Posted on 10/26/2011 9:26:04 AM PDT by Cronos
Before returning to New England for the second time, I served two African American Presbyterian Churches. And during that time I never thought, two decades ago, that the entire church body would change its position on LGBTQ worshippers.
But a historic yet bittersweet moment happened on October 8th in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
And the moment didn’t happened without a long and arduous struggle against the church’s ecclesiastical heterosexism.
After decades of open struggle with the church’s recalcitrant attitude and discrimination against its lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) worshippers who wanted to serve as pastors, elders or deacons, the Presbyterian Church (USA), known as the more liberal and tolerant branch of the denomination, finally conducted its first openly gay ordination.
...As a church that is borne out of a liberal Protestant Christian tradition, the Presbyterian Church’s problem with its LGBTQ worshippers is a history of how it not only broke the backs and souls of the many who wanted to serve, but also how the church recklessly discarded the gifts we bring.
...as a church that proudly touts itself as “reformed and always reforming,” when it came to all things LGBTQ prior to this recent Amendment, the church was not only losing its theological ground of being one that affirms diversity without divisiveness, but it was also losing its public face of inclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at ukprogressive.co.uk ...
"Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off."
Back to Paul and Jerusalem, though: clearly, Paul was compelled to act under their leadership: in general, searching 'Paul' and 'Jerusalem', we find that many of his actions involved them. He felt compelled to bring theological issues there (Acts 15:2, Gal 2:14). He mentioned the apostles as leaders at Jerusalem (Gal 2:9) and received their blessing to go to the Gentiles.
I did slightly misquote Acts 11:22: "News of this reached the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch."
Yep, they didn't directly send Paul at that time. Barnadas - who WAS under their direction - took him (verse 25): "Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch." If I misquoted, it's because I believe that Barney went (out of his way) to Tarsus and get Paul because he was asked to do so.
However in 27-30: "27 During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. ...29 The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul." (clearly operating as emmissaries for the apostles).
Yes, Paul took some actions as directed by the Holy Spirit. He also operated in conjunction with the church at Jerusalem."
"Read the Mishna, Midrashim."
Ummm... I'll get back to you on that (or not).
Look: the point of this whole thing can be reduced to these items:
1. Christ left human leadership in charge of expanding his church (lowercase 'c') of believers when he left. Our role is to preserve, protect, defend, and spread the Word.
2. Humans fail at doing this. No kidding?
3. Denominations are the result of some sub-group deciding that a heresy has formed within the main group that cannot be erradicated.
Is this Biblical? You tell me: if both Heresies and Denominational splits are sin, which is the greater one? The one that causes a divide or the one that tries to correct it?
I will choose the correction path, for that leads to the scriptures. You're not gonna bump me off that position.
I have chosen (for now) the Presb. Church in America as the group closest to my own view of a proper Christian world view and one I believe to be most in accord with the scriptures. If denominations are bad, then I'll repent of that, but I'll never subscribe to the views of the RCC, from which all denominations seem to have originated.
That's quite enough from me, for I do not wish to sow discord - I do hope that the scriptures cited are sufficiently compelling. Apart from that, I can do no more.
The oral word preceded the written, and the apostles provided the authoritative interpretation of the Old Testament. Which, BTW, included the books of the Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, etc.
What was scripture and what wasn’t scripture wasn’t settled for 300 years. The Word of God is part written and part unwritten.
I think any reading of the early fathers of the Church will demonstrate that the common Evangelical reading of the Bible would have been foreign to the early Christians.
Theo,
I have no way of knowing what you know, aside from what you say, and how you say it.
“Yes, I am OK with married couples using wisdom to decide that they have the number of children the Lord wills for them.”
So where in scripture do you draw this principle from?
“So now you’re equating a married couple that’s decided not to have any more children with homosexual “sex”?”
No. I’ve equated a married couple engaged in contracepted or sterilized sex with homosexuality. Both divide sex from procreation.
“So, are you OK with the Roman Catholic practice of using NFP as a contraceptive? That’s now it is used in most cases — to avoid pregnancy.”
That, and I’m going to correct you on this point, is not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that NFP is a permissible way to acquire reliable information about a woman’s cycle. How that information is used is up to the couple. The couple may choose to engage in sex in certain periods, to take advantage of this information.
As such, it is not contraception at all. You are not engaging in contraception by choosing not to have sex.
Yes, they interpreted some things, but the Old Testament Scriptures had been considered authoratative by God's people for centuries before the apostles were born.
What was scripture and what wasn’t scripture
Paul's writings, for example, were anointed scripture from Day One. The decision to incorporate them into a book wasn't decided for some time, but they were scripture well before that.
Yes, I know what the Roman Catholic Church teaches regarding NFP. But in practice, it is used to avoid having children. In other words, NFP is in most cases just another form of birth control.
So you’re equating those who use NFP and other forms of birth control with homosexual sex? If you can’t live with that conclusion, then your assumptions are faulty.
In your world, would you require severely depressed wives, and wives with life-threatening physical problems, to either avoid sexual relations or contraception? You would require them to potentially become pregnant, despite the dangers? Kinda legalistic and heartless, don’t you think?
Wives who are past menopause will not become pregnant.
Is it wrong for such a woman to engage in sexual relations with her husband, knowing that she has no chance of becoming pregnant, knowing that the sexual activity has nothing to do with procreation?
Are you saying that the relational aspect of sexual intercourse is of minor importance?
Can you help me find the passage that makes this an important question? And, I'm still waiting on the donut question.
“Yes, I know what the Roman Catholic Church teaches regarding NFP.”
No, you don’t, which is why I corrected you before.
“in practice, it is used to avoid having children.”
Again, not true, as many faithful Catholics use it to help them conceive.
“In other words, NFP is in most cases just another form of birth control.”
Except that it isn’t. This is what you are not getting. Is choosing to wait until you get married a form of ‘birth control’? No. Choosing not to have sex is not the same as contraception.
“So you’re equating those who use NFP and other forms of birth control with homosexual sex?”
FFS.
That’s three times you’ve failed to successfully quote my argument. I am arguing that married men and women who engage in CONTRACEPTIVE or STERILIZED sex are separating SEX from PROCREATION, just as in homosexuality.
“In your world, would you require severely depressed wives, and wives with life-threatening physical problems, to either avoid sexual relations or contraception?”
Give me an example of a condition where a woman would be in serious danger of dying if she were to get pregnant.
“You would require them to potentially become pregnant, despite the dangers? Kinda legalistic and heartless, don’t you think?”
Why would I require of them to do anything? They can simply abstain from sex. Or is that not an option to you?
So you don’t believe that contraception is important.
Thanks Dutchboy. :)
Glad to know where you stand on all this.
There wasn’t an agreed upon New Testament until over 300 years after Jesus ascended to heaven. So what did the faithful do without their King James Bible?"
The Bible, my FRiend, began with Moses penning the Penteteuch. Unless your cultish crowd wants to end run Moses, I'd say you are about 1500 years late. Paul did not have anything to do with Rome, and even noted that when he wrote to the believers there, he had never visited the place. The only reason he ended up there was due to appealing to Caesar to save himself from the Jews. Your group may wish to read some history books without the party line.
You're welcome. Now, those donut issues...
What about them?
You apparently don’t believe the command, “be fruitful and multiply” is important too.
Are you *sure* you are a sola scripturist? Doesn’t sound like it to me.
If he had nothing to do with them, why was he writing them a pastoral letter?
I am not attempting to sow discord, either. But, I believe you missed my point. I said no formal "ordination" ceremony was involved. Notice, if there was it should have taken place once and for all in Jerusalem. So, praying and laying on of hands is a recognition of God working through him and sending him off done multiple times. No more, nor less. If there were specific requirements to be met here, we would have them in writing. Otherwise, we all ought to defer to that cult which loves to fill in these blanks. Reporting by Luke versus normative teaching.
Further, there is no such thing as a denomination or organization identified as representing the Body of Christ. There are congregations referred to throughout the text meeting in homes, by the rivers, in public buildings. The composition of those changed from time to time. Men who were qualified to teach and care for the group (older men = elders) were as formal as the polity got. The rest is a man-made fabrication for varying reasons.
I refer you to Gal. 2:6 to notice Paul had little regard for "authorities" who seemed to be important (in their own eyes or others). That he needed to publicly spank Peter for the gross misunderstanding that persisted in spite of his speech in Jerusalem is evidence that there were no clear denominations or organizations which authorized anything. Paul used the letter a few times, then never referred to it in his letters. Quite the opposite; he regularly disdained central authority.
According to the letter, he noticed some strife amongst the Jewish and non-Jewish believers, part of which arose due to a misunderstanding of the deterministic character of the Gospel. Jews often had a residual self-righteous attitude derived from years of thinking they were pleasing God by their actions under the Mosaic Law. Paul goes to great lengths to correct this misunderstanding and remind them that no one sought God, no one obeyed, none were righteous.
He then went on to explain grace was a non-transactional gift from God given to those whom He chose...not determined by the man himself. "So then, it does not depend upon the man who runs (acts) or upon the man who wills (chooses), but upon God...and He will have mercy upon whom He will and He will harden whom He will."
This kind of utter control by God is precisely why He does not need denominations or organizations to manage His congregations world wide. Those who are not enslaved to a particular organization simply gather per the clear, unambiguous instructions of the Scriptures.
And, I suspect God abhors abortion. But, what do you believe about obesity?
This "command" was given to Adam, along with a number of other directives. If it was written to me, I would attempt to comply. Using your hermeneutic you probably have already started on your Ark, right? After all, it is right there in black and white. Audience, my FRiend.
So I take it,
“You shall have no other gods besides me” is something you don’t have to follow because it was a command given to Abraham?
“According to the letter, he noticed some strife amongst the Jewish and non-Jewish believers”
But as you just said, he’d never been in Rome. So how did he notice that the church in Rome was having these problems?
And you never answered the question. If Paul had nothing to do with them, why did he write them a letter, and why would they listen to a letter written to them from Paul, a man they had never seen?
“This kind of utter control by God is precisely why He does not need denominations or organizations”
Unfortunately, scripture disagrees with you. Christ himself told Peter, that he was giving him authority to bind and loose, and whatever he bound in earth would be bound in heaven.
Upon this church...
“Those who are not enslaved to a particular organization simply gather per the clear, unambiguous instructions of the Scriptures.”
They are clear. However they are clear in affirming the contrary, that Christ himself built an organization to proclaim the Gospel worldwide.
“And, I suspect God abhors abortion. But, what do you believe about obesity?”
As Paul says, everything is to be taken in moderation, for even that which is good for us is harmful in excess.
I take it you meant Moses, not Abraham. But, the question is still a good one. This quote originates in the Decalogue, the so-called ten commandments given to Israel as a precursor to the entire Mosaic Law. I trust that you have read Jesus' commentary on these requirement as He developed their full weight (Matt. 5 - 8). The entire purpose of the Law was to drive Israel to its knees to say, "Now I see, I do not, cannot, will not obey. If you do not reach inside and save us, we have no hope." But, Israel began to formulate ways to believe they were actually obeying these things.
Notice, Jesus amplifies the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" to the point where even a glance at a woman is the equivalent of sinning. And, "If your right eye causes you to stumble..." well, you know the rest. He is driving Israel to cry, "Then what can we do?" Read the rich young ruler's episode. Even the disciples say, "Well then who can be saved?" Jesus' answer, "With man it is impossible, but with God it is possible." Catch the direction of the argument? The Law corners us until we say, "Help, I am evil and only you are holy." Even that cry is managed by God in those whom He is rescuing.
You probably don't actually attemtpt to do most of the so-called "commands" you have read in the Scriptures. You are not building an ark (I knew that), you are not marching around Jericho, you are not going home from Babylon, you are not naming the animals, you are not coming down from a tree. You intuitively know something/someone else is involved. That comes from hermeneutics. I am just saying pay attention to the audience.
But, yes, the devotion to the God of Israel, alone, is set out for us non-Jewish believers in the NT letters written specifically to us. Thus, I am not obeying the Exodus passage, or the Deut. passage, but I am obeyeing the same thing from my own (and your own) mail.
He had been advised from folks who lived there. Quite possibly by Aquila & Priscilla, Jewish believers run out of Rome in circa 49AD, whom he had met in Corinth. Acts 18:1ff. This meeting was some 5 - 7 years before the letter to Rome was written. Once A & P were back in Rome, they probably wrote him about the problem. Notice Rom. 16:3
But, clearly Paul had never been to Rome until his capture later. Rom. 1:13ff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.