Threads on Homosexuality: WHY, Oh Why do we continue with them?

[Valisha Trammell Hall]

I agree with the principles herein. However, with the exception of Marsha and maybe Gina, has the opinion of anyone who actively participates in these discussions shifted? We seem just to dig ourselves in deeper into our own position as we feel it under attack from the other side. The discussion quickly becomes debate with each side trying to win. When it devolves such then there is no longer any benefit to the participants or the readers.

My opinion has changed.

[Hans Deventer]

I agree with the principles herein. However, with the exception of Marsha and maybe Gina, has the opinion of anyone who actively participates in these discussions shifted? We seem just to dig ourselves in deeper into our own position as we feel it under attack from the other side. The discussion quickly becomes debate with each side trying to win. When it devolves such then there is no longer any benefit to the participants or the readers.

My position has been shifting through time. It's a process of several years. Whereas I was totally against homosexual praxis and the very thought of it was disgusting to me (which it still is), the hatred and complete lack of grace in the approach of some has made me change. Such a position cannot be Biblical. As it stands now, I see it predominantly as part of the brokenness of creation and as "missing the mark" that God has intended. So in that sense, it is sin.

Also, looking in the mirror and looking around on NazNet, I can only conclude that either both those gays, me and others here are on a highway to hell, or God might have found a way to deal with sinners that doesn't mean they ALL get thrown into hell for all eternity. So far, I'm hoping for grace.

As a side note, I believe God CAN do a lot in the life of human beings. I also see in most of us, including myself, the work has barely begun. So yes, I believe in Entire Sanctification. I also believe it is rare. At least it is among those I know. But, not so rare as to be non-existent.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Thank you Billy, Valisha, and Hans. I stand corrected. On this I am glad to have been wrong.

[Glenn Messer]

My opinion has not changed, but I have not ever, including now, harbored hatred or animosity or ill will toward anyone who identifies as a part of the LGBT group. I do oppose the militant aspect of the LGBT movement. I oppose them in conversation, when appropriate, and anytime there is a vote on a ballot issue concerning LGBT demands. I wrote a letter to the editor of the Raleigh paper after the last election in which I expressed my opinion that if the LGBT community had asked for legal recognition of their domestic unions without demanding that those unions be given absolute equality with traditional marriage, I felt that any ballot vote would have been much more favorable to their position. (Basically, the residents of NC voted to limit 'marriage' to the legal domestic union of a man and a woman --- 62% voted for the amendment).
I have friends who recently visited family (daughter and son-in-law) in California. Neighbors to the family in CA. are a homosexual male couple. They are all friends. The son-in-law was invited by the neighbors to attend a Gay Pride festival in the area. My friends and their family all decided to attend in support of the neighbors. Their account to me was, "Within minutes of our arrival, we knew we were out of place and did not belong there. We stayed a few minutes then excused ourselves and tried to quietly slip away. It was nothing like what we had expected. We were very uncomfortable."
It is my opinion that the LGBT community has chosen to make an issue (celebration?) of their sexual preferences and that's what is most damaging to their "cause" with most Americans.
Do I hate people who are homosexual?? I don't have time or the desire for that. I have lived long enough to know that hatred is a luxury that not even the wealthy can afford.

[Billy Cox]

I have come to the conclusion that when discussing homosexuality on this site it is clearly argued from two totaly different angles. 1. as I discuss it here, it is with the act in mind (sin). 2. I see those with differing arguments than my own viewing homosexuality here with the person in mind (brotherly love).

This is probably accurate, but I am a bit curious, how do you then choose to focus on the sin instead of the person? The stories of Jesus' responses to sinful people seem to extend grace to the person over condemning their sin.

When I discuss the subject I am condeming the act not the person, while I do this the opposing view sees me as an attacker of the person even though I have no such person in mind, just the act (sin). I think perhaps we're both right??? That being said I probably just offened many people on this site!

I see "love the sinner, hate the sin" as a bankrupt ethic. It is an ethic that says we can love the sinner without being tainted by their sin, but that is totally foreign to the Gospel. One of the main religious objections to Jesus' ministry was his too-close-for-comfort association with sinners. On the cross, Jesus sealed that association quite clearly. In the end, he so closely associated himself with sinners, that he became subject to their condemnation.

If we love sinners, why are we so worried about appearing to condone their actions? If we genuinely hope for the best of what they can become, why would we waste so much energy focusing on what they are at the moment?

Once again, I stand condemned by my own words, as I am very far removed from the lives of sinners at this point in my journey...so I don't say this from a position of moral superiority.

[David Troxler]

We may deny it until the cows come home, but holiness people are the theological descendants of the Pharisees.

Sadly, this has been demonstrated to be true more often than we wish.

[James Johnson]

This is probably accurate, but I am a bit curious, how do you then choose to focus on the sin instead of the person? The stories of Jesus' responses to sinful people seem to extend grace to the person over condemning their sin.

When I hear of a murder and I don't know the killer, It's the act that bothers me, when I hear of a child being abused by someone; it's the victim and the act that bothers me. When a mother makes the decision to take the life of an unborn baby; it's the victim and the act that bothers me. If someone I know is the perpetrator of such an act than of course my heart goes out to them but that in no way removes my disgust for the act (sin), if I myself sin than yes it's the act of sin and the choice that I have made that disgust me . If that's wrong than so be it! When I discuss the act of homosexuality on this site I'm not talking about a specific person. As far as I know it's alway's been the act being discussed not an individual; except in the case of the young man at Point Loma I don't recall us ever talking about specific people.

[Gina Stevenson]

This is becoming more apparent ~~ well, already was, but just becoming more apparent to me, I guess ~~ as time goes by. For instance, tonight while browsing Facebook a bit longer than in awhile, someone I've known for many years (but have not seen in years, also, with both her & my moving around) popped up as a mutual friend of mine & another's.

Have to go back to the nature/nurture thing again ... because me thinks that in that particular instance (will try to not say too much, as this is a public place) it was not nature but "nurture," as I was aware that when young there was some molestation involved. We talked on FB before, but I did not see then what I saw tonight ... it says this friend is "married" to someone of the same sex, which might have something to do with them moving from where they first were when leaving Michigan to California ~~ seems about the time that this became legal out there.

While I can see how possibly, considering all the other birth defects that can occur in this fallen world, there can be some hormonal defect contributing to all this, there may definitely be quite a bit of the "not nature but nurture" element involved, too ... and when that has to do with the fallenness of this world ... it's sad.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ETA: While I can see where this might have come from, it was still a bit of a surprise, learning of this, when I'd never given it a tho't that such could be.

[Jim Chabot]

I agree with the principles herein. However, with the exception of Marsha and maybe Gina, has the opinion of anyone who actively participates in these discussions shifted? We seem just to dig ourselves in deeper into our own position as we feel it under attack from the other side. The discussion quickly becomes debate with each side trying to win. When it devolves such then there is no longer any benefit to the participants or the readers.

I hear you Paul, however I must say that I'm concerned about your concern. Why is it that we worry over someone changing their opinion? I'll be honest and say that to me it speaks of control issues that would be better to be resolved rather than satisfied. Of course I am speaking in general, when I think of people here who need to control others, your not exactly on the top of the list. But just the same, why the concern?

Certainly we do change our opinions when good credible information is presented. I know that I've changed my opinion on things over the years, and yes some of that change has occurred due to conversations here. Still we change as we learn, rather than change to reflect the coming and going of the popular tide. I can't help but to think that this is what this whole conversation is about. It has been said that it's about compassion and love for the person. Sorry, but I'm not seeing this at all, those who trumpet this the loudest seem to be those who exhibit little grace here. It's been said that this is a new subject, something not contemplated in Scripture, again not seeing this at all. My gut feeling says that there is nothing new under the sun and the homosexual lifestyle surely must qualify there. And sure enough historical evidence is presented to show that indeed this is the case.

Let me be clear, it's ok if you don't change your mind, I've no issue with you there. It's good to hear where your coming from and I do actually listen, because it is surely possible that there is something that I haven't considered yet. While at the same time, I haven't heard anything new here on this subject. Last night I took the time to listen to a debate on this between Todd Erickson and a pastor of a gay affirming church. I didn't hear anything new there, but still I listened.

So that's not my beef. My issue is that this is supposed to be a Nazarene Friendly site. Doesn't mean that everyone here needs to conform to our stated positions, and I don't have a real issue with the criticism from without as opposed to within, other than the application of this has been hypocritical through and through. You and Ben are free to criticize from without and you will be defended, while George and Randy get called on it without anyone so much as batting an eye. My issue is that those who do hold to our stated positions should be given courtesy. If there is a quarrel, then it should behoove those who seek to change our position to defer.

[Jim Chabot]

First of all, I don't accept the idea that people's minds are forever made up on every issue. I therefore don't see the perennial threads as a waste of time.

As to why this topic keeps coming up, I think there are some valid reasons:

1. Someone with a conservative viewpoint will likely never encounter someone who dares express a moderate or liberal viewpoint in a Bible study or adult Sunday School class. NazNet is most likely the only place that conservatives are going to find other Nazarenes who have a different point of view. I extend the benefit of the doubt that some conservatives are genuinely curious as to how moderates/liberals justify their position, although some surely see NazNet as a sparring opportunity.

It would depend on how much that person gets out. Granted that finding a different view among Nazarenes is probably a rarity, then again it should be. We aren't affirming any more than we would be five point calvinists. But you will find folks out and about in christian circles. I attend a Monday night Bible study at a nearby AoG church where a friend of mine was Pastor for many years, we have been discussing this there. Although I'll admit that the discussion does center around a reasoned response to to the liberal view.

2. Someone with a moderate or even liberal viewpoint likely lives in fear that they will be outed as a 'gay-sympathizer' in their local congregation. NazNet, by comparison is a safe place for them to work out their views with far less risk of breaking fellowship with people they see on a weekly basis. And to be fair and balanced, I'm sure that some moderates/liberals see NazNet as a sparring opportunity as well.

Lives in fear? Are you serious? Fear of church people? Over what? Sorry for the incredulity Billy, but I can't even imagine how a flock of Sunday morning church goers would even posses something that would inspire fear. And believe it or not, anyone who would see naznet as a sparring opportunity is doing the same thing back home.

3. The questions of homosexuality and how followers of Christ should think/respond to it is a legitimate field of inquiry. A plain reading of the Bible seems to indicate that homosexuality (orientation and/or action) is incompatible with Christian belief and practice. Those who suggest an interpretation other than what the plain reading suggests have their work cut out for them.

I've said it before, Ben Burch says that it can't be done, there is no interpretational argument, or at least no credible one. If Ben can't find one, I'll strongly suggest that it's just not there. You may recall that we discussed a lengthy video where a pretty good defense was given for affirmation. You may recall that the young man in the the video presented a good in depth and fully encompassing argument for affirmation, he was knowledgable and well spoken. Yet nothing new and his arguments were faulty, although I'm sure that they were convincing to those who are unfamiliar with the subject. Like I said, if there is a real argument to be made, Ben would have found it, he says that there is none.

4. Other denominations have split (whether hard split or by steady attrition) over the hermeneutical question, and there is no good reason to believe that the issue will pass the Nazarenes by.

Exactly true, and we have a choice before us, or more appropriately our leadership is faced with a choice. Your right, this isn't going to pass us by, we have historically possessed an openness to a sometimes non literal hermeneutic, and most certainly we have a target painted on our back. The question remains as to whether we allow this question to fester and cause an eventual split. I don't see a possibility that we could possibly avoid a split, unless we determine not to entertain the fractious debates that will take our eye from the gospel for years to come. And we purge those who advocate affirmation from among those whom we credential or allow to teach in our schools. Yeah, yeah, I know feathers are ruffled, but I can't see how allowing a long fight and a split is a good thing, or a moral one.

5. No matter how well the CotN insulates itself from the very real social pressure to 'normalize' homosexuality, the issue will gain a human face - gay sons/daughters of prominent Nazarenes or even respected/ordained clergy 'coming out' - and the caricature of homosexuals as disgusting, in-your-face activists seeking to shock and annoy will fall away. At the very least, a collision is coming.

You do know that Scripture is chock full of stories of folks who remained true to God despite circumstances in their lives that would push them very hard away. I'm sorry but the 'coming out' of family members doesn't even hold a candle to the examples given where folks have held firm. We are called to endure like Job, we are called to dare like Daniel. Regular ordinary lay people are called to this, each and every one of us. We cannot tolerate leaders or prominent people who will not. Surely we can be sympathetic, yet we do not follow their lead.

In my opinion, it is not wise to write this off as a non-issue on which minds will never change. I contend that this issue is not simply going to fall out of vogue. I contend that minds will change in a way that only the humanizing of an issue can do.

The interesting question for me is whether those changed minds will be driven away before they can raise the question in a way that divides the denomination.

Well hopefully this will be the case. I think that it's pretty much a given that we will be divided if the question rises to widespread debate. My take is that those who will leave over this will be a large majority, and I'm thinking whole continents will leave us and rightly so.

[Billy Cox]

It would depend on how much that person gets out. Granted that finding a different view among Nazarenes is probably a rarity, then again it should be. We aren't affirming any more than we would be five point calvinists. But you will find folks out and about in christian circles. I attend a Monday night Bible study at a nearby AoG church where a friend of mine was Pastor for many years, we have been discussing this there. Although I'll admit that the discussion does center around a reasoned response to to the liberal view.

I am suggesting that the expression of different views is a rarity at the congregational level, not because we all believe alike, but because most people don't want to risk breaking fellowship by disagreeing with the Sunday School teacher or expressing an unconventional point of view.

Lives in fear? Are you serious? Fear of church people? Over what? Sorry for the incredulity Billy, but I can't even imagine how a flock of Sunday morning church goers would even posses something that would inspire fear. And believe it or not, anyone who would see naznet as a sparring opportunity is doing the same thing back home.

Maybe it's a regional thing. MA is pretty far removed from the clutches of the Southern Baptist Empire. Fundamentalist sympathies run pretty deep here in Kansas, even within the CotN.

I've said it before, Ben Burch says that it can't be done, there is no interpretational argument, or at least no credible one. If Ben can't find one, I'll strongly suggest that it's just not there. You may recall that we discussed a lengthy video where a pretty good defense was given for affirmation. You may recall that the young man in the the video presented a good in depth and fully encompassing argument for affirmation, he was knowledgable and well spoken. Yet nothing new and his arguments were faulty, although I'm sure that they were convincing to those who are unfamiliar with the subject. Like I said, if there is a real argument to be made, Ben would have found it, he says that there is none.

I think that Ben makes a big picture argument, weighing the risk to the Church as too great to even flirt with the idea that scriptures dealing with homosexuality are culturally specific to their original audience. Maybe it has merit as an academic question, but in practice it is TNT.

Exactly true, and we have a choice before us, or more appropriately our leadership is faced with a choice. Your right, this isn't going to pass us by, we have historically possessed an openness to a sometimes non literal hermeneutic, and most certainly we have a target painted on our back. The question remains as to whether we allow this question to fester and cause an eventual split. I don't see a possibility that we could possibly avoid a split, unless we determine not to entertain the fractious debates that will take our eye from the gospel for years to come. And we purge those who advocate affirmation from among those whom we credential or allow to teach in our schools. Yeah, yeah, I know feathers are ruffled, but I can't see how allowing a long fight and a split is a good thing, or a moral one.

I think that the way forward is more of a missiological question - assuming that we can agree that the Scripture probably doesn't bless homosexual relationships, whether monogamous or promiscuous. How can the Church be redemptive to people whose particular struggle is not simply a matter of behavior modification?

You do know that Scripture is chock full of stories of folks who remained true to God despite circumstances in their lives that would push them very hard away. I'm sorry but the 'coming out' of family members doesn't even hold a candle to the examples given where folks have held firm. We are called to endure like Job, we are called to dare like Daniel. Regular ordinary lay people are called to this, each and every one of us. We cannot tolerate leaders or prominent people who will not. Surely we can be sympathetic, yet we do not follow their lead.

This is not at all what I was saying. As people begin observing that gay people are not the monsters that the church led them to believe, they will question the congregation/denomination's credibility. There are no Bible stories that will defuse that crisis of confidence.

Well hopefully this will be the case. I think that it's pretty much a given that we will be divided if the question rises to widespread debate. My take is that those who will leave over this will be a large majority, and I'm thinking whole continents will leave us and rightly so.

I agree that the outcome is division. Where we may disagree is the extent to which the BGS can successfully nip the issue in the bud.

[David Pettigrew]

i posted this in the wrong thread. Nevermind.

[Valisha Trammell Hall]

Lives in fear? Are you serious? Fear of church people? Over what? Sorry for the incredulity Billy, but I can't even imagine how a flock of Sunday morning church goers would even posses something that would inspire fear. And believe it or not, anyone who would see naznet as a sparring opportunity is doing the same thing back home.

I live in Oklahoma...people at church (and work for that matter) don't know I'm a democrat. If I came out in favor of gay unions, I wouldn't have many friends left at church...I've seen it happen to several women. I guess that's living in fear.

[Cam Pence]

I live in Oklahoma...people at church (and work for that matter) don't know I'm a democrat. If I came out in favor of gay unions, I wouldn't have many friends left at church...I've seen it happen to several women. I guess that's living in fear.

I am sorry this your experience. I can assure you that if I went to your church, I would just disagree with you and not ever make you feel like our friendship was in jeopardy over political disagrements. Hopefully your faith community will surprise you someday.

[Billy Cox]

When I hear of a murder and I don't know the killer, It's the act that bothers me, when I hear of a child being abused by someone; it's the victim and the act that bothers me. When a mother makes the decision to take the life of an unborn baby; it's the victim and the act that bothers me. If someone I know is the perpetrator of such an act than of course my heart goes out to them but that in no way removes my disgust for the act (sin), if I myself sin than yes it's the act of sin and the choice that I have made that disgust me . If that's wrong than so be it! When I discuss the act of homosexuality on this site I'm not talking about a specific person. As far as I know it's alway's been the act being discussed not an individual; except in the case of the young man at Point Loma I don't recall us ever talking about specific people.

What gives me pause in these conversations is that it's easy to condemn an action in the abstract, and not so easy to condemn a person. I knew a couple of gay students when I was at NTS and had the opportunity to hear some of their respective stories. Hearing of their struggles and their desperate desire to be rid of their 'thorn' totally blew my categories that I held at the time. I could no longer believe that people 'choose' to be gay. I could no longer believe that all gay people were godless, annoying people practicing in-your-face social activism.

I believe that the Gospel demands we go out of our way to see people as more than the sum of their behavior and the consequences that follow. This doesn't mean that we condone sin or turn a blind eye to it, but that we see the person first. My problem with 'hate the sin, love the sinner' is that we tend to get stuck on the 'hate the sin' part.

[Billy Cox]

i posted this in the wrong thread. Nevermind.

This isn't the fudge recipes thread?!?!?

[James Johnson]

What gives me pause in these conversations is that it's easy to condemn an action in the abstract, and not so easy to condemn a person. I knew a couple of gay students when I was at NTS and had the opportunity to hear some of their respective stories. Hearing of their struggles and their desperate desire to be rid of their 'thorn' totally blew my categories that I held at the time. I could no longer believe that people 'choose' to be gay. I could no longer believe that all gay people were godless, annoying people practicing in-your-face social activism.

I believe that the Gospel demands we go out of our way to see people as more than the sum of their behavior and the consequences that follow. This doesn't mean that we condone sin or turn a blind eye to it, but that we see the person first. My problem with 'hate the sin, love the sinner' is that we tend to get stuck on the 'hate the sin' part.

I'm only hearing the condemnation of the sin here and not of the person, but perhaps I'm missing it.

[Billy Cox]

I'm only hearing the condemnation of the sin here and not of the person, but perhaps I'm missing it.

I'm saying that it is impossible to condemn sin itself apart from the one committing the sin.

I'm saying that we live out the Gospel/Good News by following the more excellent way; forgiving the sin and loving the sinner. I'd even suggest that they are one and the same.

[James Johnson]

I'm saying that it is impossible to condemn sin itself apart from the one committing the sin.

I'm saying that we live out the Gospel/Good News by following the more excellent way; forgiving the sin and loving the sinner. I'd even suggest that they are one and the same.

I don't see the logic here, If I condemn a murder (sin) and the murderer is never known; than how am I condemning the unknown person?

[Monte Butts]

I live in Oklahoma...people at church (and work for that matter) don't know I'm a democrat. If I came out in favor of gay unions, I wouldn't have many friends left at church...I've seen it happen to several women. I guess that's living in fear.

I don't doubt it all. Much the same here in Mississippi which is even worse than Oklahoma when it comes to the Southern Baptistation of culture here.

An acquaintance from SNU posted an article to Facebook proclaiming voting for Obama to be an act of sin. I wasn't sure whether or not to be angry, sad, or just disgusted. I settled on all 3. And I've voted GOP more in my life than anything.

[Scott Sherwood]

I'm saying that it is impossible to condemn sin itself apart from the one committing the sin.

Who hates illicit drugs more than anyone? The parent of a drug addict. They don't hate the drugs AND their drug addicted child. They hate the drugs precisely because they LOVE their drug addicted child, and they see what the drugs are doing to him or her. The greater their love for their child, the greater their hate for the sin that is destroying them.

Romans 8:3-4 demonstrates that God "condemns sin in sinful man" not in order to condemn the person but in order that the person may experience the fullness of a right relationship with God.

"And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." (NIV84)

I like how Rev. Laura Root and others put it: "God loves you enough to accept you just like you are, and way too much to leave you that way."

Encouraging someone to continue in sin is certainly not a demonstration of love for the sinner.

John Wesley sure wasn't shy about this as evidenced by this excerpt from the questions he instructed those in his band-socieities to ask each other.

5. Has no sin, inward or outward, dominion over you?
6. Do you desire to be told of your faults?
7. Do you desire to be told of all your faults, and that plain and home?
8. Do you desire that every one of us should tell you, from time to time, whatsoever is in his heart concerning you?
9. Consider! Do you desire we should tell you whatsoever we think, whatsoever we fear, whatsoever we hear, concerning you?
10. Do you desire that, in doing this, we should come as close as possible, that we should cut to the quick, and search your heart to the bottom?
11. Is it your desire and design to be on this, and all other occasions, entirely open, so as to speak everything that is in your heart without exception, without disguise, and without reserve?


John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley: Addresses, Essays, and Letters, electronic ed. (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 2000).

[Marsha Lynn]

Who hates illicit drugs more than anyone? The parent of a drug addict. They don't hate the drugs AND their drug addicted child. They hate the drugs precisely because they LOVE their drug addicted child, and they see what the drugs are doing to him or her. The greater their love for their child, the greater their hate for the sin that is destroying them.

Scott, I appreciate your thoughts, but I do see a huge difference between drug addiction and homosexuality. Illicit drugs are completely separate and apart from a person. The person is whole and complete without the drugs. Sexuality and gender identification are not nearly so easily separated from the person, in our minds or theirs.
Marsha

[Scott Sherwood]

Scott, I appreciate your thoughts, but I do see a huge difference between drug addiction and homosexuality. Illicit drugs are completely separate and apart from a person. The person is whole and complete without the drugs. Sexuality and gender identification are not nearly so easily separated from the person, in our minds or theirs.
Marsha

Thank you Marsha. I was not trying to equate the two but simply to draw an analogy. Many in recovery would challenge you on whether the tendency toward addiction is any less hard-wired than the tendency toward same-sex attraction.

[John F Martin]

Who among you has read Andrew Marin's book, 'Love is an Orientation'? Anyone?

It contains a compelling message to the church: that love and not condemnation & hatred, should be the church's orientation toward the topic and toward those who either struggle with identity or live in that experience. I am not expressing an opinion, just wondering if any of you have read it.

It's published by InterVarsity: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=3626

[Sarah Smith]

We do know many things are hard wired.

Kids born with fetal alcohol affect or syndrome will have a greater addiction tendancy. Some adoption studies seem to indicate that even if the dad was an alcoholic the child has a higher risk--with never having even met the man, eliminating the nuture issue.

Fragile x brings a constellation of tendancies, but most of them do land you in the pokey eventually.

My personal idea, which isn't popular and I freely admit may be off the wall and nuts, is that when we are told sin is in the flesh it means just exactly that. Not the old gnostic ideas, but rather than many of the tendancies to specific sins are a result of genetics in a fallen world.

I'd like to use my red hair as an excuse, you know, the old redheads have fiery tempers thing, but I know I am still accountable for my behavior even when angry.

[Tyler McCarthy]

I live in Oklahoma...people at church (and work for that matter) don't know I'm a democrat. If I came out in favor of gay unions, I wouldn't have many friends left at church...I've seen it happen to several women. I guess that's living in fear.

My first Sunday at BFC after coming out online on Nazarene Ally, I had people say 'Hi' to me that hadn't spoken to me in years... It was weird, like you know those times that some one is using your trick of killing them with kindness but on you... it felt like that. And this is after having an anxiety attack on 42nd Street as I approached SNU. I sat in the car for a good 5-10 debating whether or not I should show up.

And Paul, as much as these threads seem pointless and circle the drain and just repeat known stances, we have to figure out a way to move forward on this issue. People are leaving the Church, and not just for another church. People are being turned off of God because of what people do and say under the protection of Church policy. I started Nazarene Ally to help build bridges between our distance sides. I didn't make Nazarene Ally for myself. If I just wanted to be a pastor, y'all are right I should just pack up and go to a denomination where this issue has been resolved. I may leave the option open to take my talents to South Beach, but I'll stick with the organization I founded until the board votes me out.
But something bigger is going on, something bigger then me is at stake here.

We have so far to go.

We can do better. Maintaining the status quo on how the COTN handle her LGBT-members is not acceptable any more. We have to do better.

*soap box off*

[Billy Cox]

My first Sunday at BFC after coming out online on Nazarene Ally, I had people say 'Hi' to me that hadn't spoken to me in years... It was weird, like you know those times that some one is using your trick of killing them with kindness but on you... it felt like that. And this is after having an anxiety attack on 42nd Street as I approached SNU. I sat in the car for a good 5-10 debating whether or not I should show up.

And Paul, as much as these threads seem pointless and circle the drain and just repeat known stances, we have to figure out a way to move forward on this issue. People are leaving the Church, and not just for another church. People are being turned off of God because of what people do and say under the protection of Church policy. I started Nazarene Ally to help build bridges between our distance sides. I didn't make Nazarene Ally for myself. If I just wanted to be a pastor, y'all are right I should just pack up and go to a denomination where this issue has been resolved. I may leave the option open to take my talents to South Beach, but I'll stick with the organization I founded until the board votes me out.
But something bigger is going on, something bigger then me is at stake here.

We have so far to go.

We can do better. Maintaining the status quo on how the COTN handle her LGBT-members is not acceptable any more. We have to do better.

*soap box off*

Tyler,

While plenty of Nazarenes (including some on NazNet) would breathe a little easier and be happy to see you shake the Nazarene dust off your feet, I encourage you to stay with the denomination. Your presence and approach is a visible rebuke to those whose views on homosexuality is still informed by caricatures, misinformation and fear.

Some believe that views on contentious topics are chosen for a lifetime and are beyond change and thus beyond rational discourse. I beg to differ. The tenor of this conversation has changed over the years - I've been a NazNet regular since 1997 - and I'm convinced that you have received far more welcome here than you might have received 5 years ago.

[Paul DeBaufer]

My first Sunday at BFC after coming out online on Nazarene Ally, I had people say 'Hi' to me that hadn't spoken to me in years... It was weird, like you know those times that some one is using your trick of killing them with kindness but on you... it felt like that. And this is after having an anxiety attack on 42nd Street as I approached SNU. I sat in the car for a good 5-10 debating whether or not I should show up.

And Paul, as much as these threads seem pointless and circle the drain and just repeat known stances, we have to figure out a way to move forward on this issue. People are leaving the Church, and not just for another church. People are being turned off of God because of what people do and say under the protection of Church policy. I started Nazarene Ally to help build bridges between our distance sides. I didn't make Nazarene Ally for myself. If I just wanted to be a pastor, y'all are right I should just pack up and go to a denomination where this issue has been resolved. I may leave the option open to take my talents to South Beach, but I'll stick with the organization I founded until the board votes me out.
But something bigger is going on, something bigger then me is at stake here.

We have so far to go.

We can do better. Maintaining the status quo on how the COTN handle her LGBT-members is not acceptable any more. We have to do better.

*soap box off*

When I created this thread i was specifically speaking of the threads here on NazNet. I am and have always been for having this conversation. In the past, the not too distant past, these threads seemed to devolve into strings of ad hominems. We have gotten much better in engaging those with opposite views. Also, I was proved wrong that for those here these threads had no positive effect.

[John Kennedy]

Two topics that are guaranteed to draw interest on NN: alcohol and homosexuality. I think, on both issues, there's a great deal less unanimity on the subject than there used to be.

I've been out of the church since the 70's. I never expected to see the changes that have taken place in it. I'm not saying that in a 'viewing with alarm' manner. I'm simply stating what I've experienced.

I'm reasonably confident that a lot of other people, both in an out of the church, have come to a point of view similar to the one at which I've arrived. Some of the issues we've considered so vital will turn out ultimately not to be all that crucial. Unfortunately, some of the stuff we've never paid too much attention to will turn out to be not all that trivial.

Although I've been out of the denomination for years, I've attempted to keep reasonably well informed on what's going on. I find myself fascinated by the dynamics of change and transition. I see groups and institutions that change and I ask myself how it happened.

In the case of the CotN, I think that forces set in motion about a century ago began to significantly interface in the latter part of the 20th century. Although there were a number of diverse groups that came together to form the church, a significant part of its lifestyle expectations came from its Wesleyan roots.

There was the exectation that behavior should be informed by belief. I can remember courses at youth camp that were titled "Believe and Behave". Holiness people should live their lives in ways that reflected their beliefs. They would do certain things - they would refrain from doing certain other things.

Adherence to these behavioral expectations was part and parcel of being a part of the church.
If you played by the rules, you stood a markedly better chance of making it to heaven. Sure, faith was necessary, but your living better reflect your belief. There were, of course, some sectional or regional
exceptions, but they tended to prove the rule.

At the same time, the newly formed denomination made the incredibly significant decision to set up a higher ed system based on liberal arts institutions rather than Bible colleges. There was a conscious decision to educate rather than indoctrinate.

The process of establishing institutions that had accreditation as a selling point to prospective students, insured that faculties would have exposure to influences outside the church while they acquired the necessary graduate degrees. An inevitable by-product of education is the tendency to ask questions.

If you want a church that will not change and adapt, for God's sake, don't start a college.
In my experience at Bethany in the long-ago 50's it quickly became apparent that the college had two religion departments: the one with the older people who had offices in McConnel Hall and the one on Chapman Hall, 3rd floor, east wing. Those of you who attended other church colleges would probably be able to draw a map showing where your school's alternate religion department was housed.

Inevitably, the two forces, the 'believe and behave' and the academy, were bound to rub up against each other, not always cordially. IMO it's rather obvious as to won. I have no serious expectation that, despite the church's stand on the subject, the discussion will subside to any appreciable degree.

So, despite the fact that you could safely bet the rent money that a lot of what will be said has been said, already, it will continue to be said again. ".....World without end, Amen, Amen".

[Todd Erickson]

Based on my experiences on naznet alone, had I not already been heavily entrenched in my local CotN, I probably would have abandoned the church and found something else. Or just stopped attending.

My experiences here have been caustic and difficult. I'm accused constantly of being graceless by those who make it clear that anything I say is pointless and dismissable and frankly laughable, I'm patted on the head and sent along. And they complain that they aren't given grace. When I figure out how to get all of these daggers out of my chest, I'll begin worrying over how to be more graceful.

I think that our church culture, to address the OP, especially within Protestant realms, has made it extremely important to know the answers and to be right. Will's comments on the theology thread say it best: The bible says it, the bible is God's word, so if you argue with God's word, then you're arguing with God. No details about hermeneutic necessary.

Or, as my pastor Tim Bullington will say, the CotN has missed the boat on education, and we've allowed popular culture and the new calvinists to educate our congregations for us. We use their techniques, their worship music, their expectations.

Over and over the refrain repeats: If you aren't telling somebody that they're sinning and it's unacceptable, then you're somehow blessing their sin. Either you're openly condemning them, or you're blessing their journey to hell. Either/ Or. Wrong or Right. Off or On.

Gnosticism.

The Protestant church is so astoundingly Gnostic that it's worth wondering if they'll ever find their way out. The CotN (as with most holiness churches) is especially succeptible to this failing...in pursuing sanctification, it's far too easy to condemn the material in the pursuit of the spiritual and knowledge, to condemn as poisoned and broken everything beneath that holy level.

Which is why we can't talk about how we should love gay people, or how we should minister to singles, or how we should actually deal with divorce. We're too busy establishing that these fallen, material things cannot be accepted, and that if we accept them, we somehow become base and unspiritual ourselves...guilty by association.

Can't let that dirt get too close, can we?

We want the gays to get spiritually fixed, and then come and serve in our churches...which are brimming over with broken, difficult, backstabbing, poisonous humans, saved by Grace. All of us trying to get better, trying to be regenerated, trying to live up to the imparted Grace within us.

Tell me, who here has become more graceful and loving because their fellow Christians beat them with condemnation for their sin?

I know that all of those who "loved" me through constant rebuke, I have shut my ears to and turned my back to. I don't need that darkness. I don't need that constant condemnation.

To quote Jesus Jones, I don't want that kind of love.

But I've also learned that I can't have the discussions that I want to here. I can't get into the type of actual practice conversations, I can't learn unless I'm willing to embrace deontological thought and a thorough refutation of the existence of hermeneutic, and I refuse. Having seen the truth, I cannot lie about it in public, no matter how much pain it causes me.

Reading Naznet makes me so incredibly angry and bitter. But there's no where else to go. It's just church online.

Eventually, we'll all die, and the generations that follow us will wonder what the fuss was about, and they'll have their own arguments over things we can't imagine, and argue about predestination and what color the walls of the church should be and whatever the worship wars are, and God will laugh and cry and wonder again and what fools these mortals be, that he loves.

Talking about homosexuality on naznet is like all of the folks out there who start off with vanilla sex, and then get into the kama sutra, and then bondage or whatever, because they think that if they keep changing how they approach it, they'll find something that will really satisfy them.

When, as always, it's not the what, it's the why, that really matters. And the why is, by all accounts, too holy for us to really approach here.

[Sarah Smith]

I think we keep talking because we keep learning from each other, despite the pain we often cause.

I won't apologize for believing the scripture teaches male/male or female/female sex is a sin.

BUT--neither will I stop standing up for folks I know personally born with duel gender chimerism. To my eye it may look like John and Jim are a couple, but if John is really medically John/Jane, it may well be Jane and Jim that are the couple. And I have to ask myself if those born gay suffer this situation only aren't as medically obvious as some. How, in the future, would that affect my understanding of scripture?

I would have to give them a pass and leave it with God. However, I've also lived where the society was, to put it mildly, debauched, and where male/male or female/female sex was not because the participants were saying they were born that way, but BECAUSE to use their terminology, "dirty is hot and filthy is hotter." In that case, I see no change at all in understanding the scripture.

Am I a sinner saved by grace also? Yes! And I believe the most sanctified among us will be the most aware of where they still fall short. So since I believe ALL sin is the result of the fall and Satan's attacks upon us, I really CAN hate any sin for the pain it brings and still love anyone, myself included, that is still struggling with a sin or three.

Todd, on one level I am so sorry you have been treated in ways that have hurt you. On another level, while I think you should be respected and accepted as a person, I "get" the non acceptance of certain behaviors and of talk or action some might think are promoting them. But I do hate seeing all the focus on sexual sin being on homosexual sin. Last time I checked, the Bible also had a lot of negative things to say about easy divorce, adultery, and fornication. We need to address these just as vehemently.

One thing about getting older--you do begin, hopefully, to learn that not every desire we have needs or should be fulfilled, not every feeling we have is reality based, and that God and others might not see the world the way we do. There are traits about myself that I sure wish were more palatable and popular but they are not--and maybe with good reason!

[Greg Crofford]

Sadly, this has been demonstrated to be true more often than we wish.

The Pharisees are usually condemned in cut-and-dry terms, but may I suggest that the Gospels present a mixed view? Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and spiritually hungry. Paul was a Pharisee, and his theological genius gave us 1/3 of the NT. Obviously, Jesus at one point condemned them, but we should not forget that it was the Pharisees who pushed back against encroaching Hellenism and - in so doing - preserved much of the ethical heritage of Judaism for future generations. Let us as Nazarenes keep the wheat and discard the chaff.

[Billy Cox]

The Pharisees are usually condemned in cut-and-dry terms, but may I suggest that the Gospels present a mixed view? Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and spiritually hungry. Paul was a Pharisee, and his theological genius gave us 1/3 of the NT. Obviously, Jesus at one point condemned them, but we should not forget that it was the Pharisees who pushed back against encroaching Hellenism and - in so doing - preserved much of the ethical heritage of Judaism for future generations. Let us as Nazarenes keep the wheat and discard the chaff.

While we're at it, we might as well remember that Jesus was probably a Pharisee. That doesn't redeem the Pharisees. Sure they were theological heroes, but it went to their head and they became infatuated with the power that came with it. Such is the hazard of being the best of the best.

We don't know if Nicodemus remained a Pharisee in good standing, but it seems unlikely. The leaders who tried to lynch Paul must have been rival Sadducees. Right?? The leaders who stirred up the crowds in front of Pilate were surely not some lowly synagogue nobodies, were they?

Nazarenes are the theological descendants of the Pharisees. The things that tripped them up could also trip us up, and our history bears this out. It's also worth noting that the Pharisees were also 1st century liberals. Believing and teaching resurrection was not exactly in the Mosaic tradition. The language of reclaiming tradition or 'legacy' as some call it, is foreign to Wesleyan theology.

[Greg Crofford]

Nazarenes are the theological descendants of the Pharisees. The things that tripped them up could also trip us up, and our history bears this out. It's also worth noting that the Pharisees were also 1st century liberals. Believing and teaching resurrection was not exactly in the Mosaic tradition. The language of reclaiming tradition or 'legacy' as some call it, is foreign to Wesleyan theology.

Good to see talk with you, Billy. Trust you're doing well.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to a credible source about Jesus being a Pharisee. And I take your point about them being "1st century liberals." For all their insistence on the minutiae of law-keeping, it's amazing, isn't it, that they were the ones to whom God chose to entrust the radically optimistic message of resurrection? And contra Bratcher, I believe the concept of progressive revelation is a sound one. We need look no further than Christ himself to see its validity, since we believe that his life, death, and resurrection were the next step in the revelation of God. So, why couldn't God entrust to the Pharisees something important like that?

Are we as Nazarenes the descendants of the Pharisees? That's a strong statement! As a Wesleyan scholar, I would prefer to say that we are the descendants of John and Charles Wesley and the renewal movement of 18th century Methodism. Did that movement place an emphasis upon rules? Only secondarily, as an accompaniment to the importance of experiencing the transformational grace of God in our lives, but the idea of Christian covenant is hardly a 20th century Nazarene invention.

My concern is that the "don't be a Pharisee" meme if we're not careful can become a reason to exclude the obvious ethical/moral content of our tradition. For people who are looking for an escape from profligate living, that content and our community ethos of holy living is not a word of legalism, but a word of Gospel.

[Billy Cox]

Good to see talk with you, Billy. Trust you're doing well.

I'm doing well over all, nothing beyond what is common to man.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to a credible source about Jesus being a Pharisee. And I take your point about them being "1st century liberals." For all their insistence on the minutiae of law-keeping, it's amazing, isn't it, that they were the ones to whom God chose to entrust the radically optimistic message of resurrection? And contra Bratcher, I believe the concept of progressive revelation is a sound one. We need look no further than Christ himself to see its validity, since we believe that his life, death, and resurrection were the next step in the revelation of God. So, why couldn't God entrust to the Pharisees something important like that?

The evidence that Jesus was a Pharisee is circumstantial. He believed in the resurrection, which was one of the Pharisees' signature issues. He also had more generous views as to the plight of the Gentiles, also a signature issue for at least one Pharisaic sect. There are a couple of books entitled, "Jesus the Pharisee" that advance the theory.

We typically think that Jesus was a carpenter, but it's more likely that he was on the Rabbi track, as evidenced by his 12th birthday temple fiasco. That is not the profile of a child who was headed for a skilled trade. Jesus was invited to teach in the synagogue in Nazareth and elsewhere. This was not something that the unschooled were asked to do.

Are we as Nazarenes the descendants of the Pharisees? That's a strong statement! As a Wesleyan scholar, I would prefer to say that we are the descendants of John and Charles Wesley and the renewal movement of 18th century Methodism. Did that movement place an emphasis upon rules? Only secondarily, as an accompaniment to the importance of experiencing the transformational grace of God in our lives, but the idea of Christian covenant is hardly a 20th century Nazarene invention.

No religion is a monolith. Many Nazarene clergy and scholars invoke Wesley, but come to different conclusions. It's not hard to find Nazarenes who think that we gave away too much when we washed our hands of the sillier trappings of legalism; a veritable tossing of the baby with the bath water. Nazarenes talk about Wesley when it's convenient to do so, but Wesley is only one of a growing number of voices that inform the denomination in various locations.

My concern is that the "don't be a Pharisee" meme if we're not careful can become a reason to exclude the obvious ethical/moral content of our tradition. For people who are looking for an escape from profligate living, that content and our community ethos of holy living is not a word of legalism, but a word of Gospel.

I acknowledge that this is one stream of thought, within the Nazarene tradition, holiness as separatism or escape is not characteristic of Wesley. He was a bridge builder, not a fortress builder. Holiness was engagement, not withdrawal. Evangelism was about individual and collective transformation, not simply getting as many people into the lifeboats as possible. I don't see in any of this some sort of anything-goes ethic.

[Jim Chabot]

I'd be interested in seeing a link to a credible source about Jesus being a Pharisee. And I take your point about them being "1st century liberals." For all their insistence on the minutiae of law-keeping, it's amazing, isn't it, that they were the ones to whom God chose to entrust the radically optimistic message of resurrection? And contra Bratcher, I believe the concept of progressive revelation is a sound one. We need look no further than Christ himself to see its validity, since we believe that his life, death, and resurrection were the next step in the revelation of God. So, why couldn't God entrust to the Pharisees something important like that?

He did trust the Pharisees, they were the group to which he sent Jesus to closely interact with. Jesus, pulled back the veil and revealed more of the person of God, and it was to the Pharisees this revelation was trusted. Sure, they did get some things wrong and they were sternly rebuked in those areas, or would it be better to say that they were "chastened?"

And boy howdy! Who was God's choice to bring this revelation and to bring salvation to the gentiles? Why it was Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee of Pharisee's

[Todd Erickson]

@Billy - After studying and the classes offered locally, I'm far more Wesleyan than I am Nazarene, precisely in the way you're describing. I place far more value in Via Media than I do in Holiness, at least as it's held by AHM proponents.

[Billy Cox]

@Billy - After studying and the classes offered locally, I'm far more Wesleyan than I am Nazarene, precisely in the way you're describing. I place far more value in Via Media than I do in Holiness, at least as it's held by AHM proponents.

I sometimes scoff at the via media, not as a concept itself, but when I hear people use it as an intellectual magic bullet, creating false dichotomies and then staking out a false middle ground between two fictional extremes.

I just laugh when I hear traditionalists invoke the via media, because it is an approach born out of relativism and compromise; two issues that are taboo in the traditionalist mind. Together with Wesley's catholic spirit, the via media is a liberal tenet leading to a generous orthodoxy. Combatting perceived liberalism using the via media is like fighting fire with crumbled up newspaper.

[Todd Erickson]

It isn't via media if I get to control all of the determining axis of the conversation. That's just puppetry. Or the M word.

[Shea Zellweger]

He did trust the Pharisees, they were the group to which he sent Jesus to closely interact with.

I seem to recall Jesus saying something very different on this subject.