I guess much hinges on the question of whether one views remarriage after divorce as legitimate or at least permissible. If so, it is not a question of **past** sin, but a question of present sin, of walking in sin.

I would guess that most people who read and largely agree with Michael understand the Scriptures to teach that living in a non-abstinent homosexual relationship is contrary to God’s revealed will and thus constitutes living in sin; then we’re not talking about the lesbian couple’s past indiscretions but their current “walk” or lifestyle.

I would venture further that many of us are not real happy with the easy acceptance of divorce and re-marriage which is so common today; in my church (and I agree with that stance) divorced and re-married persons are disqualified for positions of spiritual leadership. But we would probably also say that in re-marriage of a male and female the created order is not violated to the same extent as in a homosexual relationship.

It is simply my strong conviction that the debate over homosexuality has not been a debate but a clash of presuppositions. Here’s something I wrote on the subject:

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=6618

I am impressed with your courage to “walk the tightrope” on this issue. I tried my hand at it on my own blogsite, and frankly it is the only article I have posted and deleted. It required nuances that I was unable to bring. It would not have been so intricate in the past, but clearly, as you have noted, the “times they are a-changin’” for the toleration and even acceptance of gay sexuality as normal in our society. This acceptance has caused the church to rethink its treatment of gays. As you noted here and other places, that treatment has been less than exemplary.

U2wesley poses an interesting analogy. Scripture clearly condemns homosexual behaviour in the Old and New Testaments. Once has to do way to many dances to avoid that fact. Yet, the New Testament, unlike the Old, also comdemns divorce and remarriage (not divorce so much as divorce AND remarriage).

So in the authority of the New Testament, both couples are in sin and one way or another continuing in that sin. The Early Church appears to have encountered at least the heterosexual couple’s sin and sought to find a way to build healing membership without punishing the offspring of the “new” marriage. In essense, the couple was allowed into the church, but with limitations. They never could become teachers or leaders in the church. Also, in many cases they were barred from the Eucharist; in some cases for 10 years or more, in some cases for life until their deathbeds. In all other ways, they were members of the church in terms of their priveledges and duties. Yet, with these restrictions, the church appears to give the message that what they did and were doing still was less than acceptable and had consequences.

In the past, the homosexual couple was considered to be still sinning by remaining together and was therefore barred from church membership. Period. However, might the time come for the above model to also be applied to them, especially in the case of children being part of the family as well? Breaking up the homosexual couple would be just as tramatic as breaking up the heterosexual one. So could we bring into membership the homosexual couple with the same restrictions: they could not be teachers or leaders or were barred from the Eucharist for the same period of time?

I think this would be workable. Acceptance of both couples into membership would be a testament to the forgiveness that is in Christ; however the restrictions would be a visible sign that the church neither condones nor encourages the practices that continue in both marriages.

I don’t think either group would be happy with such an arrangement as both want complete and full acceptance with no restrictions or strings attached. Yet, considering God’s stricter judgment on teachers (James 3:1) it may be a blessing to be barred from that office. Also, since few churches have communion with any frequency anymore, the second restriction — though tramatic in the first centuries — would probably not make much of a difference today. Yet the symbolic aspect of the restriction would remain.

Hmmmm. The tightrope is getting wobbly again…

One caveat I didn’t mention in my scenario – no one in the church knows about the previous indiscretions of the heterosexual “couple.” Ironic as it is, they’re the one’s in the closet!

So, once they’ve been outed as adulterers, should the hetero couple get churched?

Shouldn’t the lesbian couple get some points for being open and honest about their sin? At least they haven’t committed the double sin of homosexuality and hypocrisy. Aren’t the hetero couple in fact hypocrites for representing themselves as being something they aren’t? Who’s wearing the beard in this situation?

Regarding your answer to my question – “the ones who repent and reconcile with the church”.

Which church should either/both couples “reconcile” with? The church that would have one standard for the hetero couple but a different one for the lesbian couple? Both are guilty of sexual sin – but the hetero couple gets a pass on theirs because their sin is more “normal.” Which in this case means hidden.

If you follow the logic of exclusion then you’re going to have to give every person who wants to join your church a questionnaire regarding his or her complete sexual history. The days of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” are over!

Said candidates will have to “reconcile with the church” on all points or their application will have to be rejected. That way you could out every closet adulterer and avoid polluting the church.

You could also develop similar instruments that would detect gluttons (OK, we’re usually easy to spot), drunkards, slanderers, gossips, etc.

You could call this wonderful fellowship Phone Booth Baptist Church, because that’s where you’ll meet and thank God you’re not like the others.

Yes, there is a definite problem with the almost complete absence of church discipline in the Western church. And the few bodies that do practice discipline are almost all hyper-legalistic train wrecks. Churches that aren’t legalistic tend to have assimilated to the larger culture’s gospel of triumphant individualism and our sense of community is broken as a result.

But the way out of this wilderness is not to hit the easiest target and then congratulate ourselves for restoring discipline to the church.

Frank is taking exception to the clarity of the following paragraph:

>I believe Jesus would have judged no one primarily by sexual preference. He would not have hesitated to eat with and befriend homosexuals. He would have been found among AIDS patients, and he would have deplored hate excused in the name of righteousness.

It puzzles me why this is a problematic paragraph. Now if one wants to add in distortions by pro-homosexual types, or if I have a history of equivocation on this blog on this subject (or anywhere else) then the concern is valid.

If there is going to be distortion of the statement that Jesus would befriend homosexuals into the statement that Jesus approves of homosexual acts, what can I do other than to disagree. Which I do vigorously, always have done so, and frequently take the heat from students for doing so.

If I need to clarify that I am not advocating gay marriage, church membership for practicingm unrepentant homosexuals, then I’m pleased to do so.

But these things aside, Jesus befriended sexual sinners so they would be loved and hear the Gospel. Jesus would visit an AIDS ward, he might heal someone, and he would offer himself as the savior of dying sinners.

At no point have I- me, Michael Spencer- equivocated on these matters. The portrayal of me as one who does equivocate or approves of these things is simply untrue.

I am sure the TR blogosphere would love for me to play Brian Mclaren for the amusement of the gallery, but I don’t agree with Mclaren, I do agree with Jesus, and I don’t think there is any doubt about what I mean in the post.

“the ones who repent and reconcile with the church”.

If you think that’s an easy answer for either “couple”, or for the church, you need to think again.

This is a formal invitation to take up the topic of the Christian response to the homosexual culture and individual homosexuals in my somewhat-obsucre DebateBlog.

I read half this post and was stunned at how much we agree on, then I got to the second half and saw you make statements that I can’t imagine anyone making without pretty significant qualifications — on either side of the issue.

Open invite. You have my e-mail, and if you’re in I’ll add you as a contributor.