1

Dee, I love you, but as long as Evangelical and many other churches consider LGBTQIA+ people to be the worst sinners ever, they’re not going to change their mind on marriage. Also, according to some legal scholars that I trust, the Respect for Marriage Act actually doesn’t stop the Supreme Court from overturning Obergefell. It may actually take a Constitutional amendment to guarantee marriage rights.

That said, I’m old enough to remember when Loving v. Virginia (1967) was decided, and 20-odd states with anti-miscegenation laws had to scrap them. It’s also worth remembering that the very devout antebellum Christians weren’t out there agitating for their enslaved human property to have the right to marry. That’s because they were just that, *property*. Which is one reason why the ceremony of “jumping the broom” as part of a wedding is so important in Black communities. It was the way enslaved people attempted to solemnize a marriage among their community in a society where enslavers could and did break up families in the pursuit of monetary gain.

So my point is that even within my lifetime, marriage has been expanded to include interracial marriage, and within the history of the USA, marriage was extended to newly freed people. I scowl when I see people claim marriage has never changed. Why yes, yes it has, and it’s been restricted too based on some people’s religious beliefs. I am so tired.

Susan, you raise some of the same questions I’ve had–why single out gay people? Or, why not single out other specific sins not just sexual sins.
I’m also a strong proponent of separation of church and state. If I remember correctly (and I could be very wrong here), Germany still has people indicate which church they attend, and they need to pay a small tax. If they are “evangelical,” there’s a different sort of tax.
What about the UK where I have friends? They are baffled why the US didn’t allow “courthouse marriages” that are not bound by clergy or religious rules. It’s still a legally binding marriage, minus the blessing of clergy. Why not allow those kinds of unions here, instead of demanding people have a religious ceremony? Do nonbelievers have to follow the norms of churches? I don’t think so.
And Muslin, I too, remember Loving v. Virginia. I had friends with interracial unions, and even into the 1980s, they felt extremely uncomfortable living in the South due to prejudice towards their union.
Dee, I’m sure your comments will upset many, but I’m squarely in your court.

“You know, one day, I will have to stand before God and give an account”

I think you are off on this

No need to give an account

There a whole lot to chew on here. But for brevity’s sake I will break this up into pieces. And old friend of mine many years ago bemoaned conservative Christians who are far more concerned with legislating morality into the legal code than getting people saved. He did not understand it. That just gets people to pretend that they are moral Christians when many are actually neither. This is what has happened for centuries in the past. He thinks the emphasis is upside down. Catch the fish first. Then clean them. This is one element here and I also agree with CS Lewis for this reason and others.

Also what good does it do to force people into morality and yet when they die they go to hell? The same place that those who had no morality go. It is about knowing Jesus, not just holding to this or that moral code.

Samuel Conner,

Or at least think about the children in terms of familial cohesion and property rights.

Samuel Conner,

Having led divorce recovery groups in churches 10-12 times I would say that there are probably too few divorces amongst Christians these days. People use their self-serving interpretation of scripture to abuse each other instead of lifting them up. Then they double down on the abuse by insisting the marriage must be saved in in order to preserve the image of the bride of Christ.

I think the church should spend more time and energy improving the quality of marriages within the church and less time sticking their noses into other people’s relationships. Allowing spouses to have reasonable expectations of each other. Encouraging emotional maturity in both parties. Not excusing affairs, addiction, or abuse.

I also like the idea of having both civil and religious ceremonies. If you want the legal and financial benefits, do a civil ceremony. If you want the clergy blessing, do a religious one, as well.

I agree with Dee, too.

The USA is a republic, not a theocracy.
Though, I’ve little doubt that Al Mohler has vivid daydreams of the USA being a Calvinistic SBC theocracy.

Do people not realize that for a marriage to be legal in the US the couple needs a marriage license from the state? They can then be married by a judge or a religious person who is licensed (by the state) to marry couples. The church does not dispense marriage licenses.

A couple can have a ceremony at a church, according to that churches rules, but it means nothing to the state without a marriage license. The state, by way of the marriage license, does more to protect the rights of people (including children) in a marriage than religion does, or even can.

Thank you, Loren Haas,

> Then they double down on the abuse by insisting the marriage must be saved in in order to preserve the image of the bride of Christ.

One of the things that motivated my departure from present-day institutional christianity was the evidence that the gospel, in the hands of these people, doesn’t seem to actually work to change people. And the emphasis on preserving an appearance of righteousness while tolerating hidden harms suggests that the people in charge recognize this and don’t know how, or don’t want or don’t care, to correct it.

> People use their self-serving interpretation of scripture to abuse each other instead of lifting them up.

And so they (or “we”, noticing the thumb pointing back at myself) sanctify sin rather than repenting of it. I would think that has to be considered quite close to a violation of the third Commandment, to not misuse the Name of YHWH.

My interpretation of this is that the deficiencies of the Church at Ephesus, that it did not love God or neighbor as it ought, are widespread and the Spirit is grieved and is functionally absent, sort of the way the Spirit was driven out of the Jerusalem Temple by the things that were being done in it. Paul wrote that the churches are temples, built of ‘living stones’, in which God dwells through the Spirit. But if what happens in these living temples is grievous to the Spirit, might that drive the Spirit out? Perhaps we are, at an institutional level, “putting God to the test”.

I hope that something better is possible and that it will emerge in the future. The world needs communities of people who encourage one another to love and good deeds.

My take on the subject is this, and it is two fold. First and foremost, as a conservative Christian I do not believe there is any such thing as a gay marriage. Marriage was created by God, and is clearly in both the OT and NT for one man and one woman, for life with notable exceptions given by both Christ and Paul. So there is that. I believe when someone who is either XY or XX has sex with someone of the same sex, it is sin. I also believe it is sin when they have sex with the opposite gender to whom they are not married. I agree wholeheartedly abuse is a sin.

I cannot in good conscience support the respect for marriage act, and that does not make me a bigot who hates gay people. That dog don’t hunt.

I believe lots of things are sin, and still love people. I believe stealing is a sin, and I don’t stop saying that just because murder is also a sin and I have not been able to stop people from murdering.

All that said, while I reserve the right to vote my conscience I don’t get really torqued over whatever marriage laws the state passes. We live in an era of many given over to reprobate minds, which covers both sexual and non sexual ground, so spare me remarks about conservatives being hyper concerned with pelvic sins. Not so. Concerned with all sin.

But here is where I come done to the rubber meeting the road. If I had the power to instantly stop all sexual sin, gay and straight, it would have no eternal weight.

People don’t go to heaven because they did not sin sexually. People go to heaven, gay or straight, because they admitted to themselves and God their sins are sins and repented (which does include the effort to turn and amend the life). They then must put their faith in Jesus to forgive their sins and understand He is not going to celebrate their sins or leave them happily in them. And this applies to both pelvic and non pelvic sin.

Since I do not suffer with same sex attraction I freely admit I cannot understand fully how difficult it would be to turn from that. But I also am not asexual, and so do understand how deeply tempted straight people can be to sin sexually. Deeply tempted is not a free pass saying I then get to sin and call it not sin because I am just wired that way. Straight single people also suffer the same sort of deep temptations gay people do, and often also have no realistic hope of marriage to ease the situation.

The church loses its way when it is focused on the culture wars, or theological wars, or anything else than seeing sinners born again.

There is simply no way we can do our job as the church and fail to label sin, of ANY kind, as sin. And that will hurt somebody’s feelings, but better that than to be lost for eternity.

Dee,
1)I figured you would get there sooner or later.
2) Your reader base has moved to the left theologically and politically as have you. I doubt you have many avid readers left who would vehemently disagree with David French’s take on civil unions.

David French Unleashed a Conservative Firestorm by Supporting the Respect for Marriage Act.
i.e. the Christianese muscle-memory reflex of “GAWD H&S FAGS!!!!!”
And Trans is the new Fag.

Bridget: Do people not realize that for a marriage to be legal in the US the couple needs a marriage license from the state? They can then be married by a judge or a religious person who is licensed (by the state) to marry couples. The church does not dispense marriage licenses.

In our jurisdiction there’s also “common law” marriage without ceremony or license by either state or church.

Basically you live in as a relationship for a period of time, in court it’s treated as a legal marriage. Here’s a link to more info.

https://www.gov.mb.ca/familylaw

In this post, I’m not sure what the controversy is.

I’m not Christian, so do “non Christian” unions face barriers since a marriage license is issued by the state?

Are there no common law provisions in the US?

From the post, if CS Lewis position is supported, then where is the big deal? Christianity stays in its lane.

Is TWW advocating that the Christian view of marriage (specifically the Protestant view) be the default for all Americans? It didn’t seem so.

I can’t access French’s article from where I am but it seems that he doesn’t want secular society to intrude on the Church’s right to define its version of marriage. Which is fine. Churches should also give up their tax free status as well.

Jack: Are there no common law provisions in the US?

I think it varies from state to state. Some do, some don’t.

Jack,

My apologies, this link explains common law where I live a bit better

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_relationships_in_Manitoba

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): The USA is a republic, not a theocracy.
Though, I’ve little doubt that Al Mohler has vivid daydreams of the USA being a Calvinistic SBC theocracy.

It (a christian theocracy) would be as brutal as any regime the world has seen.

On a slight tangent – or rather, perhaps, zooming in on one aspect of Dee’s post – I’ve often been struck in recent years by the ways in which religion influences American politics. In practice, “religion” in this context typically means quite a specific flavour of evangelical Christianity (though, equally, the church of Rome is not without influence). There’s a fascinating contrast/comparison to be made with the ways in which religion influences British politics. (And that of other countries with some form of “State Church” as well, but I’m less familiar with them.)

So, in the UK, the monarch – now Charles III, but for some 7 decades, Elizabeth II – is the titular head of the Church of England; formally speaking the monarch is the “Supreme Governor” of the Church of England and is also entitled “Defender of the Faith”. Senior Anglican bishops sit in the house of Lords, thereby exercising some influence over the nation’s laws. But that stick grasps the nettle at both ends, because the serving Prime Minister also has a hand in appointing the bishops. Obviously, this is a crudely-potted summary of around 5 centuries of history. But “Church” and “State” are not separate here. By contrast, the legislature in America is banned from making any law either establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of one.

It seems to me that both of these ideas has had unintended consequences. In a sense, the Church/State relationship nowadays actually blunts the power of the Church to impose “Christian” laws (accepting that there are various reasonable definitions of a Christian law here). By contrast, while the First Amendment prohibits Congress from using religion, it doesn’t prevent religion from using Congress.

Anyway, that’s me off to do the next stage of the lamb curry. I’m up for further discussion later if anyone’s interested, though!

Okay, here I go…. off on a tangent again. Dee’s post and some of the comments have sent my imagination spiraling into the world of what-ifs. I know this is “out there”, but crazier things have happened.

What if the USA was a Christian nation with no separation of church and state. There are so many varieties of Christianity with varying beliefs in our nation……which faith would be king of the hill (Capitol Hill?)……. Southern Baptist? General Baptist? Methodist? Lutheran? Catholic?……..
Could disagreements evolve into a “holy war”?

What would become of non-Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus….
Would citizenships be revoked? Would people who resist be thrown in gulags and concentration camps? Would people be exiled?

Would a “Christian” nation reverse the progress that has been made towards treating all people as equals in the eyes of God? Would we go back to “separate but equal”?

Your occasional reminder: civil marriage was the only kind in Plymouth Colony in the 1620s.

Of all people, the Mayflower passengers wanted civil marriage.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar),

Great questions!
And they answer themselves as to why we don’t have a State religion, and why the Founders made damn sure we didn’t establish one.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): Would a “Christian” nation reverse the progress that has been made towards treating all people as equals in the eyes of God? Would we go back to “separate but equal”?

Many of the so called “Christian nationalists” are less about what I think you would consider “Christian” (tolerance, love, service to others) and more interested in creating an America that never really existed. The “father knows best” America where there were only two genders, one religion, mom wore heels and an apron, and “ethnics” were only seen at the local Chinese restaurant. And blacks had their place…just ask aunt Jemima & uncle Ben.

senecagriggs,

“Your reader base has moved to the left theologically and politically as have you. I doubt you have many avid readers left who would vehemently disagree with David French’s take on civil unions.”
+++++++++++++++

no, powerbrokers have moved the moderate middle off to the right and many conservatives have simply drifted there, too, like leaves and twigs carried down the current of a stream.

Muff Potter:
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),

we don’t have a State religion, and why the Founders made damn sure we didn’t establish one.

Mostly resulting from English history and the reason people boarded the Mayflower……..Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, civil war, political upheaval, and lots of bloodshed …….. all revolving around religion.

Headless Unicorn Guy: I understand this two-ceremonies arrangement was the custom in Continental Europe.

It still is. My wife of 31 years is German. It’s a long story, but we were married in Holland. Only civil judges can marry people there, so we had our court wedding followed by a church wedding. They were on different days, so we have two anniversaries.

“Christians accuse progressives of ill intentions.”

(from dee’s piece)
+++++++++++++++++++++

when i was in a high school history class, we learned about McCarthyism.

this is like McCarthyism.

although all it takes is for someone to have a perspective that’s simply different.

“SHE’S A PROGRESSIVE!! SHE’S A PROGRESSIVE!!”

“How do you known she is a progressive?
“She looks like one!”
“Well, she turned me into a newt!……I got better.”
.
.
good grief…

Ken F (aka Tweed): I thought of that before.My wife approves.

Typo: never thought of that before

Erp,

Thanks for such a useful summary. 🙂

Sigh…

linda: But here is where I come done to the rubber meeting the road. If I had the power to instantly stop all sexual sin, gay and straight, it would have no eternal weight.

People don’t go to heaven because they did not sin sexually. People go to heaven, gay or straight, because they admitted to themselves and God their sins are sins and repented

Amen, Linda, amen.

Gus: government

“Government” as solely neutral regulative administration (e.g impartial magistrates / registrars) is the exact opposite of politicised politicians.

Muff Potter,

Calvinism, like the jesuitism it copies so exactly, was founded specifically as a state religion.

The only times it exists outside that framework e.g as in India, it constitutes the sort of fatalism that afflicted the tragic Zacharias family.

Double sigh…

dee,

I have thinking about this as well.. I can understand how Dee and those that mostly post on TWW could be “labeled” as “left” and/or “progressive”…. It does seem common to label any person or organization that questions established “authority” with these labels.
But, given the focus of TWW is to support those that are abused by the church, it would seem to me that striving for righteousness, supporting the powerless, and just plain saying our “Christian” leaders should do the same is just trying to be “orthodox” followers of Christ…
Note, when I say “righteousness”, I am thinking of the definition used in the Beatitudes…

Jeffrey Chalmers: I have thinking about this as well.. I can understand how Dee and those that mostly post on TWW could be “labeled” as “left” and/or “progressive”…

What do those on left actually do? Spend much time criticizing those on right for obvious and real hypocrisy? What does this blog and their commenters, and me too, spend most of their time doing? Criticizing those on right for hypocrisy. How much time here do we spend criticizing left for obvious hypocrisy? What is the ratio? 10:1 posts on sin on right? Do we mostly ignore hypocrisy on left? Does that make us hypocrites? Perhaps we should embrace the label. Is it a pejorative or is it reality?

When we act like progressives why are we so surprised we are labeled that way? They proudly wear the label. If we do not want the label then Dee and company need to write equal amount of posts about hypocrisy on left. Otherwise we look biased because: we are? Logic? Or are we just as blind as those we criticize?

Probably the clearest teaching I have ever heard that relates to this is an old Charles Stanley sermon on youtube titled The Privilege Corrupted. I strongly recommend it followed by Taking Advantage of the Privilege.

Sometimes our opinions simply do not matter. Only His opinion matters.

Jeffrey Chalmers,

What I do find surprising, is how often evangelical leaders circle the wagons around their “bad boys”, until the heat becomes unbearable…. Falwell Jr, Drisol, RZ, , McDonald come to mind…
Growing up in fundyworld, purity and honest was drilled into us, much like how the Pharisees drilled Christ… and then keep their mouths shut when their buddies dot..

dee,

“It is frustrating that those who don’t know us fall back to a convenient and highly inappropriate label of “leftist.” The disciples were viewed in a similar fashion since they care for the poor and sick. Odd, isn’t it that caring for those harmed is labelled leftist?”
++++++++++++++++++++++

it’s nonthinking.

i’ll add this to the conversation:

the right needs the left. (and vice versa)

it is a mistake to be afraid of “leftist” (let alone turn it into a nasty name, a conversation stopper, a trump card for the win).

it is stupid & unconscionable to make right/left a litmus test for ‘christian’.

in fact, everyone here (and in other christian environments) has values and convictions that are left of center. if we were honest with ourselves. and our christian fellows.

sometimes i’m left. sometimes i’m right.

we all are. except for those intentionally headed for totalitarianism.

so what if it’s castigated “left” or “right” (as if we should be afraid of either).

If one’s views are left of center, own it and say it.

those who reject you for it are nincompoops worthy of a fahrt in their general direction.

Ken F (aka Tweed): Friend: Your occasional reminder: civil marriage was the only kind in Plymouth Colony in the 1620s.

And I am pretty sure Christmas in America was only ever banned by the Pilgrims.
https://www.plymouth400inc.org/did-the-pilgrims-celebrate-christmas/

“If Enemy Christians do X, We Must Do The Opposite of X!”
Protestantism carried to its most sterile extreme.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): Mostly resulting from English history and the reason people boarded the Mayflower……..Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, civil war, political upheaval, and lots of bloodshed …….. all revolving around religion.

Why do you think the First Amendment and its corollary the Separation of Church and State were there in the first place? Institutional Memory of all the above when Politics revolved around Religion and Righteousness.

But these days among Christians the only Amendment is the Second Amendment.
(Praise Be to ZARDOZ!)

elastigirl,

since the lever on this right/left thing is moved by the loudmouths and powerbrokers (like a plastic game piece from Milton Bradley), it’s all sort of meaningless anyway.

i challenge any christian to read the book of Luke in one sitting and not come away seeing Jesus as slotted into the artificial category of “leftist” and being hurled insults by the people who claim him as their mascot just like mickey mouse.

(or really, who use him for their own purposes and paranoias)

Whether you have church/state separation or not, both are under God. The OPC considered this relationship many years ago and John Murray wrote “The church is not subordinate to the state, nor is the state subordinate to the church. They are both subordinate to God, and to Christ in his mediatorial dominion as head over all things to his body the church. Both church and state are under obligation to recognise this subordination, and the corresponding co-ordination of their respective spheres of operation in the divine institution. Each must maintain and assert its autonomy in reference to the other and preserve its freedom from intrusion on the part of the other. But while this diversity of function and of sphere must be recognised, guarded, and maintained, the larger unity within which this diversity exists must not be overlooked. The principle that defines this unity is the sovereignty of God, and the obligation emanating from it is the requirement that both church and state must promote the interests of the kingdom of God….While the church is not to discharge the functions of other institutions such as the state and the family, nevertheless it is charged to define what the functions of these institutions are, and the lines of demarcation by which they are distinguished. It is also charged to declare and inculcate the duties which devolve upon them. Consequently when the civil magistrate trespasses the limits of its authority, it is incumbent upon the church to expose and condemn such a violation of its authority. When laws are proposed or enacted which are contrary to the law of God, it is the duty of the church to oppose them and expose their iniquity.” (Collected Writings of John Murray, vol.1:The Claims of Truth,p253-259).

In that respect C S Lewis is wrong in his view that godless men cannot be expected to live godly lives, as is David French when he seeks to maintain that “ there is broad and wise consensus that importing divine standards whole cloth into civil law can be a recipe for division, oppression, and ultimate harm to the church itself.” In my opinion, that is.

Headless Unicorn Guy: Why do you think the First Amendment and its corollary the Separation of Church and State were there in the first place?

I’m also of the opinion that “Separation of Church and State” gets carried to extremes when groups of zealots get their undies in a dither over whether or not school kids are holding Bible studies or prayer meetings on campus.
So long as Congress has enacted no law establishing a State religion, what kids do on campus on their own time, should not be prohibited.

“My take on the subject is this, and it is two fold. First and foremost, as a conservative Christian I do not believe there is any such thing as a gay marriage. Marriage was created by God, and is clearly in both the OT and NT for one man and one woman, for life with notable exceptions given by both Christ and Paul. So there is that. I believe when someone who is either XY or XX has sex with someone of the same sex, it is sin. I also believe it is sin when they have sex with the opposite gender to whom they are not married. I agree wholeheartedly abuse is a sin.” Linda

So here are my concerns about gender being a black and white issue.

Nothing in the human make-up is black and white. When problems arise with genes, alleles, chromosomes, etc. we end up with all kinds of physical anomalies and diseases. We only need to look around us to see these things.

We readily accept, help and encourage humans born different than us because we live in an imperfect, broken world. But why do so many religious people among us not want to accept the people who have different realities when it comes to gender? Just because someone looks a certain way on the outside, doesn’t mean they fall into my or your reality on the inside.

Someone please explain why, in many religious groups, being born different than what we call the “norm” is okay in every instance except when it comes to gender? Why is it sinful concerning gender, but not any other difference in a person? God created us all ‘as we are’ did he not?

Lowlandseer,

Rule of Law.
Common Good.

The Bible and Jesus’ life go beyond these. For example, the Abrahamic Covenant mandated circumcision for males. Strictly for Abraham’s community.

However, the Rule of Law and the Common Good, civilly, should allow for a variety of religions, including Christians, to be in agreement, reach consensus, living together, under the same national flag.

Unfortunately, the public track record of Christians in the US evidences far LESS civility than the Rule of Law and the Common Good, with regard to Domestic Violence and Clergy Sexual Abuse. Clergy (some, every day) break the law and are brought to account via LE and the DOJ but NOT church institutions.

Question for every person occupying a pulpit today: What are you proactively doing about the other pandemic: rampant Domestic Violence among church people and Clergy Sexual Abuse? Nothing? Then sit down. You have nothing to say. (See the Houston Chronicle’s Abuse of Faith, for one. Secondly, follow the public record daily of DV & CSA.)

Ava Aaronson,

They cut Driscoll loose, etc…. People seem to be distancing from Falwell Jr, good old Ravi

Bridget: Marriage was created by God, and is clearly in both the OT and NT for one man and one woman, for life with notable exceptions given by both Christ and Paul. So there is that. I believe when someone who is either XY or XX has sex with someone of the same sex, it is sin. I also believe it is sin when they have sex with the opposite gender to whom they are not married. I agree wholeheartedly abuse is a sin.” Linda

So here are my concerns about gender being a black and white issue.

Nothing in the human make-up is black and white. When problems arise with genes, alleles, chromosomes, etc. we end up with all kinds of physical anomalies and diseases. We only need to look around us to see these things.

Genesis describes God’s intended creation. Man and woman. No disease. No anomalies. Science evidences that creation exists, (although not perfect). With faith (beyond science) we believe that God designed and intended Creation to be perfect.

Things went awry when the man and woman sinned, and they were cast out of the Garden. Physical things. Science. With faith we believe this is how the anomalies breached God’s perfectly designed Creation.

I asked a friend today if her husband, a longtime family practitioner, had ever dealt with infants born with a mixture of physical gender attributes. She said he had never. So this is very very uncommon but it does occur. Fact.

This is NOT an adult claiming their real gender does not match their physical body – and they are trapped in a body that is the wrong gender. This is an infant, created by God, born with a variety of both gender physical attributes. Fact. By faith we love that child as a created-by-God dignified normal human being. Civil law requires we treat them with respect, dignity, justice, and care.

What do theologians know? What do civic lawmakers know? If they dismiss facts when putting forth their mandates for sacred and civil community life, they have nothing to say.

What about same sex intimate partnerships?

Many years ago, Walter and Ingrid Trobisch presented a theory of the three stages of love relationships. A child learns to love self first as a child. Then the child matures and learns to love others like their self: girls BFF girlfriends, boy BFFs boyfriends. Finally, a person matures to love a person different from their own self & others like them: the opposite sex, boy & girl attractions. The Trobischs thought that homosexual love was arrested development. (Following this thread, it would seem that the theobros have arrested development as they click together in a pack with little esteem for and understanding of the dignity of women. Again following this thread, it would be no surprise that guys like Ted Haggard would end up seeking intimacy with guys, being an ultimate theobro leader; loving a woman as self would be degrading since a woman is lesser.) None of what the Trobischs taught would be politically correct, and they are long gone now. Neither Walter Trobisch nor Ingrid Trobisch were medical doctors, so the anomalies of chromosomes and gender were not mentioned in their works we have studied.

Lowlandseer: “… While the church is not to discharge the functions of other institutions such as the state and the family, nevertheless it is charged to define what the functions of these institutions are, and the lines of demarcation by which they are distinguished. …”

So the church has the power to define everything about the state and the family. That does not strike me as particularly limited power.

Bridget: Someone please explain why, in many religious groups, being born different than what we call the “norm” is okay in every instance except when it comes to gender? Why is it sinful concerning gender, but not any other difference in a person? God created us all ‘as we are’ did he not?

Because god said so.

He also dictated the same punishment for disobedient children & women who don’t cry out when being abused.

Don’t know why he sent a dream of surf and turf food that abrogated the dietary laws but here we are…

Friend: linda: I cannot in good conscience support the respect for marriage act, and that does not make me a bigot who hates gay people. That dog don’t hunt.

I believe lots of things are sin, and still love people. I believe stealing is a sin, and I don’t stop saying that just because murder is also a sin and I have not been able to stop people from murdering.

This compares the institution of same-sex marriage with stealing and murder.

I was thinking along the same lines. Murder, stealing, and many other sins harm someone else – taking their property or life or other harms (which is why they are also crimes). Who is same-sex marriage hurting? It is giving civil rights to people in committed relationships that happen to be of the same gender. Provides financial and legal protections by the state, as someone noted above. And I admit that my views on this have also changed a lot over the years.
On the other hand, I also don’t think that churches should be forced to marry couples who don’t meet their particular definition of “marriage”. Maybe keeping the labels separate, i.e. “civil union” (by the state, with all the legal ramifications intact) vs. “marriage” (by the church) might be of help??

I wonder, don’t know the answer, if much of the objections come from still viewing homosexuality as a “choice” of lifestyle. I think most homosexuals would say that’s just who they “are”, not what they “chose”. Part of their being.

Have to say, the movie “Boy Erased” with Nicole Kidman was pretty sad. (based on true story about forced gay conversion camp, won’t give the ending away)

Jack,

if you go left far enough, you circle back to the right

Ava Aaronson: I asked a friend today if her husband, a longtime family practitioner, had ever dealt with infants born with a mixture of physical gender attributes. She said he had never. So this is very very uncommon but it does occur. Fact.

This is NOT an adult claiming their real gender does not match their physical body – and they are trapped in a body that is the wrong gender. This is an infant, created by God, born with a variety of both gender physical attributes. Fact. By faith we love that child as a created-by-God dignified normal human being. Civil law requires we treat them with respect, dignity, justice, and care.

It is somewhat rare. But what you explain is not the only issue. There are other anomalies that do not present as dual gender physically. There are as many anomalies as there are genes and alleles. So to state the issues in such simple terms is not the reality that people deal wirh.

Jack: Sounds like they made it up to fit their pre established worldview – current science begs to differ.

Here’s a recent example of current science tangentially related, which does not seem comfortably nor monolithically settled. Interesting how this peer-reviewed article touches on pre-established worldviews potentially playing into what has been viewed as “current science” for the past couple of decades:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346

“Two Dutch studies formed the foundation and the best available evidence for the practice of youth medical gender transition. We demonstrate that this work is methodologically flawed and should have never been used in medical settings as justification to scale this “innovative clinical practice.” Three methodological biases undermine the research: (1) subject selection assured that only the most successful cases were included in the results; (2) the finding that “resolution of gender dysphoria” was due to the reversal of the questionnaire employed; (3) concomitant psychotherapy made it impossible to separate the effects of this intervention from those of hormones and surgery”

“This highly politicized and fallacious narrative, crafted and promoted by clinician-advocates, has failed to withstand scientific scrutiny internationally, with public health authorities in Sweden, Finland, and most recently England doing a U-turn on pediatric gender transitions in the last 24 months (COHERE (Council for Choices in Health Care), 2020; Socialstyrelsen [National Board of Health and Welfare], 2022; National Health Service (NHS), 2022a).“

Bridget: what you explain is not the only issue.

Pardon the unclarity. Not trying explain all or anything. Nothing exhaustive here. Just to say there are a variety of realities dismissed in theologies and policies. Real people, real situations.

Realities dismissed being the point about those claiming to be leaders, setting standards, and telling others what to do.

Max:
Jack,

if you go left far enough, you circle back to the right

Or if you far enough right you circle back to the left.

Ultimately, human decency isn’t left or right. Both “conservative” and “liberal” have been hijacked by people who are neither.

I believe some things like medicine should not be run by corporations but I also don’t think a free market is evil.

I don’t advocate the owning of assault weapons but don’t think all gun owners are evil.

I believe men and women being equal has nothing to do with left or right. My wife earns more money than I do, but I worked and we both alternated shifts while she upgraded. That’s teamwork that has nothing to do with right or left

Bridget,

Hmm. That has a few typos!

Jack:
JDV,

Ok. This article has to do with youth gender transitions, it doesn’t state that homosexual adults are stunted in some way.It’s apples and oranges.

There’s a gender spectrum and those on that spectrum are not defective.

Spoke to current science and the influence of preestablished world views, so not apples and oranges on that.

dee:
– I have no problem with any entity defining sin as the ysee it.Recently some church leaders have focused on this issue. They have ceded on the issue of divorce in general with some folks like MacArthur and as outliers.Should they give equal time to other sins and, if so which ones?

This reminds me of when recent SBC president JD Greear contended regarding an issue related to this discussion:

https://jdgreear.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Copy-of-4-Romans-1-24-32-Judgment.pdf

“Jen Wilkin says we should whisper about what the Bible whispers about and shout about what it shouts about. The Bible appears more to whisper on sexual sin compared to its shouts about materialism and religious pride.”

I’m not sure why Wilkin, who has been covered here, was cited, but Greear appeared to be using the above assertions towards a metric for sin emphasis and focus if you will. How someone in his position could contend the Bible whispers about sexual sin given the number of times that it is discussed seems to be quite something. One wonders if they would say whether Paul whispered or not when he shared the following, a passage that seems to note an additional issue with sexual sin unlike every other sin:

1 Cor. 6:18-20 — “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin, whatever if a man might do, is outside the body, but the one sinning sexually sins against the own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in you, whom you have from God? And you are not your own, for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body.”

What seems to mark this entire thing is plenty of people playing political football and leveraging power dynamics one way or another, over and over again. As with many that engage in such back-and-forth, so many on both sides can carry baggage and questionable agendas.

Jack: Sunday school had a lesson called “Cooking with Jesus”. He connected it to communion and apparently couldn’t stop laughing

A C of E church I once frequented used to hold a cake break around tables after the “address”, before recommencing the rest of the “service”. Honest!

Mr. Jesperson,

Apologies for omitti ng link to your comment from mine offered at 01:21 a.m.

Lowlandseer: While the church is not to discharge the functions of other institutions such as the state and the family, nevertheless it is charged to define what the functions of these institutions are, and the lines of demarcation by which they are distinguished. It is also charged to declare and inculcate the duties which devolve upon them.

This is not only bad theology (“my kingdom is not of this world”), but also terrible statecraft.

Who defines the demarcation defines the rules. Who defines the rules can change them. This would mean that the church defines which things the government is allowed to regulate, and which it can’t.

This might even work in a country with *one* predominant church. The church tells the government what it can do, what the rules are for public and private lives, and everyone has no choice but to follow them. This is similar to the dreams of the “Christian nationalists” in the news recently, like the author of a new book on christian nationalism, Stephen Wolfe, and his friend and podcast co-host, Thomas Achord, whose vilely racist and misogynist half-anonymous twitter account created quite a stir. Stephen Wolfe, in his own twitter interactions, was not even ready to affirm the right to vote of every citizen, male or female. Also, he said that heretics need not be punished by a death sentence, jail or fines should probably be enough.

For the church, this will lead to a lot of outward compliance because people are too scared to dissent. It will not lead to a christian society (whatever that is. I don’t know, why anyone would want to live in this kind of society. In a country like the US, with its many religions (even christian religions) I cannot imagine the various denominations even agreeing on the most basic practical consequences of this. Calvinists and arminians, catholics and pentecostalists, John MacArthur and Paule White? This could be fun to watch, if it wasn’t so dangerous to everyone’s freedom.

Max always says, and I completely agree with him, that you need to read the epistles in light of/filtered by the gospels, Paul in light of what Jesus says, not the other way round.

James Murry, as quoted by Lowlandseer, turns it around, and adds another filter, that of the lawyer. Much as I appreciate good laws and lawyers, I think
this is putting the cart before the horse. And it would lead to a society that would look a lot like Calvin’s Geneva or Oliver Cromwell’s England. Or, if you prefer more contemporary comparisons, today’s theocratic Iran.

Lowlandseer: In that respect C S Lewis is wrong in his view that godless men cannot be expected to live godly lives,

Who gets to define what is godly and what is not?

Getting back to “Marriage in the biblical sense is between one man and one woman”… this seems straightforward in Creation.

However, after the Fall, one might ask: How does one define Man, how does one define Woman? The physicality seems to be in question. There are variations at birth, among humans.

Christians who study the Bible have the biblical accounts of Creation and the Fall, as well as science and history to grapple with.

Theology that lies about or ignores history and science while cherry picking or doing the Twist and Shout with the Bible, is ignorance. Best to avoid.

Another reason why Kristin DuMez’s work and Beth Allison Barr’s work became best sellers. They set a few things straight historically. Perhaps more than a few.

Gus: you need to read the epistles in light of/filtered by the gospels, Paul in light of what Jesus says, not the other way round

If you don’t, you could very well read Jesus wrong! If you read the Gospels first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.

Max: If you read the Gospels first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.

Does anybody truly start reading the Bible with the Epistles? Is this a New Calvinist thing?

Maybe I’m just a naive lil lifelong Christian, but I think most Christian denominations and traditions place strongest emphasis on the Gospels. Any church with a lectionary, for example.

Ken F (aka Tweed): Who gets to define what is godly and what is not?

Whoever Seizes POWER, of course.

“There are those who say what we do is illegal. Before that can happen, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.”
— L Ron Hubbard

Gus: This might even work in a country with *one* predominant church.

Like Holy Russia?
“Z! Z! Z!”

Jack: Because god said so.

My writing partner once said the most terrifying Christian Nationalist/Reconstructionist website he had ever come across was titled “GOD HATH SAID”.

Headless Unicorn Guy: Whoever Seizes POWER, of course.

Exactly. Once I seize power, I, and I alone, will tell you all the correct behaviors and thoughts for you. My appointed “elders” will lovingly help you conform to the right standards. It will be utopia. What could go wrong?

Friend: Does anybody truly start reading the Bible with the Epistles? Is this a New Calvinist thing?

I know young men who attended SBC seminaries in recent years. They testify that the emphasis for systematic theology is indeed placed on the epistles of Paul, rather than the Gospels. SBC seminaries are all now controlled by NeoCal leadership. In the hands of crafty seminary professors, the epistles are twisted to support reformed theology … the words in red get in the way of that, so they avoid the Gospels.

linda: The church loses its way when it is focused on the culture wars, or theological wars, or anything else than seeing sinners born again.

The culture part is how we live out our faith:

1. As disciples in fellowship.
2. As citizens of a free and open society.

Thus two distinct cultures, that IMHO, need not be at war.

For example, in our community, families choose their school culture for their children: parochial, public, magnet, charter, homeschool, etc. Without war. These schools compete in tournaments, peacefully.

There have always, always, always been non-heterosexual people in churches. Double the always when the state requires universal membership.

What are they to do? Lie, stay in the closet, wait to be exposed and expelled? Shunning does not strike me as a loving answer. Neither does the current fad of yelling “Groomer!” at anybody and everybody.

Celibacy might look like a handy answer, but I was most certainly celibate at age 12 when the kids at school called me various LGBTQ slurs, over and over, with no basis in my actions or thinking.

We need to stop dehumanizing humans.

Friend: There have always, always, always been non-heterosexual people in churches. Double the always when the state requires universal membership.

There have always been heterosexual adulterers in churches. Not visible. (Or covered up even when truth is told, like Ravi Z. – and he was a predator which is not even really an adulterer but a criminal.)

Same with obesity and gluttons (although there are many reasons for being overweight, some due to no fault of the person). Visible.

Same with alcoholics and substance abuse. Not always visible.

Same with greedy corporate leaders. Not visible, but the working class without a living wage would know.

Etc.

1 Cor. 5 gives some indication of what sinful practices/lifestyles to disallow in a church fellowship, probably since these are social behaviors that impact others in a group.

IAC, “always present” is neither a dealmaker nor dealbreaker for me.

IMHO, churches and fellowships *always* have to grapple with lifestyle issues, sin issues, and consensus about overlookables as well as confrontables, and disfellowshipables.

Seems to pop up often in the NT churches. The disciples didn’t always agree on stuff.

In these times, can we agree that DV and CSA do NOT belong in church institutions and DO need LE with the DOJ intervention?

Ava Aaronson: these are social behaviors that impact others in a group.

The Bible does have some verses against homosexuality. One argument against trying to apply these verses to our society: the ancient peoples of the Holy Land did not have our notions of consent.

The adult married gay couple in my neighborhood is not affecting me or exploiting or assaulting each other or anyone else. Are they still sinning? Should I stop saying hi to them? What if they show up at my church?

These are challenging questions, but I do want to understand how your beliefs would work in a neighborhood or town.

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): changes and additions that were made in the BF&M2000 … the Apostle Paul has begun to have a greater influence on the SBC than Jesus

Mohler (on the BFM2000 revision team) must have felt it would be safer to twist what Paul was saying rather than Jesus … even Pope Mohler wouldn’t dare to do that. The BFM2000 ushered in SBC Calvinization by subtle and not-so-subtle changes to long-standing Baptist doctrines, beliefs and practices.

Thank you, Ava.

We do disagree on this, but I appreciate your honesty.

To be clear, I would not belong to a church that denied fellowship or membership to legally married people—or to any person just living life and seeking God.

Of course churches should oppose crime, and they should certainly not conceal it. If they flout the law, they lose moral standing too.

Max: They testify that the emphasis for systematic theology is indeed placed on the epistles of Paul, rather than the Gospels.

Neo-cals are not the only ones who camp out on Paul.
Plenty of non-reformed outfits do it too.

Ava Aaronson: Twist and shout. A lot of biblical expounding does the dance while bellowing.

Reminds me of of the old tv commercials for the Milton Bradly game, Twister………. “Twister ties you up in a knot.”

Muff Potter: Neo-cals are not the only ones who camp out on Paul.

Paul would be astounded at his popularity … he desired nothing but to glorify Christ. Neo-cals (and some others) talk more about Paul than they do Jesus!

Max: Paul would be astounded at his popularity

Astute point, Max! I think he would have little patience for a lot of his devotees.

He might even wonder why we’re reading only his half of the correspondence.

Max,

Beatles.

Mr. Jesperson:
Existential angst!

Conservative hypocrisy…Driving me crazy…Must find release…

Solution?Go to Watch and lodge complaint!Feel better then…

Write long paragraph…Others like!Done…Feel better now?Check back later…

Wrote small essay on Watch with multiple comments!Everyone like…Go to bed…

Wait…Mind restless…Can’t sleep…Maybe not enough comments…

Wake up…Good sleep?Not quite…

Damn!Existential angst back…World not changed…Sunday…

Mark’s still hold church…Driscoll… Dever…All the same…

Solution?Go to Watch and lodge complaint!Feel better then…

Sleep better if more comments…Sleep better if longer comments…

Write…Write… Write…Write… Write…Write Write…Write…

New person show up and comment…Judge… Judge… Agree with echo chamber?

Not agree…Cannot leave alone!Angry…Put them in place…

New person never comment again!Mission accomplished…

Me not like Mark’s…Pat myself on back…

Me good person today…I should sleep well…

Toss… Turn…Look at clock…Curse time on clock…

New day!Sleep well? I wish…

Damn!Angst still not go away!

Mark’s writing new books, blogs…Raising millions of dollars…

Solution?Go to Watch… File complaint… Others like!

Rinse… Repeat…Day after day…Month after Month…Year after year…

Max!Sound familiar?Must repeat same comment…Feel better then…

Wait…Neo-Calvinists…Gift of gab…Beat dead horse…Feel better then…

Wait… New post…Not about hypocrisy on right…Put on ignore…

Days past… Angst building… Need new post about hypocrisy on right…

Post up about right wing A@hole!Celebrate…Express outrage…Me good person!

Did Einstein say, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again always expecting different results?”

Maybe… Maybe not…If so, me smarter than him…

Me not hypocrite!Others A%@holes… Me never like that!

Damn!Angst still existential…Maybe Jesus help?No…

Hypocrites talk about Jesus!Me talk to Jesus?Make me hypocrite?

Make new comment… Same as old comment…Insanity?Of course not…

Hmm… seems like the spirit of a perverse Cookie Monster has possessed you. Way to break it down for all the kindergarteners reading the blog.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,

As the kids say, THIS.

Ava Aaronson,

Actually, a variety of biological conditions that are often referred to as “intersex” exist, and a number of them are pretty common. (I’m not talking about ambiguous genitalia, which is indeed rare.)

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): Paul has begun to have a greater influence

A meaningless alleged “Paul”. Paul more than anyone, wrote and spoke with meanings. I bet the SBC don’t know their Isaiah or Jeremiah.

numo: psychology

Our individual emotional development is not a matter for public authority, it belongs completely in the private forum.

Ava Aaronson: However, after the Fall, one might ask: How does one define Man, how does one define Woman? The physicality seems to be in question. There are variations at birth, among humans.
Christians who study the Bible have the biblical accounts of Creation and the Fall, as well as science and history to grapple with.
Theology that lies about or ignores history and science while cherry picking or doing the Twist and Shout with the Bible, is ignorance. Best to avoid.

And yet the Incarnate Son of God came after the Fall and, among other things, endorsed the Creation account of man and woman and defined their relationship (as well as coming into the world to save sinners).

As for your other stuff, Einstein also said that Science without Theology is lame – you only gave half the quotation in your earlier remarks. My suggestion would be that any “scientifically minded” person who calls into question the mental health of those who hold different views or implies that they are lying is the one who should be avoided.

Lowlandseer: As for your other stuff, Einstein also said that Science without Theology is lame – you only gave half the quotation in your earlier remarks. My suggestion would be that any “scientifically minded” person who calls into question the mental health of those who hold different views or implies that they are lying is the one who should be avoided.

Actually the quote has “religion” not “theology” and the fuller context includes a description of religion that would allow one to say those who hold different views are flat out wrong even if they claim theological reasons.

At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

From his essay Science and Religion (https://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm)

Lowlandseer: My suggestion would be that any “scientifically minded” person who calls into question the mental health of those who hold different views or implies that they are lying is the one who should be avoided.

I’m not Ava, so forgive me for weighing in.

Shouldn’t this be a two-way street? Mental illness and lying are things that exist in the world. If people are too mentally ill to make sound judgments, that needs to be pointed out. Likewise if they are simply dishonest.

This goes beyond the supposed dichotomy between science and religion. We need enlightenment and critical thinking. Pointing out flawed ideas is crucial.

Friend,

And women had no place, really, in the Oxford of his day. The Inklings were all men, and I doubt they’d have welcomed women guests/members in their regular pub nights….

Lowlandseer,

But the Narnia books are *stories.* Fun and imaginative.

Myself, I’d take the wardrobe any day. There’s a but of allegory there, for those who are able to see it.

Mr. Jesperson: Learn fear of God. All sin including all sexual sin brings death. Death not good…

And who determines what sexual sin is? Maybe the greater part of humanity have been the whitewashed tombs. Many look at the outward appearance of man/woman and judge what that means. There are internal workings of men/woman that are not in alignment with their physical attributes. I wonder how God judges people . . . by their outward appearances or otherwise? Do they love God, their neighbors, do they murder, steal, commit adultery, love their parents, etc.

Mr. Jesperson: Learn fear of God. All sin including all sexual sin brings death. Death not good…

All sins deserve hell?
Should we execute a jay-walker just the same as a mass murderer?

Max: Neo-cals (and some others) talk more about Paul than they do Jesus!

This is true.
I briefly attended a church in my area where Paul is like a new Moses to the gentiles so to speak. Every jot and tittle (Paul’s writings) carries the same weight as Torah does to ultra-orthodox Jews.

It has been interesting to see the various evasions employed to avoid discussing the existence of sin in all our lives and to try to justify the benefits of the Marriage Act in an effort to promote whatever ideal you hold to, contrary to the teachings of God. Some of you might think today is different from the past and that the specifics mentioned n the blog are new and unique. But they are not.

The following was written 484 years ago. “ But I would have you not to think it enough to be Christians in your dealing, according to the Act of Parliament, but according to the word of God.“ (Rev Alexander Henderson, COMMUNION SERVICE OCT. 21, 1638   AT SAINT ANDREWS, OCTOBER 21, 1638, WHEN THE COMMUNION WAS GIVEN THEREj.

numo,

the *mockery*

Lowlandseer: It has been interesting to see the various evasions employed to avoid discussing the existence of sin in all our lives and to try to justify the benefits of the Marriage Act in an effort to promote whatever ideal you hold to, contrary to the teachings of God. Some of you might think today is different from the past and that the specifics mentioned n the blog are new and unique. But they are not.

Some of us don’t seem to understand how radical Jesus really is, or believe that he was actually God in the flesh. Some of us seem to believe we know exactly what God is, and what he would do, and how he will judge, and confine His being to what’s in a book.

Bridget,

Good comment, Bridget.

Friend,

Although I’m very curious as to why Sultan Murad IV accused the Ecumenical Patriarch of treason.

* Note: this execution is *exactly* like many that were carried out by minions of the (supposedly Xtian) Byzantine emperors, and is actually a lot more humane than the majority of those. So many executions of the emperors’ immediate family were murdered, over the course of many centuries, so that sons/brothers/nephews etc. wouldn’t seize the throne. If and when they did, they had no hesitation about killing the deposed emperor(s) by very violent, bloody, gruesome means.

Reading Western and Eastern Xtian history isn’t for the faint of heart, that’s for sure.

Friend,

So I looked up the Ecumenical Patriarch in question and ***this*** is… “interesting,” I suppose. At least, it’s one way of characterizing what he did… and why he was deposed and executed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Lucaris

Mr. Jesperson: When we act like progressives why are we so surprised we are labeled that way? They proudly wear the label. If we do not want the label then Dee and company need to write equal amount of posts about hypocrisy on left. Otherwise we look biased because: we are? Logic? Or are we just as blind as those we criticize?

So basically any tolerance is “the left”.

I didn’t stop being Christian because of Jesus.

But because of this mainly.

Sorry, I can’t hate people and eat bacon at the same time.

Jesus? Ok, but like the band Sloan said in their 1994 song “Coax Me”

“It’s not the band I hate, it’s their fans…”

numo,

You can’t make this up. You just can’t.

This man’s convictions fly in the face of everything I thought I knew about the Eastern Orthodox chirches.

I suspect many former Protestants today – those who’ve converted to one or another of the EO churches – might well experience a crisis of faith if they knew about Cyril I, along with other folks along the way who defied what the Orthodox churches claim about themselves and their history.

Cyril I also corresponded with at least one of the Archbishops of Canterbury. Communications appear to have been quite cordial.

Meanwhile, my head is still spinning over the notion of the EO churches coming *this* close to Protestant-style reforms during the early-mid 1600s. The world might look very different today if that had happened.

Ava Aaronson,

Yes, people “seeking to violently assault” *anyone* is wrong. We agree on that much.

How, then, do you understand Lot’s response? He offered the mob his daughters, after all.

*

Ava, I understand that you are presenting the 2 creation accounts in Genesis as *you* interpret them. You have a good deal of company on that, but really, many Xtians do not look at these texts and see a textbook lesson on marriage in them. There are many possible interpretations of said texts within both Judaism and Xtianity, and they cover many different facets of these undoubtedly ancient texts. There is no single reading of Genesis 1 and 2 by Xtians, across many denominations. And Judaism prizes diversity of opinion – as in the Talmud.

No doubt many people look at these texts as a blueprint for everything, including marriage. But 1) the texts are not “about” marriage, really, and 2) the reasons that two distinct and often very contradictory stories (not historical accounts) about creation are in the canon has very little to do with the interpretation you seem to favor.

Note also that the serpent in account no. 2 is nowhere equated with Satan in the text itself. That’s very much a Christian interpretation of the nature of the text, one that evolved over the course of many centuries.

Judaism doesn’t – as a whole – view it that way. At all. If you can set aside what you believe about that text for a minute or two, this story – like so many from around the world that include animals – has 2 humans and a talking reptile. Nowhere is it represented as being a personification of what Xtians view as Satan/the devil.

Then again, there is a clear understanding of wrongdoing in both Judaism and Islam. What they exclude: the “fall of man” interpretation of Genesis 1-2 that developed *over centuries* within Xtianity. (Western Xtianity, to be specific. The Eastern churches have no single stance on this, unlike the churches of the West, nor do they believe we have inherited the consequences of Adam and Eve’s actions in the same ways as both Roman Catholics and Western Protestant churches do.)

So while you’re starting from a certain point, please understand that not every Xtian in this world – or in the small sample of us who comment on this blog – agree with you on what those texts mean. I’m not criticizing you, but I am trying to say that your stance is by no means the only one to be found among Xtians. Truly devout Xtians at that.

Friend,

There’s *so* much to this, as per what’s said about Cyril I’s having absorbed many ideas from the Reformation (although Calvinism seems to have been his main go-to) that it’s pretty mind-boggling.

numo: Meanwhile, my head is still spinning over the notion of the EO churches coming *this* close to Protestant-style reforms during the early-mid 1600s. The world might look very different today if that had happened.

Maybe they rejected Calvinism for very good and solid reasons.

Ken F (aka Tweed),

I think it’s more along the lines of their rejecting Reformation Protestant ideas – Lutheran, Calvinist, Church of England – than anything tied to Calvinism per se.

In France, before the Huguenots were slaughtered (and driven out, but an awful lot of them were killed in highly violent ways), there were also Catholics who had much in common with both Cyril I and the Huguenots, in that the believed major reforms were needed within Catholicism. This group of people is usually called the Jansenists. Am afraid I don’t have any further info. ATM. The Huguenots were Calvinists, but I *really* think there’s a whole lot of nuance here – and in the Europeans wars of religion as a whole – than it might appear.

I do understand why so many posters here react to Calvinist/Calvinism very negatively. But what I think most are reacting to isn’t Calvinism as it was (pretty diverse) in the 16th and 17th centuries. You folks are mainly reaction to contemporary neo-Calvinism, including the practices of many Orthodox Presbyterian and similar denominations.

FWIW, Calvinism as Xtian belief does not compute f8r Lutherans, which I am. But we’re talking about history, plus there’s no single way to *be* Calvinist. There are many interpretations of John Calvin’s views; ditto for those of his followers.

Cool?

numo: So while you’re starting from a certain point, please understand that not every Xtian in this world – or in the small sample of us who comment on this blog – agree with you on what those texts mean. I’m not criticizing you, but I am trying to say that your stance is by no means the only one to be found among Xtians. Truly devout Xtians at that.

“So while you’re starting from a certain point” Everyone does.

“please understand that not every Xtian in this world – or in the small sample of us who comment on this blog – agree with you on what those texts mean.” Obviously, various POVs weigh in.

“I’m not criticizing you, but I am trying to say that your stance is by no means the only one to be found among Xtians. Truly devout Xtians at that.” Who in this world has the only stance? “Devout”? – what does that even mean – never used that language.

LOL: We work across denominations in ministry, (without salary) and don’t all agree. We share the work, NOT interpretations, in fellowship with Messianic Jews & several Christian denoms, with input from Talmud, Torah, OT, NT, as well as the various Bibles, without expectations of others while we study and work to show ourselves approved by God.

Psalm 62: My expectations are from God alone, my salvation comes from him. My soul confides in God alone. POV. Choice.

Regarding DV & CSA? Criminal as LE & DOJ agree. Do Christians? Whatever.

numo:
Ken F (aka Tweed),

I think it’s more along the lines of their rejecting Reformation Protestant ideas – Lutheran, Calvinist, Church of England – than anything tied to Calvinism per se.

In France, before the Huguenots were slaughtered (and driven out, but an awful lot of them were killed in highly violent ways), there were also Catholics who had much in common with both Cyril I and the Huguenots, in that the believed major reforms were needed within Catholicism. This group of people is usually called the Jansenists. Am afraid I don’t have any further info. ATM. The Huguenots were Calvinists, but I *really* think there’s a whole lot of nuance here – and in the Europeans wars of religion as a whole – than it might appear.

I do understand why so many posters here react to Calvinist/Calvinism very negatively. But what I think most are reacting to isn’t Calvinism as it was (pretty diverse) in the 16th and 17th centuries. You folks are mainly reaction to contemporary neo-Calvinism, including the practices of many Orthodox Presbyterian and similar denominations.

FWIW, Calvinism as Xtian belief does not compute f8r Lutherans, which I am. But we’re talking about history, plus there’s no single way to *be* Calvinist. There are many interpretations of John Calvin’s views; ditto for those of his followers.

Cool?

Yes. My experience with EO is they strongly reject changes of any kind, Calvinism or otherwise. It seemed like the comments here focused on Calvinism specifically, and I do know they made a formal rejection of Calvinism (I need to refresh my memory). EO never had inquisitions indulgences, crusades, and other types of activities that led to the reformation. They had issues, but different issues. I wonder how the protestant reformation could have been different if the reformers had looked further east.

Ava Aaronson,

I think it’s best that we agree to disagree. B/c we do disagree, and I can’t imagine that arguing about it here or anywhere else will cause either of us to change our minds on these issues.

But truly, you are at one point on the spectrum within Xtianity. I’m at another point. Everyone who reads and comments here – likewise. But when someone (hypothetically) insists on having the single “right” understanding of something, it’s pretty much not OK. I mean, I can do that, too, and there was a time when I’d have agreed with you 100%.

That time is long past. In the midst of anguish per being kicked out of the last evangelical church I attended (for reasons that weren’t right), there was and is something that I found very freeing. That is being able to use my mind and think for myself once more. Like a grownup. Sadly, far too many evangelicals dictate what everyone e should believe. If anyone is perceived as stepping out of line (or being at a different point on the spectrum), the consequences can be very severe. In my 30+ years’ time inside evangelical churches,we were dictated to as if we were little kids in matters of belief. Thinking for oneself and publicly holding a different opinion was anathema.

So…you are where you are. All the rest of us are wherever we are, individually and, sometimes, collectively. I do not think it’s OK to speak to others as if my POV is exactly “right.” But we *can* discuss things, so long as we each understand that no single person has the lock on true things, let alone that their beliefs are exactly “what God wants.”

Also, I have a couple of replies to you that got caught by the spam filter. Am sure they’ll be available tomorrow.

Best regards,
numo

Ken F (aka Tweed),

Ken – yes, different issues. As to what might have happened, there’s nomtelling. Except that, based on the Russsian history courses I took back in the 70s, I doubt it would’ve been any better. People were executed as heretics within Russia for disagreeing with the liturgical reforms instituted by Patriarch Nikon, many centuries ago. The issues seem incredibly trivial to us. One is the “correct” way to make the sign of the cross. The Old Believers (the groups who were persecuted) stuck with using two fingers, symbolizing that Christ has dual natures, divine and human. Nikon and the rest of the Russian Orthodox church said: no, you *must* use 3 fingers, symbolizing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The other main controversies in this were equally (imo) trivial, even ridiculous. But many, many people died b/c they refused to accept the changes. After Russians got hold of Alaska, different groups of Old Believers fled there, then spread further out, into both what are now Canada and the US. B/c nobody persecuted them here. There are still Old Believers in our country.

As to EO and its views of itself, well… at best, we (Catholic and Protestant) are what Catholics sometimes refer to as “separated brethren.” In countries where the EO churches predominate, both Protestants and Roman Catholics are seen as heretics. There’s no way to soften that particular blow, I’m afraid, though in the US, many cradle Orthodox (priests and laity) aren’t that harsh. Others really, really are. And then there are the many converts from Protestant churches. As with any other converts, they do tend to be much more hardline than those born into the faith. In that sense, they’re still extremely Protestant.

Ava – please slow down. I used the term “devout.”

Your use of “LOL” in your reply to me is pretty darned unfriendly as well.

I think I will just avoid replying to you further in this thread, b/c it’s just not working out in anything like a kind manner.

Ok… do keep in mind that the replies caught by the spam filter were written prior to our latest exchange. Or I wouldn’t have written them.

Cool?

numo: “LOL”

LOL – again at us – the motley crew we make, as we work together as volunteers, focusing on the work, from different POVs. Probably doesn’t make sense – but we get stuff done.

Ava Aaronson,

Ah! Thanks for the explanation! It makes sense to me. 🙂

numo: And women had no place, really, in the Oxford of his day. The Inklings were all men, and I doubt they’d have welcomed women guests/members in their regular pub nights….

“Respectable” women didn’t go to pubs back then and many pubs refused to serve women at the bar (something they could legally do until 1982). This excluded them from a lot of shop talk since the Inklings weren’t the only group that had regular get togethers in pubs to discuss work or hobbies (e.g., gatherings of journalists, solicitors, bankers, etc).

However the Inklings are somewhat associated with Dorothy Sayers.

numo: “devout.”

No idea what this means, by whose measure? We neither use that term nor assess the faith of others, regardless of agreements or disagreements about faith issues.

The only measure of faith we see is when Jesus separated sheep and goats – which he will do one day himself in the hereafter. The sheep and goats assessment that Jesus talks about, in our experience, is not the measure of theologians and apologists (again, in our experience, what we hear from theologians and apologists).

Moreover, only God knows (we believe) what individuals are actually doing, since Jesus also advises not to brag about or parade righteousness or good deeds. The Sheep vs Goats in the Hereafter may come with lots of surprises (but not to Jesus).

numo: as a weapon of war,

Yes, it is used as a weapon of war. Was there a war going on in this account? Was that the motivation behind the attempt to assault Lot’s house guests, take them by force? Why specifically the men and not the women? Did the community Live and Let Live, leave Lot and his people alone and at peace, until the two house guests show up – and why?

So many questions. In any case, a theology cannot be built on a single account, although every account in the Bible, we believe, has some merit. What’s the point here? I don’t have answers and I’m not sure I buy into the status quo about this narrative.

Serious stuff. Apparently the level of violence in these communities was such that God chose drastic consequences. You mention not caring for widows and orphans – that would not be surprising with the level of violence in this story.

Ava, please quit prodding me with your various recent posts. They aren’t going to get any responses from me except those that I stated last evening –

– agree to disagree

– no more responses/replies to your posts from me

So.

linda: The church loses its way when it is focused on the culture wars, or theological wars, or anything else than seeing sinners born again.

Amen, Linda!

The American church has spent so much time in the world and of the world, that it has lost sight of the great mission given to it … the Great Commission.

A lot of the disagreement comes from different people and churches deciding which rules and laws 1) belong to God, 2) are eternally unchanging, and 3) bind all of humankind, not just Christians. Meanwhile, in Christianity, people have major disagreements about mundane things, such as how often to attend church, and what to wear.

Here on TWW, I have sometimes been criticized for going to church! Some Christians think that is morally indefensible, or at least inferior to staying home. Seems to me that we are better off with many voices instead of an insistence on one, or on silence.

Muff Potter: All sins deserve hell?
Should we execute a jay-walker just the same as a mass murderer?

GAWD HATH SAID(TM).

“Show Me SCRIPTURE!”
— PastorRaulReesCalvaryChapelWestCovina (all one word), when anyone tried to reason with him

Friend,

You make a good point. What would we do without the government? They are everywhere!

Erp,

Leviticus 25:8-13
World English Bible
8 “‘You shall count off seven Sabbaths of years, seven times seven years; and there shall be to you the days of seven Sabbaths of years, even forty-nine years. 9 Then you shall sound the loud trumpet on the tenth day of the seventh month. On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land. 10 You shall make the fiftieth year holy, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee to you; and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family. 11 That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee to you. In it you shall not sow, neither reap that which grows of itself, nor gather from the undressed vines. 12 For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat of its increase out of the field.

13 “‘In this Year of Jubilee each of you shall return to his property.

I wonder how this would go over with certain groups in our current culture…..

numo: And then there are the many converts from Protestant churches. As with any other converts, they do tend to be much more hardline than those born into the faith. In that sense, they’re still extremely Protestant.

My only reason for commenting was my perception that EO should also have gone through a reformation that should have involved Calvinism. But it’s not clear to me what exactly they should reform from and to. I am not aware of any widespread practices such as indulgences that needed reformation. I am not surprised they rejected a bishop who tried to push them in that direction. The fact that there are corrupt RO bishops is not surprising, but RO does not rule over all of EO. I personally find EO theology and anthropology very compelling, but I am not ready to embrace all the practices, and their politics stink just as badly as any other major group/denomination.

Max: “Be either cold or hot”

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers”

“How can light have fellowship with darkness?”

“Whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it”

“We must obey God rather than men”

“Every one of your righteous rules endures forever

Pork chops and shrimp cocktails delivered by talking wombats….

Nancy2(aka Kevlar): Would a “Christian” nation reverse the progress that has been made towards treating all people as equals in the eyes of God? Would we go back to “separate but equal”?

You can bet yer’ sweet bippy they’d erase the gains human freedom has fought for.
Like I’ve said before, it would be as brutal a dictatorship as any that’s come down the pike.

Ken F (aka Tweed),

OK – gotcha. And honestly, I don’t know all that much about the EO churches. My impressions of them (as opposed to facts) are heavily influenced by interactions that I’ve had with former Protestantd who converted to one or another of the EO churches.

I don’t know that their claims of being the sole, unchanged for of Christianity are accurate. They do lean quite heavily on that.

The schism (they call it the Great Schism) with the Western (Roman Catholic) church happened in 1054 –

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

Which is why many, even one of the recent Ecumenical Patriarchs, have referred to Catholics as “heretics.” For those on both sides of the divide who are trying to bring about reconciliation, this is a very difficult hurdle to h as ve to jump.

What got me interested in EO beliefs, etc. actually is related to stuff I had to study in grad school, specifically, religious art of the Byzantine Empire. They were the center of the EO world for many centuries. These controversies and splits are part of the background to what we were studying.

Anyway!

numo: I don’t know that their claims of being the sole, unchanged for of Christianity are accurate. They do lean quite heavily on that.

Are there any groups of Christians who believe they are wrong and everyone else is right? Every group’s solution to the various schisms is to become just like us, because if you are not very much like us you are obviously heretical. I don’t see any solution to the schisms because the disagreements are deep and no one wants to give up enough of their own beliefs and practices to bridge the gaps.

Converts to any new group will end up going through a cage stage. The bigger the change the more likely the cage stage will be noticable. Some never get out of the cage stage. Converts have to prove their loyalty to the new group.

Friend: At the store, I’ll buy items from an employee who learned to read, write, add, and subtract in the county schools.

And / or perhaps they learned ESL (English as a Second Language) from any number of places – public, private, religion-based (not necessarily Christian), etc..

Ken F (aka Tweed),

Agreed!

Though I think there are also some personal reasons for that cage phase. One is to reinforce, emotionally and mentally, the individual’s choice to convert. For those who came from fundagelical backgrounds, it’s a huge leap. And I think that plays into why some former Protestants who convert to Orthodoxy fight so hard. Anyone would, understandably, have doubts about such a big change, whether consciously or subconsciously.

Agreed that it’s all part of converting to anything at all – like former smokers who go a bit wild with trying to make others quit, rather than just being there for friends and relatives who want to quit themselves.

Friend: better off with many voices

Individually prioritising by your degrees of your inference is what true agnosticism is, as well as true belief and true trust.

numo: “sin of Sodom.” The prophet Ezekiel famously (infamously?) said that it was greed + the refusal to care for widows and orphans

At the Ezekiel level the critique by Ezekiel is against church leadership that don’t respect Holy Spirit in ordinary fellow believers: who blaspheme them and render them fruitless by their high handedness (which James, Paul, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus talk about extensively: Peter comments that this is deep). Reading the Bible is about how to draw the several meanings both from what Ezekiel looks like he is saying AND what he is talking about, not ONLY one or the other.

** trigger ** Concretely at the time, Sodom happened to have adopted mutilation from the Assyrians whom they had not long been saved from (Gen 14). ** end of trigger **

Also concretely, God sees whether there is a large meteorite coming or not (archeologists studied the impact, at tea time, the sun having been on the way down as well as “gone up” – it took most of the day to walk to the renamed Zoar). The actual intervention consisted in helping Lot get rescued. All miracles are relative as Dee pointed out the other week.

Assyria repented for a whole generation’s length of time (I think Jonah’s message was in his appearance). When christendom re-enters into belief in continual supplication like Daniel’s in ch 9 vv 3-21 the public of goodwill can be providentially helped to try to put certain areas with ills onto a better footing.

God sees what will be coming on a difficult day and that we’ll be saved by some sort of inner integrity that will come from having been built up (fruits traded with us in the spiritual kingdom of our gifts) by our peers, not stolen by superiors.

numo: bring about reconciliation

Reconciliation should be in personal relating as far as appropriate and not in format or form.

Some EO have pointed out that many westerners adopted wrong ideas of ordination and initiation pre Augustine so that the effort of some EO to get their peers to conform to the west would not be authentic.

It is far safer to be frankly different and to go cafeteria not only between denominations but even within one’s own (e.g I sit out from all “lord’s tables” for appearance sake).

dee: senecagriggs,

Seneca, what you are referring to is because those who adopt the same paradigm as bad religious leaders (as the materialist, Manifest Destiny pretend “conservatives” whom they claim to criticise) undermine their own intuition. Christ gives us our own degrees of our own inference and our own Holy Spirit gifts, to help each other break out from that prison and to go cafeteria in our template, like the Bereans did. You could whet their appetites to articulate their gut feelings more effectively if you could explain actual meanings of Scriptures.

Daniel’s prayer follows the lament of Jeremiah over the fake revival under Josiah: that is the stuff the Bereans were reading. Josiah’s henchpeople carelessly neglected Scripture, but thought it politic to pretend to come round, and after that any sincere helpers found the cause intended for the poor hijacked and kicked into the long grass.

Lowlandseer: charged to define what the functions of these institutions are, and the lines of demarcation by which they are distinguished. It is also charged to declare and inculcate the duties which devolve upon them. Consequently when the civil magistrate trespasses the limits of its authority, it is incumbent upon the church to expose and condemn such a violation of its authority. When laws are proposed or enacted which are contrary to the law of God, it is the duty of the church to oppose them and expose their iniquity.

(above from J Murray)

start of quote could better read “is charged to propose a definition” or “to define a proposal”, then the remainder reads well. Freedom for all to challenge disrespect of children and the poor.

Jack: socialist … Christian

There were Christian Socialists at one time: look up Arnold Toynbee (the uncle).

dee: senecagriggs,

You are one of my oldest readers. So, would you do me the favor of defining your terms?

Seneca’s back?
Looks like he got tired of trolling Wondering Eagle and came back here to Virtue-Signal.