Are gays allowed in the evangelical churches, especially the Baptists?

[Cat]

I sort of agree with Abidewithme. Your portrayal of Evangelicals is not inaccurate, but it is a little dated. Since at least the 1970s (some of it goes all the way back to the 1940s and '50s), there has been a process of “liberalization” which has eliminated the most radical of these unwritten rules. Really, in my experience (which I assume is close to the mainstream of Evangelicalism these days), the only “taboos” that remain in force are prohibitions against alcohol use, tobacco use, profanity, extra-marital sex, and Ouija boards. Things like sports, TV, and dancing are OK as long as it is in moderation, and does not display inappropriate behavior.

“Sports, TV, and dancing are OK as long as it does not display inappropriate behavior.”

Umm…I don’t even to know what to say to that. This makes me me laugh.

I love sports and TV, and my husband is an ice dancer, so we certainly don’t shy away from these activities. We have two televisions in our house, including one in our bedroom. And when NFL is on TV, I am watching it. We don’t dance because we both grew up Evangelical Protestant and haven’t been able to figure out (even with classes together) how to do it, but my husband ice dances and has been taking ballroom dancing classes for two years to improve his ice dancing. And my older daughter did dance classes from ballet to ballroom to line dancing from the time she was three years old.

But we fully recognize that ** many sporting events, television shows, and dancing exhibitions are celebrations of inappropriate behavior!** So that’s why I’m amused by your post.

Have you seen the costumes on the Dancing with the Stars women? Again, we’re not prudes. We’re involved with figure skating, so we’re used to costumes that do not cover a woman head to toe. But many of the costumes on DWTS are nothing but three triangles and a few sparkly things hanging down!

Anyway, I do agree with you that many Evangelical Protestant churches are much more liberal in their policies in regards to movies, TV, etc. However, I find this funny–because as I’ve said above, television and movies are horrible compared to what they were when my husband and I were growing up, and IMO, the Evangelical Protestant churches should consider re-instating their condemnation of these media!

And we have even seen Evangelical churches that don’t condemn their adherents for having wine or beer once in a while, although I think that many of the older members still have a hard time with it. I have a hard time with it–we just had yet another drunk driving incident in our city. This time, a MOM had been drinking, and her 6-year old daughter is now in critical condition with head injuries after Mom flipped the car on an overpass. I personally find that disgusting, and can’t understand why there’s so much fuss about guns when what really needs to be monitored is ALCOHOL use. It will never happen, though, because everyone drinks and drives and laughs about it.

Interestingly, the huge Assemblies of God church in our city has a big high school, and dancing is STILL not allowed at their proms, and the A of God is one of the most rapidly-growing denominations in the world. So just as many Catholics say that the “old Catholic traditions” should be restored, I think that there is a good case for restoring many of the old Evangelical Protestant traditions–no alcohol, dancing, movies, sporting events on Sunday, etc… It would be an interesting experiment for a church to try. But since Evangelical Protestant churches are growing exponentially (and taking many Catholics), there is really no reason for them to try something that might drive people away.

And to bring this post into line with the topic, I will comment on what another poster said above. When I was growing up, sin was expected of the members and friends of our Evangelical Protestant church, and when someone sinned, they were encouraged to seek God’s forgiveness, and to make things right with anyone that they had sinned against. But what was NOT TOLERATED was a “sinful lifestyle” or “continuing to practice sin,” in which there was no evidence of sorrow and repentance, and no indication of an effort to stop practicing sin and be sinless.

I think this policy, which is Biblical, is still in effect in many Evangelical Protestant churches.

This means that a homosexual who demonstrates a sorrow for any homosexual practices that he/she yields to, and makes a consistent effort to turn away from these practices, would be accepted and welcomed into the church (but not allowed around children or young people). However, a homosexual who did NOT express sorrow and repentance and continued to practice their sinful lifestyle (homosexual sex), would NOT be welcomed into the church, but would be asked to meet with the pastors and elders, and told to LEAVE the church unless they are willing to repent of their sin and change their ways.

This policy, BTW, would apply to ANY sin, not just homosexual sins. E.g., a person who was a gossip, or a liar, or a thief, or an adulterer, or an addict to anything (sex, drugs, porn, alcohol–anything except food) would be treated the same way. If they expressed sorrow for their sin and demonstrated an effort to repent and stop sinning, they would be welcome. But if they continued to practice their sin, they would be asked to leave.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I have an Evangelical Christian friend who moved from France to New York City to California, then down to west Texas for college years ago. He complained to me about being in a “dry town”. I wasn’t familiar with that term at the time, so I thought he meant that the area got very little rainfall.

I think you said you have German farming ancestry, Cat, IIRC. My mom’s family were PA German farmers, here in the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch (German) country. Somehow, I can’t imagine the many Lutherans in this area allowing the existence of a dry town.

Among my German Lutheran friends, beer is not considered alcohol

 

[Publisher]

“Sports, TV, and dancing are OK as long as it does not display inappropriate behavior.”

Umm…I don’t even to know what to say to that. This makes me me laugh.

.

But we fully recognize that ** many sporting events, television shows, and dancing exhibitions are celebrations of inappropriate behavior!** So that’s why I’m amused by your post.

Have you seen the costumes on the Dancing with the Stars women? Again, we’re not prudes. We’re involved with figure skating, so we’re used to costumes that do not cover a woman head to toe. But many of the costumes on DWTS are nothing but three triangles and a few sparkly things hanging down!

Anyway, I do agree with you that many Evangelical Protestant churches are much more liberal in their policies in regards to movies, TV, etc. However, I find this funny–because as I’ve said above, television and movies are horrible compared to what they were when my husband and I were growing up, and IMO, the Evangelical Protestant churches should consider re-instating their condemnation of these media!

And we have even seen Evangelical churches that don’t condemn their adherents for having wine or beer once in a while, although I think that many of the older members still have a hard time with it. I have a hard time with it–we just had yet another drunk driving incident in our city. This time, a MOM had been drinking, and her 6-year old daughter is now in critical condition with head injuries after Mom flipped the car on an overpass. I personally find that disgusting, and can’t understand why there’s so much fuss about guns when what really needs to be monitored is ALCOHOL use. It will never happen, though, because everyone drinks and drives and laughs about it.

Interestingly, the huge Assemblies of God church in our city has a big high school, and dancing is STILL not allowed at their proms, and the A of God is one of the most rapidly-growing denominations in the world. So just as many Catholics say that the “old Catholic traditions” should be restored, I think that there is a good case for restoring many of the old Evangelical Protestant traditions–no alcohol, dancing, movies, sporting events on Sunday, etc… It would be an interesting experiment for a church to try. But since Evangelical Protestant churches are growing exponentially (and taking many Catholics), there is really no reason for them to try something that might drive people away.

And to bring this post into line with the topic, I will comment on what another poster said above. When I was growing up, sin was expected of the members and friends of our Evangelical Protestant church, and when someone sinned, they were encouraged to seek God’s forgiveness, and to make things right with anyone that they had sinned against. But what was NOT TOLERATED was a “sinful lifestyle” or “continuing to practice sin,” in which there was no evidence of sorrow and repentance, and no indication of an effort to stop practicing sin and be sinless.

I think this policy, which is Biblical, is still in effect in many Evangelical Protestant churches.

This means that a homosexual who demonstrates a sorrow for any homosexual practices that he/she yields to, and makes a consistent effort to turn away from these practices, would be accepted and welcomed into the church (but not allowed around children or young people). However, a homosexual who did NOT express sorrow and repentance and continued to practice their sinful lifestyle (homosexual sex), would NOT be welcomed into the church, but would be asked to meet with the pastors and elders, and told to LEAVE the church unless they are willing to repent of their sin and change their ways.

This policy, BTW, would apply to ANY sin, not just homosexual sins. E.g., a person who was a gossip, or a liar, or a thief, or an adulterer, or an addict to anything (sex, drugs, porn, alcohol–anything except food) would be treated the same way. If they expressed sorrow for their sin and demonstrated an effort to repent and stop sinning, they would be welcome. But if they continued to practice their sin, they would be asked to leave.

In the Nazarene church I grew up in, one did not play sports on Sunday…nor miss church meeting becasue of them. One did not read the newspaper on Sunday. One did not go to the theater, circus or movies at all.

One did not wear excessive jewlery. Women could wear their engagement ring and a plain wedding band. If a watch was worn, it was to be plain with a leather band. Earrings were discouraged. Necklaces were to be small and unassuming. A small cross was allowed.

A man could wear his plain wedding ring and a watch, also with a plain leather band. If a tie-tack was worn, small and unassuming…utilitarian.

Make-up was discouraged…however most women did wear a little…masscara, and pale pink lipstick eventually became allowed…some rouge as long as it looked “natural”…no heavy make up at all. Sunday School Teachers had to abide by a dress code.

All church officers had to be tithers and obey the rules of decorum.

Sports was not discouraged…except on Sunday…as was any activity that took one away from church attendance or caused others to miss…thus no buying or selling on Sunday including going to restaurants.

Women didn’t wear shorts except during sports activities…and did not wear pants. Men did not wear their shirts open nor have long hair.

 

[Monergistic]

Evangelicals are increasingly willing to work with gay people who are committed to celibacy and want a Christian community to help them with that. Compared to other sins, ie. sexual sin involving straight people, there continues to be a greater stigma and a relative lack of patience on average, although this is not as true with clergy. And with the out and practicing homosexuals who don’t really go to church, Evangelicals are only just starting to think about how they might become involved (and then committed to celibacy). As of now, however, the doors remain largely closed to them while being more open to people who’ve already decided that they should try the ex-gay approach.

 

[Julianna]

“Sports, TV, and dancing are OK as long as it does not display inappropriate behavior.”

Umm…I don’t even to know what to say to that. This makes me me laugh.

I love sports and TV, and my husband is an ice dancer, so we certainly don’t shy away from these activities. We have two televisions in our house, including one in our bedroom. And when NFL is on TV, I am watching it. We don’t dance because we both grew up Evangelical Protestant and haven’t been able to figure out (even with classes together) how to do it, but my husband ice dances and has been taking ballroom dancing classes for two years to improve his ice dancing. And my older daughter did dance classes from ballet to ballroom to line dancing from the time she was three years old.

But we fully recognize that ** many sporting events, television shows, and dancing exhibitions are celebrations of inappropriate behavior!** So that’s why I’m amused by your post.

Have you seen the costumes on the Dancing with the Stars women? Again, we’re not prudes. We’re involved with figure skating, so we’re used to costumes that do not cover a woman head to toe. But many of the costumes on DWTS are nothing but three triangles and a few sparkly things hanging down!

Anyway, I do agree with you that many Evangelical Protestant churches are much more liberal in their policies in regards to movies, TV, etc. However, I find this funny–because as I’ve said above, television and movies are horrible compared to what they were when my husband and I were growing up, and IMO, the Evangelical Protestant churches should consider re-instating their condemnation of these media!

And we have even seen Evangelical churches that don’t condemn their adherents for having wine or beer once in a while, although I think that many of the older members still have a hard time with it. I have a hard time with it–we just had yet another drunk driving incident in our city. This time, a MOM had been drinking, and her 6-year old daughter is now in critical condition with head injuries after Mom flipped the car on an overpass. I personally find that disgusting, and can’t understand why there’s so much fuss about guns when what really needs to be monitored is ALCOHOL use. It will never happen, though, because everyone drinks and drives and laughs about it.

Interestingly, the huge Assemblies of God church in our city has a big high school, and dancing is STILL not allowed at their proms, and the A of God is one of the most rapidly-growing denominations in the world. So just as many Catholics say that the “old Catholic traditions” should be restored, I think that there is a good case for restoring many of the old Evangelical Protestant traditions–no alcohol, dancing, movies, sporting events on Sunday, etc… It would be an interesting experiment for a church to try. But since Evangelical Protestant churches are growing exponentially (and taking many Catholics), there is really no reason for them to try something that might drive people away.

And to bring this post into line with the topic, I will comment on what another poster said above. When I was growing up, sin was expected of the members and friends of our Evangelical Protestant church, and when someone sinned, they were encouraged to seek God’s forgiveness, and to make things right with anyone that they had sinned against. But what was NOT TOLERATED was a “sinful lifestyle” or “continuing to practice sin,” in which there was no evidence of sorrow and repentance, and no indication of an effort to stop practicing sin and be sinless.

I think this policy, which is Biblical, is still in effect in many Evangelical Protestant churches.

This means that a homosexual who demonstrates a sorrow for any homosexual practices that he/she yields to, and makes a consistent effort to turn away from these practices, would be accepted and welcomed into the church (but not allowed around children or young people). However, a homosexual who did NOT express sorrow and repentance and continued to practice their sinful lifestyle (homosexual sex), would NOT be welcomed into the church, but would be asked to meet with the pastors and elders, and told to LEAVE the church unless they are willing to repent of their sin and change their ways.

This policy, BTW, would apply to ANY sin, not just homosexual sins. E.g., a person who was a gossip, or a liar, or a thief, or an adulterer, or an addict to anything (sex, drugs, porn, alcohol–anything except food) would be treated the same way. If they expressed sorrow for their sin and demonstrated an effort to repent and stop sinning, they would be welcome. But if they continued to practice their sin, they would be asked to leave.

Let’s not forget the Catholic wedding receptions! Yep, Baptists, evangels/fundys would have no part of that. But if you’re Irish Catholic, Italian Catholic, the wedding reception is going to “ROCK n ROLL”… I’ve been to a Protestant wedding reception. No alcohol, no dancing, no band, no music, sandwiches and tea cakes with punch. It was over in about an hour…but the best man and groomsman, were opening coolers in the trunks of their cars…hmmmmmmm, wonder what would be in there?

When I moved to the south, I described the wedding receptions and their eyes got as big as saucers As the years rolled by…some experienced such a wedding reception. They were like WOW…:dancing:…it lasted almost all night, and the bride and groom left about 2 1/2 hours before it was over with. Some had never seen a “champagne” fountain and I had to explain the difference between a cash bar and an open bar.

 

[andrewstx]

Most Evangelical and all Baptist churches are independent of each other, have no bishops or any outside authority. So I would think they would have slightly different policies when it comes to homosexuals.

I came from a divorced and “re-married” family I started out with mom and step dad, mom took and sent me to a Nazarene church but I have very few memories of it other than long altar calls in an altarless church and the fact I never saw anyone baptized there and only saw the “Lord’s Supper” twice. Stepdad did not go to church at all anywhere he thought he was too “macho” and could not survive an hour without a cigarette.

When I was 16 stepdad kicked me out and I went to stay with dad and step-mom. They took me to a church of Christ accapella not United Church of Christ. The cofc had more rules than anyone I have seen, they served grape juice at there every sunday but no other day “Lord’s Supper” along with matzoh crackers. They were anti everything it seems, the even refused to associate with people not in “the church”. But even though they were officially anti-smoking most of them did smoke cigarettes. I suppose because they were ultra southern and most tobacco is grown in the south.

 

[AbideWithMe]

In this statement you are in essence equating homosexual couples on par with male/female families. This is apples and oranges.

Coptic—Do you understand what I mean by “describing, not prescribing”?

If you ask the question then you believe there is explanation needed. Explain.

Coptic, if I ask a question of you, it’s because I’m hoping for feedback from you to help me be more clear when writing.

I basically came up with the “describing, not prescribing” distinction as a way to say that I’m merely describing something I observed, kind of like a reporter, rather than making a judgment about something. I was not saying, “This is what we Evangelicals do, and it’s always the best way to do something, and everyone should do the same.” I don’t know, however, without asking you, if my “describing, not prescribing” phrase is a good way to communicate what I mean; hence, I asked if you understood what I meant in order to—get this—find out if you understood what I meant.

Based on your comment which I quoted first here, I was guessing that my phrase wasn’t making sense to you, but I wanted you to confirm that.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Let’s not forget the Catholic wedding receptions! Yep, Baptists, evangels/fundys would have no part of that. But if you’re Irish Catholic, Italian Catholic, the wedding reception is going to “ROCK n ROLL”… I’ve been to a Protestant wedding reception. No alcohol, no dancing, no band, no music, sandwiches and tea cakes with punch. It was over in about an hour…but the best man and groomsman, were opening coolers in the trunks of their cars…hmmmmmmm, wonder what would be in there?

When I moved to the south, I described the wedding receptions and their eyes got as big as saucers As the years rolled by…some experienced such a wedding reception. They were like WOW…:dancing:…it lasted almost all night, and the bride and groom left about 2 1/2 hours before it was over with. Some had never seen a “champagne” fountain and I had to explain the difference between a cash bar and an open bar.

Julianna—I’ve been the maid of honor in a Catholic wedding, and of course I went to the reception. I’ve been in, and attended, Protestant weddings and receptions. Both the Catholic and Protestant wedding receptions were the same.

I wouldn’t make a generalization about Catholic wedding receptions based on being in just one. Are you making your incorrect generalization based on just the one Protestant wedding reception you mentioned?

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, if I ask a question of you, it’s because I’m hoping for feedback from you to help me be more clear when writing.

I basically came up with the “describing, not prescribing” distinction as a way to say that I’m merely describing something I observed, kind of like a reporter, rather than making a judgment about something. I was not saying, “This is what we Evangelicals do, and it’s always the best way to do something, and everyone should do the same.” I don’t know, however, without asking you, if my “describing, not prescribing” phrase is a good way to communicate what I mean; hence, I asked if you understood what I meant in order to—get this—find out if you understood what I meant.

Based on your comment which I quoted first here, I was guessing that my phrase wasn’t making sense to you, but I wanted you to confirm that.

Abide,

It is best to say what you mean and mean what you say…

here…

**“describing, not prescribing” **

You are engaging in parlance that you have to define so that communication can be succint and clear. It is best to explain what it is you mean by these terms before invoking them at the end of a discussion.

To me describing means…and prescribing means…and with that in mind this is what I observe…

then it is clear that what you write is based on a prior understanding rather than stating something at the end of what you write…

here…

**And that was, that the lay church members didn’t want to single out the homosexual couples because they looked at their own lives and saw a variety of struggles with sexuality within their own families. **

all I did was point out that you equated the two…

clarity could have been reached by stating…

And that was, that the lay church members didn’t want to single out the homosexual couples, not suggesting that homosexuals couples are equal by any means to male/female, because they looked at their own lives and saw a variety of struggles with sexuality within their own families.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

It is best to say what you mean and mean what you say…

**Coptic–I agree. I used “describing” to mean describing, and “prescribing” to mean prescribing. My usage of those words was standard, rather than some private meaning I made up. So, while I don’t mind explaining my usage of words, a reader could have also simply looked up their definition if he/she had wanted to. /B]

Edit: The above, starting at “Coptic–I agree…” is from me and was meant to be bolded.**

here…

You are engaging in parlance that you have to define so that communication can be succint and clear. It is best to explain what it is you mean by these terms before invoking them at the end of a discussion.

To me describing means…and prescribing means…and with that in mind this is what I observe…

then it is clear that what you write is based on a prior understanding rather than stating something at the end of what you write…

here…

all I did was point out that you equated the two…

**No, Coptic. Once again, I didn’t equate the two. It seems to me a reader would have had to make a number of assumptions to think that I did.

Coptic, I don’t want to derail this thread any further. I find most attempts to discuss things with you end up with me feeling like it’s a waste of time for both of us as well as other forum readers.**

clarity could have been reached by stating…

 

[Indifferently]

I very much doubt they would be welcomed at Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix AZ.