Nazarene Ally

[Jim Chabot]

Ok...confession time....that was my cop out. In all honesty, Ryan, I read your post the same say Bob did and was responding from that end. I just got lazy and dreaded the thought of the possibility of going back and forth with you on the issue of 100% agreement as I knew people would come out of the wood work with (IMHO) bogus analogies to the alcohol issue (I'll get to that in a minute). I am sorry, Ryan, as this was lazy of me and disrespectful and unloving towards you to simply cop out to avoid honest conversation with a brother in Christ. My response, to be honest, would have looked a lot like Bob's. Now if I misread you and you were saying that you are 100% on board the CotN on this issue meaning that you personally believe along with the denomination that homosexual behavior is sinful in every capacity, then I stand my previous statement and apologize, however your post sounded like you treat this issue in the same way that some people treat the alcohol issue as in "Well I really want a beer and think the denomination is kind of full of it, but I just won't since they said no." If this is the case,while I admire your resolve to intentionally submit to church authority even if you disagree with it, I think a response of this nature still misses the mark a bit on an issue of the blatant sin, as designated by our denomination, of homosexual behavior. Now let me address the alcohol issue. If you are still toting the idea that the denomination says that we should not drink because it is sinful, you don't know the denomination. In fact I would argue that if you argue that we should allow drinking, then you have no idea of the motivations we chose that led us to the decision not to drink because those motivations are (or should) be the same today. This denomination was going to be about holiness that displayed itself by going to societies lowest of the low and loving them and that meant that we would most certainly, without a shadow of a doubt, encounter people who struggled with alcohol. It is not like we are somehow, less likely to encounter people with the same addiction today then we were in 1908 so the denominations reasoning is still alive and active. It was never about saying that having a beer is a sin (although sadly there have been those those that fell into legalism and also misunderstood the denominations reasonsing ).....it was and still is about loving people enough that we abstain. I would argue that people who still stand against the denominations stance on alcohol either just want to drink a beer (I used to drink and I know beer tastes good, but still) or they just don't understand the CotN.....or both. All that to say the alcohol issue is not a sin issue. Having a beer doesn't constitute a sin in the eyes if the CotN. It just means you don't agree with our reasoning for not doing so. While that person doesn't give a rip who Nazarene's are, they are certainly not in sin, as affirmed by our denomination, so long as they abstain from drunkenness. The denominations stance on homosexual behavior, however, is a sin issue. If a person decides to have romantic relations with a person of the same sex, that constitutes sin, whether they give a rip about the CotN or not. To compare the two is comparing two of the same pages from different playbooks. Once again, the denomination does not believe the use of alcohol to be a sin issue (although their reasoning behind it is solid enough that it should be in our Nazarene DNA) however it does believe that homosexual behavior is.

Hey Cam; I'm going to defend Ryan on the Alcohol issue. He has spoken to this in the past and he is dead on with us on this issue right down to being absolutely passionate about our reasoning and how it's still valid today.

Otherwise I need to agree with you for this issue does present a different thought. The reasoning behind our stance on homosexuality is grounded in our observation that it is sinful. And should we rethink our position, we would need to adopt a thought process counter to our stand on alcohol. We aren't deceived, we realize full well that drinking in moderation is not sin, we abstain in order to better minister to others who are caught in the sin of alcoholism and drunkenness. We are motivated by love. To affirm homosexual action would require thought which is diametrically opposed to our stand on alcohol. This would require that we first say that this is not sin. The difference being that we know better and that we are fooling ourselves and others. Thus as we affirm homosexual activity, we sanction sin and we facilitate those who are caught to further ensnare themselves in the clutches of sin. In effect we become tour guides on the broad road to hell. Should we say that we are motivated by love, we are deluded, and we need help.

And your right, it isn't enough to give lip service to this issue, it's deeper than that. This issue relates directly to our faith and our trust in God who defines sin, this is serious business, especially for clergy. I must admit that while I harbor no ill will toward those who are conflicted on this issue, my trust is eroded overall in their ability to lead. Just my opinion, and I'm just being honest, there has been a lot of respect lost over this topic.

[Cam Pence]

Hey Cam; I'm going to defend Ryan on the Alcohol issue. He has spoken to this in the past and he is dead on with us on this issue right down to being absolutely passionate about our reasoning and how it's still valid today.

Otherwise I need to agree with you for this issue does present a different thought. The reasoning behind our stance on homosexuality is grounded in our observation that it is sinful. And should we rethink our position, we would need to adopt a thought process counter to our stand on alcohol. We aren't deceived, we realize full well that drinking in moderation is not sin, we abstain in order to better minister to others who are caught in the sin of alcoholism and drunkenness. We are motivated by love. To affirm homosexual action would require thought which is diametrically opposed to our stand on alcohol. This would require that we first say that this is not sin. The difference being that we know better and that we are fooling ourselves and others. Thus as we affirm homosexual activity, we sanction sin and we facilitate those who are caught to further ensnare themselves in the clutches of sin. In effect we become tour guides on the broad road to hell. Should we say that we are motivated by love, we are deluded, and we need help.

And your right, it isn't enough to give lip service to this issue, it's deeper than that. This issue relates directly to our faith and our trust in God who defines sin, this is serious business, especially for clergy. I must admit that while I harbor no ill will toward those who are conflicted on this issue, my trust is eroded overall in their ability to lead. Just my opinion, and I'm just being honest, there has been a lot of respect lost over this topic.

Shoot....that is my fault for not being clear enough in my writing....The first few sentences were meant for Ryan specifically. The "you" in what I wrote about alcohol was the general universal "you" not meant specifically for Ryan as I know he has stated his position on alcohol. Very sorry for the confusion.

[Greg Farra]

Cam,
Your response is way better than the one I was thinking of writing in regards to alcohol use.

[Hans Deventer]

Cam, I appreciate your post, just wish it would have been a speech at the 1997 GA. Somehow, I got the impression that way too many at that assembly would not have agreed with you on the alcohol issue.

[Bob Hunter]

How is Ryan's opinion different than those pastors who follow the denominations stance on drinking or baptism but do not truly believe these stances are correct? I see Ryan's position as one of integrity because integrity is not defined by doing what you desire but doing what you say you will do when you do not always desire to do so.

Steve,

It is quite different as I see it. The position Ryan takes is basically "I don't know who is right" some believe this and some believe that "I'm not really sure." In one post he says, I might participate in a same sex union ceremony under the right circumstances and then I might not because I would probably never be asked. At times he questions the certainty of others in a way that is almost insulting to our denomination's stand. He simply does not have a resolute position. He admits he is coping out. He's all over the map. He leaves the door open to possibly participating in a same sex union ceremony if X,Y, and Z happen.

That is quite different from the moderation stand of many Nazarenes. Most that I familiar with are 100% resolute in their position. They simply go under the radar when they have a glass of wine (which is not biblically prohibited whereas homosexuality is). Baptism is a totally different issue because we recognize various modes and Baptism is a N.T. mandate that we are not at liberty to be in much disagreement over it. In the 20 years I have been ordained, I have only encountered a small handful that disagree over Baptism, modes and it being a means of Grace. And none were looking to make an issue of it.

I give Ryan points for honesty & integrity, I don't question that. I like Ryan, he speaks more resolutely to other issues which I admire. But I think on this issue he is very weak, vague and indecisive. Fortunately, our denomination is not. And fortunately for our denomination, Christian history and the Bible are not. I am glad for the BGS statement on human sexuality. Our Generals have shown resolute leadership in offering pastoral care to those dealing with same sex attraction. The Manual and BGS statement offer a clear and timely vision for how we ought to conduct ourselves on this issue. It's not a wishy washy, we're not sure, let's be flexible, adaptable and leave the door open, etc. I think our Generals have shown effective leadership, now if we just get folks on board to support it.

[Cam Pence]

Cam, I appreciate your post, just wish it would have been a speech at the 1997 GA. Somehow, I got the impression that way too many at that assembly would not have agreed with you on the alcohol issue.

Sorry Hans...I had never even heard of the Church of the Nazarene until 2000 ....don't think I would have been much help as I was consuming copious amounts of alcohol as a depressed 15 year old in '97

[Bob Hunter]

It does not fit completely, but I do get the impression that something like this, similar to this, is going on.

If I were the devil, I'd try to get the Church all worked up about a minor issue so that it fights with itself and has no time to do what God actually most of all wants them to do. From that point of view, it seems he's doing pretty well.

I don't think it fits quite as much and I'm not going to give the devil credit for anything Hans. I'm not out to silence anyone, and Ryan is certainly entitled to his doubts. And this is not just some little issue. We're talking about a major facet of human sexuality. Apparently, it was worthwhile enough for the BGS to draft a carefully written statement which we should enthusiastically support.

I guess we all have our weaknesses and doubts. I am weak on the alcohol issue, I never had time to police board members and I personally was not interested in whether or not they indulged in a drink or two. Some of them didn't even attempt to hide it, but I did speak to the issue and I even used the pulpit to explain our Church's position. But again, these are two very different issues. The Bible does not condemn responsible consumption of alcohol whereas all acts of homosexuality found in scripture are denounced as sinful.

[Hans Deventer]

The Bible does not condemn responsible consumption of alcohol whereas all acts of homosexuality found in scripture are denounced as sinful.

The Bible, Bob, only mentions this in a few verses while spending innumerable verses on issues like love, justice, care for the powerless etc etc etc.

So yes, this is a small issue, that we are turning into a major one. And only the devil is smiling ear to ear. That fact is more sickening than gay sex could ever be. And trust me, the thought of men having sex brings shivers down my spine.

[Ryan Scott]

What I'm saying is that my beliefs on marriage are about taking it seriously as a commitment between two persons and God to love and serve the other as a kind of representation of the fidelity and honor God shows for God's people - that these two persons are accountable to the institution of marriage and the faith community that witnessed and approved it.

I believe my commitment in marriage is primarily to God and secondarily to my wife (perhaps thirdly to myself?). I believe that is the biblical principle and the only real important element of marriage.

I believe we strongly adhere to these principles as a denomination - even though, in practice, we've taken to marrying just about anyone because we're afraid of losing them as members if they're forced to go elsewhere for a marriage that might not be appropriate.

I am far more concerned with the commitment and attention to marriage itself than I am to the persons entered therein. I will gladly and fully submit to the denomination's wisdom on who should be eligible for such marriages because I don't see that as a very important factor, either in life or in scripture.

I've been called weak and indecisive. I'd prefer to say I don't believe it's an issue worth drawing lines around at all. I sort of see it like an argument over whether we should burn witches or bigots and I'm saying I'd rather not burn anyone at all.

Yes, I'm being indecisive over a divide I don't believe should exist. Who is in a marriage is far less important to me and to scripture than what kind of marriage it is and what marriage itself means.

I'm not saying it's unimportant, just not something I care to get too worked up about. Those who do care within the Church of the Nazarene, will decide - I'll abide by their decisions 100%.

[James Johnson]

"Small issue" I'm not sure an issue that is so divisive can be considered small. jmo

[Cam Pence]

The Bible, Bob, only mentions this in a few verses while spending innumerable verses on issues like love, justice, care for the powerless etc etc etc.

So yes, this is a small issue, that we are turning into a major one. And only the devil is smiling ear to ear. That fact is more sickening than gay sex could ever be. And trust me, the thought of men having sex brings shivers down my spine.

I suppose at this point when it comes to this point, anything I could say would just amount to "Na uh". I will say this. Sin is a huge issue. We can say that there are more verses in the Bible calling to this than that or about this sin than that sin, but the witness of Scripture undeniably calls us to treat sin as a big deal. It is to be avoided, repented of, and not encouraged. This is every bit as important as love, justice, care for the powerless,ect ect ect. In fact I would say it is necessary for those things.

[Cam Pence]

What I'm saying is that my beliefs on marriage are about taking it seriously as a commitment between two persons and God to love and serve the other as a kind of representation of the fidelity and honor God shows for God's people - that these two persons are accountable to the institution of marriage and the faith community that witnessed and approved it.

I believe my commitment in marriage is primarily to God and secondarily to my wife (perhaps thirdly to myself?). I believe that is the biblical principle and the only real important element of marriage.

I believe we strongly adhere to these principles as a denomination - even though, in practice, we've taken to marrying just about anyone because we're afraid of losing them as members if they're forced to go elsewhere for a marriage that might not be appropriate.

I am far more concerned with the commitment and attention to marriage itself than I am to the persons entered therein. I will gladly and fully submit to the denomination's wisdom on who should be eligible for such marriages because I don't see that as a very important factor, either in life or in scripture.

Thanks again for your honesty here Ryan. As to your last point I will offer this (take it or leave it of course). When it comes down to a sin issue, even if you only consider it a possibility of being sin, then I would be just as concerned with the commitment and attention to marriage as to the people seeking to enter therein. Even a possibility leaves room that yes the denomination could be correct on this issue and if that is the case then we have been very unloving (unintentionally) in giving our blessing to two people embracing sin.

[Hans Deventer]

"Small issue" I'm not sure an issue that is so divisive can be considered small. jmo

James, I'm not saying we haven't turned it into a big issue and made it so divisive. I totally agree that we have.

[Hans Deventer]

I suppose at this point when it comes to this point, anything I could say would just amount to "Na uh". I will say this. Sin is a huge issue. We can say that there are more verses in the Bible calling to this than that or about this sin than that sin, but the witness of Scripture undeniably calls us to treat sin as a big deal. It is to be avoided, repented of, and not encouraged. This is every bit as important as love, justice, care for the powerless,ect ect ect. In fact I would say it is necessary for those things.

I respectfully disagree completely, Cam. It is definitely NOT every bit as important as love, justice, care for the powerless,etc. If that would be the case, I'll go on record and publicly confess that I don't understand the first thing about the gospel. If we appear to have no clue as to what is really important to God, we might as well close the door of the church and go home.

[Cam Pence]

I respectfully disagree completely, Cam. It is definitely NOT every bit as important as love, justice, care for the powerless,etc. If that would be the case, I'll go on record and publicly confess that I don't understand the first thing about the gospel. If we appear to have no clue as to what is really important to God, we might as well close the door of the church and go home.

Then it seems respectfully disagree we must as I can in no way pretend that sin is not really important to God, otherwise I would say that I don't understand the Gospel. Several here I am sure would not disagree with me there . However I am sure there are also several who would.

[Ryan Scott]

Thanks again for your honesty here Ryan. As to your last point I will offer this (take it or leave it of course). When it comes down to a sin issue, even if you only consider it a possibility of being sin, then I would be just as concerned with the commitment and attention to marriage as to the people seeking to enter therein. Even a possibility leaves room that yes the denomination could be correct on this issue and if that is the case then we have been very unloving (unintentionally) in giving our blessing to two people embracing sin.

I guess I'd rather tackle things one at a time. Our practice of blessing marriages leaves something to be desired. As I said before, we're much more apt to perform a wedding we know is not being entered into with proper Christian respect because they'll just get married somewhere else anyway. It might not be you or I doing it, but we know it happens routinely.

I'm just a bit suspicious that we're putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps we could be a little more firm on what we believe marriage to be, before we go fighting over the kinds of people who can be in them.

I don't believe we, as a denomination, or as Christians (probably not me as an individual) take marriage as seriously and as thoughtfully as necessitated by our theology.

Unfortunately I don't see any climate where we could even discuss that problem without it delving into a fight over defining the parties who can be in a marriage.

I don't mind having that discussion, but I think it should be done once we've decided what marriage is and how we're going to treat it as a people.

[Bob Hunter]

I've been called weak and indecisive. I'd prefer to say I don't believe it's an issue worth drawing lines around at all. I sort of see it like an argument over whether we should burn witches or bigots and I'm saying I'd rather not burn anyone at all.

Yes, I'm being indecisive over a divide I don't believe should exist. Who is in a marriage is far less important to me and to scripture than what kind of marriage it is and what marriage itself means.

I'm not saying it's unimportant, just not something I care to get too worked up about. Those who do care within the Church of the Nazarene, will decide - I'll abide by their decisions 100%.

Okay, this isn't about burning anyone at the stake. You and Hans can talk about devils, witches and bigots all you want. This isn't about that. And you may not see it as an issue worth drawing lines around, but the denomination does and the Bible does or there would not be explicit prohibitions which you and others seem to trivialize.

Who is in a marriage matters. We part ways here. I care about heterosexuals who want to exchange vows and I think the Church should have a say in the matter. Marriage is a sacrament in my view and I don't think we give what is sacred to just anyone who says they want it. I know some folks who should never be married...ever! Much less, same sex couples. They can get unioned and be married in the eyes of the law, but that does not mean the Church should sanction it.

Anyway, I really don't have any animosity toward you or your position. I'm just trying to reconcile it with that of the denomination and so far, I'm not having much success. You leave the door open to same sex relations, the denomination does not. And when we are calling it sin and you are not, well....that is sorta a big deal.

[Marsha Lynn]

I suppose at this point when it comes to this point, anything I could say would just amount to "Na uh". I will say this. Sin is a huge issue. We can say that there are more verses in the Bible calling to this than that or about this sin than that sin, but the witness of Scripture undeniably calls us to treat sin as a big deal. It is to be avoided, repented of, and not encouraged. This is every bit as important as love, justice, care for the powerless,ect ect ect. In fact I would say it is necessary for those things.

Proverb 6:16 There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

So ... rather than harnessing any more bits and bytes into service for the discussion of sins we don't commit and how much danger of hellfire those who do commit them can expect, would we be ahead to take more seriously the more common sins and repent in sackcloth and ashes?

Will there be anyone in heaven who died while trapped in a sinful lifestyle on earth?

Edited to add: Jim outted me yesterday as someone who is "puffed up and superior." That sounds like haughtiness to me, something the Bible clearly says is an abomination to the Lord. Was he saying with those words that if I died in that moment I would be lost in hell forever? Is haughtiness a "turn or burn" offense?

[Ryan Scott]

I don't think we give what is sacred to just anyone who says they want it.

Wonderful. We're in agreement on this. I believe this to be the core of scriptural and historical Christian belief concerning marriage.

I just feel like a discussion of who can be in a marriage is a misdirection from a more important matter - how we define marriage in substance and practice. If our only definition is "a man and a woman" then we might as well stop marrying people altogether.

I don't mind that the Nazarene definition includes those words; I believe there is careful, honest discernment that leads to it and informs it. I just find it laughable that we fight over and defend those words, when we (at least in practice) could care less about the rest of the definition.

If I'm assigning importance to the two parts, this one is much, much less so. So much so that my personal view is that its relatively insignificant.

I understand those on both "sides" who find it incredibly significant; I think they are both justified in their beliefs. I'm just not going to choose sides, because I don't think it's worth being divisive over.

[Billy Cox]

I know some folks who should never be married...ever! Much less, same sex couples. They can get unioned and be married in the eyes of the law, but that does not mean the Church should sanction it.

I haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise. Have you?

What I have heard from some is the idea that the Church owns marriage and has exclusive rights to define it. The question of gay marriage is not about sex or marriage at all, but is religion trying hard not to lose its veto power over yet another aspect of public life.

Anyway, I really don't have any animosity toward you or your position. I'm just trying to reconcile it with that of the denomination and so far, I'm not having much success. You leave the door open to same sex relations, the denomination does not. And when we are calling it sin and you are not, well....that is sorta a big deal.

So if Hans doesn't express sufficient outrage about gay people having gay sex, that makes him a bad Nazarene? Really??

[Hans Deventer]

Then it seems respectfully disagree we must as I can in no way pretend that sin is not really important to God, otherwise I would say that I don't understand the Gospel. Several here I am sure would not disagree with me there . However I am sure there are also several who would.

Wait a minute, I never said sin isn't important to God. Don't put words in my mouth, Cam, I never said that. I am saying this specific sin is not the main topic of the Scriptures that we appear to make of it. And it isn't!

[Hans Deventer]

So if Hans doesn't express sufficient outrage about gay people having gay sex, that makes him a bad Nazarene? Really??

You have no idea how bad I am, Billy. I'm not even (gasp) picketing at abortion clinics!!!!

[Cam Pence]

Wait a minute, I never said sin isn't important to God. Don't put words in my mouth, Cam, I never said that. I am saying this specific sin is not the main topic of the Scriptures that we appear to make of it. And it isn't!

Nor have I said this but it does fall within the classification of sin ( along with many other things) described on Scripture. While homosexual activity is not the main sin discussed on the bible, it is the topic of this particular thread and I am not elevating it over any other sin. My issue is convincing people that sin (not just homosexual behavior) is ok. This thread just happened to address on thing (which happens to fall within the realm of sin according to the CotN) so that is why we have been discussing it. Not because it is the most important topic, but because it is the topic at hand.

[Hans Deventer]

Nor have I said this but it does fall within the classification of sin ( along with many other things) described on Scripture. While homosexual activity is not the main sin discussed on the bible, it is the topic of this particular thread.

"I am saying this specific sin is not the main topic of the Scriptures that we appear to make of it." That doesn't deny it is the topic of this thread, nor that it is a sin mentioned in the Scriptures. My problem is that we are turning it into much more than it is. That worries me greatly, because it is divisive. And we have already seen examples of that in other churches.

[Cam Pence]

Wait a minute, I never said sin isn't important to God. Don't put words in my mouth, Cam, I never said that. I am saying this specific sin is not the main topic of the Scriptures that we appear to make of it. And it isn't!

You are right Han you didn't say that. I am sorry. What I meant to say was that I cannot treat sin as if it is not as important as love and justice for the powerless and in fact necessary as it is the very thing which hinders love and justice and keeps the powerless powerless.

[Cam Pence]

"I am saying this specific sin is not the main topic of the Scriptures that we appear to make of it." That doesn't deny it is the topic of this thread, nor that it is a sin mentioned in the Scriptures. My problem is that we are turning it into much more than it is. That worries me greatly, because it is divisive. And we have already seen examples of that in other churches.

By "we" do you mean us in this thread? If so how exactly have we made it more than sin? My question is that is the division coming from people who stand by the Biblical witness that it is sin or those who insist on promoting their agenda of change within the church? I would say the latter. We've seen it in the Lutheran church and the Episcopal church. Are the people who left and split off really the ones seeking division here? Honest questions. Me, I believe sin always divides no matter what sin it is. I will state once again, those who believe homosexual behavior is sinful have not always (by a long shot) acted in a loving and Christ like way in this conviction, however is it any better to take it to the other extreme? I think not.

[Cam Pence]

Proverb 6:16 There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

So ... rather than harnessing any more bits and bytes into service for the discussion of sins we don't commit and how much danger of hellfire those who do commit them can expect, would we be ahead to take more seriously the more common sins and repent in sackcloth and ashes?

Will there be anyone in heaven who died while trapped in a sinful lifestyle on earth?

Edited to add: Jim outted me yesterday as someone who is "puffed up and superior." That sounds like haughtiness to me, something the Bible clearly says is an abomination to the Lord. Was he saying with those words that if I died in that moment I would be lost in hell forever? Is haughtiness a "turn or burn" offense?

I am really not sure of the point of your post here Marsha. Is it just to point out that there are other sins besides homosexual behavior? I think we have established that. To make it clear,all sin is something we are called to turn from. Your question of people dying in a sinful lifestyle is a question you should know that I cannot answer as I am not God, but I will say that if by "trapped" you mean sinning willfully either by not caring or convincing themselves it is not sin, I would say given the Scriptural witness it is something we should show some concern towards as it can be argued that no they will not see Heaven. I think we would have to say that the very least it is a possibility they will not see Heaven unless we are dogmatic universalists. This being the case that there is even a chance that they won't see Heaven should tell us that sin is something to take very seriously and encourage others to turn away from. In regards to simply trying to pull the spotlight away from the subject of this thread to Jim and his perceived sins, perhaps that is something you should work out with Jim, maybe in private message as it is not the subject of this thread.

[Bob Hunter]

I haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise. Have you?

What I have heard from some is the idea that the Church owns marriage and has exclusive rights to define it. The question of gay marriage is not about sex or marriage at all, but is religion trying hard not to lose its veto power over yet another aspect of public life.



So if Hans doesn't express sufficient outrage about gay people having gay sex, that makes him a bad Nazarene? Really??

Not sure I can respond to the second part. Because I am not taking issue with Hans and his outrage over gays. I'm glad he finds gay sex repulsive, because guess what? It is... Just heard of a young man who had to get his rear end repaired because of doing you know what. Yeah, it is that bad. We should be outraged.

Ryan suggested earlier that he was more concerned about marriage as a commitment than he was about who was in the marriage. He said,

"I am far more concerned with the commitment and attention to marriage itself than I am to the persons entered therein."

I think the Church should be equally concerned about both. It's a both and. His statement, once again, leaves the door open to accept a gay union. Many of his statements leave the door open to this possibility. He is not with the denomination on this issue and he freely admits he is coping out. Yes, he is willing to concede to the denomination's stand, but only after much duress.

If I have not fairly represented you Ryan, please correct me. Again, I'm trying to reconcile your position with that of the Church and I'm not able to narrow the gap.

[Hans Deventer]

By "we" do you mean us in this thread?

"We" is evangelical christianity in general, and the CotN specifically. What we are part of.

If so how exactly have we made it more than sin?

We haven't made it more than sin, we made it the primary sin.

My question is that is the division coming from people who stand by the Biblical witness that it is sin or those who insist on promoting their agenda of change within the church? I would say the latter.

The division comes from both sides. Both seem to elevate the issue to a level way beyond the Biblical one.

We've seen it in the Lutheran church and the Episcopal church. Are the people who left and split off really the ones seeking division here? Honest questions. Me, I believe sin always divides no matter what sin it is.

Sin will divide, no disagreemt here. But it is a broad concept. Not that many are blameless.

I will state once again, those who believe homosexual behavior is sinful have not always (by a long shot) acted in a loving and Christ like way in this conviction, however is it any better to take it to the other extreme? I think not.

No, definitely not. It is exactly the extremes that create the division. We should neither elevate it above every other sin, nor deny it is one. Both actions create division.

[Cam Pence]

[QUOTE=Hans Deventer;169855]"We" is evangelical christianity in general, and the CotN specifically. What we are part of.



We haven't made it more than sin, we made it the primary sin.



The division comes from both sides. Both seem to elevate the issue to a level way beyond the Biblical one.

We've seen it in the Lutheran church and the Episcopal church. Are the people who left and split off really the ones seeking division here? Honest questions. Me, I believe sin always divides no matter what sin it is.[/qoute]

Sin will divide, no disagreemt here. But it is a broad concept. Not that many are blameless.



No, definitely not. It is exactly the extremes that create the division. We should neither elevate it above every other sin, nor deny it is one. Both actions create division.

How have those who leave the church because they cannot in good conciseness support sin played a part. Show they just ignore their conciseness , grin and bear it?

None are blameless when it comes to sin. Lord knows that when I show hate to my neighbor, I am just as guilty as a practicing homosexual, or any other sinner.

I totally agree with you last sentence, however I think too often people get so fed up with people that live in the extremes that when someone simply holds that homosexual activity is A sin (among many) that they get automatically grouped in.

I am sorry I have not figured out the multi quote function yet but I am sure you can figure out what goes with what

[Jim Chabot]

Proverb 6:16 There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

So ... rather than harnessing any more bits and bytes into service for the discussion of sins we don't commit and how much danger of hellfire those who do commit them can expect, would we be ahead to take more seriously the more common sins and repent in sackcloth and ashes?

Will there be anyone in heaven who died while trapped in a sinful lifestyle on earth?

Edited to add: Jim outted me yesterday as someone who is "puffed up and superior." That sounds like haughtiness to me, something the Bible clearly says is an abomination to the Lord. Was he saying with those words that if I died in that moment I would be lost in hell forever? Is haughtiness a "turn or burn" offense?

Let me help you out a bit here Marsha. It appears that you are speaking from animus here rather than reason. Lets review shall we?

I believe that I began here;

1Cr 5:1 ¶ It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

1Cr 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

Paul also notes that they are puffed up. I'll make the observation that most every discussion we have had here reflects this same condition. Those who would advocate for the affirmation of homosexuals, do so with a sense that they are superior in love. Reference to the law of love is made time and time again, and it's made in such a manner as to accuse those of us who agree with our church as if we lacked in love. You are puffed up and superior, where you should be mournful and sad because these poor unfortunate souls are surely destined for hell. Do I consign them there? No, absolutely not, in fact I hope that no one goes there. Doesn't change the fact that the inspired Word of God says that yes this is their fate.

Your response;

Just for the record, "mournful and sad" is a much better description of my feelings on this topic than "puffed up and superior." When I hear the unkind words of Christians toward those who deal with the burden of same-sex attraction and think of the real people I know who struggle with such issues, it makes me want to cry for them and completely disassociate myself from those who care so little for what they go through.

Along with your parting shot;

Anyway, carry on. Out of respect for St. Paul, I'll retire to my corner with the other women and meditate on my failure to allow my husband to speak for me on these matters.

Clearly you had missed Paul's description of the wrong attitudes present in the congregation, as your description fit with his. So I pointed this out to you.

Yes this does sound a lot like the "puffed up" that Paul spoke of Marsha. Did you read what he said? He said that the "mournful and sad" should be reserved for the fact that this person has not been put out.

Somehow you see this as being "outed" and for whatever reason your ignoring the original point, so let me try again.

Paul said that the congregation was "puffed up" then he goes on to describe just what he means. He says that they should be in mourning that this person isn't removed from the congregation. The person is still among them and they aren't upset or sad, thus Paul says that they are "puffed up"

Your response indicates that you are saddened by those who would put the person out. You say that you want to disassociate from them. So it is pretty clear that you are not of the mindset that Paul says should be. And further that you oppose those who would hold the proper attitude. Perhaps you could explain my error?

Now as to "turn or burn" offenses. Are they not listed for us?

1Cr 6:9 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,

1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

There they are. Perhaps there are others, I'll admit that I haven't performed an exhaustive search. Still the fact remains, these categories of sin, should they become a lifestyle, will send someone to hell.

Now would you be lost in hell if you died the moment that you thought that I called you "haughty?" What on earth are you even talking about here. I didn't call you a name, I asked you to look at what Paul is saying. Just because you don't like me, doesn't make this about me. It's not.

[Lucas Finch]

I'm not even (gasp) picketing at abortion clinics!!!!

Me neither. Is that from the AHM side of our heritage?

[Jim Chabot]

Me neither. Is that from the AHM side of our heritage?

Nope, those good folks out there would be Roman Catholics.

[Billy Cox]

I think the Church should be equally concerned about both. It's a both and. His statement, once again, leaves the door open to accept a gay union. Many of his statements leave the door open to this possibility. He is not with the denomination on this issue and he freely admits he is coping out. Yes, he is willing to concede to the denomination's stand, but only after much duress.

I don't think that the denomination has to accept a gay union, even if/when gay marriage becomes the law of the land. The state could and probably will eventually recognize gay marriage as a civil agreement and that has zero bearing on the church affirming only heterosexual marriage as a sacrament or holy relationship.

What many evangelicals especially trip over is the notion that Christianity is the unofficial American religion and thus gets to veto public policy. Along with that notion is the self-imposed duty to 'stand against evil'...which might have some moral weight if they were concerned about any form of evil other than abortion and gay sex.

[Ryan Scott]

I think the Church should be equally concerned about both. It's a both and. His statement, once again, leaves the door open to accept a gay union. Many of his statements leave the door open to this possibility. He is not with the denomination on this issue and he freely admits he is coping out. Yes, he is willing to concede to the denomination's stand, but only after much duress.

Don't worry, there's no duress at all.

[Bob Hunter]

Don't worry, there's no duress at all.

Okay Ryan, that's good good enough for me. Not sure why you take pains to explain a position that is not ours, but I trust you are with us in spirit.

[Marsha Lynn]

I am really not sure of the point of your post here Marsha.

Never mind. It didn't come out like I hoped. Both you and Jim took it as a potshot at him. It wasn't intended that way. I have no quibble with Jim. I've never met him nor has he met me. I was simply using his comment as an example of a serious sin -- something detestable to God -- being detected in the life of a believer but not necessarily seen as leading to an automatic ticket to hell.

But, in reality, it's not the same thing. It's much easier to make an exhaustive list of sexually immoral acts and avoid doing anything on that list than it is to try to measure one's pride and figure out where the needle slips into the "detestable to the Lord" range.

I don't think I can fit what I was trying to say into words. Sorry about my bungled attempt.

Marsha

[Paul DeBaufer]

Never mind. It didn't come out like I hoped. Both you and Jim took it as a potshot at him. It wasn't intended that way. I have no quibble with Jim. I've never met him nor has he met me. I was simply using his comment as an example of a serious sin -- something detestable to God -- being detected in the life of a believer but not necessarily seen as leading to an automatic ticket to hell.

But, in reality, it's not the same thing. It's much easier to make an exhaustive list of sexually immoral acts and avoid doing anything on that list than it is to try to measure one's pride and figure out where the needle slips into the "detestable to the Lord" range.

I don't think I can fit what I was trying to say into words. Sorry about my bungled attempt.

Marsha

I understood what you were saying in that post and think you explain quite well here. But then I am not in disagreement with your opinion.

[Hans Deventer]

Never mind. It didn't come out like I hoped. Both you and Jim took it as a potshot at him. It wasn't intended that way. I have no quibble with Jim. I've never met him nor has he met me. I was simply using his comment as an example of a serious sin -- something detestable to God -- being detected in the life of a believer but not necessarily seen as leading to an automatic ticket to hell.

But, in reality, it's not the same thing. It's much easier to make an exhaustive list of sexually immoral acts and avoid doing anything on that list than it is to try to measure one's pride and figure out where the needle slips into the "detestable to the Lord" range.

I don't think I can fit what I was trying to say into words. Sorry about my bungled attempt.

Marsha

You're totally clear to me, Marsha. It's a matter of willingness to understand, for all I can see. If only those without sin will make it to heaven, it's going to be a very, very lonely place. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That's about it. Oh wait a minute, a couple of whores and collaborators too, for Jesus said so.

[Jim Chabot]

Never mind. It didn't come out like I hoped. Both you and Jim took it as a potshot at him. It wasn't intended that way. I have no quibble with Jim. I've never met him nor has he met me. I was simply using his comment as an example of a serious sin -- something detestable to God -- being detected in the life of a believer but not necessarily seen as leading to an automatic ticket to hell.

It may not have been your intent, I'll accept that. But it was a potshot, and it still is. Your choosing to take what I've said and spin it into something other, you are choosing to not look at what I've been saying.

Paul stated without equivocation that certain sins, and he lists them, will deny heaven to the individual who embraces them. Never mind the spin and the dance, tell me where Paul is wrong. Bear in mind that Jesus makes the same observation, he warns of hell as well.

You have also failed to recognize my comparison of your statement of sadness toward those who would side with Paul, to his characterization that these folks who seek to not have the person put out, are the ones who are "puffed up." Will you look at his definition, or will you take comfort from the cover provided by your cheering section.

I'm bringing forward guidance from Scripture on the subject of this thread, and it appears that it's trampled underfoot and the focus is to rend me. Again, this isn't about me. Take a look at the evidence and quit dodging.