Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a good point... I guess we should re-phrase the question to "Would you hire a gay/woman pastor IF they were the most qualified to keep the church alive?"
As for a woman - no arguments there. In fact the Bible is filled with many strong women who were leaders.
As for homosexuals - if the most qualified person is someone who knowingly, willingly, and openly defies the word of God, that "church" probably should be closed anyway. They would not be qualified in any way, shape, or form to lead a congregation until they repent their ways and surrender to God's plan.
I guess my voting is strange, due to my religious nonobservances, but if I had to attend a house of worship, to be honest, I'd probably look for one led by a woman or a gay man. Just the people I feel more comfortable around.
Interesting poll, but it's turning into another "gay debate"... can I ask that we keep focused on the original question? Otherwise I will be closing this thread, since we have plenty of debates you can find with a forum search.
I would have no problems with a woman or homosexual minister, even if my church wasn't in danger of closing its doors.
In fact, since I left Mormonism, I believe I have only attended churches with female or homosexual pastors. (Not on purpose, just the way it ended up.)
If a church is in danger of closing it's doors because it doesn't have a pastor.....then, it's time for the congregation to start either leading themselves or closing and moving to a healthier church.
I know, I know, some denominations require a certain person, trained and ordained to lead, to serve as pastor. But I don't think that requirement should be followed if there just isn't anyone available. If the congregation can't manage to pay a minister, and can't come up with their own leader, why is it still a congregation??? They could meet in each other's living rooms and serve do-nuts and coffee.
Now, that leaves the big, old historic, beautiful buildings in many of the older cities with a problem. Too expensive to maintain for anything but the wealthiest congregations. If they are historic enough open them as some sort of museum. Otherwise, sell the property and put the money to good use helping a healthier church's mission.
All any church really needs is a leader....gender or type of gender is unimportant. Honesty, Love, Understanding, Compassion, Just to name a few traits needed, is important.
Interesting poll, but it's turning into another "gay debate"... can I ask that we keep focused on the original question? Otherwise I will be closing this thread, since we have plenty of debates you can find with a forum search.
I hadn't noticed that. In fact, I think the majority of the responses (unless you're going to limit them to what you expect to see as opposed to others honest opinions) have been very much to the point. Well, points. There is more to this topic then just close/don't close the church.
The OP raised the subject of gays and women in the church. If that can't be part of the discussion, then yes, you should close this thread. Slam that door!
Location: Somewhere along the path to where I'd like to be.
2,180 posts, read 5,421,662 times
Reputation: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by brittZ
PersonallyI voted no. However, the poll is loaded to create an argument as to whether being gay is a choice or inborn genetic trait such as being a woman. The problem, always has and always will be, that it doesn't matter. Sure, women can be pastors, preachers, etc. . . My church has several women pastors - no problems there. As for homosexuals leading the church - we are all imperfect and all sin. However, preachers and pastors must live a life held to a higher standard. This is not possible when you choose to engage in homosexuality in direct defiance of God's word. It doesn't matter whether it is inborn or not because every single person makes a decision every single time they have sex. If you want to be a leader of Christians, your decisions in your personal life - not just sexual, but in all aspects of your private life- need to be held to a higher standard than your congregation. I suppose, if you assume homosexuality is a genetic trait, that it would be ok for a homosexual yet celibate person to lead a church. However, if they were truly celibate, no one would know the person was homosexual.
You actually made me think about something. And that's the fact that if I am indeed celibate (and I am), there really should be no need for me to announce that I'm gay to anyone - unless I have some sort of ulterior motive to get people to change their viewpoint of homosexuality, which WAS part of my intention at first. I wasn't trying to get people to think of it as moral or immoral, but I was in a sense contributing to a way of thinking that would have had people let their guard down and reconsider what their positions were, and THAT was wrong. I have said things in this forum lately that I now know I should NEVER have said. God revealed to me that by stating the things I have, if anyone was adversely influenced by what I said, I would have to answer for it. And that was a sobering thought. So I apologize here and now publicly for ANY and ALL things I've EVER said about homosexuality in these forums. I fully repent of that now (did it the other day). So hmmmm....yeah, you're right, brittZ - there is no need for a celibate homosexual to let anyone know they're homosexual. Thanks for saying that!
I've mentioned this a few times, but we have a lesbian Rabbi (in addition to a few non-gay Rabbis), and she is wonderful... extremely knowledgeable, kind, thought-provoking sermons, does great work with the community, etc. Does it matter that she happens to be married to another woman? Not one bit. We're the largest Reform synagogue in the Bay Area, so obviously it hasn't hurt "business" either.
And yes, I realize that Reform Judaism is quite different from the Christian church... but we have quite a few gay pastors/ministers as well, and our local Christian community is very gay-friendly.
I think geography has a lot to with the "success" of your lesbian Rabbi. San Francisco is known to accept anyone, anytime. Would she find such "success" in Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago or any other number of major cities? I doubt so.
As an atheist I find it sad that religious organizations feel like they're getting to the bottom of the barrel if they have to resort to permitting women (51% of the world's population) or gays from having positions of authority in houses of worship. Something is really wrong here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
