Openly-gay priest takes helm in Lexington parish
flockwoodThe Harvard Crimson has all the details:
“While homosexuality is not considered a sin in the Episcopal Church, which is known for being more progressive than other denominations, Rev. Timothy R. Fleck said that he had his doubts about living with another man in an openly gay relationship when he was first invited to Kentucky.”
St. Martha’s, you’ll recall, is the congregation that took over Church of the Apostles’ building after Apostles’ members voted to leave the Episcopal Church USA.
March 6th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
This is funny. The article says: “I had in my mind prejudiced ideas about eastern Kentucky and Appalachia, and I wasn’t sure my partner and I would be comfortable or even safe,” he said. “But I’ve found that the parish at St. Martha’s has been very friendly and accepting.”
I hate to break it to Bro. Fleck, but St. Martha’s parish, which is probably the most liberal parish in Lexington (which is saying something), no doubt has little in common with any aspect of Eastern Kentucky or Appalachia. My understanding is that it is largely operated by and for gays and lesbians, and I suspect that if he didn’t feel at home here, he wouldn’t feel at home anywhere. Lexington is a liberal oasis in the great desert of Bible Belt Kentucky, and St. Martha’s is probably the most liberal of its Episcopal parishes. I don’t see Good Shepherd (my parish) or Christ Church Cathedral hiring any gay priests anytime soon, and St. Hubert’s has barely moved on to the new prayer book.
But having an openly gay priest in Lexington is a wonderful development, and I applaud it.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
We missed you at Convention Frank–the Presiding Bishop was there almost the whole time and was truly inspiring, lots of great slides from our ministry since the earthquake in Haiti, great inclusive spirit, lots of new vibrant clergy, and not one dang bit of intrigue or controversy. Not a single member of the press bothered to come.
March 6th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
This news is not a big deal spiritually any more other than propaganda purpose for LGBT. When Episcopal Church elected their bishop from openly gay and lesbian, what’s the fuss, when an openly gay priest takes charge of a parish? The question would always remain in people’s mind whether the Episcopal claim as progressive Church is upward or downward slop in Christian perspective. People knows at least by whose votes this change took place and whether or not these voters are better off spiritually than Saint Paul whose life was spared for defending Gospel. Matter of facts Saint Paul taught Christian to stay away from same sex activities. Another instance I know a high school friend of mine were gay while in high school but later both he and his partner married to their wife and ever since they have been happily maintaining their family with children for almost 25 years now. Isn’t a matter of choice?
March 7th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
No, Julian, for many people, it’s not a matter of choice. I don’t think you understand, Julian, how hurtful comments like yours are to people who truly have no choice over their sexual orientation. For example, can you say that you CHOSE to be heterosexual, or are you, like me, merely “lucky” enough to have been born that way?
You make it sound like the choice of one’s sexual identity is the same as choosing a mocha or a latte at Starbuck’s. As usual in life, things are far more complicated than that. The Episcopal Church has recognized that fact; perhaps at some point you will learn enough to do so as well. Until then, at least you should avoid stereotyping whole groups of people based on one example.
March 7th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
People can’t choose to be heterosexual. They can choose to suppress their natural inclinations.
historians will look back and mock us on this one like they mock (or critique, or “study”) the people who thought the earth was flat.
March 7th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
Caleb and madgebaby, let me be practical now, the subject controversial modification is a religious, spiritual issue rather than what other people, you or I think about the change now or in future. Christians are looking for justification based on convincing religious revelation that support the claim God’s blessing for new law. Referring Saint Paul’s teaching against same sex and his transformation from Christian killer to crusader for Christ is very strong point to believe his teaching over Episcopal Church’s management vote to turndown his teaching. In other word St Paul is reliable than Episcopal voting in deciding whether or not same sex is sin. But unfortunately I did not hear any counter argument based on religion.
I heard your points in support of changing old law such as i) homosexuality is attained by birth, supported by Psychology association and therefore it is no more a sin. But truth is even though in future it is established that gay is birth right and have equal right like heterosexual, it does not reveal God’s blessing for gay and refute St. Paul’s teaching. It is like whether sun moves the earth or earth moves the sun does not prove non-existence of God and do not encourage to make null and void all other canonic laws. If you have any knowledge based on theology that justifies the change please do not hesitate to share with us.
March 8th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
The gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of love. Some people confuse mere acceptance with genuine love, but acceptance of evil is not really true love. I love gay people (platonically), and have several gay friends. That does not mean I accept their lifestyle. I simply don’t understand it. They are also free not to accept my heterosexual lifestyle if they so choose. Wether the Episcopalians accept homosexuals or not is their business and I don’t see what all the fuss is about. They have their interpretation of the love Jesus taught, and I have mine. It is when they call the rest of us “unenlightened” is where I have a problem. We choose to take Paul at face value, and they choose to see deeper and overriding principles. But we do the same to other teachings in the Bible that they take more at face value.
One thing that bothers me, if what Caleb says about the congregations in Lexington is accurate, is this separation into gay/lesbian worship communities and “strait” ones. Paul also taught that true charity (love) “seeks not her own.” There is value to people of a like mind flocking together, but if taken to extremes it may lead to alienation and arrogance. That is one of the pitfalls of a Zionist doctrine. One that we Mormons fell into early in our history, but fortunately refined as we grew. Maybe we became more “enlightened.”
March 8th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Julian, buddy, this is just more evangelical drivel. The fact is that everyone who has been around very many gay or lesbian people knows that whatever it is that causes one person to be heterosexual and the other homosexual is something deep seated and which goes to the core of a person’s being. Whether nature or nurture, I don’t know. What I do know is that, whatever it is, it’s real.
The real question we’re debating, Julian, is whether a rule absolutely set forth in scripture with no wiggle room can be changed by the church. And the answer is clearly yes, it can. We’ve done it many times. For example, during the middle ages, it was a crime, known as usery, to charge interest for loaning money. This is clearly the rule set forth in scripture, and arguably would, if followed, have far more impact on the world than the anti-gay rule does. But the church, and by that I mean everyone, in all denominations, changed the rule so that today people who consider themselves good Christians gleefully work in banks and other businesses that charge interest for loaning money. Likewise, St. Paul suggested that women wear hats in church. This was the law and practice in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion for hundreds of years, but we don’t follow it any more. Likewise, scripture plainly says that the only grounds for divorce is adultery. Yet Christians today, including all denominations, do not enforce this rule.
So, as a matter of practice, the church has changed numerous rules laid down in the Bible. The question then becomes why. Even a socialist like me recognizes the need for some level of financial capital in society, though I see less need for consumer lending. So, I can understand why the church changed that rule: Economic circumstances changed over time, and the church changed to keep up with them. As far as the hats in church thing, I don’t know why we changed that rule, other than that it was dumb, which as Julian will attest is not generally grounds for changing a religious rule.
Likewise, the Bible condones, and often encourages, the institution of slavery. And Christians followed that rule for hundreds of years. Now we would consider enslaving another human being a sin, though the Bible never even intimates that it is. Why? Because society changes, and the church must change with it. After slavery was made illegal in America, many of the same folks who had supported slavery used the Bible to justify their discrimination against blacks and women. Most Christians have now given up those beliefs as well.
So, Julian, merely blathering on about what the Bible says is not the end of the discussion; it’s hardly even the beginning. You remind me of the good Christian grass eaters of the fifties and sixties who stood in the schoolhouse door and proclaimed “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” How long did segregation last after that, Julian? The reason it ended was because we have advanced morally as a society to the point where we try to do what is right, rather than what is written down.
March 8th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Johns says: “One thing that bothers me, if what Caleb says about the congregations in Lexington is accurate, is this separation into gay/lesbian worship communities and “strait” ones.”
I agree, John. Lexington is one of the few places where the old and new Episcopal Churches meet. My parish, Good Shepherd, is an old line Episcopal Church, lots of doctors and lawyers and business people, with a minimum of the insurance agents and realtors that plague most churches. No doubt we are liberal to a fault, but in that tweedy old money way that doesn’t necessarily play well in today’s world. Most of the other Episcopal parishes here are the same, but there are factions on the right and left (or at least what passes for the right wing to us).
On the conservative end of the spectrum, we’ve got St. Hubert’s, out by the hunt club, where they bless the hounds, that is more conservative than Julian and still uses the 1928 prayer book and will never hire a woman rector. We used to have sort of a “modern” conservative congregation that used “worship” music and had drums and things in the sanctuary, but they jumped ship and went over to the schismatics.
On the liberal side, we’ve got St. Martha’s sort of out on the other end of the spectrum; it is a small church that seems to consist mainly of liberal eccentrics. There are certainly gay and lesbian members of Good Shepherd, and probably the other parishes as well, but one gets the idea that at St. Martha’s, there is a higher percentage than in other parishes.
But it does worry me, too, John, to think that even we more liberal than thou Episcopalians are beginning to re-segregate along the lines of sexual preference.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Caleb, I can see now that there is some value to the Mormon’s practice of strict geographical boundaries for each congregation. It discourages the separation of liberals and conservatives and so forth that you discuss. However, geography may work well for the rest of the world, but here in Utah where our wards (congregations) are quite small geographically due to the high concentration of Mormons, the wards (which may only be 5 or 6 city blocks) are split into the socioeconomic background prevailing within their boundaries. This becomes readily apparent when attending a regional Boy Scout Jamboree. The “rich” wards have state-of-the-art camping materials, trailers, cook stoves, all matching uniforms and custom insignias even on their trucks, and us poor slobs from the lower-down-in-the-valley wards shamefully show up with second-hand converted U-Haul trailers and canvas tents circa 1950. Almost convinces one to become a socialist!
March 8th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Oh, and did I mention the canvas tents leak and are always missing several poles that need to be replaced with whittled wood? Time to brush up on my Lenin and Marx, suppose.
March 9th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
1) “The real question ……whether a rule absolutely set forth in scripture with no wiggle room can be changed by the church. And the answer is clearly yes, it can.”
2) “So, as a matter of practice, the church has changed numerous rules laid down in the Bible”
3) “Likewise, the Bible condones, and often encourages, the institution of slavery.”
4) “Because society changes, and the church must change with it.”
Caleb, the above statements of yours are matter of perception on biblical teaching and not necessarily reflect God’s blessing for a change as we found in Holy Bible for new laws set by Christ. All Christian’s goal is to follow every command of God, not the human. Episcopal Church deviated from truth of Christ, because of lack of unanimous teaching on Christianity and allowing individual rector to interpret the Bible as they like for diversification. Retired bishop Sponge and gay bishop Robinson are typical example distorting truth of the Bible. The Church become a heterogeneous mixture with different of opinions, loosely tying with Christ for name sake only.
The Bible is the seed; if it falls in fertile soil it grows and grows until whole universe fall under domain of one God. Again if it falls in bush it grows a little bit, but be suppressed by thorns (criticisms) at some point and divide. It is the case for the Bible in Episcopal Church, where the Bible has its limitation to grow for its misinterpretations. For example we learnt from the Bible that exploitation of poor people with uncontrolled interest is sin. But again with reasonable interest it is virtue. Please see Jesus’ parable of the ten gold pieces refers to the concept of “usury” or “interest”, Luke 16:23, Matthew 25:27. The Bible teaches good relationship between employer and employee, because both of them are servant of God. All Anglican believe allowing divorce does not mean divorce is act of virtue as you find homosexuality. The Bible teaches modest dress for man and woman not to entice fellow worshipers. Wearing hat for woman is an example for dress, but changing dress code maintaining sanctity does not alter its objective. Thus to me the Bible is seed, it has enormous potentiality to grow for kingdom of heaven by changing as necessary but not altering theme of God’s command.
Changing homosexuality as virtue violet God’s command for which He punished people of Sodom and Gomorra. Biblical misinterpretation will remain as always, because of our shortfall of godly wisdom but it would be fatal if the bible is considered misstated. Don’t you see today’s civilization rooted in the Bible?
March 10th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Julian, I admire your respect for the Bible and agree that it is the principles behind the actual words that matter most. However, the actual words were still written by humans as they interpreted inspiration through their own mortal fallibility. In addition, these words were not always handled with the best of care down through the ages and show many of examples of error, mistranslations, and so forth. In other words, the Bible is NOT the end-all authority on the Christian religion—Christ is. Live right, or to the very best of your ability, and then rely on direct inspiration from Jesus Christ Himself. Use prayer, meditation and so forth. The Bible is only a tool, and like a tool, it can be worn and get broken at times. In the end it is what God tells YOU, and not what he tells Paul that you are ultimately accountable for, in my humble opinion.
March 10th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
John, buddy, for once we agree on something. You’re absolutely right. The Bible is the product of the church, and can be modified by the church at any time.
Julian, that’s just more evangelical pietistic blather, and this time you’re not even consistent. You say that we “learned” that charging high interest rates is wrong, but that charging “reasonable” rates is OK. Nowhere in scripture does it say this. The Bible is quite clear that ANY interest constitutes usery, so if we “learned” otherwise, we then used what we learned TO CHANGE A SCRIPTURAL RULE.
How is it any different for me to say that we’ve also “learned” that homosexuality is not something that is inherently evil? Julian, with all due respect, it appears that you play as fast and loose with scripture as anyone, and you’ve been taught by a lifetime of contact with narrow minded Christians that homosexuality is inherently sinful, and I ask you to examine your conscience and see if you can truly find it within yourself to condemn an entire group of people about whom you apparently know little or nothing because of something written in a book the entirety of which you don’t follow.
And what about that whole slavery thing, Julian? The only thing you said about it was that my statements about the Bible were “my perspective.” Really? Is the idea that the Bible condoned slavery really my perception, or is it the only reasonable reading of the texts? If you have another interpretation, please share it.
And you say “Don’t you see today’s civilization rooted in the Bible?” No, Julian, I don’t. Our society is not operated remotely on Biblical principles, and I don’t know of any society in the history of the world that was. And that’s a bad thing. While I may quibble with certain items in the Bible that reflect the cultural norms of the time it was written rather than God’s will, I love the serious Biblical principles of loving one’s neighbor and feeding God’s sheep. We don’t do either of those things very well in our society, and we should.
March 11th, 2010 at 7:52 am
Please go rent the documentary “for the bible tells me so”, those of you who use scripture to back up persecution of gay and lesbian people (and that is what it is no matter how you gloss it over).
The Bible says a lot more about many other things that we totally ignore than it does about homosexuality.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
1) “…it (The Bible) is the principles behind the actual words that matter most.”
2) “…. the actual words were still written by humans as they interpreted inspiration through their own mortal fallibility.”
3) “…..the Bible is NOT the end-all authority on the Christian religion—Christ is.”
4) “…..it is what God tells YOU, and not what he tells Paul…..accountable for”
John, you would find interestingly that many religions agree with you and with that concept in mind they developed their own religion taking some principles from the Bible like your own church Mormon did. But ironically each religion contradict each other that there is no love lost among themselves. In real world, if all would have been in same spiritual world, they would glorify the same God as all books of the Bible glorify the same God with integrity, though written in different time and places. God is Spirit and Truth. His world is same for everybody who claimed to be in His world. It is like zero gravity in space where everybody will float no matter how fat you are, and when you go.
Misinterpretation started around 600 AD when Prophet Muhammad founder of Islam first perceived the above idea about the Bible and founded his own religion keeping Jesus as a prophet and presenting himself as last and important prophet remains next to his Allah and ahead of all past, present and future human in earth. He introduced a book, considered to be a book from his Allah; recognized human’s natural diversified sexual urge with different women by introducing multiple marriage. He presented different set of mode of worship (e.g. prayer for 5 times a day) different from ancient Christian for their Allah. In the beginning to establish new religion was very tough and sad, but gradually it become congenial to socio-economic Arabian culture and now it is 2nd largest religion next to Christianity. The same way Mormon’s journey rough, tough and sad was also developed with a new book, multiple marriage, American heritage and different mode of worship on about seventeen hundred years after ministry of Christ. It is now growing fast in America. Episcopal Church joined the journey at last but not least in this process accepting the same principles not to listen to St. Paul but to listen own voice and follow either Joseph Smith, or gay bishop Robinson or Prophet Muhammad or many more other sect or religion developed based on the Bible. Individual’s understanding is important rather biblical teaching.
But you dividers do not understand that when anyone attained complete holistic mind they would not see any difference other than gospel writers. If you closely review the Bible you would find all books of the Bible though written in different time and space, but astonishingly praise one and only God with same magnitude and integrity. The books are not contradicting each other but complementing. Major changes came with coming of Christ in this world and you know that He established the new laws not by a new book as evidence but by signs, miracles and even finally sacrificing His own body and blood in consistence with previous prophecies. The change that comes from God must come from person/s whose spiritual life is beyond questions and it would not divide rather unite under Christ.
You are making man made religion which is susceptible to change with culture and time. Disciples of Christ and Apostle Paul were hand picked by Christ and they lived with Christ and later wrote the gospel for future generation like us, not for personal fame. It is simple business policy: to establish a product, you have to discredit existing one. Your philosophy have common with Muslim who also says that the Bible is contaminated with time and space. It is bad time for Christian. There are pressures from both inside as well as from non-Christians. But our hope is as stated in Isaiah 40:8 “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.” And Matthew 5:18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. We would hang on to this Principle as a child does to his beloved father.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Julian,
I will not discredit all of Islam like you. They have many good teachings and doctrines. Some that are not good, granted. Likewise, the Catholic church had the complete Bible and yet justified things like the Inquisition, burning heretics at the stake and so forth. I admire your reverence for Scripture. If you want to bow down to and pray to your Bible, like the Muslims worship their Koran, go ahead. I simply don’t see it that way. Christ did hand-pick the original Apostles, true, but after His accession, the Apostles ordained a new Apostle on their own, Matthias, to replace Judas Iscariot. We have no reason to believe they did not continue this, when they could, to replace others of the Twelve when they died. The church of Christ preceded the Bible and exists outside and above any random writings of its leaders that happened to survive.
You see, you are acting like the Bible was compiled and stitched together by the hand of God to be the absolute IT for everything and everyone at anytime. Nowhere does the Bible itself make this claim. Who selected what to put in it and what to leave out? It was that same Church that was killing heretics! The Bible has gone through hundreds of changes, additions, deletions, translations and so forth. Unless you are willing to accept King James of England as a prophet, the current King James Version is just one of these incarnations.
The Bible does contain the fullness of the Good News, true, but it does not contain all truth. Many truths prevalent in our culture, and even in your religion, Julian, come from inspired men and women completely outside the Bible. I don’t think you’ve even read the Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Rig Veda and other such writings. How can you make such blanket statements that they are untrue or evil? It is simple arrogance or at least over-confidence on your part. If God came down and told you that the Bible is completely pure and there is no other truth, so be it. He hasn’t done that for me, and I don’t believe I’m a heretic either.
March 12th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
The Bible reflects Holy Tradition which is about the Divine Person of Jesus Christ. It is also quite clear on why homosex is a violation of God’s binary order in creation.
March 13th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
That’s not the question, Alice. We know what the Bible says. The question is whether we have to follow it, and I would think that someone who looks at this through the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church would agree with the Catholics and the Anglicans that the real authority lies within the church hierarchy created by the Apostolic Succession. After all, the church made the Bible, not the other way around. The reason that Jesus formed a committee that was self-perpetuating rather than just leaving behind a book like Mohammed is so that changes could be made along the way.
March 13th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
John, I would like to correct some of your misunderstanding about my last posting, such as:
• I did not credit or discredit Islamic theology; I only presented some facts about Islam like your faith on Mormon. I read Sura Al-Baqarah of Muslim’s Holy Qur’an and, more over I have friends who are Muslim. If I am wrong in perception any body is welcome to correct me.
• Please be informed Muslims do not worship Qur’an neither do Christian as you stated. Christians pray to God thru Jesus Christ and the Bible is for knowing God’s please and displease to live accordingly for salvation.
• To reach gospel to all walks of people in this world, the style of translating original Bible into different languages may be changed over time but meaning remained same at all time. For example I find international version easy readable than King James.
• You correctly stated that the Bible does contain the fullness of the Good News, but again refuted its fullness. A good book does not spell out detail, it speaks for itself and guides what to include and what not, to make understandable for all walks of life in complete sense as well as in concise form.
• My writing was to present that some religions evolved from the Bible such as Mormon, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses etc., because of misconception of biblical truth.
• As you said that I have not read the book of Mormon, but to tell you the truth I have at my hand now “The Book of Mormon”, which was given by Mormon preachers with whom I had long discussion at my home for few days. They came to my Anglican Church, joined Church service, be introduced with my priest. I also went to Mormon Church along with them and joined the Church meeting. In other word I have some workable knowledge about Islam and Mormon. But please be noted I do not credit or discredit Islam, Mormon or any other believes. It is God who would judge, not me. But I can only form my own opinion in order to stick to my faith, I found to be true.
• I know why Caleb and you are in same agreement with the concept that “the Bible is NOT the end-all authority”, to include your version of truth/s about existence of church preceding Christ’s foundation of Church during His ministry in middle eastern countries as you stated earlier posting as well as existence of a book, deposited and written in gold plates with two stones in silver bows containing Urim and Thummin for translating the book. The book accounted for the former inhabitants of America and contained the fullness of the everlasting Gospel delivered to ancient inhabitants. That is why you have two parallel Gospel, but interestingly ancient gospel appeared only recently on the evening of 09/21/1823 to Prophet Joseph Smith by the messenger of God, named Moroni. Caleb wants to include a sin converted into virtue by majority votes of Church Council. Please note I am not evaluating your or Caleb’s believe but presented facts only, if I am wrong about your faith, please let me know.
• Christian believes the Bible as word of God and prays to God not to the Bible as you said earlier. It is appropriate to mention Alice’s perception about the Bible and sin. At the end I would like to conclude with a verse from the Bible as St. Paul taught us: “I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you.” —1 Corinthians 1:10
March 14th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
“someone who looks at this through the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church would agree with the Catholics and the Anglicans that the real authority lies within the church hierarchy created by the Apostolic Succession”
No Caleb, that is not the Orthodox understanding of Holy Tradition. Apostolic succession is not a significant authority in Orthodoxy. Hierarchs who depart from Holy Tradition – a Tradition that does back to Abraham and before concerning the coming of the Son of God – are removed. The Tradition of the Elders can be traced back to Israel’s African ancestors. An “ancestor” is someone who died a good death, practiced the traditions of his people and faithfully transmitted them to his descendants. In this context, a first-born son becomes an ancestor and his descendents are linked to him in a long genealogy. So Jesus Christ, the only Begotten of the Father, delivers to us Holy Tradition and He heads a long chain of spiritual descendents.
“We know what the Bible says.” I don’t think you do know what it says. Scripture and Holy Tradition never conflict.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Quite an interesting analysis, Alice. And anyone who says any that two things “never conflict” is perhaps allowing optimism to trump reason.
March 15th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Well, it’s good to know you acknowledge it as your belief and interpretations of the Bible, Julian. I choose to believe differently, but respect your viewpoint. Glad to know you have studied Mormon history a bit. I would encourage you to read the whole Book of Mormon though and see if you don’t feel it is inspired and contains a lot of truth. Like you said, it too contains the fulness of the Gospel, like the Bible, at least in Mormon interpretations. One can reach salvation by living its principles just like the Bible’s.
Neither book of Scripture is infallible, however, in that it cannot be superseded by direct revelation from God at any time. God never changes, but people do, mainly in their ability to understand and live good principles. This does not make the Bible or Book of Mormon “wrong” they simply need further clarification, if you will, as we as a people and culture advance in understanding and abilities.
This is all in my humble opinion, of course.
March 15th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Julian, buddy, it’s all in whose ox is being gored. You say “Caleb wants to include a sin converted into virtue by majority votes of Church Council.” I say, “Julian wants to convert a social construct into a sin because of the majority vote of a church council — the Council of Trent, which approved the text of the New Testament.” Of course, we don’t use any of the same texts the Council of Trent used, but you take my point. Julian, EVERYTHING in Christianity we have, including the Bible, is the result of a majority vote of a church council. You just seem to think the older ones are better, and I don’t.
March 15th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Good point, Caleb. Once in a while I think you might actually be inspired, despite it all.
March 15th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Caleb, general saying “Old is Gold” is true at least in spirituality. I believe you would agree with me that the people in olden time were more spiritual than we are now. Church Council has been given authority to protect teachings of Christ and His disciples and apostle who were with Him. Council, leaders, or later days prophets were not allowed to develop new laws require meeting demands of current social need which contradict with their teachings. No one can claim knows about your family better than you do, likewise no one knows about Kingdom of Heaven better than Christ who came from there. And again no one knows about Christ’s teaching better than Christ’s hand picked disciples and apostles who lived and worked with Him. People’s saying “small is beautiful” is appropriate in finding God’s grace Who loves dummies. We got to remember as St Paul said we have been baptized in the name of Christ not by any other name, such as Church Council, prophets or any other leaders that we have to be divided because of their teachings. As long we have Christ no other parallel book of gospel requires to read for salvation, as John suggested. One God, one book to follow is more than enough.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Julian sez: “I believe you would agree with me that the people in olden time were more spiritual than we are now.” Really? My impression is quite the opposite. The Roman Empire, in which Christianity grew up, was one of the least spiritual places one could imagine. They had gladiatorial contests in which real people (not roosters as they do in east Kentucky) were made to fight each other to the death. They not only condoned slavery, but justified it as an institution founded by God.
After the Church took over after Constantine’s regime, the gladiatorial contests ended, but the slavery stayed, and was ultimately replaced by the serfdom that took over during the middle ages. Now apparently there is some dispute as to this; I always thought that it was a terrible system reminiscent more of the devil than God, but in a recent post, your friend John said that it was no worse than the US income tax code, so maybe not.
My point is that history generally moves forward, not backward. I think that every year that has passed since Jesus was a child has been an improvement over the one that came before. One could argue about this during the period 500-1000 AD, when the Roman Empire crumbled and not much took its place for awhile, but soon the tide turned, and certainly by 1200 people in medieval Europe were probably better off on the whole than they’d have been under Roman rule; by 1400, it was undoubtedly true. My point is that we have made progress since the Bible was written, not regress. We know more, not less, than the folks who wrote it knew. All you have to do is read two pages of any of the church fathers to see that they knew considerably less than we do about the origins of the Bible and the source of its texts.
You also say: “And again no one knows about Christ’s teaching better than Christ’s hand picked disciples and apostles who lived and worked with Him.” That may well be true, Julian, but not one of those people wrote a single word that we know of, and certainly none of them wrote anything in the New Testament. So, what did they do? They laid hands on their successors, who laid hands on their successors, right down to our current bishops. And that apostolic succession gives today’s bishops the same authority Christ gave to the original twelve.
Julian, it would appear that you have a particular set of beliefs about the world, and are willing to say anything that you think logically supports that world view, no matter how factually incorrect, or contradictory it may be. One is supposed to look at the facts and then make conclusions, Julian, not the other way around.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:21 am
John, despite my quip about the income tax, I expect we agree on more than we disagree on.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Alice, how do you explain the myriad Orthodox churches in the world, all bound by culture, none of whom get along all that much, if “Scripture and Holy Tradition never conflict”? On the face of it, that just doesn’t make sense.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
True believers, like Alice and Julian, can’t distinguish between “the Word of God” and their own personal opinions.
March 16th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Caleb, your impression on biblical truth is quite opposite, because you act like Pharisee who had doubt on Christ’s every miracles they heard from people’s mouth or they saw. You are focused on world knowledge, relied heavily on critics of the Bible and again forget that those critics are not eye witness of history of Christ happened more than two thousand years ago. “Old is gold”, I mean olden time Christians were more religious than today. But you compared with your history of Roman Empire who prosecuted Christians. I know what is apostolic succession, but you need to know that succession comes from disciples to current bishops with what they saw with their own eyes living with Christ and for Whom they gave up their lives and every pleasure in this world. Are you ready to give your wealth, so far accumulated for Christ or keep busy finding “factually incorrectness” in the Bible? That is the question for all of us for soul searching during this lent and prepare ourselves through prayer, penitence, almsgiving and self-denials so that we could proudly share His glorious resurrection at His 2nd coming. Who knows, end of the world could happen tomorrow. Are we ready?
March 17th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Cheese, I won’t be surprised to get statement from you like this that true believers of Christ can’t distinguish between “the Word of God” and their (I assume you mean gospel writers) own personal opinions. I know in your dictionary there is no word like “God”, so no question of “word of God” other than opinion of writers would come in your mind. It follows the same principle “as you sow, so shall you reap”. By some reason/s you have sown in your mind non-existence of God, what could we expect from you other than by some miracle that helps you speaking about God like Soul of Tarsus? If you read the Bible read with the glass of God, not with atheist’s glass to find something meaningful. Atheists believe what they see, but Christians believe with their sixth sense “inner eyes”. Seek, I am sure, you would find Him one day, as many found. Like your dictionary, there is no words “too late” in God’s dictionary to find Him.