McLaren does a same-sex ceremony

[Paul DeBaufer]

So you are suggesting it is not solely an issue of what is scriptural, but is more an issue of how the church interprets, develops and applies what scripture says in its culture?

Yes, I am.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yes, understand and agree. My mention of pedophiles was my thinking on society. Society has to face up to the fact that if it allows sexual sin to be normal, then logic says all sexual sin is.

But with pedophiles society has actually reversed, what was once ok, then overlooked is now rightly condemned. So with this example what was wrongfully normal is now rightfully abnormal and criminal.

[Jim Chabot]

My question above was to those pastors on this post who would not pray (the original post topic) over a gay couple because doing so would endorse their "sin"...why would you NOT do that, but would serve them communion...wouldn't your credentials (and mine) prohibit us from doing so...?...or to baptize them...?...those sacraments can only be officiated by a District License pastor or Ordained Elder...I'm just trying to find the line here where one thing is strictly prohibited but another folks shy away from...

I think that the answer lies within the honesty of the person seeking either communion or baptism. Our communion is open to all who call themselves christians, we need to take people at their word. There are other methods of dealing with sexual sin which would obviate their taking communion, but I don't believe it should be denied until disciplinary action is deemed warranted by the church. Same with baptism, we take people at their word, again I believe that discipline is the appropriate avenue if we know otherwise.

Then again, you did say "couple" if your question is framed in this context, then maybe the answers would be different. I could see where some could demand that action be taken on someones credentials and be successful.

Just thinking out loud, but you have a gay couple in your church and you won't marry them for fear of the credentials board. But a week after their "wedding" you baptize the "couple?" Do you get to keep your job? I would hope not.

[Hans Deventer]

My question above was to those pastors on this post who would not pray (the original post topic) over a gay couple because doing so would endorse their "sin"...why would you NOT do that, but would serve them communion...wouldn't your credentials (and mine) prohibit us from doing so...?...or to baptize them...?...those sacraments can only be officiated by a District License pastor or Ordained Elder...I'm just trying to find the line here where one thing is strictly prohibited but another folks shy away from...

Bruce, when inviting people for communion, I once said that probably the only reason you should not come is when you think you are good enough. According to 1 John, in that case we are deceiving ourselves. But if we acknowlegde our need of Christ, I don't believe it is up to me to deny a person communion. As somebody said, this is not the Table of the CotN, but the Table of the Lord. And He appears to be rather more welcoming and far less graceless than His employees. (Matt 22:9).

As I wrote elsewhere, the key is the understanding that none of us are good enough and none of us can stay who we are. We are the Lord's, and includes our messed up sexuality. But as always, let those who are without sin cast fhe first stone. You live in sin? You are messed up? You fail Christ all the time? If you want to come for healing, welcome! You don't have all of your sin and brokenness clearly before you yet? Hey, join the club, same here.

There is really only one type of people that, if I knew, would make me refuse communion: the Pharisees. As Jesus said, He came for those who are sick. Not those who don't need a doctor. (And we all understand that they DID need a doctor, they just thought they didn't need one)

[Greg Crofford]

Thanks to all who have shared openly, even knowing there is the danger of being re-copied and quoted on antagonistic websites.

This makes me wonder why NazNet.com allows these conversations to be open to non-members? I have seen posts I've made here show up on a simple Google search. Why is that? Certainly this has a chilling effect on what NazNet members are willing to put into this forum! On the other hand, if this was a closed group, should a member abuse the privilege by posting others' remarks on weblogs or elsewhere on the net, that person's membership would then be terminated.

Can some of you NazNet veterans enlighten me on these things?

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks to all who have shared openly, even knowing there is the danger of being re-copied and quoted on antagonistic websites.

This makes me wonder why NazNet.com allows these conversations to be open to non-members? I have seen posts I've made here show up on a simple Google search. Why is that? Certainly this has a chilling effect on what NazNet members are willing to put into this forum! On the other hand, if this was a closed group, should a member abuse the privilege by posting others' remarks on weblogs or elsewhere on the net, that person's membership would then be terminated.

Can some of you NazNet veterans enlighten me on these things?

Greg, it has been discussed but the general idea is that a closed forum creates a false sense of security. Anyone can join NazNet, so anyone who likes to rant about those heretical NazNetters, can still do that. We might terminate his membership, but then next some else joins with the same attitude.... And remember, once it is out on the internet, there is no way back.
So let's imagine you wrote something here on a closed forum, but a fellow NazNetter informs your DS complaining about your lack of orthodoxy. Sure, if we can find out who it was, we can terminate that person's membership. That does not help you one bit, though.

So as it stands today, we are all aware that what we write here "can and will be used against you". That is clear now.

[Greg Crofford]

To my brothers in Christ, Mike Schutz and Dennis Scott -

I don't appreciate the acerbic tone that some have had toward you in this discussion, nor do I approve of what a certain individual who runs an antagonistic website has done by vilifying you both. That being said...

As a fellow servant of Christ in the CoTN, I do want to express my brotherly consternation that the trajectory of your comments seems to end up with the endorsement of the idea that one can have a growing relationship with Christ and be involved in a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex. Once this bridge is crossed, same-sex marriage blessed by the church would inevitably follow, sooner or later. The experience with the ECUSA, the PCUSA and other denominations bears this out.

For the record...

I'm NOT saying that you've crossed that Rubicon, but in all sincerity, a reading of what you've written here gives the impression that you're dipping your toe in the river.

As for theology vs. pastoral practice...

I'm aware of the pastoral complexities of what you and others face. The document, A Pastoral Perspective on Homosexuality from the Board of General Superintendents likewise does not neglect that important aspect. But at the end of the day, as those who look to Scripture pre-eminently to guide us, as did John Wesley, the biblical case for same-sex marriage simply is not there, whereas a biblical case against homosexual practice is clear. Reference Ben Witherington and N.T. Wright as two exegetical heavyweights from our own theological tradition who have spoken to this effect, upholding the traditional (and historic) viewpoint. See also Robert Gagnon on this question.

My two cents, given in love-- and for those who might wish to copy these comments and post them elsewhere outside of NazNet, I do NOT give my permission to do so. To do so against my express instruction is an egregious breach of Christian ethics.

- Greg

[Hans Deventer]

Greg, I'll leave it for Dennis and Mike to answer, but I do want to express my huge appreciation for the way you have written your post. Thank you very much.

[Rich Schmidt]

...nor do I approve of what a certain individual who runs an antagonistic website has done by vilifying you both.

Thanks for mentioning that this had taken place. I was unaware of it. I'm not sure if Manny's blog is the one you're referring to, but I see that he has excerpted several posts from this thread in his Sept. 26 post. I was surprised to see one of mine in his list... and to see that it had been edited in a way that seems to give a false impression of what I was saying.

Here's the comment I submitted over there. It's awaiting moderation. Hopefully Manny will let it through so that it appears publicly.

I wish you wouldn’t have edited my NazNet post when presenting it here. I believe my last two lines (not quoted above) substantially change the sound of my statement. Following my “if I were in Brian’s shoes” statement, I said this:

“He’s been living with this question in his own family for who-knows-how-long, and I’ve never had to wrestle with it so closely and personally. As it stands, I’m comfortable with our current Nazarene approach to the issue.”

Notice especially the last line. I’m comfortable with our Nazarene approach to this issue. It’s what I preach, teach, and counsel. I’m not challenging it.

All I did in my post was clarify the context of Brian McLaren’s action and express empathy for him, even though as a Nazarene I disagree with him. What’s wrong with that?

By the way, I'm aware that the things I post here are public. I know at least one of my church members reads my posts here. I don't say anything here that I wouldn't also say in front of my church or anyone else.

[Ian Gentles]

Thanks for mentioning that this had taken place. I was unaware of it. I'm not sure if Manny's blog is the one you're referring to, but I see that he has excerpted several posts from this thread in his Sept. 26 post. I was surprised to see one of mine in his list... and to see that it had been edited in a way that seems to give a false impression of what I was saying.

Here's the comment I submitted over there. It's awaiting moderation. Hopefully Manny will let it through so that it appears publicly.



By the way, I'm aware that the things I post here are public. I know at least one of my church members reads my posts here. I don't say anything here that I wouldn't also say in front of my church or anyone else.

I notice he dosent post the whole thread just the juicy bits. lol

[Lucas Finch]

Thanks for mentioning that this had taken place. I was unaware of it. I'm not sure if Manny's blog is the one you're referring to, but I see that he has excerpted several posts from this thread in his Sept. 26 post. I was surprised to see one of mine in his list... and to see that it had been edited in a way that seems to give a false impression of what I was saying.

Once again I've been left out. I guess I'm just not big-time enough to warrant a Manny misquote. I am certainly glad that I do not need to offer a defense, but in my more egotistical moments, I have to admit that when my time comes of being libeled/slandered by my CN friends, I'll find it hard to not wear as a badge of honor.

Hi Manny! We know you're watching! I hope all is well with you!

[Jim Chabot]

I notice he dosent post the whole thread just the juicy bits. lol

I really wish that he had quoted Wes's post. I am hopeful that many would agree with him. I realize that Manny has a great concern for our church and this conversation really shows a need for concern. I do wish that he would wait and only post things like this which do bring great concern, and I wish that he would show that there are still many pastors and leaders in our church for which we can be proud rather than concerned. But it is his call.

[Lucas Finch]

Just adding to the conversation, without making commentary on it one way or the other, I give you this link that singer/songwriter (and Catholic) Audrey Assad shared on Facebook this morning:

http://www.stevegershom.com/2011/10/answer/

Edit:

To be clear, this is not about her (Audrey Assad). This is just someone else's blog article that she thought was worth sharing. It was actually originally written last October.

[Mike Schutz]

To my brothers in Christ, Mike Schutz and Dennis Scott -

I don't appreciate the acerbic tone that some have had toward you in this discussion, nor do I approve of what a certain individual who runs an antagonistic website has done by vilifying you both. That being said...

As a fellow servant of Christ in the CoTN, I do want to express my brotherly consternation that the trajectory of your comments seems to end up with the endorsement of the idea that one can have a growing relationship with Christ and be involved in a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex. Once this bridge is crossed, same-sex marriage blessed by the church would inevitably follow, sooner or later. The experience with the ECUSA, the PCUSA and other denominations bears this out.

For the record...

I'm NOT saying that you've crossed that Rubicon, but in all sincerity, a reading of what you've written here gives the impression that you're dipping your toe in the river.

As for theology vs. pastoral practice...

I'm aware of the pastoral complexities of what you and others face. The document, A Pastoral Perspective on Homosexuality from the Board of General Superintendents likewise does not neglect that important aspect. But at the end of the day, as those who look to Scripture pre-eminently to guide us, as did John Wesley, the biblical case for same-sex marriage simply is not there, whereas a biblical case against homosexual practice is clear. Reference Ben Witherington and N.T. Wright as two exegetical heavyweights from our own theological tradition who have spoken to this effect, upholding the traditional (and historic) viewpoint. See also Robert Gagnon on this question.

My two cents, given in love-- and for those who might wish to copy these comments and post them elsewhere outside of NazNet, I do NOT give my permission to do so. To do so against my express instruction is an egregious breach of Christian ethics.

- Greg

Greg, Thanks for asking. I too appreciate the tone of your comments.
If one reads the entirety of what I have written here (and I really do not expect anyone to do so), my point has continued to be regarding McLaren's actions as a father - not as a pastor. I have consistently attempted to discuss the difficult situation of the parental dynamic, and my own struggle as to what I would do in such a situation. I have also made clear that at no time have I ever been tempted to go where my denomination will not allow, thus my attempt to discuss the question of the difference between the universal blessing I pray for everyone at all time (firmly believing in the Wesleyan perspective on grace - that God is active in everyone's life, all the time), and a pastoral blessing which would be understood as something very different. I believe that is a pastoral theology question worthy of consideration.
Since McLaren is not under our ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and not under our authority, we are not in a position to judge his actions. That is the role of his church and those to whom he is under authority. It is literally none of my business - in the same way it is none of my business how a priest of the Roman Catholic Church follows the mandates of his church. I am simply not in a position to judge.

I admit that I am attempting to develop a bit of a nuanced position here, and one that (if I may be so bold) not everyone who reads or even posts here has the theological and pastoral experience to navigate. Those for whom everything must be black and white will feel the need to color everyone with those colors, and often anything less than the purity of their position is not clear enough for their taste. This certainly is the position of our blogger friend, and that is fine. I am in good company in being on a list of those he finds to be less than exemplary, and since he has only two boxes - those who agree with him and those who are evil - he has likely put me in the correct one.

All that to say, I have said absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage in anything I have written, neither pro nor con, except that I find it indefensible and sinful that millions die and suffer due to war, famine, and other systemic evils that we as Christians have the power to do something about, and we spend all this time talking about this. I believe our fixation with the sexual sins of others may quite possibly be a sign of our carnality, rather than our holiness.

[Bob Hunter]

To my brothers in Christ, Mike Schutz and Dennis Scott -

I don't appreciate the acerbic tone that some have had toward you in this discussion, nor do I approve of what a certain individual who runs an antagonistic website has done by vilifying you both. That being said...

As a fellow servant of Christ in the CoTN, I do want to express my brotherly consternation that the trajectory of your comments seems to end up with the endorsement of the idea that one can have a growing relationship with Christ and be involved in a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex. Once this bridge is crossed, same-sex marriage blessed by the church would inevitably follow, sooner or later. The experience with the ECUSA, the PCUSA and other denominations bears this out.

For the record...

I'm NOT saying that you've crossed that Rubicon, but in all sincerity, a reading of what you've written here gives the impression that you're dipping your toe in the river.

As for theology vs. pastoral practice...

I'm aware of the pastoral complexities of what you and others face. The document, A Pastoral Perspective on Homosexuality from the Board of General Superintendents likewise does not neglect that important aspect. But at the end of the day, as those who look to Scripture pre-eminently to guide us, as did John Wesley, the biblical case for same-sex marriage simply is not there, whereas a biblical case against homosexual practice is clear. Reference Ben Witherington and N.T. Wright as two exegetical heavyweights from our own theological tradition who have spoken to this effect, upholding the traditional (and historic) viewpoint. See also Robert Gagnon on this question.

My two cents, given in love-- and for those who might wish to copy these comments and post them elsewhere outside of NazNet, I do NOT give my permission to do so. To do so against my express instruction is an egregious breach of Christian ethics.

- Greg

Greg,

I agree. In fact, when some of those comments were made, I squirmed a bit knowing they would be decontextualized to the nth degree and exploited for antagonistic purposes. I felt like some of our regular Naznet contributors made some pretty wishy washy statements that added fuel to the fire of criticism. But at least they were honest and knowing some of these gentleman, a solid attempt was made to empathize with McLaren's dilemma. I am for that. I just think we may have set ourselves up for this one. Not saying I support anything on the antagonistic blog to which you speak, I clearly do not. Last week I had my turn to be featured on this horrible blog, and of course my commentary on Matthew 7 was completely butchered and taken out of context.

Remember folks, this is a blog that does not contain a positive proclamation of the Gospel. I did a word usage analysis on two words: Jesus & Love. I searched over 7,000 words of content and here is what discovered:

Jesus appeared

• 2 times-direct in quotes from Dallas Willard (but he was being attacked for suggesting anyone can be saved by Jesus).
• 5 times by Lighthouse trails exposing Dallas Willard for preaching a works righteousness gospel
• 1-time by Dan Bohi (who was under attack)
• 1-time by Manny Silva rebutting Dan Bohi’s quote
• 2-times by Lighthouse trails suggesting Ravi Zacharis has the wrong Jesus
• 1-time quoting someone else who disagreed with the CNs
• 1-time rebutting someone else’s claim about Jesus (suggesting they had another Jesus)
• 8-other times in direct association with the following vocabulary: Repent, judge, judgment and righteousness.

The word Love is only mentioned ONCE and here is the direct quote: “and the love of many will grow cold."

My analysis did not include the last two blog entries, but it appears the results would be same. Jesus and His Love are not offered to readers outside of the context of biting criticism. Righteousness, Judgment, criticism, name calling, and truth telling (at least their version of truth telling) are of utmost importance.

I have challenged this blog's author to compose a blog entry that positively proclaims Jesus and His love. But I was told, that is not going to happen. Oh well, I tried. We are still Nazarenes, we are a Jesus-Church, we are a holiness Church. We should do our best to tell others of Jesus and His love.

[Dennis M. Scott]

)

To my brothers in Christ, Mike Schutz and Dennis Scott -

I don't appreciate the acerbic tone that some have had toward you in this discussion, nor do I approve of what a certain individual who runs an antagonistic website has done by vilifying you both. That being said...

As a fellow servant of Christ in the CoTN, I do want to express my brotherly consternation that the trajectory of your comments seems to end up with the endorsement of the idea that one can have a growing relationship with Christ and be involved in a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex. Once this bridge is crossed, same-sex marriage blessed by the church would inevitably follow, sooner or later. The experience with the ECUSA, the PCUSA and other denominations bears this out.

For the record...

I'm NOT saying that you've crossed that Rubicon, but in all sincerity, a reading of what you've written here gives the impression that you're dipping your toe in the river.

As for theology vs. pastoral practice...

I'm aware of the pastoral complexities of what you and others face. The document, A Pastoral Perspective on Homosexuality from the Board of General Superintendents likewise does not neglect that important aspect. But at the end of the day, as those who look to Scripture pre-eminently to guide us, as did John Wesley, the biblical case for same-sex marriage simply is not there, whereas a biblical case against homosexual practice is clear. Reference Ben Witherington and N.T. Wright as two exegetical heavyweights from our own theological tradition who have spoken to this effect, upholding the traditional (and historic) viewpoint. See also Robert Gagnon on this question.

My two cents, given in love-- and for those who might wish to copy these comments and post them elsewhere outside of NazNet, I do NOT give my permission to do so. To do so against my express instruction is an egregious breach of Christian ethics.

- Greg

Greg,

Thank you, for your tone and empathy. I have to confess, however, that I'm a little perplexed at specifically I have written that might have made me a point of your concern. I am equally surprised to learn that I've been mentioned on someone's blog. My influence and opinion are not worthy of such note. I'm likely not visit the blog mentioned, but have attempted to re-read this thread to discover what it was that I wrote. Please help me in this endeavor. (I don't mean that to be Greg's task, but readers in general.) What I intended to do was to say I didn't feel it was time to throw McLaren under the bus, and that I have had several conversations with Nazarene elders whose lot has been that family members have been their occasion to wrestle with same gender issues that Nazarenes even a few decades earlier didn't admit. Their responses have been varied.

I do count it rather humbling to have been coupled with Mike Schutz, but apologize to him for anything I might have written that curiously might have drawn to him any negative perception. Mike and I used to be geographically closer than we are now, but I can't recall anyone previously putting us together in such a way. I'm more willing for it to happen than he should be.

Let me attempt to clarify a bit. My understanding is that sexual activity between same gender persons is a sin, just as are fornication, adultery, drunkenness, lying, murder, pornographic stimulation, swindling or rape: no more, no less. Such sin is not negated when it is the struggle of a family member of the clergy. It does, however, occur. When it occurs, clergy respond differently. It has not been my lot to have close members of my family engage in same gender activity. I am not able to say the same about fornication, adultery, drunkenness, lying, pornographic stimulation, swindling or rape. When those issues have arisen, I have attempted to be Christlike. I have continued to love, and to pray for those individuals, and to clearly let them know of my desire to remain in relationship with them, in spite of their pain, disobedience and sin. I have never knowingly declined the invitation to pray for God's grace to be theirs.

I have recently co-officiated at an interfaith marriage of a nominally Christian niece who married a Jewish man of similar commitment to his faith. I find that not especially related to this thread, however.

I haven't even found responses in this thread to my posts especially challenging. Help me understand why my name has been mentioned among the objectionable - or whatever.

[Greg Crofford]

Rich, the website you referenced has posted your response, with a response of his own.

[Rich Schmidt]

Rich, the website you referenced has posted your response, with a response of his own.

Thanks. I got the email notification when it happened. I'm glad he let it through. I've had trouble with that in the past, as have many others.

I've read his reply, too. It seems that nothing short of a full condemnation of Brian McLaren will satisfy him.

Fortunately, the people I'm responsible to (my DS, my church board, my wife, my congregation) all know me, know my heart, and know my stance on this issue... which just happens to line up with that of the Church of the Nazarene. So I'm not worried.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Thanks. I got the email notification when it happened. I'm glad he let it through. I've had trouble with that in the past, as have many others.

I've read his reply, too. It seems that nothing short of a full condemnation of Brian McLaren will satisfy him.

Fortunately, the people I'm responsible to (my DS, my church board, my wife, my congregation) all know me, know my heart, and know my stance on this issue... which just happens to line up with that of the Church of the Nazarene. So I'm not worried.

But you knew that going in.

[Greg Crofford]

Thanks, Dennis , for a fair response. What I was thinking of when I mentioned you was particularly one post where you referenced conversations with district superintendents and two general superintendents. This seemed to be opening the door (as I read it) to casting doubt on what our position as a church is on this issue, which needs to be loving yet firm. I may have misinterpreted what you said, and will leave it to those who desire to do so to trace back the thread and read it for themselves. If I was wrong, I will gladly say so.

Mike, I resonate with what you've said. Thanks for the clarification, which is helpful. I will, nonetheless, politely disagree with your dismissal of the importance of this issue as compared to others. It is never a choice of either/or, but a consistent Christian ethic will address all of these issues, because they are all important. It is hardly a fixation upon an issue when we address it in response to the queries of those we serve, and I assure you as one living in sub-Saharan Africa where there are many other pressing issues - famine, war, human trafficking, AIDS - our Nazarenes here are also looking to the clergy to provide guidance on the question of homosexuality. If we can't step up to the plate on issues - including this one - then we have failed in an essential way.

I appreciate you both, and as God brings you to mind, I will pray for your ministry.

Grace and peace,

Greg

[Rich Schmidt]

But you knew that going in.

Yep. I only chimed in over there because he'd edited my comments in a way that made them LESS clear. I wanted to clarify.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yep. I only chimed in over there because he'd edited my comments in a way that made them LESS clear. I wanted to clarify.

Seems he's growing since he let your comments through.

[Rich Schmidt]

Thanks, Dennis , for a fair response. What I was thinking of when I mentioned you was particularly one post where you referenced conversations with district superintendents and two general superintendents. This seemed to be opening the door (as I read it) to casting doubt on what our position as a church is on this issue, which needs to be loving yet firm. I may have misinterpreted what you said, and will leave it to those who desire to do so to trace back the thread and read it for themselves. If I was wrong, I will gladly say so.

For what it's worth, I read Dennis' comments about his conversations with DS's and GS's as being about the issue of praying at gay weddings or commitment ceremonies, not about our stance on homosexuality. I haven't gone back to read them just now, but that's what I remember.

[Rich Schmidt]

Seems he's growing since he let your comments through.

Perhaps. But reading the comments on a post of his from a couple weeks ago makes me inclined to disagree. There I see the same pattern I experienced back when I was trying to interact with Manny on his blog. He picks and chooses which responses to let through, sometimes making it seem as if his opponents don't have an answer, when really he's just not letting their answers through. It was insanely frustrating when it was happening to me.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Perhaps. But reading the comments on a post of his from a couple weeks ago makes me inclined to disagree. There I see the same pattern I experienced back when I was trying to interact with Manny on his blog. He picks and chooses which responses to let through, sometimes making it seem as if his opponents don't have an answer, when really he's just not letting their answers through. It was insanely frustrating when it was happening to me.

I thought I was being over optimistic.

[Gina Stevenson]

I thought I was being over optimistic.

But we at least like to try this approach now & then in varying circumstances, huh?


{OK, now back to your regularly scheduled thread}

[Hans Deventer]

I've read his reply, too. It seems that nothing short of a full condemnation of Brian McLaren will satisfy him.

I frankly don't think even Jesus could satisfy Mr. Silva witch hunt for orthodoxy. Which is sad. Thankfully, Jesus will be the one to judge, not Mr. Silva or one of those self appointed members of the unholy inquisition. Another reason to rejoice in the Lord always! I'm starting to like my tagline more and more.

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks, Dennis , for a fair response. What I was thinking of when I mentioned you was particularly one post where you referenced conversations with district superintendents and two general superintendents. This seemed to be opening the door (as I read it) to casting doubt on what our position as a church is on this issue, which needs to be loving yet firm. I may have misinterpreted what you said, and will leave it to those who desire to do so to trace back the thread and read it for themselves. If I was wrong, I will gladly say so.

Greg, what would be (in general) your approach when it comes to dealing with people who don't completely live up to what we believe God wants from us? I'm asking, because I understand Mike and Dennis to be talking about a pastoral approach, not about the theoretical framework of what does and what does not constitute sin. I'd say neither of those are vague in the latter area, but are rather discussing the former. As were those DS and GS's.

[Greg Crofford]

Hans, that sound you hear is me backpedaling. Having read what Mike and Dennis said by way of clarification, I'm fine with it.

My approach would be your approach, and has been: Love folks and pray for them, even as I would ask that others love me and pray for me. The older I get, the more room I think we need to leave to the Holy Spirit on a lot of things, particularly the pastoral application of what we all agree are biblical standards.

Personally, if invited to attend a same-sex marriage ceremony, I would not, nor (of course) would I preside one. My presence would be endorsement, even as our marriage ritual in the Manual notes that Jesus endorsed marriage by his presence at the wedding in Cana of Galilee (John 2).

Gotta run...lots more could be said.

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks for your answer, Greg. Appreciate it.

As to endorsing, I also respect your view though I don't think that Jesus' hanging out with sinners endorsed their sin. However, I do understand how in this time and age, a pastor needs to be extra careful. Lately being assigned now myself, I also understand how such a decision has become more than merely a private one.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Thanks, Dennis , for a fair response. What I was thinking of when I mentioned you was particularly one post where you referenced conversations with district superintendents and two general superintendents. This seemed to be opening the door (as I read it) to casting doubt on what our position as a church is on this issue, which needs to be loving yet firm. I may have misinterpreted what you said, and will leave it to those who desire to do so to trace back the thread and read it for themselves. If I was wrong, I will gladly say so.

Mike, I resonate with what you've said. Thanks for the clarification, which is helpful. I will, nonetheless, politely disagree with your dismissal of the importance of this issue as compared to others. It is never a choice of either/or, but a consistent Christian ethic will address all of these issues, because they are all important. It is hardly a fixation upon an issue when we address it in response to the queries of those we serve, and I assure you as one living in sub-Saharan Africa where there are many other pressing issues - famine, war, human trafficking, AIDS - our Nazarenes here are also looking to the clergy to provide guidance on the question of homosexuality. If we can't step up to the plate on issues - including this one - then we have failed in an essential way.

I appreciate you both, and as God brings you to mind, I will pray for your ministry.

Grace and peace,

Greg

Thanks, again, for your input. Perhaps I answerer Lorie's question regarding conversations with Nazarene leaders in a way she didn't intend. I have not decided to take a poll. I merely had had such conversations over forty five years or so, and made some observations based on those random talks. Frankly, I have not had as many conversations with laymen.

Regarding your desire to take a clear stance due to needs of your specific ministry situation: we all need to take heed. That is understandably why from time to time the board of GSes needs to take a stand and make an official statement that may seem a little off the mark. Were not they addressing specific crisis issues, they might not offer a statement at all. In North America, legal restrictions frequently require a stance by DSes that makes them look like they don't care to give guidance on things that seem urgent. The role of objectivity sometimes puts us in a position where we respond differently than subjectivity (personal). To some, that wil seem dishonest. That is unfortunate.

We are grateful for what you do, that you are serving where you are, and that the Lord is using you the way He is.