McLaren does a same-sex ceremony

[Greg Farra]

Here's the story:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ct...mclaren_l.html

Bad move, in my opinion. I've never been a big fan of his, but this is too much. As a Nazarene pastor, I will never defend this guy again.

[Bob Hunter]

Agree Greg. Speaking as one who has a gay sibling, I do not agree and I will not defend his actions. You can love a gay son or daughter without pronouncing a Christian blessing over their choice to marry the same sex.

[Andy Mistak]

Glad to see him make this public stand.

[Andy Mistak]

Agree Greg. Speaking as one who has a gay sibling, I do not agree and I will not defend his actions. You can love a gay son or daughter without pronouncing a Christian blessing over their choice to marry the same sex.

What if someone actually believe Christ blesses the marriage? Should they treat their own family as "less than" just to protect the sensibilities of others?

[Greg Farra]

What if someone actually believe Christ blesses the marriage? Should they treat their own family as "less than" just to protect the sensibilities of others?

He's a grown man, he shouldn't need to worry about what others think. He must know that he's going to take some heat and lose some support, and rightfully so.

[Bob Hunter]

What if someone actually believe Christ blesses the marriage? Should they treat their own family as "less than" just to protect the sensibilities of others?

What are you talking about? As Nazarenes, we don't bless same sex unions. We love the people involved, we encourage them to seek the Lord and pursue holiness of heart and life. We do not bless same sex unions, commitments or marriages.

[Mike Schutz]

PERSONAL OPINIONS:

1. I am not able to be as black and white on this issue as some of my friends - on either side. And I hope we will have grace to understand that this is, for some, a more complex issue than others see it.
2. Does anyone else struggle with the difference between offering a personal blessing to someone - rather than a curse, and offering an official blessing as a member of the clergy as a representative of my denomination and fellowship - which would be understood as sanctioning?
3. I don't have a problem at all with Brian McLaren doing this, any more and perhaps even less than I have a problem with a member of the clergy praying a blessing over various activities of our secular culture. He is not a member of my theological tribe, and thus has absolutely no accountability to me, or to us. Nor do I see how his decision here should influence my willingness to suggest that one of his ideas, or one of his books, has helpful insights for the faith.
4. Okay, now I will say this - and I know that many will disagree. I am still not sure how I personally believe about this issue. My public actions as a pastor will still reflect the decisions of my denomination. However, it was just a few generations before me that pastors spent an inordinate amount of time and energy preaching against the evils of divorce and mixed racial marriages, all with support of various biblical passages, and separating people from God's grace. How many generations from now before others look back on us and wonder what we were thinking - focusing on such issues?

[Hans Deventer]

PERSONAL OPINIONS:
2. Does anyone else struggle with the difference between offering a personal blessing to someone - rather than a curse, and offering an official blessing as a member of the clergy as a representative of my denomination and fellowship - which would be understood as sanctioning?

It has been discussed among the pastors of our district for almost 2 years now. So, yes, there are struggles over this very issue.

And thank you, Mike. Whenever I start to despair and wonder what on earth I'm hanging around on NazNet for (like I do these days), guys like Jeremy and you spell it out in neon letters. I needed this.

[Hans Deventer]

He's a grown man, he shouldn't need to worry about what others think. He must know that he's going to take some heat and lose some support, and rightfully so.

Greg, if he's overly concerned about support, he'd probably stopped following his conscience a long time ago. And he's been taking heat for ages now.

[Dennis M. Scott]

McLaren still has a bit of capital with me, and I offer hopefully a diminishing amount of public criticism for those who clearly strive to sense the Lord's direction. Selfishly perhaps, I'm focussing increasingly on what the Lord wants me to do, and less on telling others what they should do.

[Peggy Gray]

Does anyone else struggle with the difference between offering a personal blessing to someone - rather than a curse, and offering an official blessing as a member of the clergy as a representative of my denomination and fellowship - which would be understood as sanctioning?

The same struggle goes on for non-clergy who--knowingly or not, willingly or not--represent their fellowship/denomination to their community.

[Ryan Scott]

Brian McLaren drinks beer, too. I'm not sure what the big deal is. I don't know why anyone would need to defend the man for anything. Some things he's said have helped people think about God in new and refreshing ways (some have helped us think of God in old, powerful ways). Disagreeing with one thing (this is hardly the first thing he's said that gives one pause to think) does not negate the positives.

There's a ton of our brother and sisters who have spent lots of time, effort, and prayer seeking how to deal with this issue and have decided differently than us. We have to get along with each other.

I don't consider one's views on homosexual marriage as a litmus test for faith (I'm more inclined to do so on things like purity, chastity, faithfulness, and relationship).

[James Diggs]

This issue is one that can tear me an half, but I think it should tear at us personally and it is natural to be conflicted. I think as we seek to find God as we wrestle with such things if we are truly wrestling our own hip will be put out of joint.

I don't personally believe that as a Pastor I could ever officiate a wedding that isn't held up as a way to embrace God's call for a man and a woman to come together in the very diversity of "otherness" that our different sexes represent in a way that they embrace one another as one flesh in their shared humanity.

To me, homosexuality is actually not diverse enough to fully capture the depth of meaning behind what marriage is about as I understand it. But as I say this I recognize some hypocrisy in my own standard and its various implications as I continue to wrestle with it. There is a real sense to me that our view of the union between the diversity of men and women taking on a shared identity as "one flesh" is symbolic of and represents our greater call to love our neighbors as ourselves and to submit to one another as unto the Lord.

In this I have come to the conclusion that I need to give those who do not share the convictions I do, or the convictions of my tribe, room to wrestle with such things themselves in a way that imparts to them all the human dignity I can by giving them every once of love for them as I would for myself. This is why I have I stood with homosexuals in their right to seek civil unions (or even "marriage" according to the state which has no validity on my own sacred definition).

As I do this I also understand how messy this could make it for myself. I understand that as part of the religious freedom I value there will be Christian tribes that embrace homosexual marriage. I understand that "married" homosexual couples could come into my community, I would hope they would, but I also know that the navigating of such things would be very messy and I am not prepared with all the answers of how I would need to handle every implication. While, I stand firm with my own convictions about officiating homosexual marriage I will am not sure what I would do if I were asked to attend or participate in some other way in a homosexual marriage ceremony with people I have developed personal relationships with and care about. I recognize that as long as this situation is hypothetical, I may not have everything I need to make such a decision until it happens. And of course there are also all sorts of other messy and difficult challenges to navigate as long as I hold to my convictions.

I have also gotten to know a homosexual Episcopal Priest over that last two years and I respect her greatly as a person, as a Christian, and as clergy. I am thankful for the Episcopal tribe as it has made room for her while at the same time not wanting my tribe to go the same way.

See, I told you I was conflicted, but I do embrace her as a sister in Christ and know that we find unity in His Church, while at the same time I am not ready to just dismiss homosexual behavior as sinful or embrace homosexual marriage for myself or my tribe. My convictions can not be tied up in a neat little package where my beliefs fit neatly together. I think the temptation when this happens is to give into cognitive dissonance by sacrificing some of our convictions one way or the other just to reduce the tension for tension sake and adjust our belief systems so as we can fall on one side or the other of an issue more neatly. I am not ready to do that either way, and am not sure I should.

Bottom line, this all seems so extremely messy and the more I wrestle with it trying to both seek holiness and love the more I recognize the mire and sin that comes from all directions, including my own heart, that works to destroy the very things I believe the Lord is teaching me to value. But, I don't think I can fear the mess, I think we have to jump right in the middle of it as we pick up our crosses and carry the burden of the sins of one another as Jesus carried them all. Out of faith I trust that God will resurrect life in places it seems there is no hope as he calls us to embrace the cross and follow God himself as he dives headlong into the mess, embracing us all in our sins, and promises to bring us out on the other side of it.

I can bring no clarity to the issue here, I can only cling to the cross as God embraced the mess and death of it all and trust that Jesus is the resurrection and the Life. I can't run away, I can only foolishly cling to Jesus as he clings to us even on our own filth, sins and mess on the cross as the Way to also embrace the Life of Jesus.

[Paul DeBaufer]

McLaren did the right thing, Way to go Brian!

[Doug Ward]

McLaren did the right thing, Way to go Brian!

Paul this is unhelpful and provocative on this forum. It is the same as if someone had publicly condemned someone seeking a civil union, and me posting, they did the right thing, way to go condemner. Certainly our discussions can move past these.

[Bob Hunter]

PERSONAL OPINIONS:

4. Okay, now I will say this - and I know that many will disagree. I am still not sure how I personally believe about this issue. My public actions as a pastor will still reflect the decisions of my denomination. However, it was just a few generations before me that pastors spent an inordinate amount of time and energy preaching against the evils of divorce and mixed racial marriages, all with support of various biblical passages, and separating people from God's grace. How many generations from now before others look back on us and wonder what we were thinking - focusing on such issues?

I am with you up until this point. A lot of comparisons to the divorce issue. Phyliss Tickle and other observers have noted the similarities, but I would note the differences. Decades ago, Nazarenes had the wrong approach to divorce and it was not handled redemptively and nor did it bring healing. I suppose the same could be said of the gay issue and I hope that will change. But no where has divorce received a sanction in our denomination. As I understand it, ministers and divorcees are required to present their individual cases before the District where they hold credentials or license and offer definitive evidence that reconciliation has been sought and spiritual healing received. I think those steps are very important. Everyone hates divorce and I'm glad we encourage folks to resolve past issues and seek reconciliation with God and their fellow man. We still think divorce should be avoided at all costs. But there is hope, there are biblical grounds for divorce, even Moses permitted divorce, so we know there has been some effort on God's part to accommodate broken human relations. So even though divorce is not desired, it can be overcome and it seems the Bible has provisions for it where it cannot be avoided.

When it comes to the gay issue we have a slightly different problem. The Bible appears to condemn all homosexual acts and the Christian church has steadfastly held this position since Jesus Christ established His church almost 2,000 years ago. So, I'm not sure where we go to find Biblical grounds to support "sanctioning" same sex relations, when we just don't have the same amount of information for accommodating gay unions. It's just not there. I know there are some differing views on this, but I have to go with Jesus' words and it appears to me that he regarded the male-female paradigm as normative in this present age. “From the beginning of creation, ‘male and female he made them.’ ‘For this reason a man …will be joined to his woman and the two shall become one flesh’” (Mark 10:2-12; Matthew 19:3-12).

So I just think we have to be careful when we complicate the conversation with comparisons. There are plenty of bad analogies out there like slavery and polygamy, so I'm not a big fan of doing so. It is probably better for us to stick with the gay issue and just deal with it on its own merits. I actually don't think the Church is going to budge on this one, even though we will probably end up with denominations that embrace, some will divide over it and some will hold the line. I think at the end of the day, the Christian Church will insist upon male/female relations and same sex unions will never be completely normalized.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Paul this is unhelpful and provocative on this forum. It is the same as if someone had publicly condemned someone seeking a civil union, and me posting, they did the right thing, way to go condemner. Certainly our discussions can move past these.

It is actually nothing like that at all. It may be provocative, but it is nothing like cheering on hate or condemnation.

Oh if there were actual discussion around this issue here, but there never is.

[James Diggs]

McLaren did the right thing, Way to go Brian!

Paul this is unhelpful and provocative on this forum. It is the same as if someone had publicly condemned someone seeking a civil union, and me posting, they did the right thing, way to go condemner. Certainly our discussions can move past these.

It is actually nothing like that at all. It may be provocative, but it is nothing like cheering on hate or condemnation.

Oh if there were actual discussion around this issue here, but there never is.

Give it a chance Paul, I think Doug shares some wisdom as he encourages us to do more than just cheer for sides. I think McLaren himself has been pretty thoughtful in this regard regardless of what side he ended up falling on.

I know discussions seem to fall apart quickly on Naznet, but be a glutton for punishment and foolishly hope for one anyway as you embrace the cross. I know that is what you want anyway, so don't give up

[Cam Pence]

It is actually nothing like that at all. It may be provocative, but it is nothing like cheering on hate or condemnation.

Oh if there were actual discussion around this issue here, but there never is.

This issue is discussed quite a bit here. Now I usually hear this accusation when people wont just buckle down and question the CotN position on this issue. My question is why they should have to do that on a Nazarene discussion forum? We will literally crucify someone promoting Calvinism here, but when it comes to the denomination maybe being wrong in their stance on homo sexuality, we lament a lack of discussion. Once again the discussion is there, however some choose to believe the CotN to be correct in their position on this issue.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

We will literally crucify someone promoting Calvinism here, but when it comes to the denomination maybe being wrong in their stance on homo sexuality, we lament a lack of discussion.

Literally?

[James Diggs]

This issue is discussed quite a bit here. Now I usually hear this accusation when people wont just buckle down and question the CotN position on this issue. My question is why they should have to do that on a Nazarene discussion forum? We will literally crucify someone promoting Calvinism here, but when it comes to the denomination maybe being wrong in their stance on homo sexuality, we lament a lack of discussion. Once again the discussion is there, however some choose to believe the CotN to be correct in their position on this issue.

I think the only difference in this case is that McLaren isn't Nazarene I didn't think the discussion was about advocating that our tribe change our position. I suppose Paul's declaration that Brian "did the right thing" could be understood that way but we don't tend to jump all over Calvinist for saying they think their views are right, just for expecting Nazarene to go along with them.

This is a difficult conversation, but so far I think we are doing pretty good.

[Peggy Gray]

When my kids were babies (early 70's) and I was a new Christian, I decided I simply would not let them visit homes where the mom and dad were "shacking up". I didn't want my kids learning to condone a blatantly sinful lifestyle. As years went by, however, I grew different ideas about the concept of solidifying my witness by boycotting sinners. Who knew 40 years ago that my own children and grandchild would each someday live with a significant other? Somehow I found a way to bless and love them without putting a stamp of approval on their lifestyle.

[Cam Pence]

Literally?

Good call misplacing "literally" and "figuratively" is one of my pet peeves

[Cam Pence]

I think the only difference in this case is that McLaren isn't Nazarene I didn't think the discussion was about advocating that our tribe change our position. I suppose Paul's declaration that Brian "did the right thing" could be understood that way but we don't tend to jump all over Calvinist for saying they think their views are right, just for expecting Nazarene to go along with them.

This is a difficult conversation, but so far I think we are doing pretty good.

Fair enough, but I don't understand how Nazarenes,based on our denominations position, saying they believe McClaren made a bad move means they are not interested in conversation. I don't really see what McClaren not being Nazarene has to do with it? If he was Lutheran or Baptist, my subscribing to my denominations stance will effect how I view his actions.

[Doug Ward]

It is actually nothing like that at all. It may be provocative, but it is nothing like cheering on hate or condemnation.

Oh if there were actual discussion around this issue here, but there never is.

Exactly, Paul, and your post contributed nothing in the arena of discussion at all. It was provocative, and I believe, purposefully contributed nothing. Thus, my response. If only you had contributed something, anything.....

[James Diggs]

Fair enough, but I don't understand how Nazarenes,based on our denominations position, saying they believe McClaren made a bad move means they are not interested in conversation.

I don't think a Nazarene just saying it was "a bad move" does communicate one isn't interested in conversation. I also affirmed Doug's wisdom in encouraging Paul that in order to have a productive conversation we have to do more than just cheer on sides.

I am trying to encourage Paul, to give some room to the other side as I think Doug was as well. As someone who is legitimately torn on the issue I think I can appreciate the need for room in both directions.

I don't really see what McClaren not being Nazarene has to do with it? If he was Lutheran or Baptist, my subscribing to my denominations stance will effect how I view his actions.

I only mentioned that in the context of your example about how we as Nazarenes relate to Calvinist in this forum.

[James Diggs]

Exactly, Paul, and your post contributed nothing in the arena of discussion at all. It was provocative, and I believe, purposefully contributed nothing. Thus, my response. If only you had contributed something, anything.....

give him a chance, I think Paul has a lot of good things to contribute and I often benefit from what he has to say. One post that may fall short isn't the last word from Paul I am sure.

[Paul DeBaufer]

When the CotN's position was first stated in the letter from the BOGS I applauded it as a very necessary first step in the right direction. I would not expect further movement too soon. However, I never saw the statement as the final resting place. It is the beginning of the journey opening the doors to these conversations. I am sure that there are some who think that first step went too far, some who think not far enough. But, as for me, I think it adequate as a beginning, a conversation starter. A way to allow LGBT people in CotN churches without facing condemnation while the conversation takes place.

[Doug Ward]

Here's the story:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ct...mclaren_l.html

Bad move, in my opinion. I've never been a big fan of his, but this is too much. As a Nazarene pastor, I will never defend this guy again.

There is not much on which to respond from this blog post. However, I did find this line humorous - "traditional Christian elements, except no bride." This goes right beside the critic who reviewed the April 1865 play, "Our American Cousin." "The play was a wonderful piece of theater - except for the gunshot." name one time in 2,000 years of history when that line - "Christian elements, except no bride" could have been uttered. I think we abandon history, heritage, and some might add wisdom, too quickly in our attempt to be relevant.

As a pastor, I need to realize that when I do something, that in the eyes of many, I bring God into the room with me. I am quite certain this bit of information makes God extremely nervous, but it still is true. Whether I officiate, or merely bless a homosexual union might make a difference to me, but the distinction may be lost on most who observe. Yes, the church has been guilty of creating a special "mega-sin" of homosexuality, promarily male-male homosexuality. Yes, we have ostracized many in our midst who struggle with this part of themselves. Yes, we have condemned them while minimizing those elements of ourselves that also clearly lie outside of God's intended reality. Yet, we can confess our sin of pride, gluttony, or greed without me "blessing" it in a ceremony. It seems the prescription of ordaining homosexuality as a cure for our past failures, might not be a cure at all.

Having said all of this, we also must at least discuss the idea of how we approach this issue from a civic perspective, as opposed to a doctrinal perspective. Too often we allow these two to overlap in ways that diminishe productive conversation. Personally, I am willing to discuss the idea of civil unions on a state by state basis. I do not support it, but I understand the basis for that proposition. However, I will resist the idea for the church.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Fair enough, but I don't understand how Nazarenes,based on our denominations position, saying they believe McClaren made a bad move means they are not interested in conversation. I don't really see what McClaren not being Nazarene has to do with it? If he was Lutheran or Baptist, my subscribing to my denominations stance will effect how I view his actions.

Our history with these "conversations" is that they quickly devolve into repeated proclamations, pro and con. Sometimes they even start off very good, but they all have devolved as each side insists it is right then the "discussion" becomes, "It's a sin" "Is NOT" "IS" "Is not" this is not discussion or conversation, it is simply contradiction.

[Benjamin Burch]

Exactly, Paul, and your post contributed nothing in the arena of discussion at all. It was provocative, and I believe, purposefully contributed nothing. Thus, my response. If only you had contributed something, anything.....

Does every post have to contribute something? Is it so wrong for someone who knows where the conversation will go to express their opinion and move on, avoiding the conversation altogether, while allowing the other participants to carry on with that conversation?

I am 100% on Cam's side with what he posted, and I think a discussion is all well and good. I'm simply not convinced that Paul did anything unhelpful. He didn't contribute, but since when is there a requirement that one's opinion is only worthwhile so long as it contributes to ongoing discussion? That's the part I'm not sure I understand.

[Wilson Deaton]

I see McLaren the way I see a MLB slugger. I'm a fan because he hits a lot of homeruns. I am a fan in spite of the fact that he also strikes out.

While my own evalution is that this was a swing and a miss, I'm still a fan.

[edited to add: I've done a lot of things that thirty years ago I said I'd never do. Nowadays, I'm hesitant to make such declarations.]

Wilson

[Mike Schutz]

Fair enough, but I don't understand how Nazarenes,based on our denominations position, saying they believe McClaren made a bad move means they are not interested in conversation. I don't really see what McClaren not being Nazarene has to do with it? If he was Lutheran or Baptist, my subscribing to my denominations stance will effect how I view his actions.

I think McLaren's lack of affiliation has to do a bit with our conversation, at least as it originally began, as some folks were responding with how they would or would not appropriate his work in the future based on his actions on this issue. So, while it has nothing to do with how we as Nazarenes address the issue within our own tribe, it has everything with how we address the issue within the broader context. Are we kicking McLaren and others who agree with him on this issue out of our "favored authors" list, out of the library entirely, or out of heaven?

[Cam Pence]

Our history with these "conversations" is that they quickly devolve into repeated proclamations, pro and con. Sometimes they even start off very good, but they all have devolved as each side insists it is right then the "discussion" becomes, "It's a sin" "Is NOT" "IS" "Is not" this is not discussion or conversation, it is simply contradiction.

so what exactly do you want from a conversation? Of course opposite sides believe they are right. does "conversation" only happen when both sides dont know what they think?

[Jim Chabot]

It is actually nothing like that at all. It may be provocative, but it is nothing like cheering on hate or condemnation.

Oh if there were actual discussion around this issue here, but there never is.

I'll discuss this Paul, no problem. My honest thoughts are that I fear greatly for McLaren's fate when he leaves this life, this is serious business, those who minister the gospel will answer for how they have cared for Jesus flock. I fear that McLaren is not discerning the voices that he listens to, clearly he is missing the voice of God in this matter or he wouldn't have performed this ceremony.

Paul makes this very clear, those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God. He says this flat out, there is no ambiguity, nuance or escape from his plain statement. Those who practice homosexuality will enter the lake of fire, there is no escape, this is their sure fate. Do we look the other way and comfort them with the words of the serpent, "has God really said this?" Only the callous and uncaring would contemplate such a thing. Hell is real whether someone believes or not, have we lost the fear of God? Have we lost fear of the one who has the power to destroy both body and spirit in hell? It almost seems this way.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Is there any hope that these folks will escape the fires of hell? Yes of course there is, there is hope that they will turn from their wickedness, repent, embrace Jesus and be miraculously transformed and delivered. What does Paul say to this, "and such were some of you!" Heaven awaits those who repent. And here we have someone who claims to care for their souls, leading them to their destruction! God forbid! This man McLaren is in great danger, it would be better that a millstone be hung around his neck, than to lead those whom Jesus loves to their sure destruction.

There is redemption available in the Spirit of God, whereby these people can be delivered from their sins and their ultimate destruction. There is hope, yet this hope is frustrated by those who falsely claim that it is not needed.

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Let's make no mistake for what a marriage ceremony is. It is a celebration of a life long commitment already made, the commitment is made before the ceremony, the two are married. The ceremony exists to celebrate and to announce the marriage to all. The act of performing or attending a same sex ceremony is to take part in the celebration. In this case it is a celebration of sin, it is willful celebration and an embrace to sin. These folks had already made a commitment to one another, Mclaren celebrates this depravity and falsely speaks for God when he condones their sin. Better a millstone.

Yet McLarens errors in discernment run far deeper than this outward manifestation of his error. You see he is one of the red letter fanboys, he tells us that we must interpret Scripture through Jesus words. We must take Jesus words for what we think they mean outside of Scripture and then use them as a lens to interpret the rest. It's no wonder that he discerns not the voice of the Spirit, he has a God of his own making. He clearly misses something key that Jesus says;

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Jesus is clear here, he says that McLaren is completely mistaken, for he says, LISTEN TO PAUL, HE SPEAKS FOR ME!! We are not to interpret Paul through Jesus words, rather we are to take Jesus at his word and listen to Paul as the one chosen to bring His message to us. No one understands Jesus better than Paul.

As I read this thread, I'm almost overwhelmed. I wonder do we really believe? Do we really believe that this that we talk about is a concrete reality? Have we lost the very real fear of hell, both for ourselves and those we observe are walking on the broad path that leads there?

I must also admit that I'm somewhat conflicted here as well. Is it possible that homosexuals will see heaven even as they continue to practice? I believe that possibility exists, I believe that there are sins that we don't overcome in this life and there is forgiveness. I also believe that it is absolutely required that we recognize our sin, even though we struggle with it. I cannot see a possibility of heaven should we call our sin good.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Mike also raises a good question. He asks ;

2. Does anyone else struggle with the difference between offering a personal blessing to someone - rather than a curse, and offering an official blessing as a member of the clergy as a representative of my denomination and fellowship - which would be understood as sanctioning?

My answer is no, I do not struggle in regard to offering a blessing. I realize that for me to bless sin is actually a curse to the sinner. God is not mocked, my blessing will serve to enable that person to continue in sin, possibly believing that it is not sin, based upon my blessing and sanction. I won't do this, surely I don't offer a curse, rather I will offer a warning or quietly turn away depending on the circumstances. To offer a blessing for sin, never,I fear the fires of hell for myself as well as for the person whom I might aid in the wrong direction by doing so.

I'm reminded of a story that Manny Chavier told me one afternoon. When he first started in ministry in New Bedford, there was a very successful ministry thriving there. The "bishop" approached Manny and asked him to join him in ministry as he had noticed Manny's fervor and effectiveness. Manny said that while the offer was tempting, he was afraid that he would go to hell if he joined with this man. Manny said that he would never have had to worry about money again, if he had said yes to Sweet Daddy Grace. He said that given the truth of the situation, he was quite pleased to let God handle the money. To which he had never failed him!

[Cam Pence]

I think McLaren's lack of affiliation has to do a bit with our conversation, at least as it originally began, as some folks were responding with how they would or would not appropriate his work in the future based on his actions on this issue. So, while it has nothing to do with how we as Nazarenes address the issue within our own tribe, it has everything with how we address the issue within the broader context. Are we kicking McLaren and others who agree with him on this issue out of our "favored authors" list, out of the library entirely, or out of heaven?

Thats going to be a personal question for each person. Greg said that he personally would not defend McClaren any longer. I did not see him tell anyone else to. Plus I dont see how the way we view the issue within our own tribe won't play a big part in how we "address the issue within the broader context"

[Jim Chabot]

Literally?

If it were possible? Yes, I think so.

[Jim Chabot]

I think McLaren's lack of affiliation has to do a bit with our conversation, at least as it originally began, as some folks were responding with how they would or would not appropriate his work in the future based on his actions on this issue. So, while it has nothing to do with how we as Nazarenes address the issue within our own tribe, it has everything with how we address the issue within the broader context. Are we kicking McLaren and others who agree with him on this issue out of our "favored authors" list, out of the library entirely, or out of heaven?

We might recall that the General Church has already issued a warning visa vi Mclaren, Paggitt and Jones on the "favored author" list.

While I don't believe that we have the ability, inclination or authority to kick anyone out of heaven, and I for one wish that all would find it. But yes, I honestly fear for folks like McLaren who stray so far afield of the Lord's instruction. I think that he is in very dangerous waters.

[Billy Cox]

Here's the story:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ct...mclaren_l.html

Bad move, in my opinion. I've never been a big fan of his, but this is too much. As a Nazarene pastor, I will never defend this guy again.

It's not a smart career move for someone writing for an evangelical (not too gay-friendly) market, but as to the content of his heart or what God thinks of it, it's not my place to judge.

Hey, look...I get to post in this thread before it gets shut down!! Yay Me!!

[Cam Pence]

It's not a smart career move for someone writing for an evangelical (aka homophobic) market, but as to the content of his heart or what God thinks of it, it's not my place to judge.

Hey, look...I get to post in this thread before it gets shut down!! Yay Me!!

Sweeping generalizations such as evangelical=homophobic are not charitable or helpful