Homosexual Nazarenes [Archive] - NazNet Community Forum

Bob Hunter

August 28th, 2010, 12:13 AM

Tom,

In my last Church we faced somewhat of a similar situation. We had a gentleman teaching Sunday School who got involved with another man, though at the time the encounters were not sexual. He was married and had three children. Family ____ attended Church faithfully and from all appearances seemed healthy. At a later time I ran into him while he was out on a date with a man (yeah...embarassing). I asked him to come clean and tell his wife and parents (who also attended our church). For a time, he stepped down and did not participate in the Christian education of our Church. We worked redemptively to help him find specialized counseling and support. The marriage remained for another 2 years when sadly, the husband left for another man. He is now fully engaged in the homosexual lifestyle. As I understand it, my successor had to ask him to step down from teaching. He has since left the Church and now lives with his boyfriend. His wife is completely broken and now works a fulltime job to raise three kids. I have spoken with him recently and he acts as if nothing has happened. (His ex-wife is currently in my small group).

Here are my thoughts: 1) If you have to drag the manual out, then it probably isn't going to go well. 2) If this person is not involved in local Church leadership, then I wouldn't resort to a disciplinary measure even though there are provisions for it in the manual. 3) I would approach it prayerfully by first asking open ended questions. I would not jump to any conclusions or make rash judgments. Simply, let them share their struggles. Hopefully, there is enough trust established to allow this to happened. Ultimately, it is best if they come to these conclusions on their own rather than having a pastor or spiritual authority figure get involved in telling them what to do.

I'm sure more can be said, and likely others may have a better approach, I will be reading this thread closely to see what I can learn.

Hans Deventer

August 28th, 2010, 01:51 AM

Tom, the mere fact you mention is insufficient information to me. I'd need to know how these two women look at their situation. How do they deal with their faith in the light of them living together? That would be crucial information, and it would determine the reaction of the church.
Now what I do understand from your description is that they are not actively promoting their lifestyle. That helps. If they are also aware of the brokenness of their situation and how it does not align with God's purposes, expelling would be out of order for me.
I'd end up in a discussion with them to determine what they can and cannot do in church, understanding how the church feels about their situation and that they are in a fellowship with people who's opinion is therefore not irrelevant, and how the church can still be a place for them where we have a fellowship in which the Holy Spirit can work. I've always understood it's His job to convince of sin anyway.

So if there is a mutual understanding that

As this church sees is, living together is not God's purpose with them. In the light of the biblical definition of sin, "missing the mark", it is sin. We acknowledge though that such a demand is not easy.
In the church, there will be differing but generally strong opinions on the subject, limiting (but not completely excluding) options for them to serve in the church)
The Holy Spirit might lead them to different choices, it is essential to always be open to His leading
The church does want to be the place where people are accepted for who they are, but are also expected to be willing to change. Which goes for every member, no matter what sin or dysfunction they struggle with!

there is a place in our church for them.

Wow. It is not easy to write a good answer in a few lines. I'm almost tempted to call you instead.

Roland Hearn

August 28th, 2010, 02:49 AM

David Gerber

August 28th, 2010, 08:16 AM

Life, and advice, is so much easier before one encounters an actual situation like this. Before we put a name and a face of the situation, it is easy to categorize these as right/wrong, black/white discussions. Oh that they were dealing with something simpler like gossip, obesity, pornography, or divorce. Wait, we often don't do much about those either.

If they were desiring to move to a place of leadership the door would be open for a discussion about the situation. If not, I would leave it to the Holy Spirit and the power of grace.

These are two people that bear the image of God. If Jesus is gentle and humble in heart, perhaps that is the best place to start for our own actions.

Dave Mann

August 28th, 2010, 08:47 AM

Tom,

I see several different questions being asked and I'm not sure which one you're asking.

1) What is the CotN's position on homosexuality?
2) What defines the CotN official position on anything? The manual, letters from the Generals, agreement in the academy?
3) To what degree can a temporal and international church be specific on lifestyle issues? (Or equivalently, should we all convert to Amish and if not, what then?)
4) What is the role of the Special Rules in all of this?

For me, the last 2 are closer to heart of the matter and easier to deal with. Either we assert that we are Amish or Quaker and really mean it and beef up the Special Rules and toss folks for violating them (shunning) or we need to tear the Special Rules from the Manual and toss them in a shredder. I'm for the latter. I see no way of defending the Special Rules in light of Romans 14. Whether one eats meat or doesn't eat meat, let both eat to the Lord. The General Rules are enough for an international church, imo.

Now, my question 2) is trickier. I do think the church needs to assert positions on things. Both theological things and lifestyle things. But, the church needs to be very, very, very clear on the distinction between "essentials" and "things where we have freedom".

I think this latter camp is better handled in ambiguously worded statements of guidance. I actually like the current statement in the special rules about media. Of course, one could say that it's a soft, watered down statement compared to the old "don't go to theaters" language I grew up with, but it's more in line with principled teaching that can be applied to lots of situations and isn't an overly specific litmus test that easily over run when particulars change. I think the General's statement on homosexuality is like that too. More effective than simple litmus test.

But, do the Generals speak for the church? Does the Manual?

Billie Goodson

August 28th, 2010, 09:01 AM

If they were desiring to move to a place of leadership the door would be open for a discussion about the situation. If not, I would leave it to the Holy Spirit and the power of grace.

I guess there is an assumption that may be my reading of Tom's original post. His inquiry stated the individuals were "members". Is it an assumption to say that "members" are those who have taken an active step toward identifying with the church - sought membership? Or, is the term simply indicating that the two individuals regularly attend and would call the church home?

Membership as defined/presented in the manual seems to indicate some kind of commitment to the church. If the individuals are truly members of the church, then it seems the pastor and the church have a responsibility to themselves and to the two people. That is a serious discussion they need to have. NOTE: I am not advocating so much what that responsibility is, just the existence of a responsibility.

If the two people are simply attending. Then they have a responsibility to model Christ to them and to love them. If the individuals were to seek membership, then they would need to have some serious discussion and prayer, both with and without the two individuals. Then they [all] must decide if membership is appropriate given the situation and expectations.

Personally, I would never join an organization that I do not agree with their foundational documents and/or leadership as it applies to those documents. That is not an issue of salvation for me, but is is a huge issue of membership. Homosexuality involves a relationship, so does church membership-- hopefully the difference in intimacy is self-evident. It would seem that entering into a relationship with improper expectations is not conducive to a proper, fulfilling relationship.

I think if churches had a better idea of the proper concept of membership, we would have less problems. Then again, I think that applies to individuals and churches as well. We have enough people and churches who are not really "in communion" with the Church. I always admire those people and churches that can be honest about that and separate.

Hans Deventer

August 28th, 2010, 09:38 AM

But, do the Generals speak for the church? Does the Manual?

318. The Board of General Superintendents shall be the
authority for the interpretation of the law and doctrine of
the Church of the Nazarene, and the meaning and force of
all provisions of the Manual, subject to an appeal to the
General Assembly.

Billie Goodson

August 28th, 2010, 09:52 AM

318. The Board of General Superintendents shall be the
authority for the interpretation of the law and doctrine of
the Church of the Nazarene, and the meaning and force of
all provisions of the Manual, subject to an appeal to the
General Assembly.

Paul had Rome, we get the General Assembly. I wonder which would be better?

Jim Chabot

August 28th, 2010, 03:12 PM

I'm going to start with an assumption. I'm going to assume that you speak of a sexual relationship here. I do so because there is no reason to use the word "lesbian" in the case of two friends, or even two friends living together. You have also added the words "committed" and "relationship" to the mix. I'm thinking that you would have used different language to describe a platonic relationship. So I'll assume.

First, I am curious as to how this got to be the Pastor's problem. Did it come properly, has this person been contacted by others regarding this sin? Or has it fallen into the Pastor's lap by gossip? I'm thinking that if this has gotten there via gossip, then the gossiper(s) should be instructed in the biblical method in which we deal with one another's sin. The gossipers need to be admonished. They need to act according to what they know and they need to deal with this properly. The community that we call church has the responsibility to deal with sin in the spirit of love and reconcilliation. Only when this has failed and the person is still unrepentant should this be brought to the Pastor, and then to the board. The proper end result should be either reconciliation, or it should be shunning.

I'll admit that there is plenty of ambiguity in the manual, the codes and admonitions appear to be merely paper tigers, rules without teeth or consequence. Not much to go by there. If we are to be a holiness denomination, and yet cannot deal with sexual sin, divorce, adultery, fornication, homosexuality............... Have we not lost our bearings, is there anything left?

Sure we are called to love sinners, and that includes homosexuals, no doubt and no problem. However to become a member requires a profession of faith, this person is no longer an unrepentant sinner to which we requite unconditional love. Rather this person is our brother or sister, this person is redeemed, thus love takes on a different tone. Love now requires that we protect each other from sin that would separate us from God. Love requires that we deal with sin within our community.

Dale Cozby

August 28th, 2010, 07:03 PM

from the Manual paragraph 500: "Members of the church who do violence to the Covenant of Christian Character or the Covenant of Christian Conduct, or who willfully and continuously violate their membership vows, should be dealt with kindly yet faithfully, according to the grievousness of their offenses."
from 501 about when to take action: "which would cause a prudent person to believe that harm is likely to come to the church,"

from 504: "If a lay member is accused of unchristian conduct," and "Discipline may take the form of reprimand, suspension, or expulsion from membership in the local church"

So, doing violence to the CoCC would be on these grounds for discipline: from paragragh 37: "We view all forms of sexual intimacy that occur outside the covenant of heterosexual marriage as sinful distortions of the holiness and beauty God intended for it. Homosexuality is one means by which human sexuality is perverted."

So the answer to this rather obvious question is they should be asked to give up membership if they cannot follow the CoCC for the good of the church and just be attenders. This would be the same for anyone living in a sexual relationship outside the bounds of marriage as defined by the church. Rather than take some formal action the pastor should just explain to them where we as a church stand and that it would be better for all if they voluntarily asked to be removed from membership without the obligation of membership they aren't to be held to any standard and can do pretty much whatever they like and the church can just love them where they are.
A line must be drawn somewhere for membership standards. Just saying you believe the essential doctrines is not enough there is more questions in the Membership ritual than just the basic beliefs. It must also be followed with at least an attempt to follow church doctrines without blatant disregard.

from Membership ritual paragraph 801: "Desiring to unite with the Church of the Nazarene,
do you covenant to give yourself to the fellowship and work of God in connection with it, as set forth in the Covenant of Christian Character
and the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the Church of the Nazarene? Will you endeavor in every way to glorify God, by a humble walk, godly conversation, and holy service; by devotedly giving of your means; by faithful attendance upon the means of grace; and, abstaining from all evil, will you seek earnestly to perfect holiness of heart and life in the fear of the Lord? Response: I will."

Perhaps the pastor would not be in such a pickle if the person who took them into membership in the first place had taken it a bit more seriously when explaining what they are vowing to live and uphold.

Brian Hammons

August 28th, 2010, 08:01 PM

My advice would probably be, leave it alone, love them, see what grace does in their lives. In open dialogue that deals with the pain of life there is every chance for grace to do amazing things. If there is no change after we are certain we have loved as Christ would love there are only two possibilities, God hasn't spoken to them which probably means He is dealing with it differently than we would, or He has and they are ignoring it which will come out in other ways in their lives as well. I'm not sure what the goal of discipline or rejection would be. Maybe it would help us feel better.

Roland,
I know that your schedule, especially now that you are furthering your education, doesn't allow you to post on as much as you used to. However, when you do, more often than not, it is truly a gem!!! Kind of makes me want to jump on a plane and visit NewStart River City to hear a sermon or two.....

Thank you for your "grace-ful" thoughts. For me, in crisis-of-faith moments (or hours, days, weeks, etc), they are quite a balm and inspiring.

Dennis M. Scott

August 28th, 2010, 09:10 PM

Ryan Scott

August 28th, 2010, 10:07 PM

Do we expel or discipline others who are out of step with other items mentioned in the code?

Without even addressing the specifics of this situation your general question is one we should tackle. The Manual provides for a local board called the "Evangelism and Church Membership Committee," which is supposed to deal directly with membership and encouraging holy lives in new members. I think a lot of touchy issues should be handled within the leadership of a congregation and done with love and grace. This committee, if used, may be in a position to do so.

We're called to be people seeking Christlikeness - most likely only the local congregation is able to see, judge, and encourage people in this pursuit.

Roland Hearn

August 29th, 2010, 12:00 AM

Roland,
I know that your schedule, especially now that you are furthering your education, doesn't allow you to post on as much as you used to. However, when you do, more often than not, it is truly a gem!!! Kind of makes me want to jump on a plane and visit NewStart River City to hear a sermon or two.....

Thank you for your "grace-ful" thoughts. For me, in crisis-of-faith moments (or hours, days, weeks, etc), they are quite a balm and inspiring.

Brian,
Thank you, that is true encouragement. I have two responses - planes leave every day, most from LAx :). At the risk of seeming ego centric we have a few friends that wanted to be able to keep up with the messages and so we created a very unprofessional video page on our web site and from time to time the latest series is posted there: www.newstartrivercity.com

Marsha Lynn

August 29th, 2010, 06:31 AM

Among the variety of pastoral philosophies are those who see their role primarily as valiant protectors of fellowship sanctity, and those who see themselves primarily as agents of healing and restoration. Usually each feels everyone else should be like they are.

As for me, I'm almost always pretty inconsistent. Assuming a pastoral relationship - not just role - with the two in question I'm pretty sure I would work privately with them, asking to pray with them, and seek the Lord's will. I might remind them of my understanding of the church's position, and even ask to "hold" their membership until they came to resolution of descrepancies. I certainly would prayerfully seek the Lord's guidance, and likely seek the advice of trusted colleagues - like Tom Oord.

Admittedly, I haven't always dealt with things as I might given another opportunity. I once became aware that one of my parishioners, who was in the process of divorcing her pedophyle husband, was being seen with a former pastor of the church. When I confronted each of them, they denied any wrongdoing. I also went to a trusted lay leader of the church, who was understandably reactionary and hurt at my even suggesting such a thing could happen. The former pastor had been a powerful instrument of grace, was highly respected and greatly loved. Several months later, both parties divorced their spouses and married. Their marriage lasted a couple years, and the former pastor became a marriage counselor, later marring another of his clients. People bent on continuing in sin usually don't respond well, even given gentle opportunity, and even when they know better. In this case, while the church people hurt greatly, I believe that none were lost to the kingdom because of their pastor's harsh spirit, or trying to ignore an ugly situation. Time has a way of revealing the Truth for what it is. Even in that, it hurts when families, individuals and relationships are lost.

Dennis, I appreciate your insight and the experience you share here. It makes me hesitant to highlight my favorite line of your post because doing so might distract people from the meat of what you're saying. But I do love the line highlighted above. Oswald Chambers was the first to give me permission to be inconsistent as a Christian and I have greatly benefited from that freedom. It is particularly freeing to simply admit to inconsistency rather than denying it when people notice. It's so much easier than sorting through and explaining all the many subtle nuances, including personal growth, that influence one's response to this situation as opposed to another that is similar but not quite the same.

Marsha

PS: This thread once again makes me glad I'm not charged with defending the integrity of the church and making sure sinners are kept at bay.

Todd Erickson

August 29th, 2010, 07:43 AM

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; let he who can speak outside of relationship sever the bounds of love.

Manny Silva

August 29th, 2010, 11:08 AM

Let’s see what scripture says, and this is not certainly a full and complete exposition:

Titus 1:15-16 15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

When immorality comes into the church, the church has a responsibility to deal with it honestly and scripturally.

1 Tim. 5:20
20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

And Matthew 18 also gives us instruction:

Matt. 18:15-17
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’[a] 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

So if a Christian is sinning privately, they should NOT be exposed unless they persist in that sin continuously. But if so, Matthew 18 is the model for how we deal with that sin that persists in the body of Christ.

Then Paul follows up in 1 Corinthians also:

1 Corinthians 5:3-12
3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.[a]
6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.[b] 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Immorality that is clear and evident in the body of Christ must be judged.

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?

So we need to tell the truth when these things come about, so that we are a good example to the world around us. We are the salt and light of the earth, and are different from the world- therefore we cannot ignore or continue to condone sinful behavior by those who profess to be part of the body of Christ.

It can be difficult to confront people, but it is required of us as the body of Christ.

We are reminded in Titus 1:9:
9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

None of us can be happy when false teaching or immoral conduct arises and is obvious, but we must not shun our Christian responsibility to confront these things.

Jeremy D. Scott

August 29th, 2010, 12:10 PM

I agree with Manny about Matthew 18. I think it's the place to start with many, many things. If we only used that model given to us by Jesus more, I think we'd be so much better off and nip so many problems in the bud. It certainly wouldn't lead to an absolute lack of conflict, but it sure would help us to love better.

Dennis M. Scott

August 29th, 2010, 01:31 PM

Matt. 18:15-17
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’[a] 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

Jesus gave us pretty clear example of how to deal with heathen and tax collectors.

Hans Deventer

August 29th, 2010, 01:58 PM

Jesus gave us pretty clear example of how to deal with heathen and tax collectors.

Dennis, you're hopeless. Next thing you're going to tell us that Jesus' strongest words and actions were towards those religious people who got it all figured out, backed up with tons of Scripture quotes. How can we maintain a decent denomination that way? :smilies1722:

Jim Chabot

August 29th, 2010, 02:17 PM

Jesus gave us pretty clear example of how to deal with heathen and tax collectors.

He sure did! We need to love the sinner and this would certainly include the person that is the subject of this thread. Yet Jesus instructions along with Paul's give us some insight into what love requires. Love requires concern for the Christian willfully engaged in sin. Love requires that we do everything possible to help free that person, and love requires that if all else fails, we need to shun that person. Not for punishment, but rather to help bring victory and reconciliation. We are not casting stones, we do not mete out any punishment, we do that which love requires.

This doesn't sound like love to me, yet it is the instruction we are given. Therefore it must be love, and it must be that my understanding is limited.

I like what Jeremy has said about how the instructions in Matt. 18 can and should be used to help us love better. I believe that in each case it should be made certain that Jesus instruction is followed prior to corporate action. Send it back to committee, refuse to hear an accusation without proper procedure.

Hans Deventer

August 29th, 2010, 02:40 PM

Love requires that we do everything possible to help free that person, and love requires that if all else fails, we need to shun that person.

Ok, show me where Jesus does that towards the blatant sinners in His day, and you've convinced me. I may have overlooked a few verses. Take your time, I'm going to bed. See you tomorrow!

Jim Chabot

August 29th, 2010, 03:10 PM

Ok, show me where Jesus does that towards the blatant sinners in His day, and you've convinced me. I may have overlooked a few verses. Take your time, I'm going to bed. See you tomorrow!

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

There ya go!

Oops, wait a minute. You restricted this to something done rather than said, and then you further restricted this to Jesus alone?

Sorry, can't go along with that request. To be consistent, I would first have to reject Article 4, and then reject the creeds as well. Hmmm, Jesus only........... I guess that would require me to join a pentecostal church.:smilies1722:

After all, they are the ones who believe that Jesus is "the" name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, eh?:smilies1404:

Bob Hunter

August 29th, 2010, 04:01 PM

None of us can be happy when false teaching or immoral conduct arises and is obvious, but we must not shun our Christian responsibility to confront these things.

In the situations that I have dealt with it hasn't been real helpful to drag out the manual or the Bible. Why? Simply because the people involved already had that information, so there was no point in trying to convict them or confront them with truth-they get it. When the sole purpose of a confrontation is to remind somebody of something they already know, then it probably isn't going to go well. And it will make them feel like they are being condescended to.

So I don't think the situation Tom describes is going to be helped by a sit down confrontation where the person involved is directed to Bible passages that prohibit their behavior. They are already aware of that and probably feel guilty or they know those passages and interpret them in a way that justifies their behavior. So that is probably not a good place to start the conversation. I love Roland Hearn's remarks with regard to letting God work and being patient with them in love. Or as I have suggested begin the conversation with open ended questions, ask them to tell you how it is going and what they are thinking. Give them a chance to process it and draw their own conclusions about what should be done with their membership. Obviously, in the case with a church leader or someone who is serving on the front lines of ministry, the game changes and the pastor has to be a bit more proactive. But for a member who is just attending and not demanding any 'say so' or position of leadership, I'm inclined to let God work with this out.

Bob Hunter

August 29th, 2010, 04:07 PM

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

There ya go!

Oops, wait a minute. You restricted this to something done rather than said, and then you further restricted this to Jesus alone?

Sorry, can't go along with that request. To be consistent, I would first have to reject Article 4, and then reject the creeds as well. Hmmm, Jesus only........... I guess that would require me to join a pentecostal church.:smilies1722:

After all, they are the ones who believe that Jesus is "the" name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, eh?:smilies1404:

Jim,

I think one thing makes the difference here: Position.

Paul, in writing these words, was concerned about the position of influence. The Corinthians were being influenced instead of influencing. I have no problem sitting down with people who are engrossed in a sinful lifestyle (Jesus didn't either). It is all about my position. I am there to help them and influence them in positive way in hopes they will live a godly life.

Billie Goodson

August 29th, 2010, 06:18 PM

Dale Cozby

August 29th, 2010, 08:06 PM

Many times in replies, scripture and/or the manual are being referenced. In some churches neither or perhaps only one may be relevant. Some have said that some churches do not use the membership induction(?) charge from the manual. While this is not in itself an issue, what would be important is to determine what membership really means. Are there any expectations communicated to the members or even to the church in regards to members? Absent a communication of expectation, then to assume anything is kind of foolish.

Some churches do not even use the bible for anything more than recording family events. That would make even scripture irrelevant in the discussion.
I hope your last statement is not true for any Nazarene church.
I think within the CotN if a failure to communicate what the expectations of membership exists, it does not mean those expectations should not be held as the norm or met later on.
If one need only say they didn't know better and now it is too late to change anything because they are members then order will break down. I have heard of church splits over all sort of "issues" allowed to fester until it left a church crippled and harmed beyond repair.

If I walked into a CotN and found it to be a total variance of what the CotN teaches and practices...as an elder I would have a duty and obligation to report it to the DS or higher up if need be.
To simply say, well we can all just do what we want and we don't need the Manual(in part or in whole)...denominational authority ceases to exist and we become like a non-denominational congregational church.
I hope I never walk into a CotN and find them teaching whatever they want and doing "violence to the Covenant of Christian Character or the Covenant of Christian Conduct"

The Manual has to remain the basis of Church doctrine and practice, even if we might disagree with it at some point or another, we should not do violence to it, but seek to change it through proper means. If a pastor or laymen doesn't think they can "covenant to give yourself to the fellowship and work of God in connection with it, as set forth in the Covenant of Christian Character and the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the Church of the Nazarene" then they should feel released to serve God in a community of faith more to their liking and not seek to cause violence, harm or division to the CotN.

Billie Goodson

August 29th, 2010, 08:36 PM

The Manual has to remain the basis of Church doctrine and practice, even if we might disagree with it at some point or another, we should not do violence to it, but seek to change it through proper means. If a pastor or laymen doesn't think they can "covenant to give yourself to the fellowship and work of God in connection with it, as set forth in the Covenant of Christian Character and the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the Church of the Nazarene" then they should feel released to serve God in a community of faith more to their liking and not seek to cause violence, harm or division to the CotN.

I don't necessarily disagree with you Dale. I would only say that I look to my church leadership for direction as a layman. If the leadership doesn't think that the manual describes a sort of social contract between individuals and the church, then the leadership should not be surprised when members take the same liberties. This is one of the areas where I believe we sometimes have an improper view of membership.

There are some areas where I don't necessarily have the same conviction on an issue as the manual. However, since I joined the church and the membership was communicated to me in accordance with the manual's model, I abstain from something that otherwise I might engage in. Based on the statements of some leaders I am aware of, that conviction would seem to be misplaced in some congregations.

Jim Chabot

August 29th, 2010, 09:33 PM

In the situations that I have dealt with it hasn't been real helpful to drag out the manual or the Bible. Why? Simply because the people involved already had that information, so there was no point in trying to convict them or confront them with truth-they get it. When the sole purpose of a confrontation is to remind somebody of something they already know, then it probably isn't going to go well. And it will make them feel like they are being condescended to.

So I don't think the situation Tom describes is going to be helped by a sit down confrontation where the person involved is directed to Bible passages that prohibit their behavior. They are already aware of that and probably feel guilty or they know those passages and interpret them in a way that justifies their behavior. So that is probably not a good place to start the conversation. I love Roland Hearn's remarks with regard to letting God work and being patient with them in love. Or as I have suggested begin the conversation with open ended questions, ask them to tell you how it is going and what they are thinking. Give them a chance to process it and draw their own conclusions about what should be done with their membership. Obviously, in the case with a church leader or someone who is serving on the front lines of ministry, the game changes and the pastor has to be a bit more proactive. But for a member who is just attending and not demanding any 'say so' or position of leadership, I'm inclined to let God work with this out.

I can see where you are coming from Bob, you are hopeful of a positive outcome given time, patience and love. This is certainly commendable. Yet scripture allows for this time, patience and love during the process outlined in Matt 18, beyond that we have no other instruction but to put them out. The level where the game changes must be at the point that one professes to be a believer.

Jim Chabot

August 29th, 2010, 09:38 PM

Jim,

I think one thing makes the difference here: Position.

Paul, in writing these words, was concerned about the position of influence. The Corinthians were being influenced instead of influencing. I have no problem sitting down with people who are engrossed in a sinful lifestyle (Jesus didn't either). It is all about my position. I am there to help them and influence them in positive way in hopes they will live a godly life.

Yes, should we allow those involved in open sexual sin to remain in membership, then it can be safely said that we are being influenced as well.

I have no problem sitting down with people who are engrossed in a sinful lifestyle either. However when one makes a profession of faith, things change. I will not sit down with a believer who is involved in a sinful lifestyle, and neither did Jesus. He defended and forgave the woman caught in adultery, his instructions to her was "Go and sin no more."

Bob Hunter

August 29th, 2010, 10:24 PM

Yes, should we allow those involved in open sexual sin to remain in membership, then it can be safely said that we are being influenced as well.

I have no problem sitting down with people who are engrossed in a sinful lifestyle either. However when one makes a profession of faith, things change. I will not sit down with a believer who is involved in a sinful lifestyle, and neither did Jesus. He defended and forgave the woman caught in adultery, his instructions to her was "Go and sin no more."

Jim, If I follow you and Manny's declaration to protect myself from evil associations and revoke memberships then I may not have a church. Did you know that about half of the male population is engaged in sexually immoral behavior? The statistics in our Churches are no different. Men struggling with purity issues are common. Most will have viewed pornography on the internet or will have confessed to have struggled with it in any given month. Do we put them out too? Where does it stop? A a porno addicted man is just as guilty. We need to find a way to shift the focus to redemption and not punishment and expulsion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Paul insisted we expel the immoral brother in the event he rejects counsel and refuses to repent. Men and Women stuck in sexual bondage have tried to quit a thousand times, and all they hear from the Church is NO, NO, NO-don't do that! Which in my opinion is very inadequate. Rather than put them out, or tell them what they already know from scripture, I am going to walk along side of them and help them heal from past wounds, break unhealthy patterns and ultimately overcome sinful behavior. These people need a Pastor who can help them find the resources and support to heal. The scars from sexual sins run deep, but God's grace is deeper. And I choose to be on the side of grace and not judgment.

Billy Cox

August 29th, 2010, 11:19 PM

What should a pastor do when he or she realizes that members of her or his church are in a committed lesbian relationship? Is this reason for disciplinary action? Should their membership be revoked? Should the pastor have a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. Should the pastor only intervene if the pastor is confident homosexual behavior is involved? (The Manual does not denounce homosexual orientation, as far as I can tell.)

I read sections of the Manual today, and it's not clear to me what should be done. In fact, it's not clear to me what should be done when members violate other code of conduct standards in that section of the Manual. Do we expel women who get abortions? Do we expel or discipline others who are out of step with other items mentioned in the code?

I see three questions in play:

1. What is the relationship between church membership and one's place in the fellowship? (is revoking membership synonymous with expelling them from the church?)

2. Is the primary 'offense' an extramarital relationship or is it that the relationship is homosexual in nature?

3. Does the local church love the couple in question? (is the feeling mutual?)

Yes I realize that's more than three, but it's good luck to be trinitarian. :)

Hans Deventer

August 29th, 2010, 11:44 PM

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

There ya go!

Oops, wait a minute. You restricted this to something done rather than said, and then you further restricted this to Jesus alone?

Sorry, can't go along with that request. To be consistent, I would first have to reject Article 4, and then reject the creeds as well. Hmmm, Jesus only........... I guess that would require me to join a pentecostal church.:smilies1722:

After all, they are the ones who believe that Jesus is "the" name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, eh?:smilies1404:

Well, that was a quote from Paul, not Jesus. Try again. :)

Never wrote about "Jesus only", but last time I checked my Bible, He is God, not Paul. So yes, I see a difference. I presume I don't have to quote Colossians 1 to you? Or Hebrews? Or ........ ?

No clue what all of this has to do with rejecting Article IV. It's simple, Jesus is Lord, is God, is THE revelation of the Father. Anything else in the Scriptures should be in line with who He is and what He does.

So the issue is, as Dennis stated so clearly, how did Jesus treat the heathen and tax collectors? We're talking about HIS words, so we need to look at how HE treats them. Seems like consistent theology to me.

Andy Mistak

August 29th, 2010, 11:50 PM

2. Is the primary 'offense' an extramarital relationship or is it that the relationship is homosexual in nature?

I'm probably not on the same page as most of you guys on this, but I have to say that I think this might be unfair since there is no way for the two Nazarenes in question to marry each other.

Hans Deventer

August 29th, 2010, 11:55 PM

The Manual has to remain the basis of Church doctrine and practice, even if we might disagree with it at some point or another, we should not do violence to it, but seek to change it through proper means.

We'd love to, but have you followed the discussions at the last couple of GA's? 1997 is etched in my memory. Any attempt in this direction resulted in emotional responses that could not have been stronger if the motion attempted to kill their mother.

The truth is that it's still way too American. Hopefully, the 2013 GA will finally deal with that.

Billie Goodson

August 29th, 2010, 11:55 PM

So the issue is, as Dennis stated so clearly, how did Jesus treat the heathen and tax collectors? We're talking about HIS words, so we need to look at how HE treats them. Seems like consistent theology to me.

Would it be fair to say that when he confronted people that were in an improper sexual relationship, he told them "go, and sin no more"? That seems to be a fair verse in play here. Unfortunately, he didn't stick around long enough to tell us what to do when the sinner didn't repent. Then again, there are cases where he would not allow some people to be within his circle of friends when they had unrepentant issues. So, I guess we do have to wonder WWJD.

Jesus never did seem to require a life of perfection in others, but he never seemed to hesitate to point out the errors in other peoples lives. And on that, I would be in full agreement with Bob that it must be done in love and grace with every opportunity for the relationship to be restored and add that it must be done without creating hurdles too high for the offender or the offended.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 12:00 AM

Jesus never did seem to require a life of perfection in others

Sermon on the Mount?

I think what we see Jesus do is the following:

Maintain God's ideal in the strongest possible words.

Be incredibly patient with those who made a mess of it.

Be very impatient with those who thought they got it all figured out.

Billie Goodson

August 30th, 2010, 12:01 AM

...there is no way for the two Nazarenes in question to mary each other.

I don't think this is a true statement. None of the states that allow same-sex marriages exclude Nazarenes. I am just guessing, but it would seem that would have been discussed before now.

Billie Goodson

August 30th, 2010, 12:14 AM

Sermon on the Mount?

I think what we see Jesus do is the following:

Maintain God's ideal in the strongest possible words.

Be incredibly patient with those who made a mess of it.

Be very impatient with those who thought they got it all figured out.

I am not sure the Sermon on the Mount bolsters your case Hans. Regarding sexual immorality, the line drawn there says that to look at woman lustfully is to already sin in your heart. While the most literal reading of this might give a man an out ("I wasn't looking at a woman"), that seems to be really require holding an odd view of scripture thus it seems to offer an issue to your case.

On your points regarding the Sermon --

Fully agree with all three. The question seems to be in how to maintain a proper balance between 1 & 2. It also seems to require we leave some flexibility in regards to number 3, especially for religious leaders. But, this seems to rub both sides of this case in my opinion.

Part of my difficulty is that I still hold to a belief that the gospel has the power to change lives. That seems to be at the core of the beliefs I hold to. So, I still say we have to have an incredible amount of grace and humility when we are addressing anothers' sin. But, I thought that joining a community of faith was to move toward a more social view of holiness. Wesley saw social holiness as something to be desired, that seems to be at the core of this kind of discussion. That being said, the holiness of Christ was not offended by hanging around with the worst of people, but I think he left them better than he found them.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 12:26 AM

Part of my difficulty is that I still hold to a belief that the gospel has the power to change lives.

YES!

That seems to be at the core of the beliefs I hold to. So, I still say we have to have an incredible amount of grace and humility when we are addressing anothers' sin. But, I thought that joining a community of faith was to move toward a more social view of holiness. Wesley saw social holiness as something to be desired, that seems to be at the core of this kind of discussion. That being said, the holiness of Christ was not offended by hanging around with the worst of people, but I think he left them better than he found them.

So do I. The interesting thing with Jesus was that He wasn't afraid to hang around with sinners because they could contaminate Him, but in stead He "contaminated" them.

People who sin do so for a reason. Not that many sin for sin's sake. Roland once said that sin is either the wrong way to fill the hole in our lives, or an attempt to medicate the pain of it. I think what Jesus did was trying to address that first issue: the hole in our lives.

Probably the best part of the BoGS's pastoral letter on homosexuality was the recognition that they (like we) need a place of love and acceptance and can't make it on their own (very free paraphrase here). We don't help people by showing them the rules and kicking them out. That's not what Jesus did either. In that regard, the church is much more a hospital for sinners, than a society of saints with the sole aim to secure its purity. In fact, I believe we only can be pure if we run the hospital. It might in fact also include our own healing.

Manny Silva

August 30th, 2010, 05:06 AM

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 05:24 AM

Is anyone here suggesting that the commands clearly given in scripture to deal with professing believers who are living in a constant state of sin, are now optional for us? Or that the words of the apostles are somehow contradicted by the words of Jesus somewhere else? Would that not make God's word something that is not reliable?

Is anyone here suggesting that the Lord, God Himself, just kicked people out who didn't live up to what they knew they should be doing?
Or that the words of the apostles should not be read in the light of God's suprime revelation, our Lord Jesus Christ? Is anybody denying that nothing whatsoever equals the Living Word? He, who

"15 is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. "

I sure hope not. I thought we were Christians.

Exactly because I believe the Scriptures, I believe they should be read in the light of Christ.

If anyone, Manny, you are well aware that the words of the Scriptures can be so easily twisted. Without this clear focus on the very Goal of the Scriptures, we can so easily go astray.

Jim Chabot

August 30th, 2010, 06:49 AM

So the issue is, as Dennis stated so clearly, how did Jesus treat the heathen and tax collectors? We're talking about HIS words, so we need to look at how HE treats them. Seems like consistent theology to me.

Doesn't sound consistent to me, not even close. You only see the side of Jesus that you wish to see, and you make no distinction between a believer and a heathen. He made these distinctions, he said go and sin no more, he said that there would be a weeping and a gnashing of teeth, he said that there would be those to whom he would say depart from me, I never knew you. If we truly love others, we would fear for them.

I'm sorry to say, actually very sorry and saddened to say that the picture you paint of Jesus here, just isn't so. This isn't who he was, not even close.

So yes, how did Jesus treat the heathen and the tax collectors? He treated them as sinners, that is how he treated them, he did not treat them as believers. You seem to be suggesting that we treat them differently than Jesus did, you seem to suggest that we twist Jesus words and actions. No one is talking about punishment here, no not one, and I am including Paul in this. No one is suggesting that we do not love this person, no one, and I will include Paul once again. For you see, Pauls's teachings and instructions do line up with what Jesus said and did, he was chosen specifically by Jesus to speak to us.

We are to love the sinner, no question and no doubt. When we ignore sin and in some sick twisted manner we tell the sinner that he or she is ok, and that we accept them as fellow believers, we show no love. We take the path of least resistance, the salt has truly lost it's savor, it is good for nothing.

Jim Chabot

August 30th, 2010, 06:54 AM

YES!

So do I. The interesting thing with Jesus was that He wasn't afraid to hang around with sinners because they could contaminate Him, but in stead He "contaminated" them.

People who sin do so for a reason. Not that many sin for sin's sake. Roland once said that sin is either the wrong way to fill the hole in our lives, or an attempt to medicate the pain of it. I think what Jesus did was trying to address that first issue: the hole in our lives.

Probably the best part of the BoGS's pastoral letter on homosexuality was the recognition that they (like we) need a place of love and acceptance and can't make it on their own (very free paraphrase here). We don't help people by showing them the rules and kicking them out. That's not what Jesus did either. In that regard, the church is much more a hospital for sinners, than a society of saints with the sole aim to secure its purity. In fact, I believe we only can be pure if we run the hospital. It might in fact also include our own healing.

Yes, yes and yes!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course the church is in the hospital business, perfect illustration. The question here is simply this. Who do we consider as a doctor or a nurse and who do we consider a patient? Please don't side step and obfuscate this any further, this is the question and this is the only question!

Billie Goodson

August 30th, 2010, 06:55 AM

Probably the best part of the BoGS's pastoral letter on homosexuality was the recognition that they (like we) need a place of love and acceptance and can't make it on their own (very free paraphrase here). We don't help people by showing them the rules and kicking them out. That's not what Jesus did either. In that regard, the church is much more a hospital for sinners, than a society of saints with the sole aim to secure its purity. In fact, I believe we only can be pure if we run the hospital. It might in fact also include our own healing.

The hospital analogy doesn't work for me. Hospitals are about getting the sick well. Sometimes that means making difficult medical decisions that may cause radical changes in peoples lives. What they don't do is provide a place where people will walk by and not tell people when they have sucking chest wounds that are killing them. They also don't invite patients to be on staff just to make them feel better about themselves. They also pay heavy insurance to protect the public against falsely practicing. So the hospital analogy for me dies a thousand deaths as it applies to what is being advocated here.

I have a friend who was injured in a work accident. They tried for over a year to save his foot. About 6 weeks ago, the doctor finally faced the decision to amputate his leg just below the knee. All because he had crushed his toes. All of the time spent trying to save the foot actually cost him more of his leg. This seems to be in line with the sermon on the mount in regards to Jesus' comments about the eye offending you. It compromised his health, better to cut it off than die.

I am all for all the grace and humility that Jesus showed to sinners. But, when they desire to move to membership, I think his challenge to the young ruler would be in keeping with his example.

Maybe I feel strongest about this topic because it is an issue of intimacy. It seems to reflect the shift in society in general to disrupt our sense of intimacy that is a gift from God. The homosexual nature of it is no more harmful than if it was between uncommitted heterosexuals or adultery. I can't help but think that the original question should not be handled any different if it was a heterosexual relationship. Then again the homosexual relationship is maybe the best picture for what we are doing in our churches today.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 07:10 AM

Doesn't sound consistent to me, not even close.

Ok. So trying to interpret the words of the Lord by his actions is not consistent.

Seems we have an whole different discussion going on here than merely homosexuality or whatever other ethical topic, we're back to hermeneutics.

Pray tell me, how would you read the words of the Lord apart from his actions and what would a consistent hermeneutic look like in your view?

This is a serious issue, Jim. If I can't read Jesus' words in the light of how He lived, I fear we'll be getting nowhere next month. I can't separate His words from His life, if He indeed is the Truth, the Way and the Life as He said He is.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 07:11 AM

The hospital analogy doesn't work for me.

Billie, you're free to create a better one! I'm not hung up on it.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 07:16 AM

Yes, yes and yes!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course the church is in the hospital business, perfect illustration. The question here is simply this. Who do we consider as a doctor or a nurse and who do we consider a patient? Please don't side step and obfuscate this any further, this is the question and this is the only question!

Wait a minute, what have I been sidestepping? Don't sidestep that question, please. :)

The doctor, nurse and all the staff is the Holy Spirit, of course. And we are all patients. That's not so hard. And like in any hospital, some patients are a blessing to others, and some are not.

Billie Goodson

August 30th, 2010, 07:23 AM

Billie, you're free to create a better one!

I could go with the hospital one if it was about helping people recover. But, I will acknowledge that we have to earn the trust of people in our opinions and diagnosis. They also must trust that we have gotten our license to practice from a true source. If we have truly shown them love and are living out what we say, then they might trust us and the message we preach. That allows the gospel to change lives. That also means letting them see us in our strength and weakness. So, we might have to let them hang around enough that when we sit by the well with them they trust us and we can speak to their lives. As Jim said, the issue is membership.

If the couple were not members, I would just continue to model love to them. If I was a pastor, I would not preach at them. I would welcome there participation in the community functions of our church. I would fervently defend their rights to being part of our community. If they approached about membership, then I would be required to communicate the expectations of membership in the church. My reading of the manual would not allow them to become members if they were in a lifestyle that was contrary to a holiness life. Just like hospitals have criteria for transplants. Maybe that hospital analogy can work correctly considered.

Dennis M. Scott

August 30th, 2010, 07:36 AM

Seems like Jesus understood the conflictions of the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, and desire to solve/resolve one with the other. I suspect there were times when it was not easy for Him. He was not only God: He was fully man. Probably that's one of the reasons he found it appropriate to spend so much time in prayer with the Father. There are times when some of my naznet friends very clearly are a channel through whom the Lord speaks: there are other times when the voices I hear seem very different from the nature and character of God I have come to recognize in prayer with the Father. He speaks to all of us differently: we even see Him differently in the same scripture passages.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 07:47 AM

He speaks to all of us differently: we even see Him differently in the same scripture passages.

We see and hear Him differently, but would He speak differently? I sure hope not.

BTW, these discussions make me long so much for the day that Jesus returns. No more discussions, at last, thank God! No more heretics, no more liberals, no more fundamentalists. Nobody cares one bit anymore that the Scriptures say when we can simply ask Jesus Himself. Faith has disappeared, for we see. Hope is gone, for everything we hoped for is there. Only love will remain. Looking so forward to drinking a good glass of new wine with Manny, Grant and Tim and everyone who wants to join us. Man, that must be heaven.

Jeremy D. Scott

August 30th, 2010, 07:50 AM

Probably that's one of the reasons he found it appropriate to spend so much time in prayer with the Father.

This continues to be one of the most poignant subtleties of the gospels. It's more often than not but a simple sentence here or there, but the witness of the gospels is extensive as to how often Christ did this, even at the expense of what otherwise might seem "worthy." It's a challenging observation considering who we profess Christ to be (God) and who we know ourselves to be (not God).

Jeremy D. Scott

August 30th, 2010, 07:59 AM

We see and hear Him differently, but would He speak differently? I sure hope not.

In philosophy you're right, Hans. In life, it's not such a simple conclusion.

I was watching a documentary on Dietrich Bonhoeffer last night and in a section about Bonhoeffer's wrestling with the will of God and what to do in life (namely, participating in the assassination plots to kill Adolf Hitler), they interviewed Desmond Tutu. He said something that caught me:
"There's no shaft of light that comes from heaven and says to you, 'Okay, my son or my daughter...you are right.' You have to hold on to it by the skin of your teeth and hope that there is going to be vindication on the other side."

I've been wrong enough in my life to at least try to speak as grace-fully as I possibly can the things I believe with the uttermost to be true. I often fail at that gracefulness. But the strong desire to be right should fall short to the desire to be faithful to Christ. So in my experience, "grace-fully" becomes less about being "nice" (though that is good, too), and more about leaving room for the truth of God.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 08:11 AM

In philosophy you're right, Hans. In life, it's not such a simple conclusion.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, for there is nothing in what you wrote that I disagree with. It would just fill me with desperation if God actually SAID different things to different people. As if God told both Westboro and Brian McLaren what to say and write. How can I believe in such a God?
I readily acknowledge (and in fact did say so) that we all bring our biasses to how we read the Scriptures and hear the word of the Lord. We think differently, see differently, understand differently. But if God Himself speaks with two tongues........... :smilies1390:

Ryan Scott

August 30th, 2010, 08:12 AM

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 08:46 AM

Obviously there are some things over which we'll never come to consensus - thing we'll have to leave in God's hands, so to speak - but in the end we have to trust that Jesus knew what he was talking about when he said he would build the Church.

In fact, we have to trust Him for the entire creation project.

Jeremy D. Scott

August 30th, 2010, 08:56 AM

Perhaps I wasn't clear, for there is nothing in what you wrote that I disagree with. It would just fill me with desperation if God actually SAID different things to different people. As if God told both Westboro and Brian McLaren what to say and write. How can I believe in such a God?
I readily acknowledge (and in fact did say so) that we all bring our biasses to how we read the Scriptures and hear the word of the Lord. We think differently, see differently, understand differently. But if God Himself speaks with two tongues........... :smilies1390:

Arg...I just typed a whole post and lost it. I'll try to remember...

I see what you're saying. I'm preaching to myself more than any other here:

I do think that we can come to different conclusions and be okay (even with God and especially with God). If we're truly seeking a big tent, then the space it creates isn't simply to allow my understanding, but also the understanding of others. For example, I am fairly certain of evolution. And the Big Tentedness of our denomination allows for me to have that certainty. But it also allows for others to have certainty about six-day literalism. And I'm okay with that. Your (and my!) constant call for essentials (Dave's "boundary points") are crucial and needed. But within those boundaries, grace for the understandings and perspectives of others.

I'm reminded of Peter's conversation with Jesus on the shore:

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?’ When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about him?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? [You] follow me!’

It's so Romans 14. :smile:

I just think that we often get so carried away on Naznet and in life when assessing the situations of others. I've really appreciated how many potentially abrasive and/or touchy threads have been begun lately. I think of Jason McPherson's thread on fireworks: "What would you do?" or Mike Schutz's thread on what's important to the ministry of your local church or Scott Cundiff's constant attempt to try a third way in beginning political threads.

Tom asked a question above. We should expect that he'd get multiple answers and even that we would ask for clarification and counterpoint to those answers. But at the end of the day, Tom (or the pastor he referred to) has to answer the question himself based upon his understanding of the will of God, his understanding of the context of the situation, and his understanding of the Manual (and preferably to me...in that order!).

The value of Naznet is finding out different Christian perspectives. Sometimes in our hearts we would question the "Christian-ness" of those perspectives. But I think that no one is out to do harm. I think that the rules and our moderators do a good job of weeding out the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Jim Abrams

August 30th, 2010, 09:27 AM

Does someone have an easy link to the BOGS written statement about Homosexuality? I'm in the middle of moving my office and can't get my hands on mine.

The burning question that guides me is both informed by the character of Jesus, witnessed by the Scriptures and demonstrated by his church:
What is the most redemptive course of action in this local context? I understand that the most redemptive course of action might not seem very redemptive to some at first and might actually be offensive to some of us on Naznet who are looking in on the situation. Still if we are approach the situation committed to the most redemptive course of action I think we can proceed with the integrity of the Pastoral office in full agreement with the spirit and practice of the Church of the Nazarene.

Jeremy D. Scott

August 30th, 2010, 09:31 AM

Does someone have an easy link to the BOGS written statement about Homosexuality? I'm in the middle of moving my office and can't get my hands on mine.

Here is the Pastoral Perspectives on Homosexuality (http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Perspectives_Homosexuality.pdf) (.pdf).
Here is a follow-up Further Clarification (http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/ClarificationonHomosexualitybooklet.doc) (.doc).

Manny Silva

August 30th, 2010, 09:33 AM

Manny Silva

August 30th, 2010, 09:35 AM

Jim Chabot

August 30th, 2010, 09:39 AM

Ok. So trying to interpret the words of the Lord by his actions is not consistent.

I didn't say that. I don't believe that you are interpreting correctly, I believe that you are seeing what you wish to see and nothing else.

Pray tell me, how would you read the words of the Lord apart from his actions and what would a consistent hermeneutic look like in your view?

First, I will trust the remainder of scripture to correctly read the words of our Lord, and I will trust that the rest of scripture does in fact read his words in a consistent manner with his actions.

"We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith."

I honestly believe that your views are outside of Article 4. We cannot narrow our focus to only the words and actions of Jesus. And let's remember that we do not have all of His words nor his actions recorded for us. We must rely on the whole counsel of scripture, and we need to trust that the human writers of scripture "got it right".

This discussion leaves me with a choice, believe Hans or believe Paul. I choose Paul, I believe that Paul knew the mind of Christ, and I believe that he accurately passed it down to us.

This is a serious issue, Jim. If I can't read Jesus' words in the light of how He lived, I fear we'll be getting nowhere next month. I can't separate His words from His life, if He indeed is the Truth, the Way and the Life as He said He is.

Yes this a very serious issue. And it is interesting that here we think alike. Next month has been weighing heavy on my heart this morning as I ponder this discussion. Don't worry about me, I'm thinking that it is better that I stay home, I have no desire to cast a pallor over what may in fact be a very nice trip for you. I need to put your welfare above my own here.

Jim Chabot

August 30th, 2010, 09:43 AM

And again I would emphasize, the question by Dr. Oord should be best answered: what do the scriptures say about handling those who are or might be living in continual rebellion against God, and are claiming to be part of the body of Christ?

Also as Dale has pointed out, the Manual is in accord and agreement with the scriptural method of redemption. When I compare your first post in this thread with Dale's exposition on the manual provisions, I see no discrepancy.

Jim Chabot

August 30th, 2010, 10:12 AM

Here is the Pastoral Perspectives on Homosexuality (http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Perspectives_Homosexuality.pdf) (.pdf).
Here is a follow-up Further Clarification (http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/ClarificationonHomosexualitybooklet.doc) (.doc).

Thanks Jeremy, I think that this speaks to the General's position regarding Tom's question. I refer to his use of the words, "committed lesbian relationship".

It is important to recognize the operative terms in this statement: “reoriented,” “celibate,” and “single.” These three terms offer clarification that must not be overlooked. It should not be interpreted that the Church of the Nazarene is relaxing its traditional standard concerning participation in the life, ministry, and governance of the local church. Without clear compliance of these three very important clarifiers, those individuals wanting to express participation in the life of the church would be barred.

Bob Hunter

August 30th, 2010, 10:52 AM

Also as Dale has pointed out, the Manual is in accord and agreement with the scriptural method of redemption. When I compare your first post in this thread with Dale's exposition on the manual provisions, I see no discrepancy.

If I could just add something for your humble consideration. Suppose the real battle is not confrontation and discipline but the messy process of redemption and restoration. I believe the scriptural method (and I don't know as "method" is the best terminology) goes farther than just telling folks to "stop it." We are missing the real crisis folks when we give inadequate answers like that. Just telling people to QUIT living in sexual bondage because the Bible says so is not going far enough.

Meanwhile, the sexual pandemic marches on invading our churches and society at all levels. The Statistics Are Staggering:
66% of Internet-using men between the ages of 18-34 look at online porn at least once a month
55% of pastors admitted to participating with porn online.
Over 40% of women on line are involved in problematic cyber behavior.
The largest consumer of Internet pornography is the 12 to 17 year old age group.
70% of Internet porn traffic occurs during the 9 am to 5 pm workday.
Two out of three companies have disciplined employees for misusing the Net at work and pornography topped the list of abuses.
About half of pornography available includes same sex involvement.

My question is this: Where is the Church? What are we doing to address this issue? How many more pastors do we have to lose before we wake up? If "NO," "QUIT," and "STOP IT," were effective then show me the results? I don't see it...

At some point, we have to move beyond "Stop it" and develop biblically based recovery groups that help men and women address uncontrollable behavior. You would be surprised at the number of people in your Church who are struggling with sexual behavior. Instead of giving into the shame and blame, wouldn't it be something if the Church was leading the way to healing and wholeness? Seriously, folks we have to start focusing on specific ways to set people free to live in the saving grace of our Lord. And I believe that involves a time honored process of restoration instead of just shouting the word "NO!" at people.

I think we all want to do what the scripture says with regard to sin, but I would like to suggest we take it a step further and help people out of the bondage they are in. Of course, this assumes they want to be set free, and likely some will not. But for those who have tried to quit a thousand times and cry out for help, we have to offer more than just scriptural prohibitions.

James Diggs

August 30th, 2010, 11:15 AM

Jesus said: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:"

These are the true Christians, these are those who are a part of the true church of God;
according to Jesus. Not just simply someone who claims to be a Christian, yet by their actions (fruits) show otherwise. You cannot claim to be a genuine Christian, if you are sinning consistently and disobeying the Lord. That is a reality that is clearly taught in scripture.

I find this statement ironic and fascinating from you Manny considering your fruit, but sadly not surprising.

I am not surprised because the paradigm you operate from limits sin only to legal and spiritual grievances against God by which one is justified by the best legal argument. The Homosexual sins because of section B. verse 2 of the Bible, yet you can justify your sins of divisiveness as you quote section H. verse 32 of the Bible. Also, according to your lens morality has nothing to do with humanity as morality is reduced to a demerit system by which everyone really fails in the end but those who believe the "right information" will be saved from spiritual punishment transcending this fallen physical world in the end (gnosticism).

Yes, you may believe there is a "change of heart" for the believer now, but that so called change of heart still is dealing with morality as if it is about following God's instructions so as not to get anymore (or as many) demerits against you according to the specific of the rules given as possible. Here we are back to your use of the Bible as the "rule book", for as long as you can manipulate what it says, like a lawyer looking for loop holes to justify himself while condemning others, you will have all you need to make a claim of being a "true sheep".

The problem is Manny you can't see the forest of scripture because of all the trees (the individual verses you quote to justify yourself) as you completely miss the big picture and the redemption of HUMANITY that God wins for us in Jesus Christ and calls to live and participate in. Relationships and our humanity (as it is linked to the humanity of others) mean jack squat to you- yet they mean EVERYTHING to the gospel.

This thread is about living in such away that as far as it goes with us we live at peace with all men. And when I say "peace" I don't mean the "absence of conflict" but I mean live according to the Godly peace of the Gospel that reconciles relations and our very humanity. This kind of peace can at times take a sword that gets to the bottom of things and exposes things that need reconciled and shows the way to that reconciliation. So, please don't accuse me of taking a position of saying anything and everything is OK. The thread does not seem to be about condoning sin but rather how live in such away that we participate in the ministry of reconciliation.

In regards to the specific issue of how we are to deal with homosexuality- it is no different than anything else. We must live in such a ways (at least as much as we can do on our end) that we are the builder of relationships and not the barriers to relationships and we build up and restore the humanity of others rather than tear it down. We need to do this even when people may dehumanize themselves and others by their actions. Because that is what sin does in the real world when we move beyond just thinking sin is some sort of spiritual gnostic demerit.

The question is how can we be instruments of redeeming others rather than piling on further dehumanization and barriers to restored relationships from our end. Jesus teaching on the sermon of mount dealt with this very issue using many examples. This seems to be the dynamics being discussed here that you simply do not comprehend as you want quote what we have heard the scriptures say, but do not want to engage in the "but I say unto you" that Jesus spoke of that pushed reconciliation, redemption, and morality far beyond what scribes and bible experts had in mind when they were only concerned about the letters on the page rather than how they are fulfilled in the life of Christ.

Again you reduce morality to a demerit system and reconciliation to only the erasing of those demerits. Because of this you can't even comprehend this issues and tensions in play as disciples of Jesus on this thread wrestle with how to best live out the redemptive and holy way of Jesus in real world circumstances where real relationships and the humanity of others are at stake.

One thing I can agree with you about though is that not everyone who claims to be a sheep is a sheep. I know this because sheep don't have claws and teeth that rip others apart and scatter them driving them away from the redemptive work of Jesus in the name of God and religion. Sheep that follow Jesus don't pile on further dehumanization of their neighbors in the name of being "right". For what good is it to try to win the battle by trampling on others who are wrong and gain the whole world by being "right" if by doing so you lose your own soul?

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 11:46 AM

Let's get back to where it all started and cut it in pieces for otherwise things get very mixed up. The first issue is simple: how do we generally approach the interpretation of the words of the Lord? And it seems our communication isn't going so well here.

So the issue is, as Dennis stated so clearly, how did Jesus treat the heathen and tax collectors? We're talking about HIS words, so we need to look at how HE treats them. Seems like consistent theology to me.

Doesn't sound consistent to me, not even close.

Ok. So trying to interpret the words of the Lord by his actions is not consistent.

I didn't say that.

Apologies, but if you didn't say that, then what DID you say? I don't get it.

Let me rephrase what I meant. If I read in the gospels about what our Lord said, my primary interpretative lens is He Himself. What does He say more, and/or how did He act? These would be the first ways to look at it. Of course against the background of the Old Testament. If this leaves questions open, next step is the rest of the NT. If that would still leave questions open, how did the Early Church deal with the issue? And so forth, the whole Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

I frankly would be surprised if you don't follow something similar yourself, but if so, please explain where you differ. I'm trying to understand.

First, I will trust the remainder of scripture to correctly read the words of our Lord, and I will trust that the rest of scripture does in fact read his words in a consistent manner with his actions.

Well, so do I. But I don't read backwards, so to speak, I read forwards. I don't start with Paul, I start with Jesus, and read Paul in His light.

Second issue, art IV.

"We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith."

I honestly believe that your views are outside of Article 4.

I believe that you do. And I believe you are honestly mistaken, because you misunderstand me.

We cannot narrow our focus to only the words and actions of Jesus.

Certainly not. That would be Marcion all over. And I don't, see above.

And let's remember that we do not have all of His words nor his actions recorded for us. We must rely on the whole counsel of scripture, and we need to trust that the human writers of scripture "got it right".

Sure!

This discussion leaves me with a choice, believe Hans or believe Paul. I choose Paul, I believe that Paul knew the mind of Christ, and I believe that he accurately passed it down to us.

Jim, you should never believe me at that level!! Please don't! I'm neither Jesus nor Paul (or John or Peter for that matter). As I see it, the question is differently, do you read Paul in the light of Jesus, or Jesus in the light of Paul?

Yes this a very serious issue. And it is interesting that here we think alike. Next month has been weighing heavy on my heart this morning as I ponder this discussion. Don't worry about me, I'm thinking that it is better that I stay home, I have no desire to cast a pallor over what may in fact be a very nice trip for you. I need to put your welfare above my own here.

I don't think we're really that far away. I can't imagine you would prepare a Bible study on let's say one of our Lord's parables any different than I would, I mean, using a different approach to the text. So this discussion is puzzling me. We're not that far away. I guess I need to blame this method of communication, and my own inadequacies of explaining what I'm trying to say. And of course we both have our share of biasses that aren't necessarily helpful.

Last point, some further explanation.

Art IV already distinguishes within the Scripture, limiting the inerrancy to "all things necessary to our salvation". (Which is why some want to change that, there would be no need if the article didn't make that distinction). And we all do!

For instance, the OT has several texts indicating that death is the end. Like Psalm 6:5, "No one remembers you when he is dead. Who praises you from the grave?" Ah, but we know about the resurrection and according to Revelation, heaven is full of God's praises, and not just by the angels! And rightly we value the NT over the OT in this regard. So actually, nobody gives all of the words of Scripture equal value.

This being the case, I have made a choice. I have decided to value the words of the Lord Jesus above everything else. You may disagree. That's ok. But it doesn't mean I do not value the other words in the Scriptures at all. It only means that I try to read those in the light of the primary revelation we received: Jesus Christ.

Does this help explaining what I'm trying to say, Jim?

Lastly, I would love to see you attend. I always feel that we can find enough common ground to discuss issues. And fortunately, in the real life, we won't have the limitations of forum software.

Manny Silva

August 30th, 2010, 12:13 PM

Not surprised by the ugliness of your words, James. It was only a matter of time.

I was just trying to contribute here to the discussion. You show again your true colors.
How sad- and no surprise that Bob Hunter approves your comments. Now how about answering Dr. Oord's question as I did? And I based it on what scripture teaches, which is my source of reliable truth on these matters. I did not come out after you, or anyone else here.

Again, you did not refute anything I proposed that was based on scripture.

So you resort to the only thing you can do- personal attack. Pitiful. Disgraceful. Especially from a pastor.

Edited:
Your lack of command of scripture is evidenced by your diatribe against me. As is evident your apparent lack of respect for doctrine. Your words to me are nothing more than mumbo jumbo. I stand on the word of God; you stand on your puffed up words, sir.

Sorry to say it but you want to duke it out here, I will. I was hoping to only contribute my thoughts based on the word of God. You opened the door for this instead.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 12:28 PM

Not surprised by the ugliness of your words, James.

Manny, I'm sorry to say that in this sad conflict, the beauty of words has been the first casualty. Without monopolies on either side.

Melissa DeBono

August 30th, 2010, 12:37 PM

Back to the original question. These are apparantly two members, but in each church membership means something different. In some churches it is a loose collection of people who sometimes touch base at this church and who have never asked to be removed from the list. In other churches it is a deeply covenental relationship between individuals and the local church: a gate to leadership, accountability and discipleship. The local church culture toward membership is a significant issue here. In MY local church, we have done some work to limit our membership list to people who still live in our geographical area and whose faces we have seen in the door. They still belong to us, and we see no need to sever the relationship by cancelling their membership. New members accepted into our church are educated and commited in ways that previous members may not have benefited from, but we don't readily expell members. Some churches may purge their membership lists and police their members a lot. What kind of church does Tom's friend pastor?

For my church, the gate-keeping relationship we have with people is in the annual process of re-starting our ministries, in Sept, after our August Sabbath. Those committing to leadership in our ministries commit to expectations of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, all based in the Nazarene Manual. Not all of our volunteers are neccesssarily members, but our expectation is that they commit to core beliefs and practices. The Covenant that we establish may be different than the one your church established. Are these ladies in leadership roles in their church, has a clear church expectation been made regarding homosexual relationships?

As for the worshipping body gathered every Sunday, in many ways that is our "true church." It includes people of deep faith so committed to the historical standards of the CON that they fairly bleed sacramental grape juice. It also includes people of very muddled, immature faith whose lives are mess of intention and failure, and some people of little to no faith whatsoever coming to see if they can get a glimpse of the sacred. I wouldn't discourage a homosexual couple from that worshipping community for anything.

If the pastor feels that he should address the issue with the individuals involved, what should he be looking for? Deeply committed adults who love each other could mean almost anything. Does the group care to reccommend to a bewildered pastor exactly how much physical contact is neccessary before ostracization and inquisition is to begin?

Manny Silva

August 30th, 2010, 12:39 PM

Here we are back to your use of the Bible as the "rule book",

My rule book is the Bible. Is it not yours?

[/QUOTE]for as long as you can manipulate what it says, like a lawyer looking for loop holes to justify himself while condemning others, you will have all you need to make a claim of being a "true sheep". [/QUOTE]

What did I manipulate in my comments that I contributed? Please specify and refute.

[/QUOTE]This thread is about living in such away that as far as it goes with us we live at peace with all men. [/QUOTE]

I thought this thread was about how to deal with homosexual sin amongst two Christians? [/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]The thread does not seem to be about condoning sin but rather how live in such away that we participate in the ministry of reconciliation. [/QUOTE]

What does this mean? Just answer the question Dr. Oord asked.

[/QUOTE] In regards to the specific issue of how we are to deal with homosexuality- it is no different than anything else. We must live in such a ways (at least as much as we can do on our end) that we are the builder of relationships and not the barriers to relationships and we build up and restore the humanity of others rather than tear it down. We need to do this even when people may dehumanize themselves and others by their actions. Because that is what sin does in the real world when we move beyond just thinking sin is some sort of spiritual gnostic demerit.
[/QUOTE]

No, wrong. We must look to the scriptures and see what it says on how to deal with it! [/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]Again you reduce morality to a demerit system and reconciliation to only the erasing of those demerits. Because of this you can't even comprehend this issues and tensions in play as disciples of Jesus on this thread wrestle with how to best live out the redemptive and holy way of Jesus in real world circumstances where real relationships and the humanity of others are at stake. [/QUOTE]

More mumbo jumbo, in my opinion.

[/QUOTE] One thing I can agree with you about though is that not everyone who claims to be a sheep is a sheep. I know this because sheep don't have claws and teeth that rip others apart and scatter them driving them away from the redemptive work of Jesus in the name of God and religion. Sheep that follow Jesus don't pile on further dehumanization of their neighbors in the name of being "right". For what good is it to try to win the battle by trampling on others who are wrong and gain the whole world by being "right" if by doing so you lose your own soul? [/QUOTE]

You have shown who has the true claws, at least in this thread.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 12:43 PM

Manny, something is going wrong with the quotes. You start with (and I'm replacing the [] with {}, otherwise it won't show here) {quote=xxx} and end a quote with {/quote}

Dave Mann

August 30th, 2010, 12:56 PM

You cannot claim to be a genuine Christian, if you are sinning consistently and disobeying the Lord. That is a reality that is clearly taught in scripture.

Sure.

Lots of sins out there though. Gluttony, both at the individual and societal level, appears to me to be among the most widely ignored.

Ignoring our sins appears to me to be the #1 effect of easy, litmus test statements of sin and membership. We (correctly) cite the principle of avoiding practices that harm the body and mind in our Covenant of Christian Character but then get all uppity and draw a firm line in the sand alcohol and drugs. Kick the beer drinkers out and feel good about it while ignoring all of other ways (like gluttony, destructive agricultural practices) that destroy the body. A lot easier to get riled up about kicking out the gays than it is to address the whole spectrum of issues and practices that are destroying marriages (hint: homosexuality isn't the reason our divorce rates are spiraling towards 50%).

Jim Abrams has it right. Hold to the core principles and let pastors seek the most redemptive course of action locally. Otherwise, I'm going to the next General Assembly to establish a fixed Body Mass Index threshold to be added to the Special Rules. Don't even laugh.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 01:01 PM

I was hoping to only contribute my thoughts based on the word of God.

I like the way you phrase that so very precisely, Manny. Thanks. That is indeed what we should strive for.

Manny Silva

August 30th, 2010, 01:16 PM

Jim Abrams has it right. Hold to the core principles and let pastors seek the most redemptive course of action locally. Otherwise, I'm going to the next General Assembly to establish a fixed Body Mass Index threshold to be added to the Special Rules. Don't even laugh.

I'm not laughing. The only thing I will say to that is... hold to everything the Lord commands us, and do not shirk the responsibility to deal with sin, as commanded us in the scriptures. Let pastors obey the word of God in every area that they are clearly commanded to do- not seek their own course of action. We are to preach and teach the entire word of God- and to neither take away, or add to, His word. There is no option to do what we want, if the commands are clear. Matthew 18 is clear on what to do about these situations. We cannot "opt out."

Billy Cox

August 30th, 2010, 01:35 PM

I don't think this is a true statement. None of the states that allow same-sex marriages exclude Nazarenes. I am just guessing, but it would seem that would have been discussed before now.

That was the understated part of the question. Would it make a difference if the two lesbians are committed exclusively to each other, notwithstanding the absence of a legal way for them to be married. Let's say that the state in question *does* marry same-sex couples. Would their marriage have any measurable impact on the church's response? I seriously doubt it.

So...the issue is not so much the extramarital relationship, but the fact that they are a same-sex couple.

Dale Cozby

August 30th, 2010, 02:53 PM

The biggest problem for us, as much as we'd like it be otherwise, is that we can't kick people out of the Church. Oh we can kick them out of our congregation or even the denomination, but if they continue to claim Christ and worship, they're a part of the Church. Creating divisions and barriers isn't going to work toward the unity we desire. I am going to have to disagree with the highlighted statement Ryan. Just because someone claims Christ does not in fact mean they are His sheep. Jesus said: "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Further Jesus said, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them."

So I think it is pretty clear that just because someone claims Christ or does things in His name does not in fact make them part of the Church(ecclesia)

Also as Paul said, "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves"

We must walk a fine line between that which we condemn and that which we approve. Calling on God's guidance in each situation, by staying close to the word of God, with prayer and fasting we make our petitions for wisdom known to God and then follow our conscience as the Spirit directs not our feelings.

I can in my mind draw a line between sinner and saint, without ever saying a word. Where does that leave me? It helps to discern how to act toward a person.
We establish church membership to help us as a community identify the "saints", to build up the comminity of faith. This leaves us able to hold saints(each other) accountable for our/their actions "as iron sharpens iron", and it also helps us to identify and love the lost and those not ready for accountability and not hold them to a standard as a saint for their actions but as one who is ignorant, fearful, deceived, and/or in chains of sin.
Church membership leaves us with clearer choices. When one becomes a member they in effect have proclaimed Christ to us and made vows to us and us to them and therefore must be treated as a saint and a brother/sister.

If they sin and it is found out, are rebuked and fail to repent, We are to hold them accountable for their vows to Church and Christ. Jesus told us how to treat them....with love but without the accountability of being a saint.(like Jesus treated sinners and tax-collectors)
Just like we hold leaders accountable at various levels, Church membership should be seen as a level of Christian accountability both sides submit to willingly.

Ryan Scott

August 30th, 2010, 02:59 PM

I am going to have to disagree with the highlighted statement Ryan. Just because someone claims Christ does not in fact mean they are His sheep. Jesus said: "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I don't disagree, but, of course, we don't know which are in and which are out - it's not for us to decide. So while we may disagree on big things sometimes, but we can't let ourselves be the arbiter of who's in and who's out. It doesn't work and counter-productive.

Scott Sherwood

August 30th, 2010, 03:27 PM

Have appreciated the tone of this conversation, for the most part.

Dozens of thoughts on the matter, a couple of which are developed enough to put out there.

1) We should be more diligent regarding our membership expectations and who is on our rolls. I am personally in favor of making church membership annually renewable, which would give the church a frequent opportunity to remind everyone what is expected of members. Likewise it would give members the opportunity to renew their membership covenant with the church. Wesley's covenant service would be a perfect occasion for folks to celebrate this annual renewal.

2) The paragraph in the manual on human sexuality should be moved to the Covenant of Christian Character, because it is not "an attempt to particularize" the general principles of Scripture. It is specifically and directly from Scripture and thus fits with the other statements that are specifically and directly from Scripture.

David Troxler

August 30th, 2010, 03:29 PM

I'm neither Jesus nor Paul (or John or Peter for that matter).

Hans,
My first thought when reading this was to ask...what about George or Ringo?

:smilies1722:

[You may now resume your regularly scheduled debate.]

Dennis M. Scott

August 30th, 2010, 04:24 PM

1) We should be more diligent regarding our membership expectations and who is on our rolls. I am personally in favor of making church membership annually renewable, which would give the church a frequent opportunity to remind everyone what is expected of members. Likewise it would give members the opportunity to renew their membership covenant with the church. Wesley's covenant service would be a perfect occasion for folks to celebrate this annual renewal.

I am more and more inclined to move ahead with this idea. It's really not prohibited. It would be easier in a church plant, probably, to begin that way and maintain it. Is there the implication that someone who chose to not renew would thereby no longer be a member? That might be debate worthy in a legal sense.

One of the things I had envisioned was that on the anniversary of their first joining, they would perhaps renew their membership publicly. That could eventually move into a scenario where each week some of the fellowship would be renewing their commitment to Christ and the local expression of His Church. Unfortunately, joining the church is done so rarely it has become an unknown. While I don't think "joining the church" is necessarily sacramental, it probably would be closer than some of the other things we do every week. I've fantasized about it, but haven't done it.

From a technical aspect, this would drive statisticians crazy: mainly because membership from this point forward would not be comparing apples to apples historically. I'm not sure statisticians consternation should be a major factor in what membership means, anyway. I do, however, recognize it would be a headache - not that our present system isn't also a headache.

Dale Cozby

August 30th, 2010, 10:07 PM

I don't disagree, but, of course, we don't know which are in and which are out - it's not for us to decide. So while we may disagree on big things sometimes, but we can't let ourselves be the arbiter of who's in and who's out. It doesn't work and counter-productive. I am going to have to disagree with the highlighted portion again.

I think we do have an obligation to be the arbiter inside the church(where membership is concerned). We set the the criteria today as did those who came before us. Hopefully we follow well in their footsteps to discern right from wrong behavior, sinfulness from righteousness, good from evil, light from dark, that which will do violence to the church and harm the body must be addressed.

We have plenty of scriptures telling us how to address a brother/sister caught/snared in sin, and someone calling himself a brother/sister in obvious, open, manifest, blatant sinfulness.
Paul said, " The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them."

If we are no longer fit to address even obvious sin in the camp, we are truly in trouble and are altogether worthless. Yes, we should address it with reconciliation as the goal always, but we must address it none the less even if reconciliation fails.

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 11:40 PM

Hans,
My first thought when reading this was to ask...what about George or Ringo?

George and John are dead, so being alive myself, that kind of rules them out :)

Hans Deventer

August 30th, 2010, 11:55 PM

I am going to have to disagree with the highlighted portion again.

I think we do have an obligation to be the arbiter inside the church(where membership is concerned). We set the the criteria today as did those who came before us. Hopefully we follow well in their footsteps to discern right from wrong behavior, sinfulness from righteousness, good from evil, light from dark, that which will do violence to the church and harm the body must be addressed.

And kick everybody, including ourselves, out. Because either the rules don't cover everything and we're just a bunch of hypocrites, or they do and we don't meet them either.

We have plenty of scriptures telling us how to address a brother/sister caught/snared in sin, and someone calling himself a brother/sister in obvious, open, manifest, blatant sinfulness.

Oh yeah! That's the worst. If it's open, oh dear, oh dear! Let's focus on what is visible! Never talk about the backbiting, the gossips, the endless battles on whatever subject there is, the only being concerned with ourselves (ever heard of the sin of omission?) etc etc etc. I'm about to throw up.

Paul said, " The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them."

Yeah! Including the greedy who won't inherit the kingdom of God!

"For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Ephesians 5:5

So we're kicking the greedy idolators out of the church all day! Oh wait a minute, that's too close for comfort? No, let's just stick to those terrible gays! I so happen to have no inclination there whatsoever so that's safe! And decently back it up with the Scriptures.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

If we are no longer fit to address even obvious sin in the camp, we are truly in trouble and are altogether worthless. Yes, we should address it with reconciliation as the goal always, but we must address it none the less even if reconciliation fails.

Reconciliation....... Yeah right. I'd almost believe it. You mean, return on my terms and mine only, I presume? Oh wait, your terms happen to be God's terms. Of course.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: this is how an approach lacking any nuance from the other side of the argument looks like. My guess is that this kind of approach isn't really helpful.

Benjamin Burch

August 31st, 2010, 02:29 AM

I am going to have to disagree with the highlighted portion again.

I think we do have an obligation to be the arbiter inside the church(where membership is concerned). We set the the criteria today as did those who came before us. Hopefully we follow well in their footsteps to discern right from wrong behavior, sinfulness from righteousness, good from evil, light from dark, that which will do violence to the church and harm the body must be addressed.

We have plenty of scriptures telling us how to address a brother/sister caught/snared in sin, and someone calling himself a brother/sister in obvious, open, manifest, blatant sinfulness.
Paul said, " The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them."

If we are no longer fit to address even obvious sin in the camp, we are truly in trouble and are altogether worthless. Yes, we should address it with reconciliation as the goal always, but we must address it none the less even if reconciliation fails.

I do, in fact, agree with Hans, here.

The fact is that today we simply don't exist in the sort of community that the Churches in Paul's day did. Therefore, many of the "not-so-obvious" sins which we can easily slide by with today (lust/looking at pornography) are hidden from the community. Being a Lesbian.... oh if only that were so easy to hide!!!

The fact is that we draw our lines in the sand where we know the sand is visible.... We condemn everyone on the wrong side of the sand and hide behind our safety.

I agree with Ryan - we cannot know who is in and who is out in such strong confidence. Scripture assures us that many who thought they were getting in were not, and many who thought they weren't getting in will be let in.

In Matthew's final judgment scene it is...

1) The "presumed faithful"
2) The "presumed unfaithful"
3) The faithful

who are all surprised at who is counted righteous and who is counted unrighteous...

woe to us who feel we have such a better grasp on the situation!

Thomas Oord

August 31st, 2010, 08:49 AM

Dale Cozby

August 31st, 2010, 09:15 AM

Well guys, the nasty side of you is coming out now and it is about to come out of me too.

Just one last thought before I depart: If we have no standard of behavior for membership then we must also have no standard for leadership either as leaders come from the membership, thus we have no standards period...we all get to do what we all want to do and no one has the right to tell anyone else how to act or think including you telling me...which in fact you are doing. So you are breaking your own standard of not passing judgment on others by passing it on me. So because you break the rules of the church..it is assumed everyone else does too. Show me where you get the idea open sexual immorality is no worse than "gossip" in the harm or violence it does to the church. If this is true then pedophiles or any criminal law breakers of sorts should be included just like all the other sinners in church membership like the slightly overweight person(aka glutton) OH WAIT! but if someone breaks a man made law then we can and should exclude them right? We don't want any of those kind of law breakers in our ranks do we? At least not if they are practicing law breakers. So no pedophiles(past or present), no tax evaders, no criminals of any sort...but wait we must include all in our membership and pass judgment on none right? So why not let people get drunk at our social events? I don't know maybe they do in the Netherlands. Why not have orgies in the youth group? ..or am I missing it somewhere? if we cannot pass any judgments as to who and what is acceptable in our ranks then this is where we end up right? Or is it more of a standard of your choosing that you are more comfortable with than the Bible or the Manual?

If it isn't from the Bible or from "God directly" or from the Manual then where do you get "our" standard(because there is one even if you think there is not)...more of a congregational community social standard of some sort...or perhaps individual?

But you measure me and all others who disagree with you by some standard you get somewhere....but apparently it does not give you any ability to discern right from wrong for anyone else right? yet you do so for me...hmmm. The church then, to you, is full of every imaginable sin and is salt without saltiness. Your version of church is an all inclusive social club that talks about philosophy and does a few good humanistic deeds for the sake of humanity(in this life) and not eternity. By that standard ...even myself and Manny anyone else for that matter get to be included.

I have the funny feeling if I walked into your church Hans you would not welcome me....as a brother or even for that matter as a sinner.

*disclaimer: this is how an approach lacking any nuance from the other side of the argument looks like. My guess is that this kind of approach isn't really helpful.

Scott Sherwood

August 31st, 2010, 09:15 AM

Y'all,

"5. We DO review our membership every year and create an inactive list. And we DO have a membership covenant that all our members have signed. But our covenant says nothing about homosexuality.

"6. My guess is that these women do NOT see an inconsistency between their behavior and their Christian faith.

Tom

Regarding 5: The covenant needs to change in order to reflect the covenant of christian character & conduct of the church of the nazarene which are named in both Manual options for receiving new members. When I as a local church pastor receive new members, I am not just receiving them into my local fellowship; I have been entrusted with the authority to receive them into the global church of the nazarene. Along with this authority comes the responsibility to educate them as to the denomination's view of Biblical essentials (Covenant of Christian Character) as well as the denomination's "corporate conscience" (Covenant of Christian Conduct).

Regarding 6: Does their pastor see an inconsistency? Do those responsible for their pastor's education see an inconsistency?

Tom, are the pastors you prepare for ministry equipped to carry out the church's historic and Biblical position on this issue with clarity and compassion? How do you prepare them?

David Troxler

August 31st, 2010, 09:44 AM

Y'all,

Thanks for the excellent conversation, which has moved in many directions.

I sent a link to this thread to my pastor friend. He read it and asked that I include the following clarifications to the scenario in question:

"1. This is not public information in our congregation. I stumbled across the information accidentally. It was not the result of gossip. And they are not trying to make an “issue” of it.

"2. Neither of the women are married. They live together and I assume that they engage in homosexual behavior because they share the same bedroom and the same bed. (But I could be wrong…I have never asked them.)

"3. Both women are members of our congregation. They attend virtually every week.

"4. I am confident that both of them are aware of the Church of the Nazarene’s stance on homosexuality.

"5. We DO review our membership every year and create an inactive list. And we DO have a membership covenant that all our members have signed. But our covenant says nothing about homosexuality.

"6. My guess is that these women do NOT see an inconsistency between their behavior and their Christian faith.

Does this additional information prompt further/alternative advice?

Tom

Tom,
Thanks for the clarification of some of the details of what is known, what is unknown and of what is assumed.

Having pastored and being accused of not dealing with "sin in the camp" I know that the scenario some may see as obvious is never that cut and dried-obvious. Obviously, the initial response is always prayer.

And while some want to address the sin or assumed sin directly, my instinct is to wonder at the ones who insist on that track right away. Not only do we have Jesus' examples of dealing with the woman in John 8, we have His parable of the wheat and the tares--with the admonition to not root out the evil and risk losing the grain in the process. I've seen that happen more than a few times and the Body loses much more than the intended target.

The problem, or one of the problems at hand has to do with leadership. Can these individuals be placed in positions of leadership? And how much more information gathering does the pastor have to do in order to answer that question? I am grateful for our GS's statement on homosexuality, previously cited in this thread. When that came out several years ago, I made copies for our entire church board and discussed it with them. (We live in an area that allows for same-sex marriage and we have knowingly had people in our midst, both in worship and in small groups that align themselves with that lifestyle. We cannot take for granted that everyone we meet agrees with us when they enter our doors.)

Back to the question of leadership, the guidelines our GS's statement offer give direction. Again, however, the pastor has to have reasonable assurances of commitment to our church's particular ethic before leadership is entrusted. Clarifying Point 2 above may have an entirely other answer (I am not stretching this example...). For example, in the DivorceCare material we use, there is one session dealing with finances. One of the solutions for dealing with the loss of finances is for women to find others in similar situations who can find themselves compatible to live together and share expenses. Certainly sharing a bed is not the example given. However, even noted Lincoln historian Doris Kearns Goodwin goes to great lengths to explain that Abraham Lincoln sharing a bed with another man while he travelled his law circuit was not homosexual behavior in Team of Rivals.

Back to today...the pastor still needs to protect the information he/she has on those parishoners from undue gossip. At the same time, the pastor has a reasonable responsibility to protect the church from harm in the event leadership is being suggested for them or pursued by them.

I am not for putting my head in the sand, however I wonder what is gained by "outing" anyone without provocation. If the persons already are aware of the standards of the church, what else is needed to be convincing?

dave t

Bob Hunter

August 31st, 2010, 10:32 AM

Dave Mann

August 31st, 2010, 11:33 AM

Does this additional information prompt further/alternative advice?

Tom,

Again,

Several ways to frame the discussion.

1) What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Surprisingly perhaps, I think this question is largely irrelevant. It's an important question, obviously, but settling the question for all of Christendom is not the crux of the matter. This drama is being played in a Nazarene church and the pastor is an ordained elder of the Nazarene church so this form of the question is more relevant.

2) What does the Church of the Nazarene believe about homosexuality? I think this is actually pretty cut and dried. As Hans has reminded us, the Generals are the final authority within the CotN and what they said is:

Official Statement: The Church of the Nazarene believes that
every man or woman should be treated with dignity, grace,
and holy love, whatever their sexual orientation. However,
we continue to firmly hold the position that the homosexual
lifestyle is sinful and is contrary to the Scriptures.

But even this more narrow question doesn't really answer the question because now we're left with the question of membership. So perhaps we need to narrow the question down even further to this...

3) Can you be a member of the CotN while disagreeing with established and authoritative positions of the church? As to my reading, the only 2 sections of the manual that are undeniably required for membership are the Agreed Statement of Belief and the Covenant of Christian Character. The oft referred to "Special Rules" have a huge escape clause to the effect that we can violate them but we do so at risk of our salvation and the risk of hurting the witness of the church. The Covenant of Christian Character also requires that we "evidence our commitment to God"...

By abiding in hearty fellowship with the
church, not inveighing against but wholly committed to its
doctrines and usages and actively involved in its continuing
witness and outreach

Given that the CotN has clear and authoritative position on this issue, this would have to be problematic for this couple.

But to be fair, I can't say I agree with absolutely every single thing that is authoritative in our denomination and I think many Nazarenes find themselves in the same boat. If I may indulge in a little "inveighing" against the machine, I remain outraged that our church tramples on the teachings of Romans 14 by having detailed lifestyle issues stated in the Special Rules. I'm outraged and massively disagree with the failure of the church leadership to lift up the cause of caring for God's good creation and for failing to speak out against the sin of national gluttony that guarantees that 5% of the world's population is able to consume 30% of the world's resources while spending more on military might than the rest of the world combined.

So, what is a contentious dissenter to do? Do you break fellowship, renounce your membership and start a blog ragging on the church? Or do you assert the essentials and fight for change within the church as a member? I chose the latter and point to the on-going scheduling of district and general assemblies as proof that the church recognizes the role of dissent in the collective act of theological discernment.

What I'm suggesting is that if this couple is maintaining their membership despite the fact that it puts them at odds with authoritative statements by the generals then they are faced with a tough moral dilemma. [insert link to old Clash tune here] At what point do you say, I can no longer be a part of a church that teaches something I don't believe in? How long do you work to change the church? In a twist of irony, those who believe the general got it wrong on homosexuality have something in common with those who believe the church should adopt a position of "inerrancy" when the generals (who are the final deciders) insist on using the term "infallible".

So, big surprise. The church contains liberal and fundamentalist dissenters who won't leave quietly. So we need to narrow the question even further.

4) What should a pastor do with dissenters? This I think is the real question. As others have noted, this act of discernment is dropped in the laps of pastors and DSes. This is why the job is hard. I would suggest entering into dialogue about the teachings of the church in the hopes of better educating them about the church and the merits of the church's position. If they assert that they understand the church's position but disagree and wish to work to change the church, I would give them my full support but would also enjoin them to conduct themselves in a manner that didn't hurt the community of faith. I would also advise them on the likelihood of the church changing it's position. For instance, I would advise them that, IMO, the church's position on alcohol will change in a matter of years but would also advise them that the church's position rejecting scriptural inerrancy would likely harden and their position on homosexuality would likely not change for a long time (if ever). This sort of guidance is important I think in working together to determine the best possible outcome of maintaining their membership in the church. If the reasonable conclusion is that the church isn't likely to change, it becomes harder to justify membership.

Thomas Oord

August 31st, 2010, 12:09 PM

Scott,

Thanks for your response. Answering well your final question would require a lengthy reply. At a minimum, I teach what the Manual says about homosexuality. What I want to do better is to figure out how to handle the kind of issue I'm raising in this thread. It's not clear to me (and apparently not clear to the majority contributing to this thread) how best to handle some situations like this.

Tom

David Gerber

August 31st, 2010, 12:43 PM

There is a fine line between the Law and Grace. It is to be walked carefully. If I should fall, I pray it is on the side of grace every time.

Thomas Oord

August 31st, 2010, 12:44 PM

Dave,

I like the way you've presented the progression of the case. It seems like you've managed to capture much of the material I also liked from other positive contributions on this discussion thread.

In the end, I think there are no easy answers. But I do think there are better and worse ways to proceed in these kinds of situations.

I noticed something else while reading the Manual today. The passage on homosexuality in the Manual says that homosexual acts are "subject to God's wrath."

I did a word search on "wrath" in the Manual. The word only appears once -- in this instance on homosexuality. I then did a word search of "wrath" in the NIV. It appears 190 times. A quick read of those passages indicated that none are used in relation to homosexual acts.

The closest one gets to linking homosexuality and divine wrath in the Bible is the Romans 1 passage. But that instance says God's wrath is against ALL ungodliness and wickedness. In Colossians, Paul says God's wrath is coming on (among other things) sexual immorality. But homosexuality isn't singled out. Presumably, God's wrath comes on heterosexuals who commit adultery and other sexual offenders. Not even the Sodom and Gomorrah story uses the word "wrath" to talk about God's activity.

Paul says that divine wrath is coming on the disobedient: idolators, impure, immoral and the greedy (Eph. 5:5-7). But homosexuality isn't singled out in this passage.

As you can imagine, most instances describing God's wrath come from the OT. Ezekiel has an interesting passage about God's wrath on those who commit heterosexual adultery. And I can think of a couple OT passages in which God is wrathful upon those who rely upon their own wealth. But I couldn't find any that directly linked God's wrath with homosexuality (but I may have missed them).

To be faithful to scripture, we should probably delete in the Manual the phrase that homosexual practice is "subject to God's wrath." Whomever would suggest this kind of change to a GA, however, would probably be committing political suicide. The fervor against homosexuality in our circles is so strong that -- as you suggested above -- what biblical authors actually say about homosexuality is often not relevant to the discussion.

All of this makes me wonder...

Tom

David Gerber

August 31st, 2010, 01:06 PM

In the end, I think there are no easy answers. But I do think there are better and worse ways to proceed in these kinds of situations.

The 'no easy answers' is the part that is frustrating. I may get hung out to dry on this, but that has never stopped me before. It is a right or wrong answer when we do not know the person about or to whom we are talking. It is an easy 'they are wrong' answer for a stranger.

It gets a bit more difficult when it is a relative. We know their name, we've hugged on them and broke bread with them. We have, at some level, shared life.

It is extremely difficult when it is your child that is an homosexual. What was once so black and white and easily discerned is now made all the more difficult by this child being my flesh and blood. The child that smiles just like her mother. The child that looks just like his dad when he crinkles his nose. I may know in my heart that homosexuality is wrong, but how can I cast them out? How can I be so flippant with my anger against this sin? How can I expel them from my presence?

Maybe this is easy for some. If it were me, I would pray that God would please understand my love for my child. I would pray that God would somehow try to understand my resistance to casting him/her out of my house. My prayers would range from asking for forgiveness of my unrepentant child, to begging that whatever wrath God must pour out would be poured out on me.

If only there were a way to get God to understand how much I loved my child. Maybe God could think of a way to demonstrate mercy and grace when all around me, strangers at best, want the Law fulfilled lest we become complacent in the face of sin. If only...

Billy Cox

August 31st, 2010, 01:21 PM

Just one last thought before I depart: If we have no standard of behavior for membership then we must also have no standard for leadership either as leaders come from the membership, thus we have no standards period...we all get to do what we all want to do and no one has the right to tell anyone else how to act or think including you telling me...which in fact you are doing.

I have read the entire thread, and I haven't heard anyone espouse an anything-goes ethic.

I think that the response to sin within the community of faith ranges widely from executing the offender and all of his family/household, and burning their remains (Achan), to David's adultery/muder/contrition and subsequent restoration, to God killing Onan for 'spilling his seed', to Jesus playing the 'go and sin no more' card to the 'you who are spiritual should restore him gently' prescription in Galatians 6, to expelling the professing saint who sins and is proud of it. (1 Corinthians 5)

If the Biblical record is so varied, maybe we should not be so quick to identify a one-size-fits-all approach. In the case of 1 Corinthians 5, is sexual immorality the deal breaker, or is it the fact that the Corinthians not only tolerated it, but they celebrated it? Before saying, 'go and sin no more', Jesus says 'neither do I condemn you.' Does it matter to us that God didn't command that a new king of Israel be anointed when David messed up?

What if someone in your church is homosexual and it is a point of anguish in their life, for which they have been to altar many times; asking God to remove their same-sex attraction, but to no avail? Would the first conversation you have with such a person be about revoking their membership and removing them from any positions of responsibility?

I guess I don't understand how any of this line of reasoning amounts to an ethic of debauchery and drunkenness.

Bob Hunter

August 31st, 2010, 01:29 PM

Rich Schmidt

August 31st, 2010, 01:30 PM

What if someone in your church is homosexual and it is a point of anguish in their life, for which they have been to altar many times; asking God to remove their same-sex attraction, but to no avail? Would the first conversation you have with such a person be about revoking their membership and removing them from any positions of responsibility?

I guess I don't understand how any of this line of reasoning amounts to an ethic of debauchery and drunkenness.

I'll go ahead and say what I'm sure some others will if I don't: There's a difference between someone struggling against sinful temptations (as in your example) and someone embracing temptation and integrating sinful behavior into their life.

But we're still working with some assumptions here, since none of us are in relationship with the women in question, and even the pastor in question has not yet had an initial conversation with them about it.

Dale Cozby

August 31st, 2010, 01:59 PM

Billy, You are right that the range of response varies greatly.
On one side we have the Antinominan/Anarchy position in which no one can pass judgment or even so much as suggest someone else is doing wrong..or for that matter right.
On the other side we have the Pharisaical/Dictator that follows the law(for everyone else) and ultimately becomes a church of one.

I think the proper understanding is in between. In this case where does the CotN stand on it?
Contrary to what Hans thinks of me, I am not advocating a harsh, "let's kick'em out" attitude.
Coming from a position of what is best for the church as a whole, which may or may not include any person(s) place of comfort.

I like what David Mann had to say about this.
Ultimately the issue is what do you do with dissenters and divisiveness. If a person is struggling and afflicted that is one thing, if they are comfortable in their sinfulness, then that is another isn't it? Maybe we have to discern when to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable...

What if someone in your church is homosexual and it is a point of anguish in their life, for which they have been to altar many times; asking God to remove their same-sex attraction, but to no avail? This same thing could be applied to pornography, alcohol, etc. what do we do when a person struggles with the same sin over and over? Offer grace and love.
But let me ask, what do we do when someone has no shame and no conscience yet calls himself a brother?

Hans Deventer

August 31st, 2010, 02:43 PM

Contrary to what Hans thinks of me, I am not advocating a harsh, "let's kick'em out" attitude.

Well, I'm always happy to be proven wrong in my negative estimation of people. Work a little on your presentation and next time I'll believe it from the start. Saves us a lot of "lovely" posts.

Coming from a position of what is best for the church as a whole, which may or may not include any person(s) place of comfort.

The well being of a church is a factor. As is the lost sheep.

I like what David Mann had to say about this.
Ultimately the issue is what do you do with dissenters and divisiveness. If a person is struggling and afflicted that is one thing, if they are comfortable in their sinfulness, then that is another isn't it? Maybe we have to discern when to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable...

Agreed.

This same thing could be applied to pornography, alcohol, etc. what do we do when a person struggles with the same sin over and over? Offer grace and love.

Agreed as well.

But let me ask, what do we do when someone has no shame and no conscience yet calls himself a brother?

As yet, with the gay and transsexual people we've had in our church, such has not been the case yet. They either attended for a while but came to the conclusion this church didn't fit their convictions, or they stayed and understood that their predicament is a problem.
The only time we've ever had to refuse someone the entry to our church is when said person stole money from the offering, upsetting the little children who saw it. I remember vividly how our pastor at the time was heart broken that it had to come to this.

Ryan Plott

August 31st, 2010, 03:24 PM

And again I would emphasize, the question by Dr. Oord should be best answered: what do the scriptures say about handling those who are or might be living in continual rebellion against God, and are claiming to be part of the body of Christ?

The Bible would seem to suggest that salvation is life-changing, transformational, and an exercise in repentance, of turning from sin. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter, and whoever else would say that after mankind responds to the Good News of Christ they are different. We are slaves to righteousness, not sin.

A lack of repentance would be the issue, correct? When we don't see life change? That is the essence of what I'm getting from your post Manny. The big question of "What do we do when people aren't repenting?"

So for Manny, Dr. Oord, or whomever,

Perhaps a good question for this pastor would be, How has he seen God moving in their lives? Has this couple shared any of their spiritual struggles with him or another member of the congregation? Is God's sanctifying spirit active in their lives? Has anything about them changed? What is their testimony? Perhaps that question was asked earlier and I scrolled by it but I did not see that question asked on any post.

If God has been moving, then it seems the community needs to foster a place where these two will be able to work out their salvation in a setting that will be gracious to them. (Philemon, with Paul asking that Onesimus be treated gracefully even after he ran away is the biblical comparison that comes to my mind) If God has not, perhaps some conversation would need to take place between this pastor, someone in the church they(the couple) have connected with, and these two on what it means to follow after Christ and see if they are willing to engage in this transformational lifestyle, no matter where it takes them.(Paul's epistles, Teaching of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, 1 John)

Charles W Christian

August 31st, 2010, 03:42 PM

Amazing discussion here, and I have benefitted from reading even the areas where I may have disagreement. If I discovered that opposite sex members were roommates, I would likely ask some questions about this, hopefully not in a judgemental or accusatory way, but it would be due to my concerns regarding sexual temptation, etc. If same sex or opposite sex roomates shared the same bed, I would as pastor likely eventually have a discussion with these folks, too. Again, my goal would not be judgement or presumption, but it would be to speak to them in terms of what their membership covenant represents, etc. If I am part of a denomination that says, "We love all, but those who publicly proclaim membership will do their best to avoid the things our community deems unhealthy or wrong, etc." , and they are part of the same group, that would merit a discussion.

Now, I am part of a community that specifiies how it stands in regard to these issues. So, to me, it seems that this is more of a choice of the couple in question if indeed they are involved in a homosexual relationship. Here is what the CotN says, here is where you have joined, do you still feel that you are part of this movement in an official/membership way, or not? I can still love them, encourage them, pastor them, etc., even if by their own choice they do not wish to be a "member." However, it seems that their choice in response to what the CotN says is important here. That would be worth a pastoral conversation, in my view.

As a parallel, I teach in some private universities where the drinking of alcohol is not allowed for students, even if they are of age. Not all students like this rule, but they all sign a statement saying they will abide by this and other things. When they ask me in a theology or ethics kind of course about drinking/not drinking at the university, my response is often not about the drinking issue initially, but about keeping our word in community. You can and should do this, in my view, even if you are working "from within" to make some changes.

Thanks,
Charles

Paul DeBaufer

August 31st, 2010, 04:56 PM

Dennis M. Scott

August 31st, 2010, 04:58 PM

"2. Neither of the women are married. They live together and I assume that they engage in homosexual behavior because they share the same bedroom and the same bed. (But I could be wrong…I have never asked them.)

If there is no verifiable evidence - by either of them or by accusations from anyone else - it does in fact seem a little presumptious, in a scenario where presumption will likely lead nowhere beneficial. Should the pastor have mentioned names to you or anyone else, it also would by libel. It is not reasonable to assume sexual misbehavior because of a single bedroom and even a single bed. If the pastor suspects inappropriate behavior, that pastor should work quickly to establish a relationship where the matter could be approached and then resolved. It's a little unfortunate that most of us assumed that the phrase "committed lesbian relationship" necessarily meant inclusion of sexual behavior, which now seems not to be the case. Using the same bedroom, or even the same bed, is not very strong evidence of a "committed lesbian relationship." Some of us have pastored women who lived together and were committed to each other, but were not lesbian, and were not sexually active.

Neither can we fall back on the "appearance of evil" argument. Historically, the church is filled with instances where sharing a bed and/or bedroom did not mean any kind of sexual activity. While society may recently have changed general assumptions about such an arrangement, that doesn't make it so. Fortunately, we do not assume inappropriate sexual behavior every time college choir members of the same sex are housed in homes where the host expects more than one person to sleep in the same bed.

Many of the comments of this thread wouldn't change a lot if we knew for certain that inappropriate behavior had taken place. Apparently we just don't know that.

Any of us would benefit from a little better understanding of context. We don't know anything of the attitudes of the persons involved, or even history.

As yet, the COTN doesn't have a Manual statement about such an arrangement.

Dave McClung

August 31st, 2010, 06:34 PM

I have been away and have not had access to a computer, so I am late joining this conversation.

I would start from an assumption that nothing in the Manual makes a pastor a "fact finder" when it comes to conduct of a member. That being the case, a pastor has no more responsibility than any other member to initiate disciplinary action.

If the pastor (or any other member) is of the opinion that the actions of another member of the church is a threat to the church, the proper action us for at least two members who have been faithful in attendance for at least six months to file an accusation (Paragraph 504 of the Manual). In the absence of such an accusation, no disciplinary action is appropriate.

Charles W Christian

August 31st, 2010, 08:01 PM

I think you're right regarding disciplinary action, Dave. I am not sure about the fact finder quote though. The whole "shepherd the flock of God" thing they tell us at ordination seems to imply at least an element of concern or responsibility for the well-being of others and for spiritual oversight without being Pharisees. I agree that it is not the job of the pastor to go around policing everyone, if that's what you mean. Asking questions in the context of care/concern, though, often happens in the pastoral role. We ask business people how their home life is going, and we have a calling to do so (who else is going to? Not their employees, probably).... So, raising the question in the context of pastoral care, given the situation, I don't think is out of line with what pastors are commissioned to do -- as long as the motivation is care rather than Pharisee-like judgement.

Thanks
Charles

Dave McClung

August 31st, 2010, 08:26 PM

Jim Chabot

August 31st, 2010, 08:26 PM

Y'all,

Thanks for the excellent conversation, which has moved in many directions.

I sent a link to this thread to my pastor friend. He read it and asked that I include the following clarifications to the scenario in question:

"1. This is not public information in our congregation. I stumbled across the information accidentally. It was not the result of gossip. And they are not trying to make an “issue” of it.

"2. Neither of the women are married. They live together and I assume that they engage in homosexual behavior because they share the same bedroom and the same bed. (But I could be wrong…I have never asked them.)

"3. Both women are members of our congregation. They attend virtually every week.

"4. I am confident that both of them are aware of the Church of the Nazarene’s stance on homosexuality.

"5. We DO review our membership every year and create an inactive list. And we DO have a membership covenant that all our members have signed. But our covenant says nothing about homosexuality.

"6. My guess is that these women do NOT see an inconsistency between their behavior and their Christian faith.

Does this additional information prompt further/alternative advice?

Tom

Thanks for the clarification this does change things a bit. Ok, actually it changes a lot of things.

First, the fact that this Pastor has stumbled upon this accidentally does put him in somewhat of a pickle. Sure would have been better and easier if the problem had been brought to him, then again there are no promises that the Christian life or ministry would be "sanitary". I'm thinking that he needs to have a gentle and very careful conversation with both of them. I think that it would be foolhardy to have a conversation with one apart from the other, since they both attend. As Dave has mentioned he really has no basis for action, "let everything be established by two or three...", yet he is now aware.

This of course begs the question, Aware of what? There is no proof offered in your clarification, although I am inclined to believe that this Pastor is probably correct. Sometimes one just knows. Care should be taken to ascertain if this relationship is actually a "committed lesbian relationship" or are they just good friends living together. I'm not entirely sure how this should be approached, on one hand it should be confidential. Yet on the other hand how would it look if other parishioners found out and accused the Pastor of fostering this sin. I'm sure that most here have seen that happen at least a few times.

Since there is a written membership pledge of sorts, it should be amended to reflect the current manual language. This is a place where the written materials of the local church should not deviate from the manual. It sure would be nice if renewal time was right around the corner and this could all be amicably resolved, but I wouldn't count on it.

My guess is that this Pastor is correct about their relationship. I will further guess that they do not see an inconsistency between their behavior and their Christian faith. It should be made clear to them in the most loving way possible that the CotN and this Pastor does see this as sin. And although they are both free and lovingly encouraged to work this out directly with God. They should not be members so long as they cannot live according to the Code of Christian Conduct. They are of course free to remain as members so long as no complaint is filed, but it would be better for both them and for the Pastor if there is no basis for complaint.

He says that there is confidence that they are aware of the CotN's stance. Has this local church taken a stance contrary of have they ignored the denomination's position. This in my opinion is asking for trouble. One should always weigh out the possibilities, when one decides to stand alone.

Sounds like we should be in prayer for your friend that this all turns out in a way that is pleasing to God. I'll be praying for him.

Dale Cozby

August 31st, 2010, 09:25 PM

Todd Erickson

August 31st, 2010, 10:20 PM

I think that if it is our duty to drive out of the church people who are in committed homosexual relationships (which indicates a certain level of literalness, even inerrancy, in our proceedings) then I must also drive out anybody who does not actively and constantly live by love, to such a degree that they are known by their love by all that encounter them.

Which means I must drive pretty much everybody out of the church, and then go form another, where they only accept perfectionists. Hrm. Which means that nobody can actually be in that church.

I wonder which church will have me then, at that point?

If love is a theoretical thing that we, as humans, only display once people are being "relatively perfect", then we are conditional beings who do not reflect Christ.

Paul, over and over, has to come back and talk to people about how they are not being like Christ, they are not taking on love and self sacrifice, they are not displaying and reflecting the fruit of the spirit. There is an expectation that as people grow into that character, as they take on love more and more, the reason that they do things will change (or the reason that they don't do things) entirely because of that Christ like, loving nature within them.

If you're going to cast out homosexuals, you have to cast out ANYBODY who will not stop all sin in their life. Period. You can't say "these sins are worse, but these others, we can tolerate". And really, the important sins aren't homosexuality, or cheating on your taxes, or masturbation, or voting democrat.

They're not being like Christ, not becoming like we were created to be, not becoming more loving, more humble, more convicted that God is increasingly larger than we are comfortable with.

Christlike reciprocal relationship, or bust.

People say "you're exaggerating, and people ask for forgiveness for their sins, whereas these homosexuals are unrepentant".

But the people that you're talking about aren't actually repentant. They're just sorry that their sin is a problem, that they got caught. They may change behavior, but their hearts, the source of the issue, isn't changing. Which is why they're asking for forgiveness again and again and again. Truth is, there are things you need to see actively repented of, and everything else is allowable or tolerable in the long run, because we can't be perfect.

But the question is not "how without sin is this person" but "how filled with the love of Christ, with the absolute trust that Christ loves them and accepts them and enjoys them are they?"

Hans Deventer

September 1st, 2010, 01:35 AM

As a parallel, I teach in some private universities where the drinking of alcohol is not allowed for students, even if they are of age. Not all students like this rule, but they all sign a statement saying they will abide by this and other things. When they ask me in a theology or ethics kind of course about drinking/not drinking at the university, my response is often not about the drinking issue initially, but about keeping our word in community.

I've joined the church in 1985 exactly because it strove towards unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, charity in all. I was completely fed up with the church where I came from where anything BUT the essentials were important. I've understood then and explained to others since that the Special Rules (as they were called at the time, I've never heard anyone object to the General Rules) fit in that category of non-essentials.
If the explanation had been comparable to the no alcohol rule for students at this university, I would not have joined the CotN.

That is why in the form for membership where it talks about the Special Rules, I've always heard Dutch pastors say: "As explained to you in the pastors's class".

Hans Deventer

September 1st, 2010, 03:31 AM

Just one last thought before I depart: If we have no standard of behavior for membership then we must also have no standard for leadership either as leaders come from the membership, thus we have no standards period...

Actually, the point I was making was not that we should not have any standards. What I was trying to say is that we fail those standards as well, and if we don't, they are simply human made and hypocritical.

Jesus never ever lowers standards. If anything, He actually raises them. I don't think the Sermon on the Mount (for instance) was what got Him into trouble with the ruling religious leaders of His time. The trouble came when they saw how He dealt with people.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think anyone here in this thread has argued that homosexual behaviour isn't sin, at least not in the sense of harmartia, missing the mark. The discussion is about the pastoral side of dealing with this sin.

Now the trouble of course with Jesus is that He is tougher on God's rules than we would like, and softer on people than we would like. Our human tendency is to define behaviour in such a way as to include the "decent" people and exclude those that don't fit our cultural definitions of "decent". (Which is for instance why we need cultural adaptations of the American Manual throughout the world, and why we are finally dealing with this in a more fundamental way.)

But even deeper goes the question of what we need to defend, try to keep, try to maintain, and what needs to be lost.

I was rather intrigued by this parable (http://shofing9.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/salvation-for-a-demon/) from Peter Rollins. I thought it aligned quite well with what Jesus tells us about denying ourselves, giving up our life in order to find it, the kernel of wheat, well you know the parables.

So for me, the issue revolves around this "maintenance" idea, that tends to defend, to exclude, to protect, to attack etc, versus what could be called a sacrificial view, portrayed by of course Jesus himself better than by anyone else, but nicely illustrated in this parable from Rollins as well.

You know, I do believe that whatever we try to protect, maintain etc, will slip like sand through our hands. We can't, we just can't, and create lots of collateral damage in the process. But it is in the giving up, in the dying, in the sacrifice that new life is found, that resurrection appears. At least, that is how I understand the gospel of Christ.

I have the funny feeling if I walked into your church Hans you would not welcome me....as a brother or even for that matter as a sinner.

Well, I don't know your face. So I would welcome you as I would welcome any English speaking visitor walking into "my" church.

Would we make a great ministry team? Don't think so. Like Paul and Barnabas, I think it would be way better for the gospel if we went to (far) different places.

As to the extent to which these are just my ideas, "my" church has adopted what I've written about transsexuality in our church, and also what I wrote (with others) on homosexuality. We're probably a lost cause anyway, it is said in Dordrecht that if you have no where else to go, you can still go to the Church of the Nazarene. Divorced, gay etc. We're probably the garbage dump of the Church in this city.

*disclaimer: this is how an approach lacking any nuance from the other side of the argument looks like. My guess is that this kind of approach isn't really helpful.

Happy to see we have a point of agreement. They are few, so we need to cherish them.

Dennis M. Scott

September 1st, 2010, 06:39 AM

". . . if you have no where else to go, you can still go to the Church of the Nazarene."

While I don't know that Bresee ever said exactly those words, it certainly seems to express his sentiments. That's a different kind of competition than we usually experience.

Bresee demonstrated the idea that no one is beyond the Grace of God, or beyond help: that people that want the Lord's help to change could find that help. The theory is that Christ's love seen in his followers will be one of the changes others will desire. However, we don't love so that others will want it: we love because it is the nature and character of God born in us. That love is expressed in a fascinating array, and quite different in a wide range of human instruments.

Marsha Lynn

September 1st, 2010, 08:02 AM

Hans, the thanks button isn't nearly enough. I so appreciate your perspective here.

We're probably a lost cause anyway, it is said in Dordrecht that if you have no where else to go, you can still go to the Church of the Nazarene. Divorced, gay etc. We're probably the garbage dump of the Church in this city.

O to be part of a church of which such words are said. How sad that we're too concerned about God's reputation to fully embrace our fellow sojourners as being on the same journey we are, maybe behind us in some areas but likely light years ahead of us in others. Why is it that associating ourselves with organized religion seems to almost inevitably bring out the Pharisee in all of us and leave us lagging behind the "sinners" around us in areas of love, acceptance, and forgiveness? How can the very heart of the gospel be too dangerous to allow into our churches?

Todd Erickson

September 1st, 2010, 08:10 AM

As Shane Hipps said recently, "God is like a mightly lion, and a lion's natural place is in the veldts and fields, roaming and devouring as he will. If you stick a lion in a cage, or a zoo, and say that you love the lion, you are lying. By the same token, when we say "God will only operate here, Jesus can only be found in these things" you are placing the servant saviour within a boundary beyond which you will not admit to him working, and you are no longer following God, but an image of God that fits your standards." (this is something of a paraphrase).

Charles W Christian

September 1st, 2010, 01:18 PM

I've joined the church in 1985 exactly because it strove towards unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, charity in all. I was completely fed up with the church where I came from where anything BUT the essentials were important. I've understood then and explained to others since that the Special Rules (as they were called at the time, I've never heard anyone object to the General Rules) fit in that category of non-essentials.
If the explanation had been comparable to the no alcohol rule for students at this university, I would not have joined the CotN.

That is why in the form for membership where it talks about the Special Rules, I've always heard Dutch pastors say: "As explained to you in the pastors's class".

Well, we talk about alcohol eventually. But, my point with the students is that if you want to change the rule about alcohol, you must also address the reason WHY it is in the code of conduct for admittance to the school. You read it, you sign it to get in, and then what? Coming back and say, "Yes, but I can find biblical reasons why I CAN drink," etc., is not the end of the discussion in some universities. They come back and say, "Yes, but you signed this that said you would not." Anyway, I was saying that for Nazarenes, it is not an individual rights discussion, but rather a "community values" discussion....

Charles

Hans Deventer

September 1st, 2010, 01:39 PM

Anyway, I was saying that for Nazarenes, it is not an individual rights discussion, but rather a "community values" discussion....

The problem then is that for some, community values are like the 10 Commandments aka Laws, while for others they are Torah, teaching. Of course you know that these differences have been with us since the very beginning of the CotN.

Kazimiera Fraley

September 1st, 2010, 04:30 PM

I am just wondering what would happen if we changed a couple words in the OP:

What should a pastor do when he or she realizes that some members of her or his church are in a continual relationship of gossip? Is this reason for disciplinary action? Should their membership be revoked? Should the pastor have a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. Should the pastor only intervene if the pastor is confident that their behavior is hurtful and damaging to others involved?

Here are my thoughts:P

What do we do with this? Gossip and other often participated in (often labeled) "sins of the tongue" are also addressed in the CoCC.
Do we hold the same hard line that some are proposing?

There are many people with in our churches, who are members, part of the leadership etc which are continually participating in behavior which is not becoming of a person who who is striving for Holiness of heart and life but we do not do much other than perhaps express frustration at these kinds of continual behavioral sins which are just as much a part of some Christians lifestyles as sexual sins, but we do not seem to have the need to attack them with the same vigor. Why? Is one more destructive to a person's Christian walk and to the the greater body of believers than the other.

I often see the "ignored" sins as more damaging to both individual and community but perhaps this is just my experience and there are churches out there which struggle together over how to handle the gossip in their midst as much as others seem to struggle with the lesbian in theirs and how to "handle" these persons and their sins with in the community of the Church.

Todd Erickson

September 1st, 2010, 06:23 PM

Post removed because it offended people. Hey, why not.

Scott Sherwood

September 1st, 2010, 06:48 PM

Quoting Todd's deleted post:

Not helpful.

Jim Chabot

September 1st, 2010, 07:49 PM

Well, you know, you can't stop people from being people.

But gays...they aren't actually people, and they dehumanize our churches. So we have to drive them out, unless they recant.

It's the only way to be sure.

I agree with Scott, not helpful, while at the same time I can hear where you are saying.

First and foremost when you call them gays, they do cease to become people. But they are people real flesh and blood people that God loves and that he sent his Son to die for. Real people with real sin in their lives, some struggle with it, and some do not. Same as those who sin through drunkeness, thievery, other sexual sins and the like. You see they are special, in fact they are special in the very same way that you and I are special, and that makes them incredibly ordinary. Yes there is science that would suggest that they are born with this propensity, some even go so far to say that they cannot change. This science is far from settled and to accept it is at some level to blame God for their condition, thus their behavior cannot be considered sinful unless one believes God to possess a cruel sense of humor. I personally believe that further study will prove that this inborn propensity is not primary. The Generals have also rejected this science in their pastoral letter.

So I must ask this. Why are they "special"? Why are they any different than I? For you see I have this same sinful propensity, I do not have homosexual desires nevertheless I must constantly be on guard and pretty much be constantly in prayer about my condition. I have had this condition since I can remember, I have struggled with it since the day of my salvation. Jeremiah says that the heart of man is desperately wicked, I am reminded of this constantly. Romans chapter 7, comes to mind most every day. Yet it has been more than two decades since I have acted on any of these urges, temptations and the like. So I have to ask seriously, what is the difference between them and I?

Bob Hunter mentioned that the church's words of "don't do it" and "stop it", just plain don't work. I can tell you from personal experience that it does work, because it has worked for me. You know sometimes it just plain does a person good to be ashamed of what they are thinking. You know I have no doubts that I am loved by God and by my brothers and sisters in Christ, while at the same time knowing that to act upon my temptations and urges would be sin. It would be wrong, and it would be an action that should rightfully have me removed from membership. So I need to ask again. What is the difference between people with homosexual urges and myself?

Next we get into the all too familiar hue and cry that says that we all sin therefore all must go or all must stay. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that. For one we are a holiness people, and we are a holiness denomination. Our coming together as a denomination was and is for this purpose. To encourage others to live a holy life, we need to be mindful of that. There are people much like myself who need to be encouraged to live a holy life, and I'm not alone in this. So how do we encourage?

Last is the scriptural argument. We are instructed to take action when certain sins are evident. Why just those and not all? I have no idea, yet I know that the inspired writers of scripture knew the mind of Christ far better than I and I have decided to take their word for it. It's a faith thing. Take action when the sin is listed, and do not when it is not. Some will say that is what the religious leaders were doing when Jesus was here among us. Yet they were not doing this, not at all. You see they made their own lists, made up their own rules. I'm not advocating that we do as they did, I'm advocating that we do as we have been flat out told to.

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?

So what are we to do with verses like the ones above, and there are more like these? Humans are exactly the same today as they were then, and the churches mission has not changed. Notice that there is a clear distinction in this passage between our actions concerning those who have made a profession of faith and those who have not. And notice that there are only a few sinful categories in which he calls for action. What say ye?

Tami Martin

September 1st, 2010, 08:41 PM

Quoting Todd's deleted post:

FWIW, I read the sarcasm.

Todd Erickson

September 1st, 2010, 09:56 PM

Bob Hunter

September 1st, 2010, 10:01 PM

Bob Hunter mentioned that the church's words of "don't do it" and "stop it", just plain don't work. I can tell you from personal experience that it does work, because it has worked for me. You know sometimes it just plain does a person good to be ashamed of what they are thinking. You know I have no doubts that I am loved by God and by my brothers and sisters in Christ, while at the same time knowing that to act upon my temptations and urges would be sin. It would be wrong, and it would be an action that should rightfully have me removed from membership. So I need to ask again. What is the difference between people with homosexual urges and myself?

Jim,

It really doesn't work...We've been telling people to "Stop it" for too long. People just tune it out. Just saying "NO" does not translate into transformational living. I think if you go back and read post #69, I point out how we can work through a process of restoration with people.

When you think of it, berating people with scriptural prohibitions may work in the short term. Tactics of manipulation, guilt, and coercion do actually work! Their impact is short-live though. But if we're looking at long-term life transformation, then I think we need to get beyond "No" & "Stop it" and start thinking of ways we can shape people into the image of Jesus.

Also, if I might suggest something. Please shorten your postings, make your points more concise, you don't want to be a thread hog do you? :smilies1098:

Jim Chabot

September 1st, 2010, 10:14 PM

Homosexuals are only special because you insist on finding ways to rationalize who they are in order to make what they are as a person a sin.

The homosexuals I have known are not making a choice, they have always been what they are. Asking them to pursue celibacy rather than relationship is asking them to live in isolation except on sundays, or to choose a false relationship with a member of the opposite sex who they feel no attraction to in order to soothe the cultural moral issues of the church.

When Paul talks about sexual immorality, he's talking about people who have affairs, who sleep around, who engage in pedastry, bestiality, who imitate the means of the temples which serve in sexual ways.

But Paul never mentions people living in committed, homosexual, monogamous relationships. In fact, this isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible.

So the only people making these people 'special' is folks like you, Jim. To the rest of us, they're just people.

You completely contradict yourself here. If you choose to define people by there sin, which is exactly what you are doing, then it is you who make them out to be less than people.

And yes Paul does speak of homosexuality as a sexual sin.

What we are talking about are people who are slaves to sin. They are no different than I am. Paul says that we are set free from the law of sin and death, do you deny that as well.

Jim Chabot

September 1st, 2010, 10:18 PM

Jim,

It really doesn't work...We've been telling people to "Stop it" for too long. People just tune it out. Just saying "NO" does not translate into transformational living. I think if you go back and read post #69, I point out how we can work through a process of restoration with people.

When you think of it, berating people with scriptural prohibitions may work in the short term. Tactics of manipulation, guilt, and coercion do actually work! Their impact is short-live though. But if we're looking at long-term life transformation, then I think we need to get beyond "No" & "Stop it" and start thinking of ways we can shape people into the image of Jesus.

Also, if I might suggest something. Please shorten your postings, make your points more concise, you don't want to be a thread hog do you? :smilies1098:

Sorry, but it does most certainly work. I speak from personal experience, over 30 years worth.

Todd Erickson

September 1st, 2010, 10:20 PM

You completely contradict yourself here. If you choose to define people by there sin, which is exactly what you are doing, then it is you who make them out to be less than people.

And yes Paul does speak of homosexuality as a sexual sin.

What we are talking about are people who are slaves to sin. They are no different than I am. Paul says that we are set free from the law of sin and death, do you deny that as well.

...

So...when I say that because you insist on identifying them as homosexuals, you are singling them out and making them special, I am contradicting myself by labeling what you're doing? Alright...

The phrase that Paul uses is, so far as anybody can tell, pedastry. The term homosexual didn't exist until the 1950's, and the word that Paul uses is not widely used, so nobody's really entirely sure what it means. It's been translated freely as "homosexual" in recent years, but it's far more likely to have to do with older men seducing younger men, which was a known practice at that time, and which operated entirely outside of anything Christlike.

If we can take a quality of a person and drum them out of a church for it, but if we demand that all other sins get the same treatment we are somehow making the initial sin 'special' then we have very twisted ideas about sin.

Jim Chabot

September 1st, 2010, 10:26 PM

If I could just add something for your humble consideration. Suppose the real battle is not confrontation and discipline but the messy process of redemption and restoration. I believe the scriptural method (and I don't know as "method" is the best terminology) goes farther than just telling folks to "stop it." We are missing the real crisis folks when we give inadequate answers like that. Just telling people to QUIT living in sexual bondage because the Bible says so is not going far enough.

Meanwhile, the sexual pandemic marches on invading our churches and society at all levels. The Statistics Are Staggering:
66% of Internet-using men between the ages of 18-34 look at online porn at least once a month
55% of pastors admitted to participating with porn online.
Over 40% of women on line are involved in problematic cyber behavior.
IThe largest consumer of Internet pornography is the 12 to 17 year old age group.
70% of Internet porn traffic occurs during the 9 am to 5 pm workday.
Two out of three companies have disciplined employees for misusing the Net at work and pornography topped the list of abuses.
About half of pornography available includes same sex involvement.

My question is this: Where is the Church? What are we doing to address this issue? How many more pastors do we have to lose before we wake up? If "NO," "QUIT," and "STOP IT," were effective then show me the results? I don't see it...

At some point, we have to move beyond "Stop it" and develop biblically based recovery groups that help men and women address uncontrollable behavior. You would be surprised at the number of people in your Church who are struggling with sexual behavior. Instead of giving into the shame and blame, wouldn't it be something if the Church was leading the way to healing and wholeness? Seriously, folks we have to start focusing on specific ways to set people free to live in the saving grace of our Lord. And I believe that involves a time honored process of restoration instead of just shouting the word "NO!" at people.

I think we all want to do what the scripture says with regard to sin, but I would like to suggest we take it a step further and help people out of the bondage they are in. Of course, this assumes they want to be set free, and likely some will not. But for those who have tried to quit a thousand times and cry out for help, we have to offer more than just scriptural prohibitions.

Here is post #69, I can see that you mentioning things that you think should be done. No details are offered, not really anything to go on.

You say that we need to go a step further than what scripture says we should do. No problem, however we need to continue to follow the scriptural mandates. Or we should use them as starting points. One cannot go "further" unless one is already engaged.

Jim Chabot

September 1st, 2010, 10:37 PM

...

So...when I say that because you insist on identifying them as homosexuals, you are singling them out and making them special, I am contradicting myself by labeling what you're doing? Alright...

The phrase that Paul uses is, so far as anybody can tell, pedastry. The term homosexual didn't exist until the 1950's, and the word that Paul uses is not widely used, so nobody's really entirely sure what it means. It's been translated freely as "homosexual" in recent years, but it's far more likely to have to do with older men seducing younger men, which was a known practice at that time, and which operated entirely outside of anything Christlike.

If we can take a quality of a person and drum them out of a church for it, but if we demand that all other sins get the same treatment we are somehow making the initial sin 'special' then we have very twisted ideas about sin.

I have clearly repudiated the practice of identifying people by their sexual orientation. Seriously Todd, you need to read more carefully. This is also not a new position for me. They are people! Let me say it one more time, people, just like you and me. In fact they are exactly like you and me!

Pedastry. Only a matter of time before that cat came out of the bag, eh. This was addressed by the generals as well in their pastoral letter.

And, again, there is nothing special about this particular sin. It is simply your garden variety sexual sin. One in which we are told that we can overcome. We are free from the law of sin and death, do you deny this?

Jim Chabot

September 1st, 2010, 10:56 PM

I noticed something else while reading the Manual today. The passage on homosexuality in the Manual says that homosexual acts are "subject to God's wrath."

I did a word search on "wrath" in the Manual. The word only appears once -- in this instance on homosexuality. I then did a word search of "wrath" in the NIV. It appears 190 times. A quick read of those passages indicated that none are used in relation to homosexual acts.

The closest one gets to linking homosexuality and divine wrath in the Bible is the Romans 1 passage. But that instance says God's wrath is against ALL ungodliness and wickedness. In Colossians, Paul says God's wrath is coming on (among other things) sexual immorality. But homosexuality isn't singled out. Presumably, God's wrath comes on heterosexuals who commit adultery and other sexual offenders. Not even the Sodom and Gomorrah story uses the word "wrath" to talk about God's activity.

To be faithful to scripture, we should probably delete in the Manual the phrase that homosexual practice is "subject to God's wrath." Whomever would suggest this kind of change to a GA, however, would probably be committing political suicide. The fervor against homosexuality in our circles is so strong that -- as you suggested above -- what biblical authors actually say about homosexuality is often not relevant to the discussion.

All of this makes me wonder...

Tom

Tom, I think that the Romans passage does link wrath with homosexuality. The two are some ten verses apart, but homosexuality appears to be the object. I would concur with the present manual language.

This language may be culturally offensive today., certainly not politically correct. I believe that it is in harmony with scripture, sometimes our God asks us to go against even our own grain.

Hans Deventer

September 1st, 2010, 11:36 PM

Hans Deventer

September 2nd, 2010, 12:30 AM

And, again, there is nothing special about this particular sin. It is simply your garden variety sexual sin. One in which we are told that we can overcome. We are free from the law of sin and death, do you deny this?

Are we talking about the orientation or about the praxis?

Benjamin Burch

September 2nd, 2010, 02:03 AM

Tom, I think that the Romans passage does link wrath with homosexuality. The two are some ten verses apart, but homosexuality appears to be the object. I would concur with the present manual language.

This language may be culturally offensive today., certainly not politically correct. I believe that it is in harmony with scripture, sometimes our God asks us to go against even our own grain.

Sorry, Jim, but you're wrong here on the first count. It is sad that we (I use the word "we" to include all of us. I'm not trying to single you out here, Jim) in the Conservative, American, Evangelical world are so culturally conditioned that we so naturally read Romans 1 and hear homosexuality as the thrust/focus. Even to the point that we (again, not singling you out, Jim. Just using you as an example) would link homosexuality as the "object" of the wrath.

The movement of the passage and the internal logic necessitates that "all ungodliness" be the "object" of God's wrath. First of all, that's what the passage specifically states:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth."

Therefore, "the wrath of God" is revealed against:

1) all ungodliness
2) all wickedness
3) those who suppress the truth about God

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

This is a typical Jewish charge which can be found in the Wisdom of Solomon, for example. Idolatry is clearly the focus here.

1) God has made himself known through creation
2) Humans who were corrupt began to worship the creation as/instead of the creator

This, again, is a very typical Jewish charge against pagans. Nothing unique here from Paul.

So, the first movement of the text and Paul's exposition on the first 3 issues deals with Idolatry. This is clearly involved in the "all ungodliness" and "wickedness" and most certainly "suppress the truth." Thus, our theory about homosexuality being the object is already shot to pieces.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Here Paul links the unraveling of natural interaction and the downward spiral of society to idolatry. Because of their idolatry and their refusal to believe what had been "made clear" to them, God "gave them up" (repeated twice with a "for this reason", quite clear Paul has in mind the same issue between "degrading their bodies" and the trading of "natural relations." However, this seems to be a result of their Idolatry and "foolishness." It is, in a way, the display of God's wrath itself - not the object of it.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practise such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practise them.

The downward motion and spiral continues here as all the rest of "every kind of wickedness" begin to follow on the heals of homosexuality, due to, again, their Idolatry. Again, it is God giving them up to these things. In this way, it is a result of God's wrath, not the object of it... per se.

The downward motion of the passage is quite clear, though. Due to refusal to worship God, and worship of idols instead, God gives them up to every sort of evil - homosexuality being the first and most telling. God's wrath is displayed against ALL of these things, and in many ways, the existence of these things is evidence of God's wrath already.

So homosexuality is most certainly not the "object" of God's wrath and there's a very good reason for the 10 verses of separation.

Todd Erickson

September 2nd, 2010, 05:51 AM

I have clearly repudiated the practice of identifying people by their sexual orientation. Seriously Todd, you need to read more carefully. This is also not a new position for me. They are people! Let me say it one more time, people, just like you and me. In fact they are exactly like you and me!

Pedastry. Only a matter of time before that cat came out of the bag, eh. This was addressed by the generals as well in their pastoral letter.

And, again, there is nothing special about this particular sin. It is simply your garden variety sexual sin. One in which we are told that we can overcome. We are free from the law of sin and death, do you deny this?

You say that you do not identify people by their sexual orientation, yet at the same time, anybody who is homosexual is automatically sinning, according to what you are saying. Unless they call their own nature sinful, and live against it, they are living in sin, and you choose to state that they can be free of/overcome their own natures, and further you state, not being homosexual yourself, that it is not nature, not scientific, not genetic, and that eventually scientific proof will be found to back you up.

So to you, this is a standard, reasonable statement. To anybody who disagrees with you, you are in fact saying precisely the opposite of what you feel that you are saying.

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 06:02 AM

Are we talking about the orientation or about the praxis?

In the matter of overcoming, I speak of the praxis alone. When we come to Christ we become a new creature, we are set free from that which compels us to sin. We can of course continue to sin and I think in some way we all do, however we now have the freedom and ability to follow Christ rather than our own carnal desires, we (and they) can overcome.

I understand the orientation, I understand it because I have it and have had it since puberty. No I do not have same sex desires, yet I have a definite propensity, mindset or orientation that keeps temptation constantly at the door of my mind. It is a constant struggle and has been for may years, and although I cannot literally step into another persons mind, I have little doubt that my condition is much the same as those who suffer from a same sex attraction. Yes their orientation is a problem, I know full well how difficult it can be, yet we have the ability to overcome and we are told that we must. To live a life, where we willfully give into sin because we feel that the burden is too great is not an option.

Sadly I think that it is and has been an option in the CotN. We have many divorced people in our midst, some have had this thrust upon them and some have not. Some are remarried and some remain single, some date and some I may suggest sleep around. I see little encouragement toward living a holy life in this regard. I am confident that should I choose, (And I must be clear that I do not choose, this is a rhetorical statement.) to divorce, date and sleep around, I believe that I could do this somewhat unchallenged within the CotN. I might even be able to fool myself into thinking that there is no conflict between this type of sin and my Christian walk. I don't think that this is a good thing, no not at all. I truly believe that the strictures given toward what we see as harsh treatment toward certain sins are given for our own good, they are given to show us how to love, and they are given with a hope toward reconciliation. Although I have never run afoul of these "rules", I can say honestly that they have at times made the difference in my life. They have helped me, I am confident that they help others.

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 06:11 AM

You say that you do not identify people by their sexual orientation, yet at the same time, anybody who is homosexual is automatically sinning, according to what you are saying. Unless they call their own nature sinful, and live against it, they are living in sin, and you choose to state that they can be free of/overcome their own natures, and further you state, not being homosexual yourself, that it is not nature, not scientific, not genetic, and that eventually scientific proof will be found to back you up.

So to you, this is a standard, reasonable statement. To anybody who disagrees with you, you are in fact saying precisely the opposite of what you feel that you are saying.

Todd, I am agreeing with scripture, I am agreeing with the Manual position of the CotN and I am agreeing with the Pastoral Letter from our Generals and their subsequent clarification. So yes I think that what I have been saying constitutes a standard reasonable statement.

And no, once again I would ask you to read more carefully. I did not say that anybody who is a homosexual (your term and description not mine.) is automatically sinning. I have said what the Generals have said, the temptation is not sin, it is the action which is sin. However, yes they need to realize that this nature within them is a sin nature, and they need to be aware that they can overcome it. The grace of God just happens to be available to all Todd, not just to some. We are not predestined Todd, we have a free will, and the blessings and promises of God are available to all.

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 06:21 AM

Sorry, Jim, but you're wrong here on the first count. It is sad that we (I use the word "we" to include all of us. I'm not trying to single you out here, Jim) in the Conservative, American, Evangelical world are so culturally conditioned that we so naturally read Romans 1 and hear homosexuality as the thrust/focus. Even to the point that we (again, not singling you out, Jim. Just using you as an example) would link homosexuality as the "object" of the wrath.

The movement of the passage and the internal logic necessitates that "all ungodliness" be the "object" of God's wrath. First of all, that's what the passage specifically states:

Therefore, "the wrath of God" is revealed against:

1) all ungodliness
2) all wickedness
3) those who suppress the truth about God

This is a typical Jewish charge which can be found in the Wisdom of Solomon, for example. Idolatry is clearly the focus here.

1) God has made himself known through creation
2) Humans who were corrupt began to worship the creation as/instead of the creator

This, again, is a very typical Jewish charge against pagans. Nothing unique here from Paul.

So, the first movement of the text and Paul's exposition on the first 3 issues deals with Idolatry. This is clearly involved in the "all ungodliness" and "wickedness" and most certainly "suppress the truth." Thus, our theory about homosexuality being the object is already shot to pieces.

Here Paul links the unraveling of natural interaction and the downward spiral of society to idolatry. Because of their idolatry and their refusal to believe what had been "made clear" to them, God "gave them up" (repeated twice with a "for this reason", quite clear Paul has in mind the same issue between "degrading their bodies" and the trading of "natural relations." However, this seems to be a result of their Idolatry and "foolishness." It is, in a way, the display of God's wrath itself - not the object of it.

The downward motion and spiral continues here as all the rest of "every kind of wickedness" begin to follow on the heals of homosexuality, due to, again, their Idolatry. Again, it is God giving them up to these things. In this way, it is a result of God's wrath, not the object of it... per se.

The downward motion of the passage is quite clear, though. Due to refusal to worship God, and worship of idols instead, God gives them up to every sort of evil - homosexuality being the first and most telling. God's wrath is displayed against ALL of these things, and in many ways, the existence of these things is evidence of God's wrath already.

So homosexuality is most certainly not the "object" of God's wrath and there's a very good reason for the 10 verses of separation.

I think that I can agree with what you say here Ben. I do agree that the wrath spoken of is clearly against all ungodliness etc. , and I do see where Idolotry is singled out along the way to the passage that speaks of homosexual behavior. One thing that is clear is that we begin with a reference to wrath, and at one point, Paul speaks clearly of homosexual behavior, and that this is not disconnected from the original mention of wrath. There is a link here and it is not inconsequential.

So what I take away from what you have wrote, is that perhaps this wrath is displayed right here in the present when people become trapped in this lifestyle. A lifestyle that introduces incredible pain into a persons life. A lifestyle that I have heard said many times that no one would willingly choose.

I don't think that is what you are necessarily saying, and I don't want to twist your words or put words into your mouth. But that is my honest take, after reading your words.

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 06:25 AM

I think Tom's point is that we should not single it out. So it should best be either deleted or included with many other examples of wickedness. Singling homosexuality out gives the impression that this is the worst sin of all. And that is contrary to the Scriptures.

I can agree with inclusion, I do not believe that it should be singled out. In fact that is what runs foremost in my mind, that it is not different. It is a sexual sin. Adultery, fornication, bestiality, adultery resultant from divorce and remarriage, pedophilia, homosexuality, all the same, yes they can be classified and categorized, but they are the same nonetheless.

Todd Erickson

September 2nd, 2010, 06:32 AM

The verse you have quoted, which Ben was dealing with above, states that:

A. They refused to acknowledge God.
B. God gave them over to a darkened vision
C. They turned to homosexuality and other deviant ways of being.

(if we take this literally, as you seem to)

However, many of these people

A. Have been homosexual as long as they've been alive and have memory,
B. Have always been respectful and loving of and toward God
C. Work very hard at having a clear view of God and the world.

As a result, the only way the verse makes sense with regards to these people is if we go the Calvinist route...They are predestined by God to be sinners so that his wrath may be made manifest, and thus his glory. They live to be an example of how not to be, QED.

This is also much like the disciples, who said to Jesus, "see that blind man? what sin did his parents commit?" The reaction seems to be "well, they have a homosexual orientation, so they must have turned against God at some point...even if it's when they were five years old. For as long as they haven't been attracted to the opposite gender, they have to have turned against God, and been given over to a darkened vision."

The whole original point of this thread is that, you as a pastor realize that there is a homosexual couple in your church. Do you ask them to either A. become celibate and non-involved or B. leave? Or do you engage in something different from this?

For you, the question seems to be, are they visibly living out their attraction? Then it is sin, and if they are unwilling to repent, then yes, they need to leave.

For me, the question is, are they living out Love? Are they centered on Christ with their lives? Are they reflecting Christ's image and witness, and drawing others to the Lord? Am I? Are any of us?

Anybody who is not pursuing the image of Christ is not pursuing what the Nazarene church refers to as "holiness". I think that much of the CotN's emphasis on holiness has, in fact, become an issue of majoring on the minors...rather than being set apart by love, we're set apart by the smaller things we refuse to tolerate, which is what tends to get Hans in such a lather.

I attend a Nazarene church because it is where God appears to have called me, but I cannot say that I actually am a Nazarene, as I have encountered far too much of this closed mindedness that takes a mathematical, dismissive approach to humanity in the face of small-minded holiness.

I'm not particularly sure where you get into your statement about predestination, except to state that the only way to say that people actually are homosexuals and cannot turn from it would be to engage precisely the Calvinistic argument. Once again, you are so utterly dedicated to your viewpoint, all others are unreasonable. It is precisely people like you that I've met that convince me that I would not actually want to be a Nazarene, for all that Wesley and the founders of the CotN seem to have been really terrific people.

Scott Sherwood

September 2nd, 2010, 07:36 AM

The original post by Dr. Oord did not address whether the Bible is relevant to the discussion or what the Bible means by what it says, but the ensuing discussion has touched on it.

For what its worth: 936

And for the record, homosexuals are welcome at our church. We love homosexuals. Our congregation has folks whose struggle with homosexual behavior is in the past, some for whom it is present, and I'm sure some who are suffering silently. Our challenge is to be such pure vessels of the love of Christ into their lives that they feel safer and more hopeful with us who call homosexual sins sin than they do with those who offer them false comfort by affirming and enabling sin.

We think it is tragic that every boy who doesn't love sports or who isn't stereotypically macho or prefers to hang out with girls or ever has had a home-erotic thought is told by our culture that they are unchangeably, undeniably, and forever gay. The converse is true for girls. The church may be the last place on earth where people can hear the message that the power of Christ's love to transform far surpasses the power of culture, abuse, or even biology to determine your destiny.

We all have what has been called "besetting sins," toward which we are for whatever reason particularly prone. ALL of them should be named and challenged and overcome by the power of Christ's forgiving grace, the Holy Spirit's empowering, cleansing presence, and the community of faith's encouragement and accountability. ALL of them.

The church should be a place where boys and girls and men and women experience the reality that "God loves you enough to accept you just the way you are and way too much to leave you that way." (Thank you Laura Root)

Marsha Lynn

September 2nd, 2010, 09:54 AM

I see little encouragement toward living a holy life in this regard. I am confident that should I choose, (And I must be clear that I do not choose, this is a rhetorical statement.) to divorce, date and sleep around, I believe that I could do this somewhat unchallenged within the CotN. I might even be able to fool myself into thinking that there is no conflict between this type of sin and my Christian walk.

Really? How do people in your church manage to avoid all scripture dealing with sexual immorality and the accompanying conviction that makes the living word of God cut to the heart? Is the Bible so powerless in your setting that it takes human condemnation to make up for its impotency?

It can indeed be helpful to have people hold you accountable to continue a lifetime struggle with temptation rather than letting it wear you down with no pressure to persevere beyond the Bible. I don't think anyone here is discounting the value of "peer pressure" within the faith community. Perhaps the point, rather, is that breaking fellowship with "sinners" and ostracizing them for having fallen tends to lessen our influence on them rather than enhancing it. And it can also make others in the faith community wonder if they will be the next to be "outed" as wretched sinners. Where exactly is the line where grace ends and condemnation takes over? More, what part of my life is on the far side of that line? How long can I hide the worst of what lies within me?

Dennis M. Scott

September 2nd, 2010, 12:14 PM

Different approaches for different folks. It is obvious even in this thread that we approach what the Manual says in different ways. Little wonder we approach how to deal with people and situations. In some ways, I don't get it. I see it and acknowledge it, and am somewhat in awe. I'm certain some could say, "Well, if that's how some Nazarenes are, I guess I don't want to be one." Others will say, "The reason I joined the Church of the Nazarene is that my previous denomination was getting to be like that, and I wanted out."

In a conversation with another friend this last year about scripture, he was a little frustrated that I wouldn't automatically embrace his extra-Manual position - which parenthetically, I really didn't find outlandish: merely beyond the COTN statement. Finally, he burst out, "The Word of God is the Word of God! That's all there is to it!" He then walked away, as though the issue was resolved and clarified. I really couldn't argue his point: it's just that his point wasn't especially helpful - for me.

Ultimately, we each have to have an understanding of not only what scripture says, but what it means. All of that then verified by others in the Body. Curiously, those people differ too, and so we take up sides. Finally, someone says, "I haven't hugged a Yankee since before the Civil War, but I'm going to hug one now!"

Eric Frey

September 2nd, 2010, 12:47 PM

I've just read so many posts I am thoroughly swirling so if I'm repeating just ignore me...

I just wonder if we can't simply ask the question: "What would a pastor do about two unmarried people living together in a [here is my broad brush generalization] sexual relationship?"

Perhaps until the CotN permits same-sex marriage, the issue need not be any bigger than that. How would any pastor deal with any extra-marital sexual relationship between members?

Scott Moseley

September 2nd, 2010, 01:38 PM

Billy Cox

September 2nd, 2010, 01:44 PM

Perhaps until the CotN permits same-sex marriage, the issue need not be any bigger than that. How would any pastor deal with any extra-marital sexual relationship between members?

That was my first thought too, but I don't think it's that simple. It seems that the church's teaching on sexual ethics are primarily concerned with keeping teenagers 'pure' until marriage and convinncing married people to confine their 'adventures' to the bounds of their own marriage.

Let's say that a divorced woman in the church spends the occasional weekend at her boyfriend's house. Would anybody in the church seriously consider removing her from the fellowship? Sure, she would be the object of gossip and her name would not be on the short-list for NMI President, but what else of substance would the church do about it? Change the 'boyfriend' in that example to a 'girlfriend' and you have a different kettle of fish.

It seems to me that a committed, monogamous homosexual relationship is closer to the ideal for marriage than the 'friends with benefits' arrangement, yet we're far more likely to attack the former because it is a same-sex relationship.

Todd Erickson

September 2nd, 2010, 01:54 PM

I can only reiterate. If people can be asked to leave the church because they are in a continuing same-sex relationship, then they should also be asked to leave for things like gossip, judgement of others, open hatred (even against, say, a president that nobody in the congregation voted for), etc. If we will not ask people to leave for those things, then drawing the line at same sex relationships is purely hypocritical.

Billy Cox

September 2nd, 2010, 02:01 PM

Isn't there a huge difference between a church welcoming all no matter what secret or open sins an individual may have and offering that individual membership?
Welcome all. Minister to all; turn none away, But keep the standards high regarding membership and leadership. I liked Mannys post... pretty sound guidlines from the Word.

This is fine, except for the fact that one can participate quite fully in the life of a Nazarene congregation without being a member.

Also, why is this just a pastors' problem ? Doesn't a CoTN pastor have a group of elders in church to burden with problems as these?

You would have to ask a pastor, but I sincerely doubt that many pastors discuss such sensitive issues in committee.

Jeremy D. Scott

September 2nd, 2010, 02:30 PM

Also, if I might suggest something. Please shorten your postings, make your points more concise, you don't want to be a thread hog do you? :smilies1098:

You could be joking, Bob, so if you are ignore me. But Naznet does have a limit for characters used in a post (20,000). Jim didn't break it (it tells you when you do).

Also, why is this just a pastors' problem ? Doesn't a CoTN pastor have a group of elders in church to burden with problems as these?

Unfortunately...no. For the most part, the CotN Manual went with the biblical model of a lone pastor serving many roles including, but not limited to: CEO, pastor, prophet, elder, shepherd, priest, arbiter, nonprofit social worker, justice of the peace, and anything else deemed necessary by the district superintendent, church board, or the pastor's own conscience.

(Oh...that's not in the Bible?) :confused:

Benjamin Burch

September 2nd, 2010, 03:23 PM

That was my first thought too, but I don't think it's that simple. It seems that the church's teaching on sexual ethics are primarily concerned with keeping teenagers 'pure' until marriage and convinncing married people to confine their 'adventures' to the bounds of their own marriage.

Let's say that a divorced woman in the church spends the occasional weekend at her boyfriend's house. Would anybody in the church seriously consider removing her from the fellowship? Sure, she would be the object of gossip and her name would not be on the short-list for NMI President, but what else of substance would the church do about it? Change the 'boyfriend' in that example to a 'girlfriend' and you have a different kettle of fish.

It seems to me that a committed, monogamous homosexual relationship is closer to the ideal for marriage than the 'friends with benefits' arrangement, yet we're far more likely to attack the former because it is a same-sex relationship.

^^^^ This.

Until we do enough self-examination to realize this problem, we will be running in circles around the very conversation we're having right now.

It's not a Bible thing. It's not a "sin" thing. It's a cultural thing. We need to realize this, own up to it, and figure out what that means. Until then, I see no hope in having this conversation.

Benjamin Burch

September 2nd, 2010, 03:26 PM

Benjamin Burch

September 2nd, 2010, 03:31 PM

I think that I can agree with what you say here Ben. I do agree that the wrath spoken of is clearly against all ungodliness etc. , and I do see where Idolotry is singled out along the way to the passage that speaks of homosexual behavior. One thing that is clear is that we begin with a reference to wrath, and at one point, Paul speaks clearly of homosexual behavior, and that this is not disconnected from the original mention of wrath. There is a link here and it is not inconsequential.

So what I take away from what you have wrote, is that perhaps this wrath is displayed right here in the present when people become trapped in this lifestyle. A lifestyle that introduces incredible pain into a persons life. A lifestyle that I have heard said many times that no one would willingly choose.

I don't think that is what you are necessarily saying, and I don't want to twist your words or put words into your mouth. But that is my honest take, after reading your words.

Also, I think that the lack of tradition in the East of reading Paul in the "original sin" context should greatly draw into question our assumption of this context in our Western theology and the way we so use it in relation to Homosexuality and how they're "trapped in it" by virtue of it's non-chosen-ness.

Add to that the fact that Paul says it's "unnatural" and yet more and more we find that homosexuality is very natural and common among animals in generally, mammals more specifically, and primates most specifically, and we really need to re-examine what Paul is saying here and how useful it is/isn't in talking about homosexuality as a sin.

If the "indication" that it is a sin is that it's "unnatural"...

(1) We don't use that criteria for judging ANY OTHER sin
(2) It's wrong, as homosexuality seems to be completely natural

I'm not saying that homosexuality is "not a sin." I don't want you hearing that. What I am in fact saying is that we need to remove this verse from our stronghold and beging to think and speak much more humbly on the subject of homosexuality. This verse (1)doesn't say what we want it to, and (2)even what it DOES say is highly suspect given (a) the rest of Scripture, (b) the Gospel of Jesus Christ and (c) scientific observation. (a&b are strong reasons why this section is beginning to come under fire in some Pauline Scholar circles and has been suggested as Paul quoting his opponent before shooting holes in the logic).

This is a topic the Church has had very little humility on and we've traditionally hailed Romans 1 as the citadel of our confidence. It simply isn't that and we need to take a few steps backwards.

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 04:03 PM

You could be joking, Bob, so if you are ignore me. But Naznet does have a limit for characters used in a post (20,000). Jim didn't break it (it tells you when you do).

That is exactly right!! And I have broken the post limit! Once upon a time, way before the great crash,

I created a post that exceeded the limit. Being that I am a very thick headed frenchmen, I continued
undeterred on a very short quest to find a way around the character limit.:smilies1404: I found that by

eliminating a few sentences here and there from the quotes that I had used, I could bring the post below
the legal limit.:smilies0262:

I succeeded that day, my post was accepted!:smilies0295: And if I remember correctly, Ben was proud

of me! He sent me a pm asking me how I had posted, since he was unable to respond due to the

character limit.:smilies1390:

So even though we disagree (mainly because Ben knows a lot of things that aren't so.:tongue:) at least

Ben appreciates me!:praying:

I could go on and on, but I'll stop here, having explained all.

Benjamin Burch

September 2nd, 2010, 04:36 PM

That is exactly right!! And I have broken the post limit! Once upon a time, way before the great crash,

I created a post that exceeded the limit. Being that I am a very thick headed frenchmen, I continued
undeterred on a very short quest to find a way around the character limit.:smilies1404: I found that by

eliminating a few sentences here and there from the quotes that I had used, I could bring the post below
the legal limit.

I succeeded that day, my post was accepted!:smilies0295: And if I remember correctly, Ben was proud

of me! He sent me a pm asking me how I had posted, since he was unable to respond due to the

character limit.:smilies1390:

So even though we disagree (mainly because Ben knows a lot of things that aren't so.:tongue:) at least

Ben appreciates me!:praying:

I could go on and on, but I'll stop here, having explained all.

You do remember correctly! Oh to be a stubborn Frenchman! The angry Irish-Scottish-Italian in me just yelled at the computer, made a bunch of hand-gestures, gave up (insisting in my own stubborn way that I was right and the computer was wrong) and then went and grabbed a beer..... i mean.... root beer! :tongue:

Edited to Add (and I am not making this up!): OH THE IRONY! I went to post this response and I got an error that read:

You have included a total of 7 images and/or videos in your message. The maximum number that you may include is 6. Please correct the problem and then continue again.

Images include use of smilies, the BB code [img] tag, and HTML <img> tags. Videos are included with the BB code [video] tag. The use of these is all subject to them being enabled by the administrator.

So Jim writes a post about writing a post that was so long that my quoting it made my post too long.... and in my response I get an error saying my message has too many smilies in it bc Jim used too many smilies!

darn it all....

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 04:51 PM

Also, I think that the lack of tradition in the East of reading Paul in the "original sin" context should greatly draw into question our assumption of this context in our Western theology and the way we so use it in relation to Homosexuality and how they're "trapped in it" by virtue of it's non-chosen-ness.

No, it's no where near that complicated. My use of "trapped in it" is simply the reality I see from my perspective. No theology need apply, it's just me talking here.

Add to that the fact that Paul says it's "unnatural" and yet more and more we find that homosexuality is very natural and common among animals in generally, mammals more specifically, and primates most specifically, and we really need to re-examine what Paul is saying here and how useful it is/isn't in talking about homosexuality as a sin.

If the "indication" that it is a sin is that it's "unnatural"...

(1) We don't use that criteria for judging ANY OTHER sin
(2) It's wrong, as homosexuality seems to be completely natural

Well, maybe, but no. Bear with me for a second. I'm thinking that the frequency of occurrences in nature misses the point. Even if it happens more often than not, it still is not natural, not at all. I'm sure that you realize that this is clearly a good case of misuse of tools. We are not designed that way, neither are the animals, therefore it is unnatural.

I have a habit of driving screws partway in with a hammer, (alright, sometimes most of the way.) then turning the screw the last turn or two with a screwdriver. I can tell you that I also know a few folks who do this as well. So it's natural right? No, it is unnatural. Or at least that is how I read Paul here.

I'm not saying that homosexuality is "not a sin." I don't want you hearing that. What I am in fact saying is that we need to remove this verse from our stronghold and beging to think and speak much more humbly on the subject of homosexuality. This verse (1)doesn't say what we want it to, and (2)even what it DOES say is highly suspect given (a) the rest of Scripture, (b) the Gospel of Jesus Christ and (c) scientific observation.

This is a topic the Church has had very little humility on and we've traditionally hailed Romans 1 as the citadel of our confidence. It simply isn't that and we need to take a few steps backwards.

No worries, I know that you aren't saying that, and I hear where you are coming from. Actually I don't think that we are all that far apart in some ways, maybe worlds apart in others. I think that I have made it clear that I do not consider homosexuality (the act) to be anything special in the way of sexual sin. I have made it a point to use the term "garden variety" to describe it. In fact I would find that to be an essential part of any conversation with some one struggling with this. "Look, your sinful urges are no worse than mine" Very important thing to say. We must not diminish someones value as a person, we must not consider any sin to be any more reprehensible than our own. In our unregenerate state we were no different than they are. But we can be free, and so they can share in this freedom as well. Is it instant and effortless, no absolutely not, it is sometimes painful and sometimes it is difficult, but by faith and trust in the one who created us, it can be done!

Now where I believe we differ is in this business of shunning. Do we shun all who sin, no absolutely not, do we shun those who sin in a way fitting in with Paul's list of, for lack of a better way to say it, shunnable sins? Yes we must. We must have the faith that affirms that this is scripture, it is inspired and even though we do not understand it, it is written to better help us understand love and reconciliation. We need to trust this which we do not understand. And not only for homosexual sin, we must do this for those sins which have made this "list".

I have personal knowledge of three instances where this has been actually practiced.

One of my friends has a son who moved in with his girlfriend while professing to be a Christian. His mother broke fellowship with him and explained why. Her son explained this to his girlfriend, she tearfully accepted Christ they married within the week and are still faithful some ten years later!

Another friend and a longtime Nazarene Pastor found that his son was having an affair with a married member of his church. He broke fellowship with his son because of this sin. They had some difficulty, yet his son repented of his sin, turned his life around and is now a Nazarene Pastor himself serving in Texas.

A friend of my wife found that her husband was involved in a homosexual relationship. His church reached out to him, begging him to relent and repent. He refused, and they have voted to terminate his membership. He left the church, he has terrorized his wife and torn their family to absolute tatters. I don't have rose colored glasses, I realize that some times things end very badly, yet we must trust and we must obey.

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 04:58 PM

You do remember correctly! Oh to be a stubborn Frenchman! The angry Irish-Scottish-Italian in me just yelled at the computer, made a bunch of hand-gestures, gave up (insisting in my own stubborn way that I was right and the computer was wrong) and then went and grabbed a beer..... i mean.... root beer! :tongue:

Edited to Add (and I am not making this up!): OH THE IRONY! I went to post this response and I got an error that read:

So Jim writes a post about writing a post that was so long that my quoting it made my post too long.... and in my response I get an error saying my message has too many smilies in it bc Jim used too many smilies!

darn it all....

HA! I win again!!!! :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

Seriously; I am so glad that we can do this right in the middle of a serious pitched debate!

Todd Erickson

September 2nd, 2010, 05:45 PM

Why is it that the only time we see shunning actually practiced is for sex or alcohol?

Rich Schmidt

September 2nd, 2010, 06:11 PM

The phrase that Paul uses is, so far as anybody can tell, pedastry. The term homosexual didn't exist until the 1950's, and the word that Paul uses is not widely used, so nobody's really entirely sure what it means. It's been translated freely as "homosexual" in recent years, but it's far more likely to have to do with older men seducing younger men, which was a known practice at that time, and which operated entirely outside of anything Christlike.

The English word you're looking for is "pederasty." There's no such words as "pedastry."

And if you're talking about arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), then I'm not sure pederasty is what Paul had in mind. It's a pretty clear reference back to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which don't seem to be about the abuse of young boys. You could make the argument that Lev. 18:22 is talking about the worship of false gods, but Lev. 20:13 doesn't seem to be about that at all.

Sorry.... this is way off track for this thread, but it bugs me when I see non-existent words like "pedastry." :) At the very least, Todd, it was detracting from your argument, seeing you miss the word you were looking for. :)

Todd Erickson

September 2nd, 2010, 06:59 PM

The English word you're looking for is "pederasty." There's no such words as "pedastry."

And if you're talking about arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), then I'm not sure pederasty is what Paul had in mind. It's a pretty clear reference back to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which don't seem to be about the abuse of young boys. You could make the argument that Lev. 18:22 is talking about the worship of false gods, but Lev. 20:13 doesn't seem to be about that at all.

Sorry.... this is way off track for this thread, but it bugs me when I see non-existent words like "pedastry." :) At the very least, Todd, it was detracting from your argument, seeing you miss the word you were looking for. :)

Heh. Yes, I terribly misspelled a word. Appologies.

So, what does arsenokoitai mean, that it references leviticus?

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 06:59 PM

Why is it that the only time we see shunning actually practiced is for sex or alcohol?

Don't know, it shouldn't be that way. The "list" that is given in 1 Cor 5 lists six categories.

1. Sexually Immoral
2. Greedy
3. Idolators
4. Slanderer
5. Drunkard
6. Swindler

It is also noteworthy how Paul launches out into this chapter. He is disgusted to hear of a man who is sleeping with his own stepmother. He says that the church should chase such a one out, Paul is disgusted because they are proud of this. My take is that Paul is saying that we should not allow public continual sin of this nature and degree to be present among us. The categories that Paul lays out are serious, we see that he does not list drinkers, but rather he lists drunkards. He lists not the dishonest, but rather he speaks of swindlers. Instead of gossip he lists slanderers. These are serious things that he lists, they are not the legalistic petty variants on the law that the pharisee's fed upon. We are talking about sin that stands out, serious stuff.

I'm thinking that making the case for greed could be quite subjective. It should be egregious if it is cause for action. Idolatry isn't real popular here in the churches in the US, however I could see where people may have to be shunned in a country such as Haiti, where it is possible to find Christians who still practice voodoo, action should be taken there. But the one near and dear to my heart is the swindler, to me a dishonest cheat of a businessman who names Christ is reprehensible, they should not be found among us.

Paul is exhorting us to live holy lives, for the sake of the gospel. How should we respond to this call for holiness? Is this still our mission?

Todd Erickson

September 2nd, 2010, 07:01 PM

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 07:11 PM

Heh. Yes, I terribly misspelled a word. Appologies.

So, what does arsenokoitai mean, that it references leviticus?

It is the word that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6, that is translated "homosexuals" I believe that this is the word that you are attributing to "pederasty". However if one reads the greek old testament (Septuagint) one will find two greek words in Leviticus where it is prohibited for a man to lie with another man. The conjunction of these two words gives us Paul's invention "arsenokoitai". And actually if one has a perverse imagination, this word is quite understandable in english as well.

Here is a pretty good read on this word.

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious-

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 07:14 PM

Heh. Jim...We've got plenty of Idolatry. Money, power, work position, fame, etc. These are all idols of our culture, and many people have brought them into the church in terribly dangerous ways. But when the water's hot, and you're used to it, you can disregard danger. Humans are good at adapting.

Yes, but I think that one has to do violence to the context of the passage to arrive at this. Remember, Paul is initially shocked. These things do stand out, they are immediately noticeable.

So I think that we are talking about real Idols here. Little dolls with pins, shrunken heads, talisman, that sort of thing. I hate to use this term because I believe that all sin is serious. But, I don't think that Paul is listing piddling little sins here, this stuff is more of the in your face variety.

Karen Troxler

September 2nd, 2010, 07:32 PM

Jim Chabot

September 2nd, 2010, 08:04 PM

When I preach, I try to point out the original context of the passage but also how it applies to us today. If Paul were alive today and writing to our churches, I believe that he would be addressing the issues of money, power, work position, fame, (and a whole host of other things) that we let ourselves off the hook for here in the American church. Perhaps this is not what you meant, Jim, but when I read what you wrote about little dolls with pins and shrunken heads (assuming people in Haiti practice such things as you mentioned in a previous post, though I have no first hand knowledge that they do), I pictured someone in Haiti sitting in a little cardboard house, in a town with no sanitary water, holding this "idol" and God considering that person more idolatrous than me. Right now I am sitting in my comfy chair, in my air conditioned room, with my laptop watching my flat screen TV. Next to me is my DroidX, and I just ate a bowl of icecream. I know I am pointing at myself when I say this, but who is more idolatrous...the person in Haiti or me?

I guess that my answer would be yes and no. I certainly do not let myself or our contemporaries off the hook. We face a real danger when we let things like money, power, prestige, position or what not, to take a place in our lives where we neglect God. And yes I agree wholeheartedly that we do this here in America, and it is widespread. This is the week that our little town hosts the Deutchbank PGA tournament, we are literally awash in BMW's Mercedes, and Bentleys, Rolex watches and Diamond rings big enough to cause carpal tunnel syndrome. Today I saw a sleek black helicopter fly over where I am working, it said TRUMP on the tail, I heard later at the local subway that he flies in to watch the tournament. In the midst of all of this, there is a nagging sadness. Do these people know what it is to have real joy, do they know what it is like to have a peace that passes all understanding?

Although I see a clear connection to Idolatry, still I think that there is a difference. Real live Idolatry assumes a connection with a God of sorts. Those in Haiti who practice voodoo believe that their idols hold supernatural power, as do those in other countries who practice these "dark" religions. They truly worship god's made of wood and stone. So in as much as I believe that Paul would show concern for our materialism and the rest, I don't believe that this passage speaks to that. I believe that he is talking about real live spiritual idolatry with a capital I. He says that we should refuse even to eat with these folks, that is a serious charge. I'm thinking hypothetically here, but lets say that it is discovered that a church member, a professing believer, has a shrine in their home where they pray to ganesh. What should be done. Do we allow the worship of other God's among our midst?

So ok comfy chair, check, laptop, check, flat screen TV, check, Droid X, yes indeed (love it so far!), ice cream, sounds like a good idea, air conditioned room, now I'm jealous and I'm praying for a good cold front! Are we in the lap of luxury? Yes, Spoiled pretty close to rotten. Yet I think that there is a distinction to be made between our materialism and Idolatry.

Steven Martinez

September 2nd, 2010, 10:21 PM

I think Luther said it best, and Bonhoeffer repeated it, Security is the ultimate Idol that leads us away from God.

Hans Deventer

September 3rd, 2010, 12:38 AM

I have personal knowledge of three instances where this has been actually practiced.

One of my friends has a son who moved in with his girlfriend while professing to be a Christian. His mother broke fellowship with him and explained why. Her son explained this to his girlfriend, she tearfully accepted Christ they married within the week and are still faithful some ten years later!

Another friend and a longtime Nazarene Pastor found that his son was having an affair with a married member of his church. He broke fellowship with his son because of this sin. They had some difficulty, yet his son repented of his sin, turned his life around and is now a Nazarene Pastor himself serving in Texas.

A friend of my wife found that her husband was involved in a homosexual relationship. His church reached out to him, begging him to relent and repent. He refused, and they have voted to terminate his membership. He left the church, he has terrorized his wife and torn their family to absolute tatters. I don't have rose colored glasses, I realize that some times things end very badly, yet we must trust and we must obey.

Wow! Should we really start to recount the endless list of instances where this behaviour got people so far out of church and faith that they could not even see it on the horizon anymore if they turned back to look? Where families have been torn and parents and children never spoke again anymore? Where bitterness, pride and regret ruled like kings?

Or should we start where Jesus went to the very people that everybody so faithfully shunned, braking all the pious rules?

1 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a 'sinner.' "
8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."
9 Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (Luke 19)

Todd Erickson

September 3rd, 2010, 06:30 AM

Hans, the problem with your argument is, I think, that Jim would argue that he's talking about people who are already following Christ, rather than people like Zacchaeus who aren't yet.

Seeking the Lost is one thing, but people who claim to be found, but refuse to not act like they're Lost is another.

People who claim to be found are held to a higher standard in the bible.

Hans Deventer

September 3rd, 2010, 06:42 AM

Hans, the problem with your argument is, I think, that Jim would argue that he's talking about people who are already following Christ, rather than people like Zacchaeus who aren't yet.

The problem with that argument would be that in His day, very few were and that the problem with Zaccheus wasn't that he didn't live up to following Jesus, but that he didn't follow Moses, while he was a Jew.

Seeking the Lost is one thing, but people who claim to be found, but refuse to not act like they're Lost is another.

Wow! You really got me thinking here. "refuse to not act ..... " So they are acting like they are lost, right?

People who claim to be found are held to a higher standard in the bible.

Oh yes! As were all Jews in Jesus' day, for they were the chosen people.

So the example applies. And hence Jesus says: "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham". He already was, but now he started living like one.

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 07:14 AM

Hans, the problem with your argument is, I think, that Jim would argue that he's talking about people who are already following Christ, rather than people like Zacchaeus who aren't yet.

No I wouldn't argue that. Zacchaeus was a Jew, he was quite possibly a believer, there is nothing in the text to indicate that he wasn't one. And by his own admission, he was a cheat, he does fit the description of one who Paul says should be shunned.

Seeking the Lost is one thing, but people who claim to be found, but refuse to not act like they're Lost is another.

People who claim to be found are held to a higher standard in the bible.

There is something here, although I can't seem to get my mind wrapped around it completely. In a way, those who profess to believe, yet continue in the egregious sin that Paul lists, are acting like the Jewish leaders of Jesus time. Jesus called them whitewashed sepulchers, full of dead men's bones. While somehow we view them today as similar to Zacchaeus?

Which of course these folks would be similar to Zacchaeus, only if we shun them. If we do not shun them, they must be compared to the Jewish leaders. This is interesting. Could it be the reason for Jesus reference that some should be treated as a heathen or a "tax gatherer"

In which case we need to love them, and we need to evangelize them. However it needs be clear that they are not "one of us". For one to make a profession of faith, there must be a change. Does conversion bring about perfection? No absolutely not, even sanctification falls short in that regard. However conversion needs to expel at the least, the sins that Paul lists as reason to shun such a person.

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 07:19 AM

Wow! You really got me thinking here. "refuse to not act ..... " So they are acting like they are lost, right?

Yes, me as well. Somehow, I'm thinking that this may be pivotal.:smilies1404:

Then again this is still naznet.:coffe:

Benjamin Burch

September 3rd, 2010, 10:36 AM

Yes, but I think that one has to do violence to the context of the passage to arrive at this. Remember, Paul is initially shocked. These things do stand out, they are immediately noticeable.

So I think that we are talking about real Idols here. Little dolls with pins, shrunken heads, talisman, that sort of thing. I hate to use this term because I believe that all sin is serious. But, I don't think that Paul is listing piddling little sins here, this stuff is more of the in your face variety.

Sorry, Jim, but I think you're wrong again. This assertion of yours misses the entire context for Paul's statements on Idolatry.

Paul is not in fact making statements pertaining to anything going on in that church or his actual concerns at the time of composition. Instead, he is drawing on a very classic Jewish charge against Idolatry and the fact that it leads into all other forms of perversion and wickedness. Chapter 13 of The Wisdom of Solomon (or a shared common older Jewish tradition) seems to be a likely source for the material found in Romans 1:18-32. It is a specific charge against gentile pagan idolatry. Paul is using it to set up his points in Romans 2-3 about Jews who act ungodly and Gentiles who act Godly. This is evidenced by the beginning of his charge in Romans 2, which is clearly directed at a presumedly pious Jew of some sort (either a literal rival missionary, a figurative Jewish leader, or Jewish Christians in the Roman church), "Therefore you have no excuse.... for in passing judgment... you... are doing the very same things!" (Romans 2:1). Thus this can only be read as a Jewish charge against gentile Idol worship... for the reasons a Jew would in fact make such a charge...

The background context for these statements are...

(1) Greek Idol Worship
(2) OT charges against Idolatry
(3) Idol worship practices in OT context

None of which conforms to your distinction you've attempted to make here between "Idolatry" and "idolatry." In the ancient world (OT Context) other gods were worshipped for specific purposes.

Ba'al was supposed to bring rain and crops (Canaan)
Ishtar was supposed to bring military victory (Assyria)
Marduk was supposed to bring military victory and political peace (Babylon)

And we could go on....

But the point is that they weren't actually worshipping something made of stone. They were worshipping a god who was not God. They were trusting another god to bring them that which they need - crops, victory, peace, fertility. Instead of trusting the "one true God," they were trusting another god. At first in the OT these gods are seen as legitimate, though lesser gods to YHWH. Eventually this evolves into a belief that there is in fact only one God - YHWH. However, putting your trust in either (1) a lesser god than YHWH or (2) a non-god or false-god is to put your trust in something other than the "one true God" - YHWH. Thus, it is Idolatry.

As far as the "images" are concerned, this is something a little different. It was widely practiced both among pagans and Hebrews. We have many, many relics and images from OT times. It appears that it was only the Jewish elite who really had a problem with this. But the idea was that since (a) YHWH was wholly (holy) other than creation he could not be contained in a created object and (b) Israel would be YHWH's "image" (this is where Adam becomes a parallel to Israel, the creation of "humanity" parallels the creation of Israel, and where Israel gains and understands its vocation among the other lost nations.

So the images are only a symptom, not the disease.

This is the context and background to the charges in chapter 13 of Wisdom of Solomon and Paul's charges in Romans 1:18-32.

Thus, when we trust in money, our jobs, etc, to bring us comfort, peace, joy, etc... we are actually doing the very same thing the ancients were doing in Idol worship and therefore falling under the same exact judgment Paul levels in Romans 1:18-32.

We cannot escape it so easily as you've tried here.

And, again, Paul is not describing something he is "initially shocked by" or something which is "in your face." He's drawing on common Jewish tradition to communicate to the Jewish congregants in the Church at Rome.

Also... I should add....

We should take Paul's charge very, very, very seriously. When we look to Romans 1 as our citadel for condemning homosexual behavior and even turning away those who "do not repent," we should listen very, very, very closely to his next line!

"Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

We have no choice but to try and root out those things that are not so "in your face" such as gossip, pornography, etc, etc. For after all, it's exactly the same!!! This is why reading our Bibles in context is vitally important to good exegesis, good theology, and good praxis.

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 11:06 AM

Sorry, Jim, but I think you're wrong again. This assertion of yours misses the entire context for Paul's statements on Idolatry.

Paul is not in fact making statements pertaining to anything going on in that church or his actual concerns at the time of composition. Instead, he is drawing on a very classic Jewish charge against Idolatry and the fact that it leads into all other forms of perversion and wickedness. Chapter 13 of The Wisdom of Solomon (or a shared common older Jewish tradition) seems to be a likely source for the material found in Romans 1:18-32. It is a specific charge against gentile pagan idolatry. Paul is using it to set up his points in Romans 2-3 about Jews who act ungodly and Gentiles who act Godly. This is evidenced by the beginning of his charge in Romans 2, which is clearly directed at a presumedly pious Jew of some sort (either a literal rival missionary, a figurative Jewish leader, or Jewish Christians in the Roman church), "Therefore you have no excuse.... for in passing judgment... you... are doing the very same things!" (Romans 2:1). Thus this can only be read as a Jewish charge against gentile Idol worship... for the reasons a Jew would in fact make such a charge...

The background context for these statements are...

(1) Greek Idol Worship
(2) OT charges against Idolatry
(3) Idol worship practices in OT context

None of which conforms to your distinction you've attempted to make here between "Idolatry" and "idolatry." In the ancient world (OT Context) other gods were worshipped for specific purposes.

Ba'al was supposed to bring rain and crops (Canaan)
Ishtar was supposed to bring military victory (Assyria)
Marduk was supposed to bring military victory and political peace (Babylon)

And we could go on....

But the point is that they weren't actually worshipping something made of stone. They were worshipping a god who was not God. They were trusting another god to bring them that which they need - crops, victory, peace, fertility. Instead of trusting the "one true God," they were trusting another god. At first in the OT these gods are seen as legitimate, though lesser gods to YHWH. Eventually this evolves into a belief that there is in fact only one God - YHWH. However, putting your trust in either (1) a lesser god than YHWH or (2) a non-god or false-god is to put your trust in something other than the "one true God" - YHWH. Thus, it is Idolatry.

As far as the "images" are concerned, this is something a little different. It was widely practiced both among pagans and Hebrews. We have many, many relics and images from OT times. It appears that it was only the Jewish elite who really had a problem with this. But the idea was that since (a) YHWH was wholly (holy) other than creation he could not be contained in a created object and (b) Israel would be YHWH's "image" (this is where Adam becomes a parallel to Israel, the creation of "humanity" parallels the creation of Israel, and where Israel gains and understands its vocation among the other lost nations.

So the images are only a symptom, not the disease.

This is the context and background to the charges in chapter 13 of Wisdom of Solomon and Paul's charges in Romans 1:18-32.

Thus, when we trust in money, our jobs, etc, to bring us comfort, peace, joy, etc... we are actually doing the very same thing the ancients were doing in Idol worship and therefore falling under the same exact judgment Paul levels in Romans 1:18-32.

We cannot escape it so easily as you've tried here.

And, again, Paul is not describing something he is "initially shocked by" or something which is "in your face." He's drawing on common Jewish tradition to communicate to the Jewish congregants in the Church at Rome.

Also... I should add....

We should take Paul's charge very, very, very seriously. When we look to Romans 1 as our citadel for condemning homosexual behavior and even turning away those who "do not repent," we should listen very, very, very closely to his next line!

"Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

We have no choice but to try and root out those things that are not so "in your face" such as gossip, pornography, etc, etc. For after all, it's exactly the same!!! This is why reading our Bibles in context is vitally important to good exegesis, good theology, and good praxis.

My mistake Ben, I should have given reference. The text I speak of is in 1 Corinthians 5.

Paul lists six categories of sin, and he instructs that we should shun those in the church who continue in these six sin categories.

The idea that money, power, etc.... ad infinitum, is tantamount to idol worship, just doesn't fly. These folks trusted in false Gods, they believed that their false Gods had supernatural powers. Those who trust in money etc. make no such claim, there is a difference. In fact there is a huge difference. Don't get me wrong here, I do understand that trusting in money etc. does come between a person and God, however to call this idolatry is just plain wrong in this concept. Lets remember the instruction to shun idolaters. Honestly, I thought that you more than anyone else here would see this idolatry comparison for what it really is. Nothing more than western evangelism once again pinning the tail on the wrong donkey.

Benjamin Burch

September 3rd, 2010, 11:25 AM

My mistake Ben, I should have given reference. The text I speak of is in 1 Corinthians 5.

Paul lists six categories of sin, and he instructs that we should shun those in the church who continue in these six sin categories.

The idea that money, power, etc.... ad infinitum, is tantamount to idol worship, just doesn't fly. These folks trusted in false Gods, they believed that their false Gods had supernatural powers. Those who trust in money etc. make no such claim, there is a difference. In fact there is a huge difference. Don't get me wrong here, I do understand that trusting in money etc. does come between a person and God, however to call this idolatry is just plain wrong in this concept. Lets remember the instruction to shun idolaters. Honestly, I thought that you more than anyone else here would see this idolatry comparison for what it really is. Nothing more than western evangelism once again pinning the tail on the wrong donkey.

I think you're still missing the context, Jim. It does fly.

The reason we don't trust in our "gods" for "supernatural powers" is because we live in a world that is very different from that world. We don't need "supernatural" gods for anything other than what we ourselves cannot obtain.

(1) Eternal life
(2) healing of sickness
(3) whatever else you can't personally get by your own means

Thus, in effect, we worship our "gods" for what they give us that we "can't have" without them. Joy, peace of mind, comfort, entertainment, etc.

We are doing exactly the same thing they were doing, it just looks radically different. It is, at the heart, the same exact thing. That's why the context for Romans 1 is so vitally important - even for understanding 1 Corinthians 5. It is all a common tradition/context which is being drawn upon.

The only reason we can't see it as actually being the "same" is because it looks so different in our context - given that we've ceased needing supernatural gods for most things. We praise God for the things we have, yet we worship them as though they are what give us peace, joy, comfort, etc... We are worshipping gifts as the giver. This is an exact parallel to what Paul says in Romans 1 (and what is said in Wisdom of Solomon).

they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

They worshipped created as creator.

It's the same thing, Jim.

Hans Deventer

September 3rd, 2010, 11:45 AM

The idea that money, power, etc.... ad infinitum, is tantamount to idol worship, just doesn't fly.

Oh man, I just hate seeing gaps getting wider and wider :smilies1390:

Todd Erickson

September 3rd, 2010, 12:07 PM

There is a basic context here that is problematic.

Most Secular folks have no issue with witchcraft, homosexuality, etc., but would have a lot of trouble associating with anybody who was openly judgemental, gossping, hateful, spiteful, scornful, ignorant, etc.

In the church, on the other hand, we drive out those guilty of witchcraft, homosexuality, but state that the other qualities are the normal aspects of the righteous. Which is why the world has so little tolerance for us.

But those qualities do not match Jesus. And people who want to support those qualities generally have to quote Paul or Peter in order to get them to stand.

I think that the world sees the church as inherently flawed because they place moral purity, in most cases, ahead of love, and as a result, have little love to show the world, either toward each other, or toward the world.

But many church folk would see not driving out the witches and homosexuals as needlessly tolerant of sin. I would argue that this view of sin is entirely legalistic, and is precisely what the 1st century Jews were guilty of...they had put the letter of the law ahead of the heart of it.

It doesn't help that, where the church of the first century that Paul was writing to was one where people were constantly, daily in community with one another, in many of our churches we have only sunday morning to base our ideas of each other off of, our growth, our context. We are assuming so much cultural normality that simply doesn't stand.

The heart that is scornful, dismissive, judgemental, is not a heart of Christ, no matter how morally pure that heart is in other matters. But we can excuse that heart, within the church, in the face of people who support homosexuality, abortion, witchcraft, non-American idolatry, non-American nationalism, etc.

Witchcraft, for reference, is depending on ourselves rather than God, rather than anything particular magical. Leaning on my own power, or even borrowing the power of others, rather than turning to God.

The way that things such as idolatry and homosexuality have been misdefined within this thread clearly delinates how utterly cultural this entire argument is, and makes it unclear what further progress could possibly be made. Each church will do as it will...

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 12:10 PM

I think you're still missing the context, Jim. It does fly.

The reason we don't trust in our "gods" for "supernatural powers" is because we live in a world that is very different from that world. We don't need "supernatural" gods for anything other than what we ourselves cannot obtain.

(1) Eternal life
(2) healing of sickness
(3) whatever else you can't personally get by your own means

Thus, in effect, we worship our "gods" for what they give us that we "can't have" without them. Joy, peace of mind, comfort, entertainment, etc.

We are doing exactly the same thing they were doing, it just looks radically different. It is, at the heart, the same exact thing. That's why the context for Romans 1 is so vitally important - even for understanding 1 Corinthians 5. It is all a common tradition/context which is being drawn upon.

The only reason we can't see it as actually being the "same" is because it looks so different in our context - given that we've ceased needing supernatural gods for most things. We praise God for the things we have, yet we worship them as though they are what give us peace, joy, comfort, etc... We are worshipping gifts as the giver. This is an exact parallel to what Paul says in Romans 1 (and what is said in Wisdom of Solomon).

They worshipped created as creator.

It's the same thing, Jim.

Nope, not the same at all.

Lets review shall we. Paul enters stage right, he finds that a church member is sleeping with his own stepmother. Paul is outraged. Paul lists six categories of sin, he says that it is ok to associate with heathen who practice any of this. He then explains that should someone in the church practice these things they must be shunned. Pretty simple text actually. Todd has explained the historical context, which appears to strengthen the argument that this text is simple and is still important today.

Now, if idolatry is as you say, consistent with our modern day materialism, then start shunning most everyone. And no, it is absolutely not ok to say "Oh Dear! We cannot do that, there are just too many. We wouldn't even have a church left!"

I will once again offer the disclaimer that I fully comprehend how materialism separates us from God. However we are talking about sin that fully warrants shunning the violator. There are other texts that much better suit the perils of materialism. Worshiping gifts rather than the giver is wrong, but it is not idolatry, there is a difference.

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 12:16 PM

The way that things such as idolatry and homosexuality have been misdefined within this thread clearly delinates how utterly cultural this entire argument is, and makes it unclear what further progress could possibly be made. Each church will do as it will...

That is just plain wrong Todd, and I think you know it. You have attempted to show how homosexuality has been misdefined, and you have been shown quite adequately that it has not been misdefined, not at all. The debate over Paul's on the spot compound word "arsenokoitai" is pretty well documented to be spurious.

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 12:21 PM

Oh man, I just hate seeing gaps getting wider and wider :smilies1390:

I agree and I hope to be able to get back to this and develop it a bit further. I agree that materialism is a bad thing, with that we have no argument. But I cannot be part of the popular evangelical fad of pin the tail on the donkey, whereby we simply plaster anything we are against with whatever scripture seems to fit close enough for our own purposes. This is simply bad exegesis.

The bottom line is that if we persist with this definition, then we must shun many, many, many people. Without that admonishment, then I would say who cares how we speak out on materialism, no harm, no foul. I will maintain that according to 1 Cor. 5, the stakes are indeed high. Thus we must be very careful what we call idolatry and what we do not.

And I need to add that I still love and respect, you and Ben and Todd as well. Lets not lose sight of what is essential!

Benjamin Burch

September 3rd, 2010, 12:39 PM

Nope, not the same at all.

Lets review shall we. Paul enters stage right, he finds that a church member is sleeping with his own stepmother. Paul is outraged. Paul lists six categories of sin, he says that it is ok to associate with heathen who practice any of this. He then explains that should someone in the church practice these things they must be shunned. Pretty simple text actually. Todd has explained the historical context, which appears to strengthen the argument that this text is simple and is still important today.

Now, if idolatry is as you say, consistent with our modern day materialism, then start shunning most everyone. And no, it is absolutely not ok to say "Oh Dear! We cannot do that, there are just too many. We wouldn't even have a church left!"

I will once again offer the disclaimer that I fully comprehend how materialism separates us from God. However we are talking about sin that fully warrants shunning the violator. There are other texts that much better suit the perils of materialism. Worshiping gifts rather than the giver is wrong, but it is not idolatry, there is a difference.

Again...

What is different between these two....

(1) Worshipping gifts as giver
(2) Worshipping created as creator

It seems that you're still missing what Idolatry actually was in the ancient context...

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 12:57 PM

Again...

What is different between these two....

(1) Worshipping gifts as giver
(2) Worshipping created as creator

It seems that you're still missing what Idolatry actually was in the ancient context...

Ok, I have to head out for a bit to check on a couple of jobs. I will accept that as my homework assignment.

Now your turn. Assuming that we must put idolaters out of the church and shun them. Do you hold steadfast to your view, or do you re-examine it, just so that you are sure?

I'll be back.

Hans Deventer

September 3rd, 2010, 01:04 PM

I agree and I hope to be able to get back to this and develop it a bit further. I agree that materialism is a bad thing, with that we have no argument. But I cannot be part of the popular evangelical fad of pin the tail on the donkey, whereby we simply plaster anything we are against with whatever scripture seems to fit close enough for our own purposes. This is simply bad exegesis.

The bottom line is that if we persist with this definition, then we must shun many, many, many people.

Yes. Which is why I don't.

The other day I read an image that was helpful to me because it explained the way I look at the Scriptures. For some, the Bible is flat, so to speak. Each and every word is equally inspired. The challenge is to get so inspired by the Holy Spirit that the seeming contradictions disappear into a neatly and consistent system of grace and law. I can't be part of that group because I don't believe that is possible, I think the approach is doomed for failure because the Bible wasn't written with that purpose in God's mind.

I've learned to see the Bible as a book standing on a table like a V upside down. And the top is Christ, are the gospels. Everything in the OT points towards Him, everything after in the NT flows from Him. But each and every Scripture is to be judged by the revelation of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

So if I read one thing in the gospel on how Jesus deals with Jews that did not live up to their identity, and something else on how Paul teaches the church to deal with people who don't live up to their identity in Christ, I proceed from Jesus' teachings and understand that apparently, sometimes a different approach is needed in a specific situation. Paul wasn't writing a body of law, he was dealing with a specific situation in a specific church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the "rule" is always how Jesus deals with issues and people. If anything in the OT or NT contradicts that, that would be the exception to the rule.

Perhaps this somewhat explains my hermeneutics. The image was helpful to me, anyway. Sometimes you need others to explain to you what you believe :)

This is also why I'm so happy with the huge cross we have in the centre of our church. It's all about HIM, and no one else.

With the same love and respect, Jim!

Benjamin Burch

September 3rd, 2010, 01:47 PM

Ok, I have to head out for a bit to check on a couple of jobs. I will accept that as my homework assignment.

Now your turn. Assuming that we must put idolaters out of the church and shun them. Do you hold steadfast to your view, or do you re-examine it, just so that you are sure?

I'll be back.

I need to add a nuance and clarification which may be missing from our disagreement so far. Hopefully once I add this it will close some of the gap between the two of us here, Jim.

What I have tried to do is show that a materialism that does in fact treat or worship the "gifts as giver" is, at its heart, the same as ancient idolatry. That IS NOT to say that all who have Money, Possessions, Technology, etc,etc are guilty of this and that materialism in every single degree in fact qualifies as idolatry. I would reject this outright. And I assume this is where some of your contention comes from and rightfully so.

So, I do in fact believe that there are some (and possibly many) within our churches who are in fact guilty of this. The problem is that this is - again because of our culture and context and the nature of and form which this "Idolatry" takes - difficult to discern. Therefore, I would want to bring in Hans' point here that Paul was writing to certain church within a certain context in 1 Corinthians. So, since we're not able to follow these guidelines of Paul well within our own context we're left with two choices:

(1) follow them rigidly where we are capable and accept our losses where we can't
or
(2) try to nuance our approach to acknowledge our difficulties and attempt to stay true to Paul's intentions while trying to treat all equally?

I (unsurprisingly) think (2) is the better option. How do we do this? I'm sure it's different in different contexts.

Todd Erickson

September 3rd, 2010, 02:33 PM

Benjamin Burch

September 3rd, 2010, 02:35 PM

I think that we spend too much time taking Paul's words to a specific community in a specific time in a specific context and try to make them apply to everybody at all times, which may not have been Pauls' intent.

But it's Scripture, don't you know? It's a list of universal rules and propositions to be followed for all of eternity!

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 03:06 PM

But it's Scripture, don't you know? It's a list of universal rules and propositions to be followed for all of eternity!

Absolutely not, where would you get that idea. Scripture is a set of universal rules prescribed by our creator with our best interests in mind. They are subject to change, when modified by the creator himself. News flash, the last update was performed during the first century AD. Our creator is not Bill Gates, updates are less frequent. Hackers abound, yet no virus has ever caused instability in His operating system.

Good grief man, get it straight will ya.:smilies1404:

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 03:13 PM

I think that we spend too much time taking Paul's words to a specific community in a specific time in a specific context and try to make them apply to everybody at all times, which may not have been Pauls' intent.

Then again it may have been God's intent for Paul to convey his message to us. Jesus did say that Paul was his chosen vessel to bear his name before us. I mean, it's not like Paul was just some crazy old Jewish convert blogger.

Sadly this line of reasoning is always the refuge of anyone who doesn't want to hear what Paul has said. Nevermind that Jesus himself made it clear that Paul speaks for him!

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 03:22 PM

I need to add a nuance and clarification which may be missing from our disagreement so far. Hopefully once I add this it will close some of the gap between the two of us here, Jim.

What I have tried to do is show that a materialism that does in fact treat or worship the "gifts as giver" is, at its heart, the same as ancient idolatry. That IS NOT to say that all who have Money, Possessions, Technology, etc,etc are guilty of this and that materialism in every single degree in fact qualifies as idolatry. I would reject this outright. And I assume this is where some of your contention comes from and rightfully so.

So, I do in fact believe that there are some (and possibly many) within our churches who are in fact guilty of this. The problem is that this is - again because of our culture and context and the nature of and form which this "Idolatry" takes - difficult to discern. Therefore, I would want to bring in Hans' point here that Paul was writing to certain church within a certain context in 1 Corinthians. So, since we're not able to follow these guidelines of Paul well within our own context we're left with two choices:

(1) follow them rigidly where we are capable and accept our losses where we can't
or
(2) try to nuance our approach to acknowledge our difficulties and attempt to stay true to Paul's intentions while trying to treat all equally?

I (unsurprisingly) think (2) is the better option. How do we do this? I'm sure it's different in different contexts.

Arrrrrrrrggggg!!!!!!!!!!! No, no, no, a thousand times no!!!! That is not it. I'm ok with materialism bashing or whatnot, I have no desire to gore that sacred ox. I'm trying to point out, ineffectively, that the question needs to be separated. If we could only get past this insistance of dragging materialism into the idolatry conversation, maybe we could discuss what is at issue with Paul's instructions.

Got it, right here on an imaginary sticky note from back before they invented them. Money is not the root of all evil, no not at all. Rather it is the LOVE of money that is the root. I've gotten the memo, had it for many years. No problem here. No need to bring it into the conversation, other than for the purpose of obfuscation, and I honestly believe that is not your intent here Ben.

I am reminded of something Emerson Eggerich once said. The sunday school teacher asks the class "what animal is gray, has four legs a bushy tail, and gathers nuts?" The bright young child in the front row shoots his hand upward and blurts out, "It sounds a lot like a squirrel, but I know that the answer is Jesus!"

Sarah Smith

September 3rd, 2010, 03:32 PM

Very interesting thread re idolatry.

Having spent so much time is rez country, I tend to think of idolatrous church members as those that want to go to a sing this weekend (as trusting its efficacy, not tourists) and go to church next weekend.

Or those that still practice the ancient worship in addition to being church members.

And yet, I can see say telling a lie not to lose business as idolatry also.

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 03:45 PM

I've learned to see the Bible as a book standing on a table like a V upside down. And the top is Christ, are the gospels. Everything in the OT points towards Him, everything after in the NT flows from Him. But each and every Scripture is to be judged by the revelation of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Amen to that! I love that picture!

I am mindful though that Paul and the other NT writers knew the mind of Christ far better than I can glean by reading the gospels alone.

So if I read one thing in the gospel on how Jesus deals with Jews that did not live up to their identity, and something else on how Paul teaches the church to deal with people who don't live up to their identity in Christ, I proceed from Jesus' teachings and understand that apparently, sometimes a different approach is needed in a specific situation. Paul wasn't writing a body of law, he was dealing with a specific situation in a specific church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the "rule" is always how Jesus deals with issues and people. If anything in the OT or NT contradicts that, that would be the exception to the rule.

Perhaps this somewhat explains my hermeneutics. The image was helpful to me, anyway. Sometimes you need others to explain to you what you believe :)

I can respect your "lens", I believe that you have come to this understanding by honestly searching. My "lens" is colored a bit by the observation that most every, "lets do church my way, with my new better rules" kind of theologian or preacher, first must marginalize Paul. Their modus operendai is most usually to use culture and specificity to muddy the waters.

This is also why I'm so happy with the huge cross we have in the centre of our church. It's all about HIM, and no one else.

With the same love and respect, Jim!

I think that you would like one of my favorite songs. When I travel to sing somewhere, I almost always include this:

The song starts about 1 minute in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN2v1rgLzqI&feature=related

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 04:10 PM

Again...

What is different between these two....

(1) Worshipping gifts as giver
(2) Worshipping created as creator

It seems that you're still missing what Idolatry actually was in the ancient context...

Ok, back to our regularly scheduled program and I'm going to pick door #3! There is no difference between door #1 and door #2.

(3) Worshiping a graven image with the belief that there is supernatural power behind it.

Now behind door number three lurks something different indeed, for there lurks a false deity. That which is behind door number three is described by the psalmist "The idols of the heathen [are] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there [any] breath in their mouths. They that make them are like unto them: [so is] every one that trusteth in them. "

Behind door number three, lie not that which is created by the creator, rather that which is fashioned with mans hands and it is fancied that this has the power of an unseen deity. That which lurks there is not a gift that is given, rather it is a fabrication of the mind, the grotesque image of a non existent deity.

That which lies behind door number three is not that which can be seen or grasped, it is not position, nor is it riches. No rather what lies behind door number three is the image of false hope, and the specter of a dark pain filled life to come.

Behind door number three are statues of Buddha, images of ganesh, and other hindu icons. There are talisman clutched in frightened hands, with the hope that evil will be warded off.

That which is behind doors numbered one and two is evil, we should avoid them, no argument from me. My point is that behind door number three is something different altogether.

Benjamin Burch

September 3rd, 2010, 06:20 PM

Ok, back to our regularly scheduled program and I'm going to pick door #3! There is no difference between door #1 and door #2.

(3) Worshiping a graven image with the belief that there is supernatural power behind it.

Now behind door number three lurks something different indeed, for there lurks a false deity. That which is behind door number three is described by the psalmist "The idols of the heathen [are] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there [any] breath in their mouths. They that make them are like unto them: [so is] every one that trusteth in them. "

Behind door number three, lie not that which is created by the creator, rather that which is fashioned with mans hands and it is fancied that this has the power of an unseen deity. That which lurks there is not a gift that is given, rather it is a fabrication of the mind, the grotesque image of a non existent deity.

That which lies behind door number three is not that which can be seen or grasped, it is not position, nor is it riches. No rather what lies behind door number three is the image of false hope, and the specter of a dark pain filled life to come.

Behind door number three are statues of Buddha, images of ganesh, and other hindu icons. There are talisman clutched in frightened hands, with the hope that evil will be warded off.

That which is behind doors numbered one and two is evil, we should avoid them, no argument from me. My point is that behind door number three is something different altogether.

I guess you've still avoided the point. Nevermind. Sorry, Jim.

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 07:10 PM

I guess you've still avoided the point. Nevermind. Sorry, Jim.

Honestly Ben, you have not made a point yet. Perhaps there is more, but I am not left with any confidence that you understand this. So far you haven't really offered anything to back your assertions.

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 08:14 PM

Ok, here is a good comparison study. I'l freely admit that I have looked around to find someone who agrees with me. So here is where I am coming from. Please note that your take on Romans 1 is covered here as well. The historical context shown here brings the view of creature vs. creation into proper focus.

Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God. St. Thomas (Summa Theol., II-II, q. xciv) treats of it as a species of the genus superstition, which is a vice opposed to the virtue of religion and consists in giving Divine honour (cultus) to things that are not God, or to God Himself in a wrong way. The specific note of idolatry is its direct opposition to the primary object of Divine worship; it bestows on a creature the reverence due to God alone. It does so in several ways. The creature is often represented by an image, an idol. "Some, by nefarious arts, made certain images which, through the power of the devil, produced certain effects whence they thought that these images contained something divine and, consequently, that divine worship was due to them." Such was the opinion of Hermes Trismegistus. Others gave Divine honours not to the images but to the creatures which they represented. Both are hinted at by the Apostle (Romans 1:23-25), who says of the first: "They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts and of creeping things"; and of the second: "They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator". These worshippers of creatures were of three kinds. Some held that certain men were gods, and these they honoured through their statues, e.g., Jupiter and Mercury. Others opined that the whole world was one God, God being conceived of as the rational soul of the corporeal world. Hence they worshipped the world and all its parts, the air, the water, and all the rest; their idols, according to Varro, as reported by St. Augustine (City of God VIII.21-22), were the expression of that belief. Others again, followers of Plato, admitted one supreme God, the cause of all things; under Him they placed certain spiritual substances of His creation and participating in His Divinity; these substances they called gods; and below these they put the souls of the heavenly bodies and, below these again the demons who, they thought, were a sort of aerial living beings (animalia). Lowest of all they placed the human souls, which, according to merit or demerit, were to share the society either of the gods or of the demons. To all they attributed Divine worship, as St. Augustine says (City of God VIII.14).

And here is something that I found that supports the western evangelical viewpoint. This is about as far out of the bounds of the term idolatry as i could find. I post it to show how far the view that you appear to espouse can be taken if left unchecked by reason and proper exegesis.

Programs to promote and grow the church may have created an idolatry of the church, that is, the church as an end-in-itself rather than a meansto- an-end, which is advancing the kingdom of God.

* It is church idolatry when we work to increase membership, attendance, and giving without regard to the quality of life in our communities, and when we’re more concerned about growing the church than advancing the Kingdom outside as well as inside the church.

* It is church idolatry when we spend our tithes and offerings on elaborate buildings that serve as barriers to “the poor, the disenfranchised and the disposed.”

* It is church idolatry when our worship becomes self-centered, when we forget that the worship God wants is a display of compassion, righteousness, and justice.

Benjamin Burch

September 3rd, 2010, 08:29 PM

David Troxler

September 3rd, 2010, 08:31 PM

Jim Chabot

September 3rd, 2010, 09:29 PM

Mine was not unchecked by reason and proper exegesis. It's reason which draws us to recognize that we seek the same exact thing through our worship of materials, money, etc that the ancients sought through idol-worship. Appearances and expression don't dictate intent/content. That's the point. It's there.

The fact is that we don't believe in the same sorts of gods they did back then. We substitute other things. Unless we're willing to acknowledge that substitution as a genuine substitution, we will keep insisting it is "something different."

Repeating this over and over again will not make it true, again you make an assertion without substance.

There is a difference here and it is substantial. Idolatry in ancient times attributed the divine to manmade images, idols, talisman etc. It was believed that the idol either had or represented a supernatural power. This is true right up to the present day, idolatry is still practiced in much the same way as it was then.

Substitution you say? I will continue to disagree for the primary component is missing here. That missing element is the divine. For as much as someone might lust after money, power, fame or whatever, they simply do not attribute divinity to any of this.

Ben, I have been listening to this kind of preaching for a long time now, it was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. This stuff is right out of easypreacher 101. Find something that bugs you, call it idolatery and preach away, make sure that you pound the pulpit for best results. I have heard more things called idolatry than I care to keep count of.

I know that I am repeating myself here, but just because, for the most part, we do not believe in the same gods as they did back then. We still need to realize that there some here on this planet that do still.practice idolatry in the old time way. I think that I have demontrated that this supposed substitution is in fact not genuine. The belief in a devine attribute is primary to the practice of idolatry.

If you have exegesis that will compete with Augustine, regarding the creature vs. creator angle, I'm all ears. My fear is that you may have fallen victim to a "plain reading" here. I don't see how this interpretation survives when placed in context.

Todd Erickson

September 3rd, 2010, 11:57 PM

People treat the economy as a sort of divine, non-understandable source from which all wealth and stability descend. It fulfills our dreams and makes progress possible. We serve it by spending money.

Benjamin Burch

September 4th, 2010, 01:07 AM

Repeating this over and over again will not make it true, again you make an assertion without substance.

There is a difference here and it is substantial. Idolatry in ancient times attributed the divine to manmade images, idols, talisman etc. It was believed that the idol either had or represented a supernatural power. This is true right up to the present day, idolatry is still practiced in much the same way as it was then.

Substitution you say? I will continue to disagree for the primary component is missing here. That missing element is the divine. For as much as someone might lust after money, power, fame or whatever, they simply do not attribute divinity to any of this.

Ben, I have been listening to this kind of preaching for a long time now, it was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. This stuff is right out of easypreacher 101. Find something that bugs you, call it idolatery and preach away, make sure that you pound the pulpit for best results. I have heard more things called idolatry than I care to keep count of.

I know that I am repeating myself here, but just because, for the most part, we do not believe in the same gods as they did back then. We still need to realize that there some here on this planet that do still.practice idolatry in the old time way. I think that I have demontrated that this supposed substitution is in fact not genuine. The belief in a devine attribute is primary to the practice of idolatry.

If you have exegesis that will compete with Augustine, regarding the creature vs. creator angle, I'm all ears. My fear is that you may have fallen victim to a "plain reading" here. I don't see how this interpretation survives when placed in context.

I guess we understand "divine" differently. The fact that we don't need divinity today doesn't make "it" different. It makes "us" different. I'm done here. Sorry. Nothing in life is a 1-to-1 comparsion across multiple cultures and thousands of years. However, you're trying to make it just that, Jim. We are a different people with a different context and different beliefs. That's not 1-to-1. Getting to the heart of the matter and comparing that is the only way to make comparisons. You refuse to do that, though. You insist that somehow the fact that primitive, ignorant (not dumb) people required "supernatural powers" more than we do today somehow makes their "end" different. It doesn't.

Just because we've learned enough that we don't rely so heavily on the supernatural doesn't make it completely different. Not at all.

Hans Deventer

September 4th, 2010, 01:08 AM

It is apparent that this thread should be separated into another section since so much is now dealing with the topic of idolatry and not the topic of either the original post nor its supplemental informational post by Dr. Oord.

The matter at hand has merit but it has distanced itself from the thread significantly.

And I found the best way to notify the moderators not to be not posting in the thread itself, presuming that of course they read each and every post at the forum (because they don't), but to use the "report post" icon or Private Message because that sends a message directly to them.

Just a suggestion, David.

Hans Deventer

September 4th, 2010, 05:58 AM

Amen to that! I love that picture!

I am mindful though that Paul and the other NT writers knew the mind of Christ far better than I can glean by reading the gospels alone.

Need to think about that one. Yes, Paul would know the mind of Christ better than we do. So far, I agree.

I can respect your "lens", I believe that you have come to this understanding by honestly searching. My "lens" is colored a bit by the observation that most every, "lets do church my way, with my new better rules" kind of theologian or preacher, first must marginalize Paul. Their modus operendai is most usually to use culture and specificity to muddy the waters.

I'm definitely not trying to marginalize Paul. He wrote most of the NT! But I am mindful that he did not set out on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Ephesus in AD 50 with the idea, let's write a bunch of rules that the church can use for the next 2000 years.
Because first of all, the gospel is not a set of rules, and secondly, he had specific congregations in mind. Which is why we have letters to Rome, Ephesus, Corinth etc. Now what we have to do is try to learn from Paul how he put the teachings of Jesus in practice in the first century and do the same in the 21st century, understanding that culture changes, but people are not all that different.

We cannot divert from the goal, and I believe both Jesus and Paul had the same goal in mind: the Kingdom of God. We can have no other. Not OUR kingdom!!! It is always HIS kingdom. But I do believe that we've been given some freedom in how to live in that Kingdom, because indeed we are no longer under the law, as Paul wrote.

So with the OT providing the background for Jesus, with His teachings and His life and most of all, Himself, and the applications Paul and the other apostles chose to work out that life of the age to come in their time and day, we've been given both room and a context within which that room should be contained.

Does this help, Jim?

I think that you would like one of my favorite songs. When I travel to sing somewhere, I almost always include this:

Not my musical style, but I love any song that is focussed on Jesus and His amazing love for a lost world.

I love this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFFv6ZePDG0

It's about the Book of Kells, an ancient and illustrated Bible, and the subject of the song is Chi Rho, the first two letters of Christ in Greek.

Jim Chabot

September 4th, 2010, 06:06 AM

I guess we understand "divine" differently. The fact that we don't need divinity today doesn't make "it" different. It makes "us" different. I'm done here. Sorry. Nothing in life is a 1-to-1 comparsion across multiple cultures and thousands of years. However, you're trying to make it just that, Jim. We are a different people with a different context and different beliefs. That's not 1-to-1. Getting to the heart of the matter and comparing that is the only way to make comparisons. You refuse to do that, though. You insist that somehow the fact that primitive, ignorant (not dumb) people required "supernatural powers" more than we do today somehow makes their "end" different. It doesn't.

Just because we've learned enough that we don't rely so heavily on the supernatural doesn't make it completely different. Not at all.

Ok so your done, I can't help but say that I am disappointed. I honestly thought that maybe you had something helpful to bring into this discussion. Something more that just bombast and preconceived ideas about the nature of man.

Could you please do me one favor. The next time you feel led to begin a conversation with "sorry Jim but you are wrong here", could you at least have something of substance to back your assertion. I think that you will agree that this has been a waste of time.

Jim Chabot

September 4th, 2010, 06:37 AM

Oh yes. That's why their writings were included in the Holy Scriptures by the church.

I'm definitely not trying to marginalize Paul. He wrote most of the NT! But I am mindful that he did not set out on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Ephesus in AD 50 with the idea, let's write a bunch of rules that the church can use for the next 2000 years.
Because first of all, the gospel is not a set of rules, and secondly, he had specific congregations in mind. Which is why we have letters to Rome, Ephesus, Corinth etc. Now what we have to do is try to learn from Paul how he put the teachings of Jesus in practice in the first century and do the same in the 21st century. understanding that culture changes, but people are not all that different.

We cannot divert from the goal, and I believe both Jesus and Paul had the same goal in mind: the Kingdom of God. We can have no other. Not OUR kingdom!!! It is always HIS kingdom. But I do believe that we've been given some freedom in how to live in that Kingdom, because indeed we are no longer under the law, as Paul wrote.

So with the OT providing the background for Jesus, with His teachings and His life and most of all, Himself, and the applications Paul and the other apostles chose to work out that life of the age to come in their time and day, we've been given both room and a context within which that room should be contained.

Does this help, Jim?

Yes, very helpful and quite agreeable as well. My thought is that we quite possible read even what you have just written in different ways. For instance, and I am only guessing here, I place much emphasis on the idea that people haven't really changed much, while I'm guessing that culture plays a large part in your thinking. Not that you discount that people haven't changed much, nor do I discount culture. Yet I think that we give differing weights?

And yes I resonate deeply with the thought that this is not "our" kingdom, it is his, we need conform to his image, and not the other way around. That is huge in my thoughts. I should add here that the idea of shunning is repulsive to me on a personal level. My advocacy is based upon trusting scripture, it is not my propensity. At the same time, I realize that there are those with the mindset that says that shunning is a great thing, they just can't wait to try it out. No, I have had but few occasions where I felt it necessary, and I hope and pray that I can live out the rest of my life avoiding this practice, but if it is necessary, I need to be obedient. He knows far better than I.

The fact that this practice is repulsive to me, causes me to determine that the causes Paul lists must be egregious indeed in order to warrant the dis-association that he requires. And I realize that we quite possibly are approaching this from entirely different staring points. That said, it is incredibly important to me that I know the nature and degree of the sinful practice that would require this. It should come as no surprise that sermons that play fast and loose with idolatry disturb me at a very deep level.

Not my musical style, but I love any song that is focussed on Jesus and His amazing love for a lost world.

I love this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFFv6ZePDG0

It's about the Book of Kells, an ancient and illustrated Bible, and the subject of the song is Chi Rho, the first two letters of Christ in Greek.

Yes, I should have realized that southern gospel may not be your favorite. The words of that song absolutely capture me "about the cross"!

Beautiful song you have posted. I'm not normally much of a guitar fan (mostly because of those who only play three chords....like nails on a chalkboard) but I loved the guitar work early on in the song. I did love the haunting quality of the music and the words displayed mystery as well. Very nice indeed!

Funny how you should mention the Book of Kells. We went out to eat last night, our waitresses name was Aoife. A very uncommon name here in the states. My phone tells me that it is of gaelic origin meaning beauty.

Oh, and I just love the song "Kells" you may have garnered a fan for them here!

Hans Deventer

September 4th, 2010, 07:57 AM

Yes, very helpful and quite agreeable as well. My thought is that we quite possible read even what you have just written in different ways. For instance, and I am only guessing here, I place much emphasis on the idea that people haven't really changed much, while I'm guessing that culture plays a large part in your thinking. Not that you discount that people haven't changed much, nor do I discount culture. Yet I think that we give differing weights?

It might be. I think where people haven't changed is in their natural tendency, ever since the Garden, not to trust God and do things their own way. Be their own king. We call that sin. In that respect, it's still the same old story ever since the beginning. Nothing has changed.

Where change has come, and let's face it, that is quite recently in historical perspective, is for instance in the role of people in society like women and slaves, which in turn also changed the role of men.
So where Paul writes that women should cover their heads, he's trying not to let certain cultural expressions interfere with the message of the gospel. If we follow his principle, we don't require women to cover their heads, if we follow the letter, we do. Same with the role of women in church in general. The principle of Jesus (and Paul too, for that matter) is that in Christ there is no Greek nor Jew, no male nor female. The application in a specific situation can be different though.

Now this was probably an easy one and I gladly agree that not every issue is so cut and dried. Where should we maintain the Scriptures literally because they apply to a timeless principle, and where should we change the application in order to uphold the principle? It's not easy, but it is important to understand that both are possible.

And yes I resonate deeply with the thought that this is not "our" kingdom, it is his, we need conform to his image, and not the other way around. That is huge in my thoughts.

I agree, and understand the temptation to fit Christianity in some culturally acceptable casting mould that ultimately denies its very power to save and change us. The challenge as I see it is to express God's kingdom in words and concepts that are understandable in a given culture, while maintaining it's character as fundamentally going against the grain of whatever human culture there may be. The Kingdom of God is very different from the kingdoms of this world.

I should add here that the idea of shunning is repulsive to me on a personal level. My advocacy is based upon trusting scripture, it is not my propensity. At the same time, I realize that there are those with the mindset that says that shunning is a great thing, they just can't wait to try it out. No, I have had but few occasions where I felt it necessary, and I hope and pray that I can live out the rest of my life avoiding this practice, but if it is necessary, I need to be obedient. He knows far better than I.

The fact that this practice is repulsive to me, causes me to determine that the causes Paul lists must be egregious indeed in order to warrant the dis-association that he requires. And I realize that we quite possibly are approaching this from entirely different staring points. That said, it is incredibly important to me that I know the nature and degree of the sinful practice that would require this. It should come as no surprise that sermons that play fast and loose with idolatry disturb me at a very deep level.

I fear I may be more or less on Ben's page, Jim. Everything that in some way takes the place that God alone should have, be it a literal idol, be it my career, my wife, my children (you probably read Lewis' The Great Divorce that contains a great example of that attitude), sex, health, possessions, hobbies, the list is endless, has effectively turned into an idol and violates the 1st of the 10 Commandments.
I do not want to limit idolatry to physical idols only, like in the days of the Israelites, because even they represent human attempts to manipulate powers beyond their control in stead of trusting the Lord. That's what I see as the heart of the issue, and that's what I see wrecking people as much today, as in 1000 BC. One of the issues where things haven't really changed.

But, I haven't followed your discussing with Ben closely so I may be missing stuff.

In either case, the label is not as important as the principle. If you prefer another word, that's fine with me but I hope you see who these also destroy people by taking the place only YHWH should have. That is what matters to me.

Beautiful song you have posted. I'm not normally much of a guitar fan (mostly because of those who only play three chords....like nails on a chalkboard) but I loved the guitar work early on in the song. I did love the haunting quality of the music and the words displayed mystery as well. Very nice indeed!

Funny how you should mention the Book of Kells. We went out to eat last night, our waitresses name was Aoife. A very uncommon name here in the states. My phone tells me that it is of gaelic origin meaning beauty.

Oh, and I just love the song "Kells" you may have garnered a fan for them here!

Great! I love this band, seen them several times live already. They are an interesting mixture of Celtic influences and symphonic rock, with some great Christian lyrics.

Quietly You arrived
Never forcing me to choose
Bringing Your perfect light
Into this sunless room ... of mine

So make Your home inside my heart
Fill this empty house of stone
Make Your home inside my heart
Let me dance in the brightness
Of Your throne
Of Your throne

Looking through stained windows
I see a rose on the wall
Thorns that draw blood
From Your face
I hear the agony of Your call
... to me

In the stillness of moonlight
I am awakened by Your grace
And the love that glistens
In the tears on Your face ... for me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAVkXtAP3yo

Make sure no one else is in the house and play LOUD! :) I'm not much of a dancer, but this song can bring tears to my eyes.

Dennis M. Scott

September 5th, 2010, 06:00 AM

I guess we understand "divine" differently. The fact that we don't need divinity today doesn't make "it" different. It makes "us" different. I'm done here. Sorry. Nothing in life is a 1-to-1 comparsion across multiple cultures and thousands of years. However, you're trying to make it just that, Jim. We are a different people with a different context and different beliefs. That's not 1-to-1. Getting to the heart of the matter and comparing that is the only way to make comparisons. You refuse to do that, though. You insist that somehow the fact that primitive, ignorant (not dumb) people required "supernatural powers" more than we do today somehow makes their "end" different. It doesn't.

Just because we've learned enough that we don't rely so heavily on the supernatural doesn't make it completely different. Not at all.

I don't especially - one way or the other - appreciate this post: I just wanted to record your "thanks" number one thousand.

Todd Erickson

September 5th, 2010, 08:09 AM

Ok so your done, I can't help but say that I am disappointed. I honestly thought that maybe you had something helpful to bring into this discussion. Something more that just bombast and preconceived ideas about the nature of man.

Could you please do me one favor. The next time you feel led to begin a conversation with "sorry Jim but you are wrong here", could you at least have something of substance to back your assertion. I think that you will agree that this has been a waste of time.

Jim...what you have said to all of us here is "unless you say things in a way which speaks to me, and which I agree with, it's all nonsense anyway, and you're better off not disagreeing with me here".

But I suspect that it would be a relief to most of us to simply go with that, and not respond in the future. It would save everybody a lot of stress.

Bob Hunter

September 5th, 2010, 10:35 AM

Jim Chabot

September 5th, 2010, 11:17 AM

Jim...what you have said to all of us here is "unless you say things in a way which speaks to me, and which I agree with, it's all nonsense anyway, and you're better off not disagreeing with me here".

But I suspect that it would be a relief to most of us to simply go with that, and not respond in the future. It would save everybody a lot of stress.

Now Todd, that is simply not fair. But then again, perhaps you cannot see this because you have participated in similar fashion.

Can you remember back to your allusions given an alternate interpretation of the word homosexual? I offered evidence, and I offered resource in the way of a link and reference also to the pastoral letter given by the generals. Rich pointed also to evidence. None of this was done in an antagonist manner and no attempt was made to ridicule you. You offered no refutation, nor did you acknowledge anything shown you. That is not fair, you have not returned the respect shown to you. Somewhere there is a disconnect, I don't understand though I am trying to.

What I said to Ben, runs along the same lines. He started into this discussion with a statement that flat out said that I was in the wrong. I did not respond in kind, I offered explanation and I offered resource to add to this. Ben did respond with explanation, however he did not respond with resource. Instead he ended the conversation with disdain. You see, that which you accuse me of is exactly how Ben ended the conversation. That is my basis to accuse you of unfairness.

Todd Erickson

September 5th, 2010, 09:31 PM

Now Todd, that is simply not fair. But then again, perhaps you cannot see this because you have participated in similar fashion.

Can you remember back to your allusions given an alternate interpretation of the word homosexual? I offered evidence, and I offered resource in the way of a link and reference also to the pastoral letter given by the generals. Rich pointed also to evidence. None of this was done in an antagonist manner and no attempt was made to ridicule you. You offered no refutation, nor did you acknowledge anything shown you. That is not fair, you have not returned the respect shown to you. Somewhere there is a disconnect, I don't understand though I am trying to.

Specific language I was using was corrected by Rich, was was fine, he's very good at that. It didn't necessarily change my argument, it just corrected it. You, on the other hand, insisted that my words meant something other than what they meant.

What I said to Ben, runs along the same lines. He started into this discussion with a statement that flat out said that I was in the wrong. I did not respond in kind, I offered explanation and I offered resource to add to this. Ben did respond with explanation, however he did not respond with resource. Instead he ended the conversation with disdain. You see, that which you accuse me of is exactly how Ben ended the conversation. That is my basis to accuse you of unfairness.

Jim...You have repeatedly made statements throughout this conversation which essentially come down to "I understand what you're saying, but it's all wrong, and I reject it entirely". You don't respond to that sort of thing with resources. You take your toys and go home, because the other person playing cops and robbers can only shoot, they can never be shot. And that isn't a game, it's masochism.