Malott's Blog

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Episcopal "Church" Begins to Crumble

SAN FRANCISCO (Dec. 9) - The conservative Diocese of San Joaquin voted Saturday to split from the liberal-leaning Episcopal Church, becoming the first full diocese to secede from the denomination in the debate over the Bible and homosexuality.

Clergy and lay members of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin voted 173-22 at their annual convention to remove all references to the national church from the diocese's constitution, said the Rev. Van McCalister, a diocesan spokesman.

The diocese serves about 8,500 parishioners in 47 congregations in central California. (about 180 people per congregation)

OK... Gays who do not accept the teachings of the Bible should not join - or try to change -Churches that do. They should start their own Church.

But of course... Theirs is a movement... Not a faith that is based upon the teachings of our Lord and His word.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Wrong... Obviously it may.

19 comments:

Jacob said...: your Lord didn't say one thing at all about homosexuality. Not one. All that stuff about compassion and helping people? Was that, like, code for "ew, gays are dirty"?; 12/09/2007 6:25 PM
Christina said...: Jacob,

I try not to argue with you because I don't really think you want to hear. I think you are smart enough to know, but let me clear this up for anyone else reading this.

Did Jesus actually use the term "homosexual" in the Bible? Probably not. However, there are many references to sexual immorality throughout the Bible. Often, they include lists of exactly what sexual immorality includes. It is there that homosexuality is specifically mentioned.

For example, take this passage from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV):

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdo, of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor windlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Then later in 1 Cor. 6:18-20:

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own boady. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

Now, you may say that Jesus himself did not speak these words, but there are two things to consider. First, if you are a Christian (which I know you say you are not) then part of accepting Christ includes believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Since God and Jesus are one and the same, then God's words clearly speak against the sin of homosexuality. Second, consider what Jesus is actually credited with saying in the Bible. In Matthew 15:15-20:

"Peter said, 'Explain the parable to us. 'Are you so dull? Jesus asked them. 'Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart and these make a man unclean. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, secual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man unclean, but eating with unwashed hands does not make him unclean.'"

Jesus may not use the word "homosexuality", but he does use the exact phrase "sexual immorality" along with a very similar list of other immoral behaviors as the 1 Corinthian passage references. I think you have to take that into consideration.

Of course, you don't have to think about this logically or with an open mind if you don't want to. That is also your choice. But there is my logical conclusion. Perhaps someone else will have more to add. Either way, I think you're making a pretty unfounded assumption about what Jesus said or didn't say.; 12/09/2007 11:32 PM
Christina said...: Sorry for the typos, my fingers are faster than my brain!

"kingo" should be Kingdom.

"windlers" should be Swindlers.

"boady" is body.

"secual" should be sexual.

Just didn't want anyone to get confused.; 12/09/2007 11:36 PM
Mojo_Risin said...: It all comes down to whether or not you believe that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit. If it was, then yes, christina, your comment is accurate -- Jesus denounces homosexuality by proxy.

But if you don't believe the Bible is the "Word of God" -- both figuratively and literally -- then you have a logical choice to make. Either accept parts of the Bible as inspired and relevant, or accept none of it. Is the New Testament stand against "men with men doing that which is unseemly" really God's stand? Were those just Paul's words and not God's? Or is homosexuality one of those "abominations" that is mentioned in Leviticus that is somehow no longer true (like eating shellfish, an abomination worthy of death in the Old Testament), because Jesus wiped away the old law with his sacrifice on the cross (the so-called new covenant of grace).

That's the choice Christians make. And no, christina, not all Christians jump to the assumption that the Bible is inspired. Some do actually look at it as a guide instead. That's where you and Malott differ from 2/3 of Americans and almost half of all churchgoers (according to a poll at the Christian Post -- http://tinyurl.com/2ozvz5). And that's where you differ from the Episcopal Christians.; 12/10/2007 9:17 AM
Tsofah said...: Weeeellll, the Christian Post does not speak for all Christians: probably for very few as no one from my church has ever heard from it.

And, Jesus didn't wipe away sinful mankind, or the rules, on the cross. Otherwise, we'd all be dead.

And yes, "thou shalt not lie with a another man as you would with a woman" is still true. Just because you aren't stoned for it doesn't make it right.

We used to try to help homosexuals. Then the ACLU and other groups decided that was offensive. That is sad. If G-d didn't have a way to be different, then He would not have said "thou shalt not".; 12/10/2007 1:29 PM
SkyePuppy said...: Mojo,

It all comes down to whether or not you believe that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, that's it exactly. Seminaries, especially the mainline ones, have become theologically liberal (not to be confused with politically liberal) in the past decade or two. And the main hit they've made against traditional Christian doctrine is the one that says the Bible isn't really the inspired word of God. They train ministers to believe it's not, and those ministers go out and preach it from the pulpit. So I'm not surprised by the statistics you quoted.

If you want to look at the Bible as a guide for good living, then why would you ignore one of the teachings in it? Avoiding sexual immorality isn't just a one-time mention, like women covering their heads. It gets brought up frequently. So the "guidebook" school of Biblical theology should be just as concerned about immorality as the "inspired" school is.

If you're not going to follow the Bible, then why even bother giving it lip-service? You might as well join the Church of the Libertarian Party, which has the US Constitution as its holy scriptures, or join the Unitarian-Universalists, who believe in anything and nothing at the same time. You'd at least be more consistent that way. (All these "you's" are general, not specifically you, Mojo, unless they apply.)

Malott is right. Gays should not join or try to change churches that accept Biblical teaching. They should get together with like-minded people who share their beliefs and worship together, leaving other churches alone. But the gay movement isn't about being with like-minded people. It's about forcing acceptance of their lifestyle on every facet of society, even the religious ones. And their movement is splitting up a major denomination. I'll bet they're proud.

Tolerance? What a crock!; 12/10/2007 1:29 PM
Mojo_Risin said...: Delta,
I wasn't saying the Christian Post speaks for all Christians -- I was quoting its poll results.

I don't understand your "Otherwise we'd all be dead comment." But if Jesus didn't wipe away the old rules on the cross, then why don't people kill the shrimp-eaters? (That's not a euphemism for penis, by the way...). That was the Law of God. Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is alleged to have been a perfect sacrifice by God that would be an atonement for all mankind, replacing the old law with a new covenant of grace, whereby men simply place their faith in Christ to attain salvation. Are you saying this is not your belief? Then where do you draw the line? Why follow some Biblical rules and not every jot or tittle?

And Skye,
I'm with you when you say that gay people shouldn't join a church and then try to change its doctrines. There are hundreds of sects of Christianity that would probably be better fits for their own beliefs and, well, gayness. Find one and join it instead. Or start your own. The point is to find a church that fits your own beliefs, not find a church and force it to change to accomodate your beliefs. However, it's not obvious to me that this is part of some "gay movement." It seems like it was a movement coming from inside the Episcopalian Church, not some force from outside. But that's beside the point.

The problem, Skye, is that the Bible is so vague at some points and so full of things that might appear to be contradictions that most people find it hard to believe it could have been written or inspired by God. Get two people to read it and they'll have two completely different thoughts about what it means.

Since I've already used the example, let's talk shellfish. This is lethally forbidden in the Old Testament. And the New Testament isn't immediately clear whether or not the old law is still valid. It's only after centuries of study that people came up with the new covenant reading, which is at the level of subtext, if anything. The Bible itself appears to contradict itself on this point, and many others.

So which Biblical teaching should be followed? The one where you stone the guy who sucks the crawfish head (again, not a euphemism), or the more vague one that says to love your neighbor as yourself?; 12/10/2007 2:02 PM
Christina said...: Mojo,

It's complicated. Far too much so to fully address in this type of forum. You bring up a lot of complex ideas and questions (and good ones that a lot of people have.) I would encourage you to read the Bible, not just bits and pieces, but the whole thing, if you have not already. Picking and choosing verses is a great way to get really confused.

But I am going to try to pick and choose some verses that might help clear up the old/new covenant idea.

In Jeremiah 31:31-33, the prophet Jeremiah says, " 'The time is coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,' declares the Lord. 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the Lord. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people.' "

Clearly, if one believes that the Lord was speaking through Jeremiah, then there are indeed two very distinct covenants; one with Moses and one that was to come.

Then move on to Galations 3. (Read the whole chapter to get the context.) In order to be somewhat more brief, consider chapter 3:23-25: "Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." (This will make much more sense if you read the chapter, particularly from verse 15on.

The books of Romans and Galations both deal with the law and how Christ came to fulfill the requirements of the law for all who believe in Him.

I would love to offer more examples, but truthfully, without reading the Bible as a whole, I'm afraid picking and choosing verses would indeed seem confusing and contradictory. Maybe this helps some...maybe not, but at least I' trying to point you in the right direction. I'm not a theologian, but I'm sure others can offer other examples to add to your understanding.; 12/10/2007 3:36 PM
SkyePuppy said...: Mojo,

What Christina said.

Plus, in the book of Acts (chapter 10 & 11), God told Peter that all things are good to eat. That would include shellfish.; 12/10/2007 3:56 PM
Christina said...: Ditto on what Skyepuppy said. I don't know why I didn't think of that one!; 12/10/2007 4:02 PM
Mojo_Risin said...: I have, in fact, read the whole Bible several times. I even memorized I Cor., Colossians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Ephesians, Hebrews, and others at one time or another.

Picking and choosing verses is not the problem.

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

However,

Matthew 5:18 -- For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Of course, that is to say nothing about the inconsistencies of the timeline presented in the Bible about Jesus' comings and goings, and about the words he uses. Whether belief is enough, or is baptism also a requirement for salvation, as it says in Mark 16:16. Or about Old Testament impossibilities like, how could Noah have fit multiples of all the land animals and livestock into a single boat. It's things like that.

Like I said, the problem isn't with picking and choosing verses. It's with taking those verses literally.

And Skye, In Acts 10, God gave Peter a vision that was later (in verse 28) explained this way -- that the beasts, etc., in the vision were to be taken as symbolic of man in general, and that Peter was to "not call any man common or unclean." It really has nothing to do with the prohibition of shellfish.

And either way, isn't this more evidence that the Bible is inconsistent or vague, and interpretable in thousands of different ways?; 12/10/2007 4:15 PM
Christina said...: To answer the question about the verse you quoted from Matthew,

"Matthew 5:18 -- For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Jesus Christ, and His death on the cross, was the fulfillment of the law. If you had included the verse just prior to the one you quoted, it would have said, " 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.' " (Matt. 5:17)

Then consider Romans 8:1-4:
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so He condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature by according to the Spirit."

Also consider Galations3:13-14:

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone how is hung on a tree.' He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

(Galatians 3 is a great chapter to read in its entirety. Not that you haven't before, but hey, we all need a refresher course from time to time!); 12/10/2007 4:46 PM
Mojo_Risin said...: Christina, in the Matthew 5:18 verse, it says "not till heaven and earth pass" shall the law pass away. Since heaven and earth still exist, he is saying that the law still stands today. Therefore, the verse in Acts must be a contradiction.; 12/10/2007 4:57 PM
Jacob said...: Bible fight!

(Jerry, Jerry, Jerry...); 12/10/2007 7:27 PM
Mojo_Risin said...: Jacob,
Yep, and like most Bible fights, it's becoming long and pointless. ;-); 12/10/2007 7:33 PM
Tsofah said...: As ironic as it may sound, the Christian scriptures are more understandable the more you understand Judaism. We forget that Jesus was a Jew. Period. He followed Jewish law, celebrated Chanukah, Rosh Hoshannah, Observed Yom Kippur, and even Pesach! So many things Jesus says are quoting from the "old Testament" and showing how they apply. Example: Compare Deuteronomy 15:11 and Matthew 26:10-12.

Grace is there. That does not mean we are to purposely sin.

Hebrews 6:4 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Just as grace does not negate that we are to follow the Noahide laws.(Don't kill, don't steal, don't covet, don't take the name of G-d in vain, don't lie, honor your parents, etc from Exodus 20)

There are consequences for such, more readily apparent than others. These laws were the beginning of the laws G-d gave - NOT the totality of those laws.

At any rate, homosexuals have no right to try to force social mores and push political policies upon churches, religious organizations, or even our schools. Homosexuals may continue to be here, but they have no more rights than the rest of us. I DO NOT have to accept homosexuality as right, and don't.

And yes, I believe the Bible, period. No apologies for what I beleive and who I believe in. Whether one does or does not believe will not change that the words in the Bible about sin are true. Philosophies will not change what is truth. Truth stays.; 12/10/2007 7:42 PM
Mojo_Risin said...: Yet truth remains relative to the beholder, apparently.

Quoting Delta: Hebrews 6:4
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,
6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

I guess grace is out of my reach, then. But sin ain't! Woohoo!; 12/10/2007 7:58 PM
Christina said...: Okay Mojo. Sorry it took so long to respond but some shopping and research were in in order before I could reply.

With regard to your comment about "heaven and earth passing away", here is what seems to me, to be a pretty good explanation of that passage. It is found in the "Watchman Magazine" at http://watchmanmag.com/1998/02/01/
confusion-on-the-covenants-the-sermon-on-the-mount/

Just in case that link doesn't work, I am going to cut and paste the applicable portion of this article.

"Some believe they have an argument when citing Matthew 5:17-20. They say that Jesus is affirming that his work in no way affects that of the Law of Moses. What does it really say? Some misunderstood Jesus’ teaching and thought he was trying to destroy the law and the prophets. Why? First, he came across firm and forceful in his teaching (Matt. 7:28-29). Also, it was definitely recognized as a “new doctrine” which was confirmed by miracles (Mk. 1:22-27). However, the Lord did not come as one who was against the law and the prophets. Rather, he always respected the law and taught others to do the same (Matt. 23:1-3).Moreover, Christ could not fulfill the law if he came to destroy it. The Old Testament scriptures are what pointed to the coming of Christ, his kingdom, and his law (Deut. 18:15, 18-19; Isa. 2:1-4; 11:1-9; Dan. 2:44; Jer. 31:31-32). Later, Jesus explained this to his disciples (Lk. 24:25-27, 44-47). We might think of a contract. When both parties fulfill their end of the agreement, then the contract is no longer in force. That is, when something is fulfilled, it no longer has any ability to legally bind. The certainty of the fulfillment of the old law was so sure, Jesus said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18).Further, concerning Matthew 5:19-20, there are two possible explanations. First, the most that can be said is that Jesus is telling his disciples to keep the law while it is in force. That is, as long as the law and the prophets are the standing will of God for His people, they must observe them, not as the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, but as genuine, honest, sincere servants of the Almighty.

The second possible explanation is this: The Jews in general, and the disciples specifically, held the Law of Moses in great esteem. They accepted the law and the prophets as God-ordained. Therefore, since Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets (for he was the end of the law; Rom. 10:4; cf. Gal. 3:19, 23-25), then Christ and His kingdom were God-ordained! Hence, if they neglected to accept the new law of the coming kingdom, in word and deed, then they would be rejecting the law and the prophets, and barred from citizenship in it! That is, whoever would not practice these commands (break the law of the new kingdom) and would convince (teach) others to do so, would be considered unworthy (least) by those in the kingdom, and vice-versa. Matthew 5:19-20, shows the necessity of adhering to the law of Christ!"

I guess I would sum it up in this way, we can argue until we are blue in the face, but I believe, through research and teachings that I have heard and read , that the Bible does not contradict itself. You disagree. We can argue back and forth, citing verse after verse, in and out of context, but I have a feeling your mind is already made up on the subject. If you want to continue the discussion, that's fine. It is worthwhile, but the limitations of space and time in this forum make it difficult to truly dig into this subject. If you really do want to see if the Bible contradicts itself or not, there are numerous resources available. Do the research and choose for yourself. I've made my choice and I stand by it.; 12/10/2007 11:26 PM
Mojo_Risin said...: Seriously, guys, I've done enough research on this -- 8 years' worth. And there's only so long I can stand researching something that keeps pointing me toward the same conclusion.

I respect your desire to maintain your stated beliefs, but I would only hope that you constantly question them to make sure they are your beliefs, and not merely some ingrained relics of cultural influence.

My only reason for coming back to this blog month after month is to be the voice in the wilderness -- just keeping it real...

Peace! Out!; 12/11/2007 8:53 AM

Malott's Blog

Sunday, December 09, 2007

19 comments:

The Best of Malott's Blog

Lonely Street Productions

The Two Day Cat Conflict of 2006

Links

Blog Archive

About Me