Controversial Topics
I'd like to discuss the issue of "Gay Christians" a little more so I'm going to put a topic in the Misc. Theological Topics.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"How is it that Christians today will pay $20 to hear the latest Christian concert, but Jesus can't draw a crowd?"
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
christopher wrote:
And, for me at least, I realize that I am much better off learning different POV's (particulary at this forum) than when I was ignorant that there even WERE differing, legitimate, POVs.
TK
This, in fact is WHY i would like to teach this class!I would like to echo this sentiment. I don't know what TK would answer about his reasons, but I have come to believe that understanding the viewpoints of other Christians (agree or disagree) is an essential element of unity in the body of Christ.
And, for me at least, I realize that I am much better off learning different POV's (particulary at this forum) than when I was ignorant that there even WERE differing, legitimate, POVs.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
- _SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
I agree TK. Though I feel I have spent too much time online here, I still say that there is a grace that has been formed in me to be open-minded to other views. This is desire of Steve's too, to get people to be open-minded to other Christian's views and still love and accept them as a Christian. I think it has rubbed off on me during my time hanging around fellowshiping here. If only all off the body was like that.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
- _Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
It's getting there. 

Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
Hi TK and gang,
I’ve been sitting around thinking about this thread for a bit, trying to figure out what’s poking at me. Haven’t figured it out yet … but am at least getting in the ballpark. Maybe you guys can help me clarify some of my thoughts and feelings here. (So please understand – I’m kinda thinking out loud here. Certainly don’t want you to feel I’m completely sold on the few thoughts I do have.)
You mentioned that the goal of your instruction, TK, is much in line with what Rae said, that “it could help Christians to be more accepting of other Christians who hold different viewpoints than their own on some non-essential issues.” Or as Christopher added, “that understanding the viewpoints of other Christians (agree or disagree) is an essential element of unity in the body of Christ.” Fantastic goal. Unity among the saints.
But I got a bit baffled when the various responses to your original query started to come in. Even though unity is the goal, many of those answering seem to think – even expect – that dealing with these issues in that setting might well cause a riot. Here are some of the results (as stated throughout the thread) that discussing these issues might bring about.
“… really get things going …” “… wear a riot uniform.” “… get clean kicked out of your church …” “… cause a riot among the Brethren.” “… they’ll burn ya.” “… cause panic attacks among some of the staff …”
Even though these might be a little overstated, I pretty much agree with the sentiments. My nagging question, then, is “Will doing something that you expect will result in these kinds of responses really lead to unity in the body?”
Here are some more questions that are floating around my brain:
What are the roots of true unity in the body? How does it get established in our lives? Will pushing hot issue buttons (in the wrong setting among the wrong audience) result in unity or division? Is respect for all “legitimate” views a fruit or a root of true unity? And is it the respect for these views that defines true unity, or is it respect for the people who hold these views?
Something that Christopher wrote resonated in my heart. It’s true that churches found in third world countries or among unreached peoples seldom have huge unity problems. I’m amazed by that. I’ve seen churches of all stripes come together in one mind and heart … their common purpose so strong that they don’t give such theological issues a second thought. (I’m the one – not them – who struggles with standing shoulder-to-shoulder with WOF teachers.
)
Well, enough prattling on. Just wanted to throw out some of my thoughts on this approach to fostering unity in the body. And I realize that I may well be headed wrong in my ponderings. I’ve been bound up in another culture for a long time now, and am not so familiar (or comfortable) with all the American “ways” of approaching stuff like this. I’d sure appreciate your help in understanding.
By His Grace,
Gregg
I’ve been sitting around thinking about this thread for a bit, trying to figure out what’s poking at me. Haven’t figured it out yet … but am at least getting in the ballpark. Maybe you guys can help me clarify some of my thoughts and feelings here. (So please understand – I’m kinda thinking out loud here. Certainly don’t want you to feel I’m completely sold on the few thoughts I do have.)
You mentioned that the goal of your instruction, TK, is much in line with what Rae said, that “it could help Christians to be more accepting of other Christians who hold different viewpoints than their own on some non-essential issues.” Or as Christopher added, “that understanding the viewpoints of other Christians (agree or disagree) is an essential element of unity in the body of Christ.” Fantastic goal. Unity among the saints.
But I got a bit baffled when the various responses to your original query started to come in. Even though unity is the goal, many of those answering seem to think – even expect – that dealing with these issues in that setting might well cause a riot. Here are some of the results (as stated throughout the thread) that discussing these issues might bring about.
“… really get things going …” “… wear a riot uniform.” “… get clean kicked out of your church …” “… cause a riot among the Brethren.” “… they’ll burn ya.” “… cause panic attacks among some of the staff …”
Even though these might be a little overstated, I pretty much agree with the sentiments. My nagging question, then, is “Will doing something that you expect will result in these kinds of responses really lead to unity in the body?”
Here are some more questions that are floating around my brain:
What are the roots of true unity in the body? How does it get established in our lives? Will pushing hot issue buttons (in the wrong setting among the wrong audience) result in unity or division? Is respect for all “legitimate” views a fruit or a root of true unity? And is it the respect for these views that defines true unity, or is it respect for the people who hold these views?
Something that Christopher wrote resonated in my heart. It’s true that churches found in third world countries or among unreached peoples seldom have huge unity problems. I’m amazed by that. I’ve seen churches of all stripes come together in one mind and heart … their common purpose so strong that they don’t give such theological issues a second thought. (I’m the one – not them – who struggles with standing shoulder-to-shoulder with WOF teachers.

Well, enough prattling on. Just wanted to throw out some of my thoughts on this approach to fostering unity in the body. And I realize that I may well be headed wrong in my ponderings. I’ve been bound up in another culture for a long time now, and am not so familiar (or comfortable) with all the American “ways” of approaching stuff like this. I’d sure appreciate your help in understanding.
By His Grace,
Gregg
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
- _Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Hi Gregg,
I appreciate what you have said. I think, however, that an error that we tend to make is in seeking unity through uniformity. Oftentimes, our "unity" or "community" only exists as long people hide opinions that run contrary to the status quo. M. Scott Peck, in his excellent book The Different Drum, refers to this as "Pseudo-Community".
In order to have true community and true unity, people must be able to be honest and open about their viewpoints (without being strident). If people are willing to love each other and commit to each other despite differences in opinion and are willing to hear and consider one another's viewpoints, then you have the basis for real community.
True unity of this sort requires a fairly high level of maturity and grace; both of which, IMHO, are often lacking in church settings. I would venture that remarks such as “… really get things going …” “… wear a riot uniform.” “… get clean kicked out of your church …” “… cause a riot among the Brethren.” “… they’ll burn ya.” “… cause panic attacks among some of the staff …” etc., are born out of personal experiences of what happens when one voices a dissenting opinion or openly questions an established tenet, even when done in humility.
I appreciate what you have said. I think, however, that an error that we tend to make is in seeking unity through uniformity. Oftentimes, our "unity" or "community" only exists as long people hide opinions that run contrary to the status quo. M. Scott Peck, in his excellent book The Different Drum, refers to this as "Pseudo-Community".
In order to have true community and true unity, people must be able to be honest and open about their viewpoints (without being strident). If people are willing to love each other and commit to each other despite differences in opinion and are willing to hear and consider one another's viewpoints, then you have the basis for real community.
True unity of this sort requires a fairly high level of maturity and grace; both of which, IMHO, are often lacking in church settings. I would venture that remarks such as “… really get things going …” “… wear a riot uniform.” “… get clean kicked out of your church …” “… cause a riot among the Brethren.” “… they’ll burn ya.” “… cause panic attacks among some of the staff …” etc., are born out of personal experiences of what happens when one voices a dissenting opinion or openly questions an established tenet, even when done in humility.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
danny wrote:
But Gregg, I hear what you are saying 100%. In fact, last night I was discussing my proposal to teach a class like this with my wife and mom, and they really poo-pooed my idea for the exact reason you express. Essentially, they don't believe that even Christians can discuss controversial ideas without getting all riled up. They might be right. I suppose the bigger question is whether my pastor would even allow me to teach such a class. I suspect not, although I think his reasons would be good. His concern would be that newer believers, if they attended such a class, might have their faith shipwrecked. This is a possibility, so it would seem to be a wise idea to offer it to more mature Christians, but how in the world can I judge that (without really offending people?)
I think such a class would be very stimulating if the right people were in the class. I guess the main "qualification" would be the ability to refrain from pounding the table defending their particular dogma.
TK
This is certainly true, although unfortunately I have never been in a "non-pseudo" community. Non-pseudo community is difficult. Art Katz discussed this in a smallish book called "True Fellowship" which addresses his community (Ben Israel) and the problems, and blessings, of living in such a way. This is available free online.In order to have true community and true unity, people must be able to be honest and open about their viewpoints (without being strident). If people are willing to love each other and commit to each other despite differences in opinion and are willing to hear and consider one another's viewpoints, then you have the basis for real community.
But Gregg, I hear what you are saying 100%. In fact, last night I was discussing my proposal to teach a class like this with my wife and mom, and they really poo-pooed my idea for the exact reason you express. Essentially, they don't believe that even Christians can discuss controversial ideas without getting all riled up. They might be right. I suppose the bigger question is whether my pastor would even allow me to teach such a class. I suspect not, although I think his reasons would be good. His concern would be that newer believers, if they attended such a class, might have their faith shipwrecked. This is a possibility, so it would seem to be a wise idea to offer it to more mature Christians, but how in the world can I judge that (without really offending people?)
I think such a class would be very stimulating if the right people were in the class. I guess the main "qualification" would be the ability to refrain from pounding the table defending their particular dogma.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
- _Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Hey TK, maybe you should just slip them a note with the URL of this forum written on it!This is a possibility, so it would seem to be a wise idea to offer it to more mature Christians, but how in the world can I judge that (without really offending people?)

I think your wife, mom and Gregg are probably right. In an ideal situation such controversial subjects could be discussed without rancor, but in most church scenarios it is playing with fire.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
- _Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
I just want to say that it is my belief (and my experience) that it's a healthy thing for the body for feathers to get ruffled a little bit. I believe that is merely growing pains toward maturity.
When I was a young Christian, I myself got my feathers ruffled when I heard of doctrines other than what my church taught, but it never shipwrecked my faith. It only drove me to dig deeper into the issue to discover the truth for myself and learn discernment skills.
I teach in the prison, and I often encounter people who get upset at things I suggest. Some even storm out of the class yelling in protest to make their point. Most of the time, after the blow up has had time to cool down, they come to me and seek to make peace. It's a beautiful thing and they are the more mature in their faith because of it.
I think avoiding debate and open discussion and trying to shelter people from such is not only condescending, but a hindrance to Christian growth.
Think about it...how many of us would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant and have people seek to hide something from us. Wouldn't you feel like you're being treated like a child?
I believe some of the most heated debates on this forum and elsewhere have produced fruit of maturity and unity that we may not even notice on the surface. It takes time.
But again, I think it's getting there.
When I was a young Christian, I myself got my feathers ruffled when I heard of doctrines other than what my church taught, but it never shipwrecked my faith. It only drove me to dig deeper into the issue to discover the truth for myself and learn discernment skills.
I teach in the prison, and I often encounter people who get upset at things I suggest. Some even storm out of the class yelling in protest to make their point. Most of the time, after the blow up has had time to cool down, they come to me and seek to make peace. It's a beautiful thing and they are the more mature in their faith because of it.
I think avoiding debate and open discussion and trying to shelter people from such is not only condescending, but a hindrance to Christian growth.
Think about it...how many of us would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant and have people seek to hide something from us. Wouldn't you feel like you're being treated like a child?
I believe some of the most heated debates on this forum and elsewhere have produced fruit of maturity and unity that we may not even notice on the surface. It takes time.
But again, I think it's getting there.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
Greetings
TK, I have some ideas....
If I were a SS teacher and was considering what you are, I'd probably begin on an introductory-level with something like: "Controversial Issues: How do we deal with them?" Then I'd ask the class what they felt the issues were and discuss how these issues affect the Body of Christ at large and locally. (There may be local issues that are causing certain problems...discuss).
After this I'd do an overview on basic interpretation ("hermeneutics" and tell them what that is if they don't know). I'd take as long as needed till I felt the class understood. In all of this I'd focus on "being a part of the solution" -- on what part each of us can play as individuals and corporately in our daily lives and in church.
I'd do everything in conjunction with your church's "statement of faith" (assuming y'all have one). As the class went along I'd refer back to it to keep things in context and to serve the purpose of teaching your church's doctrines: What and Why We Believe.
I wouldn't teach anything that goes outside of your church's "range" of acceptable doctrines. For example, if universalism (three views of hell) is an acceptible option in your church, then you would be free to teach and/or examine it as such. If it isn't, then you would be obligated to say why...that is, if this particular doctrine were to come up in the class discussion (there may be other issues locally or otherwise the class would like to target, it could be anything).
______________________________
Personal
I attend a local United Methodist church. Not especially regularly. But it's the closest thing I have to a "home church." There are two things that have kept me from seriously considering joining it: (1) it is dispensationalist (and I'm not) and (2) the pastor is into the WOF ("word of faith") teaching; not nearly as "bad" as some but to a level I find disagreeable...and I can see "confusion" on the faces of people in the congregation when he refers to it....
My neighbor goes to this church and is an active member, filling in for the pastor when he gets sick, etc. I've discussed the WOF issue with him, telling him how I disagree. He sort of "downplays" it, saying that the pastor "wants people to live victorious Christian lives." At this point, I say nothing other than, "Oh, I see."
So...at least I have the internet to discuss this (Hello, FBFF posters).
But it would be great to go to a church that had a SS class on:
"Controversial Issues: What is our approach?" (or something like that) which would give me the chance to talk about this stuff "in person".....
Thanks for reading,
Rick
TK, I have some ideas....
If I were a SS teacher and was considering what you are, I'd probably begin on an introductory-level with something like: "Controversial Issues: How do we deal with them?" Then I'd ask the class what they felt the issues were and discuss how these issues affect the Body of Christ at large and locally. (There may be local issues that are causing certain problems...discuss).
After this I'd do an overview on basic interpretation ("hermeneutics" and tell them what that is if they don't know). I'd take as long as needed till I felt the class understood. In all of this I'd focus on "being a part of the solution" -- on what part each of us can play as individuals and corporately in our daily lives and in church.
I'd do everything in conjunction with your church's "statement of faith" (assuming y'all have one). As the class went along I'd refer back to it to keep things in context and to serve the purpose of teaching your church's doctrines: What and Why We Believe.
I wouldn't teach anything that goes outside of your church's "range" of acceptable doctrines. For example, if universalism (three views of hell) is an acceptible option in your church, then you would be free to teach and/or examine it as such. If it isn't, then you would be obligated to say why...that is, if this particular doctrine were to come up in the class discussion (there may be other issues locally or otherwise the class would like to target, it could be anything).
______________________________
Personal
I attend a local United Methodist church. Not especially regularly. But it's the closest thing I have to a "home church." There are two things that have kept me from seriously considering joining it: (1) it is dispensationalist (and I'm not) and (2) the pastor is into the WOF ("word of faith") teaching; not nearly as "bad" as some but to a level I find disagreeable...and I can see "confusion" on the faces of people in the congregation when he refers to it....
My neighbor goes to this church and is an active member, filling in for the pastor when he gets sick, etc. I've discussed the WOF issue with him, telling him how I disagree. He sort of "downplays" it, saying that the pastor "wants people to live victorious Christian lives." At this point, I say nothing other than, "Oh, I see."
So...at least I have the internet to discuss this (Hello, FBFF posters).
But it would be great to go to a church that had a SS class on:
"Controversial Issues: What is our approach?" (or something like that) which would give me the chance to talk about this stuff "in person".....
Thanks for reading,
Rick
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth