Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS][RELIGION] Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock

[Rick <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Christian M. Cepel wrote:
> A great number of Christian's use the bible as their filter for their 
> stances on war, abortion, homosexuality, etc.  The bible is not only 
> clear on these topics, but also on one's responses to these topics.  
> When a pastor begins to espouse views that are in disagreement with such 
> doctrine, it is only natural that a fifth of the congregation would 
> declare the man a false-teacher in their minds and remove themselves 
> from his influence.  I am surprised that only 1/5th left.   The more 
> normal response to this type of thing is for the church board/deacons to 
> replace a pastor such as this.  If a pastor is hired to teach scriptural 
> doctrine and deviates from such, it's tantamount to breach of contract.

But, if the Bible is so clear cut, why would one need the 
pastor/minister/etc at all?

> No where in this article do I see Mr. Boyd as being quoted that he 
> thinks his stances on abortion and homosexuality are scripturally 
> supported, but rather that he simply says that the church should stop 
> moralizing sexual issues.  I fail to see how scripture and his beliefs 
> may be reconciled.

I didn't see him stating so much that the church should stop moralizing 
these issues as much as him saying that they should stop politicizing them.

> The article stated that the remaining 4/5ths of his congregation are 
> still mulling over the directions he's taken with his sermons.    I have 
> to say that personally I'm thinking, "What a weak directionless 
> congregation."  Every member of a church has an 'ownership stake' in the 
> church, and has every right to be indignant and stand up and decry 
> non-doctrinal behaviors.  I'm a little disgusted if there are people who 
> are really uncomfortable with what Mr. Boyd has been preaching, and they 
> do nothing to declare, "Get behind me Satan!"  To not have righteousness 
> outrage and indignation at non-doctrinal teaching seems the very 
> definition of 'lukewarm', or 'asleep'.  I don't know which is worse in 
> my mind...  Staying and not raising objections, or just leaving and 
> relinquishing one's 'ownership' and right to demand that their church 
> adhere to doctrine.
>
> In general Mike, this is no new thing.  His teachings are a vaporous 
> shadow compared to the doctrine being ratified within major church 
> associations such as the Methodists and Episcopalian Churches.

But, hasn't that very "God by committee" issue caused issues as well? 
What if the Methodists and the Episcopalians disagree with the Catholics 
or the Protestants? At that point, all that's been accomplished is to 
further polarize people based on their differences, rather than bringing 
them together to share their similarities. How is that a Christian 
(religion, not the person =), regardless of the denomination, stance to 
take?

> I guess the real reason for the excitement here is solely based on one 
> man making a sudden U-turn with no concern for whether the folks he's 
> pulling behind can make the corner or not.  In the case of the other two 
> situations I mentioned, a majority of the congregations in these 
> churches (or perhaps a very vocal minority approaching majority) are 
> already on board, or at least heading in the same general direction 
> doctrinally that their association of churches are heading.

However, isn't that man's job to add clarity to his congregation's 
world? If this the direction he feels his God is pointing him in, who's 
to say his feeling is wrong and someone else's is right?

This is one of those paradoxes that just turns me completely off of all 
organized religion.

Rick

--
Millions of dollars from various governments, business and NGOs spent on 
developing hardware, protocols, software and you people use it to 
pretend to fart at each other...
----

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion