problems from my church

[jameshjr]

Yes, we are all sinners who fall short of the glory of GOD.

I would have to say there is a difference I think, between falling into sin, a moment of madness if you like and wilfully sinning and having the intention to do so whenever you like. Leaders should speak up if followers are wilfully sinning as this may lead others into sin if it becomes an accepted behaviour.

Hebrews 10:26 - For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins

An interesting passage above. Another passage below.

1 Corinthians 1-15
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord

What are your thoughts on these passages, as Christians we are to not tolerate wilful sin in the congregation as it may corrupt it.

Peace be to all those in the Body of Christ.

Thank you for the message. i appreciated it a great deal as i think we are closely aligned in our thinking on this issue.

I think there is a difference between a moment of madness sin (which can be repented of straight after, and asked for help over) and wilfully sinning which is in nature unrepenting and this is of course not good.

on the issue of homosexuality, either they know it is a sin and continue to do it anyway, which your Hebrews passage addresses and is not good; or they do not know that it is a sin in which case it is not only their sin but to some degree mine, my congregations and more so my vicar and churches for allowing someone to semi-blindly stroll into hell for fear of offending them.

and the corinthians passage is terrifying!

 

[ChristServant]

Thank you for the message. i appreciated it a great deal as i think we are closely aligned in our thinking on this issue.

I think there is a difference between a moment of madness sin (which can be repented of straight after, and asked for help over) and wilfully sinning which is in nature unrepenting and this is of course not good.

on the issue of homosexuality, either they know it is a sin and continue to do it anyway, which your Hebrews passage addresses and is not good; or they do not know that it is a sin in which case it is not only their sin but to some degree mine, my congregations and more so my vicar and churches for allowing someone to semi-blindly stroll into hell for fear of offending them.

and the corinthians passage is terrifying!

I find it quite strange for a Christian to not know that homosexual practice is a sin and classed as an abomination in the eyes of GOD. The pastor should make anyone in his congregation be aware of this if he cares about their salvation and any other wilful sins commited.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Peace be to all those in the Body of Christ.

 

[Paidiske]

Admittedly, i have never looked up the anglican marks of mission. i would argue that they are listed in order of importance (one being highest) and unfortunatly from what i see from the C of E is that it focuses on five and four most and one the least.

on point four it sounds exceptionally post modern and i wonder when it, and point five were added to the mission.

For what it's worth, they're not meant to be a list in order of importance; they're meant to be taken together as a whole. The original four were formulated in 1984, and the fifth was added in 1990. The fourth was reworded slightly in 2012.

i didnt say it was my role to say something, but is it not the vicars responsibility to address it in some way?

Do you know that the vicar has not addressed it? You are not privy to their pastoral conversations. It would be exceptionally rare, in our church, for any matter of discipline to be made public.

I understand your discomfort on this point. But I would, in general, encourage you to focus on your walk with God, your use of your gifts, and your contribution to the life and mission of the Church, rather than trying to second guess or control what's going on with others.

 

[jameshjr]

Yes, it is. And, once the Vicar gets rid of all of those sinners there will be plenty of good pews among which to choose. I'm betting your Vicar has a lot about the Gospel every Sunday, but maybe emphasizes a different part than you prefer?



I confess there are some things that offend me more than others, but I suspect sin is pretty much all the same to God. There are those who would disagree with me.



That is a far cry from what I think of as worshipping.

At any rate, I think you are pretty well set in how you see things and what you want, so I'm unsure you really need anything from an advice forum. Your convictions are so strong, I think you are unlikely to be content until you follow them. Maybe that church isn't for you, but why don't you have a chat with your Vicar before leaving?

You seem to be offended by what i have said.

the post started by my discussing some red flags i have at my church. one of them was the issue of lgbt etc etc.

i dont mind what the vicar talks about, so long as it is grounded in the bible. the problem i have is that a sin, is in the church i am attending being celebrated for a month. do we do the same for gluttony, lust, laziness?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

@seeking.IAM has given you good answers.

The only thing I would add is that the C of E, like all members of the global Anglican communion, would recognise five "marks of mission," which are a statement of what our purpose should be as a church. They are:

"The mission of the Church is the mission of Christ

1. To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
2. To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
3. To respond to human need by loving service
4. To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation
5. To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth."

You will note that point five sets out the safeguarding and sustaining of the environment, not as an optional extra, but as an integral aspect of the mission of the Church, and for that reason, Anglican churches do (or should) take environmental matters very seriously. It's not an externally dictated cultural matter, but a part of what we see as required from us in Scripture.

After leaving my previous Charismatic church in 1979, I fellowshiped at All Saints Anglican church for a couple of years before I was transferred in my job to another city. Then I fellowshiped at another Anglican church until I started my university degree in still another city, where I joined a Baptist church.

What I discovered about the Anglican church, in New Zealand at least, is that there is a strong evangelical core in its articles of Faith. Also, there are several levels of Anglican churches, from the low church, not far different from a Presbyterian church, to the high church which is more Anglo-Catholic. All Saints was somewhere in the middle with an Archdeacon as its Vicar. It was evangelical, with a strong Charismatic young people's group.

I found that it did not restrict who attended the church. There were Charismatics, ultra liberal (Bishop Spong followers), very traditional Anglicans, and middle of the road evangelicals. In Auckland, one church had a gay minister, with many gay members. I did five papers toward a Licentiate of Theology with the intention of training as an Anglican Priest, but events decided on me becoming a university graduate and a trained school teacher instead.

The positive aspect of the Anglican church is that anyone can fellowship there. Unlike the Charismatic church that I left, nobody gave me the third-degree about what I believed or how I lived my life. The Curate came and visited us and told me that after three weeks in the church I would become as mad as the rest of them, and I did! I found that they were a very accepting, hospitable group of people who accepted me as I was. If the Union church I am currently with folded, I could quite happily go and join up with the group at St Faith's Anglican church in New Brighton where I am currently living. I can worship God through the liturgy, because I worship from the heart, and that is all that is needed.

I think some have problems with the Anglican church because of its total tolerance of all types of people who attend. This means that a gay person would not be challenged. No one would hold that again him or her. It is because of the church's very strong non-discrimination attitude. It would be the same with someone dedicated to the environment and "saving the whales". But I think that there are some restrictions concerning people in leadership positions, because the Sunday School superintendent who was a widower, moved into a defacto relationship with a widow with six children and he was asked to stand down from his position until he got his domestic situation sorted out. So I guess the same would happen to a gay church leader caught propositioning males in the city's public toilets.

So, I think it all comes down to how we want to worship God in our hearts, and for that reason it really doesn't matter what church denomination we choose to join. But there are some churches with off-beam doctrines which require members to comply with those doctrines as a condition for membership, such as SDA, JW, and Mormon churches. I think that would be a problem for many mainstream Christian believers.

 

[jameshjr]

For what it's worth, they're not meant to be a list in order of importance; they're meant to be taken together as a whole. The original four were formulated in 1984, and the fifth was added in 1990. The fourth was reworded slightly in 2012.



Do you know that the vicar has not addressed it? You are not privy to their pastoral conversations. It would be exceptionally rare, in our church, for any matter of discipline to be made public.

I understand your discomfort on this point. But I would, in general, encourage you to focus on your walk with God, your use of your gifts, and your contribution to the life and mission of the Church, rather than trying to second guess or control what's going on with others.

thanks for the reply. To me, i think that they are in order of importance, even if by accident as the others all begin with it.

You can tell that the fourth was reworded. whenever i hear the word 'structure' or 'structural' alarm bells go off. Interesting also that the one about the environment was added later too.

I agree, i do not know what the vicar has said to them and i am not overly worried, but i do note that they have been there for two years and there is 1 timothy 5:20 that i quoted earlier and 1 corinthians 5:1-2 that suggest something needs to be done.


and i havenot bothered too much about it until it was announced that we are CELEBRATING LGBT etc etc etc for a month. this has forced me to question these things.

Not addressing it is one thing, tolerating it is another, but celebrating may be one step too far.

This is what i am wondering: are things such as this evidence that i need to look for another church.

interestingly, though, for you to answer for yourselves, unless you will online, if someone was stealing from church would you be more or less inclined to rebuke them, or ask them to stop coming to your church?

 

[Paidiske]

Not addressing it is one thing, tolerating it is another, but celebrating may be one step too far.

This is what i am wondering: are things such as this evidence that i need to look for another church.

Well, I don't know exactly what your parish is planning.

I will say that my experience in Australia over the last little while has made me rethink some things, though. As we went through a massive debate here over same-sex marriage (which has been recently made legal), I realised that if churches don't go out of our way to let people know that LGBTQA+ folks are welcome to explore questions of faith and belonging with us, the overwhelming message they will receive from "Christian" sources is that they are not welcome.

As I said to my congregation after the same-sex marriage debate here, too many people have only heard from the Church that God doesn't love them, and the Church doesn't want them. It's our job now to get a different message out there. But how we do that - get that different message out there - proclaim that the good news is for LGBTQA+ folks as well as everyone else; well... that's the difficult part. It's hard to do without making any sort of visible statement at all.

 

[jameshjr]

After leaving my previous Charismatic church in 1979, I fellowshiped at All Saints Anglican church for a couple of years before I was transferred in my job to another city. Then I fellowshiped at another Anglican church until I started my university degree in still another city, where I joined a Baptist church.

What I discovered about the Anglican church, in New Zealand at least, is that there is a strong evangelical core in its articles of Faith. Also, there are several levels of Anglican churches, from the low church, not far different from a Presbyterian church, to the high church which is more Anglo-Catholic. All Saints was somewhere in the middle with an Archdeacon as its Vicar. It was evangelical, with a strong Charismatic young people's group.

I found that it did not restrict who attended the church. There were Charismatics, ultra liberal (Bishop Spong followers), very traditional Anglicans, and middle of the road evangelicals. In Auckland, one church had a gay minister, with many gay members. I did five papers toward a Licentiate of Theology with the intention of training as an Anglican Priest, but events decided on me becoming a university graduate and a trained school teacher instead.

The positive aspect of the Anglican church is that anyone can fellowship there. Unlike the Charismatic church that I left, nobody gave me the third-degree about what I believed or how I lived my life. The Curate came and visited us and told me that after three weeks in the church I would become as mad as the rest of them, and I did! I found that they were a very accepting, hospitable group of people who accepted me as I was. If the Union church I am currently with folded, I could quite happily go and join up with the group at St Faith's Anglican church in New Brighton where I am currently living. I can worship God through the liturgy, because I worship from the heart, and that is all that is needed.

I think some have problems with the Anglican church because of its total tolerance of all types of people who attend. This means that a gay person would not be challenged. No one would hold that again him or her. It is because of the church's very strong non-discrimination attitude. It would be the same with someone dedicated to the environment and "saving the whales". But I think that there are some restrictions concerning people in leadership positions, because the Sunday School superintendent who was a widower, moved into a defacto relationship with a widow with six children and he was asked to stand down from his position until he got his domestic situation sorted out. So I guess the same would happen to a gay church leader caught propositioning males in the city's public toilets.

So, I think it all comes down to how we want to worship God in our hearts, and for that reason it really doesn't matter what church denomination we choose to join. But there are some churches with off-beam doctrines which require members to comply with those doctrines as a condition for membership, such as SDA, JW, and Mormon churches. I think that would be a problem for many mainstream Christian believers.

Hey there oscarr (and this will probably be my last post until after i wake up) thanks for the message.

You clearly have a lot of experience with different churches and i appreciate it (though i did not follow a lot of it, down to my ignorance).

I think that i will begin to learn more about different churches and see which line up more closesly with my own.

I appreciate that being liberal is a good thing, but it has limits. God himself said that He would seperate the dross from the silver. therefore i do not think He wants anyone in the church regardless of what they do. I do not see how they can draw this conclusion based upon scriipture. true we have to always remeber that we have a plank in our own eye, but from Pauls writings it is impossible to deny that we should be holding each other accountable.

from what i see the church of england has no spine and is willing to twist into any shape in order to avoid criticism in the press, i think as a result the strength of the gospel message to outsiders is also spineless and therefore it is easy for people to push it over and ignore it.

 

[jameshjr]

Well, I don't know exactly what your parish is planning.

I will say that my experience in Australia over the last little while has made me rethink some things, though. As we went through a massive debate here over same-sex marriage (which has been recently made legal), I realised that if churches don't go out of our way to let people know that LGBTQA+ folks are welcome to explore questions of faith and belonging with us, the overwhelming message they will receive from "Christian" sources is that they are not welcome.

As I said to my congregation after the same-sex marriage debate here, too many people have only heard from the Church that God doesn't love them, and the Church doesn't want them. It's our job now to get a different message out there. But how we do that - get that different message out there - proclaim that the good news is for LGBTQA+ folks as well as everyone else; well... that's the difficult part. It's hard to do without making any sort of visible statement at all.

Hey there, i appreciate your honesty over the doubts you have had.

Firstly, i think by allowing same-sex marriage 'you' have already shot yourself in the foot and to state that it is a sin after that is ludicrous i.e. "why then would you allow it and encourage others into it. i thought thast you were the church and were meant to help people stop sinning."

I think one statement saying:

"LGBTQA+ people are welcome at church. The bible is clear: homosexuality is a sin. however, God is rich in mercy and forgives all those whom repent."

 

[Paidiske]

Hey there, i appreciate your honesty over the doubts you have had.

Firstly, i think by allowing same-sex marriage 'you' have already shot yourself in the foot and to state that it is a sin after that is ludicrous i.e. "why then would you allow it and encourage others into it. i thought thast you were the church and were meant to help people stop sinning."

I think one statement saying:

"LGBTQA+ people are welcome at church. The bible is clear: homosexuality is a sin. however, God is rich in mercy and forgives all those whom repent."

I think you have misunderstood me. Same-sex marriage is now legally allowed in Australia, but we do not solemnise same-sex marriages in our church.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

from what i see the church of england has no spine and is willing to twist into any shape in order to avoid criticism in the press, i think as a result the strength of the gospel message to outsiders is also spineless and therefore it is easy for people to push it over and ignore it.

I know that many see the Church of England that way, and they would rather be associated with a church that would give them a more defined doctrinal leadership. I think it is more like the difference between high school and university. At high school we were guided by our teachers concerning what we had to learn in the subjects we covered. We were dependent on our teachers to give us a structure for our learning. At university, that structure no longer existed. All we had were lectures and tutorials, and the bulk of our study had to be self-directed. This is the reason why many who excel at high school under its structural learning, bomb out at university when they are left to their own devices without the structure. My brother was like that. He achieved A+ in his high school subjects, but didn't last the first six months at university.

The Scripture says for us not to be led like a horse or a mule with a bit and bridle. Many in our churches are like that. They want to be spoon-fed, and are always on their pastor's doorstep seeking personal guidance about things they should be using their own brains to work out for themselves. This is why many join cults like the SDAs, JWs, Mormons, and strict Pentecostal churches where they are told what to believe and how they should behave. If those people went and joined a RCC or Anglican church they would be all at sea without the strict structure.

But there are many believers who have a personal relationship with Christ and who know how to be led by the Holy Spirit without any other person giving them a set of rules and structural principles on which to build their faith. They have learned to know the voice of the Spirit and so it doesn't matter to them what church they belong to, because they know they are having fellowship with the Father and Jesus Christ whom the Father has sent. If they are part of an Anglican church, they are still able to worship God in spirit and in truth because they are not dependent on the church but on the Holy Spirit within them. Even if their church had a gay minister, they wouldn't see him as a threat to their walk with Christ because they are not dependent on the minister or what he teaches. They evaluate the minister's teaching by the Word of God and not the character of the minister. If what the minister preaches is consistent with God's Word, they can do what his teaching says, but they don't have to do what he does.

So just because the Church of England is tolerant of all types, it doesn't mean, if I am part of that church, that I have to do what everyone else does if what they do is not consistent with God's Word. I trust that I am the one who is accountable at the Day of Judgment, and so I have to monitor my own conduct and doctrine, and leave it to the Lord to exercise His judgment on the others. I don't have to be the doctrinal or behavoural "police" for everyone else in the church. All I have to do is to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit and to inspire others to have stronger faith in Christ when they are around me.

 

[PloverWing]

Hey there plover wing, thank you for the message. i apologise if there is any confusion, but i meant that i am a coward and not the vicar (though he probably is to some degree as we all are).

meeting him is a good idea, but im worried oiver the consequences.

Okay, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the vicar might be afraid to stand up for the gospel out of fear of criticism from mainstream society and out of fear of reduced church attendance.

I still recommend having a conversation with the vicar. The two of you can explain your points of view to each other, and maybe you'll understand each other better afterwards, even if it turns out that you disagree in the end. I don't think there's a need to be afraid of the conversation, as long as you're both polite and respectful towards each other.

 

[seeking.IAM]

You seem to be offended by what i have said.

I am not offended by what you said. As I said early on in this thread, all of us have stoppers or deal breakers when it comes to considering a church. I think this LGBTQ issue is a deal breaker for you, so I think you would be happier in a church more to your liking. I hope you find it, and can find peace and contentment where you worship.

 

[Sketcher]

Im not sure how much i agree with you on the church cha nging encouraging others to change, at least in meaningful, lasting ways and i wonder how much guilt would be the motivater in changing people.

You don't need to lean hard on the guilt, you just need to show them by example of what is being done at church that doing a greener thing here or there is easy and good.

i also think the green issue is more of a political issue than a gospel issue for example: not all scientists agree that the climate emergency is a real thing; even if it were, GB contributes 1% of carbon emmisions in the world; therefore would it not be better to put pressure on countries like China to change.

It would be much better if India and China built green infrastructure to build their economies, yes. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't do what I can in the US, or that people in the UK shouldn't do what they can.

additionally we can insulate the church more (it was made in 1250) but where do you stop?

Wherever it ceases to be practical, and short of ceasing to be Gospel-focused.

The church should focus on the Gospel, but it can and should teach about Christian living as well. Stewardship of the environment that God entrusted us with is part of our responsibility to him, and therefore part of Christian living. How we are to do that will depend on our context. We are discovering more things that we can do in our context than we knew about 100 years ago, so it makes sense to pick up more of it, within the bounds of common sense.

And from an evangelical perspective, I believe it is more necessary now than it was 100 years ago, as well. One of the points of contention that more people today will have than in decades past is how the environment is cared for. If the Christian churches are not caring well for it, that's needlessly giving people an excuse to have a problem with the church today, since more people are environmentally conscious today. I'd much rather have a wicked person reject the church for keeping to Biblical orthodoxy than for failing to do something that is either Biblically permissible or Biblically right. Churches must not adjust away from the teaching that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven. But many have room to adjust on how they care for the Creation. If adjusting in the greener direction removes excuses for people to accept Christ, then that's a good thing to do, and the least we can do is reach for the low-hanging fruit.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I am not offended by what you said. As I said early on in this thread, all of us have stoppers or deal breakers when it comes to considering a church. I think this LGBTQ issue is a deal breaker for you, so I think you would be happier in a church more to your liking. I hope you find it, and can find peace and contentment where you worship.

I think it is better to LGBTQ people in the church fellowship than be shut out of it. Being a part of the church fellowship brings them under the sound of the Gospel. If the Holy Spirit decides to convict them that to carry on with the lifestyle is not appropriate, then He will give them the strength and power to change. Actually LGBTQ folks are no worse than the rest of us. We are all sinners needing redemption through Christ. The problem is that there are too many "holier than thou" folk who have never sinned casting stones at them. It wouldn't worry me if a whole group of LGBTQ folk decided to join my church. I don't have to do what they do, and they wouldn't expect me to. The trouble is that some interpret, "Love one another as I [Jesus] love you" as "Love one another except LGBTQ folk".

 

[seeking.IAM]

I think it is better to LGBTQ people in the church fellowship than be shut out of it...

I also think everyone should be welcome at church; there is no place better to worship and hear the Gospel. But not everyone feels that way. Life is too short and there are too many other churches than to spend your time in a Body that is going to upset you every Sunday you are there. Hence, I think it would be best for this OP to move on. I left a church after being a 20+ year member when I had enough of certain things. My only regret is that it took me so long to do it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I also think everyone should be welcome at church; there is no place better to worship and hear the Gospel. But not everyone feels that way. Life is too short and there are too many other churches than to spend your time in a Body that is going to upset you every Sunday you are there. Hence, I think it would be best for this OP to move on. I left a church after being a 20+ year member when I had enough of certain things. My only regret is that it took me so long to do it.

I had the same experience with a church that I had been part of for 11 years, and things got much better when I stopped taking church seriously and concentrated on having my faith founded on Christ. Then I was able to relax and just enjoy fellowship with others without having to either comply with the power and control folk or try to change the culture of the church.

"You can do what you wanna do, but I just want to praise the Lord!"

 

[jameshjr]

I know that many see the Church of England that way, and they would rather be associated with a church that would give them a more defined doctrinal leadership. I think it is more like the difference between high school and university. At high school we were guided by our teachers concerning what we had to learn in the subjects we covered. We were dependent on our teachers to give us a structure for our learning. At university, that structure no longer existed. All we had were lectures and tutorials, and the bulk of our study had to be self-directed. This is the reason why many who excel at high school under its structural learning, bomb out at university when they are left to their own devices without the structure. My brother was like that. He achieved A+ in his high school subjects, but didn't last the first six months at university.

The Scripture says for us not to be led like a horse or a mule with a bit and bridle. Many in our churches are like that. They want to be spoon-fed, and are always on their pastor's doorstep seeking personal guidance about things they should be using their own brains to work out for themselves. This is why many join cults like the SDAs, JWs, Mormons, and strict Pentecostal churches where they are told what to believe and how they should behave. If those people went and joined a RCC or Anglican church they would be all at sea without the strict structure.

But there are many believers who have a personal relationship with Christ and who know how to be led by the Holy Spirit without any other person giving them a set of rules and structural principles on which to build their faith. They have learned to know the voice of the Spirit and so it doesn't matter to them what church they belong to, because they know they are having fellowship with the Father and Jesus Christ whom the Father has sent. If they are part of an Anglican church, they are still able to worship God in spirit and in truth because they are not dependent on the church but on the Holy Spirit within them. Even if their church had a gay minister, they wouldn't see him as a threat to their walk with Christ because they are not dependent on the minister or what he teaches. They evaluate the minister's teaching by the Word of God and not the character of the minister. If what the minister preaches is consistent with God's Word, they can do what his teaching says, but they don't have to do what he does.

So just because the Church of England is tolerant of all types, it doesn't mean, if I am part of that church, that I have to do what everyone else does if what they do is not consistent with God's Word. I trust that I am the one who is accountable at the Day of Judgment, and so I have to monitor my own conduct and doctrine, and leave it to the Lord to exercise His judgment on the others. I don't have to be the doctrinal or behavoural "police" for everyone else in the church. All I have to do is to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit and to inspire others to have stronger faith in Christ when they are around me.

I hear what you are saying, however, i cannot agree with it entirely.

I do not see how your point of view takes into account Pauls teaching about rebuking people in the church who commit great sins (and even kicking them out and giving them over to satan). i do not see how such a liberal approach to others' sin and pauls teaching about keeping people in line (for their benefit) go together.

i ask you politely because i do not know the answer: are we in no way responsible for saying something to our brothers and sisters whom are committing great sins?

For example, if you saw a brother in church taking a purse out of someones handbag in the chuirch, would you say nothing, knowing that the Lord will exercise his judgement on them?

Additionally are there not gradations of sin? a gay couple attending church is one thing. that couple (or any couple) kissing in church, during a service is another. what if that couple were to go even further? would you still not say that they are misbehaving, allow it to happen, and think that its ok because, God will judge them. Is this what Jesus in revelations told Saint John to write to the churches who were sinning egregiously? Did He say, members of your church are commiting adultery with Jezebel, but dont say anything or do anything about it?

Can you see at all that at some point you have to tow the line with people, otherwise they will step over the line. that is why people need rebuking. do people not do the same with children?

so i think it is one thing to be liberal: they are on their own journey with the spirit, who am i to judge. its nothing to do with me; however, people are sinful by nature and can be blinded to that, and therefore mentioning egregious sin to others may actually be a good thing?

p.s. at what point does not saying anything lapse into fear and cowardice?

 

[jameshjr]

Okay, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the vicar might be afraid to stand up for the gospel out of fear of criticism from mainstream society and out of fear of reduced church attendance.

I still recommend having a conversation with the vicar. The two of you can explain your points of view to each other, and maybe you'll understand each other better afterwards, even if it turns out that you disagree in the end. I don't think there's a need to be afraid of the conversation, as long as you're both polite and respectful towards each other.

I do think that about the C of E and i guess by extension that would include my vicar.

i think i will attend the lgbt service and decide what to do from there. thanks again.

 

[jameshjr]

You don't need to lean hard on the guilt, you just need to show them by example of what is being done at church that doing a greener thing here or there is easy and good.


It would be much better if India and China built green infrastructure to build their economies, yes. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't do what I can in the US, or that people in the UK shouldn't do what they can.


Wherever it ceases to be practical, and short of ceasing to be Gospel-focused.

The church should focus on the Gospel, but it can and should teach about Christian living as well. Stewardship of the environment that God entrusted us with is part of our responsibility to him, and therefore part of Christian living. How we are to do that will depend on our context. We are discovering more things that we can do in our context than we knew about 100 years ago, so it makes sense to pick up more of it, within the bounds of common sense.

And from an evangelical perspective, I believe it is more necessary now than it was 100 years ago, as well. One of the points of contention that more people today will have than in decades past is how the environment is cared for. If the Christian churches are not caring well for it, that's needlessly giving people an excuse to have a problem with the church today, since more people are environmentally conscious today. I'd much rather have a wicked person reject the church for keeping to Biblical orthodoxy than for failing to do something that is either Biblically permissible or Biblically right. Churches must not adjust away from the teaching that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven. But many have room to adjust on how they care for the Creation. If adjusting in the greener direction removes excuses for people to accept Christ, then that's a good thing to do, and the least we can do is reach for the low-hanging fruit.

I was probably being hard-headed over this, and i suppose that making efforts to be greener would not be a bad thing. However, my opinion is that Jesus is what changes people and therefore the world (i.e. as a result of more people coming to Christ, then a result of this would be people doing more about the environment); and it annoys me that the c Of e seem to care more about issues that are culturally relevent than sharing the gospel or placing emphasis or organising events that do this.