Right now we are inthe middle of a pictoral directory.  Although I have not had a gay couple, what about the heteralsexual couple that are living together?  We have a couple of these and they are well aware of what we believe based on God’s word.  Then what about the family that show up one a year, and are obviously not living a Christian life?  Tough questions.  I would probably say no to the gay couple, but only based on my church and it’s comfort level.

I resonate with RevJeff’s comment, “How is it that we can “welcome” sinners into our midst, but never see them transformed by the message of Scripture.” Sounds like their real problem is in their Spiritual Formation process, or lack there of.

On a lighter note… Churches still do pictoral directories?!?

I would stop printing the directory. I realize that avoids the greater issue, but seriously...let’s stop printing those things.

What if it was a really Cute Glamour Shot photo?  What if it were a couple that was engaged?

There is another question involved here: why does a homosexual couple want to have a picture in a church directory?  Has anyone thought that this might be an attempt to start a controversy within the church, and not about a picture.  The homosexual community has had agendas in the past to force acceptance, of a lifestyle Scripture condemns, rather than seeking restoration and healing.  I believe there is a difference between a church having to accept an openly anti-Biblical lifestyle, and being forced to accept everyone who walks through the door.  It’s one thing to love the sinner, but it’s another thing to accept all behavior so as not to offend.  If this had been the mindset of Jesus, then the Pharisees would have never have found an offense in Him, and they would not have put Him to death.  One might love the individual, but there comes a point where saying this is wrong is also a requirement.

I agree that it is high time to stop printing “church directories”. It’s a waste of money and time.

However, as long as you are doing it. I think the gay couples stay in. Just like all the other “sinners”. As others have pointed out you wouldn’t exclude heterosexuals with bad marriages, kids conceive out of wedlock, people with substance abuse problems, materialistic people, etc....

I would include anyone who is a genuine member of the community (official “member” or not). And I would NOT denote “members” with an asterisk. Members of the community are not necessarily the same thing as members of the church. We have lots of non-Christian members of the community who we hope one day will become Christians and become members of the church.

I believe the purpose of the directory is to help people know each other, not to identify the “in” crowd. It’s that kind of thinking that leads people away from Christ.

Relationship before Rules.

Agree with Micah!
Don’t publish it, get into the 21st century and use something much more updated!

Churches need standards and while you dont allow them to come to church as you need to love the gay (but not the sin). I feel that directories etc should really only be limited to members and members should have standards (including hetro living together but not married) as they are saved!

We have couples who live together, and others engaged in all sorts of sin.  We welcome them among us.  BUT we don’t allow them to become church members or baptize them, until we see true repentance.

I think you have to take a stand somewhere.  Ours is that these people need Jesus.  And what better place for them to come then to church, where we recognize their need, love them, and walk alongside them in their journey?

But we do not think that if you are engaged in unrepentant and blatant immorality, you are ready to make decisions about the future of the ministry, etc.

As to the pictorial directory… why have one at all?  They quickly become outdated if you are a growing church.  And if it’s a source of conflict, let it go and move on.

Bart said:

“Right now we are inthe middle of a pictoral directory.  Although I have not had a gay couple, what about the heteralsexual couple that are living together?  We have a couple of these and they are well aware of what we believe based on God’s word.  Then what about the family that show up one a year, and are obviously not living a Christian life?  Tough questions.  I would probably say no to the gay couple, but only based on my church and it’s comfort level.”

Why even have such a silly thing as a “pictorial directory” in the first place?

In today’s “church,” where people are going to want to find that place that caters to their desires the most, pictures are out-dated in the instant they’re made.

Save your money for something worthwhile and stop giving the impression that just because your photo appears in a “church” directory, they’re somehow right with God.

Ricky,
I don’t want to make this a personal argument between us, but we must remember that not all of us live in a metro or large church setting.  My church is about 200 in attendance.  Half are over 65 and half are under 30.  We are growing at about 10% per year while our area is declining by at least that amount.  It is the younger people who want a directory.  We are not using membership for inclusion in the directory, but attendance only.  We are doing this in-house so the only cost is paper.  While most on this blog could not imagine it, things like podcasting and even a web site for most churches is unnecessary and irrevelent.  The average church (75 people) in a rural area does not need a web site.  I think that the directory is a vision into what the church is.  Do you have the broken people in your church to include or is this not an issue because they are not even attenders becasue they are not accepted?  Regardless of directories being good, bad, or otherwise, they are a good way to examine what your church is.

As I understand it, these individuals aren’t “members” in the truest sense.  They are associated with the church under what is called “watchcare” in which they do not hold a voting type of membership—Baptist churches are congregational—and wouldn’t typically be permitted to teach but enjoy the fellowship and care of the congregation.  (This is also used of members of other denominations who, for whatever reason, choose to associate themselves with a Baptist church but do not wish to join by baptism or otherwise don’t wish to affirm or conform to the doctrine of that church.)

Frankly, I don’t understand why this pair desires to associate itself with Broadway Baptist (or any other SBC church) if it wishes to be officially recognized as a “couple.” There are any number of Disciples congregations in that geographical vicinity which are so-called “affirming” churches.

Ditto!!!!  Robert!!

What ever happened to church discipline?