WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announces her resignation at the end of July.
Pittsburgh diocese leaves Episcopal Church
The theologically conservative Pittsburgh diocese voted overwhelmingly today to leave the increasingly liberal Episcopal Church. The breakaway diocese will come under the authority of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America and will be led Robert Duncan, who had been removed as the diocese’s bishop by the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops last month.
“The church became as gray as the culture,” said Alison McFarland, one of the lay members who voted for the split. “Undefined Christianity became the problem, and now the church is indistinguishable from the world.”
Topic: Religion, WorldMagBlog
Keywords: Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh diocese, Robert Duncan
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
back to top54 Comments to “Pittsburgh diocese leaves Episcopal Church”
Good for them. They did the right thing.
Last year my church voted to leave the American Baptist Convention over the same problem. About 30% of the ABC churches left the Convention.
I don’t think this is giving God a good reputation, but I think staying would be worse.
Report comment to moderator
I know the biblical attitude to homosexuality (or more accurately, differences about exactly what that attitude should be) is widely divisive. And yet can someone with experience in denominations where that’s been THE issue tell me if it is a deep underlying issue or symptomatic of bigger less publicized doctrinal differences?
Most protestant denominations pride themselves on the autonomy of the local church. They don’t have a centralized Vatican to issue policy interpretations. This top-down handling of the controversy obviously hasnt resolved it.
So should churches be free to secede if they dont like the guidance from on high? Each free to come to its own conclusion about what’s right true and scriptural?
Report comment to moderator
They had a choice to make, and they made it. I think they did the right thing. When everything is said and done, we stand before God not before our fellow citizens.
Report comment to moderator
I will try to explain in my own disjointed and messed up way. One of the things that the Episcopal (Anglican) Church does is follow a 3 year calendar. Every three years you have heard a sermon from the entire Bible. Each Sunday there is a reading from the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Gospel, and the Psalms. This means that if I don’t attend my local church and I am in Sand Diego or DC or Idaho I can wander into any Episcopal church and hear a sermon on the same topic I would have heard at my home church (each priest writes his own homily). As the churches break away the Church becomes more and more diluted. This has been a very tough thing for me. Do I stay on a sinking ship and bail water or do I take a life jacket and jump overboard. I will admit some confusion on my own part. I have no problem with a gay man in my church being on the Vestry. He and his partner were the driving force behind the Parish Nursing program. Any member of our church who has been ill has access to a parish nurse to come help settle them in at home. A pharmacist looks over all their meds to make sure nothing is counteracting or not working with another med and the Food Ministry delivers a few meals. On the other hand I do have a problem with a priest or bishop being a non-celibate homosexual. I think the same standard should hold for a hetersexual priest who is not married. And yes, Luke and Anlir I do realize I am talking out of both sides of my mouth.
Many churches have pulled out of the diocese including my own. I guess the best way to describe it is in the Episcopal church we have always had a specific way of doing things and many of us fear that with the various churches pulling out there will be no central authority and we will have dozens of Episcopal churches popping up and we won’t know the doctrine of the church. It will just be whatever that particular priest believes. That the Bishop of one of the churches near me who merely thinks Jesus was a great teacher but not the Son of God.
Report comment to moderator
Any church is right to uphold biblical standards. They are on solid ground condemning the slouching toward universalism regarding salvation.
Unfortunately, these splits usually boil down to a few peripheral issues like sex, women’s roles, etc. These are merely symptomatic of a much larger issue, namely what is their stance on the Word of God?
We strain at gnats and swallow camels by making certain sins a spiritual litmus test. Leaving over the “gay” issue raises this one sin far above the importance it deserves.
I wish someone in the Episcopal church would make is abundantly clear that the problem with Bishop Gene Robinson of NH is not that he is a sinner, but that he teaches sin is good.
Report comment to moderator
Oh my, they worship the same god and same demiurge, read the same huge boook, follow the same sacraments, and have for the most part the same upscale homogeneous worshippers.
Yet they can’t sit together for an hour under the same roof. Because of what their local leader does or does not do with his genitals.
It is the very antithesis of democratic, tolerant thinking.
A religious group’s answer when it can’t get its own way, is always to either leave in a fit of pique or kill the other (now bad) guys.
Hey Xion, can you blame me for my leitmotif that “it’s all about sex”? It’s NOT peripheral, it is central and it has been shattering congregations for 1500 years. And the really great irony is that,as far as I can tell, the biblical Jesus was not very concerned about it at all.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah well, the other side issue is that the Presiding Bishop is a Whack Job. She was a marine biologist until about 12 years ago when she entered the priesthood. She likens the Trinity to Mother Nature and salvation is a “birthing process”.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed Arcadia. God forbid that these conservative Christians should have to sit next to a gay person and worship God together! I’m all in favor of these churches hanging signs in front of their buildings that say “No Gays Allowed!”. I say that we should let those churches go their own way and do their own thing. They will end up just like the churches that wanted to keep segregation intact.
Report comment to moderator
“God forbid that these conservative Christians should have to sit next to a gay person and worship God together!”
Anlir, you’re twisting things. We actually hope and pray that gay persons will worship with us, repenting of their sexual sin along with other sins. Just like the rest of us have to do!
What we can’t do is “exempt” gay sin, which seems to be what some gay persons want!
Report comment to moderator
Christianity is dying. It is totally irrelevant. As for Jesus — anyone who would eat and drink his blood is a cannibal!
Report comment to moderator
#8, #9
I consider murder, rape, and stealing as wrong. I consider harm done by carelessness and negligence as wrong. Careless sexual behavior would fall into that category.
I am not persuaded that behavior that does not harm people is wrong because it is labeled as “sin.” Sin strikes me as I don’t like this. Claiming that God does not like it makes my case more convincing to other people..
A statement such as #9 and a statement such as this one puts us in opposition. Repeating our opposition over and over again seems to be as close as it gets to perpetual motion. If posting could be harnessed to generators, we might alleviate the energy crisis a wee bit.
Report comment to moderator
I wondered if there is a “mlgracedotcom.”
When I checked, I found a web site, apparently representing a professional writer. I suspect his name is being taken in vain in #10, but I don’t know.
If I am correct, he might be a little cranky about it, but I don’t know what he can do about it.
Report comment to moderator
Xion nailed the heart of the matter–dealing with sin, or choosing to turn a blind eye to a “popular” sin.
We worshipped at an Episcopal church in New England for six years in the 1980s. We loved that church body, but even then we could not in good conscience support the relativity of the greater diocese. We asked if we could tithe directly to the church, rather than allow any of our funds to go to the hierarchy whose actions so frequently violated Scriptural principles. The rector had us write the check out to “the rector’s fund,” and it was used to pay the water bill, feed the poor, or meet the needs of the local congregation.
I visited the same church 12 years ago where they were having a prayer vigil for the greater Episcopal Church–that the church body at large would embrace the Scriptural principles at the heart of the denomination and stop watering down truth. Two weeks later, I attended another Episcopal Church, this one closer to Washington DC where the action was going to be held. There I heard a priest preach that anyone who upheld Scriptural authority should leave the church because they weren’t wanted there anymore.
I thought about getting up right then and walking out, but we were with friends . . . The organ that day shouted down the visiting preacher with a gloriously loud rendition of “The Church’s One Foundation” is Jesus Christ her Lord . . .
I say good for the Pittsburgh diocese–it’s not just about homosexuality, though that is the straw breaking the camel’s back. It’s about what is truth and how is Jesus represented to the world. Some here think we are preaching hate, but if you tell someone their sin isn’t a sin, you condemn them to eternal death. Since Jesus came to set us free from the wages of sin–death–his sin-freeing gospel should not be compromised because of ill-conceived notions of spiritual tolerance.
I’m sorry if this sounds harsh. And like some of the above, I don’t see homosexuality as any worse a sin than gossip, gluttony, theft or having an abortion. We all have areas of our life which we can incorrectly use to separate ourselves from God, myself included. Which is why I have to continually read the Bible, ask for God to reveal the depths of my sin and seek forgiveness. Fortunately, God’s mercies are renewed every morning and Jesus’ death on the cross provides for forgiveness for my sins every single day.
Thanks be to God.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle, I agree with the sentiments you express above. But I’m Baptist and should stay out of Episcopalian’s controversy. I just want to remind you, and others, that money is fungible. That is, any money that you designate on one purpose, frees up the same amount of money to be used in any other purpose.
Report comment to moderator
#7 Kim, I guess you are entitled to your opinion. Not being in that denom, I defer to you. I recall WORLD ran an accurate and therefore unflattering article about the Presiding Bishop. But the old-style mainline Episcopal church began a slow descent into its current status long ago. Bishop James Pike likewise entered the priesthood after several years as an attorney. This was in the 60s and he advocated a wide array of liberal changes (ie, he admirably called out the denomination for southern bigotry in the 60s, but he also celebrated abortion rights). Pike and his wife went to Israel and he died of dehydration when their car broke down in the desert and they’d brought along no H2O. Pike got the lib secularist camel’s nose under the church tent.
As FIRST THINGS so recently pointed out, an Episcopal prayer spoken a few days after 9/11 omitted any reference at all to Christ. (”May it be granted unto us..” Granted by whom?)
Report comment to moderator
Random Name 11,
Perhaps we do not have the whole picture. In that case, we must depend on the One Who created and Who Is to tell us what is harmful. A lot of the law does not make sense unless you look at it scientifically and find that He does indeed know what He is talking about. Just because we do not see the harm does not mean it is not there.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, Hey Xion, can you blame me for my leitmotif that “it’s all about sex”? It’s NOT peripheral, it is central and it has been shattering congregations for 1500 years.
Had to look up ‘leitmotif’. Thanks for the new word. It depends on what you mean. You must distinguish between faith and practice. Christians are lousy at practice, but the faith remains a light on a hill.
Your two sentences illustrate my point and perhaps yours as well. After criticizing Christians you say the following:
“And the really great irony is that,as far as I can tell, the biblical Jesus was not very concerned about it at all.
So can you then admire Jesus for what he said and did? I’ll be the first to say Christians aren’t much like Christ, but what a wonderful example he was. Will you agree with me on this?
Christ never said that sin wasn’t sin, as Gene Robinson does. His answer was to lay down his life on our behalf to pay for that sin. Given the serious nature of sin, Christ was still a friend to sinners, even those who killed him. He only yelled at religious people.
Report comment to moderator
Quite frankly the Episcopal church started really going down the slippery slope in 1979 with the “new” Book of Common Prayer. God was no longer Godlike and Jesus was no longer the Savior but both became our “buddy”.
And yes it is about so much more than gay people.
Report comment to moderator
#16 Mumsee
I appreciate your courteous response.
What is “right and wrong” is a difficult issue.
A lot of the law does not make sense unless you look at it scientifically and find that He does indeed know what He is talking about. Just because we do not see the harm does not mean it is not there.
The history of humanity reveals that quite a bit of what we once believed and acted on, is not generally accepted today.
In England in the 1500s, people who were thought to be “witches” were tortured and killed. Many of the people doing this believed they were following God’s Word. (The persecution of “witches” in England was much worse than the Salem affair in America, though that was lamentable also.)
Both secular people and religious people need to be very careful that they are no mistaking prejudice, superstition, fear, hysteria, and other maign emotions for righteousness.
In regard to homosexuality, there are difficult and confusing issues in regard to its cause, nature, and how society should deal with it. But I know people (many besides my daughter) who seem to carry on lives and relationships reasonably equivalent to heterosexual people.
I try to speak courteously to people who address me in that manner (as you are doing). However, the bottom line is that you are basing your conclusions on a belief system I do not find convincing. At the end of the day, we find ourselves in severe disagreement.
Report comment to moderator
Random 19,
I was of course, looking at such things in the law as don’t eat pork (a tasty dish we now know carries some not so beneficial side benefits when incorrectly cooked), going outside the living area with a shovel (definite hygiene implications), bury the dead
(again, unseen by hygienic reasons, though I seem to be having difficulties with that word), take care of the animals and fields and fellow humans (makes sense if they are to be around for a while).
You brought up the tendency to throw out the Word based on the fallible visible people. Understandable. My dad claims to be a nonbeliever based on the actions of a believer. Actions many would not see as wrong but to an ethical radical agnostic like my dad, were not acceptable (picking up a barrel along side of the road).
People have, do, and will miscarry the Truth. That is why it is incumbent on us as believers to meditate on the Word day and night that we might not sin against Him. When we grab hold of a small portion and make it bigger than it is, problems arise. Just as we learned from the discussion in the wilderness between Jesus and the devil, the whole Word is Truth, anybody can come along and twist bits and pieces to make his own path, wrong as it would be.
And your end paragraph is as it should be: the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world. We agree to disagree but I, for my part, will continue to try as the Truth is too great to let slip by.
Report comment to moderator
“It is the very antithesis of democratic, tolerant thinking.”
Christianity is not a democracy. We don’t follow majority rule, we follow God’s rules. He is not tolerant of many sins, including homosexual sin.
All Christians have a choice to make — whether they will follow God or man.
It’s that simple.
Report comment to moderator
As Believers we aren’t to associate with those who claim to be Believers but turn their back and follow their sinful desires. If that means leaving a church, then that’s what we need to do.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Assuming that Jesus was a real person, he had a lot of good things to say. But so have a lot of people down through the centuries.
As for homosexuality, I don’t see anything clearly in the way of condemnation of it in his words, as contained in the 4 gospels. And the naked young man fleeing on the eve of his arrest, not to mention his claimed “celibacy” and band of exclusively male companions, seemingly fond of putting their heads on his breast, is certainly enough to give a reasonable person pause…
NJL: Christianity is not a democracy. We don’t follow majority rule, we follow God’s rules.
So, what’s a True Christian political leader to do. Vote according to democratic principles, or vote according to what s/he thinks god’s laws and intentions are?
Do you have any idea how offensive it is to a non-Christian who hears Sarah Palin refer to “God’s mission” for our troops in Iraq or “God’s plan” for a gas pipeline?
Incidentally, one of our current candidates apparently told an interviewer that the US was founded as a “Christian Nation”. What is a non-Christian (or a non-Baptist or non-Seventh Day Adventist or non-Branch Davidian) to do with that information? Consent to “Christian based”, Branch Davidian based, or Seventh Day Adventist laws and convert or leave?
I know you think this a silly question, but if Sarah Palin really believes that our mission in Iraq or the pipeline is ordained by a god, how could one ever persuade her that she is wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Were those all from Corinthians? What did Jesus have to say on the subject? Paul, after all, apparently never having met Jesus, is no better than any other interpreter or storyteller. And if homosexuality were such a serious matter, don’t you think, perhaps Jesus might have addressed it directly?
Of course in looking for Jesus position on homosexuality you can always go back to “honor the laws of the prophets”, but they bring a fair amount of unwanted baggage with them.
So anyway, what words of his do you rely upon?
Report comment to moderator
We don’t follow majority rule, we follow God’s rules.
But of course, they told us that about slavery and segregation. They insisted that God’s Word was absolutely and positively in favor of slavery and segregation, giving Scriptural verses to back it up. They had an entire theological construct around it.
And then lo and behold, God changed his mind and declared both as wrong, sinful even!
So how are we to know that they aren’t wrong again, or that God won’t change his mind on homosexuality?
**********
In regards to the actions of the Pittsburgh Diocese, their actions are contrary to the Anglican “third way” of walking together in disagreement, while continuing the conversation. Quite simply, one’s stance on homosexuality does not rise to a level sufficient to split from the Anglican Communion.
Let’s also remember that, while Worldmag is attempting to push it’s anti-gay agenda on the Episcopal Church, only a small number of congregations and Diocese have adopted that agenda in North America. The vast, vast majority of American and Canadian Episcopal churches are welcoming of gay people and fully integrate them into their local congregations.
Report comment to moderator
#23 Arcadia. You question whether Jesus was real yet you date checks with the year 2008 anno domini. As for the rest I would say, “You can’t be serious!”, but then again …
Report comment to moderator
GOD Almighty made it plain that homosexuality was wrong and sinful from the beginning, (Sodom and Gomorrah) of course the homosexual community can twist that part of Scripture as well - this long before Paul was born. Homosexuals CANNOT JUSTIFY the sin of of homosexuality no matter how hard they try.
10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent. Mark 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 1 Corinthians 6:9
7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.
8 In a similar way, these dreamers also defile their flesh, reject the Lord’s authority, and slander his glorious beings. Jude 1
The ‘agenda’ of the homosexual community would like nothing more than to implicate Paul of the New Testament in their sins. Misery loves company, however thier dreams of including Paul are nothing but a hoax-
6 And if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed them by burning them to ashes, making them an example to ungodly people of what is going to happen to them;
7 And if he rescued Lot, a righteous man who was greatly distressed by the immoral conduct of lawless people. 2 Peter 2
Now we see that Peter, Jude and Paul all wrote about homosexuality, its sinfulness, and the end which is prepared for them who engage in it.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
You ask questions which anyone who knows the Word of God can easily answer. The problem you have is accepting that Christ is the Son of God and that He is real and the only Salvation man has. Until you can do this, you will always have problems with the Bible and who God Almighty is - just as you will question whether or not you, or someone else can go on tempting God and mocking what we as Believers have accepted as God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not getting into anything with you Anlir. You’ve been told so many times, but you are willfully ignorant about the Bible. God has been consistent regarding sin. That’s all I have to say. No Christian here who can read will say otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Just tell me what Jesus said about this supposedly abominable sin. Or, simply, admit that he did not condemn it.
That’s all I ask.
Report comment to moderator
I think the point to be taken from this post is not the immorality of homosexuality but the fact that churches are still willing to remain faithful to the Bible in a decadent culture whose guiding principle is “Thou shalt go along to get along.” I’m encouraged in my commitment to Christ and His Gospel by the actions of this diocese, and the locus of our agreement is not our shared hatred of gay people but our shared love for the Truth. It’s nice to know that there are still some left in Christendom who acknowledge the existence of such an old-fashioned, passe concept.
Report comment to moderator
PS, Victoria. I am not mocking you. Just encouraging you to take a closer look at what your bible really says, as opposed to certain assumptions which you may take for granted.
Now if you really believe that the OT imprecations are “The Word of God”, then why don’t you also advocate polygamy, stoning sassy children, avoiding menstruating women, painting altars in animal blood and the whole mishegosh in that part of the same book?
Report comment to moderator
but you are willfully ignorant about the Bible.
Well, that’s a statement made in ignorance.
As a matter of fact, I took several Bible courses in college, including Old Testament Survey and New Testament Survey. And I’ve read the entire Bible twice. Plus, I watch the “Charlie Brown” Christmas every year.
Report comment to moderator
“Paul, after all, apparently never having met Jesus, is no better than any other interpreter or storyteller.”
Paul did meet Jesus.
“And the naked young man fleeing on the eve of his arrest, not to mention his claimed “celibacy” and band of exclusively male companions, seemingly fond of putting their heads on his breast, is certainly enough to give a reasonable person pause…”
I guess we should also pause in front of every frat house and football team in america. Good game. I mean most reasonable people must pause and conclude that they all must be homosexuals.
“They insisted that God’s Word was absolutely and positively in favor of slavery and segregation, giving Scriptural verses to back it up. They had an entire theological construct around it.”
The major difference in this being that, the ending of slavery and segregation never compromised Peter, Paul, or any other author. To compromise with homosexuality, you have to ignore many passages.
The issue with churches separation doesnt begin with homosexuality or any other sin. It usually begins with the inerrancy and authority of Scripture divide.
Report comment to moderator
To compromise with homosexuality, you have to ignore many passages.
That’s exactly what they said about slavery and segregation at one time.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
I’ll cheerfully admit that Jesus didn’t say anything directly about homosexuality. I’m anxious to see the next stage of the argument. What conclusions can we draw from this?
Also: And the naked young man fleeing on the eve of his arrest, not to mention his claimed “celibacy” and band of exclusively male companions, seemingly fond of putting their heads on his breast, is certainly enough to give a reasonable person pause…
You know what else Jesus probably did? Kissed other dudes. He was gay for sure, there can be no doubt. When I went to Korea last summer, I was stunned by the number of lesbians there. I had heard that Korean culture was sexually conservative, but I saw dozens and dozens of women walking down the street holding hands.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Paul never did meet the human Jesus. He claimed/believed he had a vision of the spiritual Christ. That’s not at all the same as having spent time in the presence of the man who taught and preached.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Scientists used to believe that light propagated through the aether and that the release of phlogiston accompanied combustion. We don’t automatically dismiss what scientists say or the scientific method on that basis. That’s essentially your argument here. It’s known more formally as the genetic fallacy.
Report comment to moderator
“3(F) Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting(G) me?” 5And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus,(H) whom you are persecuting. 6But(I) rise and enter the city, and you will be told(J) what you are to do.” 7(K) The men who were traveling with him stood speechless,(L) hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened,(M) he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.” Acts Chatper 9
Your assessment is not accurate SteveG. Luke is the author of Acts. Further, he didnt “see” a vision. However, Christ is directly speaking audibly to Paul as confirmed in the men who were with Paul.
I would easily call that a “meeting”. Whether Christ is earthly present or calling from heaven, makes no difference.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia - 30 - 32
I’ve explained it to you Arcadia, but you aren’t able to understand it. You don’t believe the Bible, this is just a game for you. IF you truly wanted to know who Jesus is, if you wanted to know Him as your Savior you would search your heart and seek the LORD as your Savior.
You aren’t able to grasp the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament which would be LAW and GRACE. Until you can do this, all your comments about the Bible which you know very little about will confuse you, just as you are now unable to understand.
There is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Both the New and Old Testament are inspired, but we are no longer under the LAW (Old Testament) but GRACE (New Testament) -
Christ came to earth to die for our sins, the Law (Old Testament) was replaced by GRACE, when Christ died on the Cross - It’s by GRACE we are saved through our faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins on the Cross, when we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior -
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14
There are groups who say that “we are not under law for our salvation but we are under the law for sanctification” …this isn’t true and it misuses passages from the Bible, and side-steps context.
Old Testament LAW was replaced, when Jesus died on the Cross at Calvary - No longer were animal sacrifices of blood required to cover sin … Jesus blood on the Cross was the price paid for our sin IF we BELIEVED on Him for our Salvation.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9
Report comment to moderator
In re: 35
What was said about slavery and segregation would have twisted the context of Scripture, not ignored it.
You have to ignore every reference of homosexuality in the bible if you wish to approve of it, because every reference of it comes within the context of being sin.
Report comment to moderator
What was said about slavery and segregation would have twisted the context of Scripture, not ignored it.
That’s exactly what those who supported slavery and segregation said at the time.
And a few “heretics” came along and challenged that. Then a few more came along, and eventually it was decided by the majority of Christians that the “context” was all wrong, and that in fact, God was not in favor or slavery and segregation.
Now we come to the latest issue - homosexuality. A few “heretics” are saying that the majority of Christians have got the “context” all wrong. Now a substantial number of Christians are rethinking their previous thinking on the matter. I’m betting that someday a majority of Christian opinion will reinterpret the passages that supposedly condemn homosexuality in light of a new “context”.
We have also seen the same phenomena happening in regards to women’s roles and divorce.
Report comment to moderator
In re: 42
Challenging the context is completely different than completely ignoring the context, which is what happens when anyone attempts to say that homosexuality is okay. It is always listed with other sins. Slavery is not.
The church isnt perfect. It has often taken things out of context for personal gains (such as induldgences). It often takes a while to overcome and reform from those things. However, each issue has been reformed not on another issues merits (such as slavery) but on its own.
In other words, regardless of what the bible says about slavery, homosexuality is another issue. What does it say about it? It repeatedly calls it sin and Paul goes as far as to say its perverse. You cant get around, twist, or bring new context, you can only chose to ignore it or ignore the author. You cant say its okay just because people for years got slavery wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
In #35 and #42 you’ve told us how “those who supported slavery and segregation” used the Bible to argue their case.
Do you actually have any quotations in mind, or are you basing your statements on “what everybody knows”? I’d be curious to read what these people had to say. Let’s see it.
Report comment to moderator
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, unto Christ.
- Ephesians 6:5
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
-Colossians 3:22
Those verses in the Bible are pretty straightforward to anyone who can read. Yet the vast majority of Christians have still come to the conclusion that slavery is evil and should be prohibited.
People have always read into the Bible what they want and read out what they don’t want. One person’s “context” is another person’s “absolutes” and visa-versa.
Report comment to moderator
Apparently I wasn’t clear enough, Anlir. Do you have any quotations from the people you say argued from the Bible in favor of slavery and segregation? From your comments above, I guessed that you had some readily at hand.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I too have never seen, heard or read any of those “proofs” from the Bible that approves of slavery or segregation. May I please have some of them?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, so servants means slaves.
Which version are you using?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir (and many others) cannot understand that the gospel is not political. Jesus met people where they were at. His followers became citizens of a heavenly kingdom. Jesus and his disciples mostly ignored Rome’s political system.
So if you were a prisoner or slave, you became spiritually free in Christ. His message was to be cheerful and do good even to your oppressors. Christians in prison camps have demonstrated this through history. That is a difficult message for most people to swallow.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:28
Report comment to moderator
Kim,
“Yeah well, the other side issue is that the Presiding Bishop is a Whack Job. She was a marine biologist until about 12 years ago when she entered the priesthood. She likens the Trinity to Mother Nature and salvation is a “birthing process”.
She was on NPR last night - I thought she was TERRIFIC!
Report comment to moderator
47 - Philemon was a slave owner who hosted a church in his home.
Galations 3:28 - “There is neither (1) Jew nor Greek, there is neither (2) bond nor free, there is neither (3) male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Now here Paul used the first point to argue against requisite circumcision for the converted. The early church had to *evolve* to accept that it was not bound by Judaism. In the second point, paul made no such requirement. Philemon’s slave, Onesimus, ran away and took money. When he was converted, Paul sent him back to his master. Slaves remained slaves. Later, the church *evolved* to withdraw support from the institution of slavery.
What about “male nor female”? Some parts of the church are now *evolving* to understand that, “in Christ,” gender restrictions are irrelevant. Marriage (monogamous relationship) can be “in Christ” whether it’s male-female, male-male, or female-female, since there is “neither male nor female” in Christ.
Just as for circumcision in the early church, slavery in the 19th century, and same-sex marriage now, traditionalists rage and foam at the mouth in opposition.
Report comment to moderator
Spin
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2 Timothy 4:3
The true Church of Believers aren’t “evolving” as you put it, they aren’t turning Scripture around for the pleasure of those who want to change it. People can switch things any way they wish but Christ hasn’t changed and never will. The Word of God isn’t a book that has become out-dated to accomodate sinful man and his pleasures.
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Hebrews 13:8
Those who have come to know Jesus Christ as Savior are all the same, they are Believers in the Risen Savior - this is not to be confused with men and women being the same, or the same sex - men are still men and women are still women, This is made crystal clear in Scripture - or that Jews and Greeks are no longer Jews or Greeks, they still are, but they are Believers, brought into the body of Christ - “ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” - This passage is about Salvation.
Report comment to moderator
52 - So when James and Peter required circumcision they weren’t part of the “true believers” and Paul was? Or was it the other way around?
I realize it’s probably too much to ask for you to read scripture in context and not just use verses for your own personal prejudice.
Report comment to moderator
Spin
You haven’t a clue. No matter how many times you try and re-arrange the Scriptures you FAIL. You love this explained over and over again to YOU, while you sit back and find fault with God’s Word. I don’t believe for one minute that you understand the Bible or that you ever tried, its all a GAME, and in the end you will lose……………..
Report comment to moderator