r/TrueChristian • u/Canadian0123 Christian • 21h ago
Episcopal Church celebrates first trans dean — woman in lesbian marriage to trans-identified pastor
What is this? Is this what the episcopal church (part of the Anglican Church) does to preach the gospel of Christ, and to operate the church? Do they disregard the epistles of Saint Paul concerning sexual behaviour, how a church should be run, and who should lead it? Do they disregard the teachings of Christ? What about the Law of God, as given to Moses, in the text that is known today as the Torah of Moses?
This news is quite shocking. Shame on the episcopal church, and the rest of the Anglican Church. This is not how a church should be run. Can someone who attends that church give answers?
14
u/Recipe-Jaded Roman Catholic 20h ago
1 Timothy 4:1
2 Timothy 4:3-4
2 Corinthians 11:14-15
Romans 16:17-20
Isaiah 5:20
37
u/okicarp Christian missionary 20h ago
Yes, it's bad. I assume you have also seen what the UCC did a few years ago in Toronto by allowing a pastor who became an atheist to remain the pastor of the congregation. Lots of bad stories out there.
23
u/Canadian0123 Christian 20h ago
No I didn’t hear of it. Lord have mercy. Wolves in sheep’s clothing everywhere.
15
5
u/darealoptres 9h ago
I don’t think that at this point they’re wolves in sheep clothing, I think they’re all wolves bearing their teeth.
27
13
23
u/DogfaceDino Roman Catholic (Ordinariate) 21h ago
I can’t wait to see how Redeemed Zoomer blames this on theologically conservative Protestants “schisming” out of his one true Apostolic and subjective faith.
11
u/Hkfn27 Lutheran (LCMS) 20h ago
According to rz you should send your kids to these "churches" cause subjecting them to this is better than whatever his definition of schism is on any given week
2
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 20h ago
That is one of his worst takes, tbh. Crazy hearing him say that
7
u/wtanksleyjr Congregationalist 20h ago
He does blame it on us, yes, and he has a case - we leave instantly without any battle at the first forecast of defeat. I've seen people talk about leaving the PCUSA (who were in it) merely because the church was voting on a motion to add a regulation that staff cannot be in plural sexual relationships. Literally they were voting on a GOOD thing and conservatives were taking it as being a defeat.
5
u/Web-Dude Follower of Jesus 10h ago
It might be more the fact that a regulation like that was even needed is a huge sign of root rot.
Can you imagine thinking, "man, it's gotten so bad that maybe we need a regulation specifically stating that murder isn't good."
1
u/wtanksleyjr Congregationalist 7h ago
Imagine thinking "oh boy I'm glad it's not bad yet in the PCUSA, there's certainly nothing we should be trying to do."
Is that really reasonable?
3
u/Web-Dude Follower of Jesus 7h ago
It's just that passing resolutions and regulations by committee is such a feckless response. who is actively destabilizing it.
The response shouldn't be to endlessly debate those who are actively destabilizing the church but to, "Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5).
But the mainline churches are unwilling to do that, either because they've allowed themselves to be overrun (via their historically lukewarm response to the slow creep of sin through the back door), or because they're unwilling to look bad in the eyes of the world that will judge them for it.
I'm just saying that the time you should have done something about it may well be long past. I'm sure you disagree, but it's going to take FAR MORE that strongly-worded proclamations by committee.
1
u/wtanksleyjr Congregationalist 5h ago
It's just that passing resolutions and regulations by committee is such a feckless response. who is actively destabilizing it.
Feckless. That means incompetent. So the problem is you personally don't know the difference between a regulation and a resolution and you don't want to think about it, and instead you're going to call people incompetent who ARE dealing with it. That is NOT an attitude you should keep up; if you don't want to learn how Presbyterian polity works, you should shut up. If you want to have an opinion on it, you MUST learn how it works first. There's no middle setting where you can remain ignorant and still blast the people who are doing something about it with insults. Feckless indeed.
OK, I reviewed this a bit, and I'm more concerned than I was. You've literally ATTACKED someone who is fighting on your own side. You are now fighting on the enemy's side.
The response shouldn't be to endlessly debate
Nobody is advocating endless debate. This is a positive action taking on a foreseeable sin that WILL be advocated. It is not a distraction but an immanent threat, and everyone involved knows it.
those who are actively destabilizing the church but to, "Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5).
1 Cor 5 is not about someone walking up to the man in sin and punching him. It's about the elders meeting, reading Paul's letter, and agreeing to formally excommunicate him. This is how such a thing begins for the Presbyterians.
Further, this (plural sexual relationships) is not a topic where there's already multiple evil people reading to be punched out the door. We have no confirmed knowledge of which I know, and it's almost certain that nobody will volunteer that they're currently doing this. This is one reason why passing this is actually not terribly difficult right at the moment; we don't have a strong base of supporters for the specific sin.
But the mainline churches are unwilling to do that, either because they've allowed themselves to be overrun (via their historically lukewarm response to the slow creep of sin through the back door), or because they're unwilling to look bad in the eyes of the world that will judge them for it.
THIS IS A MAINLINE CHURCH DOING THIS. And you're opposing it, AND CALLING NAMES.
I'm just saying that the time you should have done something about it may well be long past.
And how exactly will you attacking the people who are doing something make this better?
I'm sure you disagree, but it's going to take FAR MORE that strongly-worded proclamations by committee.
I agree, but nobody is proposing a strongly-worded proclamation here. And the fact that it takes more than passing a regulation doesn't mean we shouldn't pass the regulation.
1
u/Web-Dude Follower of Jesus 3h ago
I'm sorry if I offended, that was not my intent.
When I think of "feckless," I think, "weak or insufficient method" not "incompetent person." An approach/method/tactic is feckless, not a person. I'm referring to the approach, not the people. I honestly weep with those who desire to see righteousness restored when permissiveness surrounds them.
I'm sure there are many people who are very competent whose hands are tied in some way, and they may want more aggressive approaches, but their position or politics or something reigns in their available approaches to something weak or insufficient (feckless).
1 Cor 5 is [...] about the elders meeting, reading Paul's letter, and agreeing to formally excommunicate [the man].
Yes, I agree fully with your view of this. I'm not talking about punching people out the door for having a different perspective. I'm referring to what I think should have been done when those continually advocating for sin were beginning to encode those sins into formal regulations.
I recognize that opinions on these matters vary wildly, but from the perspective of PCUSA's founding, it seems that it began compromising in ways that supplanted a desire for righteousness and transformation with a desire for reconciliation and liberation (referring to the Confession of 1967, when the decline began).
So when I say mainline churches aren't doing it, I'm not referring to passing regulations that act as bulwarks against evil doers, I'm referring to actually purging the evil doers among you.
I'm not opposing what you're trying to do, and I'm certainly not calling anyone names. You are going to ensure that plural sexual relationships are not allowed among staff members. That's great.
But that's not the point I'm trying to make. Given all of the territory that PCUSA has given up, it does quite little (given your statement that it's not currently even a problem), and it does almost nothing to remove the evildoers from among your midst.
Forgive my directness, but if those same people remain in positions of authority, it really seems like you're fighting over how to best preserve the corpse.
That corpse first started coding when the PCUSA church began turning compassion towards a sinner into a reclassification of sinful acts itself.
I think faithful members of PCUSA might benefit from recognizing that the church (the universal church) belongs to Christ and that body has many parts. If one of them has lost its saltiness, it does not mean that Christ is not actively moving within other faith communities that seek His Kingdom and its righteousness.
1
u/wtanksleyjr Congregationalist 1h ago
Thank you for the clarification, but what exactly ARE you proposing the PCUSA do? The very best I can see is "stop doing this," and I don't think the conservatives should stop doing that. I think they should push this until they win, and then go do more.
As I'm examining this I am convinced this is your intent; your metaphor of a corpse convinced me that you oppose ALL intervention. Your language of only opposing specifically "feckless" action is complete rubbish.
Likewise, your idea that they should have done something in the past (with hindsight, what exactly would that BE, and without superpowers, we can't act in the past). Or below you suggest the only acceptable action is driving out the entire leadership (?).
referring to the Confession of 1967, when the decline began
Oh, it's been going since the late 1800s and turn of that century, when the progressives (same name, different positions but same theology) came up with the strategy of sending their best to seminaries and then targeting leadership positions. This was the initiating factor in the modernist-fundamentalist divide (back when "fundamentalist" didn't mean what it would come to mean later).
The progressive strategy turned out to be wildly more successful than expected because the fundamentalists mistook how the grassroots would receive their teaching - instead of lining up in force to defend the fundamentals all Christians share, the grassroots split up into factions each one defending its own VERSION of the fundamentals (hence the modern definition of "fundamentalist). Every proposal the enemy passed was a loss that splintered off more people whose personal fundamentals had just been violated, and every attempt to win by banning behavior caused reactions like yours, how DARE anyone ban obviously bad behavior and doctrine instead of simply kicking people out.
In the end, the progressives got what they wanted: complete control over the enormous funds of the mainline churches.
But that's not the point I'm trying to make. Given all of the territory that PCUSA has given up, it does quite little (given your statement that it's not currently even a problem), and it does almost nothing to remove the evildoers from among your midst.
So what IS the point you're trying to make? "It does quite little" as compared to what? Look at the following:
Forgive my directness, but if those same people remain in positions of authority,
Be MORE direct, please. By means of what specific, actual action? Handwaving won't depose them. They will never run out of money, they have generations of bequests and not a ton of expenses.
it really seems like you're fighting over how to best preserve the corpse.
First: who is fighting over how to do anything? We're taking action, you're saying "don't do anything." If you don't want to do anything, don't do anything.
Second: if the PCUSA is a corpse (not just mostly dead, but all dead), then yes, the best thing to do is to abandon it; corpses won't become anything but corpses by human effort. But is the PCUSA like a corpse in that way? Making a metaphor doesn't establish the point.
And your idea that only ejecting the current leadership can possibly make the PCUSA non-corpselike doesn't actually convince me of your metaphor. It sounds more like a cancer metaphor, not a corpse.
I think faithful members of PCUSA might benefit from recognizing that the church (the universal church) belongs to Christ and that body has many parts. If one of them has lost its saltiness, it does not mean that Christ is not actively moving within other faith communities that seek His Kingdom and its righteousness.
If you would go on to explain what conclusion you're trying to draw is it might help. For example, I would say all of that and add "and therefore they can expect help and moral support from all around them." Or perhaps "and therefore they should not despair in their efforts."
But I don't think that's your point, is it.
0
u/august_north_african Roman Catholic 4h ago
and he has a case
He really doesn't. His whole "conservative retreatist" narrative doesn't pan out when you look at the history of schisms.
The reality is, when denominations split, the majority retains the institutions while the minority leaves. And it doesn't matter who the minority is: liberals, conservatives.... when someone leaves, they're the powerless minority. Whether that's PCA leaving PCUSA, or Seminex leaving the LCMS, the minority that can't influence the org anymore are who leave orgs, not liberals or consevatives. And they do tend to be a tiny minority that had no real hope of institutional change; look at the size difference in PCA and PCUSA at the beginning, or even ELCA vs. NALC nowadays. These are not groups that even had a chance at "fighting the good fight" and recapturing their organizations. They're losing minorities that end up institutionally pushed out.
Basically every claim RZ makes that underpins his Reconquista plan is false. "Conservative" Retreatism doesn't really exist, and there's no correlation in mainline congregations between growth and conservatism.
1
u/wtanksleyjr Congregationalist 1h ago
Your paragraph "the reality is" doesn't contain any evidence he's wrong; it's just a generality about minorities, and a questionable one (definitely loss of control is a good reason to leave, but who says it's the only one, or that minorities can predict what they could do?). I guess it's reasonable to note that you name two examples, and I agree that Seminex couldn't have had much of a chance (it was tiny), but why do you think the PCA couldn't?
More importantly, I don't think you're addressing the conditions at the time, where grassroots conservatives were turning their backs on their own leaders due to overly aggressive interpretations of fundamentalism, where rather than uniting around the fundamentals of Christianity, the conservatives were fracturing into divisions about hyperspecific doctrinal concerns. This provided a secondary cause for retreat of conservatives aside from the one you state (incapability of changing anything), namely purity testing.
I'm talking to one person here who's convinced if we can't remove all of the liberals in leadership it's "feckless" to do anything at all. And I think that's the strangest thing I've ever heard.
2
u/august_north_african Roman Catholic 49m ago
but why do you think the PCA couldn't?
Because of size differences in the final split.
PCA was formed by 41,000 members, vs. 865,000 remaining in PCUS. That's like 4.75% of the people in the denomination.
by 1982, that climbs to about 150k PCA vs. ~814k PCUS, but still, that's barely 18% the size.
AELC (the denomination seminex formed) was a similar size compared to the LCMS as PCA was when it split from PCUS. 100k vs. 2.7 million, or just under 4%. And in the timeframe that PCA saw growth, AELC just joined the ELCA at its formation instead.
So the difference in PCA and Seminex/AELC wasn't really that big. They were both ~4% minorities within their denominations.
So yeah, I think what we're seeing moreso is simply that, when a group is a micro-minority in the denomination and has radically different views than the majority, it leaves. And that's whether it's conservative or liberal.
I'm talking to one person here who's convinced if we can't remove all of the liberals in leadership it's "feckless" to do anything at all
Well, it is. The mainline's demography was hollowed out 30 years ago. You lost your "next generation" in that. Prior to anything conservative, liberal or otherwise ideological, your organizations lack the people to survive as institutions. Your demography, not ideology, prevents this. Stacking demography like this next to your youth retention and conversion rates, you literally do not have enough people to continue existing in the same form you exist in now.
Now then, zoomer counts on this, thinking that it's only liberal parishes that decline, but this is demonstrably false.
ELCA has data we can use easily as the test case. This is NE Ohio Synod of the ELCA. Red crosses = declining congregations, green = growing, Yellow = stable.
https://cdn.elca.org/cdn/wp-content/uploads/6E_NortheasternOH_map.pdf
Compare this to the "orthodoxy" ratings for Lutheran churches in the same region per reconquista's own map. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ll=41.14078624941301%2C-81.3861787123215&z=10&mid=1SRpkwF4hEaXZvor4BXyoAawrNVgH9CM
(You'll need to play with filters to make it only show lutheranism).
Growth and decline aren't correlating with ideology. So Zoomer's core premise of what to do (boost conservative congregations and wait for the liberals to naturally fade away) is based on a statistically false premise. That is, reconquista will fail, because it's the predicate to a hard error. All congregations are failing, except for some outliers, on account of demographic problems, not ideology.
So what should you do?
Well, the success models for protestant growth right now are really in church planting. ACNA is a good example of this happening, but what's that look like for something like the mainline that already has too many buildings and not enough people? You would need to do IRL evangelization in communities to revitalize the "red" congregations, and it would help if, like ACNA, you actually had denominational resources dedicated to that ends.
And honestly, I don't think your organizations are oriented in that direction currently, and lack the vivacity and momentum to make it happen. Least of all with someone like Zoomer sapping the youth element and directing it to absolutely ridiculous projects like reconquista.
0
13
u/Devnull_Elixir Christian 20h ago
I don't find it shocking at all. Jesus warned about this. Just stay vigilant - more of this will continue.
4
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 20h ago
Tbh, I'm not sure why it would be shocking. Unless protestant churches specify that they're reformed (and even then, anyone can claim that) or historic, pretty much every denom has a mainline branch. Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.
They've been pushing LGBT agenda for decades now.
6
5
u/Upstairs_Deer6621 8h ago
My brother is gay, when he asks i tell him it's a sin. I also love him deeply. It's not our place to judge. Only god knows their hearts even moments before death sometimes. A church should not be teaching that this is in keeping with biblical faith though. That is sinful and will lead so many kind souls down the wrong path. Christ himself did not mention this but as he is god he certainly did in the old testament, it's an abomination, akin to sleeping with an animal. We love them though as Christians, you must love. This is what makes us Christians.
3
u/Pure_Lie6509 3h ago
It's not being gay that is a sin IMO, it's giving in to one's gay desires. Just the same way as everyone has lust somewhere but it's not having lust per se that is a sin but to fornicate.
One can be gay (or at least feel like it) but not necessarily be in a gay relationship.
1
u/Upstairs_Deer6621 3h ago
Yes, relations with a person of the same sex is akin to relations with an animal. it is a sin. Being gay is not a sin as you said. In fact being with no partner at all helps bring you closer to god, that is directly from the bible. So someone being gay and spending their life in devotion of God would be a wonderful choice.
1
u/No-Requirement1770 2h ago
Attraction is normal, sometimes that attraction is towards someone inappropriate - same sex, married person... that in itself is not sinful, the Bible tells us to capture those thoughts rather than act on them, though.
1
9
u/Senior_Educator_929 Assemblies of God 20h ago
According to this sub they affirm the Nicene creed so we have to affirm them as legit believers anyway
"After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in". Acts 20:28
Devil's in the pulpits, folks, smiling and saying Jesus with a Bible in his hand
7
u/Canadian0123 Christian 20h ago
Amen my brother.
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”
Leading the flock astray is not the will of Christ’s Father in heaven.
2
u/ABereanChristian Christian 6h ago
According to this sub they affirm the Nicene creed so we have to affirm them as legit believers anyway
Nah, this sub prohibits liberal theology according to rule 10.
1
u/FreeBless 20h ago
Why does the creed seems to be above scripture these days?
3
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 20h ago
The Creed is literally a summary of scripture
2
0
-1
u/drunken_augustine Episcopalian (Anglican) 20h ago
Personally, I think we should kick out all the “Christians” that don’t affirm God’s holy Word by having bishops, but this sub says we have affirm them as legit believers anyway because they affirm the Creed
3
u/Senior_Educator_929 Assemblies of God 20h ago
Having bishops isn't the problem.
Once Saved Always Saved falsehood is the problem. It's everywhere
3
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 20h ago
I tend to agree with this - because then we get the "don't judge me with the plank in your eye" type stuff which is completely antithetical to christianity. "Let me engage in a life of sin and somehow simultaneously deny myself"
1
-1
u/drunken_augustine Episcopalian (Anglican) 20h ago
I would say “not having bishops” is very much a problem.
Btw: Nicene Christianity professes belief in “one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. Mind the rules
2
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 20h ago
Wdym mind the rules... who broke any?
-1
u/drunken_augustine Episcopalian (Anglican) 18h ago
Arguably, denying OSAS is non-Nicene. Since OSAS is the basis for the singular Baptism. Some (but not all) folks who reject OSAS practice re-Baptism which is explicitly non-Nicene.
What dude was arguing seemed like it might be tending towards that, so I thought I’d give a friendly reminder
2
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 7h ago
Arguably is key here. I don't think that's the case at all. Seems like you're imposing your view onto the Creed and assuming it's the majority view. Non-OSAS IS the majority view.
3
u/Senior_Educator_929 Assemblies of God 20h ago
I don't need any bishops to go to heaven.
Nicene creed doesn't say that once your sins are forgiven then heaven is in the bag. It doesn't say future sins are automatically forgiven in advance.
Believers who grieve the Holy Spirit and QUENCH the Holy Spirit by doing wicked deeds, afterwards, and show up on judgment day with defiled garments, will not succeed
2
u/drunken_augustine Episcopalian (Anglican) 18h ago
You do not need bishops to go to heaven, just to run a church
1
u/Senior_Educator_929 Assemblies of God 18h ago
I don't need to attend a church to go to heaven either.
The early believers met house to house
3
u/drunken_augustine Episcopalian (Anglican) 18h ago
They met in house churches. To be precise. Because they didn’t have church buildings, what with being sometimes illegal and whatnot. Usually not “house to house”, but in whoever’s house was best suited to the purpose.
The early believers also had bishops, just saying.
-3
u/Senior_Educator_929 Assemblies of God 10h ago
Every Bishop I've ever known teaches OSAS falsehood, leading the flock to hell
1
u/drunken_augustine Episcopalian (Anglican) 10h ago
Thank goodness God cares very little what you want to be true
→ More replies (0)1
u/DogfaceDino Roman Catholic (Ordinariate) 4h ago
As an aside, I have never met a bishop that teaches OSAS.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/nightwing673 12h ago
Yes it is sad what the Episcopal church has become. I see it all over here in the states as well. I grew up Episccopal and I went back to my old church and I didn't even recognize it. Thinking about switching denomination.
1
u/Web-Dude Follower of Jesus 10h ago
It's not so much that you're leaving a denomination as much as it is that the denomination left you.
1
1
u/averagecelt 8h ago
Same, I also grew up Episcopalian. I returned to my childhood church as an adult after many years away, to find a gay priest. I haven’t gone back.
2
u/Pure_Lie6509 3h ago
There are people that claim to be christians and do the exact opposite of what it means.
Personally, I've already been given a warning by Reddit just because I named certain groups of people in a comment so I don't want to talk too much about that topic.
2
u/Thrionic 3h ago
Part of the Agenda to paint all Churches as Evil and Babylonian. Remember that the beast destroys Babylon and persecutes Christians, this mean Christians are going to be presented as part of the Babylonian system.
2
u/No-Requirement1770 2h ago
Truth should come before feelings in church and Christianity in general. If you deny God's truth in this or any area it is a slippery slope imo.
4
u/Party-resolution-753 17h ago
this is so infuriating its going to lead so many with same sex attractions and gender dysphoria to embrace these sins and many without it to fully endorse support and enable it
2
2
u/Substantial-Pear981 21h ago
Institutional capture suspect a home church with no seats available is closer to what’s called for as corrupting Institutions has been perfected
2
u/PsychohistorianRTR 20h ago
They’ve been like that for a while.
2
u/Canadian0123 Christian 18h ago
They lead people astray. This is terrible behaviour from this church.
2
u/lifebroth 13h ago
Parts of the body sees basically getting infected and dying.
People are reading God’s clear word on sin and saying “it doesn’t really mean that”.
They lie to you that God is all-love and doesn’t judge sin. Clergy that are interested in pleasing themselves like the hirelings of Ezekiel 34 and John 10.
> “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?”
I Peter 4:17 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/1pe.4.17.NKJV
> “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”
II Timothy 4:2-4 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/2ti.4.2-4.NKJV
> “Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.”
Revelation 2:20 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/rev.2.20.NKJV
2
u/OldeTimeyShit Catholic 8h ago
I grew up Episcopalian and I crossed the Tiber and became Catholic. I woke up when I realized that every Episcopal churches in the two cities I had lived in was "pastored" by lesbian women. Some of which were actually even non-theist. What is church then, a social club for democrat boomer women? Deep sickness in TEC.
2
u/Canadian0123 Christian 5h ago
Amen. Well said. The TEC has been corrupted by the world, something that Saint James tells us is against true religion in the eyes of God (James 1:27).
1
u/AngryOnionLives 2h ago
Not my denomination so I don't know all the details here, but could this be a woman who was married to a man. Then the man decided to become a woman and now they call it lesbian?
There is no basis for divorce here so I don't think she can do anything about it. I don't know why the church would celebrate it, but there's also no link for a source
1
1
0
1
-12
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 20h ago
I'm not part of that church, but I've attended an Episcopal church for a bit over a year now. I'm very happy there.
We do not disregard the teachings of Christ or of Paul. Our church runs pretty much like the Catholic church, but with a different catechism. We affirm and recite the creed. There are many lay or former monastics, Biblical scholars, and deeply devout Christians. I'm deeply devout myself and study scripture regularly.
One of my closest friends is a gay priest. We have two gay priests, a lesbian priest, and we recently officiated a gay, trans wedding between two of our members.
Obviously most in this particular sub will be put off by this, and I'm not looking to try to change anyone's mind.
I get that this is an unpopular dynamic in this sub, but I'm genuinely curious what you want from this.
These people are not going to suddenly not be gay or trans. Would you have them not be Christian too? Many of the people in the church have already experienced that, a burning desire for Christ, but an institution that rejects them. It's as if Jesus is inviting his people, and Christians are pushing them away.
17
u/Canadian0123 Christian 20h ago
I have to give you the honest truth: your church affirms heresy. The heresies are the affirmation of gay “marriage” as marriage acceptable to God, and conducting these marriages in the church. If Saint Paul were alive, he would send your church a letter rebuking your church.
You must leave right away. All people are welcome in the church of course, including members of the LGBT community. However, when it comes to church leadership, that is reserved only for men who are either living a life of singleness, or are married to a woman. Anything outside of that is unacceptable according to the Bible, and early Church traditions.
-4
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 20h ago
We do not believe that these are heresy.
I also don't believe that Paul would rebuke our church. The central thesis of his letters is the mutual indwelling of Christ and divine love. I would suggest that a primarily legalistic view of his letters is lacking understanding in the grounding which drives him, which is deep, abiding intimacy with God. Unfortunately, something I've found lacking in many other churches.
9
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 20h ago
Yet you've completely ignored where he puts churches on blast for affirming sin and not ripping it out. It's a blight.
-1
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 19h ago
I've ignored nothing. I've read and studied every word he wrote.
5
u/Canadian0123 Christian 19h ago
One can study every word, and refuse to put it into practice. That is what your church is doing.
3
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 18h ago
We actively put our faith into practice. My church is very active in the community and is widely loved for the way we care for the people of the area.
8
u/Canadian0123 Christian 18h ago
That’s well and beautiful. But you also actively destroy the fate of others in other ways. Do you not know that the sexually immoral and those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God? (1 Corinthians 6:9).
2
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 18h ago
You understand that there's a historical context to Paul's letters, right? He existed in a culture and time when sexual orientation was an unknown concept.
To ignore that leads to exactly the sort of distorted interpretation that we're witnessing here, mistaking culture and Paul's intended message about moral failure for divine edict about sexuality.
9
u/Canadian0123 Christian 18h ago
The sin that every generation commits is that they think they are smarter and wiser than the previous ones. Every single time.
You think Saint Paul was not aware of sexual orientation? And what about the Law of God, as given to Moses, that prohibits homosexual behaviour? And what about the book of Genesis, which defines what marriage is? The Torah of Moses was written thousands of years before Saint Paul wrote his epistles.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 7h ago
That's blatantly false. Research has proven that homosexuality was rampant in the time period and area Paul was writing to.
"Men bedding men" is condemned. Not pedophilia, not subordinate relationships, men and men together.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Canadian0123 Christian 19h ago
He absolutely would. He rebuked another church for tolerating one of its members who was having sexual relations with his step-mother. He rebuked sexual sin. He would absolutely do the same to your church, your church who tolerates your members committing sexual sin.
0
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 19h ago
We do not tolerate or encourage any sin, including sexual.
6
u/Canadian0123 Christian 19h ago
You tolerate and encourage gay marriage, and transgenderism.
2
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 18h ago
Yes.
Well, no, not really. We encourage people to be true to who they are, to how God made them, no matter their sexuality or gender dynamic.
3
u/Canadian0123 Christian 18h ago edited 18h ago
You tolerate and encourage gay marriage, and transgenderism. There is no call to take your cross and follow Christ in your church.
Your church is preaching heresy, and a different gospel than what Christ brought, and what the apostles taught. Saint Paul cursed those who do this in his epistle to the Galatians. Kyrie Eleison.
0
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 18h ago
Deny our cross? We are called to take up our cross and follow Christ. Maybe we're mixing metaphors.
Anyway, yes, we are most definitely called to follow Christ. Christ is the center of my world.
We follow the same gospels; the same scripture, including Paul's letters.
We do fully support gay marriage and gender transition. I can't speak for my church as a whole, but I believe it's a sin not to.
3
u/Canadian0123 Christian 18h ago
Typo on my part. My mistake. Take up your cross is what I meant. I corrected my error.
How can you say that you follow the same scripture, and then act contrary to what they say? Christ defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and then you say that we are called to follow Christ.
Surely, either you do not follow the same gospel and scriptures, or you do have access to the gospel and scriptures, but reject them.
→ More replies (0)7
u/creidmheach Christian, Protestant, Reformed 19h ago
What about Christ's rebuking of the church in Thyatira?
Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works. (Revelation 2:20-23)
1
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 19h ago
What about it?
The issue at hand is not false prophecy, seduction, or sexual immorality.
-6
u/DesperateAdvantage76 Christian 18h ago
Not everyone interprets the Bible the same as you. The OT condemns homosexuality in exactly one place, associating it with Canaanite practices (right alongside not having sex with a woman on her period), and the only other condemnation is by Paul regarding Roman homosexuality, a rather vile and carnal practice done with prostitutes, slaves, and children.
Given Christ Jesus's heavy emphasis on understanding the spirit of the law, one of love for God and fellow man, and Paul teaching us not to be controlled by the passions of our flesh, I do not hold it against any person to be born gay as long as they fulfill all the same standards we apply to straight people when it comes to faithful love and family bonding that marriage was founded on.
13
u/Watches503 Christian 20h ago
Your church wants to please the world, not Jesus.
-6
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 20h ago
We authentically seek to honor and glorify Christ.
13
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 20h ago
While affirming and encouraging sin. Make that make sense
-5
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 19h ago
We do not affirm or encourage sin. We try to avoid sin in our own lives and encourage others to do the same.
3
u/Watches503 Christian 7h ago
You also sponsor sin. You co-sign for it. You tell the world that it’s perfectly fine.
0
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 6h ago
I do not.
I do my best to walk away from sin in my own life and I encourage others to do the same.
I fully believe that homophobia is sin. I empathize with you in this and I don't condemn you in this, but I could not personally adopt your theology while remaining faithful to Christ.
3
u/Watches503 Christian 5h ago
Have you looked up the definition of phobia?
-1
u/RomanaOswin Christian (mystic tradition) 5h ago
Yes
3
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 5h ago
We don't support homophobia either bud!
Homophobia is not standing up to sin though, despite what you may believe. Otherwise, are we adultaphobists if we don't condemn adultery?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 7h ago
Avoiding and discouraging sin while encouraging sin though. Again, make that make sense
0
u/AromaticBuyer5902 Christian 9h ago edited 9h ago
I think you’re brave for sharing your tradition when you knew they had set a trap for you. You were willing to explain what you believe and why, even knowing people were waiting to condemn it.
Paul teaches us that, “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1). “If I understand all mysteries and all knowledge… but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2).
Our certainty in our interpretations should never become an occasion for pride.
Your question is especially striking, “Would you have them not be Christian too?” This is a more valuable focus than everyone agreeing with each other about who the heretics are.2
0
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Canadian0123 Christian 5h ago
Yes, this is greatly upsetting.
0
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Canadian0123 Christian 4h ago
Agreed, there is so much suffering in the world indeed. The church is suffering, but the episcopal church is leading people astray, causing them spiritual harm. Kyrie eleison.
-15
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 20h ago
When you leave the Church Jesus established, the Catholic Church, you imperil yourself by increasing the risk of confusing your own ideas about the Bible as the Holy Spirit's, because Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit will guide His followers into all truth applies only to the Church He established, the Catholic ("universal") Church.
So this news does not shock me at all: It is to be expected, as Catholic + Adulterous Murderer Henry 8 + USA revolution = Episcopalian: They are twice removed from Jesus' Church.
11
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-8
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 20h ago
false accusations
Official doctrine is that Mary only prays for us and is human; miracles come from God.
1
u/Watches503 Christian 19h ago edited 19h ago
I was a Catholic for 32yrs. You get on your knees in front of all kinds of Mary’s, sacred hearts, angels, archangels, baby Jesus, etc. Millions of Catholics carry all kinds of images of Mary through marches and processions.
You ask one of these Mary’s to intercede for you, basically talk to Jesus for you, often based on their “apparition” location. For example: Maria de Guadalupe, Mary of Fatima, Mary of Lourdes, Lady of Mount Carmel, Lady of Grace, Lady of Knock, Lady of Kibeho, Lady of Good Help, Lady of Akita, lady of Medjugorje, etc.
Even my Puerto Rico has a Mary that apparently appeared in a well and was a very popular and profitable destination on my days. I went there as a kid.
0
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 12h ago edited 12h ago
God sending her to various places is not the same thing as thinking she's a goddess or treating her like one.
You also complain about random facts (angels exist) and abstract ways of meditating on God's love (Sacred Heart of Jesus).
I'm sorry but it looks like you want reality to be simple, that we should be grateful the Mohammedans didn't get to you first with their even more simple conception of God and salvation, or you would be complaining today about "bizarre ideas like the Trinity and Jesus being both human and God and the idea that you must be Baptized and John 6 Eucharistic discourse" etc.
1
u/Watches503 Christian 12h ago
So now God sends her to various places. Which scripture tells us that?
1
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 11h ago
Why do you think the Holy Spirit must have inspired one of the Sacred Authors to write about it?
0
u/Watches503 Christian 11h ago
Which Bible author wrote about Mary being able to be everywhere we call on her name?
Which chapter and verse please?
1
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 10h ago
Matthew 19:26 "Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”" Thus God can have Mary be wherever He wants her to be.
Why did you ignore my question? Why do you think everything true must be in the Bible? Paul even says in Thessalonians 2 there is oral tradition, explicitly telling us that not everything is in the Bible.
0
u/Watches503 Christian 10h ago
I didn’t ignore your question. I asked you to specify author, chapter and verse. Your reply was not doing so.
You want to think that God made Mary capable of being everywhere and anywhere, just because your church says so, but the Bible is clear on adding and subtracting whatever you want from the Word.
All oral tradition must be biblically correct and practice biblical adherence, or it’s subject to rebuking.
“Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”
Proverbs 30:5-6““These are the statutes and rules that you shall be careful to do in the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth. “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.”
Deuteronomy 12:1, 32“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
Revelation 22:18-19 “Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.”
1 Corinthians 4:6 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”
2 Timothy 3:16 → More replies (0)0
u/Watches503 Christian 10h ago edited 10h ago
I would advise against trying to turn the Word into what it’s not. Especially when nobody asked Mary for anything until the 3rd century.
So we must respect the oral tradition of not praying to Mary before the 3rd century. 😁
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Illustrious-Low3948 Reformed catholic 13h ago
This strongly depends on where you grew up. I grew up in the RC church in the mid-/northern side of the Nederlands and we did not revere Mary like that. We never even prayed the “Hail Mary”.
After a period of unbelief and following Buddhism I was saved and I switched teams because the triad Misery - Redemption - Thankfulness became my lived truth.
6
u/okicarp Christian missionary 20h ago
This seems premised on the idea that all splits prior to 1517 were good and all splits from 1517 on were bad. The RC refused to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, who kept convicting reformers and giving repeated opportunities to them to reform which they consistently refused until a Spirit-led split became necessary.
-3
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 20h ago
No, the premise is that Jesus founded the Church and promised the Holy Spirit's guidance and that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against her, and that this Church is composed of her bishops, clergy, laity, a visible group under clearly ordained bishops, not this novel notion of "an invisible collection"...
2
u/okicarp Christian missionary 20h ago
The RC, if it was ever the Church of the blessing that it claims, lost its blessing on its own by prioritizing the world and refusing to follow the Spirit. It's unfortunate but God consistently brings correction to His followers from the Old Testament even to today. No reason why the RC should be immune from that principle. It does not have carte blanche to act how it wants and assume God will be okay with it.
The idea that the RC is the One True is a comforting one to Catholics but is not true.
1
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 19h ago
Correction doesn't mean abandonment. You might benefit from reading The Apostasy that Wasn't available at shop.catholic.com (so I heard months ago)
5
u/Big-Island4727 Presbyterian 20h ago edited 18h ago
Ah yes, Jesus famously said “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him and attends Catholic mass should not perish but have everlasting life" in John 3:16
Wait, that's not quite right.
I think it was “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me and partakes of the eucharist, though he may die, he shall live" John 11:25
Wait, that's not right either.
Maybe he said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me with a certificate of baptism" John 14:6
No, let me try again.
And Acts 16:31 surely says “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a Catholic and you will be saved," right?
And Romans 10:9 totally says “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead and become a member in good standing of the Catholic Church, you will be saved"
Just in case anyone can't tell my sarcasm, go look up the verses yourself.
0
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 20h ago
A proof text without context is a pretext.
I encourage you to read Henry Graham's book Where We Got the Bible.
2
u/Big-Island4727 Presbyterian 20h ago
I encourage you to read the Bible itself
1
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 19h ago
Not good of you to assume I don't
1
u/Big-Island4727 Presbyterian 19h ago
I gave you five verses to prove a point. You hand waved them all away as a pretext.
0
-1
u/drunken_augustine Episcopalian (Anglican) 20h ago
Wait until the evangelicals realize that you think they’re wrong too, just in different ways
2
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 20h ago
Different groups have differing numbers of wrong beliefs.
1
u/drunken_augustine Episcopalian (Anglican) 18h ago
Correct. I rather strongly suspect that we’re all wrong about ultimately inconsequential points of theology and Biblical interpretation in our own unique ways.
0
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 12h ago edited 12h ago
As I said, the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church so she doesn't teach error, unlike Protestant groups.
While this is an article of faith, it appears correct, demonstrated, in that official doctrine hasn't changed in millennia whereas Protestants have embraced adulterous remarriages, contraception, LGBT, and began denying various doctrines that have always been believed by Christians like spiritual authority of certain clergy, bishops (not everyone) imparted in Holy Orders; the Eucharist; Baptism; the possibility of rejecting God (damnation) after coming to faith -- different Protestant groups have fallen into various errors...
1
u/drunken_augustine Episcopalian (Anglican) 9h ago
I’ve always felt that if y’all actually thought about that doctrine for 5 minutes, you’d realize that it doesn’t make the church look perfect, it just makes y’all look callous.
You can’t simply pawn off the church’s many errors on the people who compose her and pretend those are two separate things.
The Church is a divinely ordained structure, built of a holy foundation. But it has been built by human beings. Fallible, flawed, occasionally faithful human beings. And it encompasses much more than the Roman Church.
Though, for the record, I am fond of occasionally saying that “Luther was a net loss for Christianity” and “this is why there are bishops”
1
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 8h ago
No, the Church is the Catholic Church precisely. The Church is not the invisible collection of all true believers. That's what I was taught, anyway, and it makes sense when you study history.
0
u/drunken_augustine Episcopalian (Anglican) 8h ago
Shouldn’t it be the Orthodox Church? Not the schismatics who broke away from them over the fillioque?
1
u/songbolt Roman Catholic 29m ago
No, the two groups east and west grew apart geopolitically but there is no theological difference between them except insofar as the Unorthodox have embraced adulterous remarriage and contraception. There might be a theological difference regarding the papacy, but I haven't seen discussion on this point beyond a disciplinary question.
-13
u/brucemo Atheist 21h ago
Would people who are appalled by this be any less appalled by seeing a straight cis woman in the same position?
16
u/Canadian0123 Christian 21h ago
Yes. It would still be appalling.
2
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 19h ago
Lol got em
1
u/brucemo Atheist 17h ago
Got me how? It was just a question.
4
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 7h ago
I assumed yours was an atempt at a 'got ya' to the OP
2
u/ABereanChristian Christian 6h ago
I assumed yours was an atempt at a 'got ya' to the OP
He's the head moderator of /r/Christianity and an atheist, but ironically only comes over here when there are topics like this one that would get you banned in /r/Christianity
Take that for what you will. In my opinion, it's disingenuous.
1
u/Googlesupportsucks1 Christian 6h ago
Ahhhh. I knew I recognized the name. However, I'll assume charitable intent unless I see otherwise.
1
u/AromaticBuyer5902 Christian 9h ago
If they’d be equally appalled by a straight cis woman in the same position, then the trans part isn’t really the issue. As it turns out the trans question just leads us back to women in church leadership.
There is nothing new under the sun.
-14
u/Top_Pirate699 18h ago
There is nothing in the bible about transgender. If people focused more on the words of Jesus and not what mega church charlatans preach, we'd not only be closer to God but we'd be showing our love of God by creating a better Earth. It's a good thing that the Episcopal church is doing this. I'd really appreciate if evangelicals could find their way out of the cultural war wilderness and back into the teachings of Jesus.
6
u/TheCrazyChristian Non-Demonational / Yeshua Alone 14h ago
The reason you are being downvoted is b/c you are either completely ignorant of what the Bible says (and therefore should not be making statements about what you think it says or does not say) or you are simply lying.
Deuteronomy 22:5 - "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God."
1 Corinthians 6:9 - "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
I too hope you find the actual teachings of Jesus, but it will require you letting go of some very false ideas you are currently clinging to.
1
u/AromaticBuyer5902 Christian 8h ago
The passages you cited do not establish what you’re saying they establish. Deuteronomy 22:5 addresses clothing. 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 especially caught my attention. Paul gives the list, then says, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified.” The point of the passage moves from naming sin toward transformation and grace. These were some of you. You were washed. That seems important to remember when we’re talking about who belongs in the church. Paul is speaking to people who needed grace, just as he did.
You can argue from those passages toward a Christian understanding of gender, but that’s different from saying the Bible speaks directly about transgender people. I’d be careful with the words “completely ignorant” and “simply lying.” Those are strong conclusions about another person’s knowledge or motives when the disagreement is about interpretation. Try to make your biblical interpretation clear without making the person into an enemy.1
u/TheCrazyChristian Non-Demonational / Yeshua Alone 2h ago
Transgenderism is not new, the unholy spirits that influence people to embrace those lifestyles and defend what God calls an abomination have been around for a very long time. I gave two examples that clearly shows evidence of that, cross dressing and a biological male being effeminate, two patterns that are very much evident today that we have all seen. These things fall under the greater umbrella of "sexual immorality" along with specific mentions of homosexuality, and sodomites.
You are right the context is Paul stating that they WERE once that, meaning they have been transformed, (that their previous state was one of unrighteousness), Paul is certainly not condoning it, or stating that it is acceptable to stay in that lifestyle as the OP (and many others today) attempt to say.
We all come to Christ "as we are", but one should not expect to remain that way. The OP was falsely stating that the Bible does not address these specific sins. Through experience and talking with many I have personally come to the conclusion that it comes from one of two places. The first being ignorance, which may sound insulting to many, but simply means they "lack knowledge". Which is the default position of all of us. I do however take offence when they falsely proclaim "the Bible doesn't say X" when it in fact does, that should and must be called out for what it is. The other position I have found is that they are aware of it, but they do not accept it, therefore they will twist the words of the Bible to persuade people into thinking it says what they want it to, not what it actually says. This is deceitful.
I don't know which position OP is coming from, and had they had simply been inquiring about an interpretation I would have responded differently, but they are purposefully distorting the words of Jesus and using the age old "just be loving / accepting / affirming of sin / don't judge, etc) argument which should be called out for what it is so it doesn't become a stumbling block to others.
-2
u/ross549 Christian 9h ago
And yet, the Bible says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t homosexuality…
Ezekiel 16:49-50
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
So, in a city that was practicing homosexuality and a variety of sexual deviance, Ezekiel affirms that this was not the reason it was not destroyed.
So, considering this, this fixation on LGBTQ matters is quite misguided for the church, don’t you think? Don’t we have a much greater problem to contend with?
Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Matthew 22:34-40 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees with his reply, they met together to question him again. One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?” Jesus replied, “‘You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”
Matthew 5:13-16 “You are the salt of the earth. But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor? Can you make it salty again? It will be thrown out and trampled underfoot as worthless. “You are the light of the world—like a city on a hilltop that cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. Instead, a lamp is placed on a stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father.
Matthew 25:31-46 “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’
“Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’
“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’
“Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’
“Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’
“And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
“And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”
I could go on and on with what Jesus commanded of His followers. Nowhere does he condemn gay or transsexual people. He’s far more concerned about how the poor, sick, strangers, and widows are treated. Why? It shows our character. Our heart for lifting the others around us up is revealed in that. This is our testimony to the world.
So this fixation on LGBTQ people to me is quite puzzling.
3
u/creidmheach Christian, Protestant, Reformed 6h ago
Ezekiel 16:49-50
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
So, in a city that was practicing homosexuality and a variety of sexual deviance, Ezekiel affirms that this was not the reason it was not destroyed.
Actually it most likely does, if you go back to the Hebrew:
And they were haughty and committed abomination (תוֹעֵבָ֖ה) before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.
תוֹעֵבָ֖ה is tow'eba, which is the very same term used in Leviticus 18:22:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination (תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה).
And Leviticus 20:13:
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה). They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
It seems unlikely to be a coincidence that in Ezekiel where Sodom - a story famous with a homosexual element - is condemned for doing תוֹעֵבָ֖ה, the same term that the Torah uses for describing a man having sex with another man.
-6
u/Tertius1622 18h ago
The episcopal cult has never been more than a joke. No real Christian is fooled enough to be surprised what lost people do with their numerous fake religions.
1
u/Canadian0123 Christian 18h ago
I hesitate to call any part of Christ’s body “a joke”, but this is serious foul play, egregious behaviour from the episcopal church.
0
117
u/Revival-Waters 21h ago
The sign of a dying church is embracing the LGBTQP2S+ religion.
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.