US Presbyterians vote to ordain gay ministers

About time! Let's hope that it goes all the way with the constitutional change. Funny how when the church moves closer to the true teachings of the Christ it leads to dissenters and split congregations! God loves all equally and all are eligible to serve as minister in the church irrespective of gender or sexual orientation.

Difficult to see how a church which purports to be 'christian' can so easily move contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. And how can it's ministers call people to repentance whilst endorsing relationships the Bible says are sinful?

Jesus Christ's response to an individual caught in an immoral relationship outside marriage was to say: "Go and sin no more." (John 8)
The first requirement for someone who wants to become a Christian - never to speak of one wishing to be a leader in Christ's Church - is repentance: 'a sorrow for, confession of and turning from sin.'. The Presbyterian church of US appears to have forgotten this basic fact.

It still remanins true that the further people go from the Bible, the further they distance themselves from God. That a church should move in that direction is rightly regarded as shameful.

pastorphilip, you're quoting out of context. John 8 is about the authority to condemn, and how those who do not themselves live up to the full expectations of the Right and Good do not have it.

That aside though, Christianity is entirely within its scope as an earthly organisation to choose to restrict its membership as it sees fit. If, as you put it, it is a "requirement for someone who wants to become a Christian" that they adopt a particular creed, then so be it.

But it is idolatrous to identify the creed with God, blind-sight to limit the Word to a few pages in a KJV bible and the height of arrogant disrespect to think that Christianity and Christ are one and the same.

Choose your peers as you see fit, but God chooses you, and the manner of his choice is not something the institution can control through its arbitrary doctrines and preferences.

PastorPhillip (#2)

We've been over this in previous threats, but at no point in the New Testament does it offer a specific prohibition against homosexual relationships, in fact it's a subject that's not even mentioned by Jesus in any of his recorded sayings. The only strictures in the bible that outlaw same-sex relationships are to be found within the Old Testament, and since you most probably don't follow the laws regarding diet, clothing and hair requirements and other social restrictions, why do you cherry-pick homosexuality?

Unlike ages past, when high levels of procreation were needed in the face of high infant mortality rates, homosexuality is not a threat. Neither does it threaten the alpha-male patriarchy that, despite the rest of the world moving on from, the Churches insist on retaining.

You'll notice that in the story to which you refer, not at any point does Jesus condem the woman who was brought before him, neither does he specify the sins to which she is told to refrain from. This story is more enforcing the point of 'none of your business' with regards to other people relationships. It could even be read as a 'don't get caught' moral point. The most telling part is when Jesus informs the crowd baying for the womans blood 'let you have not sinned cast the first stone'. It's a concept the churches should pick up on more.

If you have references from the bible (which you insist on using as your authority) which contradict what I've said, feel free to point them out. And remember! No old testament please, else I will be expecting you to stop shaving the sides of your beard, not wear cloth made of two types of fibers and abstaining from bacon sandwiches.

@PaulR (3)

It sounds like you've had a bad experience discussing some of these issues in the past, however I would ask you to disregard past experiences and not read those experiences into what pastorphillip or anyone else says. You've affirmed that John 8 has something to say about condemnation, but you've been very quick to condemn pastorphillip for what he hasn't said. I hope that if you go back and reread his post, you'll see that the things you accused him off simply aren't there. I don't recall any Christian on W&T ever affirming that a creed is God, limiting the Bible to a few pages of the KJV, or that Christianity and Christ are the same. In fact, I'm not sure I understand your accusations really.

Incidentally, I don't think pastorphillip was claiming that 'Go and sin no more' sums up John 8. Rather, he was making an application of those words. I fail to see how the wider context invalidates that application, especially in the light of the rest of biblical teaching. Take for instance the teaching in the sermon on the mount on lust and adultery.


@Natman (4)

Didn't you try to make that kind of claim a while ago and I directed you to a previous discussion where Christians demonstrated that Jesus in all likelihood did encourage people to repent of homosexual activity as well as all other sins? After all, he spoke against sexual immorality and held up his Father as the Creator. Remember the Jewish context he spoke in, why on earth would anyone assume that when he spoke about these things, he wasn't endorsing what the Old Testament said about sexual morality or our created nature?

It's one thing to argue about what the Old Testament means when it refers to homosexual activity or when it refers to what marriage is for, or the intended nature of our originally created sexuality, but to claim that the New Testament doesn't touch on these issues is simply sticking your head in the sand and trying to stifle debate.

Similarly the issue of which laws in the Old Testament to follow has been covered countless times before. Why are you asking questions that were answered in the previous discussion I directed you to? Did you read the discussion? If so, then why are you acting as if answers have not been given? If you didn't, what reason is there for anyone to assume that you are earnestly seeking the truth when you've ignored the answers you've been given before? If you had read that discussion you'd also know that the issue of homosexuality is addressed by more than those laws. A major part of the discussion is how God created us and what he lays out as normative sexuality.

Before you start giving instructions on how people should answer you, perhaps you should consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Christians have given some thought to this issue and might actually have well thought-out, coherent points to make which address what you say. If you'd read any of the past discussions that you accuse pastorphillip of ignoring, then you'd know that.

Jonathan Boyd,

It might offend you to have to raise the points from previous threads, but not everyone wants to trudge through hundreds of comments, picking out the relevant points, collating them all in their heads and then not posting about it in a more upto date thread, but I don't mind having the same debates, especially when I'm not entirely convinced that it's been thought through completely. I also refrain from commenting on threads that deal with sexuality until someone who seems to think a personal lifestyle choice is a 'sin' raises their heads and uses their magically inspired rulebook to condemn them to eternal torture. If you don't want the debate again - don't post!

I've pointed out before the lack of passages in the NT that refer to homosexuality, I'm quite happy to do so again. 'Sexual immorality' is -not- the same as homosexuality, and given immorality is subject to the culture of the time, even within conservative christians, it can mean whatever you want.

The fact of it is that certain sections of society (mainly religous, but it's not exclusive) have an unreasonable distaste, hostility and even hatred towards a group of people based entirely on their sexual preference.

If these people were of a different skin tone, hair or eye colour, nationality, ethic background or parentage, then it would be deemed reprehensible to exclude them, possibly even scandalous. Why this insistance on someones preference for gender attraction?

There are a multitude of priests, ministers, bishops and clergy who commited crimes or 'sinned', even whilst still in office, and they are allowed to 'repent' and carry on. For some reason, however, their sexual preference is an Evil Crime Above All Others.

@Natman (6)

I never said anything about being offended; I just think it's hypocritical to chastise pastorphillip about previous discussions when you yourself ignore what has been said before and disingenuous to ask for answers to questions that you've asked before and been given answers to. That isn't in any way advancing debate; it's simply ignoring what has already been said and wasting time.

What does offend me is misrepresentation of what people have said. I don't see anyone here condemning homosexuals to hell. That's not something within the power of any man; it is solely within God's power to do so. pastorphillip pointed out the need for anyone in an immoral relationship to repent. Homosexuals weren't singled out and he was encouraging them to be saved, not condemning them.

Neither is anyone being hateful here. Rather than throwing out accusations and (shock, horror!) condemning people, why not simply engage in debate about the issue at hand rather than a bunch of irrelevancies? The one relevant issue you touch on is the definition of sexual immorality. Would you agree that in the Jewish scriptures, homosexual activity would be regarded as sexually immoral? At the time of Jesus, would this not have been the majority consensus? If so, then when he talks about sexual immorality, is it more logical to assume that he is including homosexual activity, or that he is making a special exemption for homosexuality and not actually talking about (despite never actually saying this)?

You've also ignored what has been said about creation and the handling of Old Testament laws. I hope that this is because you're going back and reading what has already been said many times before.

It saddens me greatly that in this day and age people are using Christ to substantiate their own prejudices albeit brought about by bastardised teachings. Christianity -yes is responsible for this - but definitely not the Christ. The Christ is pure love - and each person can embody the Christ and know this for themselves and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING would prevent the Christ from loving ANY human being and knowing that their essence is love and that all are equal. I could go further and say this is the work of evil(where evil is that which separates us from love, from essence) - creating separation among men under false pretenses - creating them and us situations that do not need to be there. It plays out even on here with those who come from evangelical tradition and those who don't. Why is it so hard for some people to recognise our common humanity and to live and let live without feeling they must get them saved or get them to repent? Leave them alone. They are fine as they are. Look after yourself and stop worrying about people that you don't need to worry about or trying to change people that don't need to be changed.

At the time of Jesus, as it was heavily influenced by Roman and Greek cultures, the concept of older men taking on younger male lovers was not merely accepted, but considered an important part of adulthood for men. Perhaps not in orthodox Jewish areas, but for most of the western world and for anyone attaining to high social status at the time it was.

At the time of Jesus, it was considered acceptable to have more than one wife, or if you didn't subscribe to that particular sect of Judaism, to sleep with a 'proxy' to ensure that you had children. The wife was not only expected to accept this, but to care for that womans children as her own.

At the time of Jesus, according to a literal reading of the pentatuech, for two men to lie together as with a woman, it was a death sentence.

At the time of Jesus, it was considered preferable to sell an unmarried daughter into virtual slavery, at the age of 12 or under, with the implication that their new master would take them as a bride in time.

Sexual morality is highly subjective, as you can see, and is perhaps the most subjective of all abstracts. A lot of things can be inferred logically from Jesus' words, assuming of course that you hold the bible to be literal and infalliable truth.

I've ignored the OT thing because clearly cherry-picking is an acceptable form of adapting older laws for church goers. It's the only explanation I could find anyway.

pastorphilip
You say
"Difficult to see how a church which purports to be 'christian' can so easily move contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture."

Here's the problem, they believe your understanding of the clear teaching of scripture is wrong. Without a judge and some evidence to decide who is right - who are the true christians?. This is why there are so many denominations in the Protestant church, every time someone disagrees on an interpretation they go and start a new church. Hardly a vote of confidence in the infallibility of the bible.

Jonathan Boyd
You say
"Would you agree that in the Jewish scriptures, homosexual activity would be regarded as sexually immoral? At the time of Jesus, would this not have been the majority consensus? If so, then when he talks about sexual immorality, is it more logical to assume that he is including homosexual activity, or that he is making a special exemption for homosexuality and not actually talking about"

You are actually making a case for contextualising morality. Jesus was of that time, the majority consensus was that homosexuality was immoral therefore logical to assume Jesus implicitly included it. If that consensus changes and we now understand that homosexuality is fixed and in fact a very normal part of the spectrum of human sexuality logic would dictate that our view of the morality of homosexuality should change in line with human knowledge and realisation that the old consensus view was flawed.

I merely offer this a view which allows some christians to move beyond the bigotry, misogyny, genocide, slavery, wife bartering and murder which was common at that time and reflected in the laws written in the bible.

If however you believe that the bible was written, shall we say, out of time and that it was written with full knowledge of the future and so as applicable today as it was then, well you have a real problem as the answers you give for cherry picking laws from the bible will always seem contrived to suit your current practises and so will be continually questioned.

Jonathan, RE: "...you've been very quick to condemn pastorphillip for what he hasn't said. ... I'm not sure I understand your accusations really."

My accusations are not at Phillip as such, and you'll note my post was very deliberately put to avoid condemnation of any individual. They're aimed at a philosophical tradition in Christianity of which the kind of reasoning Phillip used was exemplary, and I am unafraid to draw attention to this tradition and its weakness, even if its adherents choose to misinterpret this as a personal attack.

I think you demonstrated part of what I'm getting at in the way you paraphrased me. You quite rightly pointed out that nobody here has ever "limit[ed] the Bible to a few pages of the KJV", but that wasn't what I said. What I highlighted was "limit[ing] the Word to a few pages in a KJV bible".

That the latter be interpreted as the former is, I think, something of a Freudian slip. Where is God in all of this? God, The Word, is imprisoned in text by today's Christian philosophy. Phillip, in his appeal to scripture as a criterion for deciding who ought and ought not be not only "Christian" but Christian, clearly implying an extra-organisational element of discipleship, was carrying this philosophy to its natural conclusion - Christ, thereby, does not select those that do not follow biblical tradition.

I dispute this analysis as a failure to distinguish between the constructed and the non-constructed aspects of a Divine Reality. God is not a worldview; God is independent of our machinations, and our machinations of Him/Her/It. Such must be the case if there is any truth at all in Christ beyond being a figurehead of a Religion. And this is lost when Christianity's practice is dictated by Hermeneutics.

Not suprised at this decision, just surprised that it took so long to come. The next thing it will be coming before the General Assembley here and they will form a committee (as they always do) to loook at it.

@Eunice (8)

I'm a little baffled how you can talk about Christ as if you know something about him apart from Christianity. Are you sure you aren't talking about somone/thing else?

@Natman (9)

I entered this discussion on the assumption that it was concerned with what an authentic Christian response to homosexuality looks like. When you said 'at no point in the New Testament does it offer a specific prohibition against homosexual relationships, in fact it's a subject that's not even mentioned by Jesus in any of his recorded sayings,' it certainly looked like you were asking how the Bible directs Christians to treat homosexuality and homosexuals.

To get an answer to that, we would have to look at what the Bible says, taking into account who it was written by and who it was written to so that we correctly understand those words. We've been considering what sexual morality is about in the New Testament. If we take the example of Jesus' words in the gospels, we find him speaking as a Jew to a predominantly Jewish audience, his words having been recorded for an audience of both Jews and gentiles, but requiring a certain level of understanding of Old Testament Judaism.

I suggested that when Jesus talked about sexual immorality, he would have been including homosexual activity and the hearers/readers would be intended to read that in, along with all the other areas of sexual immorality. Neither Greek nor Roman culture have anything to do with this as Jesus was neither Greek nor Roman, likewise for his audience. The rest of your post was fairly rambling and I've lost track of what you're trying to argue.

So to clarify things, we were discussing whether sexual immorality in the New Testament would include homosexuality. Given Jesus' identity and audience, there's every reason to believe it would have. Do you contest that claim, or accept it?

As for 'the OT thing', you clearly haven't read much on the subject or followed any of the links I've provided you in the past.


@Dave (10)

I'm not making a case for contextualising morality, I'm trying to understand what Jesus meant by taking into account the historical context. I believe that whatever Jesus says about morality, as the creator God and Lord of all creation, is objective truth rather than limited to a particular time and place, however the words he used to articulate morality were spoken in a particular time and place, therefore the context must be born in mind. Understanding the context of words doesn't mean that words are only binding in that context.

What answers regarding Old Testament laws do you think are contrived?

And why doesn't anyone want to consider what is said about normative sexuality in the Bible, rather than just the prohibitions?

@PaulR (11)

If your post was deliberately put to avoid condemning an individual, then I struggle to see the evidence of that. The plain reading was that you were accusing pastorphillip. I believe you when you claim otherwise, but you could have been a lot clearer. Certainly you didn't explicitly spell it out.

What you say about the Word I'm afraid comes across as trying to be a little too clever. I get your point, but again the way you communicated it meant that you were always more likely to be misunderstood. If you add a detail like 'a few pages' and name a specific translation can you see how people will assume that your focus was on the those details rather than an ambiguous use of 'Word' which can be used to refer to the Bible or to the more general case of God's revelation? If you want to get a point across, you need to be clearer.

As for God being imprisoned, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If Christ makes clear in words recorded in the Bible that disciples are to do or not do certain things, then it is hardly imprisoning God to take those words seriously.

I've also no idea what you're getting at (in the context of this discussion thread) in the last paragraph. Not entirely convinced you do either. If you were saying something relevant to the discussion, could you possibly rephrase it (without trying to use lots of clever words) and point out the practical application to the issue of homosexuality?

Jonathan: my understandings are different to traditional or evangelical christianity. For me, there is Jesus the person and he embodied the Christ, the love and light of the soul, of God. Thus the Christ is not just something exclusive to Jesus, it is something that each person can embody if they so choose and if they make choices accordingly. In my view, Jesus was all for empowering the individual to know that they were equal to him, could do as he did - so for me - we all have the same potential as Jesus. Yes, he was more evolved along the journey than us but that is not some unreachable higher place that the rest of us cannot get to. We are all (in my view) heading there sooner or later - and it is our own choices that dictate the speed of that . There are no special people or favourites - except that we all are equally special. Jesus knew who he was, claimed it, and lived it in full - perhaps the reason we are not like him is because we choose to live so much less than our true potential.

NO BIG SURPRISE ! soon and very soon the rest will follow suit.

As I said in my earlier post I'm not surprised at this decision but surprised that it took so long to come. America was at one time the great defender of the Christian faith. They have gradually moved away from the position of the founding fathers and it seems now that everything is okay in the Christian church. This is why America is in the mess it's in today. Britain has also gone the same way and we are paying the disobedience of the breaking of God's laws. Bible prophecy tells us that the last days there would be a going away from biblical by some churches. I beieve we are seeing this played out now.

Tullycarnetbertie,

There is also the belief that bible prophesy was written by people who wanted to keep you in line, and that if you got too uppity the final Armageddon story ought to keep you under the churches control. It is a classic of social engineering.

Thee are no last days in that sense, it is simply a device to ensure that the second coming had some possibilities which could be pointed to to scare people.

The whole bible is pure carrot and stick of a flim flam man. A lot of people make a lot of money out of it and a lot of people suffer because of it.

Dave you don't know your bible. If you don't want to believe God's word that's up to you. People don't suffer because of the bible, nobody has been murdered by a bible. You call classic or social engineering, but if a lot more began living by the rules in the bible then this world wouldn't be in the mess that it is in.

If the current law which requires all ministers or candidates for ministry to "to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness" has been overturned does that mean it's ok now for ministers to cheat on their spouses?

Gillian (#19)

I think you're missing the point of both the law, and the reason why it was changed.

Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't make it right, but by changing the law, it removes the restriction on non-celibate singleness and those within same-sex relationships.

By associating the acceptance of those previously restricted people with consent for those who meet the earlier criteria to now abandon their previously held principles is creating a straw man out of the situation.

What are God's requirements on minister bishops etc..?

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(1 Timothy 3:2)

Jonathan, "If you were saying something relevant to the discussion, could you possibly rephrase it (without trying to use lots of clever words) and point out the practical application to the issue of homosexuality?"

I'll do my best.

Why do we think the Church not accepting homosexuals is a bad/good thing? The reason each of us has for our opinion doesn't just tell us what we think about homosexuals; it also tells us something about our attitude towards the Church.

If the reason for not accepting homosexual bishops is a particular scriptural tradition, then this says that the Church is about that tradition.

If that's what people want to think Church is, then it's just a members' club, and loses any authority to actually have any impact on the world beyond political influence. In which case, it can exclude homosexuals all it likes from a philosophical perspective, because the question of whether it does or not is utterly insubstantial to the wider questions of Faith and Love.

That such isn't actually what the Church is, of course, is more of a desperate hope on my part than an actual belief.

@PaulR (22)

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic of what you're saying. Why do you think that obedience to scripture equates to church being about a particular tradition? It's quite a leap to make and I don't see the basis for it. In effect you seem to be saying that the church can't use the Bible.

Let me put it another way for you: do you think that the church's basis for morality should be derived from God's revelation to mankind? I'm assuming you do, otherwise the church isn't much of a church. Given that morality has its basis in God, shouldn't God's special revelation, in the form of the Bible, play a major role?

1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
Romans 1:26-27

So how long do you think it will take before the Presbyterian Church in Ireland follows suit??!

Tullycarnetbertie
"Dave you don't know your bible. If you don't want to believe God's word that's up to you. People don't suffer because of the bible, nobody has been murdered by a bible. You call classic or social engineering, but if a lot more began living by the rules in the bible then this world wouldn't be in the mess that it is in"

Hmm Where to start,

I have read the bible, can I slavishly quote scripture at people for every occasion, no, but then was that its purpose.

"People don't suffer because of the Bible", yes they do slaves have, non christians have, women have, homosexuals have and basically everyone through history who does not accept the current in vogue interpretation of the book has.

"nobody has been murdered by a bible" technically true (as in not sure it has actually been the weapon used in a fatality) but millions have been and are being killed with it as justification

"a lot more began living by the rules in the bible then this world wouldn't be in the mess that it is in" I would disagree, I believe that much of the sad state we are in is due to too many people slavishly following some of the more potty ideas from that book. Many of the problems in so called christian countries stem from the hate generated by christians against groups they think are inferior. D

If you truly believe your comment to me then you neither know your bible or its negative impact on history...

@Eunice (25)

There's still a sufficiently high view of Scripture in PCI for that to be a non-option without a lot of existing ministers disappearing and a lot of liberals coming in. Trainee ministers in recent years have been overwhelmingly conservative so I can't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

Jonathan: I agree with you - but for me that is a very sad reflection on the PCI. Why do you think that trainee ministers have been overwhelmingly conservative? Why are there not more 'liberal' ministers in Ireland?

For me it is putting man-made words in a book before the common humanity that is in front of ones eyes. How is this possible? Can you not see that that is evil - anything that promotes separation between men is evil and promotes man's inhumanity to man. How can you support this? In my view we are all the same, all made by God, all have the same divine heritage - no difference whatsoever. I appreciate you place a very strong emphasis on the infallibility of the bible - I wish you would place the same emphasis on knowing your own inner heart and what it says, irrespective of the bible. It seems like you place more trust in a book written 2000ish yrs ago by men who did not live as Jesus lived, in different times and with different understandings re the human condition, than you do your own God-given heart and soul.

@Eunice (28)

You're grieved by the things that some evangelicals do and on this issue in particular, you're grieved by the decisions that conservative Christians take about homosexuality. Around the world there are terrible things going on that I'm sure also grieve you - war, murder, rape, injustices of every kind. When I see these things and the way people live, when I see my own failings, it tells me that man's heart is damaged and so often cold. Why would I trust what a human heart says over the words of all-loving God? I'm baffled that you can trust people's hearts so much when you think people are so often wrong.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
“I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.” (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

Regarding promoting separation between men, what about separation form God? Ultimately the best way for people to be drawn together is for them to be drawn towards God. After all if people are united in purpose, but opposed to God, what good does that do? But it is very clear that some things separate man from God, which include deliberate, unrepentant sin. All throughout the Bible, God makes it clear that he desires people to live either in monogamous, heterosexual marriage or celibate singleness. Any other lifestyle is contrary to his design for mankind, harmful to people and immoral. It therefore separates people from God and consequently separates them from those who love God. In other words, it is those who deliberately enter into an actively homosexual lifestyle who are separating themselves. As a Christian I would encourage such people to join me and other Christians in repenting of sin and wrestling to overcome temptation with the help of God. I invite them to be reconciled to God, rather than remaining in separation and in doing so, hope that the separation between us will diminish.

Paul's letter to the Ephesians contains a wonderful call to Christian unity which includes a reminder of the basis for unity:
Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. (Ephesians 2:12-18)

People are brought together by Christ, by faith in his atoning death.

Finally, regarding the theology of trainees. I'm not sure why so many are conservative. It could be God's blessing upon the church and something I rejoice him, that he is raising up so many people who will joyfully proclaim the gospel, faithfully teach the Word, honour God in all and love those they minister to.

Oh Jonathan - we are worlds apart.
*Why would I trust what a human heart says over the words of all-loving God? I'm baffled that you can trust people's hearts so much when you think people are so often wrong.*
IN my view, the kingdom of God is in the inner heart - that is a source of pure love that resides in every human being - no matter what gender/sexual orientation/behaviour etc. It is because we do not know this, not aware of it and we do not live and make choices from that place that we have all the evil in the world. Instead we make choices based on misbeliefs about our true nature - eg that we are sinners - this puts guilt upon the heart and contibutes to the lovelessness. There is a distinction between the inner heart that is pure love and the human emotional heart and emotional love that is not the same.

When you promote separation among me, you are promoting separation from God - the 2 are intimately interwoven. Love of humanity, all of humanity in all its guises as it stands today - goes hand in hand with love of God. It is not possible in my view, to love God and condemn men. Yes we can condemn evil that occurs through men when they are empty of love - but not the person. There is always a bigger picture as to how that person is where they are. Its not about sin - its about love and the lack of it. Homosexuals are capable of love exactly the same as everyone else - they do not need to repent or do any of the things you suggest to know God. God does not judge them or anyone.

re you say *But it is very clear that some things separate man from God, which include deliberate, unrepentant sin. All throughout the Bible, God makes it clear that he desires people to live either in monogamous, heterosexual marriage or celibate singleness. Any other lifestyle is contrary to his design for mankind, harmful to people and immoral. It therefore separates people from God and consequently separates them from those who love God. In other words, it is those who deliberately enter into an actively homosexual lifestyle who are separating themselves.*

I strongly disagree with you here - you are making judgments on people that have no bearing in reality or truth as I understand it. What separates man from God is lack of love. By your words - you are displaying a lack of love and acceptance towards your fellow human beings - and in that you are separating yourself from God, from love. Many homosexuals live lives closer to God than CHristians - because they do not judge others, they are loving, kind and gentle and take care of themselves and are responsible for themselves. Yes there are many who do not live in that way - just as there are many heterosexuals and CHristians who do not live that way. We all make choices every day in separation to God because we all make choices that are not based on true love - this is not punished by God nor do we need to repent. We just need to start being loving - to self and other. The harm is caused when we speak/think and act without love - and for me your words re homosexuals are not coming from love and are therefore harming and I would imagine any homosexual reading your post would be appalled by it. This for me is the evil of religion and CHristianity(evil being that which promotes separation from God/love) - that you feel it is ok for you to judge another by their behaviour without ever having looked in the eyes of that person and seen them for who they really are - based on the words in a book written 2000 ish yrs ago. I understand that you really believe what you have written to be true - but for me it is so far from Truth, so far from God and love as I know those to be.

Needless to say I have a different understanding re the conservative ministers and for me it is certainly not the work of God's blessing to bring in people who promote separation amongst humanity, creating them and us situations - the saved and the judged etc This is far far removed from God in my view.

It's not really 'why are so many trainees are conservative', it's more why are conservatives more likely to be trainees.

I think the liberal mindset doesn't suit itself to the devoutly religious. You can get liberal ministers and priests, but having a conservative outlook is more likely to endear you to being religious. Religion represents a stability, an externally provided moral guide and a supernatural sense of self that non-religous liberalism, for all it's advantages in progress and tolerance, cannot provide.

I'm still not convinced that there is a strong case in the new testament for the exclusion of homosexuals from any aspect of religious life, despite all that has been said on the matter, and even less convinced that the attitude of the majority of those opposed to homosexuality represents anything other than a patriarchial fear of supplantation. The kind of rabid hatred towards sexuality equality in the US (to the extent of altering a state constitution to forbid gay marriage), to my view, is an expression of a deep seated fear of alpha-males having their sexually enforced dominance over others (directly over the women and by exclusivity with the best potential mates with the men) taken away by the existance of individuals with whom the alpha-male cannot compete on a sexual level.

This kind of aversion to others of a different stance, be it racism, sexism and their like, is not present in children. It is a learnt trait which they get from observation and from being told it directly.

Jonathan Boyd

Is your solution to the homosexuality issue that all homosexuals need to be lifelong celibates and spend their time praying not to be tempted. Do you believe that that will lead to a happy, healthy and fulfilled existence.

There are enough issues regarding the celibacy of priests without wishing another 3.5 to 4 Million people in the UK to be celibate.

What sort of loving god would create such a random penance anyway ?

Eunice, I rarely agree with you, but I was appalled, not surprised though.

@Dave (32)

I think that anyone not in a heterosexual marriage should remain celibate and wouldn't distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals in that regard. I think that the most fulfilled existence will come from knowing Christ, who himself led a fulfilled existence while remaining celibate. It's a little bizarre to characterise a life without sex as a sort of penance. Are you saying that people can't life a fulfilled existence without having sex?

Jonathan: did you see the recent programme on the secret tomb of Jesus and another on Mary Magdalene?? Combined with the Gospel of Mary Magdalene - there are some who feel that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had a child or children. This would be consistent with his upbringing and Jewish background where marriage and family life were very much part and parcel of life. Perhaps he wasn't celibate?
People are free to choose for themselves whether they wish to be celibate or not. The point is homosexuals do not have to be celibate unless they want to - it is perfectly fine for them to have loving relationships and to make love just as it is for you or anyone else. Equally heterosexuals can have loving relationships and make love outside of marriage. It is the presence or absence of love that is important - not whether it is inside or outside a marriage.

So PCUSA votes to ordain gay ministers .....meanwhile over at the vatican a priest gets instant ex-communication just for supporting ordination of a woman ......but not if he abuses children?!
How does that work?

Eunice, those kinds of stories are perpetuated by cranks. The historical evidence is laughable to extent that Tony Robinson makes programmes ridiculing the theories.

@Jonathan Boyd (33)

"I think that anyone not in a heterosexual marriage should remain celibate and wouldn't distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals in that regard".

That statement is bizarre, by definition a homosexual cannot be in a heterosexual marriage so homosexuals must always be celibate and heterosexuals have a choice - that is the distinction.

'I think that the most fulfilled existence will come from knowing Christ, who himself led a fulfilled existence while remaining celibate'.

How do you know that and he only had to live to 33, not 70 or 80 years without sex, he was also a supernatural being - bit of an advantage there.


"It's a little bizarre to characterise a life without sex as a sort of penance. "

I regard not being allowed to have sex a penance that is different.

"Are you saying that people can't life a fulfilled existence without having sex? "

I am saying they shouldn't have to and it is sadistic to create a class of people and then deny them something which is so celebrated by the rest of society.

Do you think it is a loving god who creates the 3.5 to 4Million people in the UK at the moment and denies them the most basic of human needs, to live in a full, loving relationship for life?.

@Dave (37)

I'm not sure if homosexuality is really the main issue here - I wonder if it's actually a radically different worldview that makes the real difference, so I'm going to try and understand what it is you believe before proceeding any further. Please tell me if I've misunderstood you.

As far as I understand, your objection boils down to this:
God has a responsibility to make people happy (or at least not restrict their happiness)
If we desire something that God declares is wrong, then God is cruel for creating us with that desire.
We know better than God what is good for us and what will make us happy.
It is not possible to live a fulfilling live without sex.

God therefore has a responsibility to allow everyone to have sex in whatever form they enjoy.

Would that be a fair summary?


As an aside, I think that Jesus actually wrestled more with temptation and desire in those 33 years than I would in 133. We're told that he learnt disciple and that we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but rather one who has been tempted in every way that we might face. So Jesus knows what it's like to wrestle with temptation. And he certainly didn't find it easy. This is the guy who sweated blood in the Garden of Gethsemane, he was so distraught by the conflict between going to the cross and being tempted to run away. If anyone knows how painful temptation is and how hard it is to say no to something you want, it's surely him.

Jonathan Boyd

What I am trying to understand is what makes most christians homophobic and most of them bigoted against homosexuals. What makes them want to restrict my freedoms and make me live by their values.

I am an atheist, but my understanding of god comes from being brought up in the christian tradition so I was taught at school and Sunday school. Thankfully my parents wanted me to make my own choices so did not force that belief on me and when I questioned simply told me to make up my own mind when I was ready.

But I know how god and jesus was sold to me as a child and he is not the sort of being who discriminates, is sadistic, plays tricks etc. Being on the other side of the fence from his grace, as it were, gives me a very clear perspective of just how prejudiced and bigoted the church is, hence I try to understand why and argue where necessary that actually there may be something wrong.

As I have said, what you believe is really up to you, but when that belief is then used to subjugate a section of society it puts itself in the firing line. If the christian church simply said we believe this and teach this to our followers but will do nothing to force or coerce others to live our way then that would be fine, but it does not so people fight against it.

An example is same sex civil marriage. It has nothing to do with the church as it is purely a civil procedure but the church fights against it because it does not believe in homosexual relationships and thinks that it invented marriage (it was around long before christianity).

So we end up with Civil partnerships, the good old separate but equal solution. Its like saying to black people, of course you are equal and can use public transport, we even have special buses for you to use because you cannot use ours. Separate but equal is not equal it is apartheid.

For me homosexuality is the main issue because it is were the church and peoples words and actions impact on me as an individual. I will not sit back and be told I am disordered or not fit to be equal in society without standing up for myself.

No doubt come 31st July I will have to pass by the loving christians protesting the Pride Parade screaming their scripture at me. What they fail to see is that Pride Parades are a direct result of their prejudice and bigotry. It was scriptural bigotry which criminalised homosexuality, it was scriptural bigotry which fought against the repeal of that law, it was scriptural bigotry in NI which held back the repeal of that law for many more years. Do you remember Save Ulster from Sodomy? The church never learnt that all you get from subjugating people is people who will fight for their rights.

#39

Dave,

A contributor to Eddie Mair's blog very kindly left a link that explains links,
bold,
italics etc.

You can find it here.

Also an article by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.

Scotch-git,

Cheers for the help on embedded formatting and thanks for the link to a very interesting article, it was very good to see a religious person speaking in such thoughtful, balanced and respectful terms about his fellow human beings. A person of faith to whom I can reciprocate the respect.

thank you Scotch-git
I am trying out the directions for italics and bold
Hope it works!

@Dave (39)

First let me say that I appreciate the reasoned discussion. This is obviously a personal issue, so I value the fact that you're able to talk so calmly.

I'm honestly not sure how many Christians want to impose themselves on you. I know plenty who would argue that Christian morality is purely a matter of Church discipline and not for civil magistrates to enforce, although such morality would be of benefit to the wider public if it was adopted. This thread was originally a discussion about homosexuality within Christian circles, so I've generally approached this from the point of view of church discipline, rather than thinking it should be enforced on an unbelieving public.

I agree with you that God isn't sadistic, nor does he play tricks. Ideally the church should reflect that, but as you and many others can attest do, we're not the best ambassadors for Christ that we could be. That said, I disagree that opposition to homosexual activity is necessarily bigotry.

I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from on your comments about marriage. At Union College our discussions about marriage often went back to Genesis 2, which predates Christianity quite a bit. There's also plenty of teaching that marriage is a creation ordinance i.e. something intended for all societies everywhere, not just for Israel or for followers of YHWH. In that sense, it can be thought of as a generally civic institution that has a religious dimension when religious people are involved. That said, it's also taught that marriage is fairly well defined as between between a man and a woman. There is some sympathy for the idea of a civil partnership, but calling it a marriage would require changing the meaning of the word. Basically there are plenty of people in the church who would not necessarily oppose the government giving rights to civil partners that are equivalent to those gained in marriage, but who think that 'marriage' would be the wrong name for it. Personally I have some sympathy for the idea that government should get out of the business of marriage, leave it to churches, and just offer civil partnerships to everyone.

I disagree that this is comparable to apartheid or racism because it's an issue of definition. It's not that gay people shouldn't get married; it's that by definition, they can't be married.

Just to follow up on post 38, was my summary a fair reflection of what you believe? I would like to try and grasp the wider worldview issue as well as the more specific sexual one (which obviously is of more immediate concern to you).

"I disagree that this is comparable to apartheid or racism because it's an issue of definition. It's not that gay people shouldn't get married; it's that by definition, they can't be married."

You may disagree but that it what it is. We defined the word, so we can change the definition it is a matter of choice, you chose to discriminate.

That said, it's also taught

Does not make it right

our discussions about marriage often went back to Genesis 2, which predates Christianity quite a bit

So marriage pre-dates even genesis as it must have existed to be written about

Personally I have some sympathy for the idea that government should get out of the business of marriage, leave it to churches, and just offer civil partnerships to everyone

Personally I have some sympathy for the idea that churches should get out of the business of marriage, leave it to the government, and just offer blessings to everyone.

Maybe that's the way it should be, it was before religion got in the way.

@Dave (44)

'You may disagree but that it what it is. '

Dave, that doesn't really amount to much of a discussion does it?

'We defined the word, so we can change the definition it is a matter of choice'

Only if there is good reason to change it.

'you chose to discriminate.'

But discriminate, do you mean restrict who can get married?

'So marriage pre-dates even genesis as it must have existed to be written about'

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Genesis 2 is set in the Garden of Eden, so that's when we should say that marriage goes back to.

''

'Maybe that's the way it should be, it was before religion got in the way.'

Okay. Do you want to talk about why you think it should be that way? I spent a bit of time explaining the thinking in PCI about marriage. Are you interested in discussing any of that or in discussing your own thoughts? t's just that quite frankly your last post came across as effectively saying 'I think you're all wrong, so you are.' Tat's really any way forward is it?

Alos, I've addressed a few things you said. Is there any chance you could reply to the question I asked about your worldview in post 38? It's very hard to have a discussion when only one person is actually providing any information. Turns into more of a trial otherwise.

Jonathan Boyd

'It's very hard to have a discussion when only one person is actually providing any information. Turns into more of a trial otherwise'

I think the problem is that I am providing lots of information based on both my own orientation and how I feel people should be treated, you are simply reciting from a book. We all know what that book said but unless you can look at that book critically and accept that it might, just might, be wrong or be misinterpreted or be meant for a different audience it really can never be a discussion.

I answered you world view question, I am an atheist, I do not believe in god so I have no view on the intentions of a mythical being. I explained that my understanding of god was what I was taught through a 'christian upbringing' why accuse my of not answering questions when I did, perhaps the answer did not suit your book.

I note from a previous response that you preach. Do you regard these discussions as part of your job to evangelise, or are they part of your personal search for truth and justice?

@Dave (46)

'I think the problem is that I am providing lots of information based on both my own orientation and how I feel people should be treated'

Actually, you're making claims about those who disagree with you, asserting that we're bigots and not making much of an attempt to understand what we believe so that you can make a credible judgement. Or at least that's the way it comes across.

'you are simply reciting from a book.'

I don't think that's a fair reflection of what I've been doing. Take post 43 for example where I write six paragraphs. Let's break them down:
1) Thanking you for your contributions.
2) Laying out the difference between church discipline and an imposition of Christian morality on unbelievers.
3) Discussion on the nature of God and whether opposing homosexuality is necessarily bigotry.
4) Musing about marriage as both a civil and religious institution, what is taught about it in Union college.
5) Treating the gay marriage issue as one of definition rather than discrimination.
6) Repeating a question from post 28.

I don't see how any of that is simply reciting from a book. i'm sure you've probably faced that kind of treatment in the past, where people simply throw Bible verse in your face and expect you to wilt and conform. Please don't assume that I'm doing the same however - I'm demonstrably not doing that!

'We all know what that book said but unless you can look at that book critically and accept that it might, just might, be wrong or be misinterpreted or be meant for a different audience it really can never be a discussion.'

I think there's a possibility I could be wrong in what I believe, but what does that have to do with anything we were discussing? For instance in post 37 you asserted that it is sadistic for God to create people and deny them something celebrated by the rest of society. I can discuss that by presenting an alternative view and providing support for that view. Why would any particular level of doubt on my side be required for discussion? For that matter, what about doubt on your side? I haven't seen any indication that you think you could be wrong. Is this a trial in which I am under examination, or a debate in which both our views are up for discussion?

'I answered you world view question, I am an atheist, I do not believe in god so I have no view on the intentions of a mythical being.'

In post 37 you said that God is sadistic. Presumably what you meant by that is that if God existed, then my description of him means he is sadistic. My question was therefore about what you would hypothetically expect of God that leads you to say that he would be sadistic if he existed.

You can't just attack an idea of God, then when you're asked to explain it say that you don't believe in him. It's inconsistent. Clearly you have a view of what God should be like, otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about being sadistic.

'I answered you world view question, ... I explained that my understanding of god was what I was taught through a 'christian upbringing' why accuse my of not answering questions when I did, perhaps the answer did not suit your book.'

You never explained the expectations you would have of God because of your background that would lead you to conclude that he is sadistic.


'I note from a previous response that you preach. Do you regard these discussions as part of your job to evangelise, or are they part of your personal search for truth and justice?'

I regard my identity as Christian. As a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe that in all circumstances, I act as a representative for him and in that sense am evangelising. At the same time, I hope to grow and develop through my encouters with other people. Do I see this as part of my job as one who is employed to pastor and preach? No, I'm doing this in my holidays. Do I see it primarily as an opportunity for deliberate intentional evangelism? Not particularly. I'm sceptical about the evangelistic value of discussions that take place in such a disconnected way. I know next to nothing about your life, I can't pick up any body language as you speak, I can't gauge your mood and I don't know much about you. Blogs are a poor forum for evangelism or pastoring for that matter.

I think you may well have a point, this is not a very good media for this discussion as I think we are probably not discussing the real issue.

My problem is not with your beliefs, it is probably wrong of me even to dispute their veracity as it really none of my business.

As far as homosexuality is concerned you have expressed your belief and as it does not adversely affect homosexuals (in that I mean that it is your belief but you are not expecting others live by it), I have no right to object to it.

I am probably guilty of tarring you with the same brush as say - Iris Robinson

Where I think we still have an issue is around bigotry. To a non-believer the biblical view of homosexual activity is that it is almost the definition of bigotry, hatred or discrimination without reason. There is no reason why it is an abomination, just unreasoned distaste. In addition because there is no access to the source of the book, there is no way to infer a reason in order to ameliorate that bigotry.

As with any other view then it only becomes a real issue when it is expressed in a way which causes hurt or offence or it is used to the detriment of the people it is aimed at.

I am not saying you have done this, in fact you have not.

I am not trying to change your mind about anything except the fact that the bible has a bigoted view of homosexuals. That fact does not change the bible nor does it challenge your beliefs, it simply is an acceptance of the nature of that bit of the scripture.

The rest of the discussion we are having would be far better over a relaxed cup of tea.

Jonathan: As a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe that in all circumstances, I act as a representative for him and in that sense am evangelising

Jonathan could you provide me with your definiton of evangelism please?
thanks

It is interesting isn't it how 2 people can have so very different understandings of Jesus, Christ and God? And of course there are many more variations - everyone has their view, their experience, their story, their beliefs etc So what makes any one version more valid than another?? For me it comes down to the life lived - does that person show a way of living that appeals to me, that I can see/feel is good for them and maybe it could be good for me if I live as they live etc.

Re being a representative of Jesus: you see for me Jesus did not condemn ('forgive them for they know not what they have done') - he saw equality in all - gentile, jew, whatever. So your views do not resonate with me as being representative of Jesus Christ - even though I'm sure you are well intentioned and really believe that they are - but it just doesn't work for me. There needs to be more love and acceptance of people as they are, without needing to change or fix or save them before I could say you are heading towards being a representative of Jesus that would feel real to me.

@Dave (48)

'The rest of the discussion we are having would be far better over a relaxed cup of tea.'

Possibly the most sensible thing either of us has said. I'll just ask one more question, which you're free to decline to answer.

'To a non-believer the biblical view of homosexual activity is that it is almost the definition of bigotry, hatred or discrimination without reason. There is no reason why it is an abomination, just unreasoned distaste. In addition because there is no access to the source of the book, there is no way to infer a reason in order to ameliorate that bigotry.'

I gave reasons relating to how God designed his and his intentions for how relationships are to work. I fail to understand how you can therefore continue to insist that opposition to homosexual activity is without reason. Do you think that I'm wrong to say that those reasons exist or is it more the case that you think the reason itself is bigoted (and therefore were simply mis-speaking)?

Jonathan,
Sorry I have not been here for a few days,

I gave reasons relating to how God designed his and his intentions for how relationships are to work. I fail to understand how you can therefore continue to insist that opposition to homosexual activity is without reason. Do you think that I'm wrong to say that those reasons exist or is it more the case that you think the reason itself is bigoted (and therefore were simply mis-speaking)?

I have seen reasons in the bible why god invented two sexes to ensure continuation of the species. No homosexual could deny that that is a necessary thing. It is not necessary however nor is it stated in the bible that that it is the only possible relationship it simply never mentions homosexual relationships (I am not talking about sex). It is not necessary for all humans to be heterosexual for gods plan of procreation.

God made people homosexual therefore it must be in his plan to have homosexual relationships else why would he have made them.

God then says that homosexuals cannot follow their natural instincts based on their orientation like heterosexual people can. That is clearly discriminatory. He gives no reason for this other than it is an abomination to him, that shows discrimination based on his own likes and dislikes not a rational reason, that is bigotry.

The fundamental point would be god condemns homosexual activity without
reason and never even mentions homosexuality.

Would it be fair to say that the Jews hated the Romans? That they objected to being ruled by them, and especially objected to their worship of many Gods, eating of unclean foods etc?

Would it therefore be fair to speculate that Jesus, as a product of this era, would also have felt similar resentment to the Romans? Jesus only preached to Jews, and I believe was trying to show them the true path to God, from which they had erred and become lost.

Is it possible that Jesus was a bit of a politician? He would needed to have been at least politically savvy to deal with the religious hierarchy as he did.

What else is more sinful and satanic than playing a game with in the house of God????We are at the eleventh hour!Shame on you who ordained gay pastor....You will burn forever more in hell!!

Shame on you

Satans!

Chala,

Nice bit of religious tolerance there. I see respect for other peoples beliefs is alive and well in your church. Good luck with that.

Chala- Anybody who gets that worked up over it must have issues with their own sexuality. Not much of God getting through your deep,dark gloop of a soul.
If it's good enough for the Presbyterians and the Head of the Anglican Church (who seems to be a very openminded, liberal good hearted christian) then it should be good enough for you :)

It is a really a shame for all of us who are christians.You don´t belong to the house of God...but of the Devil.What is more sinful than this Sodomic xxr.Shame on you who call your self christians taking the name of the perfect God-man Christ.

You will burn in hell forever more.

Chala,

And you have proof of this?

Or are you just sprouting typical religous intolerance that has no basis in your faith?

"Love your neighbour as yourself."

Oh, and I don't call myself a Christian, and I don't think you're one either.

Chala,

I'm not a christian, but there are christians who disagree with your interpretation of scripture. Do you have respect for their right to believe their faith or is freedom of religion only to be free to believe your religion.???

All I can say, as a Christian, is that Chala's post # 56 is utterly contemptible and a travesty of the Christian faith.

Christians may have their disagreements about issues relating to the sensitive issue of sexuality, but there is absolutely no excuse for this kind of vile contribution.

Enough said.

I'm bemused as to why one of my previous comments is still awaiting moderation and yet Chala is quite free to insult and belittle as much as he/she wants, all in the name of a corrupted belief.

Is it okay to be offensive so long as it's based on your beliefs? Because whilst I find the phrase 'you will burn in hell forever more' a little contempible (given I don't believe in hell), but some might find it highly offensive.

Chala- Isnt it interesting so many religions have so many various subsets. It's almost like humans pick and choose their faith to fit in with their own personalities. Judging from your contributions it's pretty clear your character is pretty cold, dark and lacking a great deal of humanity. I pity you, and I pity God looking down on you that think so little of humanity to think *your* god would cast people into hell for the way god made them. I wonder how you would react if a child or family member of yours was gay, but then again, you might be gay youself and just cant deal with it lol

'US Presbyterians vote to ordain gay ministers'- William I don't know if you write the headlines to your blogs but please try to avoid sensationalism. This story is about the Presbyterian Church USA. There are other Presbyterian denominations in the USA, such as those linked to the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council, who would not agree with, or support the PC(USA) course of action. Why do I raise the issue? It is because reporting should straight forward and always be factual and unambiguous. Recently the BBC and other media carried news reports that stated that 'a Presbyterian minister endorsed this year's gay pride parade'. Most people would immediately assume a PCI connection. The person in question was a Non Subscribing Presbyterian minister. The two denominations are non-compatable. Why let the facts get in the way of a good headline? Here's another, 'Atheists know their Bible,so said William this morning. Not true of course, but a nice hook line for the programme. We learned that, despite the reluctance of two well known religion pundits from opposite sides of the fence, we found out that the survey actually said that Evangeticals and Mormans did best. The survey reports that they atheists have a better knowledge of religion. A bit obvious, know your enemy etc. William time to stop the spin!

What are the biggest problems, practical and theological that Protestant churches in Ireland and Britain face today? I would submit the following:,

Inability to retain or reach out to young, single people, especially men. Think about it on a typical Sunday in a typical protestant church, how many 28-year-old single men are sitting in the pews? How might we draw them in? What are their felt needs?

Legalism. We can’t be a gospel-centered church with a do-this, don’t-do-that mentality. Legalism, a focus on rules and moralistic preaching have always threatened the freedom of the gospel.

Biblicism. Too often we use selective proof-texts merely to maintain traditional opinions rather than really listening to the Spirit.

Muta Marriage: Shia Muslims have a practice that Protestant Christians should consider. Muta’ is a fixed-term marriage. The basic difference between Muta’ and Nikah (permanent marriage) is that in Nikah there is no time limit. In Muta marriage the man and woman arrange a fee beforehand, and then agree how long the marriage will last. This can be a matter of hours. Sexual relationships are allowed for the duration of the Muta Marriage, but not beyond.

Protestants could allow for such marriages – arranged and supervised by the Churches Pastoral Staff. This would allow teens to experiment with their sexuality in a controlled environment without straying into fornication.

I can think of many objections. Perhaps the most damaging would be that this is a form of “Temple Prostitution”, forbidden by Scripture. The issue, however, is not so clear cut. ( I was shocked to learn this!)

First there are a handful of Bible verses that might seem to condemn the practice. But all the condemnation of temple prostitution involves pagan practices or worship of false gods. The objectionable thing is the idolatry, not the physical act itself. Sanctified, Muta’ Marriages would be a new thing. The Biblical writers never foresaw or contemplated sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing Muta’ Marriages in the churches and thus never wrote about it. Attempts to find a Biblical injunction against the practice therefore fall short.

Secondly, let’s not cherry-pick verses selectively. We don’t stone disobedient children to death. We don’t refrain from pork or homosexual marriage merely because this or that verse seems to say we should. We have to look at the whole Biblical witness in light of Protestant freedom of conscience. For example, God ordered Hosea to marry a prostitute. Such Biblical precedent offers interpretive nuance to seemingly black-and-white prohibitions.

Thirdly, Jesus himself seemed to have a soft spot for prostitutes. Jesus showed radical inclusivity, breaking taboos by hanging out with prostitutes. So he would want us to celebrate and affirm their prostitution and give them a venue for making it their true vocation, a way of serving God by serving man—selflessly and with their whole being. Even if Muta Marriage could be compared to Temple prostitution (an obsecene idea!) it is not clear that there is a solid biblical case against Church Supervised Prostitution!
Fourthly, some primarily Lutheran nations in Scandinavia have already legalized prostitution. Perhaps it is time for the Church to (once again) follow the lead of secular morality. It is to the Churches shame that secular ethics are more tolerant and forgiving than Protestantism

Lastly, the idea that church prostitution would cause any harm has been put to rest by a host of studies. The opportunity for a woman to explore her sexuality in a controlled, churchly environment surely beats the back seat or back alley.
Think of the number of single males who would be saved from living a lie concerning their deepest emotional and psychological desires. The plain fact is that most of the unmarried men in the congregation are sexually attracted to women. Right now their cruel alternatives are to deny those urges and live a lie, carry out those urges in secretive and destructive ways, or leave the church because their desires are not welcomed and affirmed. But with Muta’ Marriages available, they could avoid dangerous, destructive behaviour, help the church raise money, use the gift of sexuality in a God-pleasing way, and sit in the pew focusing on spiritual things without all that pent up desire and frustration getting in the way.

So there are no valid objections to sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing Muta’ Marriages in the churches apart from Western moral traditions and conservative morality, which are surely trumped by love.

Furthermore, even if there are some controversial points, they do not touch the heart of the gospel. This plan does not eliminate John 3:16; it exposes more people to John 3:16 on Sunday.

And if there is some Biblicist objection that such behavior could be considered immoral according to traditional, puritanical mores, well, everyone is a sinner! Salvation by grace through faith says nothing specifically about sexual behaviour! And Jesus never explicitly addressed the issueof Muta’ Marriage. Do we think we’re saved by proper sexual behavior? I think not. Nor are we saved by our interpretations of a few non-gospel related verses of the Bible.

I expect legalists and those wedded to an Occidental view of ethics to object vigorously.

The rest can learn from our Shia Muslim neighbour.

Exclusive - BBC journalist William Crawley considering his position at the BBC after breaking his promise not to silence pedantic bloggers.

Only joking! William thank you for your excellent explanation and the time you took to respond to my comments. We know that journalists will always look for a drawing headline or hook line. 'Freddie Star ate my hamster.' It sells blogs, stories and newspapers. Check out Brian Clark's online book 'Authority Rules'. I was perhaps a bit tongue in cheek criticising for your headline and I do accept everything you say about the PC(USA). But I just have a thing about religious and scientific stories being sexed up by the scientific and general media. Just 3 recent examples of many: The Times online link for example, and is still there, 'scientists create life in lab.' This is a misleading headline as anyone listening to your programme would have found out. They didn't create life but a modified form of existing life. How many will bother to read the actual story to find out what the scientists have actually accomplished and the fact that they don't actually claim to have created life? 'The odds of life on a nearby planet is 100% Astronomer says' - from Fox news.Pity that in the body of the article we find that his colleagues don't agree. The Belfast Telegraph online headline 'Gay community hails unlikely hero from Presbyterian church'. Now that online headline is clearly misleading as you would expect the minister would be from the largest Presbyterian Church, for reasons you have stated. The minister concerned is, as your blog points out, a minister of a very small denomination, the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church. So whether we agree or not with the subject of a story I think that we are at least entitled to expect that the headline will substantially reflect the actual content of the narrative. Thanks again and keep up the good work.

If someone is from a small denomination of Presbyterians, does that stop them being a Presbyterian ? Who defines who can call themselves a Presbyterian ?

Surely Presbyterian on its own describes the superset of all Presbyterian denominations and saying someone is Presbyterian says nothing about their denomination. If the headline had said Christian church would we all have assume Catholic Christian as it is the largest Christian denomination.

I am not sure I heard the same call for distinction when the Free Presbyterians were last on their anti gay rant, in fact I am sure that they included all Presbyterians (and indeed 'right thinking Christians') in their inclusiveness even though Free Presbyterian views would be at variance with the Homosexuality Guidelines published by the PCI.

It kind of gets back to another question, if you disagree so much with the stance of another denomination, does it mean they are not christians, or does it mean they are right and you are not christians, or neither are christians and some other group is. It is rather confusing.

The label Presbyterian has two functions. (a) To refer to the method of Church government. (b) To identify the church as being part of the reformed faith. The former is obvious but the latter arises from John Knox's attempt to demonstrate separateness from the Established Episcopalian Church. The Presbyterian Church really should be called the Reformed Church, as it is in Europe. The problem in NI, whether we want it or not, is that the prefix in the title Presbyterian helps us to understand where people are coming from. The issue is not whether we think a church is Christian or not. Christian churches are not unique in this. Humanists have the same sort of divisions and have their own prefixes - 'positive' humanists and 'negative humanists', etc. Some Unitarians even call themselves 'Christian humanists'.

CTO: All labels that only serve to create division amongst people....perpetuating the 'them' and 'us'.

Eunice I agree with your sentiment. That's why I used the words 'the problem in NI'. However it is possible for people to abuse inclusivity, to misrepresent individuals or communites and faith groups if we jump, in our response making assumptions too readily from the particular to the general or from the general to the particular. In a propaganda rich environment like NI, where there is a constant battle over competing ideologies, like the spin and public opinion forming campagins by Government agences, political parties, media, secular and religious groupings, truth, is hard to find. Therefore, some will say, if we know where someone is coming when they make a statment, we can better evaluate what the intention and purpose of that statement. It's not as we would wish but it is an unfortunate feature of every society. Note that athiests are usually immune from spin as they are a non-prophet organisation who would never be involved in such activities.

CTO,

I think you might be being a bit over-sensitive about this in that it is probably only Presbyterians who object to other Presbyterians doctrine who care that a distinction is made. Most on the outside don't care about the internal disputes over doctrine but are quite capable of understanding the difference between the superset and the competing factions within it.

My question still is moot though, are all factions of Presbyterians christian and do you believe they are all, if they follow their doctrine, on a path to salvation. The question then goes up a level, are all protestant denominations christian or how far from the path do you need to get to stop being a christian.

Just to be clear when I say christian, I mean followers of the true message of christ and on a path to salvation not just label themselves as christian because they have split from a christian theology.

Dave I'm not sure what your asking but my definition of Christian is simple. John 3:14-16 If you believe that these verses apply to you, then you may call yourself Christian. I am not a plurist or ecumenical, but I agree that we need to respect and understand each other’s traditions of faith and belief, whilst asserting our right to disagree. Let me make myself clear. There will be no Roman Catholics in heaven, no Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists or whatever. There will also be no good people in heaven, only those who have repented of their sins accepted Christ as Saviour and who will be forgiven of their sins, by the grace of God. That is the classic statement and claim of the Christian faith. You may or may not agree. The basics of faith as Christians see it are in accepting Christ as Lord and surrendering to him. The hymn writer puts it well in fleshing out our understanding of the Christian position, 'Pardon from sin, a peace that endureth, Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide; strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow, blessings all mine and ten thousand beside’. This is not a denominational statement but a relationship statement. Doctrine is the vehicle through which we seek to come to an understanding of what we believe. It is not of necessarily our belief, but our belief system. Nor should doctrine be taken as our faith alone. For example for Reformed Presbyterains (PCI),the Westminister Confession remains a subordinate but acceptable standard of faith, to the Word of God. Rather the doctrine we subscribe to should help us in the outworking of our faith. That is not to day that doctrine is not important, or that it should be ignored. It is very important to many Christians who believe that some of today's church teaching today is plainly contrary to scripture; e.g. denying the divinity of Christ, denying the inspiration of the Bible, syncretism, or subscribing to man-made tradition to name a few. Those few comments are of course where some the great debate on doctrine lies, and people will take their own positions as to where the truth lies for them. God reminds us of course that his 'thoughts are not our thoughts neither his ways our ways'. The basic truth of John 3:14-16 however still stands, we are sinners needing to be saved by grace, although at times in our Christian controversies we sometimes tend to forget that. (Some post modern Christians and of course humanists, deny that we have any sin to repent.)If we preach something contary to John 3:14-16 and do not recognise Christ as Lord and Saviour, then we have no right to call ourselves the followers of the Way, or the Antioch nickname of Christian.

Interesting debate here and elsewhere on labels. I attend a Church in the Reformed Tradition....but I would avoid labels as that Tradition does not define me.

Until I find a tradition that does, I would rather call myself "Post Emergent".

D-a-a-R

Daar: how does the label 'son of God' grab you??

CTO - I wrote a response but it has got lost clearly! Anyway ....I understand you are coming from a very traditional perspective and one that for me is flawed. We all experience the consequences of our choices whether we say "I believe in Jesus' or not. So for me, salvation is an inside job (so to speak!) by coming to know who we are and living from there. In that way we live form the impulse of love (Christ) with personal responsiblity and integrity. I appreciate you will not agree with that as many Christians would not - but for me it is not about handing power over to anyone else for the kingdom of God is within - we are to embody the Christ (love/light of God) just as Jesus did.....we have it all within us we just dont know it!! Best kept secret - perpetuated by years and years of religious teachings and calling people sinners!! Crazy eh! :-)

#71 Check that out.

"Let me make myself clear. There will be no Roman Catholics in heaven, no Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists or whatever. There will be no good people in heaven, only those who have repented of their sins..."

I was recently preaching on the Gospel of the rich man and Lazarus, the poor man at his gate. To my mind, a magnificent parable. God knows the name of the poor man, but doesnt know the name - or at least doesnt use the name - of the rich man. The opposite to what happens in real life where the poor man is simply a statistic.

Also, from his place in Hell, the rich man asks Abraham to tell Lazarus to dip his finger in water and come over to him to quench his thirst. But Jesus has Abraham refusing. The rich man doesnt get to tell the poor man what to do any more. Again, the opposite to the state of affairs in this life.

Nowhere does Lazarus repent of his sins, nowhere does he confess Jesus as his Lord, but he is certainly in heaven.

So too with the parable of judgement day. Those who loved their neighbour are in heaven. Those who didnt are sent to hell. In fact, Jesus makes a point of stating that such people who are rewarded with heaven, were blissfully UNAWARE that their goodness to their neighbour was actually goodness to him.

The man who gives so much as a cup of water to a holy man shall not lose his reward, the cured leper who says thanks, the centurion, the widow who puts one penny into the church coffers, the crucified thief, etc.. etc.. etc.. are all in heaven.

How do you explain away page after page after page of the gospel and subordinate them all to John 3 14-16?

Eunice

"post emergent" describes the journey that I am on.

Daar: what are the qualities of someone who is 'post-emergent'? what sort of things/ideas/philosophy/beliefs etc do they hold??

74 romejellybean
The purpose about my comments was to encourage people to be less denominational and more Christ like. Regarding your first two paragraphs, I would agree with the comments made. However the rest of your exegesis is flawed, at least as far as your questions are concerned. By the way I am pleased to hear that you preach on these texts.
‘Nowhere does Lazarus repent of his sins,
This parable was typical of Egyptian and Jewish stories describing the reversed fates of rich and poor in the next world. Jewish thought stated that the righteous would be carried away by angels and the wicked by demons. Jesus modified and extended the parable in criticism of the lifestyle of some of the Pharisees. The sin of the rich man (Pharisees) was unbelief, not wealth. That is the purpose of the parable. The poor man, Lazarus (Gk. word for the Heb. Eleazar – God is his help), given that he was in God’s presence, (Abraham’s bosom) after death, was considered righteous, but not because he was poor. We are not told the basis of the poor man’s righteousness, but it must have been on the basis of belief. The question of the need or not for repentance is not part of the parable’s purpose and it cannot be inferred that repentance is or is not required from its absence here. Jesus said ‘call no one good but God’, Paul reminds us that scripture says that there is no one righteous, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
‘Nowhere does he confess Jesus as his Lord,’
This is another case of applying criteria to a situation where it doesn’t apply. This is a parable, and the key verse we need to bear in mind is Luke 16 verse 14 where we are told that the Pharisees where lovers of money. This was in direct violation of the first commandment, to love only God. It was evidence of their unbelief. This is the situation that the parable addresses. A difference in outcome is shown between a righteous person and an unrighteous person, belief and unbelief, and the consequences of unbelief. In addition, Verse 16 talks about the Old Covenant being replaced by the new inauguration of the Kingdom of God that is preached. We enter the kingdom of through the grace of God walking by faith not by sight, which at times will involve self-denial, percussion, etc. a point Jesus made to his disciples when he talked about the cost of following him.
Our outworking of our faith will show fruit. James in not contrary to Paul when teaches that a faith without works is dead, and of course we have others passages such as Jesus teaching ‘by their fruits you shall know them. Followers of Christ have a responsibility to serve and to produce fruits of the spirit remembering that it is not our good works that saves us but our faith. This is what J3:16 is all about. The parable is designed to remind those listening, particularly the Pharisees, of their responsibilities in this life, and that there is no second chance in the next.
While the parable was primary intended to reveal truths about demonstrating the kingdom of God’s rule on earth, Jesus may also have chosen to reveal other truths to us. Truths such as the certainty of the judgment, a conscious existence after death, eternal separation, believers communion with God immediately after death for the righteous, and that our destiny is fixed after death etc. Confession of Jesus as Lord is just not applicable to this parable. It in no way takes away of the force of John 3:18 or John 3:16
but he is certainly in heaven.’

Abraham’s bosom is a Jewish metaphor for being in the presence of God. In the context of the parable Lazarus is absent from the body and present with God. This would obviously lead to a discussion on the ‘intermediate state’. But I’m not tempted.
The man who gives so much as a cup of water to a holy man shall not lose his reward,
This verse is not about Salvation, but about God noticing the small things which others miss. Jesus said the same thing when he talked about laying up treasures in heaven. Reference to your other texts, how do you know the real people are all in heaven? I am not suggesting they aren’t, but if I did it would be likewise an argument from silence, poor exegesis of these texts. Inferring that good works will get to heaven, without accepting Christ is contrary to scripture. Concerning the parable on judgement, which one do you mean?

Check that out

We obviously fundamentally disagree on how to approach the scriptures. For you, any passage which refers to confessing Jesus as Lord and repenting of our sins, must be taken literally.

And any passage which directly states that those who are cruel, unjust or wicked towards their neighbour, going to Hell, is to be seen as metaphorical and not really about God's love for the poor and his anger at the abuses perpetrated on them by the rich and powerful, but actually about a person's belief or disbelief. I find this to be not just poor exegesis, but also dangerous.

If the rich man ever is converted to your way of thinking, he'll be so busy becoming 'righteous' (God I detest that word) that poor Lazarus will still be lying at his gate, sick and starving and forgotten. This is exactly what has been happening in many third world countries where christian fundamentalists have got a foothold.

"As long as you are at church on Sunday, its not really important that your property is being stolen and that you have to live like a slave, that your wife is being abused and your children live with no future. You're going to heaven!!"

78 romejellybean.
Thank you for your comment but your comment has confused me. I am dealing mainly with the parable in question, i.e the rich man and Lazarus. contary to what you say I believe, when Jesus asks us to repent of our sins I have to take that literally and repent; when Jesus tells me to love my neighbour as myself, I have to take that literally and love my neighbour. This is so even when some say all manner of things against me on this blog! When Jesus identifies with the poor the oppressed, the persecuted, the marginalised, and asks me to respond to their needs as if I were responding to his, I need to do that as well.
Most commentators I have read seem to come to a similar conclusion - that Jesus is teaching about the consequences of unbelief. The scenario, the fate of a wicked rich man and a righteous poor man, is the vehicle through which he teaches about unbelief.
Differences in interpretation will inevitably appear between scholars as to whether this pericope is a parable, or if it has a historical aspect or if Jesus is also teaching about the intermediate state after death but before the resurrection and judgement, and so on. The main point of the parable remains the same, in the context of the passage it is the challenge by Jesus given to the Pharisees about their unbelief, as demonstrated by their love of wealth. If they truly worshiped God they would love him and not their wealth and also their neighbour as themselves.
If we want the parable to say anything else then we will be reading into the parable our own thoughts as to what we would want it to say (eisegesis). We have to begin our exegesis by asking, what does the text say and what did it originally mean? However it is not wrong to draw an inference in application that those who oppress the poor will face punishment, but this is not the main purpose of the parable. Your original assertion (in post 74) that Lazarus doesn’t repent of his sins, yet is in heaven is irrelevant to the purpose for which Jesus used the parable. You comment, as made in post 74, is therefore eisegesis on your part and cannot be used as an example of an unrepentant person in heaven.

As I say, we are going to have to accept that we differ on our approach.

However, lets look again at the discussion.

1. You seem to state that entry to heaven is exclusively by way of repentence of sin and confession of Jesus as Lord.

2. I disagree with that statement and give the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as my example, where Jesus portrays one of them in heaven, one in hell. Jesus also clearly states WHY one is in heaven, the other in hell.

3. You then argue that this parable is not about the rich man's indifference to the plight of Lazarus and that it is actually about his belief (or lack of belief) in God.

4. You then depart totally from the text and give, to my mind, some rather far fetched or at least questionable reasons as to why this text is actually about belief in God and repentence of sins, rather than the indifference of the rich to the poor, and you call it exegesis.

5. I go back to the text again and remind you that nowhere in the text is there anything about belief in God or repentence of sins as a prerequisite of entrance into heaven, and you then accuse me of putting MY meaning into it. It is you who is inventing a meaning to this gospel to justify your argument that only those who confess their sins and believe in Jesus as Lord, shall enter heaven.

Nowhere am I arguing that unrepentent people WILL get into heaven so please stop putting those words into my mouth. What I am saying is that far far more people will be in heaven than fall into the two categories you give (belief and repentence.) i.e. the poor, the oppressed, the humble, the meek, the grieving, the sick, those who were never given a chance in this life, those who are kind, those who are honest, etc.. etc..

I repeat, you are wrong to subordinate all of these gospel passages to one text, namely John 3 14-16 and, in doing so, it is you who is partaking in more than a little eisegesis.

80 romejellybean
Thank you for your comments. I believe that we can agree that we don't know , or better we cant make a judgement as to who is in heaven, but Jesus taught us how to get there, through accepting him as Saviour and Lord. The Pharisees where not just rich men, they were teachers of the Law. Jesus called them white-washed tombs. Good on the outside, dead on the inside. Jesus was challenging their hypocrisy, and representing it as unbelief, i.e. they may assume they would get to heaven, as sons of Abraham, but Jesus challenged their complacency, and love of money, and reminded them of their obligation to love their neighbour. The problem of deviating from this understanding is that a position and either spiritualising everything, or a literal reading a parable away from the context of the text is dangerous. This is demonstrated by the verse of the well known hymn that is usually omitted today, 'All things bright and beautiful'.
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.
Is this fatelisim a fair reading of this passage?
Let’s close there and agree to disagree.

CTO: maybe you are making the same mistake you are accusing the Pharisees of : assuming you will get into heaven because you believe the only way is by accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour???
What if you knew there was no hell?
What if Jesus wanted you to not just believe in him but to live as he lived? To express with love in thought, word and deed?
Nobody is going to hell. Many of us go there whilst living on earth though!
Yes- there are many mansions - but it is all part of our own unfolding and choices not the result of a judgment or condemnation by God: boundless love does not condemn nor judge! :-)

RJB,

To a certain extent, I agree with you that it's about the indifference of the rich man to the poor, however, isn't the context here vitally important to understanding the passage? Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and has criticised them for the way they deal with the Law and the Prophets - by their actions, they effectively reject what God has said through Moses et al. The rich man is an example of the consequences of this: the law and the prophets are of no use to him since he did not obey them, and because his brothers haven't listened to the Law and the Prophets, there's no reason to think that they'll listen to Jesus. It's a damning indictment of how the Pharisees treat both the Law and the Prophets, and Jesus. The hypocrisy of the Pharisees renders the legalism ineffectual and makes them blind to Christ.

The Pharisees taught the law, but rejected it in their hearts.
The rich man had no compassion for Lazarus (in contrast to the stipulations of the law) and went to hell.
Therefore the hypocrisy of the Pharisees puts them in danger of hell.

The rich man's brothers need warned about hell.
The law and prophets should show them how to live.
But the brothers have already rejected it like the rich man and are in danger.
The Pharisees have rejected the law and the prophets in their hearts and are in danger.

The resurrection is evidence of the need to repent.
Those who reject the law and the prophets will also reject Jesus.
The Pharisees have rejected the law and the prophets, so they're going to reject Jesus.

How Lazarus ends up in heaven is neither here nor there - the parable simply states that he goes there, so it is eisegesis to make sweeping statements about the poor getting into heaven. This passage is about the Pharisees, their hearts, and their response to Christ. You say that there's nothing in the text about repentance begin a pre-requisite for getting into heaven, but surely verse 30 is all about the need for the Pharisees - the audience for this parable - to repent or else go to hell?

Jonathon

Of course context is crucial. So lets remember the overall context that it is not Matthew's gospel but Luke's. It is not a Jewish audience. The audience are not expected to be aware of the nuances of the Pharisees. So Luke spells it out for them, "The Pharisees love money."

I do not build an argument that 'the poor' get into heaven on Lazarus alone. I build it on Lazarus AND the many, many other characters (named above) whom Jesus commends who display attitudes pleasing to God.

However, on Lazarus, CTO claims that his repentence is inferred. It certainly isnt, neither is his faith in God. What is inferred is that this man went to heaven because he was poor, sick, starving and rejected. Lazarus doent have the luxury of religion!

Post 82 Eusnice, it appears that we have a case here of the five visually impaired men and the elephant. One seizing the leg concluded that the elephant was a tree; another, grasping at the side, reasoned that the elephant was a wall another grasping at the tail reasoned that it was like rope and so on. We can pick out bits of scripture and assert that no text is privileged. If meaning is not resident in the text but created by the interpreter, we have encountered a deconstructionism methodology, a tool typical of post-modern thought. But then given your comments, I’m not surprised.

CTO: maybe you are making the same mistake you are accusing the Pharisees of : assuming you will get into heaven because you believe the only way is by accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour???

Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. It is not just the 10 commandments. That’s why scripture talks of transgressions - external sins, and iniquity - sin of the heart. We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. The Pharisees considered themselves as righteous whereas Jesus pointed out that they were hell deserving sinners. (Cf. James 2:10) Hence the message of the parable Jesus used. As far as accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour is concerned we could get into a proof text war, but John 3:36 will suffice for now. What do you think it means?

What if you knew there was no hell?

Jesus taught more about hell than heaven. He refers to hell e.g. as ‘the unquenchable fire’ Mark 9:43, and of course the rich man and Lazarus. If he taught it, and if we believe that he was the Son of God, then we better take heed. Simple objections based on e.g. moral revulsion will not do. We can dispute about the nature of hell, eternal punishment, a state or a place, eternal separation from God’s love etc. But the teaching on hell is an essential part of scripture and only by extensive revisionism (e.g. deconstructionism) can we make scripture say or mean anything else. Humanists wax on about this all the time, the atonement is a crucial doctrine of faith that's why they are so against hell. If there is no judgment then there is no hell. If we have nothing to be saved from then why was it necessary for Christ to die? Someone has said, ‘He [God] is righteous, so much that sacrifice for sin had to be provided. He [God] is loving, so much so that he provided that sacrifice himself’.

What if Jesus wanted you to not just believe in him but to live as he lived? To express with love in thought, word and deed?

Well said, exactly my thoughts.

post 84 romejellybean
I have not inferred that Larazus repented, only that he was considered righteous by the fact that he was permitted to be in the presence of God. Perhaps what we are debating is how can we get right with God? How can we come into his presence? Thanks for your insights and point of view.

Check

post # 77

"We are not told the basis of the poor man's righteousness, but it must have been on the basis of belief."

No it mustn't.

We ARE told the basis of his righteousness - his suffering i.e. starvation, sickness and ignored by the rich man.

CTO: we are miles apart in our understanding! But that's ok. Most traditional Christians/bible following people would not agree with me. Jesus was a son of God but in my book so is every other person - they just don't know it! hey ho. Salvation is to save us from ourselves - that we develop a way of living that is predominantly joyful and serving/expressing the love of God in thought, word and deed instead of all the mind-driven emotional nonsence that we get caught up in and which has detrimental consequences for our lives and health. :-) (I don't expect you to agree of course - just an alternative understanding that for me and many others makes sense, is consistent with wisdom teachings and works.)

RJB (@ 78) -

"If the rich man ever is converted to your way of thinking, he'll be so busy becoming 'righteous' (God I detest that word) that poor Lazarus will still be lying at his gate, sick and starving and forgotten. This is exactly what has been happening in many third world countries where christian fundamentalists have got a foothold."

Thanks for your comments, and I broadly agree with where you are coming from.

I had the misfortune to read the following 'interpretation' in a popular evangelical study Bible today, which relates disturbingly to current attitudes in the church to the poor. It is a footnote on Malachi 3:8-12, concerning tithing:

"Everything we have is from God; so when we refuse to return to him a part of what he has given, we rob him. Do you selfishly want to keep 100 per cent of what God gives, or are you willing to return at least 10 per cent for helping advance God's kingdom? The people of Malachi's day ignored God's command to give a tithe of their income to his temple. They may have feared losing what they had worked so hard to get, but in this they misjudged God. "Give, and it will be given to you" he says (Luke 6:38). When we give, we must remember that the blessings God promises are not always material and may not be experienced completely here on earth, but we will certainly receive them in our future life with him." (emphasis mine).

Now I am sure some Christians will wonder what is wrong with this seemingly innocuous 'analysis', but this little commentary is positively oozing with corrupt insinuations, for those who know a little bit about what goes on in some parts of the Christian church. It is an attempt to apply a specific law (a tax, in fact) to everyone, whereas the landless poor in Israel were not required to give tithes. Tithing was a responsibility of the ancient equivalent of the well-off 'middle classes', who, of course, could afford to tithe. The poor actually received some of the tithe, and there were laws to provide for the poor (such as the law of gleaning). It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the poor were expected to tithe their gleanings and whatever meagre income they had! It is hard to believe that we could call a poor person 'selfish' for withholding their tithe, when they need it to feed their children!

Furthermore, money was never tithed, and earlier in Malachi 3 there is the expression of God's anger towards those who "defraud labourers of their wages".

But what I find particularly insidious about this sinister example of eisegesis is the way the poor are expected to cope with the loss of 10% of their paltry income: "Just trust in God to provide for you, and if he doesn't then you'll get your reward in heaven". Opium of the people stuff! (And I say this as someone who most certainly does believe in heaven.) It's very cunning how the writer of this footnote anticipates the complaint that "God has not provided for me even though I have tithed for years", by saying that, of course, the blessings of God are not necessarily material and given in this life!! Sickening.

Then you have churches which constantly prattle on about how faithful they are to the practices of the early church - especially in Acts. But what do we read in Acts about the financial practice of the church? How about this...

"Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, AS ANYONE HAD NEED." Acts 2:44-45.

But this was not compulsory, because there was no compulsory giving at all in the early church, at least as far as the teaching of the Apostle Paul was concerned:

"So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity [i.e. out of compulsion]; for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7.

What a far cry this is from the corrupt and fraudulent practices that go on in much of the church today, and in many churches tithing is actually a condition of membership. And if you cannot afford to tithe, you are just told you don't have enough faith. So apparently God blesses the rich with an easy ride, but he places crushing burdens on those least able to bear them. This is not God, but the devil, in my opinion.

LSV

I would take what you say further. If the "sacred scripture" of someone's obvious suffering and poverty doesnt touch our hearts and move us to action, if we need a book to tell us what to do, we aren't Christian.

89 LSV
I agree with all that you have said. Many religious organisations, especially in the US, but not all, are no more than money making enterprises. As someone who works with those on the margins of society I know too well, that in some churches, if you are not well heeled, they won't want to know you. You just have to look at the make and model of the cars parked that outside some of the most pious religious denominations that demand tithing, to see who is really welcome. By the way I am not saying that just having a good car is evil. I met a man one day who told me that he was estranged from his church because of his working class background. In some churches if you are a professional person you seem to get on in the leadership of the church. In all my years of church membership I have had one invite to the manse for tea. I discovered that others have had many such visits. I know from personal experience what it is like to live at the edge, with more month at the end of the money, and still do. Many but not all, church organisations are no more than baby sitters for well off Christian parents. People will move church because of their children, depleting the body of Christ, taking their gifts elsewhere, to avail of organisations for their children. Christian students are loathed to work with difficult children from poorer areas, and I could go on. My gripe with romejellybean is not about the poor, I understand the Bible teaching on the poor quite well, but about Jesus' intention in telling the parable of the rich man. I contend it is a polemic against the Pharisees and not a just a commentary on the plight of the poor. The Pharesees love of money was a symptom of their legalism and a mark of unbelief. As far as your quote on tithing is concerned the first few words are from scripture, David’s prayer at the dedication of the offering for the temple in 1 Chronicles 29. However we must remember that God has said that 'sacrifices and offerings I did not desire, but a broken and contrite heart. That said, all people, rich and poor, do indeed need to tithe, but a tithe can and will include our own gifts, our time and Christian service to our neighbour, not just money. That is comething we all can contribute to rich or poor. As David said to the people, we are stewards of what God has blessed us with as everything we have is a blessing from God.

RJB (@ 90) -

"I would take what you say further. If the "sacred scripture" of someone's obvious suffering and poverty doesnt touch our hearts and move us to action, if we need a book to tell us what to do, we aren't Christian."

I don't see the Bible as a rule book or a repository of principles (how to 'Christianly' clean your teeth etc). That is idealism, whereas I tend to see the Bible as rooted in realism. Of course there is something deeply disturbing about a professing Christian who only condescends to help the poor, because the Bible tells him he must. Such a Christian would just do the bare minimum to attempt to save his own skin, and there would be no genuine concern for those less fortunate than himself.

Certain outrageous beliefs are justified simply on the basis that "the Bible says so" (although, in fact, it is more like "my interpretation of the Bible says so"). So if I were to object to the idea of God deliberately creating some people for absolutely no other reason than to finally damn them to everlasting hell (the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation), the retort is "oh, but we must believe this, because the Bible apparently says so", never mind the fact that such an idea renders the concept of justice totally meaningless to the human mind. So when the Bible says "God is just", it means no more than saying that "God is unjust" or that "God is ...... (insert any word you like or even a random series of letters)".

The Bible is there to be understood (difficult though that might be), not to be reduced to a fatuous set of meaningless principles and concepts, which function as an idolatrous substitute for a genuinely changed life.

CTO (@ 91) -

"That said, all people, rich and poor, do indeed need to tithe, but a tithe can and will include our own gifts, our time and Christian service to our neighbour, not just money."

Well I think the 10% is completely irrelevant. We either give 100% or nothing. The whole problem comes down to the idea of "giving to God", especially giving money to God. It is impossible to give money to God! How could we do it? 'God' doesn't need any money at all.

Of course, we know what people mean when they say this. They mean 'giving money to the church', or what is referred to as 'the work of God'. The problem is that 'the church' is not 'God'.

I'll tell you what the 'work of God' is. It is anything which is consistent with the will and character of God, and that includes providing for one's own family. If my giving of money to the church causes my children to starve, then I am not doing the work of God. So 'giving money to God' must include fulfilling my moral responsibilities to those entrusted to my care.

Personally I find it absolutely incredible that many of the evangelical Christians who rabbit on about the necessity of tithing are the very same people who wax eloquent about 'family values'. So I am supposed to drive my family into dire poverty in order to give to a 'god' who apparently chides me for not being responsible towards my own family! All this stuff sickens me no end, frankly.

Old Testament tithes actually where greater than 10%, more like 20 - 30%. However, the New Testament doesn't specify an amount (Cf 1Cor 16:2). The NT doesn’t expect us to deprive our families nor does it specify that we should only give to God by giving to the church, or even that giving should involve money.

When we do give to the church, at least as far as my church is concerned, it is for a definite purpose. Famine relief, Haiti, Pakistan flood relief, helping the elderly, the poor and marginalised, paying for full time ministers and workers and volunteers, upkeep of buildings to provide worship facilities, running costs, providing services to the wider community etc. It is all given to God in the sense that the body of Christ is working in his name.

Why churches do sometimes rabbit on about giving is that some people don't give realistically. They will put a £1 or £2 in the weekly offering whilst thinking nothing about spending £30 on carry out. Some fellowships are kept afloat by 10 - 20% of the nominal membership. Some churches quite wrongly insist that giving is sacrificial, if it is not hurting, you are not giving enough, whilst others are no better than money making scams.

Christians cannot live as free standing believers by ourselves outside the fellowship of the body of Christ. We need to have fellowship with other believers, formal organisation or not. For example, I sometimes use the following illustration some times. I give 10 children 1p each. I have a bag of sweets, which I will sell for 10p. No one child can buy the sweets but when they contribute together they all can by the sweets. This is what happens when we give to the church. When we give according to how God has prospered us we will help our witness and also those on the margins of society who may need our help through our various ministries.