accomplished.
   Matt. 5.19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these
      commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall
      be called; least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever
      keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the
      kingdom of heaven.
   Matt. 5.20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness
      surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not
      enter the kingdom of heaven.

I am certainly no religious expert, but vague memory from some old conversation is that the passages in the Old Testament concerning homosexual activity are part of the laws concerning the maintaining of a Jewish identity. Under the New Covenant, the prohibitions transmitted in those passages can be relinquished without discarding one jot of scripture insofar as Christians do not need to maintain a Jewish identity.

This article, which is interesting on its own, seems to corroborate my memory.

@SavoirFaire There’s spin about what the book says, and then there is what the book actually says. It’s right there to read. Very interesting link, BTW.

@ETpro Right, but words don’t have absolute meanings. We need to understand them in context. Interpretation is not necessarily spin, and that is what the link is about: understanding how the words were meant.

This is somewhat beside the point for those of us who are not adherents of an Abrahamic religion, of course, but still worthwhile insofar as it might be able to settle the smaller issue of homosexuality without having to address the larger issue of any particular religion itself.

@SavoirFaire I am not aware of any puzzling, uncertain words in the portion of the Gospel of Matthem that I quoted above. It seems to me to clearly say that all the commandments of the Mosaic Law are still in force. Am I missing something in it?

@ETpro No, I think the passage from Matthew is quite clear. It’s understanding the commandments of the Mosaic Law that poses problems, and that is what the linked page is about.

@SavoirFaire So long as the ones about mixed seeds, mixed fibers and shellfish eating are clear, can I just stone people that violate those? I’m willing to let the ones on sexual preference slide if there is any question. But all shrimp lovers must die!

@ETpro Well, there’s absolutely nothing unreasonable about that as far as I can see!

@ETpro – I think this is where the context that @SavoirFaire was discussing becomes tremendously important. The lines from Matthew that you quoted take on a whole new meaning when you understand that an understanding of the law and ability to forgive rested essentially in the hands of the Jewish temple priests. Many at the time were claiming that Jesus was coming to represent the law himself, or to destroy all that Judaism had been based on. These statements are as much to demonstrate that what he was doing was essentially democratizing an understanding of the law (the words are the same, but we must understand what they mean together) and to show that his attacks were essentially on the structures and hierarchy already in place, and not on the underlying lessons.

So much of what Jesus said in fact indicates that rigid interpretations of the letter of the law lead to tyranny, and we are meant to determine what the law means (acts v. faith is an incarnation of this).

Understanding the law in this way, it’s completely reasonable to approach lessons about homosexuality in the bible as merely lessons about anything that is done for pleasures sake, and separating that from anything regarding a gay identity – so there’s no necessary hypocrisy there.