Cecil C. Martin May 15th, 2010

I just listened to your church is too small. I`m puzzled. Aren`t we as christians supposed to break fellowship with those who wander from the faith? Who is a christian? People who say they are or people who believe the bible and with grace live what it say or at least believe that it is the moral reference for life?

Unless John Armstrong is preaching a sermon of salvation in the church which embraces homosexual marriage, I don`t believe he should speak. If he does people might get the idea that the church believes that same sex marriage is acceptable.

Cecil

WestIII May 18th, 2010

I wish Steve and his pastor would address Cecil Martin's question during one of their Friday Q&A sessions because I'd like to know the answer to that myself.

The only people I recall Jesus breaking fellowship with were those who thought following the letter of the law was more important than showing kindness and compassion.

Obed May 18th, 2010

I don't remember if it was Steve who first said it or if it was John, but I was thinking about the concept of heresy being defined by Christological problems. Looking back on my studies of Church history, that seems to fit the pattern.

Schisms, however, are almost always due to conflicts over authority. At the heart of the reformation, it was about the Papal authority over the authority of the Sola Scriptura. At the heart of the East/West Schism in the 11th Century was over the role of one Patriarch versus the others. At the heart of the current schism in American Anglicanism is the issue of how the national church interprets scripture with regard to human sexuality.

I don't like that, even though I'm a Protestant in the Anglican Church of North America (i.e. the folks who've left the Episcopal Church). But I don't see how there was any other ultimate option in both cases. Sometimes schism seems to be tragic necessity. VERY tragic necessity.

JOHN STONE May 21st, 2010

I am so tired of this "unity" junk. What do you tell a pastor whose two churches left an apostate denomination, the PCUSA, of course there are real Christians in the PCUSA, but the real Christians have been headed off at the pass and no longer have a real voice for anything that matters; to stay in the PCUSA amounts to tacit agreement with Post Modern Relativism. Of course you can be a believer, we just believe differently. I am so sick of this I think I will go an read JUDE the Epistle.

"Why am I the only Christian who gets this?" he grumbled as he sought out his second cup of morning java.

Obed May 26th, 2010

NT Wright gave a speech to his Diocese last week that discussed the concept of "aidaphoro," disputable matters, that really touches on some of this.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Diocesan_Address_May_2010.htm

Here are two quotes that I think are really germane to the discussion at hand:

"And I wish I thought that arguing cases on their merits was our strong suit just now. In fact, as the debates of the last decade have shown with worrying clarity, we are not very good at it at all. The postmodern malaise has eaten into us deeply, so that instead of real debate we have the exchange of prejudice, and instead of speaking of evidence, arguments and conclusions we speak of attitudes, feelings and aspirations. This generates a culture of victimhood where squeals of pain do duty for patient and reasoned discourse, and the creation of safe enclaves takes precedence over the hard and demanding disciplines of sustaining the whole Body of Christ. We are then at the mercy of those who say we must go with the spirit of the age and those who instinctively resist such a move, neither of which constitutes a good theological argument. We are, in short, not in a good place."

"By all means let us have the debate. But, as before, it must be a proper theological debate, not a postmodern exchange of prejudices."