My Genes Made Me Do It

There is a difference between a church saying “We welcome all persons” and “We welcome all behavior.” After all, two things distinguish Christian belief: a body of doctrine and a moral code. Following Jesus entails both. Jesus welcomed prostitutes, but he never welcomed prostitution. He was soft on adulterers, but unyielding on adultery. After forgiving the adulterous woman, in fact, he adds: “Go and sin no more.” And the tax collector Zacchaeus, on encountering Jesus, promises to pay back all those he has cheated — fourfold. Jesus never welcomed cheating, but he did welcome reformed cheaters. This is not just a matter of semantic hair-splitting. Jesus came to call sinners but to condemn sin, much as a doctor heals sick people but eradicates sickness.

There is a problem with identifying people with their choices. Thieves are welcome in the church not as thieves, but as human persons. When Jesus tells the chief priests and elders that “the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Matthew 21:31), he is not winking at thievery and prostitution. He is responding, rather, to their willingness to acknowledge their errors and to change.

The Church is absolutely inclusive toward persons (all are invited to enter) but not toward ideas or behavior. If our “inclusiveness” means that we are no longer able or willing to distinguish between good and bad behavior and to make universal moral judgments like “wife beating is bad,” then we have effectively abandoned morality.

Abso-freakin’-lutely. From Father Thomas D. Williams, posted at NRO.

This commenter at God’s Politics made me laugh, and cry, and fume, and…

Whatever our sect of Christianity, we’re all supposed to follow our conscience, and if we think leaders are wrong, we are supposed to speak up.

In my view…

The most well known example I can think of was Martin Luther. He was a Catholic priest who pointed out that for the Vatican to be selling indulgences and other practices in place at that time were wrong. My wild guess is that he was not the only one to see the error in that practice. Others on this blog have pointed out that some leaders of Islam treat women unjustly. In my view, the Catholic church is treating women unjustly, and to its own detriment.

The issue of expenditures that could be provided to those who are “thirsty”, “hungry”, and “naked” for church building “sanctuary spaces” that are used once a week goes beyond the Catholic church and beyond Christianity. It accounts for a substantial percentage of the contributions we all make to our churches, synagoges, mosques, temples, and so on. I don’t think Jesus would approve. I’m less familiar with Abraham and Moses and Mohammed and Budda and others, but from what little I understand of their guidance for living a good life, I think they would disapprove.

In my view…

Mike Hayes

Those who assist persons who are “thirsty”, “hungry”, “naked” will be saved and those who do not provide that assistance will not be saved. Those who do those charities to persons in those circumstances do them for God and to God. The sum and substance of what God expects of us is that we love God and love our neighbor. In my view, that is what God expects us to do.

In my view…

Mike Hayes

I had to respond, I couldn’t resist. I got so into it that my comment was the length of a post. So it now is a post:

_____________________________

What does God expect from us? More than loving God and loving our neighbor in the modern feel-good sense. Jesus said that to love God is the greatest command. To love others is second and subordinate to the first command. It seems that those who push the social gospel ignore the true meaning of loving God, and instead teach that loving your neighbor is loving God. But loving God means committing wholly to him. Jesus said that if our love for our own families doesn’t seem like hate in comparison to our love for him, we have no place in the kingdom.

Loving your neighbor is more than just allowing or helping them do whatever they want. If you truly love someone you will want them to live a Scriptural, Spirit-filled life. You will clothe the naked and feed the hungry, but you won’t leave it at that…you’ll point them to the cross. When you see a brother or sister in error, you’ll correct them. And when you sense that they’re beginning to be “conformed to the pattern of this world”, you’ll confront them. That’s what it is to love your neighbor.

The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 seems to be the basis of your statements here. You erroneously claim that it is “the sum and substance of what God expects of us”. To say that ignores most of the New Testament. I can do that too. Based on the Parable of the Talents, directly preceding, all I have to do to get into heaven is make money. What do you think of that? Or, according to the Parable of the Ten Virgins (again, directly preceding the last), I just have to be prepared and vigilant. I can even say, “Hey, if I give you some of mine I won’t make it!” Hording goods and being stingy can get me into heaven.

It’s clear that taking one parable out of it’s context is bad theology. Yes, Jesus makes many statements about the poor (Wallis says 2000 verses, for now I’ll take him at his word). But there’s an entire Gospel written with the sole purpose of getting us to believe…something the social gospel ignores.

There are also a great many verses about holiness and righteousness. They’re in the Gospels (”For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees…”), and in Paul’s epistles (”Be holy as your heavenly father is holy…”), and throughout the OT. Our service, our benevolence, our love for our neighbor, means nothing if it is not based in our acceptance and reflection of God’s holiness.

One of the ways we reflect that holiness, is to acknowledge the roles that God clearly set out for men and women. I’m sure you will disagree with my view of gender roles, so I won’t argue it with you. Suffice it to say that an objective view of Scripture and anthropology clearly shows that men were meant to lead. It is not simply a patriarchal conspiracy.

Finally, as a church employee it ticks me off when people act like the church is only used one day a week. Yes the sanctuary is typically used one day a week, except during Lent at my church. But on the other six days the lights and the heat are off, so there’s no maintenance cost associated with it. The rest of the church is bustling 7 days and nights a week…all year.On top of that, building costs (utilities, repairs, maintenance, mortgage, etc.) are less than 5% of our contribution. I can’t say that is the same for every church, but it’s true here. If you’re going to say something is a “substantial percentage”, get some real numbers, because 5% is in no way substantial.

And are you seriously comparing the way many Muslims mistreat women to the exclusion of women from the priesthood and diaconate? Are there rooms in Catholic churches where the women get knocked around for not wearing their rosaries? I bet not. You sound like Charlize Theron saying that there is as much a problem with freedom of speech in the US as in Cuba. Are you for real? _______________________

While I was writing this, he posted again in response to someone else:

In a more perfect world, women would not have to repeatedly try to push a stone up a hill (that males never encounter). And parishoners would not have to be inconvenienced by the obstinancy of a male dominated group of decision makers. If the trend persists, it is possible that poorly utilized, antiquated buildings will be abandoned and the cost savings might be transferred to support poor persons.

It is possible… whether it is likely is another story… I can hope… and my hope is that women will be ordained and that a greater percentage of the contributions we all make to our churches will instead go to support of poor persons… here and abroad…

Best wishes…

Mike Hayes

Why would you push a stone up a hill? And why assume that in a “more perfect world” women would still be pursuing societal leadership roles? I think that in a more perfect world, men and women would exist in a harmony that allowed men to led and women to submit in a Biblical manner without anyone thinking that men were “oppressing” or “overpowering” women. It would be the perfect picture of Christ and the church from Ephesians. I think of this, now that I’ve invoked that image: Man is the head of woman as Christ is the head of the church. Should the church ever think of trying to lead Christ? Uhh…no. That’s a new thought, so don’t put too much stock in it.

Man, some people…

The original title of this blog was “Michael Crichton Lays Wood to Global Warming ‘Science’”. I knew it was too long and awkward, but I just wanted to use the phrase “lays wood to”. It’s fun, no? Anyway…

The Anchoress linked to a transcribed lecture Chrichton gave on complexity theory. I haven’t finished it, but it’s a good read so far. Check it out. Her article is pretty good, too. It gets even better if you follow the links and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Also, from Canada Free Press:

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

As many have said, Global Warming seems to have become a religion of late. It’s ironic that those progressive Christians who are believers don’t see that their “literal interpretation” of climate data ignores all of the historical context (like previous cooling and warming trends, even in the 20th century), as they claim conservative Christians do with the Bible. In fact, most conservative Christians will seek out historical context, because it supports our interpretation.

For example, many progressives say that early Christians didn’t think Jesus was God, or that they understood concepts of belief and faith differently. But Paul, who’s writings are the earliest available (it is agreed that at least 7 produced before A.D. 65), clearly believed Jesus was God, and that we must believe in him. He describes in such minute detail that it can’t really be disputed that he believed it as we understand it. And since he was pastor to most - if not all - of the Gentile church, they probably believed it to.

But these same people won’t bat an eyelash when the Medieval Warming Period, which in 1996 the UN’s IPCC initially stated was significantly warmer than the world today, is eliminated from future reports. There’s plenty of evidence in favor of it, including records from Vikings who colonized Greenland and Iceland and sailed the Arctic. They accuse us of not wanting to “dialogue” in the theological arena, but shout down and cast out any who disagree that we are at fault when it comes to climate change.

Why Global Warming Would Be Good For You

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

” I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth’s most powerful greenhouse gas– water vapor. “

Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union’s
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.

The Anchoress, again(Gore’s Religious Fervor Goes Hyperbolic):

Children with daisies, children asking for more arsenic in the water, children living in a post-Reagan apocalyptic nightmare, children being run over by out-of-control trains. It’s always ok to exploit a kid, as long as it’s for the right cause…you know…this year’s most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.”.

This is a great testimony from Frank Lockwood at Bible Belt Blogger:

Oddly enough, I don’t remember ever seeing Christina search the scriptures during our conversations. She didn’t have to look passages up — she already had them committed to memory — in the King James Version — of course.

It seemed like she had memorized the entire New Testament, with the book of Proverbs tossed in for good measure.

Two decades after attending Harvard, I can’t remember many of my professors’ names. Lord knows I can’t quote them. The textbooks they cited are distant memories.

But I can still hear Christina’s voice, soft and powerful and so full of conviction…

Read the rest, it’s worth it.

Also, check out my new page, Carl Braaten on the ELCA.

Tmatt at GetReligion has a great post that highlights the heart of the problems facing the Anglican Communion, as well as the ELCA and PCUSA here at home.

So, what is at the heart of Anglicanism? Is it doctrine or a cultural tradition (I call it “NPR at prayer”) rooted in property laws, music, architecture, ritual, structure and history? Is this a theological communion or a corporate one?

I have listened to people debate that question ever since the mid-1980s. In the end, there is no answer that provides unity because one side wants unity in doctrine and the other side insists that the only core, uniting Anglican doctrine is that there are no core doctrines that cannot be molded to fit the times. One camp wants dogmatic theology and flexible property laws. The other wants dogmatic property laws and flexible theology.

There is evidence of liberalism’s control over mainline Christianity spilling out of the cracks in the Communion, and this is one of the big keys. As with Unitarianism, the leftist Church thinks that the one main thing that holds us together is that there’s no main thing.

Can anyone who has written about the Anglican wars for more than a month imagine a scenario in which Canterbury chooses to offend the world of NPR and the BBC? What would people say in the faculty club at Oxford? The editorial board of the New York Times? Clearly, the only solution is for the resolutions and negotiations and amendments and dialogues to go on and on and on until the Third World cracks and is willing to compromise - or flee. When you yearn for a modernized faith, all compromises move closer to the truth - although some move faster than others. When you yearn for the ancient faith, all compromises move away from the faith of the ages.

I read an article in The Lutheran yesterday about the 3rd study based on the ELCA Task Force report on sexuality. The article quotes a pastor saying that the “essence of our faith” is finding common ground on issues. But the thing we should be searching for isn’t common ground, it’s correct doctrine. Tmatt hits this one on the head…liberal/progressive/modernized Christianity looks at compromise as the goal of all disagreement. It’s the height of piety. But compromise used to be a bad thing. You know, “compromising situation” and “compromising your morals”. The ancient faith of the apostles and the church fathers is being compromised away by the modern progressive movement and its unrelenting desire to find social acceptance for Christianity. The problem is that by the time they find acceptance they won’t be practicing Christianity anymore.

Tmatt gets the last word:

“There is an understanding that we come to the table of Christ to share in the body of Christ,” said the Rev. Jan Nunley, the church’s deputy for communication. “It’s a symbol of our corporate unity, and for them to absent themselves from that is really sad.”

Cynics might say that the word “corporate” in that statement could have two meanings. How can the body of the church be united if its bishops - the defenders of doctrine - cannot agree on basic doctrines linked to sacraments, the nature of God, salvation and Christology? Yes, sexuality is a big issue, too.

Related: Something Schmels, How Did He Miss This?, More From The Schore, Sin and the Sinner, Wisdom and Folly, Already Making Waves (Revisited),

Next Page »