Marriage Curriculum: Learning Indicators

July 16, 2012

Step Three in the process of developing a curriculum on marriage is to identify learning indicators in each of the four domains (knowing, feeling, doing, and becoming). If we haven’t already encountered a sticky wicket, this step gives pause to many. The development of learning indicators is predicated on the following givens:

1. There is something to learn; there is knowledge to be discovered and applied to everyday life. Yes, Virginia, there is truth and you can know it because God has revealed it in his Word.

2. Feelings are going to come out, if we do our job right as teachers. How we handle these is based on an understanding of the truth and wise compassion given by God. Some feelings, in Christ, must be overcome; other feelings are indicators of work yet to be done. And we can hope for a “peace that passes understanding” if we align ourselves with God’s will and resolve to repent and believe the gospel.

3. This course is not for hobbyists who desire merely to speculate about different doctrines, but for those who understand a changed life may be their response to the transforming gospel of Jesus. I remember not-so-fondly a time when an adult class I was teaching was homing in on application of the Scriptures, and one person in particular was quite resistant. Her comment was, “Hey, I thought I would learn something new here, but I had no intention of actually changing the way I act!” Right.

In the first century, the Apostle Paul dealt with similar dynamics I think are in play in Presbyterian fellowship. If comments made in debate at GA are any indication, we as a people are suffering from darkened understanding if not ignorance. Here’s what Paul had to say about that, to a church (Ephesus) that was struggling to maintain sound doctrine and a pastor (Timothy) who was encountering resistance to orthodox teaching:

Eph. 4:17-25
17Now this I affirm and insist on in the Lord: you must no longer live as the Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds.  18They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart.  19They have lost all sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.  20That is not the way you learned Christ!  21For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus.  22You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, 23and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another.

1 Tim. 1:3-7
3I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine, 4and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith.  5But the aim of such instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith.  6Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, 7desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions.

The curriculum I propose requires courage to uphold, patience to teach, and faith to promote. Maintenance of a biblical worldview in today’s pluralistic and double-minded denomination is not easy, but it is necessary for us as a church to get back on track.

The most expected criticism of such an approach is that this curriculum outline is one-sided, representing a “stacked deck” against the homosexual lifestyle. Criticism accepted, only because the Scripture does not give us room to start or finish our study with an affirmation of same-sex behavior. So why would we teach that? It would demonstrate a lack of faith to second-guess God’s clear word on the subject. So take courage for the task, remain clear-eyed for study, and embrace the grace and truth of the gospel for this generation.



25 Responses to “Marriage Curriculum: Learning Indicators”

  1. Gene Says:

    1) there is no such thing as a “homosexual lifestyle”. Living in Beverly Hills is a lifestyle. Living in a trailer on a hillside in the Ozarks and cooking meth while living on handouts is a lifestyle. Lets agree not to call conservatives ‘bigoted Bible Thumpers’ or “fundys”, and also not to refer to being GLBT as if it were a “lifestyle”. Your very choice of words shows just how very, very little you actually understand the other side,and how very few LGBT people and their loved ones you must really know well. I am sure you know a few somewhat. You mention a woman and her son who is gay before, but trust me, if you really knew and had listened to and understood us, you would not have made that mistake. It is very, very telling. That the son can be cordial to you says much about his mothers good childbearing skills.

    2) No one will care to study a stacked deck. The arrogance of your statement, which I intend to show anyone who is still in the middle on this issue, says so much, and will change minds quite effectively, though not as you would want I suspect.
    Compare it to the attitude of those like Achtenmier, Duba, Rogers and other former conservatives,many current conservatives as well, and those who have always been liberal/progressive (not all of the later, I will sadly admit), who wisely start the consersation with “let us look at both sides with grace and willingness to be open to the Spirit and understanding, and use our best scholarship and prayer to discern the way God would have us go.”

    Compare that to what you just wrote. Attitude says so much, and people do note it in such two year discussions. Think of it, then go and wonder why your side is losing the debate.

    Thank you Rev. Naegeli. Only Professor Gagnon has been more helpful in personal, congregational, and Presbytery discussions when it comes to helping progressives explain out position, and thus open others hearts to welcome God to change their hearts and minds on this issue. Announcing a stacked deck at the beginning of a called for two year period of study is truly, a gift.

    • Jake Horner Says:


      I’m trying to understand ‘lifestyle.’ If a person who is hetero chooses to live celibate, is that a lifestyle? Would the same apply to a GLBT person? Or is the expression of one’s sexuality not a lifestyle choice?

      I think it is possible to read your point number (2) in different ways. I anticipate that the same language will be able to be applied to whatever material comes from MLP and CovNet, if you change a few names (I freely admit that I could be wrong on this one). That is to say, it represents a particular viewpoint, and argues passionately for that viewpoint. How do you expect their material to be different? Whose scholarship do we trust as being best?



  2. Gene Says:

    I respect the honest exchange of ideas, the respectful listening to them, and honesty. The later of which I admire Rev. Naegeli for. She is honest.
    I firmly believe I am right, and that those who have made the case for an inclusive church that welcomes LGBT people in it in all roles of leadership, and with rights to marriage, are right. But, when a person respectfully and with scholarship says “I believe otherwise, and here is my reasoning”, I always said a prayer to be open to understanding, for Gods will, Not mine, is what mattered to me. After so long, we reached a concensus on the issue of ordination, and discussion was not longer necessary (note that the GA did not see a need to call for a two year period of discussion on ordination). But, we have not come to a concensus on marriage, so, for the nest two years, we need to talk. And to listen.

    Now, I have made up my mind, and no, I wont be changing it I suspect. But my Church has entered into a two year period of discussion on this issue. It failed to grasp that a lot of the time, we do not even agree on basic premises and definitions. That said, to increase understanding, I am willing to listen to others make their case fo the next two years. And that means I must consider even options and thoughts I do not like or currenly agree with. I exptect the same from them. And ALL options on how to proceed as a church will be on the table. Even ones I do not like or agree with.

    A concept Rev. Naegeli just outrights states she is going to stack the deck against. It says a lot.

    I expect others to believe what they believe (obviously). As a Presbyterian, I will pray to be open to their viewpoint for these two years. I don’t expect to change my mind…I have heard it all, but I wont be so arrogant as to say “well..there is just no point in even considering that the Church will keep its current ban”.
    I am convinced I am right. The scholars I listed earlier have made a case, I think, far better than the conservatives have. But at least by my listening, and yes, being open to the possibility I am wrong, I hope to show respect that is due to those I disagree with, and be open to being lead where God will lead us. I Don’t want to fall into the trap of arrogance towards the scholars and Presbyterians who love God but disagree with me that I have often felt from conservatives. They deserve better than that

    With her “stacked deck” statement, Rev, Naegeli has given those who disagree with her a gift, put in it a box, wrapped it in paper, put a bow on it and left it under the tree. How strong can ones case be if one wont even consider the other sides views and openly state you plan to “stack the deck” in the discussion?

    Your question on celibacy and lifestyle was an honest and good one. I will answer as best I can.
    No, a celibate person is not living a lifestyle. Neither is a heterosexual married person, or a person is a same gender marriage. At least, those are not the lifestyles. The celibate person has an IDENTITY as a hetersexual, as you described him yourself. He may be in mourning for his dead wife who passed six months ago, and not in the mood for sex. He may have religious beliefs about sex outside of marriage. He may just have no woman who wants to have sex with him. If he moves into a cloister, shaves his head, and fasts 4 days a week and dedicates his life to the poor, he will be living a bare bones simple lifestyle dedicated to service. If he is celibate but drinks like a fish, gambles like a sailor and spends his days in a stupor in his squalid apartment watching reality TV and shooting up heroin, that is a lifestyle also…but a very different one. Either way, his Identity is hetersexual.

    Lifestyles change. Identities, as even the President of Exodus International, Alan Chambers now admits, do not, regardless of how desperately, deaperately, desperately some people try to convince others (and themselves) that they do. Sorry for the length, but it was a good question, and deserved an honest answer.

  3. Linda Lee, mukilteo Says:

    The courts and GA of this denomination have said that
    there is not one accepted interpretation of scripture in
    relationship to Sexuality. Why are you so emotionally charged
    when one of the views is suggestion for study. You have your mentors, I see.
    There is NO consensus.
    That is the point…..there is not unity.
    You bristle, but the chaos of the GA and courts is responsible, not Rev Mary.
    The gift, if you can call it that, is that the discussion will now be on the local level, in the Presbyteries and congregations. You can accept this as a movement of God’s Holy Spirit, a means of God’s grace, and a way for God’s will to be known or you can rail against it.
    Everyone gets to listen, and decide for themselves, in prayer and in communion with God how they will live out truth.
    (and in the end, every one decides what truth they will live for).

    Personally, I am so thankful for this blog and others that
    Is bold to speak the interpretation of
    scripture in which I place my faith.

  4. Gene Says:

    I dont bristle. I was 1) pointing out an insulting use of the term ‘lifestyle’ 2) pointing out that all of us, on the left or the right, do not instantly count out the views of the other side.

    I would hope that all of us, whatever out positions, including those of is on the left, are open to the voice of God to speak to us, and that we do not start out with a ‘stacked deck’. Rev. Naegeli doing so prevents her even being open to change. Make your arguements, of course. We on the left will also. And I am sure many on the left will make the same mistake. But if they do, I will point it out to them also.

    I think we have the best arguments, theology and understanding on our side. So I am not afraid of the other sides arguements, and see no need to stack the deck on my side by saying I have already come to the Unchangable conclusion that I am right. I think I am, or I would not believe as I do. But I will not go into a two year discussion aimed at greater understanding just proclaiming that God cannot move me, if God sees so fit, to change my belief if God so sees fit. Doing so, would be me “stacking the deck”. It would not honor the process, those I disagree with, or most importantly, God.

    Please remember, most of the scholars who now support LGBT ordination ( a different but related topic) started out as conservative on the issue. They did not enter the years of study on that issue with a ‘stacked deck’, and thus were able to grow in their understanding of these issues as God lead them. The put their trust in God…not in their own dearly held opinions, and change for them was often painful. But worth it. It is in that attitude that all sides should enter into this two year period of discussion…otherwise we will be preaching to the choir at best, and at each other at worst.

    You are correct Ms. Lee. We all need to listen and pray, and be open to where God leads us. With no stacked decks on either side.

  5. Linda Lee, mukilteo Says:

    At first I did not like the fact that the court or GA stated that there were two interpretations or more on sexuality. But in a way it states a true picture of what is actually a reality in
    the denomination. Also, th,is gives us permission to state
    our views. This is not from a point of view of “stacking the deck” because each person has the ability to listen and decide for themselves. Where at one time I had a sense of frustration,
    there is a new energy that we can and should express our views and even offer curriculm for others to study.
    There is not pressure, just choice, just the different views laid out.
    I do find your comments open to listening And Thanks for that grace.
    I benefit from listening.
    When the dialogue for PUP came to the Presbyteries
    there was an hour devoted to small group discussion where a ball was passed around and if you had the ball you could speak. You then passed the ball to another person to speak until all were heard. No judgements were expressed for the most part. There was discussion from the floor.
    The only difference this time may be that the discussion will be in the congregations and sessions. This may be good or
    it may bring emotions to a head on these issues and be hard for local pastors to handle and cause more disunity. Some of my best ,loved friends in my church are progressive while I lean more conservative. I think it is going to be a challenging
    time for the church and congregations. There will be some things that unite us and some things that divide us.
    The fact that different curriculum choices will be offered is a good thing as I am not sure the General Assembly Council would offer other choices of study and just offer the progressive view i.e. a stacked deck.
    We shall see. For now, let’s pray hard.

    One thing about the conservatives who, after the PUP report, were moved to accept unity with diversity, they are in disbelief that large numbers are leaving the church. Only time will tell if their “lukewarm” stance to keep the peace and unity will
    be good for the denomination or not.

  6. carlpelz Says:

    Hi Gene,
    I can’t claim to understand exactly what your views are or exactly why you hold them. However, I can think back to the disdain I had for the people in a Bible church where I was raised. Not only did they lack intellect and sophistication, but it seemed to me that they worshiped the Bible rather than God. What did resonate with me was a mantra my grandfather, a scientist and liberal UCC minister, would oft recite “love, not the law”. That seemed to say it all. My mistrust of scripture and any value that it may offer (except as some vague signpost to Jesus Christ), was further reinforced by undergraduate studies in evolution, genetics, and sociobiology. That was followed by graduate work that included higher criticism techniques that put scripture in its proper place.

    My view of scripture began to change through the hard experience of marriage (experiencing the “otherness” of male and female and becoming “one flesh”), having children (and trying to guide them), having close friends who had once been gay and listening to their stories, having friends who identify sexually in a variety of ways, and observing the empirical evidence outside and inside myself that is offered up by reality and science (when it is unfettered by politics). Slowly I began to take another look at the Bible and study it systematically over a number of years. Though it was unthinkable at one time, I now believe scripture offers the best explanation of reality, how we should live our lives, the necessity of being born from above by God, and necessity of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to understand scripture. Still, I must continually ask for God’s help to accept and bind myself to scripture whether I understand it or not, and more importantly, whether I agree with it or not. So now, you see I’ve become exactly what I once held in such strong contempt. Gene, how did you come to your understanding of scripture and its place in your life and the life of the church?

  7. Gene Says:

    An intersting post Linda….time will tell. I am not seeing a stampede out the door though. the membership numbers are down, but not that radically down compared to the regular year to year loss that is simply a function of demographics (as a denomination, we dont have kids). Still…you are right, time will tell in some ways…although, doing the right thing, is not always the popular thing. In any case, if we have preconceived conclusions, the stacked deck (on either side) will prevent the listening…the passing of the ball, so to speak (nice story that…you must have a nice congregation…very impressive)

    Carl, also, and interesting and thoughtful post. My experience is almost the opposite. I grew up in and loved the Church that tought me a literal, God said it, here it is in print, that settles it, approach….at least till I was in my teens…but, I dont care to go into that now. I will just say that, like at lot of gay adolescents, I tried to end the pain I felt, yes, at the hands of that church. Happily, I failed.

    for most of what you write, I am in total concurance. I also pray for the strength to accept and bind my life to scripture and Gods will. I honestly do not know any active member of the church who does not do this. Life, as I grew older, taught me, via higher education, and life experience, as well as seeing, not a lack of of sophistication and education (though such was the case, that is no reason to disdain a faith) but by a lack of empathy, grace and love on the part of the fundamentalist/literalist Chruch, to embrace the better quality of ministry and faith that your Grandfather practiced. I am surprised you, with age and wisdom, have rejected what is, do you not agree, an accurate approach to scripture? Having a bad marriage and difficult life (I am saddened to read of this, and hope your family life is happy and well now) is no good reason to reject the truth of what you learned.

    I do not reject scripture. Yet, I am not a literalist. Neither are you, if you are in the PCUSA. A PCA pastor would say you have been hopelessluy liberal and modern in your approach to women in ministry. Our ancestors would say we are all liberal and non literalist, and following a “love,not the law” approach of your grandfather when we denounce slavery. Do you believe in a 7 day creation? I would be shocked if you do. I believe in the confession that you and I share as Presbyterians, the 67 confession that makes the logical and sensible statement that scripture is inspired by God, but is nonetheless the wrods or men. As such, errors and prejudices have entered into our faith. This is a human error…not Gods. We have worked as a Church for many years to grow into a better understanding of Gods will for us and the world accordingly.

    We all do this by the way. A conservative Presbytrerian I know, once, in a moment of very honest discussion pointed out that he had been accused of “reading only what you want out of the Bible and judging it instead of it judging you” (using higher criticism in other words), by, a pentecostal snake handler.

    In a sense, the snake handler was not wrong. Its all a question of how literaly are we to take scripture, and what parts of it we treat which way. Are we stuck in amber (or rooted in tradition, depending on ones view) and will interpretion of the Bible continue to change on this issue as it did with other issues…for most of us Presbyterians anyway? Some of the snide and uncouth remarks I have read on conservative blogs about women such as Carmen Fowler in positions of leadership (gasp) being among the ones to denounce the denominational acceptance of GLBT ordination being highly ironic ( to literalists), sadly make this point, but I am glad after reading them I am in a church that ordains women, even if a “but the Bible says” approach would probably NOT allow for them to be ordained, and for most of the Church (big C) still does not. I would rather be right on that topic than popular, and approac lieratre in a way that allow this’

    I found that the literalist approach to scripture did not lead to a healthy or happy life or church. But that is not why I rejected it. I rejected it for the approach you seem to have rejected yourself, because that is the approach that seemed both logical (and let me love God with my mind) and loving (and let me love God and serve Him and my fellows with my heart as well).
    It was an honest question. I hope It explains where I stand. Please forgive the length.

    • Chas Jay Says:

      Could you please tell me where in the Scripture it states that women are an abomination? I bet you can’t because being a woman is not a sin. That is why your comparison of sexual acts that you want accepted is not the same because you are promoting behavior that you can abstain from but Carmen cannot abstain from the fact that she is a woman.
      Men, by our very sin nature, are predatorial and we want to spread our seed. By removing the ordination standards for the “born this way” argument, we now can’t say that a man that lives a life like Hugh Hefner or Charlie Sheen cannot be denied ordination if he says he is called.
      A Baptist Hymn, Wherever He Leads I’ll Go, sums up what it means to follow Christ, that we are not our own but His. Here are the words.
      Pick up your cross and follow me, I heard my master say.
      I gave my life to ransom thee, Surrender your all today.
      Wherever He leads I’ll go. Wherever He leads, I’ll go.
      I’ll follow my Christ who loves me so.
      Wherever He leads, I’ll go.

      • carlpelz Says:

        Chas, thanks for pointing out the truth that “we are not our own but His”. The marks of a believer include love, submission and change. There was a televised debate between two Christians, one man who still identified as being gay and the other man who no longer identified as being gay. The later challenged the former that a primary mark of a Christian is radical change. It is a powerful point for all of us: we were bought at a very high price and we are not our own.

      • Chas Jay Says:

        Carl, thank you for your posts. I’m like Gene but I never sought to change the church to accomodate me but go to Church to worship my Savior who is changing me. Being defined as “gay” is rather sad because it first and foremost makes their entire being based upon what arouses them sexually. The fact that it is LGBTQ further empasizes the contradiction they have. If you are “born that way” then how can they be for transgender, which is not “born that way” but one of surgery to (using m-f) take female hormones and butcher their male sex organs for a fake female one. Using science of DNA, we know that it does not change so they are still male according to their DNA. Having bisexual as part of the LGBT “community” also says that their is a choice and that they choose to have sex with both sexes The entire emphasis is on the sexual desire of the flesh dictating who they are.
        The other point where they lost me a long time ago was that they sit in judgment and call people names like homophobic and intolerant if you do not agree with them as seen on the MLP site. They are very “fundamentalist” in their gayvangelitizing and want the world to change according to their commands and rule with an iron fist but are willfully disobedient to the church rules and Scripture, which is not a sign of love but one of hateful spite and selfishness. Why not go to the MCC or UCC instead of trying to change others? They claim they can’t be changed so why do they feel the need to change others to do as they dictate.
        Gene doesn’t like the term lifestyle but stated “living in a trailer in the ozarks and cooking meth” as being a lifestyle. If that’s a lifestyles so is going to various gay parties, taking meth, e, x and having indiscriminate sex a lifestyle and it is very common with gay men. I’ve seen them call (and push for laws to ban) therapy and ministries for those wanting to leave as being “dangerous.” If we are going to outlaw things as being “dangerous” then they should look to the very sexual acts that are common with gay men since we know that according the CDC 1 in 5 men (a conservative estimate by the CDC) that has sex with other men has HIV and over 20% of them do not know they are infected.
        There’s also an article I found in one of the Stand Firm blog columns commenting on the irony of what was in an article in the South Florida Gay News. It’s what is the reality of those so-called “monogamous gay relationships.”

    • Jake Horner Says:

      I’m glad you failed too, Gene.


      • carlpelz Says:

        Hi Jake,
        Yes, the contradictions that you cite within the LGBTQ community are staggering. (Though to be fair, the endeavor to be consistent is a challenge for all of us and seems to be part of our human condition!) You have a valid point about not being able to change one’s DNA (at least, not yet!). Sy Rogers also makes a good point that the underlying hurt for sexual identity issues such as identifying as transgender is also very difficult to change. In fact, there is little evidence that surgery makes that hurt go away. It’s heartbreaking to see the success of the “gayvangelizing” movement as you described it and the long term consequences for generations to come.

  8. Linda Lee, mukilteo Says:

    Gene and Carl,

    Thank you for sharing your stories and heart.
    I ‘ve learned from your sharing!

    I hope you have a caring fellowship now to enjoy
    as a part of your faith and are encouraged there.

    Thank you Rev.Mary for allowing us to share together this faith walk.

    Sincerely, Linda

    • carlpelz Says:

      Sure thing, Linda. I too appreciate the kind tone in your discourse. I’m not convinced that reason plays much of a role in changing our worldviews that are anchored at a much deeper level. However, God can and does change us in spite of our rebelliousness. Hmmm… do you think God can also trump our wills?

  9. carlpelz Says:

    Gene, thank you for giving a serious listen to my story. Much appreciated too is your thoughtful response about your understanding of scripture. A nice, pleasant exchange! Yes, my view of scripture is more conservative than what is considered normative within PCUSA. Yet, in the midst of such divergent opinions and even confusion, it is a comfort to rest in knowing that God’s sovereign good pleasure will be done and many surprises are in store! May God bless you.

  10. revmary Says:

    Beloved readers, I’m in the middle of a sermon-writing week but occasionally peak in on the activity here. The length of some of the posts is eye-challenging to those who find the font size and color intolerable (it is a wordpress template, or I would have changed it months ago). But thank you for your interest, and, for the most part, the respect you are showing me and each other. As soon as this sermon is done (Parables of the Mustard Seed and Leaven, Mt 13) I will be back for Step 4 of the Marriage Curriculum Planning series.

  11. Jake Horner Says:

    Just to clarify…. Carlpelz, you were responding to something Chas jay wrote rather than what I wrote.

    • carlpelz Says:

      Jake, right you are. Thanks for the call out and my apologies to you.

      • Chas Jay Says:

        Thank you for the additional comments that further the truth. As we are discussing the affects within the church, we can also look to the type of “dialogue” that the LGBT activists and their supporters actually support when looking to what the statements by the Boston mayor and Chicago alderman who are going to use their power to block the buidling of Chick-fil-a’s in their cities because Dan Cathy stated to the Baptist Press he believes in the biblical definition of marriage. Quite chilling since these government officials are using their power to punish Cathy for practicing his first amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religion. The MLP site has already condemned the Boy Scouts and I look for them to do the same with Chick-fil-a. It is interesting how the LGBT activists never see how their intolerance.

  12. carlpelz Says:

    Chas, as disturbing as the hypocrisy on the left is, it may be helpful to ponder the “rules of engagement” with those outside the church vs those inside. “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” 1 Cor. 5:12 (ESV) Certainly, we can make the case for a Biblical worldview in the public square and we can rightly be disappointed and saddened when natural moral law is rejected by those who haven’t been regenerated and remain “slaves to sin”. On the other hand, we are called to lovingly hold those who identify themselves as Christians (including those who sincerely but mistakenly believe they are Christians) to Biblical standards. What do you think? Do you have another view?

  13. Chas Jay Says:

    I actually agree with you and I expect the world to do as they do. I’m not worried about them on a biblical level. My point is to emphasize those that claim to be our brothers and sisters but boast about their sexual immorality.
    From I Corinthians 5:11-13
    But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

    What I am trying to stress is that those that claim to be our brothers and sisters are actually working with those who are not. We are given instruction to remove such and to judge them since they claim to be within.

    Thank you so much and I appreciate your comments.

  14. Carl Pelz Says:

    Very well put, Chas! We agree. But more important than our opinions, this position lines up with scripture.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s