Southern Baptists are encouraged to hold the line on gays

[MillCreek]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_EVANGELICALS_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

This was the most interesting line in the article to me:

Evangelicals in the millennial generation, ages 18-33, are twice as likely as their elders to support same-sex marriage, according to a survey released in February by the Public Religion Research Institute.

This is consistent with what I have read regarding acceptance of gay marriage as correlated with age.  You have to wonder if acceptance will only grow as the opponents grow older and no one takes their place.

[MechAg94]

I would be curious if they were differentiating "acceptance" and "indifference". 

[makattak]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_EVANGELICALS_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

This was the most interesting line in the article to me:

Evangelicals in the millennial generation, ages 18-33, are twice as likely as their elders to support same-sex marriage, according to a survey released in February by the Public Religion Research Institute.

This is consistent with what I have read regarding acceptance of gay marriage as correlated with age.  You have to wonder if acceptance will only grow as the opponents grow older and no one takes their place.

This is also consistent with a complete lack of education. Too many churches have failed their children in raising them to know the Word. (And I mean that both ways it can be taken.)

Among the myriad of issues, too many of our children don't understand compassion. They think it means letting people do whatever they want and "just loving them."

It is not loving to allow someone to go, unwarned, into harmful actions and ultimately to their doom. (Note I said nothing about stopping them. Our job isn't to change people, but to warn them.)

Speaking from experience, I've been absolutely amazed at the lack of biblical education of individuals who have been church members for 30+ years.


Incidentally, for a pastor to claim someone "can't be changed" in dealing with ANY sinful temptation is absolutely shocking to me. Fortunately, God is greater than his limited view of Him.

(Now, it's another thing to think "therapy" cannot change everyone. But that's not how the (admittedly, likely wrong) article phrased it.)

[AJ Dual]

This is also consistent with a complete lack of education. Too many churches have failed their children in raising them to know the Word. (And I mean that both ways it can be taken.)

Among the myriad of issues, too many of our children don't understand compassion. They think it means letting people do whatever they want and "just loving them."

It is not loving to allow someone to go, unwarned, into harmful actions and ultimately to their doom. (Note I said nothing about stopping them. Our job isn't to change people, but to warn them.)

Speaking from experience, I've been absolutely amazed at the lack of biblical education of individuals who have been church members for 30+ years.


Incidentally, for a pastor to claim someone "can't be changed" in dealing with ANY sinful temptation is absolutely shocking to me. Fortunately, God is greater than his limited view of Him.

(Now, it's another thing to think "therapy" cannot change everyone. But that's not how the (admittedly, likely wrong) article phrased it.)

Dunno... Sounds like predestination/Calvinism to me.

[roo_ster]

Hewing to small-o Christian orthodoxy.  Will the wonders never cease? 

Evangelicals in the millennial generation, ages 18-33, are twice as likely as their elders to support same-sex marriage, according to a survey released in February by the Public Religion Research Institute.

Yeah, I have met many pinhead millennial sorta-Christians who have been more or less alienated from the Church after college.  Heck, I nicknamed one of the local "emergent" church congregations "The Church of Disgruntled Narcissistic Single Evangelicals."  They are looking through the telescope from the wrong end, searching for how relevant the Church and the Bible and God is to "me, me, and (most importantly) me."

[Balog]

Dunno... Sounds like predestination/Calvinism to me.

Actually, a Calvinist would just say that God has to be the one doing the changing.

[KD5NRH]

Speaking from experience, I've been absolutely amazed at the lack of biblical education of individuals who have been church members for 30+ years.

I've notices that very few of the "Bible thumpers" out there can identify anything from the OT other than the high points of the most popular names, (Daniel, Noah, Moses, Jacob, maybe a little of Solomon, a few passages from Isaiah, etc.) and often have twisted views of even those.  Often they're even pretty sketchy on the NT beyond the synoptic gospels and maybe Acts.  It's like they just skimmed the Cliff's Notes.  Pretty amusing to hear them claim something isn't in the Bible, then try to fabricate some really strained interpretation on the spot when you give them chapter and verse.

Incidentally, for a pastor to claim someone "can't be changed" in dealing with ANY sinful temptation is absolutely shocking to me. Fortunately, God is greater than his limited view of Him.

Especially since that would mean all those 12-step programs are utterly useless.  The whole concept of repentance  begins with changing one's attitude toward sinful actions.

[Hawkmoon]

Pretty amusing to hear them claim something isn't in the Bible, then try to fabricate some really strained interpretation on the spot when you give them chapter and verse.

So you've seen the Episcopal Church USA rationalizations of how the Bible doesn't really mean that homosexuality is a sin when it says that "men shall not lie with men"? I've read a few of them, and they really are a stretch.

[cordex]

Pretty amusing to hear them claim something isn't in the Bible, then try to fabricate some really strained interpretation on the spot when you give them chapter and verse.

So you've seen the Episcopal Church USA rationalizations of how the Bible doesn't really mean that homosexuality is a sin when it says that "men shall not lie with men"? I've read a few of them, and they really are a stretch.

I'd love to hear more about a group that doesn't maintain extra-Biblical doctrine or use strained interpretations/reinterpretations or selective reading along their doctrinal chain.  Sounds like a unique organization.

[roo_ster]

I'd love to hear more about a group that doesn't maintain extra-Biblical doctrine or use strained interpretations/reinterpretations or selective reading along their doctrinal chain.  Sounds like a unique organization.

Some are more unique than others.

http://www.wacriswell.org/Search/VideoTrans.cfm/sermon/1222.cfm

[MillCreek]

So you've seen the Episcopal Church USA rationalizations of how the Bible doesn't really mean that homosexuality is a sin when it says that "men shall not lie with men"? I've read a few of them, and they really are a stretch.

I have always wondered if one possible explanation for this is that some religions/clergy believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God as written, and some religions/clergy believe it is not and is subject to cultural and historical interpretation.  FTR, this very debate has been going on in my denomination for decades now.

[charby]

I have always wondered if one possible explanation for this is that some religions/clergy believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God as written, and some religions/clergy believe it is not and is subject to cultural and historical interpretation.  FTR, this very debate has been going on in my denomination for decades now.

Isn't all the current published Bibles created out of cultural and historic interpretation? At one time groups of people sat down and determined which books to include and which ones to exclude.

If really was supposed to be the literal translation of god's word wouldn't all the ancient books be included in every version?

[roo_ster]

Isn't all the current published Bibles created out of cultural and historic interpretation? At one time groups of people sat down and determined which books to include and which ones to exclude.

If really was supposed to be the literal translation of god's word wouldn't all the ancient books be included in every version?

Not so much.

If you look at the copies of the Bible or components of the Bible over time you will find a consistency and fidelity to accuracy and accurate reproduction lacking in contemporaneous secular works and many secular works produced afterwards(1).  It is...uncanny.  Almost as if many of the ancient & medieval copyists believed their very souls depended on the fidelity of their manual labors.  To put it another way, we are much more sure that we have the books of the OT and NT right than we do any of Plato's or Aristotle's works.

For instance, our pastor will read and translate from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew real-time in our Bible study classes.  We have a number of translations and he will ask variously how the RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, or KJV translate a verse.  It is, again, uncanny how close they all are, despite the span of centuries and source materials used in these varied translations.  [Let's hear it from all you KJV fans!  Kay!  Jay!  Vee!, Kay!  Jay!  Vee!  Woo-hoo!]

Very likely by the end of the 00s AD and almost certainly by the end of the 100s AD the Canon was complete save for a handful of smaller books of the Bible.  These were the books read aloud and circulated with frequency amongst  the churches of this time.  In the 200s or so, there is surviving documentary evidence of lists of these agreed-upon works (works that were both contemporaneous and doctrinally correct).  Included in the works of these early church fathers is discussion of works not making the cut.  Gospel of Thomas, and the like that some folk call "rediscovered" which were discovered and dismissed two millennia ago.

The old myth that the Roman Catholic Church and Constantine selected the works of the Canon at the Council of Nicea just won;t die.  Probably because it is too handy a lie/weapon with which to beat the Church.


(1) Detailed in James Hannam's book, a review of which can be found here:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/10/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html
This is a terrific book for those with an interest in science and history.  The Merton Calculators are my heroes.

[KD5NRH]

So you've seen the Episcopal Church USA rationalizations of how the Bible doesn't really mean that homosexuality is a sin when it says that "men shall not lie with men"? I've read a few of them, and they really are a stretch.

1Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,  10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1Tim 1: 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Seems pretty clear to me, and all NT, so no claiming that was part of the Jewish stuff that doesn't apply anymore.  Some of them keep trying to argue the exact meaning of ἀρσενοκοῖται, but they start sounding like the Clinton defense pretty quickly.

[lee n. field]

ἀρσενοκοῖται

had to weasel around that.

[griz]

Here’s a serious question for those of you in the thread that believe that the churches views on homosexuality cannot change because the bible doesn’t change.  How can you square that with the changes in religious doctrine over time?  Christianity (in general) has evolved.  As an example, churches used to kill witches and justified slavery, and those views changed 180 degrees just in the history of this country.  Different denominations use the same book but come to different conclusions on issues as fundamental as baptism and original sin.  So isn’t it inaccurate to say the book means the same thing to everybody today as it did to people a couple centuries ago?

[KD5NRH]

Here’s a serious question for those of you in the thread that believe that the churches views on homosexuality cannot change because the bible doesn’t change.  How can you square that with the changes in religious doctrine over time?  Christianity (in general) has evolved.  As an example, churches used to kill witches and justified slavery, and those views changed 180 degrees just in the history of this country.

A lot of that came from higher individual literacy and easier access to books, including source material.  For a large part of Christianity's history, the majority of Christians only knew what their leaders told them was in the Bible.  Thus few really knew enough about it to question translations, nor to challenge any assertions as to what OT laws were no longer in effect.  Notice how many of the changes followed within a few years of the development of vastly cheaper bulk printing and distribution methods.

[MechAg94]

I guess I would just say there are and have always been self centered people who cannot bring themselves to follow a doctrine, but must do their level best to make doctrine follow their own ideas.  It is a "ends justify the means" thing. 

[KD5NRH]

I guess I would just say there are and have always been self centered people who cannot bring themselves to follow a doctrine, but must do their level best to make doctrine follow their own ideas.  It is a "ends justify the means" thing.

Yup.  Had to call one out recently on quoting a counterexample out of context as justification for a belief (and resulting actions) precisely opposite to the actual meaning.

[Balog]

I've never understood how pointing out that humans suck and are good at finding rationalizations for their bad actions functions to disprove a book that explicitly states that humans suck and are good at finding rationalizations for their bad actions.

"People are acting exactly how the Bible predicts they would, therefor the Bible must be wrong!"

 

[roo_ster]

Here’s a serious question for those of you in the thread that believe that the churches views on homosexuality cannot change because the bible doesn’t change.  How can you square that with the changes in religious doctrine over time?  Christianity (in general) has evolved.  As an example, churches used to kill witches and justified slavery, and those views changed 180 degrees just in the history of this country.  Different denominations use the same book but come to different conclusions on issues as fundamental as baptism and original sin.  So isn’t it inaccurate to say the book means the same thing to everybody today as it did to people a couple centuries ago?

Er, no.  That would be the state doing the executing.  Those executed by the Spanish Inquisition were killed on the authority of the Spanish sovereign.  Same thing with the Inquisition in the other countries (Spain was special).  In general, the Church has not claimed secular authority, given that God said he would appoint such folk to wield his sword for him, thanks all the same.  The agglomeration of secular authority to the person of the Pope WRT the Papal States was a Rather Big Deal during the Reformation and later. 

[Wow, maybe some folk, later on in history, could go to some effort to limit the power of the state to establish a church within its bounds to help prevent just such a thing from happening?  While still allowing the unfettered exercise thereof?  We ought to get on that...]

The RC Church allows for its college of cardinals and whatnot to change some of their doctrine over time.  That authority to change doctrine being a part of their doctrine.  But believe you me, it is not done willy-nilly.  They had councils working issues for DECADES trying to figure out what they doctrine should be on issues we may think trivial.  Give the RC Church credit for doing their homework.

Other denominations, not so much.  Meaning, they are scripture alone and everything at odds with scripture is bunk.  Or some denominations have no fixed theology (liberal theology & such) and pretty much no longer qualify as small-O orthodox Christianity.  Others take on as Canon extra-Biblical materials and spin off into non-Christianity in their own, unique fashion.  Others just sort of universalize themselves out of any meaningful doctrine.

Small-O orthodox Christianity has been steady at it for a long while.  All one has to do is break open works written by the early church fathers to see this.  Augustine is a great place for early orthodoxy.  In the middle ages, bust out some Aquinas.  Renaissance/Reformation?  Luther.  And so on up to orthodox Christianity today.  I am not a Baptist my own self, but WA Criswell can not be described as other than orthodox (if you want a contemporary example readily available for perusal).

I've never understood how pointing out that humans suck and are good at finding rationalizations for their bad actions functions to disprove a book that explicitly states that humans suck and are good at finding rationalizations for their bad actions.

"People are acting exactly how the Bible predicts they would, therefor the Bible must be wrong!"

 

Indeed.

[Hawkmoon]

I have always wondered if one possible explanation for this is that some religions/clergy believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God as written, and some religions/clergy believe it is not and is subject to cultural and historical interpretation.  FTR, this very debate has been going on in my denomination for decades now.

What's truly amusing is that the Episcopal Church USA is the American branch of the Worldwide Anglican Communion. Until two fairly recent developments, for all practical and theological purposes, the Episcopal Church was the Anglican Church.

The first wedge between them was when Episcopalians started ordaining women as priests. (I'm still wonder when Episcopal clergy became "priests" -- when I was a kid they were "ministers.") The Anglicans elsewhere in the world didn't buy into that. The second, and much larger, wedge was (and is) the ordination of homosexual clergy. That really blew up when the Episcopal Church USA elevated a known-homosexual priest to bishop. Then a couple of years later they added a lesbian bishop. The rest of the Worldwide Anglican Communion was not amused.

It is not officially acknowledged, but in reality the Worldwide Anglican Communion is in a condition of schism. Not a huge number, but enough to be statistically significant, of formerly Episcopal parishes have formally withdrawn from the Episcopal Church USA and either gone independent or have affiliated with the Canadian arm of the Anglican Church or the South American or African arm.

It's a fascinating little spat. Stay tuned ... 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Plenty of folk who still only know the bible as their leaders feed it to em. If they know it at all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[roo_ster]

Plenty of folk who still only know the bible as their leaders feed it to em. If they know it at all.

Well, yeah.  One reason it is important to elevate decent folk with orthodox doctrine to leadership, what with half the folk being of below median intelligence.  Those with spare IQ points and an interest have more responsibility than your average parishioner.  Maybe that is why many churches have boards of Elders and the like.

Tell me again what proportion of college sophomores in favor of legalizing weed can trace the pro-weed arguments back through the literature of political philosophy and provide a coherent philosophical argument for their position?

[Balog]

Ignorance and emotive reasoning are the basic human condition.