32 VICTORIAN BAPTIST CHURCHES

'would not welcome' a homosexual person 'at the door'.

Can you believe that?

Out of a total of 93 (from a possible 200 or so) Baptist
churches in the State of Victoria who completed a
questionnaire and were asked about whether their church
would welcome and/or support a homosexual person 'at the
door' 32 said they would not welcome such a person - and,
wait for it - another 34 gave 'no indication'. Unnamed
sources within the Baptist Union were fairly confident when
I asked them about whether we could double these figures to
get an an accurate reflection of the sum total of Baptist's
views to include the churches which didn't respond.

I couldn't sleep after I read that.

These churches are almost certainly the most
conservative/fundamentalist (= pharisaical) ones. They would
sing the old hymn from time to time, 'Sinners Jesus will
receive / Sound this word of grace to all' but they do not
intend following Jesus in his way of compassion to the
marginalized...

Watch my website for a full review of the Report.

Oh, by the way, Baptists in Victoria are supposed to be - on
average - more enlightened/progressive than others in
Australia. They're at the forefront in matters such as
ordaining women to pastoral leadership, which they've been
doing for 15 years or so. Some of the other States haven't
caught up on this practice yet. I hate to think how Baptists
at the other ends of our continent might have responded to
the Victorian questionnaire...

Then why Rowland, you ask, are you a Baptist? That's not
simple to answer, but my short response would have something
to do with grace. If these uncompassionate Baptists can be
accepted by Jesus I guess there's hope for anyone...

Joel Hynoski wrote:

> Rowland Croucher <> writes:
>
> > 32 VICTORIAN BAPTIST CHURCHES
>
> OK, Roland. I've been with you up to here. Maybe it is a symptom of
> Baptist churches to be conservative and pharisaical, but I think it is
> wrong to compartmentalise the whole body of
> conservative/fundamentalist churches in your sweeping statement.
>
> I haven't read any of your opinions on homosexuality as a
> lifestyle/genetic accident, but I am quite interested in your views.

They're under 'H' for homosexuality on our website...

> My church (a Pentecostal, fundamentalist one) recently had an outreach
> targetting victims of sexual abuse and also people in homosexual
> lifestyle. We are in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney, so you can guess
> our community demographic. There was no judgement of the people
> _personally_, though the message came clear that the homosexual
> lifestyle was not Godly, and though it was possible to be a christian
> as a non-heterosexual, any homosexual activity was sin. Our church
> accepts homosexuals into it with open arms, and loves them and cares
> for them equally with the Double Bay millionaires.

Good.

> By your 'survey', you are telling me that our church is in the
> minority? Or are you saying Baptists are ill-informed people?

Yes. Sometimes.

> > Watch my website for a full review of the Report.
>
> Oh, I'll watch for it all right...
>
> > Oh, by the way, Baptists in Victoria are supposed to be - on
> > average - more enlightened/progressive than others in
> > Australia. They're at the forefront in matters such as
> > ordaining women to pastoral leadership, which they've been
> > doing for 15 years or so. Some of the other States haven't
> > caught up on this practice yet. I hate to think how Baptists
> > at the other ends of our continent might have responded to
> > the Victorian questionnaire...
>
> You seem to have a point to make, and I can't quite grasp what it
> is. It's like you are trying to say something without being
> explicit. Could you, for me, please explain your position on the
> homosexual debate, so I can clarify where you stand and not make an
> ass of myself replying stupidly?

Wouldn't want you to do that: have a read of my website articles and I'll be
happy to respond to your response...

> Thanks
> Joel

Alex Borodin wrote:

> Rowland Croucher wrote:

> Christianity considers that homosexuality is wrong

No it doesn't. The Bible and Christianity have nothing to say about
homosexuality.

> because
> it is:
> 1)narcissistic (ie it is purely pleasure-based therefore it is
> consuming in nature - not contributory)
> 2)goes against the idea that marriage must be
> between a man and woman ("A man must leave the home of his father and
> cleave to his wife")
> 3)is non-productive ("By their fruits ye shall know them")
>
> If homosexuality is wrong according to Christ's teachings,

Christ didn't teach anything about homosexuality or homosexual practice...

> then if a
> homosexual wants to gain any sort of help from Christianity, he must
> first accept that what he is doing is wrong and must repent of it.
>
> If he does this, then he must not be turned away, because God forgives
> sins of the truly repentant.
>
> However, if you think that anyone can do whatever they please
> and still be Christian, you are in error because the entire POINT
> of Christianity is gain freedom from wrong habits and thinking -
> it is not freedom to do whatever you please.

Right in principle, but how do you read Romans 7?

> Homosexuals still have free will and may continue on their
> merry way, but they cannot expect the Church to allow them to
> do something She considers wrong, can you, especially if
> they go to the Church asking it for assistance?

You're still confusing a non-chosen homosexual orientation and a homosexual
lifestyle/practice...

> With respect, your interpretatation of the word compassion is
> incomplete. Compassion means kindness - yes. But as you will know
> if you ever have met a spoilt or greedy child, GENUINE kindness is
> always manifested by teaching the child the correct way of living -
> not by allowing the child to have its own way all the time.

Provided - and here's the rub - the child knows they're loved. I haven't
noted
that emphasis in your post. Which underlines my distinction between Jesus
and
the Pharisees. For our Lord acceptance preceded repentance; with the
Pharisees
it was the other way around.

> In such
> cases, the parents have actually been cruel to the child, not
> compassionate, because they have allowed the child's habits to
> run riot. That child then becomes unsatisfied and restless. The
> child will never experience happiness except for the brief and
> transient moments when he gets his own way.
>
> In the same way, Christ led by example and exhibited Godly
> discipline within his own life, even unto his own carnal death.

Darren R Middleton wrote:
>
> Michael Smith wrote in article <349F887C.70>...
>
> G'day Folks,
>
> Snip: A whole lot of stuff that I agree with.
>
> :However a repentant homosexual is as welcome as any other repentant
> :sinner - and ought to join with the rest of us repentant sinners in the
> :fellowship of God's people.
>
> Amen.
>
> :If that's what you mean by "welcoming homosexuals", then they are
> :welcome in my church.
>
> Agreed.
>
> :However if you want us to say "homosexual sex is OK, go on living that
> :way, God doesn't mind", then we won't tell them that lie. It does
> :matter! If that's making them unwelcome, well so be it.
>
> Again, Amen.
>
> :Perhaps if you word your questionaire a little more specifically you
> :might get different results. You never know!
>
> I think this is the point, those of us that are evangelical/conservative
are
> merely trying to point out to Rowland that we believe that homosexual
> lifestyle (sex!) is sinful. Keeping in mind Rowland's previous posts I can
> say I *have had some* experience in ministering to homosexuals including a
> close relative who is a practicing homosexual.
>
> My reflections on this topic is that *most* homosexuals take the line
> (including the ones I know) that they will accept Christ if he (Church?)
> will accept that homosexuality is normal. It is here that perhaps Rowland
&
> I would depart.

Would you like to substantiate this? When have I ever said 'homosexuality is
normal'? I happen to believe it's a deviation from the Creator's original
intention for our gender identity. A little research on my website would
have
given a more accurate picture of what I believe...

Like Mike I want to stress that it seems like evangelicals
> are been asked to accept them wholus bowlus (? -including their lifestyle)

Which evangelicals are doing this?

> or we are easily dismissed by a diatribe on Pharisse's.
> It's this false dichotomy that I find annoying. Anyway, good post Mike,
and
> I hope everyone has a blessed Christmas.
>
> Regards
> Darren Middleton

Darren R Middleton wrote:
>
> :In article <>, Rowland Croucher
> :<> wrote:
> :
> :>> My reflections on this topic is that *most* homosexuals take the
> :>> line (including the ones I know) that they will accept Christ if he
> :>> (Church?) will accept that homosexuality is normal. It is here that
> :>> perhaps Rowland & I would depart.
> :>
> :>Would you like to substantiate this? When have I ever said
'homosexuality
> is
> :>normal'? I happen to believe it's a deviation from the Creator's
original
> :>intention for our gender identity.
>
> G'day Rowland,
> I've used Jason's stokes post to reply to you as I have only seen his
post.
>
> I'm pleased that you believe that homosexuality is a deviation (I assume
> this ps for sinful?).
^^^^^^
No, the Bible doesn't say that, and my counseling of homosexuals leads me
also
to the conviction that God doesn't judge a situation which the counselees
didn't - mostly - choose, and with which they - mostly - struggle.

> If you read my post I said **perhaps** we would
> depart. I said this after reflecting on your articles under H. Perhaps,
> because IMHO you failed to be perspicuous

You like that word, eh ? :-)

> in what you believe (ie the Jesus
> interview!) yet in other places you seemed to take a more orthodox
position.
>
> IMHO when having discussions on such issues it is more helpful to state
your
> understandings of Scripture rather than trying to be provocative (if this
is
> what you were trying to do?) in an attempt to follow our Lord's style.

All the prophets, including Jesus, were provocative, and as they're my
heroes,
sorry, I'm stuck with that mode. IAC provocation gets more people thinking
more meaningfully.
However, I take your point if you mean that being controversial isn't
necessarily helpful. That's an immature approach, I agree. (See the
distinction?)

> I don't mean this to sound harsh, but it is difficult to have an informed
> debate if you write in such a manner.

Same response Jesus got to his teaching in parables. 'Why can't you make it
all clearer?' the disciples complained.
>
> However, if you feel I have misrepresented you then I unreservedly
> apologise.
>
> Regards
> Darren Middleton
Darren R Middleton wrote:
>
> Joel Hynoski wrote in article <>...
>
> :Rowland Croucher <> writes
> :
> :You seem to have a point to make, and I can't quite grasp what it
> :is. It's like you are trying to say something without being
> :explicit. Could you, for me, please explain your position on the
> :homosexual debate, so I can clarify where you stand and not make an
> :ass of myself replying stupidly?
>
> G'day Rowland,
>
> I guess like Joel I'm interested in what you are really trying to say. I
> think in a previous post I expressed my concern over the vagueness of you
> comments, again I would encourage you to be more perspicuous in your
> remarks.

I've posted my views on homosexuality many times in this newsgroup: to save
boring the regulars, why not read them on my website?

> In my dealing with Baptists (in Vic, not so in NSW) they seem to be a
> liberal denomination, of which I would not necessarily equate with
> enlightenment. However, by enlightened you (I think) mean they have tuned
in
> to the feminist movement and ordained women as a result. I would argue
that
> this may be progressive but it is hardly enlightened. Furthermore, as Alex
> Borodin & Joel have pointed out sin is sin, Christ accepted that all
sinners
> may repent of their sin and turn to him, couldn't agree more. But allowing
> people to remain in sin is ungodly and unhelpful and will bring judgement
> upon ourselves as Christs ambassadors. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear
> your progressive ideas on this subject ;-)

The main impression sinners got from Christ was that they were loved. It's
interesting that posters who emphasize repentance, 'sin is sin' etc. hardly
ever mention loving the person as if they wanted to follow Jesus' example in
that respect.

Hence my diatribes against pharisaism...
>
> Regards
> Darren Middleton

Rowland Croucher wrote:
>
> Darren R Middleton wrote:
> >
> > Joel Hynoski wrote in article <>...
> >
> > :Rowland Croucher <> writes
<>
> The main impression sinners got from Christ was that they were loved. It's
> interesting that posters who emphasize repentance, 'sin is sin' etc.
hardly
> ever mention loving the person as if they wanted to follow Jesus' example
in
> that respect.

I've had some more info on this research. When churches/individuals who say
(ad nauseum?) 'God loves the sinner but hates the sin' are asked to
catalogue
the practical ways in which their love for such sinners is demonstrated
their
responses are mostly less than satisfactory.

So I issue a challenge to all who use this phrase here: after you quote it,
add the ministries you exercise to homosexual people - say visiting AIDS
patients in hospitals etc...
>
> Hence my diatribes against pharisaism...
> >
> > Regards
> > Darren Middleton