The comparison is getting old. “Oh, you think homosexuality is wrong…what about divorce?” Gene Robinson says that his favorite way of combating arguments against homosexuality with other Christians. It usually shuts them up, and with good reason. It’s a perfect example of someone looking at the speck in another’s eye, and ignoring the plank in their own. But should we really be using that argument as a way to make another sin acceptable?
Maybe we should be using it to talk about marriage. Because few people take marriage as seriously as they used to. Some people think harder about a tattoo than their potential spouse. There’s [almost] no getting rid of a tattoo. But if we stopped accepting divorce as just a part of modern society, people might start thinking harder about getting married. Divorce used to hold some stigma. But now it only does if you’ve been married 3 or 4 times. It should hold some disrepute. It’s a bad thing. It’s sin unless your spouse was unfaithful. We should treat it as such.
So, I was looking into the ELCA’s Study on human sexuality and noticed this same thing in one of the 2005 Churchwide Assembly’s resolutions. This paragraph follows a position statement describing homosexual activity as a sin:
Every minister of the Church is a sinful being. This church in its structures of oversight makes decisions about every person who presents himself or herself for the rostered ministries of this church. Where this church judges that a person might serve the Gospel and mission of this church well, she or he is approved for ministry. The most instructive parallel for this moment may be clergy who are divorced and remarried, a condition specifically condemned in Scripture by Jesus. Without contradicting scriptural teaching, this church examines such persons and their witness, and may endorse their call to ministry. In a similar way, this church could agree to a particular review of partnered gay and lesbian persons called to specific contexts, and agree that they may be able to serve this church and the Gospel well. Leaving the language reflective of the traditional view intact and requiring the additional steps for granting exceptions respects what this church believes to be the extra-ordinary nature of these calls.
Well, does the divorced and remarried minister understand that his action was sinful? Did he repent? Does he intend to repeat it? If the answers are yes, yes, and no, then there is no reason, Scripturally, that he should be prevented from serving. Conversely, I’m fairly certain no candidate for ministry who is actively involved in a committed same-sex relationship will say that his actions are sinful, repent of them, and have no intention of repeating them.
Plus, there are questions such as who initiated the divorce, and whether the previous nuptials ended due to unfaithfulness, that could determine whether the action was sinful in the first place. And even then, is the current marriage a sin after there has been repentance? These questions don’t exist for those in same-sex relationships. There are simply no biblical guidelines for acceptance of these situations, like those for accepting divorce.
We need to stop wallowing in our own mediocrity. Instead of using the prevailing acceptance of one sin to gain acceptance for another, we should be trying to eliminate sin in our lives and communities. Not to gain salvation, because Christ alone offers that, but to show our gratitude, and to show our faith. We are called to holiness, and we should strive for it.
Related: Across the Board, On the Narrow, Sin and the Sinner, Religious Left, You Call That Protection?
I think I have an idea that in a few generations would get rid of our whole “Christmas dilemma”. The problem as it stands is this: liberal groups such as the ACLU like to target Christmas because Christianity has become the “king of the hill” in American culture. I say this in reference to the game where a person has to control a small space for a certain amount of time to win, and others try to wrestle him off to take over.
Christianity sits at the top of the hill for now, permeating an overwhelming amount of our social culture. Anecdotal evidence says 80% of Americans claim to be Christian. I’m not stating it as truth, because (a)I don’t like to count people who say their Christian but don’t go to church and live like they never have…I also don’t like to count Easter/Christmas Christians…and (b) I just don’t believe it. Anyway, it’s there. Then you have these holidays, Easter and Christmas, which everyone associates with Christianity, and most of America celebrate. Jesus has owned Western culture so long that people are ready to rebel.
The problem with this battle is that Christmas is just barely a religious holiday. I mean, 90% of what happens between Black Friday and December 25 in the name of Christmas is about toys and family getting together. Christmas trees have nothing to do with Jesus…neither do holly, mistletoe, caroling, feasting, or any of the other things that Christmas is known for. The only Jesus centered things that commonly happen are Handel’s Messiah, which was meant for the Lenten season, nativity scenes, and Christmas pageants. And the pageants are basically the same as any other stage show for most people. Many nonbelievers participate in and patronize these productions.
What this means is, if we moved Messiah back to Lent, and dedicated some real effort to determining which month (and maybe week) Jesus was born, we could put up the nativities and do the pageants then. What we’d be left with is a completely secular holiday: the Yuletide.
This would be good for both non-religious people who enjoy the magic of the season, and Christians who constantly argue about whether or not it’s right for a Christian to celebrate Christmas. There would be no pressure for the former to take on any beliefs, and none for the latter to actually participate in the celebrations. The only people it would not be good for are those who enjoy bringing attention to themselves by speaking out against Christmas, or talking about the war on Christmas.
Understand that I am in no way advocating any type of pagan celebration or worship. What I’m suggesting is that we divorce Christ’s birth from the solstice celebration. We can be fairly sure he wasn’t born then, so let’s stop pretending. If we’re going to celebrate his birth, we should at least attempt to do so accurately.
My wife brought up a good point about this idea. If it took hold and actually became the practice, 100 years from now or so, people would look back and say, “I can’t believe they used to celebrate Jesus’ birth at the end of December.” And school children would learn about the winter solstice and how it used to be celebrated as the birth of Jesus. It would be kind of like learning that Veterans Day is the anniversary of the treaty that ended World War II, and used to be called Armistice Day…I like that word: “armistice”. Maybe we need one for this. A treaty that would be an agreement that the American Yuletide celebration would not be officially associated with any religion. Do you think this could happen before the Fair Tax? I wonder…
I heard something ridiculous on the radio this morning on the way to the church. This local minister has a talk show, and today he had a guy on who wrote a book about why, as Christians, we shouldn’t celebrate days like Christmas. They even went so far as to say that Jesus “would never attend a Christmas party.” I couldn’t believe it. I was fuming and arguing with them (out loud, unfortunately) the whole way here.
And wish I could’ve gotten on the air. I mean, I can see why people get worried. If you ever visit the Christianity.com Forums, you notice every year there are arguments about Halloween, Christmas, and Easter. Well, now that I look there doesn’t appear to be one this year. Anyway, they all center around people who have apparently just discovered the true origins of our religious holidays, and thinks that a Christian who knows would stop celebrating them.
If you’re unaware, Christmas began thousands of years ago as a simple winter solstice festival. The solstice is the shortest day of the year, so some groups called it the birth of the sun, because the days would be getting longer. This developed into a religious festival for people like the Emperor Constantine, who worshiped the Unconquerable Sun. The celebration was complete with evergreen trees (they show life in the death of winter) decorated with shiny things, and gift giving and eating. When Constantine decided that the Son was better than the Sun, he switched the celebration to the birth of Christ. Over time it became the Christ Mass, then Christmas, as we know it. There is a similar story for Easter.
These guys on the radio this morning were just like the posters on the forum. They talked about how the celebration of Christmas isn’t pleasing to God. They even compared it to the times Israel was carted off into exile for mixing worship with other nations. The only problem there is that we aren’t worshiping other gods!!!! They said that Jesus never celebrated, nor talked about Christmas (duh), and we shouldn’t celebrate any holy days that he didn’t. He said that those who did are treading on dangerous ground. But I think he’s in the more dangerous position.
He totally neglects what Paul says in Romans 14:
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
The church became infinitely more complicated when the Gentiles came in. There were pagans, nonreligious, agnostics, and every stripe of belief making its way into the fold. What Paul was saying is,”Some of you celebrate the Jewish festivals, and some of you don’t. Some of you celebrate the winter solstice, and some the harvest festival, and some the fertility festivals. Some of you don’t celebrate any festivals at all. It matters not. Whatever you do, do it to God’s glory.” Paul was saying that it’s okay to celebrate other festivals, as long as we’re not celebrating or worshiping the gods that are associated there. And he was especially talking about the holiday that would become Christmas.
I have to work, but I’ll be back on this later…
Related: It’s That Time Again
The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin hasn’t officially separated from the national church, but they’ve taken the first steps. I’m really impressed with the coverage in the Reuters article. The AP’s piece, however, left me underwhelmed.
The Fresno-based Diocese of San Joaquin voted Saturday to affirm its membership in the worldwide Anglican Communion, in what diocese leaders called a first step toward a formal break with the national church over the ordination of gays and women.
If only that were the truth of the matter. Reuters hits it dead on with this:
“Homosexuality is just one symptom of how the church has lowered its view,” said McCalister. “The key issue, however, is the ecclesiastical structure that recognizes the authority of the Bible, as it has for about two millennium. We’re not bringing in anything new.”
This is the heart of it. The upper echelons of Episcopal Church authority have begun to set the Bible’s “lesser teachings” aside in favor of a policy that goes something like, “Love your neighbor, even if that means ignoring some of Jesus other commands.” I don’t know what other issues will arise in the future, but right now we have a large number of Christians who believe everyone on earth is saved, regardless of their acceptance or rejection of the Gospel; many who believe that the idea of Jesus’ divinity was added in later. This break isn’t about ordination, it’s about theology and the position of the Bible in the church.
The Bishop Schori has a wonderfully deceptive response:
“Our task as the Episcopal Church is God’s mission of reconciling the world, and actions such as this distract and detract from that mission,” she said.
But who’s really “breaking away” here?
The Episcopal Church is a branch of the 77-million member Worldwide Anglican Communion, a loose federation of national churches around the world. Jefferts Schori leads 2.4 million followers in the United States.
At the San Joaquin diocese’s convention on Friday, Bishop John-David Schofield said, “The Episcopal Church walks apart from the Anglican Communion, but accuses us of leaving the church.”
The ECUSA is abandoning the centuries old view of the Bible as the infallible Word of God. As a Christian, that should be tantamount to apostasy.
I hate to use attendance statistics to suggest the health of a church, but if you check out the “growth” reports about the Episcopal Church from 1992-2004, you’ll see that only one diocese increased it’s membership relative to the population. Many actually lost members despite 10-20% population gains. That is not a good sign in a country that generally views Christianity as a good thing, with anecdotal evidence that points to a growth in overall church membership.
Like I said though, that’s not the way to determine whether a church is doing God’s will…just a fun fact. In the end what matters is this: The only tangible connection we have with Jesus’ teachings is the Bible. We have the Spirit and we have prayer, but those things are intangible. If we are to believe in him we have to trust the Bible to guide us to him.
Even Luther says in his Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ that when a dispute arises between our perception of the truth and the Bible’s declaration, the Bible’s language should prevail. The church fathers went to Scripture to guide practice. And Scripture testifies to itself, the Bereans searching the Scriptures to be sure the Apostles teaching was correct. I hope the leadership of the Episcopal Church remembers that, before the cookie falls apart in their hands.
What is Dominionism? According to Wikipedia it is “a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism, primarily, though not exclusively, in the United States, that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs.” According to one theologian, “The purpose of Christ’s coming was in terms of the creation mandate. . . . The redeemed are called to the original purpose of man, to exercise dominion under God, to be covenant-keepers, and to fulfill “the righteousness of the law” (Rom. 8:4). . . . Man is summoned to create the society God requires.[3]” Sounds like a bunch of wackos to me. And apparently they make up as many as 25% of Americans! And, according to Curbstone Critic, they’re itching to take over the world by force.
But if you look into the origins of the term “Dominionism”, you find that the term describing a group of narrowly held Christian beliefs, coined by its opponents. There are a few who fit the bill, but I’ve never met one. But people like the Curbstone Critic, and Rosie O’Donnell talk like they’re already forming an army to march across America, claiming the land for God.
Jacke M. over at JackeHammer does a good job of explaining the situation. In the end you see that the favorite weapon of progressive pundits and apologists is the straw man. They rail against conservative Christians for something that is only half-true, if at all. They say we want a theocracy, that we’re as big a threat as Islamic Fascists, and then give anecdotal “proof” that shows nothing but their own prejudice.
Blogs4God
