Posted on 03/24/2014 7:38:15 AM PDT by thetallguy24
A few weeks ago, I wrote about how the sweeping acceptance of gay marriage in recent years is owed in large part to Christianity. Rejecting the rigidly hierarchical and stratified societies of the ancient world, Jesus Christ taught the equal dignity of all persons, proclaimed that the meek shall inherit the earth, and declared that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. The Western world has been working out the logic of these subversive teachings ever since, with the institutional transformation of marriage being the latest, though surely not the last, example of its social, moral, and political consequences.
But what if the next institutions to be leveled by the Christian ideal of equality are the churches themselves?
I'm not talking about all of the churches. I mean those that have resisted reforming themselves in light of women's equality — and specifically those that resist this reform from the top down, with ecclesiastical authorities enforcing male-centered dogma and doctrine. That's mainly the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons).
A contrast with Protestantism and Judaism is instructive. There are, of course, many gender traditionalists in both faiths — evangelical Protestants and Orthodox Jews. But there is no overarching authority in either religion stipulating that traditionalism is the only valid form of belief. That means there are other options besides apostasy for dissenters. Don't like the traditionalism of your congregation? If you're a Protestant, you can find a more liberal, mainline alternative. If you're a Jew, look for a Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist synagogue.
But in both Catholicism and Mormonism, there's often nowhere else to go. It's either love it or leave it.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
He is engaged in delusional thinking. Conservative churches in my area are growing steadily while those with the liberal bent are declining quickly.
Our local first baptist church started ordaining women to pastor and be deacons in the late 1980’s, big drop off in attendance and they were booted out of the local and state baptist conventions. Today they are losing members at an alarming rate. They go on their merry way like all is well and debating them as to where they will draw the line on any sin is like pinning jello to the wall. Oh they love everybody and we can’t have a standard because we can’t say if something is a sin or not, God is the final judge and the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says.
There are loving ways to warn people about sin (and back to the aiding love of the Lord), and in an overall healthy Christian body they should prevail, but they definitely do warn about sin. They don’t just warn about not being nice. Having a godly balance is the key. A ministry that does nothing but chew people out won’t prosper very much either.
Yes, quite often standing for nothing definite means losing your reason to be there in the first place.
Amen. I hope they don’t let the door hit them on the hind end on the way out. They would be that “leaven” that would leaven the whole lump that the Holy Spirit warned us against. They should be excluded/excommunicated anyway, and treated like the heathen they are, until and unless they repent.
I agree there are loving ways to tell people that something is wrong and chewing them out usually has negative results. My pastor uses the carrot and stick approach and goes where the Lord leads him. At times he will take the congregation to task in a loving but forceful way and at times his message is the opposite. I kind of take a sermon which hits home as like when I was a kid getting spanked by my Dad. This hurts me more than it does you and if I didn’t love you I wouldn’t chastise you.
However you hit the nail on the head when you said:
“Yes, quite often standing for nothing definite means losing your reason to be there in the first place.”
This is the exact opposite of what is happening. Estimates are that about 2000 of the 6000 Episcopal churches will close within 5 years, that one third of their churches now have 40 members or less, and that the young people who supposedly won't attend more conservative churches are not replacing the aging congregations of the Episcopal churches. They are instead turning to more conservative denominations. The article is filled with nonsense, drivel, sophistry, and wishful thinking.
I started reading this article and then stopped. It just reads like wishful thinking on the part of the writer.
To Mr. Linker: You might wish there will be a mass exodus from the churches over this issue, but that doesn’t make it so.
If anything, there was a mass exodus in the other direction - from the more secularized churches to the more conservative churches over this issue.
I understand that Jesus said it, but what does it really mean?
Probably exactly what it means. Religion in those days was all about how to make yourself “clean”. So their attempt to use the loopholes in the Law to avoid being unclean did not escape the eyes of God. As a matter of fact, it was downright insulting.
The problem was that He wasn’t ambiguous enough (one of the frequent complaints about Jesus).
Realistically, it would be a sin to divorce a person because you know Jesus condemned remarriage. You can’t unfry that egg.
1. Would you be less likely to divorce if you knew you could not have another relationship?
2. If you were being abused by a spouse, it would be theologically better to kill them rather than divorce them. “Some people just need killing” is actually a Biblical teaching.
Interesting. I also thought “judge not lest you be judged” was a biblical teaching.
How do I decide who needs killing without first placing judgement? This is where I get confused - a lot of seemingly contradictory teachings. Sure, some people do need killing, but where do we draw the line?
Actually, it’s the more liberal churches where people are either going “Forget this, I’m going to a Christian church!” or “Forget this, why even bother?”
Judge can be good or bad. Condemn is always bad. Ironically, Jesus judged people all the time. Look what he did with the Pharisees.
Jesus told us to measure people with the same scale used to measure us.
Excuse me, cuban leaf, but you haven’t answered ne1410s’ question: where DID you find Luke 19:50? I’ve done an online search of several scriptures and my own copies and I cannot even find that quote—besides, that chapter ends at verse 48! I am hoping you misquoted something else or used you own version from whatever ‘Christian’ church you belong to.
That actually did come to mind after I posted, thanks for reminding me.
I am still at an impasse with the whole idea of remarriage being entirely verboten. If that’s the way the church or whomever feels, then I guess I can be counted out when it comes to that religious sect.
Nobody has to like that comment or agree with it, I frankly don’t care, but if the church wants to bring people to the faith, then they have to do whatever they feel necessary to do so within the confines of the teachings. If that means disregarding a whole raft of people who through no fault of their own had divorce foisted on them, well then so be it.
“If that’s the way the church or whomever feels, then I guess I can be counted out when it comes to that religious sect.”
The church doesn’t feel that way. The church accepts it. Choosing a church based on how it accepts our circumstance is rather myopic. The church doesn’t worship us.
God considers remarriage to be adultery according to Scripture. Dismissing God because of something He said would be like saying “I hate snow so I am going to pretend that weather doesn’t exist”.
So if the church doesn’t follow the teachings, then they are not in alignment with God’s teachings and they are leading their flock astray. If I don’t agree with the teachings of a church and I don’t want to attend because of it, I am somehow myopic, got it.
Like I said before, I refuse to believe a supposedly loving and forgiving God would consider all remarriages sin. If this is God’s way, then I guess I’ll go to hell for having remarried. I’m not going to repent for being forced out of my first marriage because of adultery on my previous partner’s part, then remarrying and being happy.
If that kind of faith makes you happy, then so be it, but it certainly will alienate a lot of people. If the church wants to draw people they will have to be a bit more inclusive and understanding when it comes to this and a few other things. If you want a hard line church/faith, they exist, but they are small for a reason.
It is what it is. I didn’t write the words that Jesus said so I can’t take credit for them. It’s not for me to agree or disagree.
Divorce on the grounds of adultery is OK Scripturally.
You can choose not to participate in the weather but it rains nonetheless.
People don’t go to Hell for sinning. People go to Hell because they don’t want to trust in the one true God for Salvation. They choose to believe in something of their own making.
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.