Some Christians, including myself, argue that in the church preaching should align woth traditional biblical teachings on leadership and sexual ethics. Therefore, we believe LGBTQ+ individuals should not serve as preachers. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 3:2 all highlight two-fold: 1) LGBTQ+ lifestyles are sinful and that preachers should be above reproach. From this perspective, preaching is not just seen as speaking, but as representing and upholding leadership of God's sheep, and upholding doctrinal authority. Therefore we believe those in the role of a preacher should fully reflect the Church's belief about biblical teachings on morality and conduct.

We do agree that the church's mission is to proclaim God's love and grace. However, God's love and grace are never separated from repentance, holiness, and obedience. What you're doing is assuming that because someone feels called by God, that alone qualfies them for ministry. Where does Scripture teach what your trying to say? The burden of proof remains on you, not on me, to show that a subjective feeling of being called overrides the biblical qualifications for church leadership. You also say the burden is on me because I claim some people are disqualified, however that's not my claim. My claim is the biblical one: EVERYONE is held to the same moral standard. Scripture lists many behaviors that disqualify someone from leadership if they are living in unrepentant sin, not just homosexual behavior, but greed, drunkenness, adultery, violence, and more. So you must prove that homosexual conduct, as I've stated above, is uniquely exempt from the biblical standard rather than simply asserting inclusion. And finally you contrast "a few verses" with Jesus' message of love and inclusion, but what you've presented is a false dichotomy. Instead you have to demonstrate that Jesus' teaching on love nullifies the Bible's moral teachings rather than fulfilling them. Jesus welcomed everyone yes, but He consistently called people to repentance and obedience. Includion in hearing the gospel is not the same thing as qualification for church leadership. If you believe those qualifications have changed, I now present you the burden to show where Scripture explicitly changes those qualifications.

Dr. King isn't an equivalent example because he wasn't excluded for living in unrepentant sin, he was largely opposed because of racial prejudice, something Cripture itself condemns. The argument I presented isn't based on a "traditional view of leadership," but on the biblical qualifications for church leaders, which require those in leadership to be above reproach, as I have stated before, and not living in ongoing, unrepentant sin. I never claimed that anyone who has ever sinned cannot preach, because according to Romans 3:23, ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Christianity teaches that all have sinned, but there is a clear biblical distinction between someone who has repented of sin and someone who affirms a lifestyle scripture identifies as sinful. That means my two-fold argument actually stands. First, scripture establishes moral qualifications for church leadership, and second, if homosexual conduct is among the behaviors Scripture prohibits, then openly affirming and practicing it is relevant to those qualifications. So saying Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 are "debated" doesn't actually overturn their meaning. Instead, the overwhelming consensus throughout Christian history--including the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and the vast majority of Protestant traditions--has understood these passages as prohibiting same-sex sexual relationships. Simply pointing to the existence of modern disagreement isn't evidence that the traditions interpretation is wrong. UNLESS you can demonstrate, FROM SCRIPTURE, that these passages affirm same-sex relationships or that the qualifications for church leaders have changed, your conclusion doesn't follow, while my argument remains logically consistent because it applies the same biblicall standard to every believer, regardless of the particular sin involved. Also, turning to 'debated passages' isn't evidence, For nearly 2,000 years the overwhelming consensus of the early Church, the Reformers, and the major Christian traditions has understood Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 to prohibit same-sex sexual conduct. The existence of some modern disagreement doesn't overturn that consensus. Instead, scripture explicitly requires that church leaders be above reproach (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1), however being 'above reproach' doesn't mean a pastor has never sinned; if it did, no one could have served. It instead means a pastor's present life isn't marked by credible, ongoing, unrepentant conduct contrary to biblical teaching. Paul immediately explains what he means by listing qualifications of character and conduct in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. So again, my argument isn't that sinners can't preach; it's that those entrusted with spiritual leadership are called to exemplify repentance, holiness (the idea of being set apart), and obedience in the areas where Scripture gives moral instruction.