News-Record.com

No, it's not fair to them, but it is an effective way to get attention. That's what protests are usually for.

I agree w/ Eric!? However, since the denomination is for Gay marraige, I don't see the point.

The point is he wants to punish his own people in order to put pressure on the State to allow same sex unions. It just shows how muddled and insensitive people become in thier efforts to oppose God and His Word. Who in their right mind would want to be married by him anyway? Confusion reigns outside the Kingdom of God!

As I said on Allen's blog. His message will preach well in certain parts of Asheville but in surrounding Buncombe Co. it won't fly. If he were preaching civil unions and not marriage he might have an audience rather than preaching to the choir.

Rev. Hoffman is a revered person by some of my personal friends. I find his courage to take a stand admirable at the very least! At least he is taking a stand for what he sees as injustice.

And for not Nikos, I do not feel that Rev. Hoffman is saying the Church should reconize the union of same-sex couples. Rather he is ceasing to perform cermonies for opposite-sex couples because STATE law gives them more rights than a properly committed and/or joined same-sex couple.

Is this the best way to protest? Who can say at this point? At least he is willing to take a stand for injustice. Again, it seems to me that he is only wanting the same civil legal rights for same-sex couples as opposite-sex couples. Is that a crime?

First, some are making this a religious issue because a Christian faith pastor refuses to perform weddings. That is wrong. This pastor is taking a stand for GLBT people!

Second, it is NOT a religious issue, it is a CIVIL issue regarding Civil Legal Rights! Anyone that cannot understand that may feel free to contact me directly for hopefully a conversation to gain a better comprehension.

As for protesting, why would this not be an effective way to protest? There is no violence. There are not banner-carrying crowds. It is a peaceful protest of currently one person. One person making a statement.

As for Rev. Hoffman's congregation, I imagine it was difficult for him to come to this conclusion. However, as a Pastor/Reverend, one has to follow one's conscience. Sometimes that following/leading of the Spirit does not set well with all people. I speak from first-hand experience on this.

Do not judge Rev. Hoffman for taking his personal conscientious stand. Rather applaud this one person who chooses to take the road less traveled and stand up for people who have no legal civil rights!

Shalom

"Nikos" wrote:
"Confusion reigns outside the Kingdom of God! "

Pot, meet kettle...kettle, meet pot.

Janet you gave me a good chuckle today. LOL!

The idea that perverse behavior should have “rights” shows just how far we have slid into the pit of depravity, and what a snow job the anti-biblical left has done on so many in our culture, to the point that we idealize someone who tries to advance the cause of corruption. It amazes me that clerics bother to stay within an institution that doesn’t defrock and excommunicate John Spong, that aligns itself with Jesus Christ in some strange way; all the while advocating things that would be ardently opposed and condemned by Him if He were around in the flesh today – since He is the Word of God and upheld its moral and spiritual truth.

If we don’t oppose illicit behavior, God surely will. He always has; either by letting those who practice immorality taste the bitter fruits of their actions, or actively intervening in human affairs to turn a nation or culture back to His ways of life and holiness. We are not called to hate and abuse people, but we are called by God in His Word to oppose evil and to seek to set the captives free by the power of the Gospel. If people want to corrupt themselves in various ways in private, who’s to stop them, but it should never be condoned or legalized in the public arena. This cleric deserves no approbation or encouragement, but rather a stiff rebuke for his godless actions.

Nikos, ever consider that maybe, even remotely that your view could be wrong?

I mean hey, have you not jumped from one demonination to another due not having things just the way you wanted? With that type of scatter theology, I can only wonder what coreness is possessed.

Shalom

"It amazes me that clerics bother to stay within an institution that doesn’t defrock and excommunicate John Spong, that aligns itself with Jesus Christ in some strange way; all the while advocating things that would be ardently opposed and condemned by Him if He were around in the flesh today – since He is the Word of God and upheld its moral and spiritual truth."

Geez, Nikos, perhaps thrashing these issues out within the confines of a faith community could be a good thing. Instead of proclaiming to know the very Mind of God, thus making ourselves inerrant (the first sin, by the way), we could enter into dialogue and come to some sort of respectful consensus. And, who knows, if you are correct in your assesment, then everyone will be convicted and repent. Remember the circumcision issue in the early church?

Of course, that would take staying in a faith community for more than a few months and not running away the first time we don't get our way.

Wow, more diversionary flack to avoid the issue. OK. Change in the pursuit of truth is no vice, and happens to most people at one time or another - especially in our current doctrinally compromised ecclesiastical world. It is one thing to err in seeking passionately after doctrinal integrity, it is quite another to flagrantly, and publicly, undermine the moral integrity of God's Holy Law.

As Darryl so aptly stated, "As a Pastor/ Reverend one must follow one's conscience. Sometimes that following/leading of the Spirit does not sit well with all people." Like Darryl, I can affirm this from personal experience.

OK, I'll grant Rev. Hoffman the courage of his convictions; but it would have been better if his stand were grounded upon the clear moral truth of the eternal Word, and not upon the shitfting sands of contemporary special interest ideology.

I admit to being a sixties seeker who found the Truth in Jesus Christ. I guess I carried that relentless seeking after the best and highest - yes, to a fault. But being a flawed seeker is one thing, and being an archheretic like Spong, or a cleric openly compromising the moral Law like Rev. H. is another thing altogether. We should never, ever flaunt our own authority or wisdom, but only humbly assert, dependent on God's grace and Spirit, that revealed in the infallible Word - which is crystal clear on this particular issue.

That the uncertain and ever-shifting thoughts and stndards of fallen human beings would not guide His Church is precisely why God inscripturated divine truth under the hand of specially inspired Apostles, Prophets, et al. It is enough of a challenge to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" and live it, without seeking to invent new "truth" in addition to the completed canon.

The real debate here, if anyone is game, (rather than playing in the ad hominem sand box) is whether God's Word is authoritative and "abides forever" as it declares - or is to be augmented by the changeable and evolving metaphysical assertions of today's PC "apostles."

Non nobis,Domine, sed nomine tua gloriam!

WOW - this Nikos person is crazy. I love how so many people seem to know what God would do or say if he were "in the flesh" right now. How amazing it must be to have those powers!

No one is saying "perverse behaviors should have rights." I don't believe HUMAN BEINGS born with a certain God given nature are perverse behaviors - they're PEOPLE!

Lastly, I see God as love - so to act like a pastor or minister should hate or exclude members of his congregation isn't very Christ-like, in my humble eyes. We are not seeking to change an eternal truth, that all gays should be treated unequally and that they are going to born in hell IS NOT an eternal truth. If you'd study your bible you'd know that the word homosexual or homosexuality was not even originally in the bible. You'd also know that in many instances that people use to condemn homosexuality, the writer of the passage was referencing all sexual perversion. What makes homosexual lust and sexual exploits worse than heterosexual ones? Nothing. At the time the bible was written (by man, though "inspired" by God - and re-translated a bazillion times) nobody knew anything about homosexuality. They knew of the acts, but they thought it was just two people being perverse or greedy. They didn't know, as we do now, that homosexuality was a nature - a way of being - an unchangeable characteristic of a person. With this knowledge, who is to say that two gay people can not be capable of having healthy, loving, relationships - that are not perverse, that follow the laws of chastity, that they can not wait until marriage, be bonded together for life, etc. The only people who say this are those unwilling to give them the opportunity.
Anyways, I could rant forever!