Pastor Challenges Presbyterian Ban On Gay Unions

http://www.connexion.org/newsstory.cfm?id=1028&returnurl=news.cfm

 

Rigby has been charged under cannon law and he says he'll happy defend his position before an ecclesiastical court.


It appears that the punishment involves being shot by a cannon should you be found guilty.

I have been on the periphery of the discussions within the Methodist church on this issue. I know both churches and pastors that perform holy unions. It's certainly an issue that is not going away anytime soon.

And I think that's good. It's important for the church to address these issues.



Tom Nixon

 

I know that this reply might upset some people, but scripture is very clear that Homosexuality is forbidden by God.

Genesis 19:1-11, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27

Therefore, if God Himself has forbidden homosexuality, then the issue was settled a long time ago.

Consequently then this should not even be an issue within a church if they hold to and teach true Bible doctrine!

Rich Hartel

A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)

 

Only if you are a textualist, as opposed to an interpretationist.

I tend to think the Bible is more analgous to Shakespeare, it's meant to adapt and teach. It's not an edict. There are many things in the bible that we, as a society, would find morally repugnant if interpreted literally and followed today.

I doubt you hold everything in the bible as a way of life. Likewise, you can't pick and choose which doctrine you are going to follow if you go down the path you suggest...

 

I'm surprised that the Presbyterians have retained canon law. I'd assumed that was an aspect of the Catholic monarchial church model that had been junked in the reformation.

It's obviously an issue about which legitimate differences of opinion can exist.

I think that I would prefer to see a "local option" response by the collective church, with some denominations embracing gay marriage and other denominations rejecting it. Basically that's the same approach that we see Christianity taking with female clergy. Then people can associate with whatever denomination makes them most comfortable.

That kind of approach doesn't work so well with civil marriage though, since there can't be multiple versions of civil law at a single location, applying to people with different scruples. (Interestingly, in medieval times that's often how civil law worked.)

That illustrates a basic way that modern civilization differs from medieval. To the medievals, the church and its law were (at least theoretically) universal, instituted and guided by God himself. Civil law was an accident of earthly rulers. In Merovingian Gaul, in a single location, Frankish law applied to Franks, Burgundian law to Burgundians and Roman law to the Gallo-Romans.

Today, we see civil law as universal, applying equally to all people within a jurisdiction regardless of their various ethnicities, social stations or religious identifications. And religious law has become accidental, a matter of particular individuals' faith commitment or denominational affiliation.

I might be mistaken, but I sometimes see the religious right's estrangement from the rest of us as reflecting their continued fondness for the medieval vision where God's law (revealed in the Bible rather than in the institutional church) remains universal and normative.

 

Actuall, Bill, there can be multiple versions in a single jurisdiction. To wit: a homosexual couple get married in a state allowing for such unions, they then move back to their home state, which does not allow such unions. However, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution, their marriage must be recognized by their home state, even though such weddings are not allowed within its borders. Perhaps this is a bit off the point you were making, but the U.S. Constitution does allow for certain varying standards to exist within a given jurisdiction. It's why I tell students that irregardless of their opinions on gay marriage, they must be aware that politicians proposing legislation--as opposed to a federal Constitutional amendment--to ban the recognition of gay marriages in their state are merely posturing with that which cannot withstand judicial review.

I count myself among the so-called "religious right", and I do wish that God's law was normative. But it's not just a medieval vision of the world--a scant four decades ago the Judeo-Christain view was more normative in our culture than not--a century ago it was overwhelmingly predominant. I believe that society at large has estranged itself from us, not vice-versa.

 

To tolstoy,

I would agree with you the Bible is meant to teach; it teaches what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is sin.
If human beings already knew what was right (good) and what was wrong (sin) to begin with, then the scriptures would not have needed to be written in the first place.

So the question would be, what does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

However, I would disagree with you about the Bible being an edict. It is an edict, for it carries the doctrines by which all churches should follow and therefore, the Bible is and should be the final authority on "all" matters within the Church.

If any Minister, Pastor or Priest goes against the true teachings of the scriptures, they should be called on the carpet for it, irregardless of what you or I, or even what society might think or find repugnant!!

Rich Hartel

A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)

 

reply

When will you get your A.A. degree from Trinity College of the Bible?

 

Re: reply

Well, between work and family obligations, some time hopefully within a year or two.

I'm taking my time to see what happens with Trinity's RA process.

Rich Hartel

A.A. in Trinity College of the Bible (present)

 

reply

Thanks for answering. May God give you the strength and courage to follow through. I hope that they will become accredited. However, many have questioned Trinity. You seem like a cool person, though, and if you are learning something from it, then that is what is important.

 

Romans 13 clearly says that resistance to governing authority is equivalent to rebellion against God. But how many Christians are going to say that the founders of the United States sinned by rebelling against Britain (a governing authority)? See the hypocrisy? Passages that anti-gay Christians don't want to take literally, they don't take literally; ones that they do, they do. They pick and choose; and because of a hatred for homosexuality, which stems from society, not divine inspiration, they have chosen to take anti-gay passages literally.

 

Parhaps the U.S. did sin in rebelling against King George III--who's to say? Canada didn't rebel in the manner of our Founding Fathers, and won their freedeom all the same--albeit with less bloodshed.

Which Bible passages am I ignoring which state that having sex with those of one's own gender is good and acceptable in the eyes of God? Should you find one, I'll consider your opinion as possessing force. But your fundamental argument seems to be: since some Christians wrongfully pick-and-choose for their own convenience, it follows that none of the Bible can be taken literally--can't you see what sophistry that is? It doesn't hold up upon a moment's reflection. The Bible is either true or it is not. You obviously take the latter position, and that's your right, but the Word of God does not become de facto untrue and inapplicable literally by dint of some Christians' hypocrisy.

Tolstoy is my favorite writer--he was a thinker par excellence and a deeply religious man; if you're not already, you should really read more of his work.

 

I'm not saying that you, in particular, are hypocritical. It was more of a Gestalt position on the matter.

I doubt ANYONE could live their life according to the true word of the bible as an edict. If you do, that's great, but I don't see it being possible.

I'm also not suggesting that all of the bible is either true, or untrue, either. Howevr, I just don't see how you can bolster arguments with some passages and ignore others using the same basic reference, not without interjecting some personal ethos into the mix when doing it.

 

On that, Tolstoy, we agree. But the fact that we're all hypocrites on many levels, that Christians like myself are blind to those things we do which offend God, does not make the passages that you personally don't like any less true.

I don't believe anyone save Christ Himself ever lived per the true word of God, but of course, that's why He came, to live the perfect life, yet suffer the consequences that we deserved, be we homosexual offender or heterosexual luster.

God is unequivocal that same-sex intercourse is dead wrong; there are too many passages that clearly state it--and if that offends modern sensibilities, then my inclination is to believe that the modernists are wrongheaded, not God. Of course, He's also unequivocal that my heterosexual lusts towards those other than my spouse are dead wrong. However, just because I am guilty of a lustful eye, that does not excuse those who would contravene God's edicts upon same sex relationships; He created sex, it was not devised in some Hollywood studio, I think He knows something about its proper use.

 

While I agree with most of what you say, just because the bible is uncontroverted on this particular issue doesn't make it any more poignant to me.

I tend to think of the bible as parable, not law. I've studied enough natural law on which to base my personal opinions, which is all they are or ever could be.

 

I'm a natural law adherent myself as well as an attorney, but I'm not following your reasoning here, perhaps I'm misunderstanding. What about natural law would lead you to believe that the Bible is written in parable form? I'm not seeing the intersection between the two notions.

 

I am never entirely happy when people use as proof texts translations from the Hebrew Bible. First, however good a translation may be, it nevertheless expresses the bias of the translator. Second, and maybe more important, when one reads a good translation, it is WAY too easy to forget the cultural and historic context that surround the text.

Not to sound trite, folks, but I have yet to hear a Christian argue that eating shellfish is an abomination even though the Hebrew Bible says exactly that.

I know that the Christian Bible specifically exempts Christians from the Jewish dietary laws (and from male circumcision, for that matter). But what about charging interest on loans? Or stoning to death one's disobediant son? Or having multiple wives? Or wearing garments made of mixed fibers? (Even WE aren't quite sure what THAT meant!) Or speculating in financial futures? Or yoking disimilar speces for plowing? Or not taking fruit from trees for the first four years? Or leaving the corners of one's fields unreaped for the gleaners?

Why don't most Christians feel obligated to avoid work on Shabbat (which is SATURDAY, not SUNDAY). I am aware of no specific exemptions from these laws in the Christian Bible so it must be a general exemption, right? Then why doesn't the general exemption apply to gay marriage as well?

Look, I am sure that there are good, well reasoned bases in Christianity for all these things. I am not accusing anyone of hypocrasy. But I DO suggest that human understanding changes over time. You HAVE to consider the Hebrew Bible within its historic context. Quoting from a translation that reads well in modern English allows the reader to forget that this ISN'T a modern legal code.

 

I'm speaking of natural law under the notion of moral reality. I interpret the bible under that same view.

 

One of my supervisors when working in mental health was a Disciples of Christ minister who happened to be gay.

He was perhaps the finest Christian I had ever known when it came to compassion, understanding, mercy, and grace and practiced the Golden Rule better than anyone I had ever met prior or since.

While I personally think homosexuality is sinful and strictly against the Bible, I think there are far worse sins we need to focus on such as child abuse and corporate greed.

It's always easy for Christians to adamantly condemn sins for which they themselves are not guilty. Perhaps we need to take the beam out of our own eyes before we try to remove the splinter from the eyes of our brothers and sisters.

 

Nosborne48:

I always appreciate your comments, don't always agree, but you know I think you're thoughtful. The reason the prohitition on gay intercourse is justifiable for Christians is because there are specific references to it in the New Testament. Were there none, you might be able to make an argument--I think weakly--that such restrictions are to be viewed in the same manner as eating crustaceans or mixing cloths in garments. The Levitical law no longer applies to Christians--and I would also argue to Jews, as I would say that the law was fulfilled in the person of the One from Nazareth--but that's a debate for another day.

As for shellfish, I'm honored to be the first one to explain it to you--though I'm far from being the only one to be aware of it--there was a specific revelation recounted in the New Testament given to Peter, an observant Jew, the "founder" so-to-speak of the Christian church, and the writer of a portion of the New Testament which specifically overturned the dietary laws. This was foretold by Jesus, who said that what comes out of a man makes him unclean, not what goes in.

Regarding the Sabbath, I believe you've touched upon a glaring error in Christian practice. In a wrongheaded attempt to distance themselves from the Jews centuries past, the church began celebrating the Sabbath on Sunday--the first, not the last day of the week. My family has Sabbath meal at sundown on Friday and celebrates through sundown on Saturday, we light the candles, pray the blessings of Ephraim and Manasseh over the boys, the blessing of Sarah, Rebeccah, Rachel and Leah over the girls. Our greatest Hol;iday each year is not that bastardized Christmas or Easter, but Passover. We have a lot to learn, though, and we want to observe all the festivals, because God instituted them for all time. I'm don't want to allow some ethnocentric, antisemitic forefathers to rob my family of the heritage that God has for them.