The situation does not become any more right or wrong, depending on how it was carried out (that’s situational ethics).
I agree wholeheartedly. I was just relieved to find the decision I felt was so WRONG was seemingly not made with evil intentions. One horrible decision out of a pastor over a six-year period is far better than what I’ve had in the past or could hope to find in the future for a family I’d have to pry out of there. I do NOT agree with the decision for the reasons all of you and I have stated. There are a thousand other ways to welcome the unchurched than compromising the witness of every single member in it.
I am also new to the site and happened on it through google search. I would like all, but particularly those involved with NPCC to address my earlier questions, perhaps a broader format is better, but this stream is staying alive. The questions are: is there ever a cause that a politician has, with whom you disagree about much, that you might partner with because the cause is a good one (I realize this sounds a bit John McCainish-read naive); second, is this cause-childhood obesity and the future health of the nation, a cause that merits more than individual behavior change focus (is it something worth getting the country to rally around) and third; should a church of any kind, much less one so influential, get behind any social movement, no matter its merits (certainly the church was central to civil rights, women’s suffrage, etc. - but what about the nation’s health not much partnering on tobacco). I would like to keep the line open with you all at least until after the Sunday service and my report about the feedback. At that point, it may be appropriate to go to a bigger format to engage more opinions from FR. Thanks all for your interest. As I think you can tell from this stream, NPCC members really do love their church and care about its influence and message.