SkylerGerald
Puritan Board Freshman
Has your church ever entered into discipline over someone being an LGBT ally? (Attending LGBT parades and events, etc.) How was that handled? (without relaying sensitive information of course)
Church discipline for LGBT “ally”
- Thread starter SkylerGerald
- Start date
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
We’ve had folks go for “allying” that *after* the last stage of church discipline. ♂ I can’t think of a before incident.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
No we haven't, but I absolutely would. That whole movement and everything about it is so brazenly wicked that it is clearly a violation of their 3rd membership vow (to live as becomes a follower of Christ) and it brings such scandal that it is a violation of their fifth membership vow (to study the purity and peace of our church).
Last edited:
Andrew35
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yeah, that's a bit of a leap, I think. So many different church options in the US, why would you go to a "super-conservative" (they would say "fundamentalist") church if you leaned that way? Usually they start exploring different church traditions, write blogs about how they've been hurt by the church, and occasionally stop going altogether first.
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
In order to attempt to change or subvert it.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Sophomore
That's possible, I guess. Would be pretty rotten, but yeah....
KPaul
Puritan Board Freshman
Unfortunately, that seems to have been the battle plan against many organizations/institutions over the last few decades, not just the Church: universities, military, scouts, etc. Fight to get inside and then scream foul loud enough and long enough to change the established trajectory.
As for the OP, I don't have any experience with that in our church, thankfully.
As for the OP, I don't have any experience with that in our church, thankfully.
CovenantPatriot87
Puritan Board Freshman
I think you can advocate for LGBT *whatever* as people without advocating for their lifestyle. I attended a lunch and learn event at work because I wanted to understand their side of things (Prov 18:17). For many of them this is about a deeply rooted trauma response to something or someone in their life that needs genuine human connection and healing. Unfortunately their leadership mirrors those of the religious right, in that you dare not question them or be cast out (John 9:34). Fortunately I am of the daring variety 
My pastor does support my efforts in reaching out to such people, buy if he did not and the session took church discipline steps (for groundless reasons) I would file a complaint against them and take it up the ladder if I had to.
My pastor does support my efforts in reaching out to such people, buy if he did not and the session took church discipline steps (for groundless reasons) I would file a complaint against them and take it up the ladder if I had to.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Sophomore
Problem is, the way things are currently framed, to disagree with their lifestyle is quite literally to deny their personhood and even existence.
Makes no sense to me, but it makes a potent shouting point.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
I think a lot of LGBTQ are not aware of how much of an ally Christians already are. Yes we consider homosexuality a sin, and yes we absolutely think marriage between them is an abomination and has no place in orthodoxy; but, we also cherish the Imago Dei they are apart of. I would presume almost unanimously, that every Christian on this board would be the first to speak up and defend them if someone tried to beat them up for their homosexuality, or slander them, or discriminate against them in realm of common liberties. We do this because we realize that we too are just as deceived apart from grace; which most of the non-Christian world has no concept of. We do not look at them as inherently more vile then ourselves, or the scum of the earth, or unredeemable. But because we draw a thick, clear, and blatant line between loving our neighbor, and accepting our neighbors sin as blessed; they will never see us as their ally. Furthermore, in the eternal perspective, we are their greatest ally; that is, those who are trying to save them from eternal destruction; even at the cost of the worlds hatred. The world, in whom they think are their ally's, are actually their worst enemies; who not only congratulate them on their reprobation; but hold their hands, gleefully leading them to the gates of Hell.
CovenantPatriot87
Puritan Board Freshman
Not if you can demonstrate how they were a whole person with worth and dignity before they got into their whole debacle, nay, they still have their worth and dignity!
En Kristo
Puritan Board Freshman
The sin promoted by the LBGTQIA+ advocates isn't new and isn't complicated. It isn't a difficult subject that should tax the abilities of Christians to understand or to address.
The issue of homosexuality and the rest of the panoply of sexual sins is only difficult for many people in the church because it is uncomfortable to be faithful to God in the face of a hostile culture. People in the church are only confused because they choose to be.
Advocates for sexual deviancy make very bad arguments that yet manage to gain acceptance or at least cause unnecessary confusion. So, rational discussion degenerates from a straight forward discussion of sin to a philosophical disputation about personhood. Homosexuals are presumed to be a special class of people who are not accountable for their actions by virtue of an at least biological if not divine determinism - both palpable lies.
The Biblical teaching is that to engage in acts of homosexuality (and the rest of the ever increasing categories of sexual sin) or to encourage them (...to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18) is a sin. From a Biblical perspective, homosexuality and the rest of it is merely another species of lust for that which is forbidden. Sexual lust is a temptation common to all mankind. The Biblical injunction for sexual purity is no more of a challenge for heterosexuals than it is for the rest. God's law equally forbids heterosexuals and homosexuals to commit sexual acts outside of a Biblical marriage between one (male) husband and one (female) wife (and it is a deplorable state of affairs that the words husband and wife need clarification). There is no reason to give a pass to non-heterosexual people based upon some pseudo philosophical or biological sophistry. It is sad curiosity that so many people regard those caught up in the LGBTQIA+ deception as if they are a new species of humanity governed by separate laws of God.
The issue isn't that God's word isn't clear. The issue is that far too many people prefer the approval of man more than the approval of God.
The issue of homosexuality and the rest of the panoply of sexual sins is only difficult for many people in the church because it is uncomfortable to be faithful to God in the face of a hostile culture. People in the church are only confused because they choose to be.
Advocates for sexual deviancy make very bad arguments that yet manage to gain acceptance or at least cause unnecessary confusion. So, rational discussion degenerates from a straight forward discussion of sin to a philosophical disputation about personhood. Homosexuals are presumed to be a special class of people who are not accountable for their actions by virtue of an at least biological if not divine determinism - both palpable lies.
The Biblical teaching is that to engage in acts of homosexuality (and the rest of the ever increasing categories of sexual sin) or to encourage them (...to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18) is a sin. From a Biblical perspective, homosexuality and the rest of it is merely another species of lust for that which is forbidden. Sexual lust is a temptation common to all mankind. The Biblical injunction for sexual purity is no more of a challenge for heterosexuals than it is for the rest. God's law equally forbids heterosexuals and homosexuals to commit sexual acts outside of a Biblical marriage between one (male) husband and one (female) wife (and it is a deplorable state of affairs that the words husband and wife need clarification). There is no reason to give a pass to non-heterosexual people based upon some pseudo philosophical or biological sophistry. It is sad curiosity that so many people regard those caught up in the LGBTQIA+ deception as if they are a new species of humanity governed by separate laws of God.
The issue isn't that God's word isn't clear. The issue is that far too many people prefer the approval of man more than the approval of God.
St. Gerdt
Puritan Board Freshman
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
Presuming they had meetings with elders educating them about life as the Bible teaches and they were committed to that position, I would vote so.
The bolded astonishes me. I know of a brother who came under discipline (about 2 years ago) for (among other related issues like IR p*rn found by his wife) was seen kneeling at a BLM rally by another church member who is a police officer working crowd control that day. If one of our members attended a rally waving a rainbow flag, there are a lot of ways that could come to our attention without us making any efforts whatsoever towards any form of "Big Brother-like" watching of our church members.
CovenantPatriot87
Puritan Board Freshman
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
What would participating in a BLM rally have to do with church life? I dont suppose they were kneeling to the BLM flag in veneration. Kneeling, in that context was a sign of protest to police brutality, as was made famous by CK (the football player) not as a sign of worship. It has to do with counter-reverencing the national flag, not lifting something else as sovereign Lord. Also, one cant hold all supporters accountable for what was done in the name of BLM anymore then one can hold all Republicans accountable for what was done Jan. 6th. To me it seems the BLM supporter was exercising both their Christian and American liberty. I dont personally agree with BLM, I just dont get how participating in it is as abhorrent as a PRIDE parade?
Last edited:
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Expanding on what Mike and Ken have said above, surveilling the flock is not appropriate. If by chance I noticed someone at a LGBT parade, I might ask him but if he was in the parade I would certainly ask and treat it like the first step of discipline. I remember being in Chicago during a PRIDE parade years ago with a group from our church. In one particular ride on the "El", every passanger but me was obviously part of it. I just needed a ride when the parade was over. My point is, I would make sure to find out what was going on. I certainly wouldn't want snap judgements made again me for merely getting a ride to my accommadations.
Second, in outreach situations, I would involve your leaders so they can pray for you. The payback tactics can be vicious towards ex-LGBT folk and those that support them especially now with the zeitgeist as a tailwind.
Finally, a favorite thing to do, plug and play other categories as a thought experiement when thinking through problems and situations. In this case, I would do similar things if I were befriending white supramecists with the hope of conversion. These folks are outcasted more than the LGBT community. The left of center, progressive-evangelical chatterati interstingly enough doesn't have a kid gloved, "missional" approach toward them. Rather, they are despised with the power of a hundred suns by polite secular society and most of the church. It is important that my session know that by extending hospitality to these people, I am exposing the church to ridicule and may be creating a stumbling block for others. This will prevent Lone Ranger evangelism. Likewise- any categorical outreach, like with LGBT, should be done with accountability. Prostitutes and drug addicts are other people group examples.
Second, in outreach situations, I would involve your leaders so they can pray for you. The payback tactics can be vicious towards ex-LGBT folk and those that support them especially now with the zeitgeist as a tailwind.
Finally, a favorite thing to do, plug and play other categories as a thought experiement when thinking through problems and situations. In this case, I would do similar things if I were befriending white supramecists with the hope of conversion. These folks are outcasted more than the LGBT community. The left of center, progressive-evangelical chatterati interstingly enough doesn't have a kid gloved, "missional" approach toward them. Rather, they are despised with the power of a hundred suns by polite secular society and most of the church. It is important that my session know that by extending hospitality to these people, I am exposing the church to ridicule and may be creating a stumbling block for others. This will prevent Lone Ranger evangelism. Likewise- any categorical outreach, like with LGBT, should be done with accountability. Prostitutes and drug addicts are other people group examples.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
Like Zack said above me, there no "Big Brother" surveillance of this brother, but his public actions led to a private sin (and no, it had almost nothing to do with objecting to police brutality). I will say no more except to say that there is enough in my post to deduce this brother's sins and if you are unable to do so, congratulations on being unaware of a fringe online movement that that threatened this brother's walk in the Lord and his family.
Again, the point was more about the fact that public actions need not be found out by any form of "Big Brother" surveillance that Ken was objecting to.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
I didnt question anything to do with the po*n, but on the one hand you may be making a false association as if contact with other races leads to immoral interracial fetishes? I dont know. My question simply had to do with association with BLM? Doesnt this go beyond the scope of the churches authority into the realm of interfering with Christian liberties? You seem to be trying to blame the movement for him watching explicit videos? Yet BLM had nothing to do with p0rnography. I dont get it? Does the Bible ever blame Bathsheba for Davids sin?
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
Why are you doing this?
I said he was seen at a BLM rally which led to a discovery of private sin - very much related to BLM but not in such a way that simply had him under discipline for "protesting police brutality". Why are you adding possibilities to what I said that go beyond what I said?
Can you please imagine an answer that satisfies your concerns over this brother being a victim of political persecution and is directly connected with undisputed and self-confessed private sin? And just proceed from there? Thanks.
My comment originally was initially to Ken re: the finding out of sin without anyone in church leadership resorting to "Big Brother" tactics and that is all my original comment was regarding.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
No problem. I was most likely reading your synopsis wrong? I apologize if so. I was reading it as if you were saying a BLM rally is equal to a PRIDE rally, and that his participation in such perceived deviance is what led to him forming immoral curiosities acted on by viewing explicit content. Again, apologize if I got it wrong. Purposely or unintentionally misportraying what people mean is never my intent.
Last edited:
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
If I were a pastor or elder I would confront the person about it and go from there. Remember, church discipline is a process and provides an opportunity at the various steps for a person to repent. If they refuse to repent and continue to publicly support homosexuality, then excommunication is appropriate in my opinion.
A person's behavior, whether private or public, is absolutely within the church's authority to evaluate. I would hope an eldership would have the wisdom and patience to discover why a person was attending such events before jumping to conclusions.
A person's behavior, whether private or public, is absolutely within the church's authority to evaluate. I would hope an eldership would have the wisdom and patience to discover why a person was attending such events before jumping to conclusions.
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Sophomore
There hasn't been any discipline at the church I attend, and I highly doubt any of the members, which number around 20-25, would attend if they could.
sgemmen9
Puritan Board Freshman
In my context (non-NAPARC unfortunately), attending SSM weddings for instance is not uncommon. I find that many are surprised when it's called sin. I find that in many cases they're won over in conversations. I would absolutely include discipline in the case of someone being a strong ally and in the event of them publicly promoting the matter after it was addressed.
darrellmaurina
Puritan Board Freshman
Blessings on your work, Rev. Gemmen. Am I correct you are at Grant Reformed Church (RCA)? If so, I knew the pastor of the church back during the 1990s, and if I remember correctly even filled his pulpit once.
sgemmen9
Puritan Board Freshman
I was there for about 8 1/2 years. I recently moved and accepted a call at South Olive CRC. But, yes, same congregation.
darrellmaurina
Puritan Board Freshman
Update appreciated. From what I read in media reports it looks like the CRC conservatives had an unexpected win at synod and may succeed in pushing out the advocates of the gay agenda in the CRC, including a majority of churches in Classis Grand Rapids East. You know the situation on the ground far better than I do, but there was a day when it looked like the RCA (or at least its Canadian churches with Jonathan Gerstner) was moving in the right direction when the CRC was a lost cause. Today the reverse applies.
Speaking as a man who grew up in a large upper-class mainline Congregational church, and would have stayed if a new and much more liberal pastor hadn't made it his mission to drive out people he saw as threats, I know that the mainline and mainline-adjacent denominations still have some conservative members and pastors in them. I wish you well as you seek to pastor in situations far more difficult than many people in the confessionally Reformed denominations understand, or could tolerate.