A person who is a practicing homosexual cannot be a true follower of Jesus, according to the director of a network of church and ministry leaders in the Greater Charlotte area.
The two lifestyles "are mutually incompatible," said Dr. Michael Brown, head of Coalition of Conscience in Charlotte, N.C., in an interview with The Christian Post. "God's order is always male and female union. That's how He blesses us."
Brown said he believes "no one is born gay" and although one may experience homosexual feelings as part of man's fallen nature and personal life experiences, change is possible.
"According to Scripture, all of us are born with a fallen nature. The fact that something is natural does not mean it's moral," he said.
Brown tackled the controversial issues of whether the Bible sanctions anti-homosexual prejudice, if ex-gays were possible, and whether Jesus would tolerate homosexuals this past week in a lecture series on the question: "Can you be Gay and Christian?"
The lectures were held at the Booth Playhouse in the Blumenthal Performing Arts Center in Charlotte.
On Tuesday, Brown presented scriptural and scientific evidence to debunk the argument by gay activists that changes in sexual orientation are not possible.
Among the many scientific studies highlighted by Brown during the lecture were "Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation," by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse.
"Even psychologists who strongly support same-sex ‘marriage’ agree that for some homosexuals change is possible," added Brown.
While Brown has worked extensively with groups that minister to homosexuals, he has seen the highly contentious issue get a little closer to home than he'd like.
On Saturday, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) – the world's largest homosexual advocacy organization – is giving a special "award" to Meyers Park Baptist Church in Charlotte for their decision to receive gays and lesbians into full church membership and leadership.
In response, Brown and a group of pastors from the Coalition of Conscience, held a news conference on Monday denouncing the church's stance on homosexuality.
Brown is going head to head with Harry Knox, director of Faith and Religion for the Human Rights Campaign and also a professing gay minister, in a dialogue Thursday night.
Brown said his group set up the dialogue in response to a challenge made last February by the HRC president at the annual HRC fundraising dinner in Charlotte. Following a week-long lecture series on "Homosexuality, the Church, and Society" delivered by Brown, HRC president Joe Solmonese said at the dinner that the organization was not afraid to "take on" Brown and "take back the conversation about religion and faith in America."
While opposed to churches affirming homosexuality, Brown urges them to reach out to those struggling with homosexuality with love and compassion. He also says the church should help them strive for holiness instead of heterosexuality.
"The church really needs to understand the struggles that homosexuals go through" in order to help them, said Brown. "It's not as easy as snapping your fingers."
But no matter how serious the "broken nature" is, "God can change you. That's the power of the Gospel," he concluded.
In his final lecture in the weeklong series on Friday, Brown will speak on how churches can minister to the gay and lesbian community.
Comments
<<Oh really, Peter "wrote" what Jesus taught, and that provides enough evidence to suggests that Jesus (who never said anything about homosexuals) was using the Sodom and Gomorrah reference to demoralize homosexuals. >>
I wanted to also add that I don't know how you managed to believe that I said Jesus was using the S/G reference to demoralize homosexuals. You're twisting or misunderstanding what I said to fit your limited knowledgebase of rote answers.
What I'm saying is, you can look at Jesus support for OT law and Peter's, Jude's and Paul's beliefs and writings (all who had contact with Jesus and were taught by/with Jesus' disciples) to arrive at the scholarly conclusion of what Jesus believed about homosexuals and fornication outside of marriage and marriage only being between man and woman.
What do you think Jesus meant by sexual immorality below? What sexual experiences do you think Jesus meant were ok and not included in this?
Matthew 15
16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "
You can't believe in Jesus and believe homosexuality is ok. You're simply in denial if you're trying. And, you can't preach to believers about what Jesus said if you don't believe what he said in the first place and are not Christian and don't understand the Bible.
Heck, are we to believe it's ok to do whatever it isn't recorded that Jesus said blindly without looking to the writings of those he himself taught??
<<Oh really, Peter "wrote" what Jesus taught, and that provides enough evidence to suggests that Jesus (who never said anything about homosexuals) was using the Sodom and Gomorrah reference to demoralize homosexuals. >>
LOL. So did Paul and Jude. Yes, to the evidence, and no to "demoralization". Just because homosexual sex is a sin doesn't mean Jesus would "demoralize" homosexuals (had we a recounting of such an encounter), just as he didn't demoralize other sinners. Jesus is all about giving sinners hope.
The people who attempt to demoralize homosexuals are not acting as Christ-followers but are happy to confuse their human discomfort with homosexuality with their "false" sense of Christian righteousness in order to wrongly pick out and persecute homosexuals. They're using the sin to make them feel good about persecuting homosexuals whom they do not understand and not want to understand because they're afraid of them. That's human, not Christian, and thanks for bringing me back to my ORIGINAL point!
<<Funny that when one uses any sort of Bible scripture to justify their point of view with authority and relevance, the accusation always turns to "using a GAY site as evidence.">>
Your response doesn't make sense, so I'm not sure if you even understood the comment. No one's saying the pro-homosexual site is evidence of anything...except the proliferation of an incorrect argument about what Jesus thought the sin of S/G was.
Again, Jude and Peter had very close contact to Jesus, and both of them agreed that Sodom's sins included sexual immorality (fornication). Why would they believe and teach this if it were contrary to what Jesus believed? They wouldn't. Paul breaks it down even further based on his learning from Jesus disciples. So, we can believe with confidence that Jesus disciples were spreading the word of Jesus regarding beliefs on sexual immorality. If Jesus believed anything different, the disciples would've let us know, and probably had been GLAD to let us know the good news.
Again, Jesus said he was here not to abolish the law but to fulfill it, etc.
You're hanging onto a vain hope to sway beliefs based on what Jesus didn't say without understanding his complete words or grasping his knowledge of the OT and the teachings of his own disciples.
<<Jesus calls Peter "the rock" on which Jesus would found his church. Peter writes
1 Peter 4:3-4 3For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.
Jesus taught Peter, and Peter is saying debauchery, lust, orgies are sinful. This provides more insight into Jesus beliefs on sexual immorality.>>
Oh really, Peter "wrote" what Jesus taught, and that provides enough evidence to suggests that Jesus (who never said anything about homosexuals) was using the Sodom and Gomorrah reference to demoralize homosexuals. Eventhough the common understanding was against inhospitality, an act of rape against Angelic beings and a reference to offering two virgin daughters to stop a violent act against guests.
Peter was illiterate and could not have possibly authored ANYTHING.
Most critical scholars are skeptical that the apostle Simon Peter, the fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, actually wrote the epistle, because of the urbane cultured style of the Greek and the lack of any personal detail suggesting contact with the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The letter contains about thirty-five references to the Hebrew Bible, all of which, however, come from the Septuagint translation, an unlikely source for historical Peter the apostle (albeit appropriate for an international audience). The Septuagint was a Greek translation created at Alexandria for the use of those Jews who could not easily read the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh. A historical Jew in Galilee would not have heard Scripture in this form. If the epistle is taken to be pseudepigraphal, the date is usually cited as between 70-90 by scholars like Raymond E. Brown and Bart D. Ehrman, while a small number of scholars argue for an even later date. source http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_it_relevant_to_know_when_the_apostle_Peter_wrote_the_book_I_Peter
Peter didn't author any books. The books are attributed to him.
<<Nevertheless, Jesus, when referring to Sodom, wasn't implying that Sodom's sin was being unkind to strangers, as I've read on some pro-gay sites. That's a gross assumption and incorrect. Again, Jesus was saying that NOT to welcome the disciples would bring harsher judgement than Sodom will receive on judgement day. Jesus wasn't implying anything about what the sin of Sodom was.>>
Funny that when one uses any sort of Bible scripture to justify their point of view with authority and relevance, the accusation always turns to "using a GAY site as evidence."
So you can just excuse what the Bible in Ezekiel 16:49 says? "This was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."
Where's the bit about Sodom being an abomination for homosexuality?
And you can excuse what the Bible says in Jeremiah 22:3 "Thus says the LORD: Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place."
My Bible cross references Sodom and Gomorrah, because there is no mention of homosexuality in the original tale, the NT uses the same reference when Jesus warns those who don't care about the sick, poor, hungry, orphaned and widows etc.
And you can excuse what the Bible says in Malachi 3:5 "Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be swift to bear witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired workers in their wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the alien, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts."
Hummmm, same cross references, and all about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.
<<I follow the actual teachings of a faith much older than Paul's.
What does that statement mean? What teachings and faith are you talking about? Couldn't be Jesus, since that was only ~25 years before, and Paul shared Jesus belief directly taught by Jesus' disciples.
My mistake on referring to Jude as a writing before Jesus' time. Obviously, I'm not regurgitating. If I were, I wouldn't make mistakes in my understanding as I research this to tune this argument.
Nevertheless, Jesus, when referring to Sodom, wasn't implying that Sodom's sin was being unkind to strangers, as I've read on some pro-gay sites. That's a gross assumption and incorrect. Again, Jesus was saying that NOT to welcome the disciples would bring harsher judgement than Sodom will receive on judgement day. Jesus wasn't implying anything about what the sin of Sodom was.
Again, Jude and Peter had very close contact to Jesus, and both of them agreed that Sodom's sins included sexual immorality (fornication). Paul breaks it down even further based on his learning from Jesus disciples. So, we can believe with confidence that Jesus disciples were spreading the word of Jesus regarding beliefs on sexual immorality. If Jesus believed anything different, the disciples would've let us know, and probably had been GLAD to let us know the good news.
Also, I apologize for the "gay watchdog" comment. Not very Christian of me.
<<The closest one can come is through PAUL, however Paul received his understanding through what he calls a vision or revelation of Jesus through the Holy Spirit>>
That's incorrect. He didn't recieve his understanding or knowledge of Jesus' word during the revelation, only a command from Jesus to follow a few instructions to get him started.
Acts 9 "19...Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God."
So, according to scholars, this is only roughly 45-55AD (~25 years after Jesus' crucifixion), and he's learning directly from the disciples who were with Jesus.
If Paul is preaching about sexual immorality and was taught directly from the disciples who were with Jesus, then Paul wasn't just making it up that homosexuality, etc, was sexual immorality. Paul made it very clear and concrete.
Getting back to Sodom and Gomorrah, Peter and Jude (either Judas a disciple [not Iscariot] or Judas Jesus' own brother) who both had direct contact with Jesus both refer to the sexual immorality of Sodom and Gommorah.
Furthermore, Paul says the only way to overcome our sexual immorality and lust, if we must, is to marry...a woman.
H. Jesus calls Peter "the rock" on which Jesus would found his church. Peter writes
1 Peter 4:3-4 3For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.
Jesus taught Peter, and Peter is saying debauchery, lust, orgies are sinful. This provides more insight into Jesus beliefs on sexual immorality.
-------------
I. Whenever Jesus talks about marriage, he always mentions man and woman like it was common sense and why would it be any different.
19:4-6 - "Haven't you read," he answered, "that the one who created them from the beginning 'made them male and female' and said: 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two separate people but one. No man therefore must separate what God has joined together."
-------------
Sorry, though you're intelligent, I'm still not convinced you understand what you're saying and that you're not simply a gay watchdog watching over the Christian Post forums. :) You're possibly only accepting the parts of the Bible that you want to accept. Forgive me if I'm wrong. I'd love to see your responses.
A good debate based on what Jesus said is interesting, though how can we assume too much about what Jesus didn't say?
1. I'm not claiming literalism, but that's another topic that is off-topic.
2. If you're a Christ follower, then, let's tune this further to Jesus' words. If you don't even truly believe those, like you say, then we can't really go further:
-------------
A. Jesus says he's here to fulfill the law and that it's right to meet the law's demands. What's he talking about? "You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to complete them." What law?
-------------
B. Who said this: "This is my dearly-loved son, in whom I am well pleased" after Jesus was baptised.
-------------
C. Did Jesus believe he was God? Why did he answer yes to being the Christ? Why did he say not to tempt the Lord your God referring to himself?
-------------
D. Do you believe Jesus performed miracles and was raised from the dead? If not, why do you even follow the teachings of Jesus if he's a liar?
-------------
E. Why would Jesus claim that simple lusting over a woman was adultery? What's the harm in that?
-------------
F. Why would a man divorcing make a woman make her an adulteress, according to Jesus?
-------------
G. Jesus, very knowledgeable about past biblical writings, obviously knew of the sins of Sodom when he said a town that didn't welcome the disciples would fare better than "Sodom and Gomorrah" on judgement day. Wouldn't Jesus recognize the sins of Sodom to include fornication as listed in Jude 1 below. What does fornication mean to you? You can search the Greek meaning:
Jude 1.4, 7, 8 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."
RE Fornication, here's a good tie in to marriage between man and woman.
1 Corinthians 6:18-20 & 1 Corinthians 7:1-2
"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
-------------
Split post...
<<Have you prayed for understanding of the following passages?>>
I don't ask that G-d help me understand the second or third century writings of a madman. Whom I believe claimed to have received an apocalypse from Jesus (which was likely a generic hallucination induced by guilt over participation in murders) devised to allow him to infiltrate Early Churches so he could make a living, achieve community status, and ultimately make a name for himself- not JESUS. I follow the actual teachings of a faith much older than Paul's. Confounding Christianity and mucking it up with irrational human beliefs serves me no purpose. The Gospel as Jesus stated was simply do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, feed, clothe and care for the poor, widow, orphan, disenfranchised and by doing the extra greater good for others you see and believe
G-d. Why else would he say if you have seen me you've seen the father- the father can be seen in others since we're made in G-d's image.
Please stop making assumptions about my understanding, my understanding comes from Jesus, and my understanding of G-d and it's more than can be contained in one argument.
<<If not, how can you simply regurgitate what you've read on pro-gay sites about what the Bible says about homosexuality and hope to hope to find any real understanding?>>
Regurgitation works both ways my friend. You might be regurgitating what you are TOLD in churches which have been expounding the same hatred for centuries by one form of bigot or another. Remarkably, the problem is compounded with evidence that implicates the very same organizations that produced and continue to produce tractate after tractate against Jews, slaves and women. Disguise it ALL you want, it's still far too obvious how you really think.
BTW, You can simply accuse me of posting without thinking, not having any real understanding but evidence of my knowledge came from critical thinking skills I have developed by reading commentary, literature, critical analysis written by scholars and pastors who are not GAY but see the issue closely associated to an anti-Jewish, anti-women, a pro-slavery mentality based strictly from fear, prejudice and a poor understanding of G-d. So before you assume that I only regurgitate and utilize progay sentiments found on internet sites, think again- you are merely making an assumption. In fact most of my understanding has come by attending of seminars, reading books and lectures led by scholars, doctors and theologians who greatly disagree with your understanding and not the internet. So your assumption is merely what it is- a guess based on unfounded evidence so you have to resort to attacks against me and my character.
<<Do you believe the Bible, or at least what Jesus and his disciples wrote in the Bible? >>
As a Christian, I am not required to BELIEVE the BIBLE. I am required to believe JESUS. If the Bible is to be believed, why is it filled with human feelings, human stories, human understanding and human errors? Jesus and his teachings make me the type of Christian I am- not human understanding of an error ridden book many people use to bash, harm, divide and disenfranchise others.
<<Have you prayed for understanding of the following passages?>>
Do you mean the passages PAUL or someone whom some attribute to PAUL and not what Jesus actually wrote?
Again if you want to argue the TRADITIONS early Christians started we can. If you want to argue what Jesus STATED, I'm all for it. Jesus didn't write PAUL'S speeches or letters, his doctrine is based on his REVELATION of Jesus, not his actual words.
Nowhere does Jesus say anything about homosexuality or premarital sex in the Bible. NOWHERE. The closest one can come is through PAUL, however Paul received his understanding through what he calls a vision or revelation of Jesus through the Holy Spirit-- he factually would never have had an actual meeting with the real Jesus, his doctrine is SECOND hand. If you want to say, CHRISTIAN traditions, creeds, sacraments etc. substantiate your belief that Jesus said homosexual or premarital sex is wron according to the bible, but literally, it is nowhere. I'm fine with that line of argument because it would be factual. But do not claim Bible Literalism then defer to Christian tradition, it's contradictory.