While I believe Mr Hertzog to be a good man, and a deeply thoughtful man, I must say I do not think the practical matter of locking doors of a church during off hours rises to the same level of concern that major revisions to doctrine in that church holds. It’s a good analogy as far as it goes, but it’s a no brainer to lock doors if thieves are stealing from you in your neighborhood.  It’s a false comparison to imply that reviewing doctrine for guidance as to the status of homosexuals is “locking doors”. ALL are welcome in the church, sinners as well as saints.

Since most of us are sinners, we certainly do not point to one group of specific sinners and say “their sin is too great for admission”. What’s at consideration here is drastically altering church doctrine such that one specific sin is no longer recognized as sin. That those engaging in that sin are absolved from it, not required to analyze their sin, or seek redemption from it. Even more radically, it is being proposed that one group of sinners “celebrated” and welcomed for ordination. Now, we are all with sin. Even the highest church leader. It’s a condition of our being human. How would we view a Pastor who celebrated his sin of adultery, announced it proudly, indicated he had no repentance for it, and intended to indulge in it before our very eyes as often as he wished?

Mr Hertzog states that Resolution 6 is NOT requiring anyone to celebrate the life of another.  It is merely speaking to allowing another to celebrate his own life. He carefully circles around the issue saying the resolution does NOT require that anybody “celebrate” the lifestyle of another.  Yet, when we speak to ordaining an unrepentant sinner, are we not celebrating that lifestyle? Are we not validating it as a lifestyle choice? Are we NOT drastically altering church doctrine, taking scripture selectively, and bestowing acceptance of a specific sin over all the others mentioned in the bible? Many do see this as celebrating sin of another. All life is to be celebrated. Sin is not. When we interject the word “homosexual” into the wording of the resolution we have gone beyond celebrating the life of a human companion in God’s creation, regardless his sins, we are celebrating the specific sin of that human companion. It is enough to say that we love all of God’s children and celebrate the life God has given us. We also confess to our sins and work to be more worthy of the life granted us within the context of the scripture and doctrines of the church. Nobody is made a murderer by God. Nobody is made an adulterer by God. I don’t believe even pedophiles have impulses they can’t control or are made that way by God. We blame too many of our weaknesses and the bad things that happen in the world as God’s will. God gave us the tools by which to eliminate much of the bad things that happen in the world. The gospel and the example of Christ and the Apostles. If we were to cling hard to those examples and work daily to observe them - all of us - it would be a better place I think.

Once we begin to mitigate them with rationales - particularly secular ones - we take the easy path. I believe, and scientific evidence shows, that homosexuals are not born that way. It is a behavior. An impulse. One in which a decision has been made to indulge in. Quite often, research has shown, such folks have been abused sexually in childhood. They often have been instructed in the behavior by a relative or trusted friend and found they enjoy it, or they are repelled by it and seek comfort (safety) with the gender opposite the one which preyed upon them. Be that as it may, most research has shown it is a behavioral condition, not a genetic condition and certainly not one imposed by God.

The disturbing thing about Mr Hertzog’s article is the deliberate consideration of only Resolution 6 and 10. He omits any mention of Resolutions 7, 8 and 9. He wants us to consider only Resolution 6 - and not only to consider only that resolution out of the context of the other, clarifying, resolutions that had been proposed along with 6. He wants us to consider it within the context of the summary put out by PEC(N) which “explains” to us what it really means. In short, he wants us to not read it for ourselves and determine what the clear language says - particularly he does not want us to read Resolution 6 in context of the following proposed resolutions which DID instruct us to celebrate the lifestyle. He wants us instead to read Resolution in context of the “spin” document produced after the PEC(N) witnessed the outcry resulting from their introduction of the Resolutions - all 5 of them taken together.

Mr Hertzog attributes a reduction in church attendance and membership to the rancor of some at the views of others. He attributes this decline in attendance solely to the issue of Resolution 6 or other secular based propositions and the “discomfort” of some - meaning I assume the traditionalists. This issue specifically has only come on the scene two years ago for consideration. Church membership and attendance has been declining for 20 years. I believe Mr Hertzog misses the larger issue here in trying to use rejection of this agenda concerning homosexuals as the basis for a falling away from the church. Undoubtedly if the entire agenda is adopted over the protests of surviving church membership there will be an exodus from the Church. The point he misses, however, is that the decline in membership comes NOT from folks disaffected by adherence to traditional values within the church, but from the ever pervasive secular program of denigration of Church values, church doctrine, and promotion of secular and sinful lifestyles. We are losing membership not because people are leaving, we are losing membership because people are dying and the young see no point in joining. Look around at the pews in those churches where membership is visibly declining. Very few in the pews are 40 or under. Most of the people in the pews are 50 and older. Injecting the secular agenda into the Church is guaranteed to drive those folks from the church while doing little to backfill behind them with folks willing to devote their lives to the church. Render something meaningless, and nobody comes to the party. What’s so hard to understand about that exactly?

I think it says it all about Mr Hertzog’s approach when he inadvertently let slip that “Since the Second Partial Report, Mr Hertzog believes his “sensitivity to political correctness” has been expanded. I don’t doubt that at all. But you see, Mr Hertzog, political correctness is a secular condition and term. It deals with the secular. With politics. Exactly! We prefer to subscribe - at least in our Church - to what is spiritually correct. Many of us have seen what a politically correct agenda has done to the society around us. We’d prefer you kept it out of our Church.