A good place to start might be to talk to Christian Homosexuals (I know, in many minds that is an oxymoron, but there are many who view themselves this way.) who have chosen not to act on their orientation.

"What?!" you say, "there are people who do that?" Yes there are, though I'm told not many. So why not listen to guys out there who have an orthodox view of the Bible, but ALSO look at their life and cannot deny their homosexuality? They probably understand the struggle from both sides better than anyone else. Unfortunately, they are usually quickly told they cannot be a Christian and be homosexual and so their voice is squelched.

So if we are uncomfortable welcoming practicing homosexuals into our churches and into the discussion how about non-practicing homosexuals? After all, I was a non-practicing heterosexual for most of my life. What's the difference?

I must confess that this issue keeps me up at night. I am extremely concious of so many people's perception that if you teach that practicing homosexualiaty is sin you're painted as unloving, intolerant and basically narrow minded. The reason this stresses me out so much is because next year I begin work on a church plant in an area of Cape Town, South Africa that after San Fransisco and Sydney is one of the homosexual capitals of the world.

I must agree with Bennet (comment #1) - it helps being able to speak with Christian's who struggle with homosexual desires and I happen to know one or two. But beyond that it looks like an absolute mine field to me as a gospel worker. Any practical tips or ideas?

A non-practicing heterosexual and a non-practicing self-titled homosexual is that the first is refraining from sexual immorality with someone not their spouse though tempted according to the original design of attraction between male & female. The second is refraining from engaging in sexual immorality that is against nature (Rom.1).

Gentlemen,

The survey at least indicates the effectiveness of teaching sound doctrine. If a fundamental, gospel believing, born again Christian is the poster child for right doctrine, then the survey is a tell tell sign that Paul has taught Timothy real truth.

Most people tend to gravitate toward the first part of these following verses….but Paul brings into the mix in the later lines the benefit of true and right doctrine.

1 Timothy 6:3-6 "If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, (4) he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, (5) and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (6) But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment."

….godliness actually is a means of great gain. If we are able to teach someone sound doctrine even if they are engaging in homosexual behavior, especially if they profess to be a Christian….it should be abundantly clear…that to turn from such behavior is “great gain and contentment�?.

Part of the problem with addressing the behavior of homosexuality is the confusion to put it into the same category as heterosexual activity. The reality is that God has created and defined heterosexual as good and in a separate category homosexual activity is certainly evil. The survey clearly indicates that the American culture is truly confused about what God has created….even the fundamentalists have been deceived into categorizing the good with the evil.

The remedy is to preach the gospel, so that the power of God is able to bring sight to a blind eye and is able to bring hearing to a deaf ear. The gospel leads the adopted one away from homosexual urges and lifestyles and provides unhindered worship to anyone that may still be deceived into claiming the title. Homosexuality is sin,…and as any sin, it is impossible to break the power of sin for any human without Christ.

Blessings,
Chris

This text I find outrageous.

First of all, Homosexuality is not a Choice. If anyone would be able to choose their sexual orientation, do you think they'd decide to go against what half of amercians cosider as a sin? Of course not. A lot of people like you don't understand that if gay could choose to be straight, then straight people could also choose to be gay? And is traight people able to do that? No. No human being has a choice in it's sexuality. Why would gay be the only ones who do have a choice? I tell you, if I could chose to be straight I would have done it a long time ago. I'd rather live without the fear of beeing oppressed or attackt by ignorant ones. But of course, I already tried to deny my nature and all I did was become stressed, hatefull of myself, ashamed, frustrated, and troubeld. I dare you to try and become gay because of a social pressure... oh yeah, I would like you straight people to try. You would see how messed up one gets wht trying to go against nature.

Brethrens, let us read Romans 1:18-28 and we will surely see and know that as pass generations failed God and the present refuse to be delieved, we are left (Rom, 1:28)...to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient. We need to find God for ourselves and have a personal relationship and be delieved. That is why Jesus came to help man kind but we still think it is a joke. We have to stop playing church and turn to God. As long as we were not part of the processs in Gen. 1:26, the high council that constituted the decision and command to make man, we should let go and let God. Just to keep us thinking something I always say to people "you summit to your boss, why not God". may the Lord help and delieved this generation!

as to homosexuality: the Mosaic Law provided a practical survival guide for the Jews at that time. For instance, in the dietary laws, pork and shrimp were "abominations" because they were known to often cause illness. It wasn't known why then, but we do, and how to prevent it. So that rule is an irrelevance now.

Likewise, male homosexuality was an "abomination" then, because it was every man's duty to produce as many sons/soldiers as possible to protect the tribe. That situation no longer prevails. Note also that if homosexuality had been an “abomination” in and of itself, lesbianism would have been proscribed as well. The relevance of specific Mosaic Laws today must take into account the purpose for which they were intended.

Jesus never spoke against homosexuality. Paul did, but look at the context: He was speaking of a group of people: “29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: “ (Romans 1, KJV). Read Romans 1:18-32 for the complete context. Now, does any of that sound like homosexuals in America today? Of course not. And there are a few -- enlightened -- Christian churches that do not condemn homosexuality as a sin.

God's Word doesn't change but, thank God, our understanding of it does.

From recent NPR interview: "As a Bible scholar, ordained Baptist pastor and professor of religion Jennifer Knust says she's tired of watching those who are supposed to care about the Bible reducing it to slogans. For example, she says you can't use the Bible as a straightforward guide to sexual morality because the Bible fails to offer a consistent message regarding sexual morals and God's priorities.

Gross's first question: “What do you find most interesting and maybe most anachronistic about what the Bible has to say about marriage?”

Knust suggested that you simply cannot take what the Bible says at face value. If it calls homosexuality an abomination, then clearly that is not to be trusted, unless it's deeply processed, synthesized, and made into some liberal professor's version of ideologically pleasing Velveeta cheese:

[I]t seems to me that whatever the Bible says regarding homoerotic sexual intimacy is folded within a very large Biblical conversation about sexuality in general. And so to pull out a particular verse and say, oh well this solves our position on, you know, gay marriage, is such a mistake, given that the Bible says a lot of things about sexuality. And many of those things we would reject today, so why we are lifting out gay marriage when we've clearly rejected things like slavery and stoning women who aren't virgins at first marriage.

Then Knust started talking about how King David was gay and had a male “wife,” and this shows the Bible is conflicted on gay marriage:

So for example, David has an intimate relationship with the son of King Saul, whose name is Jonathan, and Jonathan loves David more than he loves women. Now, we can read that to mean that Jonathan and David had an intimate partnership in which David was the active or dominant partner in their relationship, meaning that Jonathan was David's woman, which from the perspective of 1st and 2nd Samuel means that David could legitimately inherit the throne that actually belonged to Jonathan as the son of King Saul. So now Jonathan becomes one of David's wives in a way and so therefore David can legitimately inherit.

My point is that even Leviticus and 1st and 2nd Samuel disagree about intimate male partnerships. So to suggest that that one commandment in Leviticus condemns gay marriage is quite a leap, especially because the Bible itself doesn't agree on this point.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/03/14/npr-strikes-blow-gays-asks-professor-what-most-anachronistic-bible#ixzz1HQyiQgrl