"What Is Happening to Us" revisited

[Phil Wilson]

But we've got to understand that these conversations are coming. There are many out there who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin and we will have to be able to answer that idea outside of the "Thus saith the Lord," because they have an answer that is perfectly reasonable to them.

[DCR]

I found the third link in his list interesting, because people try to say that linking "gender issues" to "homosexual issues" is a slippery slope argument.

Yeah, I noticed that too.

It appears it's going to have to stop somewhere.  We have to draw the line somewhere... the trouble is, those who don't stop at the line will look at those of us on this side of the line as "legalistic", I'm sure.

The terms "progressive" and "legalistic" must truly be in the eye of the beholder.[/color]

[Bon Voyage]

That is hardly a CofC issue.  I've even had convsersations with a preacher from my side of the tracks about how paving the way for women to be elders and the homosexuality issue are related.

[boringoldguy]

It appears it's going to have to stop somewhere.  We have to draw the line somewhere... the trouble is, those who don't stop at the line will look at those of us on this side of the line as "legalistic", I'm sure.

The Episcopalians couldn't draw it.
The United CofC bunch couldn't draw it.
The Methodists aren't able to draw it.
The Presbyterias haven't been able to draw it.

I see no reason to think we'll be any better able to draw it than these other groups.

[kanham]

But we've got to understand that these conversations are coming. There are many out there who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin and we will have to be able to answer that idea outside of the "Thus saith the Lord," because they have an answer that is perfectly reasonable to them.

Phil,

I don't really think I have to. Many of the assertions made simply fall short. The idea that thinking homosexuality is not what God planned makes one mean and ugly and hateful to homosexuals does not hold with reality. It can to some but it doesn't have to.

So how can I explain or defend or change ones mind if that is what they say reality is?

[Arkstfan]

Of course there will be a push to "normalize" homosexual intercourse within the church because the church has for the most part turned spineless and unwilling to confront heterosexual intercourse outside of the bond of marriage.

The homosexual's lustful thoughts are no worse than the lustful thoughts of the heterosexual and their relations no worse than the heterosexual relations we turn a blind eye to among heterosexuals.

All I've heard so far out of the cofC pulpits and out of evangelical pulpits is that homosexual people are slime who want to subvert our culture.

If that's the best that can be managed then failure is inevitable because demonizing people rather than confronting action is wrong and even more vital when you demonize the person and the people meet nice and reasonable people of that group they conclude ol preacher in the pulpit is just behind the times.

[striving4]

:amen: I lived in Massachussetts for eight years and worked with gays. Gays are generally more educated, slightly wealthier , more urban, and I think, better behaved than the average American and many of us.

I found them easy to work with , less condemning, and more polite .


The Church also contained ex-gays, women, and men.

I see no difference between their lifestyle and a fornicator's lifestyle and don't belive God plays "Big Sin, little sin " anymore in this area than anywere else.
Respectfully,
Striving

[boringoldguy]

Of course there will be a push to "normalize" homosexual intercourse within the church because the church has for the most part turned spineless and unwilling to confront heterosexual intercourse outside of the bond of marriage.

The homosexual's lustful thoughts are no worse than the lustful thoughts of the heterosexual and their relations no worse than the heterosexual relations we turn a blind eye to among heterosexuals.

All I've heard so far out of the cofC pulpits and out of evangelical pulpits is that homosexual people are slime who want to subvert our culture.

If that's the best that can be managed then failure is inevitable because demonizing people rather than confronting action is wrong and even more vital when you demonize the person and the people meet nice and reasonable people of that group they conclude ol preacher in the pulpit is just behind the times.

You know, this sounds good.

But have you been among those (and this isn't an accusation - I just don't know) who condemned the old hard-line position on divorce and remarriage?

And isn't that where the old condemnation of extra-marital sex began to break down?

[Arkstfan]

Do I think the old "you are going to burn in hell if you don't leave your husband and go back to the first one" theology is wrong? Absolutely.

Your point is quite probably valid in that the transition started with the change in teaching on divorce but there was nothing right in the divorce is OK teaching or in the we will help you through it without trying to get you to reconcile mindset.

I had an ELDER not terribly long ago tell me how glad he was that a woman in the church was divorcing her foreigner husband who held a faith other than Christianity. Unlike the elder I had actually met the man, in fact knew him quite well and knew that with reasonable certainity that she was lying in part or in whole about what he had done wrong.

Back on track though its a two wrongs situation. We avoided needing to confront some wrongs by teaching wrongly now we may teach correctly but avoid confronting the wrong.

I find neither the old way or the new way acceptable nor scriptural.

[Jimbob]

But we've got to understand that these conversations are coming. There are many out there who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin and we will have to be able to answer that idea outside of the "Thus saith the Lord," because they have an answer that is perfectly reasonable to them.

True.  We need to learn how to speak and  act both compassionately, and consistently with the Word.  Dropping compassion for the sake of Truth won't heal; dropping Truth for the sake of compassion is an impotent false hope.

How we talk talk to people with this struggle is being discussed on this blog, too.

[s1n4m1n]

But we've got to understand that these conversations are coming. There are many out there who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin and we will have to be able to answer that idea outside of the "Thus saith the Lord," because they have an answer that is perfectly reasonable to them.

That is hardly a CofC issue.  I've even had convsersations with a preacher from my side of the tracks about how paving the way for women to be elders and the homosexuality issue are related.

The Episcopalians couldn't draw it.
The United CofC bunch couldn't draw it.
The Methodists aren't able to draw it.
The Presbyterias haven't been able to draw it.

I see no reason to think we'll be any better able to draw it than these other groups.

I'm saying this with all sincerity. There is only one group on earth that has the capability to stop the infiltration of homosexuality into the Christian culture, and the ability to expel such false teaching without dissolving into irrelevance. That group is the Catholic Church.[/color]

[Bon Voyage]

I don't understand how.  Just look at the catholic clergy.

[s1n4m1n]

Like Balaam, they can't help themselves. :;):

[twd]

Like Balaam, they can't help themselves. :;):

That doesn't seem to support your previous assertion.

[s1n4m1n]

Like Balaam, they can't help themselves. :;):

That doesn't seem to support your previous assertion.[/color]

How so?

[twd]

You asserted that the Roman church will be the only one to stop the homosexual infiltration into Christian culture.  When Jerry pointed out how unlikely that seems given the current state of their clergy, you said they are like Balaam, and cannot help themselves.

But, ultimately, Balaam was very effective in causing great harm to God's people, undermining them through the use of sexual immorality.

[s1n4m1n]

I was thinking of the following passage:

So Balaam said to Balak, "Did I not also speak to your messengers whom you sent to me, saying, 'If Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the word of the LORD, to do good or bad of my own will. What the LORD says, that I must speak'? (Num. 24:12-13)

Of course I'm aware of the passage in Revelations:

But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.


I'm not saying the CC is like Balaam in every respect. I'm sorry I wasn't sufficiently clear when I wrote, "they can't help themselves".

[Jimbob]

I don't buy it.


...and I bet CD and Clever don't either. :;):

[s1n4m1n]

But maybe the Num 24 passage was just related to blessings and cursings, so maybe it wasn't a good reference.

Ken

[s1n4m1n]

I don't buy it.


...and I bet CD and Clever don't either. :;):

Don't worry, I'm not asking you to buy anything, because I'm not selling.

[Skip]

It would be nice in a perfect world if we gave everyone exactly what they needed...
-- The one who needs a sharp rebuke, a sharp rebuke
-- The one who needs loving guidance, loving guidance

So far as I can tell, the main thing is to actually warn the one committing sin.
It is obvious that in the Bible different methods were used with different audiences, and I really can't think of a single instance in which the method was condemned. More often than not, the message was to-the-point, even harsh.
It seems that the message, however delivered, is the crux of the matter.
Anyone rejecting truth because of 'how the truth was delivered' will ultimately answer to God. I am quite confident that God will deliver opportunity to all to repent, and that there will be no lame excuses accepted before the Judgment Seat.

[boringoldguy]

But we've got to understand that these conversations are coming. There are many out there who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin and we will have to be able to answer that idea outside of the "Thus saith the Lord," because they have an answer that is perfectly reasonable to them.

True.  We need to learn how to speak and  act both compassionately, and consistently with the Word.  Dropping compassion for the sake of Truth won't heal; dropping Truth for the sake of compassion is an impotent false hope.

How we talk talk to people with this struggle is being discussed on this blog, too.[/color]

Back to the main line of the discussion.

I've browsed some of these blogs,  and I have to say I'm unimpressed for a variety of reasons,  but mainly because their approach is internally contradictory.

First, they rail against Christians for (allegedly) singling out this sin while ignoring others (such as porn, adultery, etc.)

Then,  they seem to suggest that we deal with issues of homosexuality in the same way -  by politely looking the other way and pretending we don't notice.

A few observations:

1.  I'm not familiar with any CofC's that approve of pornography.

2.   Imperfect discipline is a hardly a reason to abandon standards of conduct.    What if we said  "You know,  a lot of murderers go free, so it's not fair to lock up the ones we catch.  We ought to just let people kill each other?"

3.   I'm not aware of any political movement seeking to impose upon society approval for pornographers or adulterers.

I will admit there's a lot of hypocrisy,  but hypocrisy isn't the worst thing in the world.    The hypocrite at least acknowledges that there is good and bad, right and wrong.    I'd much rather tolerate a hypocrite than surrender to the "anything goes"  type of morality that's being promoted these days.

[Jimbob]

I've found more good comments in the responses than in the blogs, for some of the very reasons you list.

[Skip]

I don't understand how.  Just look at the catholic clergy.

Interesting point.
The fact is, the Catholics have a serious problem.
They have one thing that Protestants don't have, though.
They have a leadership structure that allows them to deal with the problem with a real chance to actually solve the problem within one Church.
I would say that the Orthodox have the ability to stand as well.

I really don't think that Protestantism or the RM could / will be able to deal with this problem.
Look at the mess that "issues" have made of Protestantism, many of the issues being trivial compared to homosexuality.
I give Protestantism and the RM little chance of any real solution, just more fragmentation.

Society's mindset on the issue has already transitioned into the membership (and increasingly, the leadership) of Protestantism and the RM.
Look at homosexuality threads on the board --
Dare to take a stand against the sin of homosexuality?
Better carefully couch your words, or you'll be accused of casting the first stone (you hypocrite)!

The approach toward "condemning" (if you can call it that anymore) the sin has changed (what tangible good has that done?), and in some cases the sin has become acceptable.
Protestantism and the RM will either split, or compromise. Don't expect either to buck society, because too often their members are (it pains me greatly to observe this) members of society first.

(I see that my last two paragraphs parallel BOG's post above.)[/color]

[boringoldguy]

I really don't think that Protestantism or the RM could / will be able to deal with this problem.
Look at the mess that "issues" have made of Protestantism, many of the issues being trivial compared to homosexuality.
I give Protestantism and the RM little chance of any real solution, just more fragmentation.

Society's mindset on the issue has already transitioned into the membership (and increasingly, the leadership) of Protestantism and the RM.
Look at homosexuality threads on the board --
Dare to take a stand against the sin of homosexuality?
Better carefully couch your words, or you'll be accused of casting the first stone (you hypocrite)!

The approach toward "condemning" (if you can call it that anymore) the sin has changed (what tangible good has that done?), and in some cases the sin has become acceptable.
Protestantism and the RM will either split, or compromise. Don't expect either to buck society, because too often their members are (it pains me greatly to observe this) members of society first.

(I see that my last two paragraphs parallel BOG's post above.)

It pains me deeply to suggest this,  but it seems to me that the prospects for unity among Protestant bodies in the US are greatly improved -  but that the unity will be a unity in irrelevance.

[kanham]

Don't expect either to buck society, because too often their members are (it pains me greatly to observe this) members of society first.

Skip,

I think you have said something very poignant. The fact that many confused our country with the church has, like the frog boiled slowly, led to an inability to distinguish between the two.

It would seem that as our culture falls further away from Christian values the clearer the differences should be. Unfortunately instead it seems to be pulling many down with it. Unfortunate but true.

To be honest I would love nothing more then to see the Catholics get their sex issue in order and return to being a strong voice for the Church. They have a serious credabiliity issue at this time though. Many of those leaders and authorities are the ones who perpegated molestation on the priests before and the leaderships way of dealing with it was to hide it for years.[/color]

[Jimbob]

Don't expect either to buck society, because too often their members are (it pains me greatly to observe this) members of society first.

Skip,

I think you have said something very poignant. The fact that many confused our country with the church has, like the frog boiled slowly, led to an inability to distinguish between the two.

It would seem that as our culture falls further away from Christian values the clearer the differences should be. Unfortunately instead it seems to be pulling many down with it. Unfortunate but true.

To be honest I would love nothing more then to see the Catholics get their sex issue in order and return to being a strong voice for the Church. They have a serious credabiliity issue at this time though. Many of those leaders and authorities are the ones who perpegated molestation on the priests before and the leaderships way of dealing with it was to hide it for years.

That's exactly why I don't think, unfortunately, that the RC can make any bigger dent in this than the rest of Christianity in the US (or the rest of the West for that matter).  Yes, they can continue to make a stronger "official" stand, but that's not  a guarantee their parishioners will "flesh out" the doctrine, anymore than they have divorce, adultery, etc.

That's not a cut at the RC by any stretch.  We certainly have no room to cast a stone in the area of "fleshing out" our beliefs vs. them or anyone else.

The bigger problem as I see it is not just the lack of doctrine-discerning hierarchy.  It's the very approach to Scripture and Truth to begin with.  To hold the beliefs that some are coming to, one has to use a hermeneutic that can actively discard even the most direct statements from God at whim...and somehow still feel smugly righteous at the end of the day.[/color]

[Bon Voyage]

I do think that there are going to be some problems when even the RC isn't standing up for what is right.

Quebec Priests oppose Vatican on gay marriage

Here is an excerpt from the article referring to the letter the Quebec priests wrote:

The letter questions whether the church has "the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life."

"In these matters," the letter says, "the official teaching of the church has shown itself more than once to be wrong."

[s1n4m1n]

I do think that there are going to be some problems when even the RC isn't standing up for what is right.

Quebec Priests oppose Vatican on gay marriage

Here is an excerpt from the article referring to the letter the Quebec priests wrote:

The letter questions whether the church has "the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life."

"In these matters," the letter says, "the official teaching of the church has shown itself more than once to be wrong."

So you have 19 Canadian priests writing a letter in direct opposition to official teaching. I'm not saying that there won't be any turmoil in the subject, or even dissension in the ranks.

[cleond]

I am of the 60's generation and I thought that would be the one to do what you think the current younger generation will do.  I'm not so sure.  I also think that age has little to do with it.  I am 61 and I am definitely in the more liberal camp. 

I have chosen to stay in the cofc (a more liberal one, I think - at least in some ways) because it is my heritage and my wife is comfortable here.  We are also loved and cared for at our church. 

I associate with other churches, community churches mainly, and have even preached at some other churches, so that gives me some contact with those who are more nearly where I am, I suppose.

Cleon

I said I would elaborate more, so here it is...


About a year and half ago my dad and I had a good discussion, I told him in my humble opinion as his generation moves on and mine becomes the leaders their is potential train wreck coming. In our little church of about a 100 or so that chart could easily be defined by age. The older you are the more closer you lean to zealot, the younger you are the more closer you lean to exasperated. Not saying one is right or wrong, just the simple truth.

What happens when the open's and exasperated's become the shepherds and deacons while their is still a fair amount of the satisfieds and zealots left... a flat out disaster. My dad saw my point, but I know he thinks that us opens and exasperateds will come around.

. . .what is going to happen, when my generation becomes the shepherds??? When my generation decides that women passing out communion trays is just that, women passing out communion trays, not anything that is of authority. I could give you more hypotheticals but you get the idea...

I only hope that the grace that abounded that night abounds when this train wreck of generations comes to a full collision...

my humble 2 cents

Rick

[WileyClarkson]

Rick,

In our little church of about a 100 or so that chart could easily be defined by age. The older you are the more closer you lean to zealot, the younger you are the more closer you lean to exasperated. Not saying one is right or wrong, just the simple truth.

I can't speak for any other church but those I have been involved with and the Christians I have personally worked with.  However, among those Christians I know and have talked with in depth on views, etc, those who would be classified as exasperateds are actually mostly composed of "baby boomers" who have gone through the 60's-90's extreme sectarian/exclusive nature of much of the CoC.  I also have worked with a number of younger generation Christians while they were in college who are now in the late 20's age group now and many of them are very "conservative" and almost fit in well with those CoC views of the late 70's thru lat 80's.  Of course, I am very rural so that may have a decided impact as these young adults who are also rural dwellers.  I am curious how the latest college generation from the Christian universities will turn out.  Many of their professors of Bible are also "baby boomers" and have also become more exasperated with the more conservative views.  The so-called "post-modern" church, which I think we are still just starting to see develope, is going to be unpredictable as to where it will actually end up with that type of mix.  One interesting correlation I am finding among those who fall into the exasperated category, especially among the baby-boomers, is that many favor gender equality in the church at all levels (with some having reservations only in the elder position) based on their understanding of Gal 3:28 and that they understand  the restrictions on women in 1 Cor and 1 Tim as being specific to the churches in Ephesus and Corinth and not general commands.

Incidentally, I fall into the same category as Cleon--I'm just not as old has he is (but not far behind at 57!).

[Skip]

...
However, among those Christians I know and have talked with in depth on views, etc, those who would be classified as exasperateds are actually mostly composed of "baby boomers" who have gone through the 60's-90's extreme sectarian/exclusive nature of much of the CoC. 
...

This caught my eye.
It was not the church that was changing during this time; rather, it was a time of radical upheaval of American culture.
And, unfortunately, ISTM that Christians changed with the culture rather than remaining grounded in the church.
So yes, relative to the culture, the church seemed to be drifting to the conservative. But it was the culture that was moving...

[admin]

New article in response to this article (What is Happening to Us) by Joe Beam.

It's at http://www.gracecentered.com/extremes_in_churches_of_Christ.htm

Your thoughts?

[Jaime]

New article in response to this article (What is Happening to Us) by Joe Beam.

It's at http://www.gracecentered.com/extremes_in_churches_of_Christ.htm

Your thoughts?

This article is good and I also really liked Joe's article. I know some people don't like Joe's "model", but it really does describe the entire gamut of the members of the church of Christ. I immediately saw where I was on his spectrum. Some people had heartburn over the word model, if I remember a few months back on the forum. Model is probably an unfortunate term. It implies "this is how it should be". I disagree, Joe's model only made it easy to graphically describe what his theory of what was happening, not instructions of how it should be.

Jaime

[marc]

What Joe described has played out accurately.  And at least where I am, the moves toward division have been made mostly by those on the right.  of course, they don't consider themselves as having made the moves; they believe those on the left have drifted.  As a result of the "zealots" digging in and fortifying their exclusiveness, many on the left are having less to do with Churches of Christ as a whole.  They are finding more receptive voices.

This may not be the case everywhere, but it's what I see where I am.

I understand where the writer of the new article is coming from.  I know many people who want peace, and believe it will be found somewhere in the middle.  I'm not sure I agree that this is where peace is found. 

Those who are moving away from the old paths aren't doing so because of a desire for a new experience.  I do think that this is what led some of our movements in the past, but I don't think this is the case now.  I don't see the aimlessness the writer refers to. This movement seems deeply grounded in scholarly research and deep study.  It is far from an emotional movement, and one of my complaints about it is that it at times becomes too clinical, too jargon-filled.

Because of this, I don't think settling in the middle will work.  This is asking someone who has discovered a bit of truth they haven't previously seen to not act on this truth. The writer mentions what were once considered matters of faith becoming matters of opinion.  Thank God!  Many of us are realizing that we have brothers and sisters outside of our fellowship.  Asking us to ignore the bond we have with them through Christ for the sake of a smaller unity does not seem reasonable to me.  And this one thing is as key a point as any other, and is the only compromise that will bring peace in our brotherhood.

In the end, I think what is valuable is focusing on Christ, not on ourselves.  The writer says, "Some ask, "What will it take for the church to grow again?