Featured What led to the downfall of major denominations?

Essential ignore hack.

 

Here you go annsi. He will condemn adultery, but not homosexuality. He also refers to them as the modern family.

http://m.christianpost.com/news/pas...o-questions-over-homosexuality-stance--74262/

 

By condemning the adultery occurring, isn't he addressing the issue? (in a kind of roundabout way). If one of the gay guys is still married to his wife and he is having relations with another man he is committing adultery. Obviously Stanley needs to condemn the two guys for having relations as well.

 

Should we be condemning in a round about way? After the divorce, he seemed to welcome them to the church without further addressing of homosexuality. In fact , he seems to normalize it. If he every did condemn homosexuality, I have missed it.

 

Andy Stanley has been on big on doing nothing or saying nothing that makes visitors uncomfortable during church worship. He says if it makes then feel uncomfortable.... Get rid of it. I think he may take it to far at times. Watering down God's word in exchange for attendance. I have a good friend who is a HUGE Andy Stanley fan. He has told me on multiple occasions, that the church should not be doing anything to make someone uncomfortable. That ALL must feel welcome and that is how we grow the church. He maybe taking Andy's views to the extreme.......but that is my reference.

 

Well, it's kind of a sensitive issue to ask two guys if they are having s@x, and if they are, to go public with it. We don't know what he's said to these guys. If Stanley does not condemn homosexuality he's obviously wrong.

If two people say they are gay but not having relations are they sinning?

 

Obviously the were open about their relationship, or there would be no issue is f adultery. Obviously, we do not know closed door conversations. Completely different for one to have homosexual inclinations and not to act on them as opposed to act upon them. We all have sinful inclinations. Some have sinful desire towards sexual immorality. Others towards, theft, violence, greed, deceit, drug abuse, etc.... Would we allow members to openly commit these? To be openly a drunkard or to be a professed theft without trying to help them with their sin? Would we normalize there behavior to make them feel more welcome? How many times can I walk into Andy Stanley's church drunk and taking the Lord's name in vain before he kicks me out or at least tries to correct me? The homosexual behavior also should be addressed with his congregation and the public. His lack of condemnation of homosexual behavior has caused confusion. I think churches should welcome homosexuals. They should also try to help them with their sinful act....as we would any sinful struggle. Just as in 1 Corinthians.... If the sexual immortality remains, and no repentance is evident, they should be removed from the church. Of course, I think the issue in the Church of Corinthian was resolved later through repentance in 2 Corinthians. Example of Church discipline working.

 

I take issue with this statement from Stanley...

The man and his partner wanted to serve as volunteers at the church, but Stanley explained that the two men were committing adultery since one of them did not finalize his divorce yet and thus could not serve as volunteers.


They were committing an abomination, as well as adultery. No one would serve at my church living that way, volunteer or otherwise. They'd be greeted with welcoming arms as visitors, allowed to stay and eat after services, but better be ready to hear it preached to them with both barrells...

 

We are breaking BB rules now aren't we? Homosexuality discussion???? I'm sorry......my fault. I didn't even realize it until now.

Pretty sure I read somewhere it was off limits on the public threads.

 

Occasionally, I still get confused by the English language. This is one of those times. I cannot figure this one. Thankfully, as the years pass, this happens less often.

Essential ignore hack: Is this referring to an action, or am I being called a 'hack'? (Been called much worse.:smilewinkgrin

 

Essential: important because of what follows.
Ignore: You have more rabbits than anyone else on BB. You also have the distinction of being on IGNORE by a certain rabbit producer.
Hack: The latest use of the word comes from the WWW where it is used to describe a tool or technique that makes something easier. e.g. putting cherry tomatoes between two plates making them easier to cut in half.

I chose those three words in an attempt to be succinct. It was shorter than writing out, "Hey, Rolf. I know you're on ignore and it seemed a shame that you would have something of interest to say and the OP can't read what you wrote because he is ignoring you. If I quote you then he can read what you said because I quoted your comments in mine and now he can see what you said."

That ought to clear things up for you.

 

Thanks Padre. I am almost embarrassed to have to ask for clarification.

 

I too was (and still am) a little troubled by that statement. I do know something though. I have only met Andy on one occasion with no real face to face time. But I do know some very well who have often had face to face time with Andy, and I implicitly trust their testimomy....and that is yes Andy completely understands the gravity of this sin....he does not condone or wink at it.....but he does major on grace... which was the theme of the message series. Showing and practicing grace can be "messy". I agree with him there. (Although I am sure to get a great deal of "blowback" on that)

 

Want another rabbit? I've only got one so far and that ain't enough for stew.

 

To be fair, we weren't there and only read one guy's take of the sermon. People can twist anything. They twisted Christ's words many times in the four gospels...

So I take anything I read on the internet with a 'shaker of salt', forget a grain....the WHOLE shaker...

 

You apparently did not get the post that you quoted. He was making sure you saw the post despite having him on ignore for no reason. Although I could use that hack as well as I seemed to have jumped straight to ignore in your book with no rabbits from you.

 

You are on ignore? Perish the thought!

Back to the OP. I am most familiar with the Untied Methodist. Their roots lie in the Church of England. Wesley, by the way, was never a Methodist in the respect that he died an Anglican priest. The movement was started as a reformation within the CoE. Decidedly Arminian in theology there were still many who held to Calvinism. I pastored a UMC that had roots in the Calvinistic- Wesley Society. Apart from those two there was a growing number within the pastorate that were caught up in any number of social issues depending on the time period you chose to study.

The denomination throughout its history became a vehicle for folks seeking to be a part of social change in the US and around the world. The sacred desk became a bully pulpit abandoning sound Bible teaching and replacing it with the hot button issue of the day.

madre has an interesting theory about the current state of the UMC. She is a 5th generation preacher's kid and has some credible insight to the Wesleyan family of denominations. The 1960s were strife with anti-war, peace, love, dope and a precipitous rise of secular humanism. The draft came and many sought refuge away from the horrors of Vietnam. Some went to 'Nam for their senior trip. Some went to Canada, some to medical school and others sought deferment through college. The war outlasted many undergrad degrees and quite a few knew nobody in Canada and weren't sharp enough to get into medical school went to seminary.

They didn't go out of religious conviction as much as they went to launch their careers as righters-of-wrongs. The UMC and many other mainlines provided job security to men and women who sounded compassionate and would toe the company line. They came and they stayed. They sent folks to foreign lands to provide food, water and medical care but little in conveying the Gospel. They started in small churches and worked their way into larger congregations and into the leadership on the local and national levels. The longer they stayed the further they drew away from the roots of the Methodist church.

The Bible was rejected as the authoritative Word of God and was treated as a nice collection of moral tales. The crucifixion was called heavenly child abuse, the mere mention of sin was avoided so that contributors wouldn't vote their displeasure with their wallets and the historic documents of the church were shelved in favor of the current tickler of ears.

In short, the UMC and other failing mainlines failed to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

 

Here's who we're talking about:

http://www.thearda.com/IG/IG_Reltrad.asp#Mainline