However, even when I went to an A/G church I could not understand their aversion to gay people, lesbians, and bisexuals.** I looked this up recently, and they performed a study in 1979 that pretty much convinced them all homosexuality is unnatural and sinful or something like that. Now, obviously, a study from 30 years ago is bound to have its flaws. Perhaps if the church performed a new study, their entire doctrine would change, or perhaps not.
So, anyway, this question of hypocrisy was getting the best of me and I resorted to posting this on yahoo answers :
How come the Assemblies of God church allows women to become pastors, but not homosexuals?
Please no one give any nasty responses either way insulting either the church or homosexuals. I am honestly just curious; so let's try to keep this a positive environment.
So, in my experience, the A/G church outright condemns homosexuality. Not only are homosexuals not allowed to become pastors, but they are considered to be living in sin. Meanwhile, many A/G churches have women in leadership roles and some even have them as the head pastor.
Often I am told that the A/G church believes the bible is the infallible, inspired word of God. Thus, if homosexuality is called a sin in the bible, it is a sin. However, the bible states much more explicitly that women are not to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), and that women should not have authority to teach men (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Yet, women clearly speak, teach and have authority in A/G churches. This is not considered a sin.
I have been told that Paul is against women as leaders because of the culture of the times, not because Christ was against women as leaders. Thus, the verses do not apply to our time.
However, I do not understand what evidence exists that Paul's aversion to homosexuality is not also cultural. Yes, homosexuality is also condemned in the old testament, but so are many other practices that are now widely accepted. It is my understanding that in the old testament, homosexuality was considered "unclean" the same way a woman's menstruation was considered unclean. These are examples of things that are ritualistically unclean, not things that are necessarily sinful or wrong. Just as Christ never condemned women as lesser than men, he never personally condemned homosexuals. It is only Paul and the old testament that do as much, and these also condemn women.
I am personally happy that the A/G church does ordain women. This is one step above many denominations who still hold to Paul's teaching about both homosexuals and women. But my question is why do they pick and choose? Am I missing something?
So far I have gotten no useful or helpful response. I don't think I was really expecting to. But one individual did post a link to another website with which I may have better luck. I'll keep you updated if I magically do.
**I'm actually not sure where they stand on transgender individuals. . . I don't know how people can be against the T in LGBT. It is a scientific fact that people are sometimes born with an XXY, XXX, XXYY, XYY, a single X or some other "abnormal" chromosome combination. . . Obviously our bodies and minds are not exactly dictated by our chromosomes or everyone would be XY or XX, and everyone would look like they have the combination they have. This isn't the case though. Actually, about 20% of all humans conceived are conceived with "chromosome abnormalities."++ So, even if, scientifically, someone has an XY and they feel like a woman or vise versa, I don't care. But how can people be against transgender people when many of the people they are insulting were born with a "genetic defect." This just seems mean.
++ This is according to the Behavorial Science Department of Palomar College
On a semi-related note: Why didn't HBO broadcast Gene Robinson's prayer? Why was the press only allowed to hear a gay bishop pray?
So, in my experience, the A/G church outright condemns homosexuality. Not only are homosexuals not allowed to become pastors, but they are considered to be living in sin. Meanwhile, many A/G churches have women in leadership roles and some even have them as the head pastor.
Often I am told that the A/G church believes the bible is the infallible, inspired word of God. Thus, if homosexuality is called a sin in the bible, it is a sin. However, the bible states much more explicitly that women are not to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), and that women should not have authority to teach men (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Yet, women clearly speak, teach and have authority in A/G churches. This is not considered a sin.
I have been told that Paul is against women as leaders because of the culture of the times, not because Christ was against women as leaders. Thus, the verses do not apply to our time.
However, I do not understand what evidence exists that Paul's aversion to homosexuality is not also cultural. Yes, homosexuality is also condemned in the old testament, but so are many other practices that are now widely accepted. It is my understanding that in the old testament, homosexuality was considered "unclean" the same way a woman's menstruation was considered unclean. These are examples of things that are ritualistically unclean, not things that are necessarily sinful or wrong. Just as Christ never condemned women as lesser than men, he never personally condemned homosexuals. It is only Paul and the old testament that do as much, and these also condemn women.
I am personally happy that the A/G church does ordain women. This is one step above many denominations who still hold to Paul's teaching about both homosexuals and women. But my question is why do they pick and choose? Am I missing something?
So far I have gotten no useful or helpful response. I don't think I was really expecting to. But one individual did post a link to another website with which I may have better luck. I'll keep you updated if I magically do.
**I'm actually not sure where they stand on transgender individuals. . . I don't know how people can be against the T in LGBT. It is a scientific fact that people are sometimes born with an XXY, XXX, XXYY, XYY, a single X or some other "abnormal" chromosome combination. . . Obviously our bodies and minds are not exactly dictated by our chromosomes or everyone would be XY or XX, and everyone would look like they have the combination they have. This isn't the case though. Actually, about 20% of all humans conceived are conceived with "chromosome abnormalities."++ So, even if, scientifically, someone has an XY and they feel like a woman or vise versa, I don't care. But how can people be against transgender people when many of the people they are insulting were born with a "genetic defect." This just seems mean.
++ This is according to the Behavorial Science Department of Palomar College
On a semi-related note: Why didn't HBO broadcast Gene Robinson's prayer? Why was the press only allowed to hear a gay bishop pray?
No comments:
Post a Comment