Christian "family values", again

[Gob]

What we have are copies and copies of copies and copies of copies of copies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

A religion based on Chinese whispers, no wonder it's so confusing...

(The pastor also seems to confuse "endorsing", "condoning" and "ignoring", which are all simple English words so he's got no excuse for that.)

Yes he has!!




He's American....

[Big RR]

Well Dave, you can read whatever you want into a civil marriage, but I take it at face value as a contract that gives each party certain rights and obligations. And because the marriage was recognized by the state, it has no more power to deny the couple spousal benefits, than it would to deny an adopted child the same rights as a natural child. The state has the right to define the relationship and how it is achieved, and then must treat all the same.

So again I say, rather than railing against someone supporting their child in a purely civil matter, the church should keep its nose out of it and take the advice of Jesus to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. I know it's irritating when one expects a church to live up to the teachings of reason for being, what am I thinking of?

[MajGenl.Meade]

So Meade, what you're saying is that the church equates allowing two women to live together in a relationship they call marriage (something which is sanctioned by the state in question) is an endorsement of a gay lifestyle and homosexual sex? And that allowing persons so situated to get health benefits is similarly an endorsement of the same.

Not at all - what has "allowing" got to do with anything? Affirming the rightness of those situations (the moral rightness; the equivalence to heterosexuality) is an endorsement of that which the Bible, and apparently the church in question, opposes. Those who do not wish to oppose it should find their place outside that church. I can assert this without myself agreeing with either party (church or the family) in their way of acting, proceeding and describing their situations.

I concede that their are statements in the bible which condemn at least some gay sexual practices, and the bible defines a church sanctioned marriage as between husband and wife, but here the woman's parents are not (so far as I can see endorsing the former, and I see no mention of a church sanctioned marriage, so I still don't understand the church's objection or your defense of it.

Well, that is Big of you! I smile at the notion of the Bible condemning "at least some (homosexual) practices" - any notion which ones are OK and when did you quite being Bill Clinton's spin doctor? God, as recorded in the Bible, defines marriage as between a husband and a wife - long before any church was invented. Clearly the attempted co-option of "wife" to mean one partner in a homosexual relationship while referring to the other as "husband" (unless both are "wife") is an effort to fit a square peg in a round hole - though by what standard one determines who is who is scarcely to be imagined (other than by Gob who could probably provide photographs ).

Jesus taught that we can "render to Caesar" taxes to a corrupt regime which thrived on death and torture as part of its order, but this church somehow teaches that these people should not be able to demand benefits from a government that sanctions their relationship; or that supporting them in that is somehow morally wrong?

I recommend some remedial Bible study young fellow if that's what you get out of Jesus' reply to the people who were trying to trap him into either endorsing the regime of Rome OR opposing it - either of which would put him into a heap of trouble with one part or the other. While I suspect the opinion of church leaders may be against benefits to homosexual couples, I doubt that they "teach" against it. Their position seems to be that its members should not publicly "endorse" homosexuality or if they do, then they should do so from a religious platform that does not believe in the Bible.

You lost me there.

Actually Big RR I think I lost you here:

God's word

Indeed, is it similarly wrong to help your child defend him or herself against a legal charge of theft or murder if they are guilty (perhaps to get a reduced sentence)? Somehow, I doubt that church would say so.

I doubt you mean to imply any equivalence between homosexuality and crime. On a personal level, if I knew that one of my children or grandchildren had murdered someone, I would love them regardless and instruct them to plead guilty to the appropriate charge.

Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

I cannot imagine what the leaders of the congregation would have expected the parents, aunt and uncle to do that would have had any effect on the sinful Ms. Cooper other than to alienate her from her family at a stressful time in her life, and what good could have come of that?

I cannot imagine why you would think that anyone expected any effect at all on the "sinful Ms. Cooper". [If the other lady is her "wife" shouldn't you say "Mr. Cooper"? ] Ms. Cooper's sin was not and is not under the jurisdiction of that church - as Paul said, what has he to do with judging those outside the church? The church evidently expected a public repentance from three or four people or their leaving the church. I don't think they went about this the right way (in the "forgiveness" aspect) but defend their right to exert church discipline.

I rather doubt whether, in the case of a divorce and remarriage of a member, the church would have called upon the parents, children, siblings, aunts or uncle of the offending member to publicly denounce their family member as a sinner (and that sin is one that Jesus himself--not just that cranky old sourpuss Paul--condemned.) I also doubt whether they would have insisted on a public confession of sin from an entire family who decided not to cut themselves off from a family member who was married outside the church to, say, a Jew or a Roman Catholic.

Of course not - neither in this case was there any requirement for the family to denounce their family member as a sinner. The call was for them to denounce (if you wish) their own sin - not their daughter's. And again, they were not accused of sin in not "cutting themselves off from" their daughter. The pastor in fact agreed with you when he referred to sins not affecting the duty and indeed the natural condition of continuing to love one's children.

If we're going to condemn a church practise or action, let's at least condemn them for what they did. And what they did was not intended to promote divisiveness and alienation within any family. It was intended to heal a damaged and broken relationship within the church family. Or to have the persistent wanderers wander further.

I tend to agree about the "public" confession - which seems to me to have made far too quick an appearance. The method is: a private word between pastor and congregant; private word between pastor, congregant and two or three witnesses (probably elders would be best); then the congregant's final choice. Either they repent, ask forgiveness of God and are re-admitted without impediment to fellowship or they don't repent and they piss off. The latter action would be announced to the congregation as a whole. The former... well true repentance could stand up to public scrutiny.

Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

So again I say, rather than railing against someone supporting their child in a purely civil matter, the church should keep its nose out of it and take the advice of Jesus to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. I know it's irritating when one expects a church to live up to the teachings of reason for being, what am I thinking of?

Comment on Jesus and Caesar already made. It is absurd to declare that the church should "keep its nose out of it" as if the state has the sole right to declare what is and is not moral. It is just the reverse; God declares morality. The state may declare what is 'legal' within its own framework but what has that ever had to do with what is "right"?

The flaw in your argument Big RR is that churches have been chastised with equal vehemence for NOT opposing actions by the state that are...er... wrong. In such cases, it is usually atheists who want to know why the church didn't stand up against whatever it is that the atheists didn't like - such as concentration camps, or napalm, or apartheid. Fortunately in those kinds of things a "good" Christian should agree while only "bad" ones do not.

But if the atheists LIKE what the state does, then the church should remain quiet because the state is the state, so there!

Odd that - how to explain it

Meade

[Big RR]

No Meade; I respect the right of a church, any church, to stand against state actions on moral grounds (whether I agree with them or not). But when it comes to more ministerial acts, when it comes to denying equal treatment to similarly situated people, then I think the church is wrong in speaking out. Giving benefits to homosexual couples in no way endorses homosexual relationships; the state has already done so in permitting these relationships/marriages to exist; the church can protest that until the cows come home and, while I will vehemently disagree, I will defend their right to do so. But protesting that equal treatment is somehow an endorsement of homosexuality is quite different; this policy in no way endorses or criticizes those relationships--it merely states that the state must recognize and treat equally persons in the same legal situation. I think the church is wrong here; seeking equal treatment is not endorsing the relationship or belief. now the church can do what it wants, and I personally think the ex-communicants are better off without the fellowship of the rest of them, but I think they are dead wrong.

As for your other points:

Well, that is Big of you! I smile at the notion of the Bible condemning "at least some (homosexual) practices" - any notion which ones are OK and when did you quite being Bill Clinton's spin doctor

, so far as I know Christianity has never condemned love or pair bonding among persons of the same sex regardless of how the sexual relations were treated; indeed, the eastern/orthodox churches had a ceremonial pair bonding of same sex couples which extends back even before the great schism (and thus applies to the entire (or at least majority of) the early Christian church). Even today, many Christian churches condemn only the sexual acts of same sex couples (much like the RC church condemns even heterosexual sex if there is no possibility of procreation, i.e. with contraception). This is not spin doctoring, this is fact.

This is spin doctoring:

I recommend some remedial Bible study young fellow if that's what you get out of Jesus' reply to the people who were trying to trap him into either endorsing the regime of Rome OR opposing it - either of which would put him into a heap of trouble with one part or the other.

So Jesus didn't mean what he said--he was just trying to avoid a trap? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I maintain that Jesus said there is morality and a rule of law, and that we, as persons in a country (or empire) are subject to both. While Rome did a lot of things that I'm sure Jesus found morally objectionable, he chose his fights. And so, we must obey the temporal laws and pay our taxes, such payments are not an endorsement of the immoral regime or the immoral uses to which those taxes are put. Likewise, paying benefits for a homosexual couple is not an endorsement of any homosexual sexual practices, it is complying with the temporal law that similarly situated persons (in a legal sense) should be treated equally. Jesus always preached repentance of disobedience against god's word, but he did not advocate treating the unrepentant badly; indeed, he taught we should treat them with love and respect even if we didn't agree with them. If you don't see that, perhaps you're in need of remedial instruction.

[Econoline]

Of course not - neither in this case was there any requirement for the family to denounce their family member as a sinner. The call was for them to denounce (if you wish) their own sin - not their daughter's. And again, they were not accused of sin in not "cutting themselves off from" their daughter. The pastor in fact agreed with you when he referred to sins not affecting the duty and indeed the natural condition of continuing to love one's children.

Maybe it's just the way the news story was written, but I'm quite unclear on exactly how the church defines the "sin" of the mother, father, aunt and uncle of Detective Cooper. “The sin would be endorsing that lifestyle,” [Ridgedale Church of Christ Pastor Ken] Willis insisted. “The Bible speaks very plainly about that.” Perhaps you could point out some part of the Bible that "speaks very plainly" about "endorsing that lifestyle"? Pastor Willis also spoke of "condoning" that "lifestyle", as if that were the same thing (it isn't), so if you can find anything about "condoning" a "lifestyle" I'd be interested in that too. Is it action or inaction the family is accused of? Speaking up in favor of a lesbian "lifestyle" or simply not saying anything against it? Endorsing? Condoning? Allowing? Ignoring?

So far as I can tell, the "sin" consisted of Linda Cooper sitting next to her daughter and holding her hand during the meeting at which Collegedale city commissioners discussed and approved extending benefits to same-sex partners, and then giving her a big hug afterwards. According to this news story, "Cooper's mother, Linda, stood by her side throughout the process. She held tight to her daughter's hand at a July meeting over the issue. And the two embraced after the City Council's 4-1 vote on Aug. 5." I haven't been able to find anything anywhere saying anyone in the family did anything more than that.

If we're going to condemn a church practise or action, let's at least condemn them for what they did. And what they did was not intended to promote divisiveness and alienation within any family. It was intended to heal a damaged and broken relationship within the church family. Or to have the persistent wanderers wander further.

Then let me make myself clear: what I'm condemning is not the right of the church to enforce discipline of its own members: I'm condemning the fact that they put their rights ahead of the family values of belonging, respect, generosity, and love.

[dgs49]

As I have said before in this forum, I believe that the state should have the unfettered right to recognize whatever relationships it deems wise, based on rational policy considerations. I am not happy that some states have taken "alternative" relationships, called them, "Marriages," and treat them the same as traditional marriages, but that is no more irritating to me than paying unemployment compensation that is more than minimum wage (no one should be paid more for NOT working than others are paid for working).

There is no reason in logic or law that requires a non-traditional (or traditional) marriage to be founded upon the existence of a sexual relationship, and in fact it is none of the state's (or any church's) fucking business whether Officer Cooper and her "spouse" are engaged in a private sexual relationship or are just using the "marriage" laws to facilitate a co-habiting friendship. Either one is perfectly acceptable under the law, and in the latter case, under traditional Christian moral principles as well.

If I were the father of Officer Cooper I would tell the Elders that to the best of my knowledge, my daughter and her "spouse" were merely using the state's marriage laws to garner some tax, pension, and benefit advantages. Any sexual contact between them is outside my personal knowledge and I can only assume that my daughter is leading a moral life. And that's why I'm supporting her.

"So fuck you all very much."

[Crackpot]

Well said RR (not often I can say that to you on the topic of religion)

[MajGenl.Meade]

seeking equal treatment is not endorsing the relationship or belief

It isn't? Of course it is. If a person is "married" (I use the word without agreeing to it) to a person of the same sex - and if the government says then they both deserve "married" benefits - that in itself is endorsement of the condition of being married to a person of the same sex. If it were my son/daughter claiming benefits for their same sex partner, I would not dance, cheer and be happy-clappy when they won. I'd be sad because I do not endorse their behaviour and I do not believe the government should either.

Of course laws are changing to permit same sex unions - I should not doubt the states' right to do that. Obviously they can and do. If I say "I agree that that's just fine and dandy" then I am endorsing homosexual marriage, condoning it, giving it a bowl of milk - whatever term Econo prefers.

I agree with you (and already did) that these folks are probably better off in a different religious environment - UCC, Episcopal, Unitarian etc. - many choices.
I agree with you that paying taxes to the government neither means nor implies an endorsement of all their policies

As to that though, it's interesting that you ascribe to Jesus the exact point about which Paul is regularly pilloried by unbelievers - sucking up to the Romans.

Mat 22:15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words.
Mat 22:16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.
Mat 22:17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
Mat 22:18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?
Mat 22:19 Show me the coin for the tax." And they brought him a denarius.
Mat 22:20 And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"
Mat 22:21 They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Mat 22:22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

Their question was intended to place the Lord in a dilemma. If He said yes, He could be held up to the people as a traitor. If He said no, He could be denounced to the Roman authorities. Caesar, i.e., the Roman Emperor and head of the Roman state. Caesar was the family name of Julius Caesar, the first man who aspired to autocracy, and was taken over from him by his adopted son, afterwards the Emperor Augustus. It soon came to be regarded as a title. Penny (see 20:2). Render therefore unto Caesar. The Lord means that we are to give the civil magistrates all that is due to them, so long as it does not interfere with the honor due to God. Jesus had broken the Herodians’ dilemma by making light of the ultimate significance of Caesar’s claim. The idea is: “If the penny is his, let him have it!” Jesus’ response, render unto God the things that are God’s exposed the spiritual failure of the Herodians. In essence, Jesus made light of Caesar’s temporal claim in favor of God’s greater claim over men’s lives.

KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994 (1942). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

12:14 The issue of paying taxes to Rome was a sensitive one. Many Zealots held that paying tribute to a Gentile monarch was equivalent to treason against the Lord (Israel’s true King). The common people struggled with this issue. Refusing to pay taxes put their lives and properties at risk; yet they did not want to offend God. The Pharisees were sure that they had caught Jesus, since they thought His only options would be to advocate rebellion against Rome (which would lead to His arrest) or to rebel against God (which would undermine the support of the people). Jesus not only diffused their trap, but He also gave the people the answer they were seeking concerning paying taxes
Woman's study Bible . (Mk 12:14). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

However, by this question they hoped to entangle Christ, and, which way soever he resolved it, to expose him to the fury either of the jealous Jews, or of the jealous Romans; they were ready to triumph, as Pharaoh did over Israel, that the wilderness had shut him in, and his doctrine would be concluded either injurious to the rights of the church, or hurtful to kings and provinces.
Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Mt 22:15). Peabody: Hendrickson.

etc etc ad nauseam. I bet all those "spin doctors" had no idea you'd be along to refute them or they'd have had a better understanding

Jesus always preached repentance of disobedience against god's word, but he did not advocate treating the unrepentant badly; indeed, he taught we should treat them with love and respect even if we didn't agree with them

I agree with you. I've stated already that I'm nor sure this church followed the correct procedure. Do you think church discipline is in itself bad (since Jesus gave the formula for it)?

Meade

[Big RR]

I bet all those "spin doctors" had no idea you'd be along to refute them or they'd have had a better understanding

Perhaps they would have. Certainly he "diffused the trap"; but I also think he gave us a valuable lesson regarding civil and religious responsibility.

[MajGenl.Meade]

"Diffused - yeah I laughed at that one too! Maybe he was just spreading it around!

[Big RR]

You got it; you wouldn't expect him to concentrate it, would you?