Unethical Christians [Archive]

Wayne Paul

30th April 2008, 09:44 AM (09:44)

I've recently been working with my 13 yo daughter on the ethics of music piracy. She doesn't understand why it is not OK to check a CD from the library and copy it to her Ipod. That is an ongoing conversation. So far she is doing what I ask her to, but I know she doesn't see the issue. Some of it is an educational process. Some of it is ignorance. Some of it is deceit.

It seems hard to explain that depriving a person from a royalty payment they deserve is a form of shoplifting. This problem extends beyond teenage music piracy; it also applies to music in the printed form. In many cases the Church models the behavior.

Have you ever sung in a choir using photo copied music? I hadn’t thought of this as a problem until I attended a church with two professional composers who depended on music royalties for their livelihood. They estimated that they received about 10 percent of the royalties they deserved for their sacred compositions.

Think about it the next time you are handed a photo copy so you can sing of God’s glory, majesty and grace.

Scott Hilton

30th April 2008, 10:16 AM (10:16)

I've recently been working with my 13 yo daughter on the ethics of music piracy. She doesn't understand why it is not OK to check a CD from the library and copy it to her Ipod. That is an ongoing conversation. So far she is doing what I ask her to, but I know she doesn't see the issue. Some of it is an educational process. Some of it is ignorance. Some of it is deceit.
This is a very difficult thing to get across now a days. I belong to a download site, because I was a downloader when I first became Christian. I was convicted of the sin of it after awhile and now challenge people on the site in their reasonings as to why they think it is just fine and acceptable to do. Its not just the youth either that are doing it. The computer age has blurred the lines of right and wrong to many people. I actually wrote an essay on my experience in my blog on my myspace page. It's entitled "My CDL essay". You are more then welcome to read it and use anything from it in your conversations with your daughter. My daughter and I still have those conversations with her as well. My convictions have actually become stronger about that issue since writing that essay about a year and a half ago.

blessings

Donna Adams

30th April 2008, 10:34 AM (10:34)

To be a Christian means to be like Christ..he was without sin. Yes we are human and we fall and make mistakes, but this is an on going problem. And what really bugs me, new, young, baby Christians are questioning what they see and hear and they can't figure it all out. I keep saying, keep your eyes on Jesus, he does not fail.
I am reading a book called And you call yourself a Christian? Very good book for a Sunday School class.

Wayne Paul

30th April 2008, 12:35 PM (12:35)

I could say all day that I'm a Buick, but that doesn't make it so! :)

But seriously...I might personally doubt the veracity of their claim to Christianity but I doubt I'd say anything pubically about it. But if someone has unethical business practices, I'll let people know and I'll avoid their business.

There are many reasons people call themselves Christian. Idealistically it is because they have accepted Jesus as Christ and Savior and attempt to emulate him in all aspects of their life.

There are other reasons. Family tradition, association with a community of friends, enjoy the entertainment value associated with the music of contemporary worship, etc. None of these are negative and may eventually lead to the acceptance of Christ and his teaching.

Unfortunately, some associate with the church community for personal financial gain. Being a part of the community affords them the loyalty of the community and provided them the ability to exploit the community.

I had a Nazarene financial execrative give me the following warning. “Whenever you see a person advertise in word or symbol that they are a ‘Christian”, watch your wallet.”

Dale Cozby

30th April 2008, 03:47 PM (15:47)

I was convicted of the sin of it after awhile and now challenge people on the site in their reasonings as to why they think it is just fine and acceptable to do……. The computer age has blurred the lines of right and wrong to many people.

Whenever we address sin/temptations we will face several objections to calling something a sin/temptation. Like one may feel murder is OK if you have a good reason, since they aren't convicted about it. Or as in your example: stealing through piracy. The big trouble comes when you seek to share your convictions with someone not convicted about it. They get hostile and mean and often the worst is people to address are those who know enough scripture to be dangerous to themselves and others.

"Abstain from whatever you will and I won't judge you for it, but be prepared for admonishment if you attack the freedom that others have in the Spirit"

This is the “fine for you but not for me” argument. This is where we lose sight of sin also meaning “missing the mark” and NOT just a “violation of a known law”. Thus we need to be open to the idea that we are still sinning by "missing the mark" and not settle into the I know all the things that are “sins for me” and that is good enough position. Others will see our sins and see us as hypocrites, if we "refuse to listen to our brothers"
This leads to mediocrity/ luke-warmness / blindspots / apathy and an over-reliance that all those sins will be covered by grace and we do not need to ever repent of anything sicne its already covered: OSAS( see Romans 6:1-2) We should all know where that leads.

"The problem is there are pros and cons to everything and our evaluation of those to determine what evil must be avoided and what evil is acceptable because of the good involved is nowhere near an exact science.".

This is the "what is truth, and who gets to say what it is? Argument. I think a good look at the job of the church to convict of sin through scripture interpretation and authority of the church to judge itself plays a part here. Keith Drury wrote a good piece on this on his blog.
http://www.crivoice.org/bindloose.html and http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/wesley.quadrilateral.community.htm

"And I guess the people who know me best are the ones to judge whether I live a life of Christian witness...despite what you obviously feel is a terrible lapse in judgement…..I think most people find it easier to condemn those things that they themselves don't enjoy. When I have every log out of my own eye then I can start looking for the specks in others."

This is the classic: You are judging me argument.

This argument is a hard one to overcome because it takes on the “I am the victim, and you are attacking me” role adn puts you on teh defensive right away. Even if we are speaking about a subject without naming names…if we condemn an action or activity as harmful for the well being of the Christian we are accused on "passing judgment", being holier-than-thou, and a legalist. But, Paul says we are to judge those inside the church. We are also told to show our brother his sin, and more. Even the church of the Nazarene lays down standards of behavior for Christian holiness called the General and Special rules of the church. If this practice(of pointing out potentially harmful things) is wrong, then the entire church throughout its history from apostolic times to now has been wrong and judgmental and we have no right to ever speak of right and wrong ever as it would only be passing judgment upon those who do those things.

Stick you your guns Scott : Titus 2:15

Anne and Dwayne Hood

30th April 2008, 04:31 PM (16:31)

Dale Cozby

30th April 2008, 06:08 PM (18:08)

One main thing that "Bugs" me, is calling devout Christians sinners. We are not sinners, if we do not intentionally sin. Why give that title to those that no longer belong to
Old Slewfoot?" He probably love it, though.
I believe sanctification, can be instant and progressive, also.

But Anne was not Paul speaking to the "Church" at Rome when he talked about continuing to "sin"?

We fall into a trap if we only call "a willful transgression against a known law of God" a sin. Sin is also missing the mark and while we are covered by grace for those sins( the unknown ones) we still have a responsibility to "grow in grace and knowledge" ( 2 Peter 3:18) and also to rebuke each other publically for sin( that is hard to do that if we all have different "sin lists" based on our personal knowledge and convictions) see ( 1 Timothy 5:19-20) Do you think this only applies to sins that are also breaking the law of the government in the land in which one lives? Seems like we only rebuke when the sin is already public and already against the law of the secular authorities? That seems more like disowning and disavowing to protect ourselves legally than rebuking to me.

I think we should be busy being "iron sharpening iron" rather than sitting quietly by watching a brother wallow in his/her sin, not holding each other accountable, not pressing toward the goal, not encouraging, rebuking, or training each other.
Maybe I am a radical, but I thought "Entire sanctification" was about giving ourselves wholly to God to let Him have his way in us completely. and Not seeing which sins we can ignore as sin because we are completely insensitive to it and don't want to be sensitive to it because it would take away some of our fun or mess with our lifestyle too much.

The word Devout is adjective describing a person who is devoted, sincere, and/or pious.
If they are truly committed to the cause of Christ( entirely sanctified) then when confronted with a sin (or whatever you want to call it when a Christian does it) they will repent when called on the carpet for something they were/are blind to in thier life, but if they fight or attack you and refuse to listen then Matthew 18:17.

We seem to act like "once saved always saved" by saying "once sanctified we don't sin anymore."

Anne and Dwayne Hood

30th April 2008, 06:24 PM (18:24)

Be assured that I totally understand ES, and do notl ive trying to see which sins I can ignore. If Christ says I am forgiven, and He does not impute sins to me that my heart nor head had any intention of purposely doing, His approval is all I need. After being in the church 69 years, trying to be open minded and open hearted, in my adult years, and being the wife of a Nazarene minister over 45 years, would be in a bad condition if I did not know of what I speak. I could not be a Christian, or sanctified, if I intentionally sinned. Otherwise, since He does not impute human mistakes, and lack of knowledge, that something I have done is wrong, I AM NOT A SINNER. You are welcome to call yourself one, thus belittling in my opinion, what Christ does for us, but I do not choose to do that, and never will.
When I begin to participate in purposeful sins, I will be a sinner.
Whomever we serve, is our master, and I do not choose satan, to be my master. I am named after the Christ, who died to save my soul from the other master. I will not diregard, what He has done for me, and not call myself by His name, and live as near like Him, as I can, then intentionally sin. Why should I want to sin? It has no allurement for me. I have gone too far, to turn back now.
Not being mean. I would put my arm around those on Naznet, and tell them the same things in a loving and kind voice and way.
He is my Master, and Savior, and I do not bow to his adversary.
Even, constantly saying "satan, get behind me" thrills him. He loves to keep our attention away from our purpose of serving Christ. Kick him out the door.

Billy Cox

30th April 2008, 07:03 PM (19:03)

Maybe I am a radical, but I thought "Entire sanctification" was about giving ourselves wholly to God to let Him have his way in us completely. and Not seeing which sins we can ignore as sin because we are completely insensitive to it and don't want to be sensitive to it because it would take away some of our fun or mess with our lifestyle too much.

So if Christians are doing stuff that doesn't reflect a 'sanctified life', why not pray that they would be sanctified rather than trying to get them to act sanctified.

Surely a single prayer offered in the name of Jesus Christ is more powerful than all the finger-wagging in the world. (?)

Dale Cozby

30th April 2008, 07:18 PM (19:18)

Good response Anne. A well spoken testimony.

some rambling thoughts here:

Seems "sin" and "sinner" has different meanings to different people, so how do I know when something is a sin, if it is a sin for person A yet for person B it isn't how should I as person C looking at the church decide? Should I just quit looking to the church for guidance and go one to one with God? Can I even trust the Bible to guide me if it has been translated by person A or person B who can't agree what is right or wrong or how it should be translated?

Perhaps I can't look at the church to help me know because the church has become so corrupted that it is hard to see the "real" church from the harlot one? No wonder we are losing ground in the church. Why attend church if it can't help you know the truth and guide youry footsteps to a closer relationship with God. If it has no authority to speak as one voice, I have to do it on my own, since sin and holiness is what I make of them.

What may be gossip to one person, is helping people pray better to another.
What may be loving the world to one, is relational evangelism to the other.
What may be abstinence and self-control to one is legalism to the other.
What may be cussing and swearing to one, is just regular speech to the other.
What may be using the system to download music to one, is piracy to another. etc. etc. etc.....

Seems there are no standards for sin( as it is whatever each decides it is personally) so there can be no standards for holiness either. It must be what each of us thinks it means. Judging from the various denominational standards no one seems to know what it really is. Maybe holiness just deals with a general orthodoxy and has nothing to do with orthopraxis.

Dale Cozby

30th April 2008, 07:27 PM (19:27)

So if Christians are doing stuff that doesn't reflect a 'sanctified life', why not pray that they would be sanctified rather than trying to get them to act sanctified.

Surely a single prayer offered in the name of Jesus Christ is more powerful than all the finger-wagging in the world. (?)

How does one pray for someone else to be sanctified? They have to do that I thought.

How does one get someone to act sanctified if we have no role model of a sanctified person we can trust? If sanctified person A tells me this is a sin and sanctified person B says it isn't, how can I know how to act sanctified?

If Jesus is the role model how do I translate him into 21st century American culture without looking to person A or person B or the Bible that has been translated by person A or person B? Of do I just wear sandals, sell everything and become homeless wondering around the country side preaching love, praying for people and trying to perform miracles?

How can we know how to act ethically as a Christian, if it means different things to different people?

"being" sanctified = orthodoxy "acting" sanctified = orthopraxis So I guess sanctified just means being and not doing.

Gina Stevenson

1st May 2008, 02:17 AM (02:17)

It seems hard to explain that depriving a person from a royalty payment they deserve is a form of shoplifting. This problem extends beyond teenage music piracy; it also applies to music in the printed form. In many cases the Church models the behavior.

Funny thing regarding this ... was at a copy shop [Office Max, think it was] long ago, before I had any such thing as a home printer/copier/scanner/fax et al. They were very diligent regarding the copyright law, apparently, as they came & told me I couldn't copy the music I was copying. Well, I showed them the name on the music ... showed them my ID. "Oh!" was the response.

I'd painstakingly written many of the songs I've written in a neat form after arranging them [trying to approximate printed music, so it would be readable enough to use], and so they tho't I was just bringing in a bunch of others' music and making copies! ;)

Have you ever sung in a choir using photo copied music? I hadn’t thought of this as a problem until I attended a church with two professional composers who depended on music royalties for their livelihood. They estimated that they received about 10 percent of the royalties they deserved for their sacred compositions.

Think about it the next time you are handed a photo copy so you can sing of God’s glory, majesty and grace.
This [highlighted] tho't has crossed my mind [for sure!] as, while not wanting to be greedy, I surely could use some extra $$$ to add to the small income I now have. :cool:

Hans Deventer

1st May 2008, 02:49 AM (02:49)

How does one pray for someone else to be sanctified? They have to do that I thought.

???? Strange. I always thought it was the result of the Holy Spirit working in people. And I haven't heard why you can't pray for the Holy Spirit to do something.

How does one get someone to act sanctified if we have no role model of a sanctified person we can trust? If sanctified person A tells me this is a sin and sanctified person B says it isn't, how can I know how to act sanctified?

I've read stuff about the law written in our hearts?

If Jesus is the role model how do I translate him into 21st century American culture without looking to person A or person B or the Bible that has been translated by person A or person B? Of do I just wear sandals, sell everything and become homeless wondering around the country side preaching love, praying for people and trying to perform miracles?

Is that your idea of following Jesus???????????

How can we know how to act ethically as a Christian, if it means different things to different people?

Rom 13:9

"being" sanctified = orthodoxy "acting" sanctified = orthopraxis So I guess sanctified just means being and not doing.

There is no true being without doing. You are making a distinction that isn't there. Read James.

The issue is of course that even God tried it your way and it didn't work. He gave 613 commandments but still didn't achieve His goal. That is why we got Pentacost. Which shows that the heart of the issue is the extent to which people have God allowed to rule in their hearts. External rules never produce holiness.

Robert McLemore

1st May 2008, 03:04 AM (03:04)

This is a very difficult thing to get across now a days. I belong to a download site, because I was a downloader when I first became Christian. I was convicted of the sin of it after awhile and now challenge people on the site in their reasonings as to why they think it is just fine and acceptable to do. Its not just the youth either that are doing it. The computer age has blurred the lines of right and wrong to many people. I actually wrote an essay on my experience in my blog on my myspace page. It's entitled "My CDL essay". You are more then welcome to read it and use anything from it in your conversations with your daughter. My daughter and I still have those conversations with her as well. My convictions have actually become stronger about that issue since writing that essay about a year and a half ago.

blessings
I hit the wrong thank you.

Peggy Gray

1st May 2008, 06:39 AM (06:39)

I will go back and read all these posts carefully when I have more time, but just wanted to add my two cents. I have always been a "rule-keeper". I was the kid in grade school that said "But we're not s'posed to!" It was very frustrating to me when my kids were little, and when they were teens, to see Christians exhibit unethical behavior. I didn't want to judge, and yet I wanted to tell my kids, "No, it is NOT OK for your friend's parents to let her practice driving at 14; No, it is NOT OK to accept copied cassette tapes; No, it is NOT OK to be paid under the table; No, it is NOT OK to drive five miles per hour over the speed limit..." and so on.

Barbara Moulton

1st May 2008, 07:04 AM (07:04)

It seems hard to explain that depriving a person from a royalty payment they deserve is a form of shoplifting. This problem extends beyond teenage music piracy; it also applies to music in the printed form. In many cases the Church models the behavior.

Have you ever sung in a choir using photo copied music? I hadn’t thought of this as a problem until I attended a church with two professional composers who depended on music royalties for their livelihood. They estimated that they received about 10 percent of the royalties they deserved for their sacred compositions.

Think about it the next time you are handed a photo copy so you can sing of God’s glory, majesty and grace.

Wouldn't that be covered by the CCLI license?

Cindi Hammons

1st May 2008, 07:57 AM (07:57)

Wouldn't that be covered by the CCLI license?

Sometimes. One must check the CCLI website to make sure the composer/writer and the song are listed. If not...no dice.

Tami Martin

1st May 2008, 08:10 AM (08:10)

I had recently picked out a song for the worship service that's in our hymnal. But as we don't use the hymnals, it has to get copied into our praise team books and then put on powerpoint for the overhead. This particular song we did not have CCLI for, so it got scrapped.

Wayne Paul

1st May 2008, 09:34 AM (09:34)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne Paul
It seems hard to explain that depriving a person from a royalty payment they deserve is a form of shoplifting. This problem extends beyond teenage music piracy; it also applies to music in the printed form. In many cases the Church models the behavior.

Have you ever sung in a choir using photo copied music? I hadn’t thought of this as a problem until I attended a church with two professional composers who depended on music royalties for their livelihood. They estimated that they received about 10 percent of the royalties they deserved for their sacred compositions.

Think about it the next time you are handed a photo copy so you can sing of God’s glory, majesty and grace.

Wouldn't that be covered by the CCLI license?

The CCLI covers associated publishers. When reviewing the CCLI publisher list at a non-Nazarene college, I was surprised how many major music publishers were missing.

The Nazarene Universities have all purchased the license; however, does your local church own a license?

UPDATE....

I answered this too quickly. The CCLI does cover many of the Church’s needs. The license I was referring to is a similar arrangement for educational institutions. However, even if you have a CCLI license for your church you must insure the music you are copying is covered.

Here is a small sample of the publishers not covered by your CCLI license.
http://www.waltonmusic.com/Sacred2003b.php
http://www.berkey.com/sdg_press/sdgp.html

Dale Cozby

1st May 2008, 11:14 AM (11:14)

???? Strange. I always thought it was the result of the Holy Spirit working in people. And I haven't heard why you can't pray for the Holy Spirit to do something. If our prayers impacted the actions of the Holy Spirit in this way, then the whole world would already be saved and sanctified. We can pray for people to be sanctified but isn't it really just between God and them? The church can at best only "be" a horribly imperfect and contradictory example of what it means to be saved and sanctified. So shouldn't we just concern ourselves with praying for social justice in the here and now and not worry about people's souls eternal condition?

I've read stuff about the law written in our hearts?
So we don't need the church to tell us anything...we have everything we need to know about how to live put right in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Thanks for clearing that up.

Is that your idea of following Jesus??????????? So who is to say that is a wrong idea for someone to do? no one.

Rom 13:9 Left to each persons own interpretation and translation...I find the new living translation easier to follow than the NIV on this passage. It is open to a greater leeway of possible definitions and meanings.

There is no true being without doing. You are making a distinction that isn't there. Read James. I have, but even James is open to individual interpretation as to what deeds show faith and he doesn't talk about sanctification at all...so maybe it doesn't apply to some people that aren't convicted the same way you are about it.

The issue is of course that even God tried it your way and it didn't work. You mean God tried it without any absolute rules at all? When did he do that? Seems he always had at least some rules to follow...Love your neighbor as yourself for one. But that varies greatly in meaning from person to person so who is to say one way is right and another is wrong. Why is warm fuzzy love alright but tough love wrong? Who is to say? No you. Not me. No one. No one has the authority to tell anyone else how to live about anything, ever. That is being a Pharisetical judgmental legalist, if you do it even on one point of the law.

Which shows that the heart of the issue is the extent to which people have God allowed to rule in their hearts. Again who are you to judge the extent to which I or anyone lets God rule in my/thier hearts? if someone says I am sanctified and evidence( the actions that you think are needed to "be" sanctified) are not present, who are you/I to say they are not? If actions behaviors play no part in "being" sanctified then who are we to say otherwise? BUT if actions DO play a part in being sanctified then who are we to say what actions show you are sanctified? Especially if sin is only individual convictions and service to God a personal calling.

External rules never produce holiness. And apparently are totally unnessessary to holiness so we each can live as we see fit apart from all rules.

It seems to me we can't have it both ways. Either we are free of the laws or we aren't. If we are free then nothing has to be a sin if we just don't let others tell us what we are doing is sinful and make us feel all guilty for it. Church imposed guilt....when we have freedom in Christ. "Everything is permissable" and we can vary on what is "beneficial".
As long as I say I love God and I love my neighbor who are you to say I don't or tell me I am not doing it the best way for me?

isn't this the heart of the post-modernist?

Hans Deventer

1st May 2008, 12:30 PM (12:30)

Dale,

Let's get a few points clear.

1. We'll all stand for the throne of judgement where only we ourselves are responsible for what we've done. Can't say "but the church said...." "The soul who sins is the one who will die" (See Ezek 18).

2. That responsibility includes abiding by the laws of the land. If I live in the state of Texas, I'll have to abide by the laws of that state. If not, they're more than happy to put me on death row. If I don't like those laws, I have three options: try to change them through the regular democratic process that creates and amends legislation, leave for another place where I like the laws better, or accept them for what they are despite my feelings.

3. Likewise, I'm member of a church. In the case of holiness, which is nothing else but love, it has to be lived out in the specific cultural environment of that local church. Local, because the world wide CotN does not have a specific cultural environment and hence is limited in describing what holiness/love looks like in my specific culture, it can at most give general principles.
Now again, as with state laws, I may not agree with my congregation. Same choices.

And for all those choices it is only me who is responsible, no one else.

As to the law, written in our hearts, that obviously isn't the 613 commands of the OT. People knew them by heart already anyway. The problem was, those commands didn't do what they were supposed to do. (I'm sure you've read Romans). So there comes the Messiah, whose salvation leads to the ultimate goal: Pentecost, the law in our hearts. What law? Reading the Sermon on the Mount, it seems clear that it is the great commandment that is written in our hearts.

And hence the solution is not in adding laws, as the CotN (and many before) has attempted, but in the Holy Spirit, living in our lives. And to the extent that this is the case, the law is being fulfilled, holiness lived, and Christ exalted.

Carsten Schermuly

1st May 2008, 12:45 PM (12:45)

I am looking around in many churches.
Always I do come to the conclusion,
the church of the Nazarene is the best way because the consequent theology of holiness in theory (teachings) and practised (mission work).
Where light will be, is shadow too - or dark spots on the kind looking painting.

In other churches the dark spots are not seen because the light is missed. This is the difference.

Dale Cozby

1st May 2008, 01:23 PM (13:23)

Thats a good answer Hans, so now it brings me back to the point of this thread.

Christian ethics then is decided more by the culture than the church.
The culture of teh day( the world of today decides what is right and wrong and the church joins in)
let's look at music piracy for a second.

When I was in a Nazarene college many many years ago, every single student pirated music, myself included. Some of us would go to the music store( Christian store at that) and each buy a new record then go back to the dorm and promptly copy them onto cassettes. My record would get copied a dozen times by friends, and I would copy a dozen records from my friends. This in the days before Napster. No conscience at all about it, nothing ever said by anyone to us. We all just consider it for "personal use" so no problem, we wouldn't resale it, just listen to it. Free.

But when Napster got sued and the public was made aware of a violation of a copyright law, seems we started to hear the church join the chorus of voices already preaching against it. CCLI wasn't even founded until 1988. I was years out of college by then.

Now lets turn to some other stuff the church followed the world in denouncing. When I first entered the ministry anyone that wanted to work in the church camp just signed up and got a job. But a few years back the camp said everyone HAD to have a background check done on them before being a volunteer. Was this motivated by the church caring about safety? NO It was the insurance company insisting on it to insure the campground that mandated this rule cahnge. This was in response to abuse cases in other places around the country that had caused insurance rate to go up as claims did. Motivated by fear at first..now we call it love.

I remember working in a church run daycare when the first nationally televised scandel of daycare child abuse hit. Suddenly, I was not allowed to be in a room alone with kids if the door was closed, since I was male. The director(a man) also wasn't allowed to be alone with them anymore. Why was it fine one day and the next the church followed the world's paranoia?

How about the letter that made the rounds discussing the desparity in retirement benefits for HQ personel and the rest of the church(missionaries and pastors) a few years back, remember that one? I seem to recall the general church responded within a year or so of that to change the retirement options we had after being made to look bad. Bad press as it were.

When did the rule change about the church having to wait to say something is a wrong until after the world points it out? Seems it is OK to hammer whatever the world or media hammers, but we are being legalists and judgmental if we do it first without the worldly taking the lead.

Why were churches in America not leading the way in civil rights back in 1866, why did it not happen until the 1950s?

Why was it enviriomentalists leading the way on nature conservation instead of Christians?

Why does it seem to be people who hate the church leading the way on hate speech laws? Instead of the church which now seems to follow at a distance?

Why was the church virtually mute when Hitler rose to power? Except for a few individual voices that we now( in hindsight) herald as great theologians and saints as the rest sat quiet and did nothing.

And most Christians point out this:
The one exception in the US where we did seem to have the church taking the lead is now considered a huge mistake....prohibition.

On one side we are called legalists and judgmental if we stand up and say something is wrong. On the other if the world says something is wrong we join the chorus. Have we have become cowardly to speak up on social issues, petrified to speak the truth pehaps because we don't even know what the truth is, or even believe it exists so we let the world decide for us the ethical issues of the day.

Anne and Dwayne Hood

1st May 2008, 02:49 PM (14:49)

Wanda Van Winkle

1st May 2008, 03:01 PM (15:01)

I think this is where relationships and community have a voice.

If it is someone you know well, who is part of your inner circle or community, and you see a unethical practice, you can bring it up to them and ask if they think it is right.

I've seen it happen. We still need to exhort, teach, encourage each other to a higher standard.

But if it's a general person who is unknown to you, personally, saying something wouldn't do any good.

Hans Deventer

1st May 2008, 03:52 PM (15:52)

Thats a good answer Hans, so now it brings me back to the point of this thread.

Christian ethics then is decided more by the culture than the church.

Almost. Christian ethics (the great commandments) are given shape within a culture, but should not derive from it.

The culture of the day( the world of today decides what is right and wrong and the church joins in)

No.

I remember working in a church run daycare when the first nationally televised scandel of daycare child abuse hit. Suddenly, I was not allowed to be in a room alone with kids if the door was closed, since I was male. The director(a man) also wasn't allowed to be alone with them anymore. Why was it fine one day and the next the church followed the world's paranoia?

Because the church can't afford the fines if it doesn't follow the state rules. Which is a result of our tendency to sue everyone that has done us any harm. Over here, we're starting to adopt this beautiful American custom, with the same results.

How about the letter that made the rounds discussing the desparity in retirement benefits for HQ personel and the rest of the church(missionaries and pastors) a few years back, remember that one?

Nope. Don't think it reached the Netherlands. Where the retirement plans for pastors are way better than the average US pastor has anyway, so I don't think the people that circulated it would have benefited a lot from sending it to the Netherlands District...............

I seem to recall the general church responded within a year or so of that to change the retirement options we had after being made to look bad. Bad press as it were.

So they cut the benefits for HQ personnel? For they could never afford to in stead increase the pastor's benefit plans to a decent level (ask Dave for further information).

When did the rule change about the church having to wait to say something is a wrong until after the world points it out? Seems it is OK to hammer whatever the world or media hammers, but we are being legalists and judgmental if we do it first without the worldly taking the lead.

I don't understand the point. For all I know the church still says that sexual relations are meant to be had within the covenant of marriage. The world seems to have a different view. Still, we do have to minister to those that do their own thing.

Why were churches in America not leading the way in civil rights back in 1866, why did it not happen until the 1950s?

Because the church, ever since Constantine, served the kingdoms of the world rather than the Kingdom of God.

Why was it environmentalists leading the way on nature conservation instead of Christians?

Same answer.

Why does it seem to be people who hate the church leading the way on hate speech laws? Instead of the church which now seems to follow at a distance?

Same answer.

Why was the church virtually mute when Hitler rose to power? Except for a few individual voices that we now( in hindsight) herald as great theologians and saints as the rest sat quiet and did nothing.

Dale, the point is the same all the time: since Constantine, we've rarely taken seriously the message of the Kingdom of God.

And most Christians point out this:
The one exception in the US where we did seem to have the church taking the lead is now considered a huge mistake....prohibition.

Yep.

On one side we are called legalists and judgmental if we stand up and say something is wrong. On the other if the world says something is wrong we join the chorus. Have we have become cowardly to speak up on social issues, petrified to speak the truth pehaps because we don't even know what the truth is, or even believe it exists so we let the world decide for us the ethical issues of the day.

We've become afraid to speak up, because we don't live according to our own message. And people simply no longer listen to whatever truth there is, if we don't take your own medicine.

For instance, we'd have a voice on divorce, if the rate among Christians was significantly lower than among non-Christians. But it isn't.

I guess Everything Must Change indeed.

Dale Cozby

1st May 2008, 04:34 PM (16:34)

Wow, Hans I see we do agree sometimes.:p

So the church is corrupt and has no authority to speak since the fourth century. God's plan for his people?

I am sorry we have exported our sue happy culture to you... I am sure we have some bad habits of European origin too though.

So how can the church claim the moral high ground when as group we can't even decide where that ground is?

I am afraid we may see the church divide more along moral issues in the 21st century than ever before. We already have on theological issues a plethora of doctrines to choose from....lifestyles is next.

I am not sure how it stands in the CotN over there is but it seems that here, living together "in sin" is very common place even among kids raised in the church.
Divorce as common as the unbelievers or as if our faith mattered not. Remarriage, the same standard. Seems the only thing we still put our effort into defending against is leaders using porn, adultery, and sexual criminal violations, even GLBT is allowed among members as long as they don't rock the boat too much. Sort of a don't ask, don't tell policy in church when it comes to most sins.

Again is this due to being paralyzed to speak because we fail to live up to that holy standard ourselves or because to do so would get us labeled legalists, or because we don't think it is really any of our business to set sin standards for someone else? Maybe all of them?

the church can't afford the fines if it doesn't follow the state rules Sadly true. But even sadder is that we can't seem to get our people to live above the lowest minimum ethical standard imposed by the secular state. Should we not preach AND live by the law of love that transcends those laws as to make us rise above to higher standards than those set by the pagans and unbelievers? seems we have trouble just living up to the laws enforced by the state, much less the higher law of love for neighbor and God, so how can we preach the gospel if we can't even do better than that. We seem to have trouble getting people to walk the required mile much less the second one out of love.

Tami Martin

1st May 2008, 05:33 PM (17:33)

It's starting to sound like the church is a club for the healthy folks instead of a hospital for the ailing ones.

God set the standard. We're expected to follow it. Not set it. We succeed to the degree we measure up.

Wayne Paul

1st May 2008, 05:33 PM (17:33)

Our church paid for the rights to copy music, one year, years ago, and never did it. Now, I see that they are copying music, when we attend there. Is it OK, to buy the music for the pianist, and give out copies of the words? We have done that.

The simple answer is no. Both the music and words are part of the copyright. Reproduction of either is a copyright violation.

Billy Cox

1st May 2008, 09:11 PM (21:11)

How does one pray for someone else to be sanctified? They have to do that I thought.

I'm not talking about praying as if we had power of attorney to speak on behalf of someone else. Surely you have heard of people praying that a friend or relative would come to know the Lord. Why not do the same for someone with regard to entire sanctification. Have you heard of intercessory prayer?

How does one get someone to act sanctified if we have no role model of a sanctified person we can trust? If sanctified person A tells me this is a sin and sanctified person B says it isn't, how can I know how to act sanctified?

If the life of holiness was merely a product of role models and behavior modification, we would be in deep trouble, not to mention far outside the counsel of the Holy Spirit and scripture. I have never called you a legalist nor will I, but I have observed that a weak belief in the active work of the Holy Spirit is a precursor to legalism.

A community of faith certainly plays a role in collectively seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in making decisions that are consistent with the heart of God.
However, bad things happen when a community of faith (or denomination or organization) gets the idea that it can substitute written or unwritten codes of behavior for the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is not an 'anything goes' ethic, nor is it a 'my personal morality' ethic either.

Dale Cozby

1st May 2008, 09:24 PM (21:24)

It's starting to sound like the church is a club for the healthy folks instead of a hospital for the ailing ones. no from where I stand, I see alot of sick folks, wandering around blind, lame and dumb( speechless). Question is what to do with them. Give Advice? NO, that is legalism and judgmentalism. A helping hand? Well, sometimes that works when they think they have a problem and sometimes, well they just as soon not be helped, as they don't see anything in the wrong first place.

God set the standard. We're expected to follow it. So what is that standard he set we are to follow? If you answer, isn't that a bit like trying to tell me how i should live and by what standard I am judged?

Not set it. We succeed to the degree we measure up.

How can we even speak of standards of God? Everything you/I say is filtered through your/my imperfect heart, attitude, understanding and life. So why should anyone listen to anyone else about what the standard of God is or is not? and how can we really know if anyone is even trying to measure up to some standard God set, unless we can agree that is the standard God set? We are surrounded by a people of unclean lips.

Dale Cozby

1st May 2008, 10:28 PM (22:28)

I'm not talking about praying as if we had power of attorney to speak on behalf of someone else. Surely you have heard of people praying that a friend or relative would come to know the Lord. Why not do the same for someone with regard to entire sanctification. Have you heard of intercessory prayer? If it is the Lord's will that we be saved and sanctified then why is His will not done? According to to Peter it is because He is wanting repentance. But repentance from what? who decides? repentance has to do with changing the way one thinks about things. So how does one repent, change your mind? If I can't trust the church to help because it is utter flawed and totally contradictory, then I am on my own asking God for personal conviction and guidance. I would actually be better served not to go to church at all as they will just confuse me with their own convictions(which are not my own) and teach me how to be judgmental and a legalist.

If the life of holiness was merely a product of role models and behavior modification, we would be in deep trouble, not to mention far outside the counsel of the Holy Spirit and scripture. If the scripture cannot be trusted to be the Word of God, as it is the writings of men in their own time and context, so each of us just picks and chooses what works for them and tosses out the rest. If the church is in disunity as to what to teach then it cannot be trusted as you must just choose a side that sort of fits with your own convictions even to attend. So we are left with just the work of the Holy Spirit speaking directly to my own conscience. Just like He did with the patriarchs of old. Then the voice inside our head tells us everything we need to do and not do.

I have never called you a legalist nor will I, but I have observed that a weak belief in the active work of the Holy Spirit is a precursor to legalism. I am glad you didn't call me a legalist, as that would make you judgmental. But I do see it seems to be OK to infer I have a weak belief that will lead me to legalism. Hmmm....So I am not a legalist but I am weak and heading toward being a legalist. Thanks for clearing that up, about not calling me a legalist.

A community of faith certainly plays a role in collectively seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in making decisions that are consistent with the heart of God. So how can faith group A collectively seek guidance and arrive at conclusions about the heart of God that are in direct and opposite contradiction to faith group B and both be in line with what God wants to teach us? How can the CotN speak out on let's say GLBT and the Episcopal Church USA go completely the other way and we both be in the heart and will of God? To an outside observer we look like a bunch of idiots that can't agree on anything. Therefore: The church has no unity and no authority at all. why, we can't even agree inside the CotN what to teach and live.
And if it is wrong for church group A to say church group B is wrong as that would make us legalists( heaven forbid), then how should anyone know what to believe if a group of faith says something? In fact church groups shouldn't be telling anyone how to live as that is just so much rules and legalism. We should all go back to doing it all on our own with just direct intervention from God.

However, bad things happen when a community of faith (or denomination or organization) gets the idea that it can substitute written or unwritten codes of behavior for the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is not an 'anything goes' ethic, nor is it a 'my personal morality' ethic either.

Each church therefore should concern itself with the daily cares of being a fellowship of somewhat like minded thinkers, doing whatever activities they think best and let the Holy Spirit save and sanctify people without us getting in the way with all our legalistic moral guidance stuff and at some point when a believer is ready, they will seek out a fellowship of people who think like they do and involve themselves in whatever pursuits that group likes to do.

Hans Deventer

2nd May 2008, 03:22 AM (03:22)

Wow, Hans I see we do agree sometimes.:p

Don't worry, I won't blame you for it :laughing

So the church is corrupt and has no authority to speak since the fourth century.

There have been exceptions but in general, I'd agree. We took the lure of power, and it corrupted us.

God's plan for his people?

Not quite. Though initially, some (Augustine?) may have seen it that way.

I am sorry we have exported our sue happy culture to you... I am sure we have some bad habits of European origin too though.

I thought you all left Europe to get rid of them? :rolleyes:

So how can the church claim the moral high ground when as group we can't even decide where that ground is?

You know, I'm not so worried about that question. It's not as if our problems would be solved if there was a person or institution that could decide this for us.

I am afraid we may see the church divide more along moral issues in the 21st century than ever before. We already have on theological issues a plethora of doctrines to choose from....lifestyles is next.

Yes. So people will more and more seek authenticy. They don't care much about our teachings, they want to see lives truly connected to God. See God become alive in people. Which, and that is the interesting side of the issue, perfectly fits with the message of holiness.

I am not sure how it stands in the CotN over there is but it seems that here, living together "in sin" is very common place even among kids raised in the church.

That would depend on how you define "living in sin." Is it a sin to live faithfully with one person of the opposite sex without having (currently or in the past) sexual relations outside that one relationship? I personally prefer that many times over the ones who are marrying for the 3rd time, decently covered by the Manual.
This is one of the issues where I wonder if we have applied biblical principles or simply formulated common cultural decency. (And yes, I very much support the idea that a relationship isn't merely a private affair, that there is no such thing as "testing the waters", and nor a sexual relation outside an exclusive lifetime covenant of faithfulness etc).

Divorce as common as the unbelievers or as if our faith mattered not. Remarriage, the same standard. Seems the only thing we still put our effort into defending against is leaders using porn, adultery, and sexual criminal violations, even GLBT is allowed among members as long as they don't rock the boat too much. Sort of a don't ask, don't tell policy in church when it comes to most sins.

Again is this due to being paralyzed to speak because we fail to live up to that holy standard ourselves or because to do so would get us labeled legalists, or because we don't think it is really any of our business to set sin standards for someone else? Maybe all of them?

Well, clearly we can't set any standards we don't adhere to ourselves. And most standards only work (as we ourselves are proving all the time) if they are written in the hearts, rather than merely "set". One of the things people indeed hate about legalists, is that way too often, they find ways to bind the rules in such a way that they can judge others but escape them themselves. The church has a very bad history in that regard, I don't think I have to mention any examples to you.

Sadly true. But even sadder is that we can't seem to get our people to live above the lowest minimum ethical standard imposed by the secular state. Should we not preach AND live by the law of love that transcends those laws as to make us rise above to higher standards than those set by the pagans and unbelievers?

YES! And why don't we? That to me is the root of the matter. The core of the issue. And I've come to believe that it is in the fact that we don't trust God to provide for us our every need. Hence we seek security, pleasure and most of all, love, in any place we can find it. Which is the very definition of sin: seeking love in the wrong places. And this is our true problem.
Now Jesus' message of the kingdom is the very opposite. He continuously proclaims that God actually does love us, more than we can image, that He in fact is very willing to provide our needs but that we must understand we need to seek His kingdom first. And the rest will be given unto us.

I think the heart of Jesus' teaching and example, "the way, the truth and the life", is that total commitment, surrender and trust to/in God. That's what He lived, until His dying breath ("Father, into Thy hands I command my spirit"). That is the way.

Out of that trust, surrender and commitment, holiness flows. And that, ultimately, is a personal thing in that God has to do this work of sanctification in each of us individually. Also, our authority will depend on our own authenticity. People don't give respect ex-officio anymore.

So I don't think any option to get clear ethical standards will do us much good, and even Manual changes really don't matter all that much to Joe and Jenny Nazarene. What matters is if they see in their fellow Nazarenes the Spirit of God come alive.

Dale Cozby

2nd May 2008, 03:11 PM (15:11)

Hans we a were doing good up to this last point. So I want to add something here.

So I don't think any option to get clear ethical standards will do us much good, and even Manual changes really don't matter all that much to Joe and Jenny Nazarene.

I disagree that it doesn't matter to Joe and Jenny Nazarene what changes we make to the Manual and here is why.:

It is amazing the response I get when I tell people: "Well that isn't in the Manual anymore. it is now worded like this..."

They almost light up when hearing that a once restrictive "rule" banning something was replaced with a guideline that respects the persons relationship with God enough to have them respond with thier conscience to each situation. Rather than banning movies, lets use good sense in our choices, etc....Rather than banning the Circus...etc....

So changing things in the Manual improves how people feel toward the church, even people who have grown up with it.

Perhaps we should start by changing the Title from General and Special Rules, to the more friendly term like: General and Cultural Guidelines for a Holy life.

The very term guideline comes from seamen stringing lines along the deck to hold on to during a storm. Since one could never know when a rogue wave might hit and sweep them overboard, one would hold on or at least stay within grasp of the guideline when working on deck. guidleine has always been one of my favorites, instead of "rule" Rule sounds like a measurement is being taken.

Hans Deventer

2nd May 2008, 04:49 PM (16:49)

I disagree that it doesn't matter to Joe and Jenny Nazarene what changes we make to the Manual and here is why.:

It is amazing the response I get when I tell people: "Well that isn't in the Manual anymore. it is now worded like this..."

They almost light up when hearing that a once restrictive "rule" banning something was replaced with a guideline that respects the persons relationship with God enough to have them respond with thier conscience to each situation. Rather than banning movies, lets use good sense in our choices, etc....Rather than banning the Circus...etc....

I understand. I probably spoke too much from my Dutch experience. I can understand how, to long time Nazarenes, your story will unfold that way. Here, however, we don't even put the Dutch translation of the Manual online for download because the pastors need to explain the former Special Rules themselves. People get scared to death if they read that stuff. So the pastors here already have to add lots of honey to the vinegar to get it swallowed. The changes only make it easier for the pastors, Dutch Joe and Jenny Nazarene could not care less. They never lived with the original wording anyway.

Perhaps we should start by changing the Title from General and Special Rules, to the more friendly term like: General and Cultural Guidelines for a Holy life.

Amen. But that won't get past the General Assembly yet. Perhaps we should call it "torah", which means "teaching" anyway ;)

The very term guideline comes from seamen stringing lines along the deck to hold on to during a storm. Since one could never know when a rogue wave might hit and sweep them overboard, one would hold on or at least stay within grasp of the guideline when working on deck. guidleine has always been one of my favorites, instead of "rule" Rule sounds like a measurement is being taken.

Guideline is a great word and very well translatable into Dutch. We have the word "richtlijn", coming from "richten" (like aiming a gun) and "lijn" (line). So it is something that gives you direction to reach a goal. I'd love it. Actually, we used that word for the "rules" in the past. Too bad we had to replace it with covenant.

Billy Cox

2nd May 2008, 10:29 PM (22:29)

If it is the Lord's will that we be saved and sanctified then why is His will not done? According to to Peter it is because He is wanting repentance. But repentance from what? who decides? repentance has to do with changing the way one thinks about things.

Again, the missing component in this line of reasoning is the Holy Spirit. The Spirit draws people to salvation, and likewise to sanctification. We can pray that the Spirit would draw someone to sanctification. Who's to say the Spirit can't or won't do it?

If I can't trust the church to help because it is utter flawed and totally contradictory, then I am on my own asking God for personal conviction and guidance. I would actually be better served not to go to church at all as they will just confuse me with their own convictions(which are not my own) and teach me how to be judgmental and a legalist.

I understand what you are saying. The only thing I can offer is that if a local church is so dysfunctional as to be totally ineffective, there are probably a dozen other churches within a few miles in any direction.

If the scripture cannot be trusted to be the Word of God, as it is the writings of men in their own time and context, so each of us just picks and chooses what works for them and tosses out the rest. If the church is in disunity as to what to teach then it cannot be trusted as you must just choose a side that sort of fits with your own convictions even to attend. So we are left with just the work of the Holy Spirit speaking directly to my own conscience. Just like He did with the patriarchs of old. Then the voice inside our head tells us everything we need to do and not do.

I haven't seen anyone here suggest that the scripture is not worthy of trust; the Word of God is Jesus Christ, also worthy of trust. I get the impression that you see the ministry of the Holy Spirit as some kind of mushy, relativist system that is highly subjective to whatever mood I happen to be in. I agree that this is a danger, but we can't just send the Holy Spirit to the back of the bus either. Perhaps instead of arguing with me, you could think for a minute, take inventory of the degree to which you trust the Holy Spirit and I will do the same.

I am glad you didn't call me a legalist, as that would make you judgmental. But I do see it seems to be OK to infer I have a weak belief that will lead me to legalism. Hmmm....So I am not a legalist but I am weak and heading toward being a legalist. Thanks for clearing that up, about not calling me a legalist.

I did not intend judgment nor did I say that you were weak, only that your theology of the Holy Spirit might be the missing piece that would give you far more peace in a world that has very little of it.

So how can faith group A collectively seek guidance and arrive at conclusions about the heart of God that are in direct and opposite contradiction to faith group B and both be in line with what God wants to teach us?

This is a valid question. Have you ever noticed in the Manual that there are multiple proof texts for lots of things, but never a parentheses saying (we couldn't find a verse for this, but the Spirit seemed to want it in the Manual anyway)? Is it possible that the Spirit could speak differently to two different groups of Christians? Could the Spirit perhaps diversify his message in order to reach a broader set of people?

Each church therefore should concern itself with the daily cares of being a fellowship of somewhat like minded thinkers, doing whatever activities they think best and let the Holy Spirit save and sanctify people without us getting in the way with all our legalistic moral guidance stuff and at some point when a believer is ready, they will seek out a fellowship of people who think like they do and involve themselves in whatever pursuits that group likes to do.

Sounds good to me.

Anne and Dwayne Hood

3rd May 2008, 12:04 AM (00:04)

Dale, It seems to me that we find something like this in Romans-Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound-God forbid.
We are also told that we belong to whatever Master we serve.

Dale Cozby

5th May 2008, 10:33 AM (10:33)

Could the Spirit perhaps diversify his message in order to reach a broader set of people? So if i read you right: You are saying: the Holy Spirit can tell Church A this is a sin and none of you should do this, and tell church B this is not a sin, it is good and you should part take of it at teh same time and both be right (for them).

The only thing I can offer is that if a local church is so dysfunctional as to be totally ineffective, there are probably a dozen other churches within a few miles in any direction. The first problem I have here is that you have just passed judgment on one church calling it dysfunctional. If we use the above diversity concept, then why could one not just say this is how God wants this church to act( even if I personally think it is messed up)
If one didn't already have a concept of what God wants from them, then they would just join right in and be dysfunctional with them. And if church B comes along and says something different that they like, should one just jump ship and go to church B who has a nicer sounding message if church group A is doing it right( for them according to the HS)?

The whole problem I have here is that the church as a whole( Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Holiness, Calvinists, Wesleyan, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, and every other goroup using Jesus' name as savior) Has so much diversity that those contradictions create lifestyle paradoxes making it hard fro the average new Christian to "see" Jesus lived out in the membership. Thus the contradictions in "ethics"

Now, Here is where I agree with you though. The power of the Holy Spirit IS working in His church. The invisible Church made of a few Nazarenes, Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, etc.. Some church groups(denominations) are very corrupt, and sinful( yes i am passing judgment) and I wouldn't give you two cents for them, but within thier rank and file membership are good S&S people being the glue and continuing the work of the HS. I do not for one minute think the HS ever contradicts the gospel message in any way. But, People using the name of God do all the time. They preach what thier listeners "itching ears" want to hear. It is often in a church setting, but it not from the Holy Spirit, yet even in that setting the Holy Spirit can still be at work forcefully advancing the kingdom in spite of the church group doing wrong.

Two thoughts: It is OK to say church group A is doing it wrong. If no one ever said that, we would all still be Roman Catholic today. And here is another kicker: IF no one ever said "church group A is doing it wrong there is a better way" Then there would be NO diversity in the church in the first place for us to discuss the facts that we should not be "judgmental" of others way of serving God. There is a thought for you.:p