What didn’t happen in the exchange was anyone to ask Hume why he made those statements and have an openly religious discussion. As Hume said in a later interview, when people speak about Christ in front of cameras and journalists, the subjects change immediately. If Hume had said that Tiger should seek counseling, everyone would have agreed. But had he said Christian counseling they would all have freaked out.

Consider this. Suppose Woods was sitting at the table that day. Had Hume made his statement, unsolicited, directly to Woods, who among us would consider it a polite thing to say? When is the last time you did that? When is the last time you said to someone, “You know, I don’t think your religious faith is helping you out. You should switch to mine.” Nearly everyone knows this would be a rude thing to say someone, unless perhaps you had a particularly close relationship. Why do the rules change because Woods was not in the room at the time Hume made his suggestion?

So suppose Hume had directed his comment at you, and your faith. You weren’t in the room when he said it, but he said it on television. How appreciative would you be of his public advice that your drop your religious faith in favor of his own?

The issue here is not whether religious systems can be openly advocated or criticized. The issue is whether it is socially acceptable to open your mouth on television about what religious faith another human being should adopt. Brit Hume can speak publicly all he wants about Christianity vis-a-vis Buddhism, but when it comes to Tiger Wood’s personal choice of religious faith, Hume should mind his own business. If you don’t agree with me, substitute your name for Tiger Wood’s and see if it changes your conclusion.

“I DO know future pastors who are now at Calvin College (PCA’s college) who tell me that they have no doubt that the PCA will first ordain women and secondly fully accept gay people in their lifetimes.”

Hate to break it to you but Calvin College is not a college for the PCA. It is for the Christian Reformed Church.

You make a great observation. I would say that you are right that what Brit Hume said was very unpopular, but it was right…..oh, wait…..

In the end, I wish it were that I (and Christians in general) were more like Paul who wept for those who were perishing. Time is short. We aren’t to go to a mosque/wiccan center/whatever and wag a finger in anyone’s face, but neither are we to serve our words as gruel (a watery substance with chunks of culture) and say “I’ll add meat when I think they can handle it”.

By the way…the Southern Baptists are now at a majority of congregations in decline or at plateau. Does that mean your not “on board”?

The UBER conservative Salvation Army is in a similar decline patter to us…its demographics more than theology that affects much (I am not saying all) of the decline.

Presbyterians started having small families way before Baptists started following the pattern, and demographics play as big or bigger part in our numerical decline than thelogical disagrements among us. But, like I said, a think is done because it is the right thing. Not the popular thing. As per numerical decline, well, look at your own demographics. You just starting down from the top of the roller coaster. We are farther down the ride. I would not be to smug when it comes to numbers, as the next decade will show, if I were you.

Church officials at the Louisville, Kentucky, headquarters announced June 22 that the 2008 decline was the biggest numerical and percentage net membership loss in the 25-year period. Total membership is now 2,140,165 in 10,751 congregations.”

Sounds like your denomination is really on-board Kelly…

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_15_126/ai_n35579551/

In each case, because the people matured, and in a world where God allows us to grow in grace and improve past mistakes, we did so. (PS the vase majority of Jews belong to the Reformed and Conservative movements, and ordain gay Rabbis. Thanks)

The Scots Church is more liberal than the American one if you did not know that; the “Orthodox Presbyterians” could fit their entire ‘denomination’ in a small sized arena and are WAY out of the Presbyterian mainstream in a lot of ways (even the conservative branches), and I DO know future pastors who are now at Calvin College (PCA’s college) who tell me that they have no doubt that the PCA will first ordain women and secondly fully accept gay people in their lifetimes. The PCUSA is if far larger than every other type of Presbyteian in the county put together. Not that that matters. If we wanted to be popular with the world, we could take a very conservative position, and most religious folk would applaud us in conservative church going areas. A position is taken because it is the right thing to do, both morally, and after the best scholarship make a case for it. Not because it is popular. Once again, please read the work of those former conservative, now gay welcoming thelogians and seminary professors. Thanks.

Nathan, we are in a discussion inside a chatroom, both of us willingly discussing a topic. He said something in a manner that strongly implied both a tendency of literal reading of the scripture, and a fundamentalist attitude, and I pointed this out. As I said, I did not mean it in a hurtful way, but was just making an honest observation, and the effect of his words. Most importantly, I AM NOT ON A NATIONAL TV TALK/NEWS SHOW, but having a discussion on a discussion board. Had I said that out of the clear blue sky on TV, in the manner Mr Hume did, in the setting he did, I expect I would be rightfully called out on it.

The discussion string was about Mr. Hume making a statement that hurt the cause of spreading the Gospel, my giving two real world examples of this, and my expressing disappointment (and sadness and concern) that it seems a lot of deeply religious people HONESTLY don’t seem to see the problem (!) and what this inability to see it as those you will be talking to implies for evangelism in a pluralist society.

The issue of gay and lesbian inclusion in the church is as over and done for me as the issue of racial inclusion, womens inclusion, etc. It’s a different issue from Mr. Hume and his comments, and one not any more worthy of debate to me than say, womens ordination or racial equality in my denomination. Not everyone may agree with me outside of it, but, thats not my problem. I only mentioned it after another posters hurtful statements about what he would say to a gay person, and my reply that I would offer them a full welcome.
Happily, most gay people know that there are several whole denominations that fully welcome them, and this has changed the whole issue for the vast majority ofgay kids and adults looking for a spiritual home, or currently (the kids) forced to attend congregations/denominations that tell them otherwise. They now know that the congregation down the road disagrees, and they can have a Christian and spiritual live without having to listen to the homophobia. The younger straight members of a lot of evangelical churches know this to and are changing attitudes and understandings on this issue, as Barna reseach points out. Once again, its not a topic I brought up. I did not bring it up. I just did not ignore it/fold when it was mentioned.

This gospel never changes.

A question Kelly: Why is it that mainline protestants have had this special revelation that homosexuality is not sinful in the last 60 years? Why is it that ancient Judaism and Historical Christianity have condemned it for 3000+ years but in the last 60 years your scholarship has said it is OK?

Neither Fundamentalist nor a ‘strict’ Literalist (this is a bit of an odd accusation…is everything allegorical or do you mean something else). No I’m orthodox. And just because the liberal PCUSA says something is ok, does not mean presbyterianism does. I cant think of anyone in historical PC, Orthodox PC, the PCA, Scottish PC, Bible PC who would agree with you.